Portland gazette and Maine advertiser. (Portland, Me.) 1805-1818, 1816-11-26
ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS
OF tie Report Of the Committee Of ths. Conpen-
ton on the Subject Of Separotios.
[ooNriyugn FROM ouR LAsrl
The extraordinary principle here assumed
is attempted to be established by one OF the
most singular processes Of logic perhaps ever
pssctised and it adopts a species OF metaph-
ysics, which would probably never have
been tolerated even in the dark ages. There
never was an instance Of any thing pretend
ing to be reasoning, and appearing y be sub
tie, al once more false absurd, incoherent and
|iaconciusive. Never was there sp4cimcn OF
ne powers of mind more misapplied, ~ the
faculty OF reason more abused, or an instance
of greater Imposition attempted 10 be prac-
liced upon The understanding and palmed up
ON The public. II is said, tina by the act as
originally reported 10 the legislature, the con
sention OF delegates intended to be assembled
were authorized to determine Oh the expedl-
ency Of separation and from the report OF
the committee. who drafted the bill, pretlxed
10 the act, il Is rather darkly gathered, that
such might have been The intention. Now
for .ne argument. The committee say. that
:. here the delegates would have been in pro-
portion TO the number OF mayor,ties in each
corporation, and not in proportion to the as-
5regale majority OF all the votes returned. ;"
That is one proposition and the problem Is
put in one more form. : As the delegates
must be spportioned according 10 the rePec-
,,ve major,ties OF their towns, so, on the ques-
ton of separation, the majority Of yeas in the
towns and plantations in favour must be to the
majority of nays in those opposed, as five to
our OF the votes returned" Now riddle me
this, whoever can comprehend il. As ia, as
il is not unintelligible, it is absolutely lndi-
crous. The consequential +" SO is indeed a
most absurd and impotenl conclusion. In the
first place, take the principle, upon which
these delegates are said TO be chosen. 1t is
expressed in two ways. In one, they are
represented to bc in proportion g TO the mum
Der Of msjori,ies in each corporation" In
The other hey are apportioned +" according
TO the respective msjorites ct their towns y
Now both these propositions are inconsistent
and neither 81 them is trne inconsistent, be
cause one time il is said they are in proportion
TO tue number OF naJorities in each corporation,
and afterwards according 10 the respective
maioritics of all They are also false, Tor these
delegates are apport;oued neither one way nor
The other. The delegates IN the Con, ention
are not apporlioned TO the number OF maoriies
ia each corporation. How many aoior1hes are
there in one corporation? Neither are they
according to the respective maoiities Of iheit
towns. For not to forget the fact, that SOME
towns opposed 10 separation elected delegates
in favor Of i, -upon that principle large town
like Portland, giving majority OF only ore
perhaps, would be entitled TO only fraction
OF a delegate, Wilde a small town giving all its
votes tm one on one side, would be entitled to
humber. The act appoints very difiere nj
ratio of pportionment,-th rule by which
the towns towns cleo, their representatives
that is the number Of ratcable polls in each
place. Neither Of the propositions pre,ends
that the whole number Of delegates in conycn-
ton would be in proportion to the aggregate
OF majoriiies in the several towns, nor would
il be true. BY ihat means you would re-
ect all the votes except The several ercesses, in
forming the ratio;-wLepeas the whole number
OF delegates TO the convention bears the near
esi Imaginable relation to the whole aggre-
gate of rateable polls in the district--lt the
principle inends 10 signify, thai the number
OF delegates on either SIDE is in proportion 10
the combined amour, Of the corporate major
tiles on the same side, that is equally false.
They are not in casual proportion 10 acciden-
tai maiorties, but TO the whole amount OF rate
able polls in their respective towns-Ihere is
no way you can turn either OF these PROPOSE
tons, in which il can stand. kvery way they
are unienable. And IL is rather remarkable,
that neither ofthese propositions rs susceptible
of any sensible signliication. fe; from these
occult terms, which are absolutely nonsensica
and unin,eligible, differences are attempted
to be drawn 10 affect established principle:
and recognized truths. This is completely re.
versing the usual rule Of argument, and teas'
onlng from the unksozgn TO the dnou'n. 1t he
comes immaterial therefore, 10 consider the
absurdity Of reasoning from problematica
premises, which form no part OF the act--as Il
the powers, with which il might have aeei
contemplated TO invest the Delegates lropesr
lions probably experimental and finally eA
Guided from il, afford no ground Tor any con
cluscns whatever, except against the rr.nci
pies rejected. is not this rather derlv'n:
intercnces from " expressions no, conta'bet
| IN th.. ac,',1-Again I: il there were any pos