Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1844-03-02


Iiricis, md that they should yoio PR capita.
Every other mode Of appointing would DO
controlled by political machinery, and
; place The appointments in The hands OF the
few, who work IT,
!, Yobjcct then, TO tho proposed Conyon.
ton, because il will not be constituted in
conformity with this fundamental article
Of the Republican creed. The Delegates
TO il will bo appointed from some OF W
States, not by the people in Districts, bdV,
as has been stated, by State Conventions
en- massc, composed Of Delegates, appoln-
ted in all cases, rs far rs am informed,
by County or District Conventions, and
in some cases, il not misnlormej, these
again composed Of delegates appointed by
still smaller divisions, or few interest
ed individuals. Instead then Of being dl-
rcctly, or fresh from the people, the Del
egates to the Baltimore Convention will
be the Delegates of Delegates; and OF
course removed, in all cases, at least three,
if not four degrees from the people. AT
such successive remove, the voice Of the
people will become less full and distinct,
until, at last, ii will be so faint and imper-
feet as not to be audible. To drop meta
phor, hold it impossible to form scheme
more perfectly to annihlate the control
Of the people over the Presidential cleo
lion, and vest in those, who make politics
a trade, and who live or expect 10 live on
the Government.
In this connection, object not less
strongly to the mode in which Virginia
has resolved her Delegates shall vote.
With all due respect, must say, | can
imagine nothing more directly in conflict
with the principles Of or .eederal system
OF government, or 10 use a broader ex-
preston, the principles on which all con-
federated communities have ever been
united. hazard nothing in saving, that
there is not an instance in our political
history, from the meeting Of the first Re.
yolutonary Congress 10 the present day,
of the Delegates OF any State voting by
majority and counting per capita; nor do
| believe an instance Of the kind can be
found in the history Of any confederated
community. There is indeed something
monstrous in the idea Of giving the ma
jority the right of iapressing the vote OF
the minority into its service, and counting
them as lis own. The plain rule-t that
which has ever prevailed, and which con
forms to the dictates of common sense, is,
that where State votes asa State, by a
majority Of its Delegates, the votes count
one, be they few or many, or the State
large or small. On the contrary, where
the votes ofall the delegates are counted,
they vote individually and Independently,
each for himself counting one. And it is
TO be noted, that wherever this latter
mode Of voting exists among conledera
ted States, it is in all cases founded on
compact, TO which the consent Of each
State is required. In the absence Of com
pact, the lnvariable mode of voting, in
such States, is, in all cases, by the major,
lily, their vote counting one. The course
which Virginia has resolved 10 take, is in
violation Of this plain and fundamental
rule, and if it should become a settled
practice, would be destructive Of the foun.
dation on which the whole structure Of
the State Right doctrine is reared.
j hold, in the next place, to be an indis-
lpensble principle, that the Convention
should be SO constituted as TO give to each
State, in nomination Of a candidate, the
same relative weight which the Cons,itu-
ton secures to it in the election Of the
President, making due allowance for its
relative party strength. By the election,
/ mean the whole--the eyentful choice
when it goes into the House Of Represen-
tatives, as we'll as the primary vote in the
electoral college. The one is as much a
part Of the election as the other. The
two make the whole. The adoption OF!
the one, in the Convention which framed
the Constitution, depended on the adop-I
ton Of the other. Neither could possibly
be adopted alone. The two were the re-
suit of compromise between the larger
and smaller States, after along and doubt
fu struggle, which threatened the loss of
the Constitution itself. The object Of Civ
ling TO the smaller States an equality with
the larger in the eventual choice by the
House, was to counterpoise the preponder-
ance OF the larger in the electoral college.
Withoutthis, the smaller would have vo-
ted against the whole provision and its
rejection would have been the conse-
quence. Even as it stands, Delaware vo-
ted againstit it. In confirmation OF what
| state, reIer TO Mr.. Madison's report of
the proceedings of the Convention.
Having stated what mean by the cleo
ton, II will require but few words to ex-
plain my reasons for the principles have
laid down. They are few and simple,
and rest on the ground that the nominal
tion is in reality the election, il concur
red in, as far as the party is concerned.
IItis SO intended to be. The lending rea-
son assigned ;or making it, is topreyent