The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1844-02-15

I'm the House, and 10 the smaller, in the
event of choice by the House, the same
equality they possess in the Senate; thus
following closely the analogy of the Legis-
lative Department.. To make it as close as
possible, it was at first proposed to give the
eventual choice to the Senate, instead ofthe
House. but it was altered and the present
| provision adopted, for reasons which did not
effect the principle.
Ii was believed by the trainers, the prac-
teal operation of the provision would be, that
the electoral college, in which the influence
of the larger States preponderates, would
nominate, and,hat the House voting by States,
where their equality is preserved, would elect
/ who should be the President. To give it
that operation in practice, the provision as it
originally stood in the Constitution, was that
each elector should vote for two individuals,
without discriminating which should be Pres
ident or Vice-President, and if no one had a
majority of the whole votes, then out of five
highest, the House voting by States, should
elect one, and the person not elected, hay
inc the highest number of votes, should be
the Vice-President. 1t has been since al
tered, so that the electors should designate
which should be President, and which Vice
!, President, and the selection of the House
was limited to the three highest. 1t is man
fest, that if this provision of the Consitu-
, ton had been left to operate by itself, with
!, out the Intervention of caucuses, or party
conventions between the people and the
5 election, that the practical operations would
have been such as have stated, and such
Al Of
Constitution.
1 The object intended is important. The
, preservation of the relative weight of the
f States, as Established by the Constitution in
r all the Departments, is necessary to the sue
J, cess and duration OF our system of Govern
: ment; but it may be doubted, whether the
e provision adopted to effect tin the Execu-
n tive Department, is not too refined for the
o strong, and may add corrupt passions, (which
II the Presidential election will ever excite
e Certain it is, that if the practice of nomina-
e ting Candidates for the Presidency, by con-
n Ventions constituted as they proposed, SHOULD
l. be the established usage, it will utterly de
If feat the intention of the trainers of the Con
IT stitution, and would be followed by radical
and dangerous change, not only in the Exc
: cutive Department, but in the Government
< itself.
d This danger was early foreseen, and to
st avoid it, some of the wisest and most expert
? enced statesmen of former days SO strongl,
Is objected TO Congressional caucuses for the
20 the Presidency, that they never could be in
g duced TO nominate candidates for the Pres
d dency, that they never could be induced tt
o attend them; among these it will be sufGcien
Id to name Mr.. Macon and Mr.. Lowndes =
ID Others, believing that this provision of th'
ID Constitution was too refined for practce,wer
tsolitious to amend it, but without impairing
f the influence of the smaller states in the cleo
d, ton. Among these, rank myself. Witt
De that object, resolutions, were Introduce
II in 1923. in the Senate by Colnnel3ento
10 ana the IN the House by MIR. McDufhe, pre-
er vding for districting the States, and for re
OF fering the election back to the people il
I'D case there should be no choice, to cleo
n one from the two highest candidates. Th
d, principle which governed in the amendmer
i proposed, was to give fair compensate
re to the smaller States for the surrender {
cs their advantage in the eventual choice b
be the House and at the same time TO make tn
ch mode of electing President more strictly
'rs conformity with the principles of our popu
OF lar Institutions and to be less liable to col
er ruption, than the existing provision. The
received the general support ofthe party,br
on were objected to by few, as noticing flu
M equivalent to the smaller States. The prin
IT. ciple embraced is identical with that o
mt which you propose to constitute the Bait
d. more Convention, but which has been 81
sc dctatorally objected to by some, who hav
to taken so prominent part in its favor.
as you have not succeeded, there is least som
ne consolation in rejecting that if others hav
IN, since changed, you now stand where yo
he than did, in the purer and better days of til
ms party. | was in favor oft then. as / al
now,, not because consider the resolution
ne as perfect, theoretically, as the existing pre-
Die visions of the Constitutions; but because
ties believe it would in practice more certainly al
to complish what the powers of the Constitl
rst ton intended. But while the provsio
&C. stands as it does, would regard myself;
be- little short OF a TRAITOR to that sacred instr
he ment, should give my assent, directly or il
ing directly to any practice which would ha,
the the effect of divesting the smaller States
IN the due weight it secures TO them in IL
rn- Presidential election, whether designed
tlal not. And here let me ado, that as objection
'ral able as think Congressional caucus f
'la- nominating a President, it is in my opinio
ent far less so than Convention constituted
the is proposed. The former had indeed maj
oe things to recommend it, Its members CO
emf ssting of Senators and Representatives we
the the immediate organs of the State Legsl
II lures, or the people; were responsible
on them respectively, and were for the most pa