The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. [volume], January 13, 1804, Image 1

About The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1800-1810

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
ult a ty^\.lr\.Y : A y YT%kY r V V ¥ Y"^y^i
WASHINGTON N ABVERTI^Sa.
Vl. IV.
iivK Dolls. Per awn.
BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FriOay, December 9.
Debate on the AMENDMENT to the
CONS ITIV TION.
[CONCLUDED.-]
Mr. J. RANDOLPH faid, that th-y
had been tjtd the other night, by the
• ieman from C mnedticut, (Mr. Grjf
•Wold) that itwasneteflary to pro era t
tinate, this deciti.-n in order U give timx
for that thorough imreQigation, which
it was then contended h«d not taken
place. From the protuife which was
held out on that occafioc," and from tbe
time which had intervened, his expecta
tions, had been wound up to a very
hiirh pitch—whether they had been gra
tified or not he would leave the Moute
t-> determine. Since the gentleman
bad expreffed a defire, and the Houfe
bad affirmed it, that this diUuf
{ion fliould be protractei, Mr. K.
hoped that he, on thin fubject. (whate
ever might b* the cafe on others, where
he wascompell.-d to defend wkatit W* B
his duty to originate) bad occupieJ as
little of th***>r time as molt of tboie who
haddifcufitd it, might be permitted to
make a few remark* in reply to thole
which had fallen from gentlemen.
He would begin with thofe of the wor
thy member from Maffachufetts, (Dr.
EnftU.j He has ftßtedtbat this amend
ment embraces three obje&s. The de
flation; of tha ocrfons voted for as Pre
fident and Vice-Prefident -—.The mode
in which the choic* of Prefident fh>uld
brj made by that Houfe., in cafe of no
election by tbe eledors, in the tuft 10
---iiance ; and the provifion that the duties
pt Prefident Ihould be exercifud by tbe
Vice Prefident, if the Hauie of Rsprc
fentatives fhould nlfo fail to make an
eleaion. Tc- the firft of thefe
tbe gentlemau from pro-,
feffed himfJf warmly attache.!, but could
not be brought to adopt it, when com
bined with the other two. On the firft
obicaion which he bad taken, the gen
tleman had dwelt fo fho." a time, and
with fo little force,—and the difference
between electing out of" the five higb
«ft," or'out of thofe " having tbe high*
fll numbers not exceeding three," was,
initfclf, fo trivial, that little reliance
feemed placed upon it. The poffibli*
fucceffion of th* Vice Prefident to the
Prefidency appeared to form the chief
obftacle, anabrcaufe he conceived it cal
culated todfjfeat the diferiminating prin
ciple he c*§*a not be prevailed upoa to
affect ta aiTJ* amendment into which it
was incorporated, Aod yet xgainft this
very principle of defignation the gentle
man from Cn-ine&icut (Mr. R. Grif
wold,) hat made his utmoft exertions, as
fub vet five of the original ground of
compact between the ftates. Let me
aik, laid Mr. Randolph, upon what
ground thefe gentlemen will vote toge
ther againft this amendment, wheß their
views of its tendency ace to entirely op
pofite, and when they are equally oppos
ed in opinion, as to what ought to be
effe-ft-d by us. I beg, fir, this enquiry
may be miderftood to proceed from the
high refpea in which 1 hold the gentle
man from Maffachufetti, and from the
regret which I mult always teel in be
ing compelled to aa agamft hiu». It >s
diaated only by my anxiety to add the
fWtion o/his character «nd his talents
to every meafure in which I may be
concerned. The gentleman frjm M»f*
iachufetti advocates the diferiminating
b-tween the perfons voted for as Prefi
dent aod Vice Prefident ; the gentle
man from Gonneaicut deprecates it :—
The tii It gentleman is oppofed to the
amendment becaufe it is calculated to
defeat this principle of difcrimination ;
the fecond becauic it contiyis it. When
thefe gentleman affigned fuch op
pofite and irreconcilable objections, I
hoped they wsuld not unite their votes
againft the amendment—That one of
-.hem would become a convert to the
wilier, and that we fliould derive fome
fupport from th-m on the. queftion. Bur.
there is one point on which they agree.
They contend that itdoes not become us
to (uppofe that th- Houfe of Reprcfeß*
Utivescanrefufe to obey the imperativ*
toice of tbe conltitution, which com
di them to elect a Prefident, and
that the provifion of the Senate for fuch
an emergency contain* nt once an un
warranted imputation on that branch of
the legislature, and an inducement ta
them to lwerve from their duty. Tbe
Cuppvfitieo that this Houfe will reful
to make an eleaion, when it is enjoin 7"
upon then* by the cond tution, ir.
to be degrading, antl therefore in-'
sable. We are exbjited no. to hod
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
ourfelveJ on our own ftatote book, and a
late cafe is adduced to prove that all fears
on that head are grouudlcfs. From that
cafe I draw directly a oppofitc inference.
Gentlemen then told us, we ar« highly
averfe to both the perfons from whom
we are to ftfletl a Prrfident—but there
are {hades in our dtfLke —we conceive
we have a right to be indulged with the
candidate w» jm we conceive. leaft oh.
noxious tv our principles and" views. If
a Rit-re fb?d« of d.flike between two
perfons whom they highly difupprovsd
would warrant fuch an oppofitfon R<s
we then faw, what would have been the
ftrugglcjfth* choice had been to be
made between the gentleman who fuc
cecded to the Prefidency and either of
thofe who were held up fur that office
fj-orn Mafuchufetta, or South Carolina ?
Does any maj. believe that we fliould
have iucceeded in an election under fuch
circuuafbuces? Would the gentleman
from Connecticut have abandoned his
principles in that cafe—-or does he ex
pect that we fliould hive furrendered
ours.
I put it to the gentlemen him felf
whether be could, under fuch circuti
fta.ic-'s, have reliuquifhed his own judge
ment and principle*. I afi-* if he could
have juftifiMl to hiimfelf the giving of
fuch a vote. I anfwer for him that he
could not. I take upon me to fay fo,
becaufe I could not have juftifiai it in
myfelf. I never could have iuftified my- J
felf, bjrcauii the Houfe of Reprefenta
tives are directed to chooie a Prefident,
i;i a cajidusat* for whom I
bad the bighefl confidence, and voting
for one of whom 1 felt the greattfl dif
fidence. The caniUtuiion enjoins it up.
on this Houfe to make an election, but
it cannot enjoin upon any man an aban
donmuit of his judgment aud his prin
ciple?. When we have confeieotioufly
giv«n our votes we have difcharged our
duty. It it equally our bufiaefs to pals
law* and to pirtorm otber important
functions,. But does that imply an oh- j
ligation on any man to vote for hwa j
which he helintvea impolitic, oppreflive, |
or uojult ?If the cafe winch 1 have out <
had actually occurred, 1 prefumo we
fhould haves broken up without an elec
tion. Por one, Ido not hefiute to
fay, that I would have continued b.illot- 1
ting till the 4th of March, and let j
thing*, uks their conrfit.
Let us fuppafjp fuch a cafe to kavc j
happened. The gentleman from Mik !
| faehufetts objects that tha provifion dif- j
i criminating between the Prefident and
Vice-Prefideut %ill be totally defeated
—fince the Vice-lvefideut, ehofen ci- \
tber by the electors, or the Senate, will
fucceed to the Prefid*ticy. Is it not*!
better that a perfon felc&ed by the dec
tors, who are apprized of this contin
gency, or by the Senate out of two
presented to their choico fhould fucceed
to the prefidency, than that anarchy
fhould enfue, or defperate meafures be
reibrted ta for carrying on the govern
ment ? Will it not farve to diminilh
the violence of the conflict here, when
this Houfe is apprised that it does not
reft with a narty within its walls to de
feat the election of Prefident altogether.
But this we are told will give rife to end-
Icfs intrigue. The Vice-Prefident, if
any, or candidates for that office, will
ufe every means to prevent an election,
in hopes of fucceeding to the executive
power. Dp gentlemen rrisVtt that this
argument equally applies to every csfe
of election by thr Houfe, as the conlti
tution now ftauds ?Is it not aa eafy
for a candidate for the Prefidency to in
trigue, in order to eff-ct an elcc. in, as
for a Vice-Prcfulent to ititi to defeat
one. When two, or more men come
in*o this Houfe as candidate, for the
office of Prefident, are not their induce
ments to intrigue as ftrong as any which
can cxift under the propofed amendment,
and is not the event of an election by
the Houfe of Rearefen natives, iwuch
more probable under the prefent than
under the propofed amendment ?
To vote for two p-ifcms, without de
fignating which is intended for the P;e
lid«nt a:.:l which for ViccPirfidem, is,
we are teld by the gentleman from
Connecticut to eiifure the fclectton of
the two moft capable men in the United
States, for thofe office*. rt-fnectively
—but if a dilVriiniiiati4.ii be made, com
binations will take place be'ween the
ltates, and the Vice Prefident will be
coma a make-weight to i'-cure the elec
tion of Prcifideni—that he will be le.
kcted rather with a view to the ftate of
i which he is a citizen, or to Ids aiflu
i-i.ee with particular elector' than to
is worth, or abilities- S > tar is this
Lining true, in my opinion, that a
.nation is abfolutely lucelfary I
the election of a fit perfon t. i
; office of Vice-Treiidcat. When the
FRIDAY JANUARY 13th, 1804.
cleftors defignate tbe offices and perfons,
rcfpt&ively, for whom they vaCe, after
choofing the perfon higheft i"i their
confidence for Prefident, they will, na- i
turally, make choice of him who ftands
next in their .-.fteem for Vite-Prefident
—but where iryare not permitted to
make this difcriminatioft they will, to
fecure the rr.cft important ele&ie-n, give
all their votes to him whom theywifli to |
be Prefident, and fcitterthe other votes :
thus leaving it te chance to decide Who
fliall be Vice Prrdident- Whera a dif
crimination takss place the Vice-Prefi
drnt will, nec"fr*ri!y, be a man {landing |
high in the public confidence. Where I
it does not take, place it is more than i
probable that he will be a feconuary cba- t
raaer- But we are told that it is de- [
grading in the loweft degree to fr.ppolc j
that there "13 but one perfon in the Uni- |
ted States equal to the Prefidency. ■
Far be this idea from me. Were I r.f !
this opinion, weak as I am, I fliould ;
expeft to furvive tbe conftitutien-—fince j
I may reafonably expea to furvive the ;
term of the prefent chief magiflrate. j
But whiift I admit that there »r« bun- j
dreds capable of filling the office, 1 do '
not believe it poftible to prefent to the '
public, or to an indiritmal, two candi-* j
dates between whom there will net exift ;
a preference. This is the nature of man
-—and it is the nature of free govern- 1
mtntto gratify this preference.
But the gentle man from Cooneaicut •
has gone into a wide field. He takes j
a view of the elementary principles off
our government, which be ftates to he j
confolidating and federal, and ht de- |
clares that the diicritfination attempted !
to be introduced will violate tha tall of i
tbafe principles, to which be pr 7 >felles {
hirnfelf particularly attach***!* It is a j
matter of fome ftirprize to ma that j
agreeing fo nearly ri we do in general
principles, we fhould differ fo widely
in our conclnfi*ns. "With fome varia
tion of expreffion (parhaps- of idea) I |
fubferibe t» his general doarine. With !
him I coMider this its a governmest -»f
ftates ;—-as a federal government. In
afmuch is it tends to confolidation, by
fr» much is it objeaionable to me. With
Rim 1 prize, the federal principles on
which it is founded, and I will join thtt
gentleman, or any other, in heightening j
every federal feature ofthe eonftitutiort. !
I cenfider it, too, not only as a govern
ment of ftates, but as a compromife '
between ftetrs of various ditnenfions and
interefts. When embarked in one com- ,
mon bottom, with a common fword and
common treafury, it became necefTary
to give the large ftates a fuperior degree
of influence, ie induce them to put their
fuperior wealth and population at the
.difpofal of the confeder if ; whillt the
fmall fhtes were to be fecured againft
encroachment. While therefore they :
are equal in the Senate, on t Vis floor tbe
ftates are reprefented in proportion to
1 their population and wealth—their in*
fluence in the choice of Prefident is
\ compounded of their influence in both
branches of the legiflature. This is the
bf.fis of the conftitution, and carries
t compromife in every feature. I will
! venture to fay that even this Houfe is
; not organized on the principle of a con-s.
j folidated government—becaufe the re
-1 prefentation on this floor is not of the
j whole mats ofthe people ofthe United
; States, but it is \ repfefentation of each
j ftate. Tbe United States ar* not ui~
I vided into us many diftriasas there are
members, nor is there a general eleaion,
but each ftate fends its own delegation—
and the rule of apportionment of re
prefentatives is an additional pioof that
this is a federative government and a
government of compromife. If I were
to point out the part of this conltitution
which tends moft to confolidatbn, I
ihould lay my hand on the judiciary.
The giving to that department jarifdic
tion not only under federal laws, but in
cafes between man and man, atiling
under the laws of a ftate, where one of
the parties is a foreign** r, or citizen of
another ftate, —and even between citi- ;
zensof the fame flat- under the bank- j
rupt fyllem,-*-is the ft.-ongeft fsatn.e of ,
idiifilidation in this government, I
wilt go all lengths with gentlemen in
abrogating this juiifdiaion—'n restoring
the federal principle to this department 1
of government. I with to fee the day
when the jurifdiaion of the federal
courts fhali he confined to calea arifing
under federal laws* Mr. Randolph apo*
logized for the digrellion into which
;he had been carried by the vi:w which
the gentleman from Coum-aicut had
taken of the principles of our gover;.
ui'.ut. It is contended that the dif
eriminating principle: of this amendment
goes to deftroy the compromife between
the ftates fince it will annihilate tha
power of the fmall ftate*:. To this I 1
conceive it is an unanfwerable reply i
that if fuch be its effect it can never he
come v part of the conltitution. Five
ltates may.put their veto upon it,—.
Rhode-IflanJ, Delaware, Ohio, Terinef
fee and Georgia z.e five as final! ftates
as can be found in the union. They
belong to the great lubdivifions »f the
country, eafterh, middle, weftern and
fouthern. Thefe live ltates, judging
from th-ir repref s ntation, contain
Ihan one twelfth of tbe population of;
the United States—<l:--en twelfths of
the union may b*" foibidJen by thefe ;
ftates from adding this amendment to j
the conftitution. An additional proof,
that this proportion is not injurious to |
the fmalter ftates i 3 that the reprefenta-,
tion of thofe very fates have exprefTed |
their approbation of it. If on the con-i
trary, as has been contended by other I
gentlemen, this amendment impairs the!
inriuenre of th* Urge P.ates, Mr.fl'achu
fetts, New-York, Penafylrania*. Vir
ginia and North-Carolina will rejea it. j
But a ftrong proof that it neither afTeas;
the iutereft of the one, or'the other, is,
that obje&ion*. have been mad? to it en
both thefe grounds. Whiift however
the gentleman from Conncaicut com
bats this difcrimirjiition as fubverfive of
the rights of the fmall ftates his friend
from Maryland (Mr. Dennis) objects to
it becaufe the laft provifion, renders
i negatory the diferiminating principle.
1 Do*s the gentleman mean to difarm bis
, friends of their objeaioos to ths amend*
f ment and induce them to fupport it, er
I does he, relying on their ftability, expc a
jto excite alarm in its friends and there*
■by defeat it? The gentleman and his
i friends have uniformly oppofed all dif ■
; crimination, and now, it feems, he .:b*
J j«a& becaufe that objea Is likely to be
j dtfeattd. This obj-aiun the gentle
nau from Conr.eaicut had, with bis
nfual rlenr fightedncfi, cautioufly avoid
ed. He knew better the real bearing
! of the amendment, and if fuch bad been
the efT-a of the laft provifion, the a
mendment would never have received fo
ftrenuous an oppofition from him. No,
Sir, it is becaufe he fee. 1 : this principle,
fo obnoxious to him, exifting unimpaired
in this amendment, that lie ha? thrown
every obft-cle in his power againft it.
He has indeed thken the objettion that
it will open the door to intrigue : fur
fo footi as any man is put in reach ol
the Pielidency you arm him with the
power, whiift you give him the dlfboli.
tion to corrupt the eleaors. It will
therefore be the in .ere ft of the; Vice-
Prefident to defeat an elcdion by this
Houfe. But will not the difpofition and
power to intrigue be equally brought
into aaion, as the conftitution now
fUnds, when two or more candidates
ftiall be pretexted to that Houfe for
their fele&ion ? And is not the proba
bility of fuch an event diminiihed by
dilcriminating between the officers. 1
conceive this provifion by lefl'ening the
chance of an eleaion by this Houfe has
done much. It ■*.-.-ill remove thofe heart
burnings of which gentlemen complain.
It will tend in a great degree to ftrength*
en the union of thefe dates which never
was more endangered than at the laft
, eleaion. The gentleman from C innec
ticut complains that the events of that
j period have been grofsly mifreprefi-nt.
cd. Whether that bs the cafe, or not, j
f I have no hefitation to ftate that it
j wri*, in my opinion, a period of imminent
[danger to this country. It was a crilis
j fuch as I hope we (hall never again be
j expofed to, and to avoid its recurrence
jis my motive for advocating the awiend
j m:nt which lias been fent us and which
jis as unexceptionable as any which I
j believe at this time attainable. The
j wont that can befall us will be the exer
! cife of the duties of Prefident by the
fame perfon who 'would be called upon
to difcharge them tn cafe of bis death,
resignation, or removal from office.
Dr. -E.U3TIS. If at this late hour
I could expea the attention of the
Houfe, I fluuld derive *» peculiar fatis
fa&io** in replying to the obfervatious
of riy friend from Virginia; and as
from prefent indications I have a right
to experience that indulgence, I fliall
proceed with the fame candor which has
diftiiignilh'jd the remark* of that gen
tleman, with whom it vvould be my plea
fure to aCt on this as on other oecafi
ous.
That gentleman exprelfes bis hope, as
the refolution under cciifiderauan em
braces the great ohjea bad in view,
that thofe who are delirous of attaining
this ohj*a will not rtfufe their snout
to it becaufe the refolution contains o*
ther which he erms of an in
ferior or fecondary nature;
It is neceffiry to review the tefoluti
on, an:l I mult repeat the obj.*aiows
which wa* nude when it full came un<
«#./5/ P.
-P-i/*> /iV /unr/«ycß.
der coofideration. I fluted at that tine
that it differed widely and materially
from the refolution fent up hv this
Houfe to the Senate, and on which it
does not appear that the S;-n,tte have
aaed. That refolution contemplated -.*
fiagle objea, vix. a defignation of the
perfons voted for as Prefident and Vice-
Prefident. Tbe refolution of the
I alfu ft* ted to confi ft uf three diflieft
and !>p»rate propofitioos, The fiift con
taining what has been termed thedefig*
rating principle—the fecond rcduCM:*"
the conmtutiorial number of candidal i,
from whom the Huufe of Reprefenta
tives are to choofe a Profident in cafe
there be no choice by the electors, from
5 to 3—the third providing in Cafe eh: ro
ftiall be no choice by the H ufe of Re
preientatives, that the Vice-Prefiaent>
fhall be Prefident of th;: United States.
The firft pruvifion, thut of defignau
ing, appears to me, and the Huiii- will
recnlha and the gentleman from Vir
ginia will ttlfa rtCblffecV, that I tbenftat**
ed this to be a modification rather tha 7 *,
a chasge of a eonftitutional rule or prin
ciple, by which the votes of the ele&orp
given i-.i chat cafe as they are now given
under the conftitution, will be fabje&
only to this alteratiot*., that the petfou
voted for as FVfijent ana th? poriota
voted for as Vice Prefident, will t»* r*?«
fpcaively dtfig'ia*f-d in diftii a ballots.
This is th* i,lter»tir,u contemplatedin
the refolution which palled the.
this embraces the whole of the change
contemplated' by the Houfe aud by the
public—this is the amendment which I
continue to approve, and *gaintt which
I have heard r.p fubitantial objeaio-,
The fecond amendment r-r-jpofi-d by
the Ssuate, it may alfo be rtcolleaed,
was obje&ed to ou two grounds—firft,
tint it contemplated another important
alteration ia ihe conftitution in a point
where uo evil bad rcfmlted and ro incon
venience bad hers experienced. With
out any reafon, it propofed to narrow
tbe choice cf the Haute from five to
three. It has been cootend-d, and I
beg the gentleman from North-Carolina
will take this as an 3nfwer to Us ob
fcrvations, it has been collided br
that gentleman as well as Qtbett, ani
with tome ingenuity, that the Prefident
and Vice-Prelidcnt are to be cbofeo
from tbe five higheft candidat-s, by the
conftitution—and i$ by the refolution
tbe Prefident is to be ehofen from the
ihree higheft, and tbe Vice Prefident
from the two higheft, that the thrae and
tbe twd make five, and of cobrfV there
is no difference, and the gentleman
therefore dors not fee how the refoluti
on can be objea«d to on this ground.
But It will be feen that at prefent aui
under the conftitution, the P.-* fident ie
chofew from five—if the* propofed amend
ment be adapted, he muft be ehofen from
three candidatas—makittg a change ami
narrowing the choice from among the
candidates from five to three. The'elec
tion of Vice Prefident by this amend
ment is totally changed : he is to becho
fen at another time and in another place,
and gentlemen muft fee that his eleaion
bears no relation to and cannot be cou
pled with that of the Prefident.
The fecond ebjeaion to this amend
ment was grounded on the indefinite
rtods of expreffion, «* from the perfoes
»' having the higheft numbers, not cx
i ■■ ceeding three, on tha lift of thofe vot-
I **. ed for as Prefident, the Houfe ot Re
( " prefentatives Hull choofe immediately
I" hy ballot." The:- is a want of pre-
J cifion in thefe words. Some gentlemen
. ; undenUnd it as limiting tha choice to
, the three higheft candid-.itcß,wnile others
fuppofe them intended to embrace five,
: | ten or fifteen, if there be fo many hay
: ing an equ.il number ef votes in the
] three higheft grades—and if gemlfme-j
i ; on this floor differ in their cunfttuaion,
, | is it not to ue cxpeaed rbat the ftate le
! giflatures, when they come to confider
• -and tbe Houfe of Reprefentatives ofthe
: United States when they come to aft
• under it, will alf» differ?
i. The third proportion provides that
i: if tha Houfe of EUprefcntativea (full
: not choofe a Prelidciu befor* the fourth
of March following, the Vice-Prefi*
i dent mil a&ai Prefident, as in cafe ok*
his refignation or : another and *
• ftill more important change in the con
■ ftitution. To this 1 did objea, and I
do (till obj-a, brcaufe it is predicated
on a couctffioti which I am not willing
to have engrafted in that isftrument. Ir.
, is predicated on a prefnmption that the
Houle of Reprefentatives may refute to
. • carry iuto efiVd the public wili—that
■j they will ra/fufe to obey tbe imperative
• j language of the conftitution which or-
I d.iv a that in cafe there be no choice by
■ j theeleaora they shall immediately pro
*° Qchoit a affails a iirft
iu*d i'uudaiucnul priii«ipl«—it prefumea