Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-11-07
RICHNONg- NOVEMBER :. Iaqs
CAUCUS .NO.nLV.4IYO.V

| we have entered into close action. and over-
thrown all his positions. But we were nj tlle
| same time aware of the difficulties we had IN
encounter. Goldsmith's schoolrnaster is mi
the only instance OF a man who though van
pushed, will argue still" And though we
have too much respect for our antagonist 10
apply to him the line of lIudibras
man convinced agains, his will
Is oil the same opinion still.
\ ct II certainly adds very much 10 the Difficult
" Of convincing him.
We say it with all due respect to our res
pectable friend but we frankly affirm, that
he has not directly met any of the arguments
we have advanced, but eluded Them with ne
culiar ingenuity.-For instance(by way of re-
| capitulation
We SAID, that he was not only at war now
with what he had been in 1919, but that his
course now is at war with his own principLe.
What rs his principle ? That it is unconstitu-
ttonoI To strip the small staies of their consti-
tuttondt chance of electiuga President. We
urged, That M 1919, when he was in favor of
caucus without any exception. and ,o,u when
he would again be in favor of one " for the
support ofparty principles" only, he was for
taking course which upon his own principle
strips the small states of their constitutional
chance. Yet he completely eludes this arCu-
ment
Again He iniimated, that this chance in
| Favor of the small states was a conprutnise he
tween the " slave states" aud the I" free states
we proved directly rrsm the record, that il
was not so; but between The large and the
small states.- He row eludes this argument
We showed, that with such "a com promise.
Virginia had as much right To go into eau
Gus TO procure an election by the Electors, ms
any state that this mode of election was
certainly constitutional, and she had AS much
| right To obtain her full constitutional weig Int
IN the hrst instance, as any other state.-The
gentleman does not fully meet this position {:
hut fist ciriily taking 1t for granted, without
PROOF, that an attempt to secure "A choice of
electors rs contrary TO the constitution, he goes
on to censure Virginia for seeking by "a caucus
to break dawn the compromise recognized by
the constitution.-We shall, ere we law down
our pen, once more notice this assumptions
TINS Petttto prtncipli, as the logcians call it,
anu again show, that il is no breach of The
compromise no infraction Of the constitution.
/ To proceed with our reorganization We
showed, that erem if the compromise did tie
up the hands of Virginia and the south it did
not bind up. n. York, Prnnsy lyania, Ohiu, or
any of the " free" popuI0us states that To
take this ground would be 10 say, that they
should lose both ways to wit, la relation To
the SloUe states, and then in relaiiun 10 the small
states. Does he meet this argument? Far
| from u on the contrary, he compassiUnaies
these states for the losses they have already
sustained that Ohio should have fewerrep.
rcseutatiyes aud fewer electors than Virginia.
| though she has as many free citizens: and vet
| he would noiG add Ia the bardships of Ohio
and New York; he would now deny them
the right OF demonstrating their Votes ON il par
tcuiar candidate-and thus would sink them
To the same level with Delaware or II. Island.
| Ii Virginia then has no right to caucus, surely
n. York and Pennsyl anid have.
we also called upon him to say, how far he
would permit arrangements To br made,i 10 con
centrate public sentiment Ornahlp the majority
ofthe people 10 chOOsea Prrsi.lrnttlruught heir
eIectors-and to keep it out of the H. of Il
where the States vote and the minority rule -
Might the people meet in their cnuniips, or
districts, or states, in AKA tcny iohnferer, In
. fix upon particular candidate? Wnud not
the Editor ofthe Register forbid them Would
he not say at once, Z" No, no gentleman: you
are hyiDS III the face Of the constitution You
are striving To defealit You are taking the
eventual election cut of the Fl. Off l, is beside.
an injustice To the small states |! is drpriyine
them of their chance, SC &c."- Where would
he stop pr would he deny this step TO the
] members of congress alone, those very ner
whom he himself said in 1919, met merely in
" their indiUiduaL capacities? We called up
on him to answer these quesions-hut he is
mute.-He eludes the point and leaves us
completely at loss to ascertain his doctrine
or its limitations
S Finally, we pointed out the sophism which
had bewildered him his main argument was
incorrect, because he had overlooked the plain
distinction between two very different cases
: VIZ. lst. the fair attempt to effect an election
: by the Electors, and Cd. IN case of that at
+ tempt failing, the electing of President b,
, the II. of R.-The first was the mode prefer
4 red Inv he - a..
\ forming to the spirit of the government itself
g when we adopt fair and open measures Il
make that mode operative which the cOnsti
:, tuition SD clearly indicates AS preferable"
h If, however, that mode Of election should fail
if the people could not make Prcsiden
through their electors then, we cheerfnlly adj
+ mitted it would he u breach of the c0nsti
tuition, andifth Editor ofthe Reg lister chooses
4 to add, abreach Of the compromise, TO make tn,
slightest attempt to wres the election from tn,
/ II ofIR.-This argument too he has not met
e This distinction he has overlooked.
j. What then, the reader may ask, has he said
= What ground does he assume? Why the ole
s one, of a compromise, without making thu
slightest attempt to pr0Ue that caucus, a con
venton, OF any mode Of acting in concert, 4
Il Il breach of that cOmpromiss.-B But let hin
# speak for himself:
Three points were made in the body Of the arficl
that has caused his large hudy Of remarks
l. That the representation allowed on account o
o the slave population, (hOugh The woid siare is arO
= " avoided IU tlie CoBsiluimn), was compromise.
y e. That the power OF the siales in the senate WAS
r. compromise.
o, 3. That the SOLITARY power gfaured TO The safe
a IN cerigiR coming IN the house Of Representa-
lives, WAS y compromise.
- And agreed, that these three compromises, take
Il together, we're right though willing admit that
D. Their Of then considered separ0ieiy wrong ~
" wished 10 know how il was tlat u /" cONBIEATtos
n ihe sfong word Of VIZ Monroe, should be 20