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

district. Furthermore it seems TO " SORT OF
rerogrdde process TO reason from The princi-
pie OF delegation back TO that OF sovereignty.
The tide flows entirely the other way. The
rights of the people are not TO be measured by
thoseNot their representatives.
As to the very principle OF corporate najer'ftes,
which the committee assume IL IT has any - sa'hca
ton at all, il can be shewn TO be uusouad and
what is to become Of the conclusion slterthe prem
ises arc exploded The argument must be, u
there is any argument about it, that by the cleo
ton Of representatives in their corporate capacities
the opinion OF majority OF the citizens OF q sei-
tain number of communities may be ass=f,a,nei.
We dismiss from this state of The question all regard
TO any particular ratio. But that the general
proposition is false in fact appears from the eond-
lien Of the seuate under the operation of The dis
ricting &C. passed the ast year of Gov. Gerry's all
mini tralionwhsn large majority OF the ssoaters
was chosen by minority OF electors. 1t has been
also said 10 be the in the state OF Maryland du-
ring the past year, where by the accidental geo.
graphical disposition aud POLITICAL arrangements
of their counties and other corporations similar
result was produced.-1his being the case in point
of fact, it is plain as is possible for demohstfa-
ton TO make it that the principle itself cannot be
corr CT one. The adoption Of IT would be attend
ed with this consequence, that little less than
half of the qualified inhabitants OF large town,
entitled to several representatives, but divided,
would have " weight in the scale, in comparison
with the population OF small town, which m:ght
haptea 10 I've IRA 1nnous. IL follows. that princi-
pie built upon false a foundation and INVOLVING
such an inieui,ons conclusion, cannot be applicable
TO the subject il controversy. =
There is this further objection 10 the adoption o.
this principle respecting corporate najesi IN re-
iation to the nie ence intended 10 be drawn from
n-that il proceeds upon the exclusion vi All the
votes Of the mnerities IN the respective towns.
The supPositon, that the aggregate mi'losites Of
the towns on one side may be balance for the a.
mount Of those on the other, IL altogether iaasfn',
and cannot be supported. 70 test II, take Fort
land, which gave 200 votes against separation anu
Brunswick which gave 80 for it. Then take the two
Counties which gave the strongest maJont"es Oh,
their respective sides. Hancock and kepneoeck, and
Offset ths m against each other. The mn ,rites IN
these cases ARE not eqfa and the votes OF tae
ei,eie minority sfe Notwithstanding excluded. Yet,
astonishing as ii Is. the very reason, which led
the comnistee TO adopt this principle Of consttsic-
tim, arose from their reInct2uce 10 REJECT or e1
cInae the expression of The opinions OF anypcfitoa
Of their fellow esizens possibly correct therefore
they felt anxious TO dispense viii strict or rig
orous scrutiny II they could be authorised so TO
do by any any other considerations or views OF
the suhiectp Mark how we'll the result oi The
rule they selected c,.upors with these just and e.
,o,i4 ,hie he whole number ofvotes
exc,,d;ng the LYMAN ro.es. although possibly
e,rrsct - was % I'D The sum OF the inaorit,es III
IN The towns on both sides was 10 44u. lie dif
rare,.e he,wixt his sua and The total amount is
~. gJ6 and this whole anoint Of more than enc
half of The whole number OF votes is excluded by the
conmit,ee--,o aeopt their own mid ~Aprsssioii--
n, order 10 make room tor The application of theie
pr,nciele and ills m i,hout ,lscidiug OH tie upper
ectiohs or iegalijesN of the returns oil the eAcii-
ded yo,ss. thas do they 81. " their reluctance To
r;s,,, .votas-ttns d they manifest their sense
Of tho ;,gid;,1s,sss of the MEASURE, as expressed
in ,hs Asd,css-aad ,bus do their feelings piompt
be,, IN s,,,se Win STRIFE. and rigorous scrutiny
4, is 10 mace t,,s,r letty in stronger
,;,y,, ,ha, ,tS ox, Had tbev sdopled the alter
native ,o,;ma,ct bv HE committee of the con en-
tion In renly 10 lie protest. Of reducing The num-
hers no .,cb q, ;n,,,,stion could they probably
have e,fsctel n erea,cr reduction ?
Ayain. upor ms prnci,.l. the smaller the ratio,
,ba, ad,,.ed IN. greater the prouortiou becomes
u,on tho i;farence he,wee, any tvo numbers. in
ihe same decree that The Interchangeable amount
Of tbem l. diminished. Ifyby relectiny all the
votes II; the distr,ct hat 10 AAD as is done by the
comn,ttee ratio of FIVE ~ four Is obtained, hich
could no, he extraete,, from a s,,m total of 22. sic
mach more clearly could that result be produced
from an ,,,oun, ot'anIv 5aiO
This mole of calouia,ion. therefore. is attended
.;th ,b;s,hv;nos circ,,cs,apce that The more The
-. .....:s 8. -, ~. :, III, a., .a,;,, !, 80 ar,ss