The pilot and transcript. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1840-1841, 1840-12-03
From the Louisville Journal.
THE PRESIDENCY.-NO. III.
To Ma. WEBSTER.

have said that the election of President
never will or ought to be given directly and
exclusively to the House of representatives.
1t never will, because the large States will not
agree to the present mode of voting there by
States, and the smaller States will not consent
to change it into vote per capita.
1t ought not TO be go given, because, without
dwelling on a host OF other objections, there is
an incompatibility in the exercise of such a
power By the House, when viewed in conRec-
ton with other features of the Constitution ga
lone sufficient perempto-ily forbid it. To give
requisite energy and efficiency to the Govern
ment, the President must always be allowed
to retain vast power and patronage. Their ex-
ercise is naturally liable to more abuse and
corruption han all the other operations of Gov
ernment The members of the House of Rep
resentatives are the natural, as well as Consti-
tudonal sentinels TO watch and guard against
its abuse. The President should be neither
their creature nor their master. The powers
they seveIally profess are partically and theere-
tically of an antagonist character, and are wise
ly placed as a mutual counterpoise. This
counterpoise is entirely destroyed, when he is
elected by the House. We find in practice,
that the party in Congress who even lend the
aid OF their influence towards making a PIesi-
dent by The popular vote, are bound 10 sustain
him, right or wrong, or at least do so sustain
him, in order to sustain themselves. The tai
ents and vigilance which should be devoted to
the detection and exposure of Executive abuse
of power, become its defenders and apologists.
The corruptons of the Government are sue
cessfully cloaked under the imputed virtue and
vigilance of the representatives of the people.
This is true and of easy proof as to every
party President we have ever had The great
bulk Of the people are too removed from the
diata ccana IF finn and co.rca IF corraet
information, either TO detect the imposition
themselves or to credit its existence, when de-
tected by political adyersaries whom they hab-
itually distrust and disbelieve. This destruc-
ton OF the natural functions; and entire perver
sion of the assigned duties of the immediate
Representatives the people constituting, as it
does, one Of the strongest objections to;the pres.
eRt system, would apply with redoubled force
to plan vesting the election exclusively in the
| House.
The amendment OF the present mode, which
seems heretofore 10 have obtained most favor, is
that, which, taking from the House all participa-
ton in the election, and abolishing the interven-
ton of electors. gives il exclusively TO the peo
pie This change might be step from the
| bad to the less bad; but without any decided
approximation to the good. tits a mode, into
which the nation might be driven, in avoidance
ofthe evil ofirequent elections by the House,;
but it is one which would never have been pro-
posed or adopted as an original scheme, for its
own merit, or as one likely to avoid any of the
advantages within the contemplation Of those
who framed and adopted the Constitution.
The present blended plan is liable to objec-
tons, therefore, that would not apply to eithero of
those amendments separately. We have now
all the heat, turmoil, public excitement, and
corruption, that could possibly result from
direct popular election, without any certainty
ofthe contest resulting in the selection of one
who Will be acceptable TO a majority OF the ma
| ton. lit has not already happened in the
case ofMr. Adams, it is easy TO see that it may,
and, no doubt, often will happen, (lrom The
mode OF voting, and other causes,) that the
person selected by the House, will be un-
acceptable, not merely to majority of the ma
ton, but even TO majority of the members of
the House. The present plan, therefore, ex-
| cept IN the cases of contests between two eX-
isting parties, has not even the nert of Sc
| curing TO popular sentiment certain control
over the result. This is radically wrong, and
Mr.. Adams case is a striking instance in proof
that 1t is so. So long as the system of eleeting
is kept up with an ostensbe submission of the
question: TO the popular voice, the popular voice
ought to control the result.
The great objection to the present plan, or
any mere modification of it, is its inevitable
tendency to generate party feuds of the most
| disgraceful and deleterious character. The
natural proneness of all republics 10 this inner
ent vice was neither overlooked nor dsregarded
| by the Convention. The misfortune is, that
they miscalcuated the sufiiciency ofthe guards
which they employed against it. The fact was
not then sufficiently known, that, to make the
people indirectly participate in the election,
was ultimately 10 give it to them directly and
exclusively, The Convention was too well
versed in human character not to know the
vast machinery of corruption that would be put
in requisition to excite the great body of the
people, If the election were transferred directly
and exclusively to them.
Doctor Franklin proposed in Convention,
that the President should be allowed no pc
cuniarT compensation for his services. Listen
to part OF what he said in support of his pro-
position, and then Judge whether human nature
was understood in that day or not; "There are
two passions that have powerful influence
on the affairs ofmeR. These are ambition and