Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-02-18

Mr.. G. Griswold, agreed with the gen
| t1enan from South Carolina, that it was
| important that both amendments should go
/ to the same committee. He was IN favor
ofthe amendment for districts, not, howe
YER, because he considered himself bound
/ bv the instructions ofthe Legislature of N.
Work. given long since. On a former oc-
| casion, when the subject was before the
House, some of his colleagues had thought
/ themselves bound by those instructions, *
| had expressed their astonishment at his res
eistin. them. He was. not disposed to ques-
| ton the correctness Of their opinions
But for himself he could never consent to
be bound by such instructions against the
dictates of his own judgment. He was
| not the representative of a legislature, but
of section of the people, and did not re-
| present the state, but them combined with
| other sections of the people. He had a
right then to exercise his own opinion. 1t
so however, happened, that this.resolution
for electoral districts accorded with his own
| opinion, and therefore he should advocate
its adoption. According TO the reasoning
| of'gentlemen, this resolution should be con-
sidered as the first IN rank, as it was first
named in the resolutions agreed to by the
legislature Of New York. Will gentlemen
who advocate the last embracing the pria-
ciples of designatien) reject the first, or
neglect to pay it the ssan,e attention with
the first? He should consider the vote
against postponement as virtual vote
againg the first resolution. Is it not fair
and proper that both these points of amend
ment should go to the same committee, as
they both relate to the same subject HE
was in favor of the division Of the United
States into electoral districts, as it carried
to the people directly the election of cleo
tors, which is now three degrees removed
from the people, whereas by the amend
ment it would be only two degrees. We
may be told that the legislature of New
York may, under the constitution, if she
pleases, district the state; & we NAV be ask
ed why she does not ifdesirable This ques-
ton Mr.. G.could not undertake to answer.
Gentlemen OF similar political sentiment
with the majority ofthat legislature can best
answer it. He could only say that if in the
legislature he should be in favor oft. Mr..
Griswold concluded by saying he was not
in favor of altering the constitution at all,
with regard to the election Of President,
but if it were altered, he. was in favor OF
uniting the amenlment for electoral dis
tricts with that on the table. He should
I therefore vote for the possponement.
Mr.. Elliot did not rise to reply to the ar
~, ,o ~ ,nt ,,,a,oI,,
press his surprise that those who wished
no amendment whatever, should thus la
| bour to defeat the wishes of the house.
He had expected that one amendment to
| the constitution would have been sufficient
| for session. Yet we had sent one to the
| Senate, where it Eeposed, and in return
they had sent Us three. If these are not e.
nough, where are we to stop? He hoped
| gentlemen would not add another until
these should be acted on.
| Mr.. Rodney only rose to say shat he was
in favor of dividing the United States into
! districts, but was decidedly against ain a.
mendment TO that effect being Incorporated
with the one. on the table, least by grasp
ing attoo much they might lose all.
-'ii. ". STT1SH0id ga not perceive now,
the agreeing to the amendment for electoral
districts could embarrass the present a.
i mendment, as it was in the power ofthe
/ different state legislatures to agree to a
part, if thebsaw fit, andnot the whole.
Mr.. Thomas observed, that in legislat
| ing he had always been averse to incorpo-
rating different subjects in the same bill or
resolution; because he thought each Ought
to stand on its own bottom--he said, the
resolution sent from the Senate proposes
/ an important amendment tol our consttu-
ton, and the one which his colleague Mr..
4 c. ,riSwnldA and the 6rantia,,,nr, .f.n,,a