The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-08-12
LYNCrRuRG, AUGUST L, lses
MR. cRAnroGp-tNp \ cauous

have used every rXeflloH IA represent I'm
10 the people as flic only democratic candi
date iUr the presidency ara very unlonu=
pate Ia The p,oof they furnish III ms and
their attachment 10 the ancient ofiniens
of that party. Perhaps, however, they
consider his election at such gfcat conse-
qncucr ia The nation, thai any means t.
accomplish II are Justified hy The end
The abandonment Of principle, the mean
ness OF Inconsistency, and the advantage
thai Is thus afforded to tie enemies of de-
lnocracy, irom tie TREASON and sell contra
dicuons of ~ pretended votafies, do moi
weigh with these gentlemen against their
desire la elevate him 10 the presidency
Some twelve months ago, the Richmond
enquirer, IN discussing the most eligible
mode of designating the Candidate who
should receive the suil'ages OF the repubi-
cans, expressed lis dislike 10 the caucus
mode, WHICH, indeed, WAS only reitera-
ton olits own and the uniform opinion of
the republican party. .Caucussing has,
from It's first Introduction, been denounced
by that party, as au Infringement, on the
ilshts OF the people and II Il hrs beeu re-.
Pcatcdly rcsorled Ia since by them, il WAS
always under The reservation oi their regret
al the constitutional defect which seemed
10 rendcrit necessary, aud taeil adlns-
sion that II was MOI sanctioned by The let
ter or spirit Of the constitution, oi The free
and ubiassed exercise Of popular rights
We observe, however, from the last Enqai-
rcr, that its editors have reluctantly admit
ted the necessity of once more resorilng 70
the nomination of congressional caucus.
This admission has caused W neither sur.
prise or regret. II is ntftssufg rs we pro.
nounced year ago, 10 produce TINT una.
nlmity which only can procure the election
OF the next president by the electoral col
lege5--and we then easily ioresaw thai the
Enquirer itself, though Il affected To start IA
Sreatmm projects iok keep the nomination
As wei! as the election IN the hands OF the
people, would ultimately adopt that opin-
Ion. The Only regret we have, Is, thai the
Enquirer should have aeceded 10 the eau
Gus mode, without making one elioli 10
recommend IFS projects 10 the people
Shal IL should have abandoned its old ground
so passiyrly, as TO seem 10 have exchanged
ats principles for convenience and 10 have
assigned so bad reason for the change, ms
Ia leave Us ia danpl whether the tnlents OF
fts editors have NOT departed along with
Their consistency The fictitious remon-
STRANGE of the small states against the
nomination by caucus IS published IN the
tnquirtr, whereby that raperindireetly, At
least, encourages the opinion thal no viola
ton of principle is involved in this method
OF designating a president and that the
small states are opposed to IT, only because
they will by IFS means be stripped Of their
weight ~ the congressional election. The
time has heen when such sentiments as
these would have received the unqualified
apprehension of the Enquirer when fixed
aud interchangeable principles would have
been supported, regardless of their reeep.
ton or popularity, by large or by small
states. But " times change, aud VT change
with them
THE motive which thc Enquirer assigns
Tor It's Willingness 10 embrace CAUCUS no
mlnatlou, is entirely insufficient, and
Strengthens the supposlton that this vii
ansgcss has been produced by the opinion
that Mr.. Crawford has the trst chance OF
Receiving The nomiaatinn. The apprehen-
sion OF the clecton's desolying ON congress.
seems to prey on the minds of lis editors.
and 10 avoid the dreadful consequences.
they are willing 10 save the people the
trouble aud the agitation of making a choice
by permitting that body 10 dictate an cleo
Ton IN the first Instance. II we are to be
benehtted by caucus, il is by the suites
adhering to the nomination. 50 made. II
the states do adhere, il is evident that con
GresS w1ll choose the president, rs without
theIrmterterence, no domination would nave
been made, and if no nomination be made
10 choice eau be made by the electors
Now, IN effect, wkere is the difference be-
twecn the president being chosen by con-
grcss IN caucus, and his being chosen b,
that body IN The last resort Z Gentle shep
herd, tell IRE ichere y The only difference
that can be allcdged IN favor of the former
rs, that TIE nomination By caucus is moi
absolutely conclusive, though ii is efi'ectn.
ally SO, and consequently that there IS some
possibility OF their decision heins reversed
by the people. Ii IL be urged that IN,
choice Is made 10 the Last resort by states
ana not by majority ofmembers, il ma,
be replied, that this is provision of IN,
constitution, and that the people who form
cd H. thought it better 10 entlusl the pow
er to be exercised in taat way, than I,
leave 1t to be determined by common lie
glsatlye majorities. Ii this be a defect i,
the constitution, let the crisis Come, as ,
writer m the Enquirer argued, thai expe
rlenoe provog ii, 1t may be remeded h,
the proper authority In the meantin,
we have no right TO prefer an uneonstitu
tlonal TO ID constitutional mode of election
BY either mode, congress, ia fact, elects
aud 10 fly t. the one, to avoid the other, i
literally jumping from the frying pan int
the FIRE.
These are some of the arguments which
may be used successfully to expose I'll,
reasoning OF the Enquirer reasoning
"nlch we should never wish TO have expo
sea; bringing the editors Of that paper, a,
1t does, to embrace opinions which ,hi,
DaDer has already av,.,..d r. - m