us since, at Chippewa and Bridgewater, and under the walls of Mexico, and shown that their creed is not deserving proscription. In short, without going further into the question now, it seems, to my mind, not only unjust to other sects, but not reputable to us as a people, or to the age in which we live, to retain this test longer.* PROPERTY TEST.† But THE property test, in our constitution, extends to State representatives, senators and governor. Property is also the basis of the districts for the election of senators. I am against the whole. I shall now confine myself to the recapitulation of a few reasons why, in my opinion, property should not be made a test qualification for filling those legislative offices. It is not that I am hostile to property, or rashly radical, but would set ourselves and myself right before the world. In the first place, the theory of our government is not, like that of some, founded on property, but rather on population, and intelligence, and morals. It is mind, and not dead matter, which is to rule. Nor is any republic to be sustained merely by money or land, but by "men, high-minded men, who know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain." It is to be sustained by virtue, knowledge, fidelity to the constitution and laws, till duly altered, and not by speechless idols and senseless earth. But it has been argued elsewhere that the rich are better qualified to fill offices. But, by our system of free schools, intelligence and sound morals are diffused among the poor, no less than the rich; and hence, those without much property are often as well educated for the duties of public life as the wealthy. The former are not, as in some quarters of the world, serfs or lazaroni, and fit materials for mobs, and insurrections against law and order, * Mr. Kavanagh, recently Governor of Maine, and Mr. Taney, Chief-justice of the Supreme Court, were Catholics. A speech made in State convention to amend the constitution of New Hampshire, 1850, against the property qualification for holding office. but fitted, by industry, religion, and acquirements, to give security to society, and to protect well the rights and liberties of all. It adds strength to this consideration, that the class which may possess property, and be able to hold office under this test, are by no means, in consequence of it, necessarily possessed of greater virtue, or information, or patriotism. Gold is not genius, nor is land religion; nor are the affluent here more likely to possess those talents and morals requisite to fill offices well, than persons in middle or humble life, among our village schools and village churches, and the industrious village workshops, and the surrounding village farms. If the public spirit, the public patriotism, and the public talents, which become most useful in public life, are wanting in either class, it is as likely to be in the wealthy as in those of moderate property. The former are exposed to have some vices which the latter are not. Wealth, also, is far from being always the result of much knowledge, but it is often the result of a lucky accident, or of inheritance; and the possessor of it is quite likely to think more of wealth than of literature or science, to think more of rank than individual merit, and quite as much of his own interests as of those of the community at large. And however much of wealth one may carry with him into public life, it cannot add an inch to his stature, nor put a new idea into his head, nor suggest one guaranty to the rights of the people, unless it be rights connected merely with property. But it is also objected that those not wealthy have not enough at stake to rule well. Let it be remembered, however, in all this, that the man of humble life has at stake in government, and comes into it to protect, quite as important possessions as the wealthy. They are character, liberty, life. They are all these, in wife, children, and friends. They are property, too, in small quantities, but not the less dear for being small. And if he has not a freehold to be taxed and to defend, he has the proceeds of his daily toil, whether on the farm or in the workshop; he has a head to think and will, a body able and ready to protect the property and lives of others at the midnight conflagration and at the militia alarm; and is the bulwark of the State when war assails and jeopardizes the whole foundations of society, the whole wealth of the rich, —indeed, the whole possessions of the people, and the whole laws and institutions of the government itself. If all this does not entitle him to be eligible to office, if it does not give him sufficient stake in organized government, and make it suitable to let others vote for him when considered the most worthy, then well might we say, with Dr. Franklin, that when the property test thus alone renders him qualified or eligible, and that property be a jackass, it would be the jackass, rather than the owner, that had the power and influence in the government. It should not be forgotten, in the consideration of this test, that, in expunging it, property will still be protected, and will still exert all its legitimate influences. Whilst I am against its going further, I am as willing as any person that it should possess every privilege which belongs to its appropriate sphere, and be faithfully protected while it helps to maintain government, and shuns corruption. I do not, like Proudhomme, regard property as robbery, or, like Fourier, think it should be held only in common. Let it, then, continue to exercise the influence which is its natural accompaniment. There let it neither proscribe nor be proscribed; but beyond that, it is its own true policy and good not to intrude or dictate. Nor will it follow, if expunging this test, that men in office will not often possess as much property as this test exacts; but in such case it will be the man, and not the property, that is elected, and receives, and is entitled to, public confidence. Finally, in our bill of rights, we declare that all men are equal in rights. Hence, we cannot confer privileges on one class, possessing freeholds or large personal estate, and withhold them from others, without an open violation of the cardinal principle of equality. A different course might answer in a country where, in the language of Jefferson, some are born booted and spurred, to ride the rest; but not where, among the Alps of New England, all are born equally free, and equality of rights is considered the great foundation-stone of State and national liberty. By retaining such a test, we tie up our own hands, to place in office at times not the best men. The most popular, the most worthy and useful citizen, in the opinion of all, may still, when an election arrives, happen to possess no freehold, and cannot, therefore, be voted for. The test then operates against the voter himself, as well as the candidate. If, on the contrary, as has too often been the case, the law as to the test is defeated by fraud, — the rich using their property to confer the qualification temporarily on others not otherwise entitled,-the provision is a snare, and aids only the rich and the friends of the rich, and imparts to wealth an artificial and corrupting influence over all our elections. In early life, in a neighboring State, where property qualifications were required in voters, I have for hours witnessed sham deeds made to qualify them so as to change small majorities. Such subterfuges show the evil tendency of such tests, and strip them of all usefulness in exacting in either the voter or the candidate the habits and responsibilities of the real owner of much property. Without fatiguing the convention with more on this occasion, I would only add, that considerations like these have led to the abolition of such tests in many other of our sister States, and in the constitution of the United States, and, in my view, require us to imitate their wise example. |