AMERICAN COMMON LAW.

217

nised by tribute, rent, or services. The opposite is allodial property.

We have in a great measure disentangled our state institutions from many features of an English origin, and still have perseveringly to pursue this course of reform to make them American. But before we part from this so-called bill of rights, I should point it out as a sensible trait of this constitution worthy of imitation, that its framers have not inserted the stereotyped phrase generally occurring in other "northern" constitutions, which prohibits involuntary service or bound labor; because it is not only entirely superfluous, this kind of labor being in the north self-prohibitive, but also discourteous toward our southern states, and exceedingly injurious to personal freedom, by frightening away the masters with their bound laborers, from such states, thus depriving the slaves of a chance to become acquainted with society where free labor prevails.

A constitution is a frame, a form, an organic law, and neither a statute, nor a grant or compromise, in the proper sense of these words. The frame must fit society easily; society must not be cramped into the frame.

I take advantage here to add a few remarks on American common law. What bears this name at present is of English origin, and, in regard to general maxims, fair enough, but not better than the Roman law, the main source of all European codes, called, on account of its sound reasoning, written reason. However, the English common law does not exactly answer for our purposes. In order to come to an indigenous common law, our state constitutions should-firstly, prohibit all reference to any foreign law of whatever origin; secondly, it should be a general maxim that the judiciary, if called upon to judge on the constitutionality of laws, shall so construe the constitution as if it never intended to interfere with the rights of self-government, of persons, families, towns, and counties, but that one of their main objects is to protect and guaranty those rights; thirdly, that a rule be laid down for the division of overgrown political districts, and that these districts are prohibited from contracting debts for private or non-political subjects, to avoid all chances for repudiations and similar dishonest acts; fourthly, that towns are made responsible for all damages in persons and property caused by riots of bands; that counties are

responsible for the same caused by riots of the people of a whole town, and that they shall be respectively charged and assessed. If persons are killed, the tariff or principles generally followed in railroad and similar accidents may serve as a rule. By-the-by, these railroad indemnifications prove that in law every person, and not a bound laborer only, has a money value.

Those who wish to appreciate the name American, as Washington desired in his farewell address, must long for a common law of our own. We are too much governed by foreign laws antagonistic to our institutions. If I appear as speaking harsh upon such inherited laws, I wish it to be understood that I do not reflect upon men. I recollect to have seen in Sparks's Life of Franklin, an old letter from that true nobleman, Larochefacault, wherein he congratulates the doctor on the federal constitution, adding expressly that it would now become necessary to change our code of laws. I write from memory. If we strip our legislatures of all power to meddle with non-political business, and thus confine their whole attention and time to the better realization of justice, should we not easily and naturally arrive to a more perfect state of public administration and public virtue, too, than the present? Why not make our states in this, their proper sphere, perfect?

My suggestions on the management of our states are at variance with the present practice, and why? because I maintain that only strictly political business should be intrusted to governments, while the usual policy starts from the idea that a state government may do anything it thinks proper for society. The difference, therefore, is in business, not in men. I further maintain that my views are strictly American, and the other European or Asiatic. If our legislatures ordain that the counties shall have power to establish poorhouses, and tax the people to raise the funds for their support, they assume that the supporting of poor men is a political business, while I call it a mere charitable private personal act of brotherly love. The Christian church, from its beginning, took hold of this business, tried to introduce communism on this account, and later, when united with the states, transferred it to them. We have separated the church from the state, and the church has to take back this charity business, if it may not be entirely left with the benevolent, as a mere personal private affair; instead of doing so we have, by bad centralization, made it

a county business.

The motion made in the legislature of the state of New York of 1857-8, to create a central state-board, for the governing of the poor and almshouse affairs, consisting of a number of commissioners with a salary of four thousand dollars each (I write again from memory), would, if successful, only increase this bad centralization. Still, as gratuitous as this motion appears, it is in fact not worse than the law which creates political county poorhouses.

Another illustration. Sciences and arts are no doubt non-political business. Still at the same legislative session a motion was made to create a state-scholarship. Also this proposition has not been acted upon; but if we have state regents for colleges, etc., why not have state scholars, too? Such things are anti-American, while the Grand Turk and Queen Victoria may create as many state or court histographers, scholars, painters, etc., as they please, and give them salaries, pensions, orders, titles, etc., beside, and Napoleon III. may forbid soldiers to write newspaper articles. Such motions and laws are to be deprecated in our society. They creep into our statutes in spite of our bills of rights, so that they seem not to be set up with an eye to the perfecting of the American system of governing. But this should be the case, if

they are for any use at all.

LETTER IV.

Elective Franchise. - Restrictions. - Citizenship.-Ballot. - Family voting right.Woman. Christianity. - Polygamy. - Utah.

Kansas Scandals.

Connecticut.

NOTHING has been a greater stumbling-block for legislators, both ancient and modern, than the voting laws, nearly related to the citizenship right. Age, birth, property, taxes, color, religion, and other more or less irrelevant items have been made suffrage conditions, and no two of our states have uniform laws about it. They at least all conflict with those of Congress in regard to the voting of naturalized citizens. Still the suffrage right is the main spring in our political machinery. It brings us good or bad legislators and governors. This constitution has adopted what is

called the general suffrage. I have already observed that it is not just, and therefore can not be beneficial for society. On this very ground the representative system has taken the place of the pure democracy in the United States. However, in a republic most important questions, as the adoption or amending of constitutions and charters, must necessarily pass the popular ordeal. The citizens of Brooklyn and Williamsburgh had to vote on consolidation, a purely monarchical measure, in the end detrimental for both cities, each being already too large for a good local administration. They voted affirmatively. No true republican statesman will approve of such a vote. How important, therefore, is this subject

for society.

But let us see what our constitution ordains about it.

ARTICLE II.

The Elective Franchise.

"1. Every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a citizen for ten days, and an inhabitant of this state one year next preceding any election, and for the last four months a resident of the county where he may offer his vote, shall be entitled to vote at such election in the election district of which he shall at the time be a resident, and not elsewhere, for all officers that now are or hereafter may be elected by the people; but such citizen shall have been for thirty days next preceding the election, a resident of the district from which the officer is to be chosen for which he offers his vote. But no man of color, unless he shall have been for three years a citizen of this state, and for one year next preceding any election shall have been seized and possessed of a freehold estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, over and above all debts and encumbrances charged thereon, and shall have been actually rated and paid a tax thereon, shall be entitled to vote at such election. And no person of color shall be subject to direct taxation unless he shall be seized and possessed of such real estate as aforesaid.

Accordingly the right of voting belongs, in this state, exclusively to male persons. This is not right. The political organization is not a personal but a social necessity; not made exclusively for the male persons of age, and, if of color, in the possession of a freehold estate worth two hundred and fifty dollars, but for the people, that is, men, women, children, and all their interests. Human society is not, like armies, clubs, and partnerships, composed of persons, but of families. If this is true, and I think it is manifest enough, then to the families, as the constituents of society, belongs exclusively the suffrage right. But this criterion is not all that,

LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC USE.

221

in our modern free states, a voting law requires. These are organized by written or printed constitutions, hence a necessity that the voter, who represents the family, when the family voting-right is legal, should, besides be able to read the language in public use, and to write it too, because he has to vote with the help of printed or written tickets. The working of the machinery of the state depends upon publicity, or upon writing, reading, speaking, and printing. The public business must, in a great measure, remain chaotic for a man who can not read. How will such a man be able to vote with due circumspection? If they were, for the time being, excluded from the polls, it would induce the indolent to learn how to read and write, and have his children instructed, without being forced to it by truant laws and policemen; or by school boards and state laws. Connecticut had the courage to make the knowledge of language a voting law. Give, then, each family a vote, to be cast by its head, retain the term of twenty-one years of age, add the just-mentioned conditions, harmonize the state and Congressional legislation, and you will not only comply with the equitable laws of society, but also reconcile woman with the state institutions. They have a greater influence upon their success than is usually believed.

It is an act of sincere chivalry to make woman a silent partner of the citizenship right. The pernicious aberrations about wo man's rights, require, urgently, such a law as a corrective.

"2. Laws may be passed excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been, or may be convicted of bribery, larceny, or of any infamous crime, and for depriving every person who shall make, or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, from the right to vote at such election.

This is matter for a criminal law-code, or statute-book, but generally right. Such men should also be excluded from the jury.

"3. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence, by reason of his presence or absence, while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning, nor while kept at any almshouse, or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison." Belonging to the statute book.

"4. Laws shall be made for ascertaining by proper proofs the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.