San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1884-10-16
To Elect q President.

One OF our buDscfiDcfb focchtiy 10
quested us TO explain the mOds ope
randi Of electing President OF the
United States. He said no did not
fully understand the operation OF
this machinery Of electors, &c, and
We doubt not there are others in the
same predicament We promised to
explain, and luckily find the matter
done 10 our hand in recent editori'
al in the Austin Statesman, which wo
copy below, twill be apparent that
the trainers Of the constitution quite
gratuitously complicated what would
otherwise have been a very simple
matter. We entirely concur with the
Statesman that the constitution
should be 30 amended as 10 make the
President elected by direct vote Of
the people. The distrust manifested
by the trainers Of that instrument Of
their ability to govern themselves, was
en- tirely unworthy Of them. We have
held aud advocated these views for
over thirty years. But read from the
Statesman:
The methods by which president
OF the United States il elected have
long outlived their dsy, and should be
abolished. They were prescribed BY
the constitution. makers, under the
belief, or fear, that the people were
not fully prepared to govern them
selves, and that safety demanded an
intervening power between them and
the presidency, to correct if need be,
any popular inability to govern. All
doubt Of the ability of the people to
govern themselves, to prescribe the
agencies that shall control, having
long since been dispelled, these meas
ures, prescribed in the nature of safety
against any incapacity to govern,
ought to be annulled, The prescribed
modes of choosing a president and a
vice-president are as follows: The
people in the several states choose
electors, one for every representative
and senator in congress, and these,
constituting what is known as the
electoral college, meet and name a
president and vice.president. OF
course they are expected to obey pop
ular will, as evidenced by the selec-
ton of the electors, but this electoral
college has the power, within itself,
to conspire against popular will, and
to name any men its majority may de-
eide upon. In some countries it
would be most dangerous body, and
at any time it might become even
here revolutionary one. The pur-
pose, too, in creating electors, was to
preserve the sovereignty of states,
every state voting as unit in the
college. The whole was an idea, Dor
rowed from a feudal age, not in keep
ing with the principles of pure re
publicanism, antagonistic to popular
will, and dangerous to the stability OF
our form of government. Though
held by the early statesmen to be
democratic, it is practically the re-
verse. True it is, custom has appear
ed to make it imperative, that electors
shall cast the vote of states as direct
ed at the popular ballot box, but the
letter of the constitution, making
electors independent of such popu-
lar will, has not been changed. If
electors must vote by direction, why
then continue this senseless declara-
ton through an electoral college, in
stead of declaring that the popular
voice shall be competent and final.
The virtue Of the system as original
ly expressed was based upon unten-
able ground, and having been annul-
led by usage, why continue to adhere
to the senseless course prescribed?
Outside OF what custom has done, the
elector has an undoubted constitu-
tional right to exercise his own indi-
vidual will in naming the officers.
Hence, not only does the folly of q
repudiated constitutional measure call
for its repeal, but safety demands it.
If continued, some Of these fine morn
ings we may find an electoral college
in rebellion against the people, with
the power of the constitution at it's
back to sustain it in defiance of popu-
lar will. The necessity for constitu
tional changes is apparent; the con-
sistencies of popular govern ment de-
mand it.