Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1828-05-13

and so also of Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Maine, and Maryland.
The Electors Of Mississippi seemed to have
| vsied by ballot, but il did not appear that they
gave dis'inc, ballots for each Office.
From the returns ofOhio, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Kentucky, enough appeared 10 war;
rant the inference that they voted by ballots.
Illinois seemed TO have voted by ballot, but
not by distinct ballots.
The return of South Carolina does not State
explicitly that Electors voted by ballot, and by
distinct ballots but it shows separate vote, &
the ballots themselves are forwarded.
Indiana seems to have voted by ballot, but
the return does not allege distinct balotings.
The return of Alabama says, the electors
proceeded TO vote pursuant To the law and con.
srtution, but does not specify the mode Of vot>
ing in direct terms, whether by distinct ballot
ings or otherwise.
That Of Massachus sets, appears t6be strict
ly correct and formal. 1t says, The electors
voted by ballot for President and Vice Presi-
person voted for as President, and the PERSON
voted for rs Vice President.
The return Of Virginia did not specify that
The electors uo'ed Nv ballot; separate returns
were made Of the votes for President and Vice
President, but 1t did not appearin terms, that
either vote was by ballot,
The return Of G crgia was similar to That Of
Virginia cxcep, that the electors used the word
ballot.
The electors of NORTH Carolina seemed 10
have voted by ballot; but did not aver that it
was by distinct ballots, and perhaps, the fairest
inference from the language Of the return WAS,
that only one balloting was had
The rrtsSn of Louisiana was, in effect, like
tina, Of North Carolina
Mr. w did not wish TO be urderso od as as :
srrtIng, tia, the notes he had taken from these
documents to assist his memory, were fee
from error, nor that the construction he put
upon the l,n%nage used in them was the cor
rect one. The phra,eology was so different as
10 admit cf great variety of interPrr'attn n.
lie protested, iikwise, that he did hot intend 10
say, or TO insinua,e, any thing against the mode
in which the electors had endeavored 10 dis-
charge their duty. They hal doubtless, acted
accor ting 20 established usage in their respec>
tive States. Many, perhaps all Of them, were
muc his supeiiors III sagacity and experience,
and he was among III. last who could be capa-
be of treating them with Cisrespecl. He did
rot mean To intimate that the v0les thus given
were in fact invalid by the Constitution, or that
any tribunal had been created, la lag power 70
declare Them SO. Upon thar s"DJect ''e for
bore expressing on opinion. What he wished
To say, was This. q great diversity among these
certificates existed. Some Of them were open
TO exception. When The Consti uion pre-
scrib,d particular mode OF doing an ACT, he
took il for granted that mode ought 10 be fo-
lowed. Iii WIS departed from, ,here migh,
be room TO inpugn the act done, and The mere
discussion Of such question, in particular cas-
IS migh' disturb the ,nDlic tranquility, aud
lead to tumulI ard confusion.
Mr. Little thought there was no need OF ag
rating this subject particularly at SO late pc
riod il ,hr session. The elections III rho States
were not subject to tie revision OF Congress,
and if The cer,lfcatcs sta'ed truly ihc result Of
such ele, tons, it was TO " Inferred that they
were he'd according ~ the law and Consitu-
ZION, unless he contrary were made to appear.
| He therefore moved tina. the respiu ion b. laid
upon thu table; which motion pcevailed-ayes
| 80, noes 81
The rest Of The day was spen, in considering
private bills, detailed report Of which wou!d
be undressing In our readers.
/