Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-03-05

.. Another reason in support fthe amend
ment which has great weight with me, rs
the public sentiment being long, and SO
l.loudlv expressed in its favor. Several
Years have elapsed since it was first brought
Esiato view. 1t originated in the east; 1t has
been echoed from the south, and the peo-
BE of the west are also calling for its adop-
ton. It has been advocated in turns by
saen Of all political parties. 4 federal mem
Der from the federal state OF New-HamP-
shire if recollect right, first introduced
itinto Congress. 4 proPosltionthe same in
substance was afterwards renewed by a ie.
eleral member from the then federal state Of
South Carolina. in the two last instances
4 has been brought forward by republican
members from republican states, first by
che Of nv colleagues from Pennsylvania, a
republican state, and during the present
session BY a gentleman from Virgins,
which is said tobe also republican. New
York, Vermont, Tennessee, Ohio and 1
believe Kentucky have, by tileir legisla-
lures, expressed their appreciation OF the
measure and invited its adoption. Fede-
ra!ists and repubIicans.in every part OF the
country, thus uniting inrecommendlng the
measure, is conclusive evidence, that a
! majority fthe people, however they may
differ on other political questions, are in
favor of the leading principle contained in
the amendment. This circumstance led
me to conclude, that it would have receiv-
ed but little opposition in this House.
The members from those states that had
been most forward in Recommending it, |
did expect would have given it their una-
nimous support.
To obtain such an amendment as would
con6ne itself to the principle OF discrlmi-
nation, was the only object I had original
| " in view. That principle 1 consider as
of the first importance. ltwould think
be sufficient to guard against the inconve-
aience attending che present mode Of cleo
! ton. IF the electors are authorised to de-
| signate on their ballots who they vote for
as President and who as President,
| there is little danger of theirfasling tomake
an make an election, while the. country con-
tinues to be divided, as it IS at present, IN
to two great political parties. | would e.
ven now prefer proposition embracing
! that single principle TO the amendment on
/ the table, not Only because think It ade-
quate to the attainment of the object IN
view; but also because believe IN that
| form, it would be nost likely to receive
/ the sanction Of the states: There is &C
! knowledge one feature in it as it now
stands which strongly recommends it to
( my appreciation, and gives it in my opinion
a decided preference to the proposition
which went from this House to the Senate.
/ in the event of the electors not making
President, the House Of Representatives
were BY our proposition restricted in their
choice to the five highest on the list Of the.
( persons voted for as President, provided
no enc had majority. By the amend
ment on the table they are con6gned to the
! three highest, on the list. | prefer the num-
/ Der three before i've, because it evidently
brings he choice nearer to the will of a
majority of the people. This was SO fully
! discussed, and 50 clearly eiucidated on a
! former occasion, that it would be an TN
! pardonable trespass on the patience OF the
/ House to diiate further onit at this time.
But the most Objectionable part OF this
amendment in the opinion Of many gentlc-
men, and against which the gentleman from
Vermont in particular, has leveled his
keenest darts, is that which vests the Vice
President with power to discharge the du-
ties Of President, IL the event Of Presi-
dent not being elected. The passage stands
thus " And 1.-THE House OF Representa-
tives shall not chuse a President, whcne-
yer the right of choice shall devolve on
them, before the fourth day of Marchnext
TnlitA..1,acn 4l,or, Me- l,..4