Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-08-18


ds1s,,es 10 the General Convention. The V'rgni'
p'Fs.n,ou declared in favor of District delegation
s,.r Delegates to each District, but OF glv'ns i
!nion the whole electoral weight OF the Sta,e .
.,ndlda,e. They considered the mode Of eiee.
ca nsssates to be one thing-the mode OF votng' at
,ao;he'.
fFtom Kendalrs Eapostor)
THE CONVENTION.
II was our hope, that there would 90 genaa. ~
,seence the expediency OF leaving 'ie uiUIo -
saa,s,os Delegates to the Democratic Nanohai ""
en' nn 10 the Democracy OF the several states ahe
rs"'a of voting therein TO the Convention "
''s N,h this understanding among ourselves, the
e. s energies Of the Democratic ffess, no" "as'ee
cscusson about forms, and IN useless ATTACKS upon
10 might be devoted to the support of DE
"l!e. n,,nc;oIes and the overthrow of the common
ai's il il no, without regret, therefore, that We
s"s ,ss d,scuss,on revived about the mode OF choos
j Delegates, and the principle upon which they
i snail vote. 49, och aud o7,b h,,
,orsl articles on these subjects, v'ndicauns Tue po
suons taken by the oou'h Na
ns ,hs nnm,,omises of the Constitution ought te
dd - ,he construction and proceedings OF the
Convention. =, c.,;. L. :. -
That the Delegates " 'nS -
chosen by DISTRICTS.
/ Thai each Delegate should have one vote. Or tina
,cb STATE should have but one vote.
"a The general principle LAID down by the South Ca
Convention, tndt the compromises oil Int
PROSTITUTION ought to be regarded the basis in
mating candidate, we readily admit, and have en-
Favored TO MAINTAIN. But have also attempted
"a show, that the modes Of choosing Delegates ant
yo,,ns in Convention proposed by that Convention
,,s NJ, in accordance with the compromises of III,
Constitute n and are in principle inconsistent with the
rhls of the States reserved at the time OF IL
ADOPTION
l think only OF The smaller States. Our doctrine o.
No. 10 f1~.r o.
we'll as the small. Each is entitled TO the enjoyment
and exercise of all the rights reserved it
Constitution and no more.
What the "R,ghts of the States in reference Il
the election of President Each State has a righ
10 choose Electors it pleases. In 1928, eighteen
States chose them BY General Ticket, four by Dis
ic,s and two by the Legislatures. South Carolin,
was one of the States which chose by the Legislature
and her policy was, not only to concentrate her vote
In, TO reserve until she knew the result in the Other
Safes that she might 1t most adyantageousy Il
hsr.ell. It was Estate Right" and who complained
OF nef:
70 carry the analogy into the choice of Delegates te
National Convention, how ought they to be elected
0,slously Just The Democracy Of each State pisases
BIZ the Democratic msmbers Of the Legislature, BY
Sac Convention, by DISTRICTS by General Ticket, oil
partly in one mode and partly in another The RICH,
Of the States choose two electors by the Legislature
and The bslapce by Congressional Districts, ungues
tonaLs-and The right of the Democratic Party in each
State 10 choose Two DSiegdte6 10 SOnVen
ton BY State Convention and the rest by Congress
sonal Districts ought not to be questioned. This mode
las been adopted oy South Carolina herself though
totally inconsistent with both the State. equality prnc
pie and pure per capita principle, upon of which
her writers resouely insist 1t follows, that in &C
cortance with the prinopl of estate Rights under
our Constitution, the Democracy of each State ought
b left free to choose their Delegates the Naona
Convention in such way to them may seem fit
Ths point is made clear 10 mind by the p.ece
ding facts, tina, seems impossible by any argumen
10 make 1t palmer.
As the mode of voting, there is more room 70,
Argument because tue Constitution prescribes the pc.
capita mode to the Electors 1t plausible, therefore
say that the same mode ought to be adopted 10 the
nominating Convention. The argument is plausible
only for is results and not forms, which ought be
regarded. Let Us look at the subject in that light.
Each State has right to concentrate its uots in the
electoral college, by choosing the electors by the Legis
,u;e or by General Ticket. The result is, that the
voIe Of each State concentrated in the electora
colleges by the universal adoption of the General Tickle,
system all the elector. in each State being chosen by
the same party and voting for the same candidate
True, they vote per capita; and if the delegates to
National Convention were elected in the same scay oil
b. State Conc entions, the same result would follow
iroma per capita vote. But if, while the Electors are
chosen by General Ticket, the Delegates to nomina-
ting Convention be chosen by Districts the mode
Of voting would lead 10 very different results While
in The electoral college, the nine votes of South Carroll
would be given to Mr. Calhoun, the cleo tors being
CHOSEN ~ General Ticket and representing the majo-
ry Of the State, the nominating convention four
the nine might be given TO Mr. Van Buren,, the dele
gates representing The majority Of the districts only
On the principle, Mr.. Calhoun might in the
mnating Convention, obtain twelve votes in New York
when, the electoral college, Mr.. Van Buren, would
obtain the whole thirty six.
What maintain is, that the mode of nominating
ought to be lis practical results, precisely parallel &c
the mode ofeiscton under the Constitution. The pre-
seai mode OF election practically concentrates the voe
of each State, upon the same candidate though given
per capita Therefore, the mode Of nomination ought
10 concentrate the votes Of each State upon the same
candidate. There two modes Of producing thi,
perfect parallel One, the election of the Delegates BY
State Conventions, by the Democratic members Of the
Legislatures, or By General Ticket, and voting pei
ca'r'a The other, by election in Districts and Civ
ins 10 each Slate in the Convention many votes
has Electors TO be given in accordance with the vii
OIL majority her Delegates lis Of no consequence
through what means the result is produced, provided
those truly express the will of the Democratic
maj'rlties in the several States
We ask the attention of South Carolina friend.
to the fact that practically, the President of the u S
not elected by majority of the people Of the S.
10Y mc1orhes OF The people Of the States Generally
these impurities when brought together, will constitute
amoJorl,y Of the whole; but though chosen by Elec
iors President may be elected by minority of the
people TINS We admit TO be 4 defect in the system
Dat n IS one which cannot be cured by any party or
.a'gfmeht we would JOIN our South Carolina friends
IN measures to the election Of President to
Jo'y OF the people; but it is enough to make the sys
,en OF nomination parallel to that Of election for thu
time being. |, cannot be hoped that any other will b
respected 1t cannot be expected that the Democracy
particular States will surrender in Convention any
advantages winch the Constitution to them
Inc election, and the concentration of their vote
state Right" constitutional Estate Right" which
mus, be regarded as long as it exists.
when We began intended to make some genera
observations predatory SPECIAL remarks uponthe Mer
curry articles; but Preface has swollen Book
and here write FMS
(From the Albany Atlas of the l4h inst)
!! Mo2;; ~ 5SASoN-TfiE Dis rRICT SYSTEM.
hnch d'scussnn his recently been had in regard t
the relative merits of the District System Of choosn.
delegates 10 the National Convention. We do not pro
pose, al th's time, To engage in this discussion, bu
SIMPLY 10 remind friends of few facts in regart
thereto Each State must necessarily decide for lsel
how lis delegates shall be chosen-the number of vote
each State shall have in the Convention will Of course
equal It's number of electoral voes-a choice of dele
gates by congressional districts pre- supposes that
State will adop, the plan, for il obvious if Stat
Chooses by districts, and It's delegates vote per capita
ana another chooses the whole number to which it sha
. hu S,,,a Il 81,