Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-26

State, TO choose between the Legislative, the
general ticket, and tic district modes OF election.
I'll, In the supposed dminuton of the power
of the State in concentrating her strength in those
elections.
Sd, In the supposed tendency of the direct vote |,
towards the consolidation of all tie States.
These being the points of obiec,ion, thcqnesiion
is plainly presented, whether they amount, reali
~, TO any encroachnent opon the rights OF the
States or contain any Of those Tendencies towards
Consolidation which have becn imputed to ten.
But, before proceeding this question, is
necessary TO fix precise ideas 10 several terms
which the very hinges OF the question itself.
+" STATE RIGnrs- SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
STATES" are the terms referred to-. by some.
who use these terms, the General .4ssen.6iy OF
the State is considered as the State itself, pos
sessed OF all ms rights and sope, cign powers; by
Others, the Executive officers of The State Gov.
eminent are held TO be the State, ard TO have the
possession, during their continuance In office, of
the rishts and sovereignty of the States by Others
again. the Senators and Representatives. Congress
from State, are supposed TO represent The sove-
e,n,y OF tie State itself; and TO hold in their
hands, for the time being, the same high rights and
sorereig, powers. All these opinions are held to be
erroneous, and, without accommodating authorities
aud quotations, il may be laid down in brief and
plain language, tl,a, The QUALIFIED VOTERS of
State, to the exclusion OF the General Assembly
the Executive officers and ne members of Con-
gress, constitute the SOVEREIGNTY of the
STATE, and hold its RIGHTS in their hands. WHO
tiese qua'i poterS shall be, depends upon them
selves, through their Representatives in Conven-
ton, OF General Assembly, to say; bun whosoev cr
they may be, whether freeho.lers, househoders or
holders OF no property at all, they hold in their
hands the rights and sovereignty OF The State, and
all the public officers nothing more than their
servants The members OF the General Assembly,
the members OF Congress, and the Executive 9th
GERS are nothing but agents for the real soveregns,
confined to the exercise of delegated powers
become mere 'surft-rs, n they presume to exercise
, the powers OF sovereignty. From these positions
results, that these agents may loose part of their
powers, not only without diminishing the sove-
rcIsny OF State, but, in reality, TO produce the
erect oil increasing that sovereignty by much as
istaken from the servants and restored the mas
ter This is believed 10 te the exact case which is
now presented for decision in the point Of obec-
ton hrst stated. The State Legislatures now pos
sess the right TO say, whether electors shall be cho-
sen by districts, or 10y general ticket; and some
OF them, without establishing clear right, eyer-
else the privilege of choosing the electors them
selves by the proposed amendment, il il admit, ed
as objected that these several pow will be taken
IRON the Legislature, and that uniform mode of
voting by districts will be substituted, which thew
cannot change. But, SO far from admitting that the
sovereignty of the State loses any thing by this
\
| servants only being the losers, while the real
sovereigns gain. For, il is not to be questioned
out that the district system gives the fairesr
pay TO every voter, and the fullest effect TO
every vote; nor it he denied that il conforms
to the intention of the present Constitution, which.
IN giving an independent to every elector in
stead Ola consolidated TO the colles of electors
governed by majority, manifestly intended ,ha,
each mass OF citizens, entitled choose one electo
should have The right of disposing ef one vote ac
corning 10 their own sense of their own interest
IL is TACT, oil historical notoriey, that the general
ticket plan OF election has been adopted in some
STATES Tor the avowed purpose Of controlling ,h.
| intention OF the Constitution; and for the purpose
OF subectng the weaker sections of the s. ate To- the
poney OF The stronger; thus giving, on a smaller
scale, and in reference 10 counte, and state L.
ions, an example OF that tendency of the strong IN
oppress the weak, which is one of The main obiec
lions TO the consolidation of these Confederate3
States.
The objection, that the establishment of a uni
JoTm mode OF election by districts, will trench up
on the rights OF the States, cannot be admitted =
OnDofnisfy, az such, cannot be an evils and if IL
was, the inhiction OF it could not be avoided by
REJECTING the Committees plan of amendment For
u uniformity by districts is not established bv
the Tree consent OF the States, uniformity by
general ticket or legislative ballot. mus, he i'm
posed by necessity. For, when The large State.
e"isoIoa'e 'heir votes to ovcrwhelm the small
ones ihose' IN 'heir turn, must concentrate their
own strength to resist them. few States NAV
persevere Tor some time, in what they believe to
be the fairest SYSTEM but, when thew see the unity
OF action which Others derive from the general
lcRet and legislative modes of election thew will
not, and, with due regard to their own safety tbev
cannot resist the temptation of following the same
plan. Hence uniformity will be imposed by ne
cessty, itit 10 not adopted from choice. with This
. S..
up the votes OF the State TO the active managers in
the Genera! Assemblies while the latter world
ieaVe them IN the hands OF the real soyeregns the
qnaiihed voters of the whole State. Il can hardly
De said that the States would have choice ,vb,n |
the option would lie between the falling into the
general ticket system, ard submitting to material
diminuion OF their relative weight in the election.
hhe question, then, turns upon the relative atlyan-
tages OF the general ticket and district modes I'll
voting; one or the other of which must soon mi |
versaiiy prevail; ard it matters notLiDp tn the |
Sorere1Snty OF the State, whether one shall he 90
taolished by the Constitution, or the other i'm |
posed by necessity; and, as The whole poin, of tbs
objection is confined TO the mere right of choice.
ana OF changing the systems from time TO time Il
. .is' 'iis .,eh' can be OF no value where |
choice IS impossible, and change moi desirable
q The second point in the objection il ,be chr
posed diminuiion OF the power Of the STATE II, ,bs
tendency to scatter the votes which the d;s,,;c, CO.
TEN is admitted to possess
Admitting that unity off votes NAV be desira-
bic to State; that uuity will be Produced by The
district system, often as the STATE desires il ICl
the m'jorties In all the districts are of The same
opinion, they will create tie unity by giving The
same vote; II they are not, it is held 10 bea Viola
ton OF the rights of so many districts as would ba
voted differ atty, TO impress their votet into the
service OF the dominant party in The General AZ
semoly OF State. la the general ticket nS,de of
election, the vote Of the State is difecteJ Nv Oh.