The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-11-14
CAUCUS INCLINATION.

CAUCUS NOMINATION.
The Washington Gazette contends that
caucus nomination Is constilutonal--and
e,acidates this strange and understandable
assumption by several uery apt and forctbie
queries, which we shall briefly notice. 1t
asks
Al. Hare any epiis resulted 10 N. coun.
frV from iormfr nomtn1iloaSP
One evil, il no NOR, nus resulted from
them. They have SET an example which
IS NOW lmpudcuily pleaded III their lusti-
hcation. What yesterday was precedent,
is to-day law But admit, for the sake of
argument, that ma evil haa been produced
BY them. We ask, with all due Difference
10 the superior penetration of the Gazette,
how does tins admission Affect the ooHst-
tuiiOndlitg Uf the measure ? BY such
mode of reasoning, we should o,erturn nj
once all the pru,4lnns OF the constitution.
Ii would indeed become, what its early
enemies predicted, literally n " nose of
wax" Measures directly at war with its
fundamental provisions, might be adsocat
ed on the same ground, and with the same
reason.
- Hare not republicans generally sue
ceeded an eiectiHg thsu cdndiddte ,ehen no
minated BY u caucus y
We ansrr g,s. But does this make u
caucus nomiuaton constitutional II is
at uosl an argument founded nn crpedien.
en- and which, 80 far 40 II Il Intended 10
apply To the pending pr, sIdrnial contest,
Is rndtltd to 40 weight; because the can
dldates are all democratic republicans. -
Where Is the opposing patty 10 be found
We look for il IN vain. Torn asundcr ~
both parties arr--at war with thrmst Ives
aud with each other, they have no longer
any ground Of principle upon which To
stand. Priadpla non homiutS' il II"
longer the motto Of our politicians They
have reversed the reading Ia " Homines
nan principiu"
as. Does mol The constitution ofthe United
States proride for The election ofthe p,tsi-
dent IN tleo Gays list. by electors chosen
by The people 2dlg. By thr House Of Repre-
Stntat,ueS, totiHg BY states ~
Verify, here is u notable way of proving
the consfttuttondl,tyo a measure, by quot
ing provisions of the constitution which
nrcimplieoly opposed 10 II! This man has
"reasons thick az biackberrcs" for all he
says bat unluoklIy, they operate against
him, toto cdlo. A caucus nomination. j.,
CONSTITUTIONAL spNs he. How do YOU
prove IL, sir Why, does not the con
sIltutiop say that the election shall he
made by Ill. electors and, thai in default
thereof, II shall deynlve on the House of
Representatives ?" Blush, shades of Arts
totle and locke for here IL genius who
might have taught thee logic This pro-
a. tho -
pfncipal omections;o n caucus nomination.
Rfcansr,if the nomination has the ntead-
ed effect, the election is an fact made BY a
body which the constitution no where re-
cngnzes--hecause it is made in Il mode
which the direct provisions of that instru-
neot on the subject are implicitly oppo 3ed
70, aud because rs constructive pro isions
were N all probability intended .a guard
az last il.
-. IL not he first mode the popular me-
fho1. and that ,ehich has precedence IN the
constitution
.. VA caucaS nomination influences q
decision Of the question by electors. does il
not promote The poPalar mode Of election,
9nd fhnt which tie constitution pretcrS 90
Her" ~ aU"thrr specimen of logic! Be.
cause the election nv the electors is the
popular method, because this popular me-
thod has precedence in the constitution,
and as caucus nominations promote this
popular method ef election therefore a
Caucus Is constitutional Every one must
admit that caucus nomination will have
a powerful effect in favor of the candidate
upon whom it is conferred. And il is this
circumstance of which We &C mplain. We
have no idea of seeing the electing power
snatched from the hands IN which the con
stitution has placed it, whether wisely or
mol 1t IA not our present purpose to en-
quire,) aud usurped by seli-ronsttated
tribunal of dlctators. And of that sort of
men is this tribunal to be composed? OF
men with like passions as ourselves'-
liable to BE- hurried away by the same
feelngs--sublect to the same prejudices-
susceptible n the same partialities-and
operated upon in the same manner by their
hopes aud fears. Are they better qualified
than the people, to whom they presume to
dictate, to select their ruler2 No. And
ihe people, whose seroants these would.be