The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1860-08-29
A Constitutional objection.

The boy lestown Democrat has made a
State Committee in Philadelphia on the I'd
of July, it made the astounding discovery
that The resolution then adopted had been
altered, whereby the conspirators spoiled
their own conrivance. The new discovery
is even more alarming, it being nothing
less than that the Cresson compromise is
unconstitutional. This idea was first adj
vance in the resolutions OF the committee
that met at Buehler's TO purge the electoral
ticket, but the Democrat proceeds 10 the ex-
tremity OF quoting the Constitution. We
will quote portion of this article for the
purpose of exposing its absurdiy
''In the second paragraph of the 1st Sec
lion, OF the I'd article, that instrument pro
vides as follows in The matter of an electoral
ticket:
"'Each State shall appoint, in such man
ner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
mum Der of electors, equal to the whole
number of Senators and representatives 10
which the State may be entitled in Con-
gress but no Senator or representative, or
person holding an Office OF trust or profit
under the United States, shall be appointed
an elector.'
ssThis appears as plain as the nose on
mans face but the Stale Committee very
cooly proposes 10 violate this clear provis
ion of the Constitution br striking off two
electors, and inserting in their places the
names of two candidates both of whom are
| "SENAToRs." This arrangement violates the
Constitution in double sense, for ii leaves
the electoral ticket with less electors than
are required, and places those on it, who
cannot be electors In the case of the cleo
ton OF the ticket, Douglas or Breckinridge
would stand in the place OF an elector, and
of course would be absent when they sho'd
come TO meet at Harrisburg. The State
law provides for filling vacancies, but il
this case there would not be such an one as
contemplated, and the Electoral College
would be unconstitutional, because not full.
We would like 10 hear the Democratic Jour
nails of the State upon the subject, as this
is the first time the question has risen. 1t
strikes us that the Cresson arrangement
would be unconstitutional"
This furnishes additional evidence that
the straight outs don't or won't comprehend
the Cresson compromise. 1t does not pro-
pose to strike off fiCo electors. 1t proposes
10 drop but one elector and allow the name
of Douglas or BreckiHridge 10 be substitu-
ted, according 10 the preference o. the voter.
But it is objected that neither Douglas or
Breckinridge are eligible. Grant it Ne-
iher OF them can possibly be elected. The
election officers not being the judges of eli
gibility will be obliged 10 return the number
of votes cast for Douglas and Breckinridge,
as they did in 1856 between Fremont aud
Fillmore, and after that is done the object
in voting for them is accomplished by as,
certaining their relative strength.
| The Democrat falls into another error in
supposing that there might be vacancy in
the Electoral College. This is impossible
As the Democratic vote will be divided be
tween Douglas and Breckinridge nei;hel
can be chosen an elector, and Of course the
| highest candidate on the Republican iicke
would slip in between them Should the
Union ticket be elected, the Electoral Col
Iege OF The State would be composed o
twerty- Democrats and one Republican
which is preferable to twenty-seven RepHb
lican and no Democrat. The DoylesiowI
Democrat should at least make an effort lc
understand the meaning of The Cressou reso
luton before 6emolishing it with the Con
I stiluiion.
/ a. ]. A. CUMsnNes is at present deliver