Martinsburgh gazette. [volume] (Martinsburgh, Va. [W. Va.]) 1810-1825, 1825-04-14

the fact OF particular states given 80
votes can, according to any received
notions of the doctrine or instruction,
be regarded in that light, to whom are
those instructions to be considered adj
dresseds According to that doctrine,
the people who appoint, have the right
to direct, by their instructions, in GER
tain cases, the course of the represent
tatives whom they appoint. The states,
therefore, who gave those 90 votes.
may, in some sense, be understood
thereby to have Instructed iksir repre-
sentatiYes in the house to vote for the
person on whom they were bestowed
in the choice ola president. But most
clearly the representatives coming from
other states, which gave 10 part OF those
90 votes, cannot be considered as hay.
ing been under any obligation TO SUR
render their judgments to those OF the
states, which gave the 90 votes. To
contend that they are under such an
obligation, would be to maintain that
the people of one state have the right
to instruct the representatives from a
mother state. Ii would be TO maintain
a still more absurd proposition, that, in
a case where the representatives from
a state did not hold themselves instruc-
ted and bound by the will of that state,
as indicated in its electoral college, the
representatives from another state
were, nevertheless, instructed and
bound BY that alien viii. Thus, the en-
tire vote of North Carolina, aud a large
majority of that of MARYLAND, in their
respective electoral colleges, were gi-
ven to one OF the three returned candi-
dates, for whom the delegation from
neither Of those states voted. And yet
the argument combatted requires that
the delegation, from Kentucky who do
not n present the people of North Ca
rolina nor Maryland, should be instruc-
ted by, and give an effect to, the indi-
Gated will OF the people of those two
states, when their ow delegation paid
attention to it Doubtless, those dele
CATIONS felt themselves authorized TO
look into the actual composition oil, and
all other circumstances connected with
the majorities which gave the electoral
votes, in their respective states; and
felt themselves justified, from a view of
the whole ground, TO act upon their
responsibility and according to their
best judgments, disrcSarding the cleo
torai votes ia their states. And are the
representatives from q different state
not only bound by the will Of the people
of a different commonwealth, but for
hidden to examine into the name
by which the expression of that viii was
brought about-an examination which
The immediate representatives them
selves feel il their duty to makep
Is the fact, then, Of q plurality to
have no weight Far from it. Here
are I'd communities, united under a
government The expression
of the will OF any one Of them is enti-
tied to the most respectful attention. Ii
to be patiently heard and kindly
re garded by the others; but it cannot
be admitted TO be conclusive upon
them. Thu expression OF the will of 80
out of 26l electors, is entitled to, very
great attention, but that will cannot be
considered as entitled to control the
will of 1862 electors who have manifes-
ted a different will. To give it such
controlling influence, would be a sub
version Of the fundamental maxim of
the rep~ublic-th that the majority should
govetn. The viii OF the 90 can neither
be allowed rigitfuliy to control the re-
naming i62, nor any one OF the 1872
electoral votes. 1t may be an argn-
ment, a persuasion, addressed to all,
and to each of them, but it's binding
and obligatory upon none IL follows,
then, that the fact Of a plurality was n
ly one among the various ronsidera-
tons which the house was called upon
to weigh, in making up its Judgment.
And the weight OF the consideration
ought to have been regulated by the
extent of the plurality. AS, between
general jackson and MIR, Adams, the
vote standing in the proportions Of 80
to 81, it was entitled TO less weight; as
between the general ard Mr.. Crawford
il was entitled to more, the vote being
90 to Al. The concession may even
be made, that, upon the supposiiion Of
equality Of pretensions between
candidates, tie preponder-
ance ought to be given 10 the faetoI a
plurality.
With these views of the relative state
of the vote, with which the three return
ed candidates entered the house. pro-