ties, who were as deeply interested as themselves
in the determination of this question, would not,
while they obtained every thing for themselves,
which under every circumstance and under every
possibility they could do, reduce them to the ne-
cessity of placing their constituency in a position
which they ought not to occupy. This would
be to adjourn the Convention, and leave its work
half done. Rather ought they, if they designed
a compromise, to bring forward a proposition
which can commend itself to the common judg-
ment not as a part of a whole system, hut as a
proposition wholly equitable in itself. If, when
we leave this place, after having attained all that
can be procured, the agitation is renewed upon
the stronger basis which we may acquire—as that
agitation will be renewed—as I and all would
renew it—let those take the responsibility who
have forced the scheme upon us, or have com-
pelled us to accept it.
Mr. CHAMBERS observed there was more than
one party whose interests were affected by this
question. The four gentlemen who had address-
ed the Convention had regarded the subject
its practical operation on a particular portion of
the State, and one pervading error was observa-
ble in the whole current of their arguments, in
fact, formed the whole basis upon which their
arguments were constructed. That error was
in the assumption of the precise fact about which
we totally disagree.
They assumed that opposition to their views,
was doing injustice to that portion of the State,
the peculiar interests of which they desire to ad-
vance.
Now, he utterly defined for himself, and so far
as he was informed, for any gentleman within
these walls, any purpose to do, or cause to be
done, an act of injustice to the portion of the
State alluded to, not upon this question alone,
but in regard to any matter, touching which, we
shall be called to act. What was the precise
point of the controversy? Was it not simply
whether by giving one portion of the State, (circumstanced
as the State is,) a representation
upon the one plan or the other, we should give
anundue influence in the conduct or control of
the political destinies of our people?
The question at issue is a practical one. We
were not here as metaphysicians settling abstruce
theories, political generalities and abstractions.
No such thing. We are sent here by a practi-
cal constituency, to form a scheme of future gov-
ernment under which they are to live, under
which they are to enjoy in the greatest security
their rights of person and property. Govern-
ment is alone necessary to gratify the wants of
a community.
Its legitimate object is to supply those wants.
These are of a practical character, and the Gov-
ernment mini supply those means, which in ac-
tual operation, will meet these necessities of our
people, guard in the best and safest mode possible,
their civil, political, and religious liberties, and
thus fulfil its purpose. The age for abstract
theory and speculation, in matters of Govern-
ment has gone by, at least as to us. In fact, there |
was scarcely one of these political abstract pro-
positions which could be affirmed as universally
true. Every one of them required modification,
and whenever the general principle had been ap-
plied, it had in every instance been modified.
Above all, this was the last place in which these
generalities and abstractions should be counte-
nanced, discussed or thought of,
We were here to form a Constitution under
which we were to live, under which our children
and children's children were to live, and under
and by which they were to have protection for
their lives, their property and all that was dear
to us and to them. Were we to talk about prin-
ciples in the abstract, without reference to the
actual, practical operation of these principles, on
the great concerns of human life and in the vari-
ous departments of commerce and business
amongst men ? Our business is not to settle and
define what are and what are not the "rights of
man," "the universal rights of man," in his
primitive condition, or the "rights of the peo-
ple," "the immortal people, who are eternal."
If all this were done, it would leave our proper
work entirely unaccomplished. The duty would
still remain, practically to dispose of, and modi-
fy these admitted rights so as to promole the
greatest happiness to the greatest number of those
tor whom we propose to form a scheme of gov-
ernment. All such rights as may be exercised
consistently with this leading duty should be left
free; all which conflict with it must be restrain-
ed or modified. We are bound to keep this in
view as our polar star, "the greatest good to the
greatest number." What our citizens have a fair
claim to expect, is not a disquisition on the broad
proposition that the political rights of one man
are precisely equal to the political rights of an-
other. What they did want, in reference to the
question before us, was such ajust and equitable
distribution, to the different portions and differ-
ent interests of the State, of the political power
of the whole, and every part of it, as would work
out the best practical results—"the greatest good
to the greatest number." On this subject it was
to he expected that opinions would differ, and it
was doubtless a perfectly honest difference, it
was, therefore, a very proper subject for discus-
sion, that all might have the advantage of the
various views which could be presented. Some
of us venture to think that a mistaken theory has
led to an erroneous conclusion. The theory of
adopting an abstract principle, as alike applica-
ble to every individual in a community, irrespec-
tive of all the varieties of location, pursuit, density
or sparseness of population, or any other of
the many different conditions which surrounded
them, is we think unsafe. As is the case with
all general truths, circumstances and change of
condition must modify the rule. It will of ne-
cessity work mischief in any department of life,
relentlessly to practice upon any general rule.
We think that in a case where experience has
been had, we should take lessons from its teach-
ings, so to the character and extent of such modi-
fications. On this subject we had a large share
of experience. Under the colonial government,
we had got along well under a different system. |
