Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1825-03-31
payRsDAY M0RMaNa9 NlARUm 80 1885,

SIiJOiu3 tuioWu lulO ulHCIShl3 ous
more imposing shape. Let me analyze
it.-There are certain States, the ag-
gregate Of whose electoral votes con-
ferred upon the highest returned candi-
date, indicates their wish that he
should be the President. Their votes
amount to SO, out of the 26l electoral
votes of the whole Union. These SO
do not, and cannot, of themselves,
make the President. If the fact ofpar-
ticular states giving SO votes can, ac-
cording to any received notion of the
doctrine Of instruction, be regarded in
that light, to whom are those instruc-
tons to be considered addressed Ac-
cording to that doctrine, the people,
who appoint, have the right to direct,
by their instructions, in certain cases,
the course Of the representative whom
they appoint. The States, therefore,
who gave those SO votes may, in some
sense, be understood thereby to have
instructed their representatives in the
House to vote for the person on whom
they were bestowed, in the choice OF a
President. But most clearly the repre-
sentatives coming from other states,
which gave no part Of those 80 votes,
cannot be considered as having been
under any obligation to surrender 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 another state.
1t would be to maintain still more alb
surd proposition, that, in case where
the representatives from a state did
not hold themselves instructed and
bound by the will of that state, as indi-
Gated in its electoral college, the rep
resentatives from another state were,
nevertheless, instructed and bound by
that alien will. Thus, the entire vote
of North Carolina, and large ma ori-
ty of that of Maryland, in their respec-
tive electoral colleges, were given TO
one of the three returned candidates,
for whom the delegation from neither
of those states voted. And yet the ar.
gument combatted requires that the de-
legation from Kentucky. who do not
represent the people of North Carolina
nor Maryland, should be instructed by,
and give an affect to, the indicated will
of the people of those two states, when
their own delegation paid no attention
to it. Doubtless, those delegations
felt themselves authorized to look into
the actual composition Of, and all other
circumstances connected with, the ma
iorities which gave the electoral votes,
in their respective states; and felt
themselves justified, from view Of
the whole ground, to act upon their re-
sponsibility and according to their best
judgments, disregarding the electoral
votes in their states. And are the re.
representatives. from different state not
only bound by the will of the people of
different commonwealth, but forbid
den to examine into the manner by
which the expression of that will was
brought about-an examination which
the immediate representatives them
selves feel it their duty to make?
Is fact, then of plurality to have no
weight? Far from it. Here are "a
communities, united under common
government. The expression OF the
will of any one of them is entitled TO
the most respectful attention. 1t ought
to be patiently heard and kindly re-
garded by the others; but it cannot be
admitted to be conclusive upon them.
The expression of the will Of 90 out
of e6l electors is entitled to very great
attention, but that will cannot be con-
sidered as entitled to control the
will of the l62 electors, who have
manifested different will. To give
it such controlling influence would be
a subversion of the fundamental max
i'm of the Republic-that the majority
should govern. The will of the 90
can neither be allowed rightfully to
eontrol the remaining l62, nor any one
| of the 1862 electoral votes. 1t may be
an argument, persuasion, addressed
to all, and to each Of them, but it is
binding and obligatory upon none.
1t follows, then, that the fact OF plu'
rality was only one among the various
considerations which the House was
called upon to weigh, in making up
its Judgment. And the weiwht, in OF
The consideration ought to have been
regulated by the extent OF the plural
ity. AS between General Jackson
and Mr.. Adams, the vote standing In
the proportions of9e to 81, it was en-
titled to less weight; as between the
General and Mr.. Crawford il was en-
titled 10 more, the vote being as SO to
al. The concession may even be
made that upon the suppsition Of an
equity of pretensions between COM
peting candidates, the preponderance
ought to be given 10 the fact Of a
plurality.
With these views Of the relative