Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1844-02-24

gates of delegates and of course removed,
in all cases, at least three if not four de-
grees from the people. AT each successive
remove the voice Of the people will become
less full and distinct, until at last it will be
80 faint and imperfect as not to be audible.
To drop metaphor, hold it impossible to
form scheme more perfectly calculated to
annihlate the control of the people over the
presidential election, and vest it on those
who make politics trade, and who live, or
expect to live, on the government.
In this connexion, object not less
strongly to the mode in which Virginia has
resolved her delegates shall vote With all
due respect, must say, can imagine moth
ing more directly in conflict with the prn-
cples of our Federal system of Govern
ment, or, to use broader expression, the
principles on which all confederate commu-
mites have ever been united | hazard
nothing in saying that there is not an in
stance in our political history, from the
meeting of the first Revolutionary Con-
gress TO the present day, of the delegates
of any State, voting by majority and count
ing per capita; nor do | believe an instance
uf the kind can be found in the history of
any confederated community. There is.
indeed, something monstrous in the idea of
giving the majority the right of mpressing
The votes of the minority into its service,
and counting them as its own. The plain
rule, that which has ever prevailed, and
which conforms 10 the dictates of common
sense, is, that, where State votes as 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 of the delegates are count
ed, they vote individually and independ-
emily each for himself counting one. And
it is to be noted that, whenever this latter
mode Of voting exists among confederate
States, 1t is in all cases founded on compact,
to which the consent of each State is re-
quired. In the absence of compact. the
invariabIe mode of voting in such States is
in all cases by the majority, their vote
counting one. The course which Virginia
has resolved TO take is in violation of this
plain and fundamental rule, and destructive
to the foundation on which the whole struc-
ture of the State Rights doctrine is reared
hold it, in the next place, to be an indis-
pensabbe principle that the convention
should be so constituted as to give to each
State, in the nomination of a candidate, the
same relative weight which the constitution
securestoit in the election of the President
making due allowance for its relative party
strength. By the election mean the whole
the eventual choice when it goes into the
House of Representatives, as WELL as the
, primary vote in the electoral college. The
one is as much part of the election as The
other, the two make the whole. The adop
; ton of the one in the convention whicI
: framed the constitution depended upon TIT
, adoption of the other. Neither could pos
sibly be adopted alone. The two were tn
result of compromise between the large
E and smaller States, after a long and doubt
: full struggle, which threatened the loss o
= the constitution itself. The object of Civ
i ing to the smaller States an equality wit
r the larger in the eventual choice of tn
7 House, was TO counterpois the preponder
= ence of the larger in the electoral college
Without this the smaller would have vote
! against the whole provision, and its relec
, ton would have been the consequence
, Even as it stands, Delaware voted agains
, it. In confrmali II of what | state, re
fer TO Mr.. Madison's report of the procee
dings of the convention. Having statet
r what mean by the election, it will requir
= but few words to explain my reasons 70
i the principles have laid down. They ar
{ few and simple, and rest on the groun
J that the nomination is in reality the cleo
+ ton, if concurred in, as far as the party
! concerned. 1t is so intended to be. Th
= leading reason assigned for making il is I
n prevent a division of the party, and there
n by prevent The election from going into tn
r House. where the smaller States woul
f have the advantage intended 10 be secure
: to them by the convention, by being place
d on an equality with the larger. Sue
:, being the intended object and effect, nov
e submit TO every candid mind, whether tn
= convention ought not to be SO constitute
c as TO compensate in the nomination for ii
l. important advantage in the election whic
i The smaller States would surrender b
e going into a conventionl Would it not |
o unfair, palpable want uf good faith ar
l. subversive of the compromise of the COZ
n stitution to withhold III Or, if demande
G, would it be short Of an insult to refuse
e Can il be thought that the smaller Stats
r. are 80 debased and absorbed in the pari
es politics of the day, as to permit themseiv
e, to be indirectly stripped Of right whit
n. their high minded and patriotic ancesto
80 held so dear as even TO prefer the loss
CT of the constitution itself than surrender
~ object TO the proposed convention in I'll
p. connection, because it makes no compens
lg ton to the smaller States for the surrend
y, of this unquestionabe and important co
of stitutonal right. Instead of that, its adv
he Gates Peremptorily and indignantly refI
be any and treat with scorn every attempt
n. secnre IL Some hnre none even 80 far