fairly stated that the small States have too | much agency in the important article of electing a chief magistrate, and that the great States claim the choice, and we shall then have a fair decision. If the senators of the small States, and if their State legislatures will then quietly part with the right they have, no person can reasonably complain.

Nothing can be more obvious, than the intention of the plan, adopted by our constitution, for choosing a President. The electors are to nominate two persons, of whom they cannot know which will be President; this circumstance not only induces them to select both from the best men, but gives a direct advantage into the hands of the small States, even in the electoral choice. For they can always select from the two candidates, set up by the electors of large States, by throwing their votes upon their favorite, and of course giving him a majority; or, if the electors of the large States should, to prevent this effect, scatter their votes for one candidate, then the electors of the small States would have it in their power to elect a Vice-President. So that, in any event, the small States will have a considerable agency in the election. But if the discriminating or designating principle is carried, as contained in this resolution, the whole, or nearly the whole right and agency of the small States in the electoral choice of chief magistrate, is destroyed, and their chance of obtaining a federative choice by States, if not destroyed, is very much diminished. For this identical purpose is the principle of electoral discrimination and designation, introduced into the resolution before you; for the same purpose is the number of candidates reduced from five to three, from whom the House of Representatives may elect, in case of electoral failure of choice; that is, to destroy, or diminish the agency of the small States, in the choice of President. For what purpose else, are we perpetually told, and from all parts of the Senate, that the public will is opposed by the present mode, and the public will cannot be gratified without the introduction of the discriminating principle. By the public will thus mentioned, the gentlemen mean the will of a popular majority, or the will of the great States, which, in this case, I repeat it, are the same. How is it possible for the gentlemen to increase the chances of gratifying this description of the public will without decreasing the agency of the small States?

The whole power of election is now vested in the two parties-numbers and States, or great and small States; and it is demonstration itself, that if you increase the power of the one, in just such proportion you diminish that of the other. Do the gentlemen suppose, that the public will, when constitutionally expressed, by a majority of States, in pursuance of the federative principle of our government, is of less validity, or less binding upon the community at large, than the public will expressed by a popular majority? The framers of your con

The

stitution, the people who adopted it, meant, that the public will, in the choice of a President, should be expressed by electors, if they could agree; and if not, that the public will should be expressed by a majority of the States, acting in their federative capacity, and that, in both cases, the expression of the public will should be equally binding. Is it pretended that the public will can never, properly or constitutionally, be expressed, but by a majority of numbers, of the people or of the House of Representatives? This may be a pleasing doctrine enough to great States; but it is certainly incorrect. Our constitution has given the expression of the public will, in a variety of instances, other than that of the choice of President, into very different hands from either the House of Representatives or the people at large. The President and Senate, and in many cases the President alone, can express the public will in appointments of high trust and responsibility, and it cannot be forgotten that the President sometimes expresses the public will, by removals. Treaties, highly important expressions of the public wl, are made by the President and Senate; and they are the supreme law of the land. In the several States, many great offices are filled, and even the chief magistracy by various modes of election. public will is sometimes expressed by pluralities, instead of majorities; sometimes by both branches of the legislatures, and sometimes by one; and in certain contingencies, elections are settled by lot. The people have adopted constitutions containing such regulations, and experience has proved that they are well calculated to preserve their liberties and promote their happiness. From what good, or even pardonable motive, then, can it be urged, that the present mode of electing our President, has a tendency to counteract the public will? Do gentlemen intend to destroy every federal feature in this constitution? And is this resolution a precursor to a complete consolidation of the Union, and to the establishment of a simple republic? Or will it suffice to break down every federative feature, which secures to one portion of the Union, to the small States, their rights? I am not without my fears, Mr. President, that this is but the beginning of evils, and that this constitution, the bulwark of the feeble members of the confederacy; the protection of the weak against the strong; the security of the small against the great; the last, best hope of man, with a view to stability in a free government, and to the preservation of liberty in a republic; is destined to undergo changes, and suffer innovations, till there be no residue worth preserving, and nothing left, which ambition will condescend to overturn.

Time will not permit me to dwell any longer on this part of my argument. But I am deceived, sir, if the view I have now taken of the constitution, does not show most obviously, that in its formation, there was a struggle between the great and small States, with respect to

many of its principles and leading features: | mode of choice. How often have contests and that the participation in the election of a chief magistrate, clearly secured to them by the constitution, will receive a deadly blow by the adoption of the proposed amendment.

currence.

effectual bar to intrigue, that was ever contrived; for, unless all, or a great proportion of the electors are corrupted (an extreme case of depravity not probable in any country), intrigue can have no assurance of success. The danger and difficulty, which must always attend such an important election as that of chief magistrate of the United States, was meant to be avoided, by diminishing the chances of its frequent reSo two persons are placed in condition to act as President in succession, to prevent both the evils of vacancy, and a recurrence of choice more frequently than once in four years. And it seems merely incidental to this second person, to be called Vice-President, and neither the first nor second description of electors can have any right to vote for him as such; indeed, he can have no existence till the first character is designated, and then seems to be discovered, not elected. The Senate, in case of an equal number of votes for two or more remaining persons, after the President is elected, are vested with authority to choose a Vice-President, for as such he is to preside over this body, and this body, therefore, seems to be the only constitutional organ to designate him. Both the other descriptions of electors have nothing to do with such a character or office; but are confined to act with a single reference to the character and office of President; and are trusted with no power to give any opinion of the character or qualifications of a Vice-President. And it is remarkable, that there are no appropriate qualifications made necessary by the constitution, for a Vice-President; but every qualification has reference to the President.

In this respect, the spirit of the constitution is, political moderation. And it is clear to my mind, that the experience of the last election has taught a lesson to all majorities, which will in future completely secure them from again incurring a similar risk. I recollect well, that it was thought probable, when the electoral votes were given, that Mr. Burr would have a vote or two, in some of the Eastern States. It he had received but one, he would have been by an electoral choice, the constitutional President. If the majority in future have powers of recollection, they will undoubtedly avoid the evil, if it is one, which happened at the last election, with such unfailing certainty, that there will be no need of the remedy proposed by the amendment. But the majority say, if their votes are so scattered for one candidate as to avoid this danger, that another will be incurred; and that is, the minority will elect a Vice-President. The language of the constitution to them, is again, "that this was meant as a security for the minority against the majority." But the majority exclaim against both these provisions, as very unreasonable indeed. "what," say they, "are minorities to govern majorities?" The answer of the constitution is, "no, but their due weight and influence shall be secured to them, and the danger of your intolerance guarded against." For the security of small States and minorities, there is, in the constitution a mixture of the federative with the popular principles. And as it is well known, that, when popular majorities alone prevail, and exercise power uncontrolled by constitutional checks, the minorities, who generally There is another important feature in this possess their proportion of integrity and virtue, part of the constitution. It was known by the are overwhelmed, and liberty itself, by the convention, that in this country, in common same means, destroyed; so it is in kindness to with all others where there is freedom of opin- both parties, to the country and to humanity, ion and of speech, there would be parties. that these wholesome checks are constitutionThey likewise knew, that the intolerance of ally provided. Had the majority, or the great the major, or ruling sect and political party, States been willing, fairly to have submitted to was frequently exercised upon the minor party, the constitutional checks in the last election, and that the rights of the minority ought to be no evil could have happened. And it is reprotected to them. As well, then, to secure markable that the constitution completely prothe rights of the minority, as to check the in-tects them, as long as they obey its precepts, in tolerance of the majority, they placed the majority in jeopardy, if they should attempt at grasping all the benefits of a President and Vice-President within themselves, to the total exclusion of the minority. This very case which happened at the last election was contemplated, in which the majority attempted totally to exclude the minority from any participation. The language of the constitution to such majorities is, "take care that you aim not at too much, for if you do, it is put into the power of the minority to check you, and by a judicious disposition of their few votes, determine the choice of President." To avoid this event, the majority will probably be cautious in the exercise of power; and thus the rights, the proper weight and influence of a minority are secured against the conduct of the majority, which is certainly liable to be intolerant and oppressive.

the creation of which they had an agency, and to which they have solemnly agreed. To prove that I am correct in these ideas, I not only refer to the constitution, but to the Secretary of State, Mr. Madison. In the Virginia Debates, Volume I., page 96, he says: "But on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. If we consider the peculiar situation of the United States, and what are the resources of that diversity of sentiments which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great danger that the

to corruption." This may look plausible in theory, but I think practice will show its fallacy. It may be better for the electors to meet by States, than for all to be together, but this can never prove that they are less liable to corruption than the House of Representatives; which is the only point in question.

same causes may terminate here, in the same | States separately, and you lessen the tendency fatal effects which they produced in those republics. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against perhaps, in the progress of this discussion, it will appear that the only possible remedy for those evils, and means of preserving and protecting the principles of republicanism, will be found in that very system which is now exclaimed against as the parent of oppression.” Mr. President, it has often been said, by the discerning and judicious of this and other countries, that our constitution, for its brevity, its comprehensiveness, its perspicuity, and the political skill contained in it, was the best state paper extant. I believe all this, and even more is a tribute justly due to its merits; and I am persuaded that the article which fixes a mode for the choice of a chief magistrate, stands most prominent among its excellencies. Let us now, sir, examine and compare the merits of the amendment, with a special reference to this last view we have taken of the constitutional provision.

The amendment authorizes the electors to vote for a President, and for a Vice-President, by specific designation. Is ambition in your country? Here is a direct and inviting object for its operation. Is the integrity of your electors assailable? You place it here in the most encouraging attitude for an assault. A fear of detection, and a sense of shame, upon the exposure of an improper action, has been, perhaps, a better security against political errors or crimes, than all the moral virtues united, when the temptation has been attended with an impossibility of detection. An intrigue with an elector, can be carried on without much danger of detection; but when your election is carried into the House of Representatives, besides the ordinary weight of character in favor of the members of that House, a detection of an intrigue with a candidate is almost certain. It will be recollected, that, at the last election, two or three members held the choice perfectly in their own hands. If I mistake not, three gentlemen, that is, a member from New Jersey, a member from Vermont, and one from, either Maryland, Delaware or Tennessee, could have given a President to the United States. The particular gentlemen mentioned, were above suspicion of bribery; but in addition to this circumstance, if they had, in the contest, gone over, from improper motives, or under the fluence of bribery, a detection was certain.

The manner of electing the Vice-President, as proposed by the amendment, not only invites ambition to an unchecked operation; but exposes us to the selection of a less important, and more unfit person, than the constitutional provision. In addition to his importance in the government arising from his incidental succession to the chief magistracy, the Vice-President is, ex officio, president of the Senate, and gives a direct influence to the State from which he is chosen, of a third vote in this body, in all cases of equal division, which are usually the cases of the most importance. Besides, his influence as presiding officer, is perhaps, more than equal to the right of a vote. It becomes, therefore, peculiarly important to the small States, and to minorities, whose security rests in this body, not only, that their influence in the election of Vice-President should not be diminished; but that no measure be adopted, which may tend to bestow the office upon an unworthy character. By the proposed amendment, this char acter must necessarily become a sort of makeweight, and stepping-stone for the Presidency. As in recruiting for an army, a man, active and of a particular cast of character, but not very proper for a commander-in-chief, is employed to obtain recruits, and upon condition that he obtains a given number, is to be rewarded with a sergeant's warrant; so in this case, the man who can procure a given number of votes for President, will be encouraged to hope for the Vice-Presidency; and where will such characters be sought after? In Delaware or Rhode Island? No, sir, but in the great States; there the recruiting talents will be put in operation, because the number of recruits, or votes, will be sufficient to test his active and recruiting merits. And thus the office of Vice-President will be sent to market, with hardly a possible chance to meet an honest purchaser.

I have already remarked upon the alteration made by the Senate, in the resolution passed by the House of Representatives, changing the in-number five to three. But one addition made this morning, deserves attention; I mean that which authorizes the Vice-President to administer the government, in case neither the first nor the second constitutional electors effect a choice of President.*

This will remain for ever, the criterion, as it respects the relative danger of intrigue and bribery, in the two modes of choice. And the amendment is avowedly intended to secure a choice by electors, and to prevent a resort to the House; because, says the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Taylor, "if you permit the election to go into the House, there are small States, and minorities, and all the evils of a diet election:" meaning, that corruption must be the consequence. But he says, "let there be a divided election, by the electors, meeting by

This is a new principle and its operation is

the House of Representatives know that the United States will be left without an executive magistrate, in case they do not agree; this awful responsibility will speak in a voice too loud for the hardihood of party entirely to disregard. And may not I suggest, without giving offence, that the operation of this very responsibility has been proved, at least in some degree, in the proceedings of the last presidential election?

If this last-mentioned security be worth preserving, it follows, of course, that the part of the amendment alluded to ought not to pass.

There is another view of the constitution, which has a reference to the general subject before us; and that is, the caution exhibited with respect to the introduction of amend

more uncertain, than that of any other part of the proposed amendment. Viewing it in one point of light, it may be thought to confer a new power upon the Senate; that of giving a President to the Union. And it is said, that this part will recompense the small States, who have the ascendency in the Senate, for the injury inflicted by the other parts of the amendment. If it be true, that the last part restores all which the former parts have taken away from us, it is inconceivable, why any man can wish to pass a resolution, the parts of which thus mutually destroy each other. It is possible, that by the force of intrigue and faction, the electors may be induced to scatter their votes for both President and Vice-President, in such manner, as to present several candidates to the House for President and two or more toments. In an instrument so important, and the Senate for Vice-President. In which case, containing many features new, if not to the the Senate might immediately choose or select world, at least to ourselves, although we might a Vice-President. In this state of things, there approve of its principles; yet experience might is an opportunity afforded for an intrigue, of a discover errors as to the mode devised for carvery extensive and alarming nature. The Sen-rying those principles into effect. Hence it ate, I mean a majority of them, might wish was the part of wisdom and caution to provide that the man whom they had elected Vice-Pre- | for such alterations in practice as would give sident, should administer the government, and if the House could be prevented from agreeing, their wishes would be gratified. The facility of preventing over that of producing a choice, is very obvious.

A bold address may be made to any member of the House, without wounding his pride, or offending his morality, to adhere to his candidate, and not change his vote so as to effect a choice. He can be told, that there is no danger of leaving the United States without a President, as there is one already chosen to his hand by the Senate; and this person may be more the object of his wishes, than any of the other candidates, his favorite excepted. In this process, the Senate may give a President to the United States. But if the probability of such a process and such an event is increased by the amendment of this morning, it cannot certainly greatly recommend it. For myself, I wish for no alteration in the constitution, not even if its operations were directly in favor of the small States, more especially if such a favor is to be derived through a sort of double conspiracy of intrigue; in the first place, to operate on the electors, and then on the House of Representatives. It seems to me, that the small States had better be contented to enjoy the rights now secured to them by the constitution, which they can honestly do, rather than submit to a deprivation of their rights, for the sake of dishonestly obtaining a restoration of them. We may charitably and safely conclude, that the majority do not intend, by this part of the amendment, to expose the country to such a scene of iniquity. And the uncertainty of its operations, alone, is, in my mind, a sufficient ground for rejection. However the operation of this part of the amendment may appear in heory as to other points, it seems to me, that in one point all must agree, and that is, when

the fairest operation to principles, without incurring the confusion and agitation incidental to a general convention. But lest the daring and restive spirit of innovation should injure or destroy, under the specious name of amendment, that same wisdom and caution have provided salutary checks.

"Two-thirds of both Houses of the Congress shall deem it necessary to propose amendments; and three-fourths of the State legislatures shall ratify such amendments, before they acquire validity. I speak now, sir, of the mode which has always been, and probably will be put in practice to obtain amendments. The other constitutional mode is equally guarded as to numbers, but, as it has no relation to the subject now in debate, may be laid aside. Two-thirds of both Houses" must, I think, on every fair principle of construction, mean two-thirds of all the members. The number of senators is thirty-four; two-thirds being twenty-three. And as there is no representation from New Jersey, the number of representatives is one hundred and thirty-six; twothirds being ninety-one.

66

My impressions are, sir, that this amendment cannot constitutionally be proposed to the State legislatures, unless it is agreed to, in the two Houses, by those numbers, twenty-three and ninety-one, respectively. This is a constitutional point, which, I am told, has never been agitated, but is certainly worthy of attention. If the construction should prevail, that twothirds of the members present at any time, might propose amendments, the consequence is, that twelve senators, being two-thirds of a quorum, and forty-eight representatives, being a similar two-thirds, might propose any and the most important amendments. I am aware, sir, that it may be said, such propositions are not final, they may yet be ratified or rejected by