CHAPTER XLIV.

At the commencement of the session he was appointed chairman of the committee on expiring laws, to report which should be continued, and also such new laws as they should conceive would be beneficial to the state. In the performance of this duty his mind was directed to a great variety of topics. The first matter of local interest which called forth his exertions, was an "act to regulate the elections" of the state. This act not only involved several important principles, but had a special bearing on its political character. Its details have not enough of general interest to warrant their introduction in this place. It is sufficient to remark the singular inconsistency evinced on this occasion in the conduct of the opponents to the power of the general government, who claimed the exclusive merit of protecting the liberties of the state.

On questions which arose involving the highest constitutional principles, while Hamilton and his friends were foremost in resisting all attempts to explain away the state constitution, and to abridge the freedom of elections, and were endeavouring to maintain a complete and full toleration of religious opinions, the state party was found advocating measures tending to the most dangerous consequences. They opposed a mere request of congress for conve

ning the legislature of the state, as threatening danger to the freedom of deliberation, and they proposed a test not sanctioned by its constitution. They refused a grant of power necessary to the existence of the union, as dangerous to the liberties of the people; and they sought to violate the constitution of their state, by restraining the free exercise of the right of suffrage-the first principle of all free institutions-the sovereignty of the people.

One proposition was to enable the inspectors of the elections to take aside every illiterate person, and examine him privately, respecting his ballot. Against this, Hamilton took a decided stand, showing the danger of an improper influence being exercised, and the probability that the leaning of the inspectors would produce an improper bias; contending that "it was better that the illiterate should take the chance of imposition from parties equally active, than to leave them subject to party views, concentred in inspectors, upon whom the fate of the election depended. That it was wholly contrary to the very genius and intention of balloting, which means, that a man's vote should be secret, and known only to himself; but by this proviso he was not merely permitted, he was obliged to discover his vote, thus depriving the unlettered person of that liberty which his more instructed fellow-citizen had secured to him. These reasons, he hoped, would be deemed sufficient to induce the house to reject the clause, as repugnant to the genius and liberty of our republic." He prevailed.

Another clause authorized the inspectors to impose an oath of abjuration of ecclesiastical as well as civil obedience, which was defended by the leader of the democratic party, on the ground that this distinction was warranted by the constitution. Hamilton declared "that the constitution was their creed and standard, and ought never to be departed from, but that its provisions had not been correctly understood; that there were two different bodies

in the state to which the proposition had reference. These were the Roman Catholics who were already citizens, who were born among us, and those coming from abroad. That from foreigners wishing to be naturalized, the abjuration of their former sovereign might be required for reasons which do not exist on the part of the person born and educated here, unencumbered with that dangerous fanaticism which terrified the world some centuries back, but which is now dissipated by the light of philosophy. These acts are therefore no longer necessary, for the dangers are now only imaginary, and are void of existence, at least with respect to us, the object being to exclude Roman Catholics from their right of representation.

He animadverted on the little influence possessed by the pope in Europe-spoke of the reformation going forward in the German empire, and of the total independence of the French church, and compared the requiring of oaths of this nature, to the vigilance of those who would bring engines to extinguish fires which had long subsided. He observed, also, that the Roman Catholics were not the only society affected-that some of the Dutch Reformed churches held a species of ecclesiastical foreign jurisdiction; he alluded to the classes of Amsterdam. "But," he asked, "is the natural subject, the man born among us, educated with us, possessing our habits, possessing our manners, with an equal ardent love of his native country, to be required to take the same oath of abjuration? What has he to abjure? He owes no fealty to any other power upon earth. There is no probability that his mind will be led astray by bigotry or foreign influence. Then why give him cause of dissatisfaction, by bringing forward a test which will not add to his fidelity?"

He stated that the clause in the constitution confined the test to foreigners, and that it was adopted after much debate, and by a small majority, and that even as to them, he

questioned whether the test ought to be proposed. That he was decidedly against going so far as to extend it to ecclesiastical matters. "Why should we wound the tender conscience of any man? and why present oaths to those who are known to be good citizens? why alarm them? why set them upon inquiry that is useless and unnecessary? You give them reason to suppose that you request too much of them, and they cannot but refuse compliance.

"The constitution does not require such a criterion to try the fidelity of any citizen. It is solely intended for aliens and foreigners, coming from abroad with manners and habits different from our own, and whose intentions are concealed. The oath should be confined to civil matters. It is all that we ought or can require. A man will not then be alarmed in his interpretation. It will not set his mind to inquire if his religious tenets are affected, and much inconvenience would be avoided. We should be cautious how we carry the principle of requiring and multiplying tests upon our fellow-citizens, so far as to practise it to the exclusion or disfranchisement of any." The clause was, nevertheless, in part retained.

A further provision was proposed, excluding pensioners and officers holding under congress, from seats in the senate and assembly. This clause gave rise to the discussion of a most important question, whether the legislature possessed the power of abridging the constitutional rights of the people.

By the state party it was contended, that while the constitution protected the rights of the electors, it was silent as to the elected, and that therefore the legislature had the right to annex qualifications to the elected.

Colonel Hamilton observed, "that they were going on dangerous ground; that the best rule to follow was the rule of the constitution, which it would be safest to adhere to without alteration or addition. If we once depart from

this rule, it is impossible to see where we would end.
To-day, a majority of the persons sitting here, from a par-
ticular mode of thinking, disqualify one description of men ;
a future legislature, from a particular mode of thinking on
another point, disqualify another set of men.
One prece-
dent is the pretext of another, till we narrow the ground
of qualifications to a degree subversive of the constitution.
It is impossible to suppose that the convention who framed
the constitution were inattentive to this point. It is a mat-
ter of too much importance not to have been well considered.

"They have fixed the qualification of electors with precision. They have defined those of senator and governor, but they have been silent as to the qualifications of members of assembly. It may be said that, being silent, they have left the matter to the discretion of the legislature. But is not the language of the framers of the constitution rather this-We will fix the qualifications of electors; we will take care that persons, absolutely indigent shall be excluded; we will provide that the right of voting shall be on a broad and secure basis, and we will trust to the discretion of the electors themselves the choice of those who are to represent them in assembly?

"Every qualification implies a disqualification. The persons who do not possess the qualification required, become ineligible. Is not this to restrain the freedom of choice allowed by the constitution to the body of electors? An improper exercise of this liberty cannot constitutionally be presumed. Why, therefore, should we circumscribe it within limits unknown to the constitution? Why should we abridge the rights of any citizens in so important an article? By the constitution, every citizen is eligible to a seat in the assembly. If we say certain descriptions of persons shall not be so eligible, what is this but to deprive all those who fall within that description, of an essential right allowed them by the constitution?