190 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



plurality, and to make the election by the House 

 less than a ministerial office, a mere farce. It 

 was on no such ground that the friends of Jack- 

 son denounced the Representatives who had 

 exercised their constitutional right and their 

 constitutional duty. It was on the pretense 

 of corrupt bargaining in the election, a pre- 

 tense which deceived many well-meaning men. 



" The previous case of the election of Jeffer- 

 son presented a much more serious cause of 

 alarm. Yet this did not arise out of the mode 

 of the election, but out of the singular compli- 

 cations which threatened to prevent an elec- 

 tion of either President or Vice-President, and 

 to bring the Government to a stand-still. It 

 was reported that the opponents of Jefferson 

 had gone so far as to determine that, rather 

 than to submit to his election, they would pre- 

 vent an organization, and drive the country to 

 revolution. No such purpose was entertained, 

 unless by a few hot-headed men, whe are found 

 in every party, and for which no party should 

 be held responsible. Hamilton disapproved even 

 of the initial proceeding, and frankly and ear r 

 nestly declared that it was more than a mistake, 

 that it was full of danger, and that its success 

 would threaten the very existence of the Gov- 

 ernment. Jefferson, who naturally listened with 

 credulity to these reports, said that, while he 

 would have joined in armed hostility against 

 any act of usurpation, he would have cheerfully 

 yielded to the election of Burr and taken the 

 place of Vice-President, * because, however it 

 might have been variant from the intention of 

 the voters, yet it would have been agreeable 

 to the Constitution.' The crisis did not grow 

 out of any unfairness in the mode of election 

 by States, but out of an apprehended abuse of 

 that mode of election, as any other mode might 

 be abused. Had the same dead-lock occurred 

 by the equal division of the electoral or of the 

 popular vote, a similar danger might have oc- 

 curred. The danger was not in the system, 

 but in the party madness which strove to per- 

 vert to party uses the mode appointed for con- 

 tinuing the Government, and to do this, at the 

 risk of destroying the Government itself. There 

 was not, in either case, just cause of complaint 

 of the equality of the States in the election by 

 the House. And in the result it proved that 

 patriotism was too strong for party, and some 

 of the strongest Federalists and these, it must 

 be remarked, were from the smaller States- 

 took the course which Hamilton advised from 

 the beginning, and voted for Jefferson, or cast 

 blank votes, which amounted to the same 

 thing. 



" The lead in that patriotic act was taken by 

 the grandfather of the Senator, may I not say 

 the hereditary Senator whose credentials of 

 reelection from Delaware have just been read, 

 and whose name has been borne in this cham- 

 ber by three generations, sans peur et sans re- 

 proche. 



"Moreover, there is great advantage in keep- 

 ing constantly in view the federal character of 



the Government and the power of the States 

 out of which the republic grew. We have 

 been compelled, in the great struggle for na- 

 tional existence, and in reorganizing govern- 

 ment on the principles which prevailed in that 

 struggle, to transfer to the General Govern- 

 ment power and authority which had hitherto 

 been exercised by the States, and which we 

 had been educated to believe could be best ex- 

 ercised by them. "While the necessity of this 

 sacrifice was to be regretted, no patriotic man 

 regrets that it was rendered. In that way 

 alone could the rights, the existence of the 

 States themselves, be preserved. 



"Nor do I agree in all that is said about the 

 unfairness of this mode of election. If the elec- 

 tion were made originally by the States, each 

 State having one vote, the objection urged to 

 it would be unanswerable ; but, as the choice is 

 confined to the three candidates who have re- 

 ceived the highest number of electoral votes, 

 the only power of the House is to select which 

 one of three men, high in the public confidence 

 and favor, shall exercise the office which must 

 be exercised by somebody, and the people can- 

 not decide upon whom to confer it. The ac- 

 tion of the House is very different from a free 

 election ; it partakes of a judicial as well as of 

 a political character. 



" In yielding my assent to the proposed 

 amendment, I am not therefore influenced by 

 apprehension of resistance to the election of the 

 President by the House of Representatives in 

 the mode provided by the Constitution. But 

 the existing system is an acknowledged failure 

 of the expectations with which it was adopted. 

 Nothing is perfect. The more we study the 

 Constitution of the United States, the more we 

 admire the wisdom with which it was framed, 

 and the elasticity with which it adapts itself to 

 enlarged limits, multiplied population, and al- 

 tered conditions of society. But, in respect to 

 the election of President and Vice-President, 

 it never once fulfilled the intention, which was 

 that the electors should be unpledged men, not 

 appointed for a mere ministerial office, but 

 chosen for their character, their wisdom, their 

 patriotism, to perform, according to their own 

 judgment, the highest and most responsible 

 duty that could be delegated by the constitu- 

 ents of a representative government to their 

 most trusted public servants. Instead of that, 

 the electors, as we all know, have been selected 

 to vote for candidates already designated, and 

 the character of the electors does not even enter 

 into the consideration of the voters by whom 

 they are chosen. The cumbrous machinery 

 which interposes between the people and the 

 candidates of their choice performs no real 

 service, and is only a needless obstacle and de- 

 lay. But more than this, it restricts the choice 

 of the people ; and, instead of leaving their se- 

 lection open to the whole body of the citizen- 

 ship, confines it to those who have a sufficient 

 following, in the State in which the voter lives, 

 to receive the nomination of a full college of 



