The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1825-04-08

of weight belonging to u ? II has bern
conieud.d that Il should operate, # not as
IN Instructions. AZ least 10 tle nature II one
ID TIA, IN tnis form il sholld euuuul the
ildgment Ut lnr House But lhis lie the
ss,mc alignment of cnoelusiYeuess, which
the constitution does NOT eaian, thrown
i Ia differed lut mare Imposing shape.
Let mr analyze it, here are e1tiio
States the aggregate If whose electoral
votes conferred upan the highsst returned
candidate, indicates Ian nlsh iI'd hs
should be the President. Their vutes a
lsinunt ia nualbrr lu 30, oat ~ the SCI a.
leetoral votes of the Whole Ualon. These
50 10 not, ani cansat. of the Dsrlres. make
tie Presidrnf. If the fact Of particular
states giving 90 votes can, according Il
any received uniians OF the dpclrinr of IN
s,rnc,ion, be regarded in that light, ia
whom are those stru, tons IL he consider
ed addressed According Ia hat doctrine,
tn people, shoappriat,hase h fightiodi
r Il, nv ihcir Instructions, Ia certain cases,
I - course of ihr representative whom
.ny appoint. The States, therefore, Who
GIVE those 80 VOTES Gay, in some sense,
b andrf.toud thereby ~ have instructed
tar representatives IN the House Ia vote
fpr lhe person en HON they were b"stow
7, IN thr choice ola President But most
eletrlv the representatives rotnleg FROM
Other states. " hich gave nj part 0t those
81 vuies eatlnnt be considered as having
brru undcr any obligation 10 surrender
( cir Judgments 10 those of the States
W hirh gave the 80 votes. To contend HAT
A Ia. l. |
be- II maintain thai the people al one stat"
1--we the light To instruct tie Representa-
lives from another state II would be to
maintain n still more absurd proposition,
that, in Gaze where the representatives
from state did not hold themselves in
strncted and bosnd by the vii Of that
state, as indicated IN It's electoral college,
the representatives from another state
were. nevertheless, instructed aud bound
by that alien will Thus, the entire vote
of North Carolina, and large majority of
that or Maryland, in their respective cleo
fOrtl colleges, were given 10 one Of the
three rrtntned candidates, for whom the
d. legation FROM neither of those stateH
Yotrd. And yet the argument combaited
requires that the drl.gation from Ken |
iGtkh, who do not represent the people of
North Carolina NOR Maryland, should be
distracted by, aud gne Az Effect 10, the IN
dcalud will Of the people of those two
statea, when their own delegation paid no
Il itenlnn to il. Doubtless, those de!ega-
tons felt themselves authorized ~ lopk in
t. the actual composltion of, and all other
connected win the major |
.'es IS hich gave the electoral votes, IN their
:, spectise states; aud felt themselves JUS |
.if,d, from view of the whole gfound, 10 |
bet upap their responsibility aud accord |
ing To their best Judgments, dleregarding
the electoral votes IN their states. And
are the Representatives flo Different
state GOT only bound by the will of toe
people of different commonwealth. but
farhldden 10 examine into the manner by
which the expresslun OF that will VS.
brought abouf--aD examination Nhlrh ih' .
tnmrli lie representative rs themselves feel |
/ their duty to make
l. the fact, Of plurality 70 have no
" eight? Far from it. Here are "a com
multes, united under common govern
llr0t. The expression otthe viii of any !
pac of them is entitled ~ the mnst re-
5 ,ccful attention. fought to be pation,
v hrard and kindly regarded by the o
hcr bu il cau1ot be admitted to be con |
, 4st,r upon them, The expression of the |
will OF 90 out of g6t electors is entitled to
ger, q eat attention, hut that will cannot
b considered rs entitled to control the
will Of the Ice electors, who have manifest
Ell a different will. To give il such con
I olimg Influence, would be n suhYerslon
Of the Fundamental maxin Of the Republic
tie majority should govern. The
" "a uf the 90 can nelther be aio cd right
fully 10 control the remaining lG9, nor any
pne of the l62 electoral votes. II ma, he
an argumeut, persuasion, addressed to
all. and TO each of them, but II II binding
and obi gatory upon none. II follows, then,
The fact Of plurality was only one among
lac various considerations which III.
House was called upon TO weigh, 10 making
Ir rs Judgement. And the weight of the
ought TO have been regulated
hy the extent of the plurality AS between
Gen Jackson ard Mr.. Adams, the vote
standing in the proportions 30 to 81 II was
entitled 10 less weight; as between the
GeLvrsd and Mr.. Crawford it was entitled
To more, the vote being as 90 10 4i. The
may even be made that, upon
the supposito of an equality OF protein
,ions hetwcen competing candidates the
ought to be gwen 10 The
fici ola plurality.
With these views nf th- relative state of
the vote. with whirh the thee ret Irned
candidates entered the House proceeded
Ia eSannIe the other considerations ~aich
belonged 70 the question. For Mr.. Craw
Ford, Nho barely entered the House with
Duly four votes more than one candidate
not returned, and upon whose case, there
fore, the argument derived from the fact
sfplurality, operated With strong, though
D. decisive force, have ever felt much
personal regard. Bat | WAS called upon
- perform a solemn public duty, in which
my private feelings, whether of affection