Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-01-14

,,se OF the federal constitution which we h,vs
cited, on our uncorroborated authority.
The celebrated papers under the signature
ut The ,tederaiist,' published during tho dis
cuss'ons which existed as to the propriety of IFS
adoption, were written by three statesmen
among the most eminent for profound wisdom
and exalted genius, who have ever adorned th,,
annals OF any age or country. Two Of then.
Hlessrs. Madison and Hamilton, assisted IN tl,,.
forni>'ion, and their signatures are affixed Ia
it; the th,9i, Mr.. Jay, whose name alone i, ~
host, and who still lives, like the Venerable
Nestor TO bless his cc';,...f- w;i.i lie sage coun
sells OF ms experience, most proi6uc', politician
and learned lawyer, preterrei Nv Gen. ~. ing
ton rs tse .Gr.': Chef ,Jt,tice OF the uni,,
States intimately connected with those win,
framed 1t. TIER c,trsnpor,r, exposition has
ever been coa'i lere1of conclusive authority on
every question which has arisen in relation 10
ITS true construction.
"The torty-eighth number Of this work bears
directly on this question Hnen il SAYS. But as n
majority of the votes might not ,iways happen
10 centre In one no'i, AMI rs it might he unsafe
10 permit less titoa Il mljority 10 he conclusiye
IT IS provided That IN such case the House az
Representatives shall select out of the canji-
dates who shall have the fiyct highest numbers
OF eotes the man wao IN their opinions snau b 2
6est quaifed.' Ii therefore appears that the
great men who composed these papers, silppos-
cd that according to the true intent and mean
ing of the constitution, the expression of an
electoral vote III favour of any candidate toas mol
cD'scfasios, unless he had also U,viority of The
to!tote number OF electors appointed, but that in
Such case, the House Of Representatives had a
sound discretion 10 select that Candidate from a
certain number CT the highest who, IN Mei,.
opinion, might be hest guahfed. Iney never
imagined with the meeting at Trenton, that the
House OF Representatives was bound 10 consider
. the clause Of the constitution u,ner considera-
ton, as de1a tetter, ,oouid betrny their trust
If they did moi vote for The candidate who had
received a mere plurality of votes. This dis
covery has been reserved to designate the supe-
rior dlscernmcnt OF that meetiug.n
"Iney ask you to vote for General Jackson
because a plurality Of the Electors or the Uni
ted States, and because the Electors of this
state, have before voted for him. and on tbat
ground deny the freedom OF your choice which
they would confine 10 him. We say vow are not
So bound. We insist that You possess a ca. ordi
nate power, unconnecte with the Electors, de-
riyahle from the Constitution alone, and for the
exercise OF which, you are responsible only to
God, and you: own cunSciences. JHe contend
that you are only limited TO vote for one of the
three highest; but whether for General Jackson
Mr.. Adams or Mr.. Crawford oneIIt TO be dcciJ
ed by your Judgment, aohich IS hesi qnal,fed foy.
ltat office ne ask you 10 discountenance we
WI hOt laISG CONSTRUCTION, but absolute
abrogadon OF the Constitution, by confnnr
yourselves to one, when by the express terms of
that Charter you are authorized to choose among.
tfree. But whieew we contend against the tln-
founded doctrines of our opponents, destructive
OF most important feature o. the federal con-
stitutlon, and of the just dignity ami prosper au
taority OF the house of representatives viii cl,
the people arc greatly iatesested to preserve.
fFe are ioIting TO n.imL That, in. those cases
where it is practicable To ascertain with any
reasonable degree OF certainty, the sentiments
OF any considerable majority of the ,oh0ie Deo-
pie, that 1t IS entitled to the most respectful con
sideration: but this is obviously very difficult If
not totally impraCticable i'm the resent case. No
candid man, of real information or sound udg-
ment, will pretend that General jackson tor
whom this majority has been claimed by his SAN
gune partizans, really has majority of the whole
people OF the United States favourable TO his
election as President. At the late election, he
had but eight states whose electors united in him
which constitute but one third ofthe whole of the
states, and in all these with large ,nnorities of
the people VIGOROUSLY preferrng other cahii-
dates In another State (Maryand) where he
has seven out of eleven electoral votes and Mr..
Adams but three, the election having been held
by districts, in the aggregate number of
votes there was plurality for Mr.. Adams -
In Illinois, General J. has out q aud i'm Louisiana
but votes. In 10 states, including New-YorIs
he has but solitary vote; and in the whole of
the United States but90, little more than
one third out of 26l electors, and in several of
the states apparently favorable to him, particu-
larry 10 New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, hardly
one third OF the voters appeared at the polls
Under these circumstances, it is absurd to saw
that he has a majority of the votes of the whole
people in his favour. The truth IS, that il is
obvious to degree of certainty approaching to
mathematical demonstration, that the friends of
Messrs. Adams, Crawford and Clay had, at the
recent elections, large majority of the people
OF the United States IN their |apou, on an united
or aggregate calculation. Now in what manner
any one ca'rttidGte would divide the o1,oic peoplc
Of the United States, when contrasted with anv
other candidate, depends exclusively on the Ell
quiry how the immense bodies of people in
favour OF the Others would divide between the
two FIRST. An enquiry utterly susceptible of
certain solution at this time, and can only be
tested by the event"
%1hree by the twelfth amendment.