Mr. Bell to Mr. Bayard.
The Hague, Netherlands, November 20, 1885. (Received Nov 30.)
Sir: Referring to my No. 47, of September 23d last, I now have the honor to inform you that this Government has published its reply to the report of the commission of the second Chamber in relation to the proposed projects respecting the revision of the constitution. The principal point presented and discussed in this reply is the question of universal suffrage.
Replying to the observation comprised in the report of the Chamber in favor of universal suffrage this Government says:
Every person has the right to be well governed and to live under equitable laws appropriate to his social position; accordingly the right to vote has only a relative value, inasmuch as it guarantees suitable representation and wise laws.
[Page 586]According to this principle, it surely does not appear reasonable to accord the right of election to the masses, that is, to an important majority of persons little en lightened, who scarcely contribute anything to the public charges, and who, more than all other persons, are exposed to be misled or corrupted by political leaders.
The position of the candidates would consequently be quite different when they are obliged to make promises to gain the vote of the masses.
In order that you may be able to see this point clearly, it is important that you should fully understand the nature of the oath taken by members elect ofteither chamber of the States-General on entering upon their functions.
The following is a translation of article 83 of the fundamental law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands prescribing the oath to be taken by members elect of the first and second chambers of the States-General.
On their entrance into office they will each, in accordance with their religious belief either take the oath (or make the promise) which follows:
I swear (or promise) fidelity to the fundamental law. So help me God.
They are admitted to take this oath or make this promise after having taken the oath or made the declaration and promise which follows:
I swear (affirm) that to be elected member of the first or second chamber (as the case may be) of the States-General I have neither given nor promised, neither will I give or promise, directly or indirectly, under any pretext whatsoever, any gift or present to any person, in office or without functions.
I swear (affirm) that I will never receive from any one whomsoever, nor under any pretext, directly or indirectly, any gift or present engaging me to do anything whatsoever in the exercise of my function.
These oaths are taken at the hands of the King or in the session of the second chamber at the hands of the president authorized to this effect by the King.
Referring again to the substance of the dispatch the Government further says:
Universal suffrage exists, it is true, in several great states, as in the United States, in France since 1848, and in Germany since 1869; and it is perfectly understood that this system cannot be abolished in any of those states, for once the political right is accorded it is very difficult to withdraw it.
The Government, after citing certain evils which they claim are the natural outgrowth of the existence of universal suffrage in the United States, France, and Germany, says further:
It is possible that, having regard for the moderation of the national character and the small extent of our territory, universal suffrage would not bring about in the Netherlands all those disagreeable consequences, but it is not to be overlooked that the introduction of the system would be a very dangerous step, from which it would be almost impossible to retreat once it had been adopted.
Notwithstanding these views the Government has presented to the second Chamber a new modification of the article of the constitution which regulates the right of suffrage.
According to this proposition the right of suffrage is not only to be accorded to persons paying a certain local tax, but also to those who pay only a certain sum in land tax to the state. The effect of this proposition may be better understood when it is known that the number of voters at Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague, actually 5,076, 2,702, and 2,718, would be by this modification increased to 11,408, 5,707, and 5,323, respectively.
The result of the recent election in the district of Sheek, to fill the vacancy in the second Chamber created by the appointment of Mr. Yan Blom as high counselor of the court, may be taken as an indication of [Page 587] the feeling prevailing among those already enjoying the right of suffrage.
The result of this election was attended with a special interest. In the first place, on account of the person of the liberal candidate, and in the second place because the result would influence very much the composition of the Chamber, which at the present time has 43 Liberal and 43 anti-Liberal members. The result was favorable to the Liberal party, who for the first time elected a “workingman’s candidate” in the person of Mr. Heldt, who obtained 2,006 votes against 1,670, polled by the Baron Schimmellpenninck van der Oji, the conservative candidate. Mr. Heldt is the president of the workingmen’s association, editor of the Workingman’s Journal, and a strong partisan of universal suffrage.
Baron Schimmellpenninck is a representative of the old nobility of Holland, and his family hold close personal relations with the court.
I have, &c.,