As soon as I had learned to speak the language a little,
I became greatly interested in the people and the
system of government.
I found that the nation had at first tried universal
suffrage pure and simple, but had thrown that form
aside because the result was not satisfactory.
It had seemed to deliver all power into the hands
of the ignorant and non-tax-paying classes; and of
a necessity the responsible offices were filled from
these classes also.
A remedy was sought. The people believed they
had found it; not in the destruction of universal
suffrage, but in the enlargement of it. It was
an odd idea, and ingenious. You must understand,
the constitution gave every man a vote; therefore
that vote was a vested right, and could not be taken
away. But the constitution did not say that certain
individuals might not be given two votes, or ten!
So an amendatory clause was inserted in a quiet way;
a clause which authorised the enlargement of the suffrage
in certain cases to be specified by statute.
To offer to “limit” the suffrage might
have made instant trouble; the offer to “enlarge”
it had a pleasant aspect. But of course the newspapers
soon began to suspect; and then out they came!
It was found, however, that for once—and
for the first time in the history of the republic
—property, character, and intellect were
able to wield a political influence; for once, money,
virtue, and intelligence took a vital and a united
interest in a political question; for once these powers
went to the “primaries” in strong force;
for once the best men in the nation were put forward
as candidates for that parliament whose business it
should be to enlarge the suffrage. The weightiest
half of the press quickly joined forces with the new
movement, and left the other half to rail about the
proposed “destruction of the liberties”
of the bottom layer of society, the hitherto governing
class of the community.
The victory was complete. The new law was framed
and passed. Under it every citizen, howsoever
poor or ignorant, possessed one vote, so universal
suffrage still reigned; but if a man possessed a good
common-school education and no money, he had two votes;
a high-school education gave him four; if he had property
like wise, to the value of three thousand ‘sacos,’
he wielded one more vote; for every fifty thousand
‘sacos’ a man added to his property, he
was entitled to another vote; a university education
entitled a man to nine votes, even though he owned
no property. Therefore, learning being more prevalent
and more easily acquired than riches, educated men
became a wholesome check upon wealthy men, since they
could outvote them. Learning goes usually with
uprightness, broad views, and humanity; so the learned
voters, possessing the balance of power, became the
vigilant and efficient protectors of the great lower
rank of society.
