Rhode Island American And Providence Gazette

Catholics And Non-Freeholders.--How differently are similar objects viewed through the same medium. Here in Rhode Island we look upon it as monstrous that Great Britain should withhold civil privileges from the Catholics on account of their religion. Our whole State was in commotion because Judge Story questioned the civil right of a Universalist, touching his admissibility as a witness. Yet this same people look with indifference upon the denial of all civil rights, (except being protected from murder and plunder,) to the non-freeholders of Rhode Island, who are proscribed, not because they lack wisdom or patriotism, but because they lack land. They also consider it no hardship that the non-freeholders cannot even collect a just debt without the consent of a free holder. Where is the difference between the two cases. The Catholic has only to change his opinion, and the non freeholder has only to buy land. Both are compulsory, and therefore unjust, and besides, in many cases, it would be as convenient for the Catholic to change his religion, as for the non-freeholder to purchase land. What then, is wealth the best test of republicanism; the only patent right of citizenship. If so, the most wealthy must be the best patriot and the safest depositories of liberty. But if certain amount of property is a desirable test, (and we believe it is) why is not the actual possession of the property sufficient, without requiring that property to be in a specific and often useless investment?

Payments. The King of England scorns to break his royal promise of relief held out to the Catholics in his speech, on condition that they dissolve their association. We wonder if the freemen of this town, who promised to instruct our representatives to move the General Assembly to insert an extension suffrage clause