Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/430

404 Mr. MADISON was opposed to the section, as vesting an improper and dangerous power in the legislature. The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental articles in a republican government, and ought to be fixed fay the Constitution. If the legislature could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy, as well by limiting the number capable of being elected as the number authorized to elect. In all cases where the representatives of the people will have a personal interest distinct from that of their constituents, there was the same reason for being jealous of them as there was for relying on them with full confidence, when they had a common interest. This was one of the former cases. It was as improper as to allow them to fix their own wages, or their own privileges. It was a power, also, which might be made subservient to the views of one faction against another. Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions may be devised by the stronger in order to keep out partisans of a weaker faction.

Mr. ELLSWORTH admitted that the power was not unexceptionable, but he could not view it as dangerous. Such a power with regard to the electors would be dangerous, because it would be much more liable to abuse.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out "with regard to property," in order to leave the legislature entirely at large.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. This would surely never be admitted. Should a majority of the legislature be composed of any particular description of men,—of lawyers, for example,—which is no improbable supposition, the future elections might be secured to their own body.

Mr. MADISON observed that the British Parliament possessed the power of regulating the qualifications, both of the electors and the elected; and the abuse they had made of it was a lesson worthy of our attention. They had made the changes, in both cases, subservient to their own views, or to the views of political or religious parties.

On the question on the motion to strike out "with regard to property,"—

Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia, ay, 4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 7. (In the printed Journal, Delaware did not vote.)

Mr. RUTLEDGE was opposed to leaving the power to the legislature. He proposed that the qualifications should be the same as for members of the state legislatures.

Mr. WILSON thought it would be best, on the whole, to let the section go out. A uniform rule would probably never be fixed by the legislature; and this particular power would constructively exclude every other power of regulating qualifications.

On the question for agreeing to article 6, sect. 2,—

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Georgia, ay, 3; Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 7.$200$