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

wv w lnO lHINo UlRltalt ~ ~ HlNUllt5lf
that II this provision Of the Constitution
had been left cooperate by itself, without
the Intervention of the cnucusos, or par
y conventions between The people aud
the election, hat The practical operations
would have been such as ! have stated,
and such MS was clearly intended by the
trainers Of the Constitution.
The object intended Is important. The
preservation OF the relative weight Of the
States, as established by the Constitution
in all the Departments, is necessary TO the
success and duration Of our system Of
Government; but il may be doubted whe.
Their the provision adopted to effect il in
the Executive Department, is not 100 re-
fine d for the strong, and | may add, cor
rupt passions, which the Presidential cleo
ton will ever excite. Certain il is, that
if the practice OF nominating candidates
for the Presidency, by Conventions colt
slituted as they are proposed, shall be-
come the established usage, it will utter
ly defeat the intention Of the trainers Of
the Constitution, and would be followed
by a radical and dangerous change, not
only in The Executive Department, but in
the Government ITSELF
This danger was early forcsecn, and to
avoid it, some Of the wisest and most ex-
pericnced statesmen of former days so
strongly objected 10 Congressional caucu-
ses 10 nominate cand idates for the Pres-
dency, that they never could be induced
20 attend them; among these it will be
sufficient to name Mr.. Macon and Mr..
Lownde Others, believing that this
provision Of the constitution was too ref
ned for practice, we're solicitous to amend
it, but without mpairing the influence Of
the smaller States in the election Among
these, | rank myself. With that object,
resolutions were introduced, in 1928, in
the Senate by Col, Benton, and in The
House by Mr. Mnuffie providing for dis.
trictin,, ithe States, and for referring the
election back TO the people, in case there
should be no choice, to elect one from the
TWO highest candidates. The principle
which governed in the amendment, propo
sed, was 10 give fair compensation t,
the smaller States for the surrender o
their advantage in the eventual choice BY
the House and at the same time 10 make
The mode Of eecting the President more
strictly liz conformity with the principles
Of our popular institutions and to be less
liable to corruption, than the existing pro-
vision. They received the general sup
sort of the party, but were objected to by
few, as not being full equivalent tothe
smaller States. The principle embraced
is ldenti; al with that on which you propo-
sed to constitute the Baltimore Conven-
ton, but which has been so dlctatorially
objected TO by some, who have taken 50
prominent a part in its favor. II you
have not succeeded, there is at least some
consolation in rejecting that i others
have since changed, you now stand where
you then did, in the purer and better days
of the party. | was in favor of it then,
as am now, not because | consider the
resolutions as perfect, theoretically, as
the existing provisions of the Constitution; ;
but because believe it would in practice
more certainly accomplish what the pow
ers oil the Constitution intended. But
while the provision stands as it does, L
would regard myself as little short Of a
traitor TO that sacred instrument, should
give my assent, directly or indirectly 10
any practice which would have the effect
Of dlvesting the smaller States Of the due
weight II secures TO them in the Presi-l
Dental election, whether designed or not.
And here let me add, that as Objectionable
as think Congressional caucus for
President, it is in my opin-
ion, far less so than Convention consti-I
tuled as is proposed. The former had in
deed many things to recommend it, Its
members consisting of Senators AMI Rep
resentatlves, were the immediate organs
Of the State Legislatures, or the people;
we're responsible to them respectively,
and were for the most part, Of high char
lcter, standing and talents. They voted
per capitd, and what is very important,
hey represented fairly the relative
itength Of the party in their respective
States. In all these important particu
ars, it was all that could be desired for
body, and from a striking
contrast TO the proposed Convention; and
yet, it could not be borne by the pco-
lie in the purer days Of the Republic. IL,
lcting with Gen. Jackson and most of The
eaders of the party al the time contribu.
ed TO put It down, because we believed il
o be liable to be acted on and influenced Z
y the patronage Of the Government I
n objection far more applicable 10 Con.
entlon constituted as the one proposed, I
han to Congressional caucls. Far, \
.oweyer, was it from my intention, IN aid Il
ng TO put that down, 10 substitute in lis 6
lace what regard as Hundred times I
1ore Objectionable in every point olsvlcw. B
indeed, # there must be all intermediate IL
'ojy between the people aud the election, II