That at subsequent meetings of portions of the people in December, 1841, by the authority of this convention alone (elected, as its delegates had been, by about one-third of the voters, according to their own standard of qualification), all males over 21 years of age were admitted to vote for the adoption of the people's constitution; that these meetings were not under any presiding officer whose legal right or duty it was to interpose any check or restraint as to age, residence, property, or color.
By the fourteenth article of this constitution it was provided that "this constitution shall be submitted to the people for their adoption or rejection on Monday, the 27th of December next, and on the two succeeding days;" "and every person entitled to vote as aforesaid who from sickness or other causes may be unable to attend and vote in the town or ward meetings assembled for voting upon said constitution on the days aforesaid is requested to write his name on a ticket, and to obtain the signature upon the back of the same of a person who has given in his vote, as a witness thereto, and the moderator or clerk of any town or ward meeting convened for the purpose aforesaid shall receive such vote on either of the three days next succeeding the three days before named for voting for said constitution."
During the first three days about 9,000 votes were received from the hands of the voters in the open meetings. By the privilege granted to any and all friends of the constitution of bringing into their meetings the names of voters during the three following days 5,000 votes more were obtained, making an aggregate of about 14,000 votes.
This constitution, thus originating and thus formed, was subsequently declared by this convention to be the supreme law of the land. By its provisions a government is to be organized under it, by the choice of a governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and representatives, on the Monday preceding the third Wednesday in April, 1842.
By the provisions of the "landholder's constitution," as the legal constitution is called, every white native citizen possessing the freehold qualification, and over 21 years of age, may vote upon a residence of one year, and without any freehold may vote upon a residence of two years, except in the case of votes for town taxes, in which case the voter must possess the freehold qualification or be taxed for other property of the value of $150.
By the "people's constitution" "every white male citizen of the United States of the age of 21 years who has resided in this State for one year and in the town where he votes for six months" shall be permitted to vote, with the same exception as to voting for town taxes as is contained in the other constitution.
The provision, therefore, in relation to the great subject in dispute—the elective franchise—is substantially the same in the two constitutions.
On the 21st, 22d, and 23d March last the legal constitution, by an act of the legislature, was submitted to all the persons who by its provisions would be entitled to vote under it after its adoption, for their ratification. It was rejected by a majority of 676 votes, the number of votes polled being over 16,000. It is believed that many freeholders voted against it because they were attached to the old form of government and were against any new constitution whatever. Both parties used uncommon exertions to bring all their voters to the polls, and the result of the vote was, under the scrutiny of opposing interests in legal town meetings, that the friends of the people's constitution brought to the polls probably not over 7,000 to 7,500 votes. The whole vote against the legal constitution was about 8,600. If we allow 1,000 as the number of freeholders who voted against the legal constitution because they are opposed to any constitution, it would leave the number of the friends of the people's constitution 7,600, or about one-third of the voters of the State under the new qualification proposed by either constitution.
It seems incredible that there can be 14,000 friends of the people's constitution in the State, animated as they are by a most extraordinary and enthusiastic feeling; and yet upon this trial, in the usual open and fair way of voting, they should have obtained not over 7,600 votes.
The unanimity of the subsequent action of the legislature, comprehending as it did both the great political parties—the house of representatives giving a vote of 60 in favor of maintaining the existing government of the State and only 6 on the other side, with a unaminimous vote in the senate—the unanimous and decided opinion of the supreme court declaring this extraordinary movement to be illegal in all its stages (see ——[119]), a majority of that court being of the Democratic party, with other facts of a similar character, have freed this question of a mere party character and enabled us to present it as a great constitutional question.