Count the Cost / An Address to the People of Connecticut, On Sundry Political Subjects, and Particularly on the Proposition for a New Constitution

by David Daggett

2ndly. The candidate when elected becomes the creature of the district and not the ruler of a State—He is and must be devoted to the interest of that portion of the community which has elected him, and their views and schemes must be patronized though they oppose the welfare of the whole.

3rdly. Such elections do not secure the best talents. If talents and worth are of consideration, surely they should be at the command of the public. It is of no moment where a man dwells, but it is of immense importance that he be a wise man rather than a fool—a man of integrity rather than a knave.

4thly. Experience, the only save and unerring guide, is altogether in favor of elections at large rather than by Districts. The representation of this State in Congress has ever been of the most respectable character—It is not too much to say that no State in the Union can justly claim a superiority to Connecticut in this respect. The fame may be affirmed, with truth, of the upper house of the Legislature of this State. Has there not been a constant succession of able and wise men in that branch of the administration of Connecticut? For more than a century we have preserved an unexampled prosperity.—shall we hazard our interests on the speculations of zealous partizans who are constantly bewildering themselves and their followers in new schemes?

Another project is that of universal suffrage. The streets resound with the clamour that men are deprived of the invaluable privilege of choosing their rulers, and the people are invited to extend this privilege to all who pay taxes and do military duty. It is now discovered that Connecticut, in this particular, is not free.—The great argument urged in support of universal suffrage is that taxation and representation should go hand in hand—it is said that this maxim was deemed just during the revolutionary war, and that Americans adhered to it as a fundamental principle.—This principle the writer readily recognizes as a sound and indisputable position in every free government. But what is the meaning of the maxim? Does it intend that every person who is taxed, can of right claim the privilege of giving his suffrage? If so persons convicted of offences, or who are infamous for their vices may vote—for such persons are not outlawed.—On this principle, women of full age and unmarried, are also to be admitted.— Minors also whose property is taxed, should be permitted to exercise this franchise, at least by guardian or proxy. What then is the true meaning of the maxim, that representation and taxation are inseparable? Here all writers agree—it means that no community should be taxed by the legislature unless that community is, or might have been represented in such legislature.—Hence several towns in this State till lately, were not represented in the General Assembly, and of course not taxed.— Barkhempsted, Colebrook, and Winchester, it is believed, were of this description.

This State and the other States understood this maxim precisely as now explained, in their opposition to Great-Britain.—We complained that the colonies should not be taxed because they were not represented in parliament. In this view of the subject the maxim is wise and just.

Again, is not every town in Connecticut now represented in the legislature, and of course each individual equally with every other? In the representative of Hartford, for example, a representative of the freemen of Hartford, or of the town of Hartford? The truth is, every man, woman and child are represented.

But it is said that many persons are excluded from giving their suffrages who have life, liberty and reputation to protect. On a close attention to this fact it will be found that the number of those worthy members of society who do not possess the legal qualification, is small, and if men are to have an influence in elections according to the amount of their taxes, why should not the man who pays fifty dollars, be entitled to more than one vote? No one pleads for such a privilege, but there are many who insist that the man without a cent of property shall have the same direction in the choice of those who are charged with the interests of the community, as he who is worth thousands of dollars. A friend to the rights of man seems to feel no 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.