CHAPTER II.

THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE-UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE LIMITED SUFFRAGE-THE TRUE PRINCIPLE-AN ANALOGY.

THE State, as we have seen, is under obligation to appoint an agency, viz., government, to wield a portion of its power. Has every member of the State a voice in designating those who shall exercise the powers of government; in other words, has every one a right to vote for those who shall rule over them?

Some think that the right to vote is an attribute of humanity—that every one has a right to vote because he is a man. This is denied by others; hence the burden of proof rests on those who make the affirmation. They have no right to assume it as a selfevident truth.

If the right to vote be an attribute of humanity, then women have a right to vote as well as men.

It is said by some, that as every man is bound to render obedience to the law, every man should have a voice in choosing those who make the laws. It is

assumed that a man cannot rightfully be held subject to the laws, unless he has given his consent to them by taking part in choosing the law-makers.

In reply to this it is said, that man was created a subject of law. He is subject to the law of rectitude. His consent is not asked. He is born into the State, and is subject to its fundamental law-the law of justice. His consent is not asked. A man may as well object to being born without his consent, as to object to being subject to righteous laws without his

consent.

If none are rightfully subject to the laws except those who have given their consent to them by voting for rulers, then women are not rightfully subject to the laws.

Others think that the right to vote is not an attribute of humanity. They think that the question as to who shall vote depends upon circumstances which vary with time and place. They reason thus: The State is under obligation to have the best government possible. Hence the State, that is, the people, are under obligation to use the means best adapted to secure the best government possible. Among the means to be used is the choice of good rulers. Such a course should be taken in choosing them as is best adapted to the end sought, viz., good rulers. If universal suffrage will secure the best rulers, then universal suf frage ought to prevail. If a restricted suffrage will

secure the best rulers, then a restricted suffrage ought to prevail.

If the decision be in favor of a restricted suffrage, the same principle would determine the nature of the restrictions. If limiting suffrage to those who possess a certain amount of property will secure the best rulers, then that limitation should take place. It is for the interest of the man who is destitute of property, as much as it is for the interest of the man possessed of property, that the best rulers should be secured.

The advocates of a property qualification do not contend that the possession of property makes a man more intelligent or more patriotic. He has a deeper interest in having a good government than he who has nothing to lose. He has an interest in having property secure, taxes light, and justice administered between man and man.

their interests.

Men are strongly influenced by

It has been proposed that those only should vote who can read and write. If such a provision would secure the choice of better rulers than would otherwise be chosen, it should be adopted. It ought not, however, to be taken for granted that the mere ability to read and write will qualify one intellectually and morally to perform so important an act as that of selecting men to make and execute the laws, upon which the prosperity of a nation in a great measure depends.

Suppose there is a ship at sea with five hundred passengers on board. A storm sweeps the captain

and all the officers overboard. Some one must take command of the ship, or all on board will be lost. He must have a knowledge of navigation, and the nerve requisite for command. There are a few persons on board capable of forming a correct opinion respecting a man's knowledge of navigation, and his abilities to manage the ship. The great majority have no capacity for forming such an opinion. Who shall choose the captain, the intelligent few or the ignorant many? Would it not be for the interest of all on board that he be chosen by those capable of judging as to his qualifications?

The majority may say, "We have as much interest in the safety of the ship as those to whom it is proposed to limit the choice: our lives are as dear to us as theirs are to them." These assertions would doubtless be true, but it would not follow that all should vote in the choice of a captain. The adoption of a course adapted to promote the highest safety of all, would not deprive the majority of any right.

There is some analogy between the supposed ship and the ship of State. It is for the interest of all that the best rulers be chosen. The adoption of a course the best adapted to secure that end would not infringe upon the rights of any. Every man has a right to be governed justly, but it does not follow that every man has a right to be a governor.

In the earlier periods of our history, the elective franchise was limited in all the Colonies and States. Soon after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the tendency set toward universal suffrage. One State after another adopted it as they revised their constitutions, till now the right of suffrage is possessed by every white citizen of the United States.