The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1844-07-11

life which is now considerably protracted, |
believe in the main, most of them think, or
have persuaded themselves TO believe that
they are aiming at the happiness of their
country. Their duties and their Interests,
well understood, must necessarily urge them
to promote its welfare. They are, it is true
often deceived by their W passions and pre-
JUDGES, and still more by interested dema-
gogues, who cloak and conceal their sinister
designs. Political parties, according 10 my
humble opinion oftheir legitimate sphere of
action, ought to be regarded as nothing more
than instruments, or means, subordinate, but
important instruments or means, in e~ffecting
the great purposes ola wise administration
of government; highly useful when not fac
tious and controlled by public virtue and
patriotism; but, when country is lost sight of
aud the Interests OF The party become para
mount to the interests of the country, when
the government is seized by a party and is
not administered for the benefit of the peo-
pie, and the whole people, but to advance
the purposes and selfish aims ofitselC,o r rath-
er of its leaders, then is such a party, what
ever may be the popular name it may as
sumo highly detrimental and dangerous. |
am a Wing, warmly attached to the party,
which bears that respected name, from a
thorough persuasion that its principles and
policy are best calculated to secure tie hap
piness and prosperity ofour common country;
but if believed otherwise, i'll were con-
vinced that it sought party or individual ag-
grandizement, and not the public good. |
would instantly and forever abandon it, what
ever might be the consequence TO myself, or
whatever the regrets which | might feel in
separating from veteran friends. My opin-
ions upon great and leading measures of
public policy have become settled convic-
tons, and | am Wing because that party
seeks the establishment of those measures.
In determining with which of the two great
parties Of the country, | ought 10 be con-
nected, | have been governed by full CON
sideration, and fair comparison, of the ten
dency of their respective principles, meas
ures, conduct and views. There is one
prominent and Characteristic difference be-
tween the two parties, which eminently dis
tinguishes them, and which, if there were no
other, would be sufficient 10 decide my iudg-
ment. And that is, the respect and defer
ence uniformity displayedby the one and the
disregard and contempt exhibited by the
other, TO the constitution, TO the laws and to
public authority. In a country, where a Tree
and self government is established, il should
be the pleasure, as ii is the bounden duty, of
every citizen TO stand by and uphold the
constitution and laws, and support the pub
lie authority; because they are his con-
stitution-his lawsand the public authori-
ty eminates from his will. Hav-
ing concurred, by the exercise of his privil-
eyes, in the adoption of the constitution, and
in the passage of the laws, any outrage or
violation attempted Of either ought to be re-
regarded as an offence against himself, an
offence against the majesty of the people
In an arbitrary and absolute government,
the subject may have some excuse for evad-
ing the edicts and ukases Of the monarch,
because they are nc. only promulgated, with
out consulting his will, sometimes against
the wishes and the interests of the people.
In that species of government, the power of
the bayonet ~enforces a reluctant obedience
to the law. With a free people, the fact that
the laws are their laws, ought TO supply, in a
prompt and voluntary rally to the support Of
the public authority, a force more peaceful
more powerful, and more reasonable than
any derivable from a mercenary soldiery.
1t is far from my intention OF desire TO dc
the least injustice to the party to which | am
opposed; but | think that in asserting the
characteristic difference between the two
parties which have done, l am fully borne
! out by facts, TO some of which, only, OF this
occasion, can | refer, and these shall all be
, ola recent nature.
The first, TO which | shall call your atten
ton, has occurred during the present session
Of Congress. The variety in the mode o
e~lecting members to the House Of Repre-
6 sentatives of the United States, some being
chosen by whole States, and others by sepa
rate districts, was long a subject of deep anC
= general complaint. 1t gave to the State.
unequal power in the councils of the nation
Mississippi or New Hampshire, for example
!, by a general ticket, securing the election o
= lis members to the House OF Representative.
= all of one political party, might acquire more
? power, in that House, than the State of New
York, which, e%lecting its members by dis
tricts, might return an equal or nearly. al
! equal number of members of both the par
ties. According TO the general ticket sys
; TEN, it is impossible that the elective fran
! chise can be exercised with the same dis
%cretion and judgment as under the distric
: systom. The elector cannot possess tn
same opportunity, under the one system a
under the other, OF becoming acquainted wit
and ascertaining the capacity and fidelity G
= the candidate for his suffrage. An elector
residing in one extreme of the State, canno
be presumed to know a candidate living at
+ distance from him, perhaps at the other ez
IRENE. BY the general ticket, the minorit