The basis of their opposition to foreigners was rooted in the unnatural conditions of slavery itself. The reasons for excluding the foreigner and the free person of color from the suffrage were quite the same. Neither was considered as permanently identified with the essential interests of the State. The free person of color was a disturbing element in society; the foreigner, a disturbing element in commerce. Slavery, for its own protection, therefore, persistently sought to exclude both from the political community. They were residents in a slave - holding community only by sufferance.

These selfish feelings long dictated the qualifications for the suffrage. In the eighteenth century they prescribed what amount of property and what religious notions should be held by the voter in order to warrant the State in admitting him to participation in all its privileges. The causes which abolished property and religious qualifications later effaced ideas long held in many States, by which foreigners and free persons of color were excluded from the electorate. At last, in 1865, these same causes abolished slavery itself, since which time they have been operating to obliterate, as far as is racially possible, all distinc

of the Convention of the People of Alabama, Begun and Held in
the City of Montgomery, on the Seventh Day of January, 1861;
in which is preserved the speeches of the Secret Sessions, and
many valuable State Papers. By William R. Smith, one of the
Delegates from Tuscaloosa.
Tuscaloosa: D. Woodruff.
Co., 1861.

Montgomery: White, Pfister & Co.
Atlanta: Wood, Honleiter, Rice &

Representation on Federal Principles

tions among the State.

the

persons who organically compose

It was in Louisiana, in 1845, that the first exhaustive debate occurred in a constitutional convention over the right and the expediency of basing representation in the State on the federal number. The debate on this subject in Virginia,* in 1829, was earnest, but brief, and though it became the precedent for Louisiana, public opinion North and South had meanwhile greatly changed, and many influences not existing in 1829 were shaping the course of American politics. The Louisiana convention spent some time in fixing the election day, a matter which at first thought might seem to be of slight account. If the election was not in June or September, many of the most respectable citizens of the State would be practically disfranchised, for during the long, tropical summer they and their families sought a Northern clime. By the constitution of 1812 the election of the General Assembly occurred on the

* See Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829-30. To which are subjoined the new Constitution of Virginia, and the Vote of the People. Richmond: Printed by Samuel Shepherd & Co. for Ritchie & Cook, 1830. Also Journals, Acts, and Proceedings of a General Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Assembled in Richmond on Monday, the Fifth Day of October, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty-nine. Richmond: Printed by Thomas Ritchie, 1829. James Monroe was president of this convention, and among its members were James Madison, John Marshall, John Tyler, John Y. Mason, John Randolph, Philip P. Barbour, and Abel P. Upshur. Its debates were cited in Southern conventions for the next twenty years.

first Monday in July, an inconvenient time, as experience had shown. In 1812 it was common throughout the Union for an election to extend over one, two, or even three days. The roads were so bad in those days that it would have been impossible for the electors to convene in any one place on one day. So apparently slight a matter as a good road determines an important detail in the administration of government. As Rome conquered and governed the world for twelve centuries largely by means of a system of good roads connecting all parts of the empire with the capital, so in the United States the administration of government has improved as the roads of the country have improved; and roads include not only canals, highways, and railroads, but also all practical means in the communication of ideas, such as the mails, signal systems, and telegraph and telephone lines. These economical aids to good government bring about an attachment between the elector and the interests of the State. It is in great measure due to mechanical aids of this nature that the qualifications of the voter have been simplified. Less time is required for him to gain a residence in a community, because good roads now enable him to know its condition and its wants more intimately than the longest period of residence could give under the first State constitutions. There is some little reason why, in many commonwealths, a man, in order to vote, is required only to declare his intention of becoming a citizen. Together with the

No Absolute Sovereignty in the People

advantages of transportation, he has the church, the school, and the press by which to inform himself of the wants of the community in which he resides.

On the 21st of January, in the discussion of qualifications for the suffrage, a delegate expressed the idea that only residents of the State identified with its interests should be invested with the "vital prerogative of suffrage." The utmost latitude should be given to voters to select their Representatives. It was possible, but improbable, that they would abuse that freedom. "It was not likely they would elect a colored person or a woman to represent them." Five years was thought to be a suitable period for residence.

Granted that sovereignty resides in the people, said another, has not the principle, when applied literally, proved to be impracticable? A pure, unmixed democracy is an absurdity, opposed to the very nature of man. Some restraint, for the protection of the minority against the majority, is indispensable, otherwise government becomes a farce. The people are liable to be led astray. It is absurd to believe that any government can exist without restraint, reposing solely on the momentary will of the people. True, we often hear that the Representative is the servant of the people; but this is only a half-truth. The Representative is equally their ruler. Therefore, restrictions of some kind are necessary. These, in our country, take the form of electoral qualifications. As a lawyer accustomed only to practise under the

common law would be incapable of practising under the civil law without due preparation, so a citizen, unless duly prepared, is unable to perform the duties of an elector.

But should not the qualifications of the Representative be the same as those of the voter? Such a requirement would conform with the experience of many States, and was undoubtedly the true principle of representative government. Connecticut and Virginiat were precedents. The requirement would prevent the establishment of a privileged class. Opinion had changed respecting the time required of the elector for residence. Fourteen of the States required but one year, and among these were the oldest as well as the youngest in the Union. Why should Louisiana adopt a principle different from that in other States? Twenty-two of them required a residence of but two years for eligibility to the House of Representatives. The legislative department should be restrained quite as much as the elec

torate.

One member defended the requirement for a five years' residence, because to intrust the administration of the affairs of the State to strangers who knew nothing of its institutions, the peculiar feelings of its people, their manners and education, would endanger their interests. It would take at least this time for a person of ordinary intellect coming from a distant corner of the