Count The Cost | Page 5

alarm at the idea that one who exhausts his earnings in the grog-shop, should have an influence in elections in proportion to strength of his lungs, or his activity in intrigue, but he is greatly agitated from an apprehension that men who have property to protect, will not promote the well being of society. A juror who is to decide on the controversies of his neighbours--an appraiser of land--a distributor of a deceased persons estate, must be freeholders by a standing law which is the subject of no ensure, and yet it is said that in the important transaction of choosing men to enact laws, and to appoint those who are to decide on, and execute those laws, no qualifications are necessary.
Again, it is insisted by those who oppose universal suffrage, and the reader is desired to notice the remark with attention, that no community can be safe unless the power of elections resides principally with the great body of the landholders. Such an influence had this principle on those wise men who formed our laws, that a mere trifle in real property gives the right of suffrage, while a man may be excluded who is the proprietor of personal property to a large amount.
Landholders have an enduring interest in the welfare of the community. They are lords of their own soil, and of course, to a certain degree, independent--they therefore will resist tyranny--they will equally oppose anarchy because they are aware that in any storm which may arise they must abide its fury. The merchant, with his thousands, can seek a shelter--to the mere bird of passage, who has no "abiding country and who seeks none to come," it is of little moment whether stability or confusion predominate, but to the former who is enchained to the State, peace and order is of inestimable value.
What, my fellow citizens, is the attempt now making? What is the language of those who advocate universal suffrage? It is nothing less than an effort to rest from the farmers of Connecticut that controul over the elections which is their only fortress of safety. Let men who wish to protect their invaluable rights ponder on these things, and let them at the same time, remember that no nation in which universal suffrage hath been allowed, hath remained free and happy.
Another project urged, with great vehemence, is, to displace all our present rulers--by those, is meant our legislators in the general and state Government--our judges and magistrates of every grade. That such is a darling object with those who seek to revolutionize Connecticut, there is no doubt. Is such a measure wise? Who are these rulers? A candid observer must reply, they are men in whose hands power has been wisely placed by the people, and who have never abused that power, men of unquestionable talents and of spotless fame. Among them are your Trumbulls, your Ellsworths, your Hillhouses, your Griswolds, your Goodriches and your Cavenports, men tried and approved. Among them there is one who was side by side with your beloved Washington during the revolutionary war, who has repeatedly been elected your first magistrate, and, against whom, the tongue of slander never moved but in the hard service of a harder master. There is another, who, for more than twenty years has been employed in the first offices in the gift of his country, and whose probity and talents are second to those of none of his contemporaries. Among these are many who must enjoy the affection and veneration of their countrymen while superior worth is regarded. Against these men the cry is raised--not the cry of the oppressed, for God knows no man in Connecticut is oppressed, but the cry of those who pant for office, and who can rise only on the ruins of others.
Your judges also to whom is committed the administration of justice, are marked out as the victims of party spirit. Is not a wise and faithful execution of the laws the chief object of every good Government? Without this who is safe for a moment? Without this, liberty can exist only in name--The name indeed may be blasphemously uttered, but the substance is gone with the liberty of all who have relied on professions. Let the people of Connecticut look at their tribunals of justice. Are they not filled with men of incorruptible integrity? Where has innocence received a more ample protection? Is not the transgressor punished, and are not the wrongs of the injured redressed? Are not our mild laws executed in mercy, and is not justice awarded with impartiality to individuals? Can you look at the seat of justice and say "iniquity is there?" Dare any man say that the judges of our high Courts are not upright, intelligent and learned? Who then can justly