Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-02-28
CONGRESSIONAL.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Proposition 10 amend the Constitution.

'"foS''eWs ~ umcISu inc constitution.
MIR. McDUFFIE'S OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
On the question of State power, would ask.
wha' does any particular State gain by this process
of compulsory concentration, through the general
ticket, when all the other States avail themselves
OF the very same process The question of power
Is necessarily relative question; and in this view
OF the subject it is of no advantage 10 Virginia for
example, 10 have The power to transfer the opposing
minority, TO her fayourite candidate, when an equal
minority IN the very next State, would probably,
with equal injustice, be taken from him.
But, MIR. Chairman, the real question W hich we
are called upon to decide, is whether we will es-
tablish the district system, have no system at all
II is Certain from the known stale of public opin-
ION on the subject, that the People will never con-
sent 10 the establishment of an uniform general
ticket system, by an amendment of the Consitu-
ton. Shall we, then, rather permit the existing
state Of Constitutional laxity 10 continue. than
adopt the district system?
In estimating the dangers of the present state of
things, have often considered that Providence
mas been kindly regardiu OF US, or we should have
been long since involved in the most disastrous
civil conflicts. Perhaps we owe this fortunate
exemption, In considerable degree TO the mode
ration and temperance Of our National character
But unless the Constitution is fixed upon some
certain foundation, thee is serious q ound for ap-
pretending the occurrence Of the most delicate and
embarrassing question, at no distant period will
state case that may probably occur at the yery
next election, and request gentlemen, if they can
TO solve the difficult question involved in it, New
YORK, we know, Is now divided into electoral
Districts, by law which is admitted on all hands
10 be constitutional. Suppose the Legislature of
that State, under the plausible preext OF prevent
ING the division OF the elective power OF the State
were, on the eve of the next Presidential election
| to re-assume the power which they formerly ex-
ercised, and appoint the Presidential Electors.
Suppose the People ofthe existing Districts, main
taining this act OF resumption, on the part of the
Legislature, to be unconstitutional, were to vote
Tor Electors, different from those chosen bv the
Legislature; and that under these confllctina ti,les
two pretenders should claim the sceptre of execu-
tive power. This would be contest which could
only be decided by civil war, and we should have
commentary on our present system written in
blood. This is no imaginary difficulty. solemn
ly declare that am utterly incapable of drciding
which oil the two competitors would be the real
| President, and would thank any gentleman for his
assistance who thinks he can solve the difficulty.
To one candidate | would say you have the Con-
stitdion on your side; to the other, YOU have on
yours the practice Of most of the State Legisls
| lures, and the acquiescence of the country And
yet The question now presented is different from
any that has heretofore occurred, because the law
establishing the District system. being clearly con-
stiiutioDa, peculiar ground is furnished for regard
ing the legislative assumption an Unconstitutional
act. Such question:, sir, would never be decided
By dspassionate reasoning. Passion, strife, blood
these are the elements that would enter into the
argument.
| shall proceed now, Mr.. Chairman, to consider
an objection TO the District system, which shall
examine with more attention, from the respect
entertain for the gentlemen who urge it, than its
intrinsic importance would otherwise demand II
IS conceived that the proposed system tends to
destroy the sovereign rights Of the States, and to
produce what is denominated consolidation. Now
SIR, II cannot show that the tendency of my pro-
position is the reverse of that which IL ascribed TO
II IN these respects, will surrender the scheme as
indeiensibIe. To correct understanding of the
objection am considering, precise and definite
conception of the State powers affected by the pro-
posed amendment, is indispensable. AS long as
| we deal in vague generalties, we shall certainly
be involved in confusion, if not in error. What :.
then, are the powers which propose to take
away FROM the State Legislatures? The power Of
voting directly for the Electors President, which
VIII be admitted TO be usurpaion, and the power
TO change the District into the General Ticket sys-
| TEN. so FAR as the proposition tends TO prevent
future acts Of usurpaion by the State Legislatures
II must be admitted to be salutary The only power
then, which merits moments consideration, r.
the power OF changing the mode of giving the popu-
lar vote. Is that power that ought to belong 10
/ any legislative body? is it not obvious as well
iIom our own experience, as from the nature oil
things, that il is power which will only be exer.
cised abusivcy, and Tor the accomplishment Of par
Wy purposes! What other conceivable purpose can