Rensselaer Union, Volume 9, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 May 1877 — Views of Senator Morton as to the Method of Electing a President. [ARTICLE]

Views of Senator Morton as to the Method of Electing a President.

(MM* tlw North AnrarieM Review.) The A meric* n constitution wm the production of the mart Intelligent mh;dt of our country *t the period of it* fermetiou. It wna not in any •eneo the result of Inventive genius, Mr It* main features had been suggedm by the experience nf the thlrteeri tMtMßim both during and before the oOWfederatlon. When we compare It With the British constitution, with articles of confederation, and with th® different colonial government% we shall be surprised to And how little there is in it that was new. The particulars in which the new government differed from that of the confederation had been suggested by the Very brief experience of a few years under the latter government. And. While we admit with the greatest pleasure the wisdom and the ability of the ftamera of the constitution, we are driven to admit also their fallibility, and that in many respects they failed to see whnt was In the future, and to provide for the contingencies of after years. One of the drier difficulties they experienced was in the creation of an executive; and after the subject had been long considered, the plan adopted, of a choice by electors, was hastily conceived and incorporated without mature fSMyd deration The framers of the constitution were very conservative democrats, if democrats they might be called. While professing theoretically to believe in the natural rights of men, and in a government by the people, they entertained a profound distrust of tho capacity of the people to govern tbemaelves, and consented to bring the new government directly to the people only in one department—the election of members of the house of representatives. By recognising the necessity of an elective executive, and putting away with aversion the idea of a monarchy, they yet sought to place the executive as far from the people as possible. They accordingly devised the scheme of the electoral college, the members of which were to be chosen in a manner prescribed by the Legislatures of the several states. The debates in the convention and the newspaper comments of the period show that it was not contemplated that the legislatures should * submit the appointment of electors to a vote of the people. That was an after thought, and was adopted by the states gradually—South Carolina, up to the beginning of the rebellion, continuing to choose electors by the Legislature. The theory of the electoral college was, that it would be composed of a body of select men, chosen on account of their wisdom and high character, who should be entirely uncommitted and untrammeled in their action, and meet, deliberate, and vote with perfect independence. And, to secure their independence, it was provided that they should vote by ballot, so that one should not know how the others voted. Not only were they not expected to be pledged in advance to vote for a particular candidate, but the precise theory of their creation was that they should not be so pledged, but remain perfectly free and uncommitted, to do what their sound judgment dictated, when they come together to choose a Pres it lent. How completely this theory has failed in practice, requires no comment. The practice has contradicted the theory for the last sixty years in every particular. The electors are put in nomination by parties, and all pledged to vote for a particular candidate; and should one of them, after election, Itetray the pledge, he will be regarded by all parties as infamous. Experience has curiously shown that this departure from the original theory la the very best feature of the electoral system as now practiced, and is the only guaranty against the corruption of the elector. The constitution further provided, that in case no person received a majority of the votes of all the electors appointed, the house of representatives should proceed to elect, voting by states—each state having one vote, without regard to population or to the number of representatives in the house. New York having a population forty-six times greater than Nevada, would have but one vote—Nevada having one.

The election was to be made by members of the bouse who had been elected nearly two years before, and who could not be supposed to represent the latest expression of the popular will. Thus the choice of the President was removed as far as possible from the people, to have the elective office at all. The constitution provides that the judges of the supreme court shall hold their offices during good behavior; that the senators shall be chosen by the legislatures of the states, and not by the people, thus removing their choice as for as possible from popular passion and control. The only department of the government ia which the voice of the people could be directly expressed was in the election of representatives. The framers of the constitution did notbeHeve that it was safe' to trust the people directly with the administration of the government, except 1“ limited degree. They had >eeu educated in the fear of democracy; and while asserting in the declaration of independence their belief in,the natural rights of man, and that government should exist only by the consent of the governed, they afterwards showed how theoretical and shadowy their notions upon that subject were. by permitting the continuance <>l slavery and giving to it constitutional guaranties, and by so conatruet ing the government as to leave flte'jieouie out as for as possible. The framers of <iie constitution were mastors <>f the English language. Perhaps no Instrument has been framed in which so much has been embraced in so few sentences. They were consummate wsotera of words, and the debates In the convention show the ” mto tire framera of fiftU their, fearr of democracy were

not well grounded, and that the true 1 dinger® to out institutions lay in other directions than th nee which were ever present in their minds. What is true in architecture l« true under our system of government—the broader the base, the safer and more enduring th® structure. The great body of th® American people are incapable of corruption. They are too numerous to be bought, ana too virtuous to be reached by any sinister influence to which they may be exposed. While the means of corruption may be abundant enough to control a select body of three or five hundred men, they amount to nothing when brought to bear upon millions. The masses of the people are liable to be imposed upon, it is true, but their purpose io always right, though their policy may sometimes be wrong; they intend to do right, and to advocate those measures which will result in the popular good; and if they fall to do so, it is because they are Imposed upon, or have not the proper information. The freedorn of speech and of the press is the great guarantee for our liberty and prosperity. A comparatively few intelligent men upon each side of political questions, wielding the power of the former, or of the press, put parties upon an equality, and protect them to a great extent from the dangers of imposition and fraud. Just as able attorneys put an intelligent and an ignorant suitor on substantially the same footing before the Jury, so do freedom of speech and of the press, while not at all compensating for the ignorance of the masses, place (tarties on an equality and protect the people in the main from imposition and wrong. The instinct and the purpose of the masses being honest and in the right direction, politicians are compelled to recognize that fact, and address themselves to it, and could not, if they tried, for any great length* of time, palm a fraudulent policy upon them. There is no community so ignorant as to be for any lengih of time successfully imposed upon by fraudulent promises and measures. The degree of common sense is everywhere about the same. Th<*re will be found ip every county and in every neighborhood some men of sufficient intelligence to take a generally correct view of what is right and what is to their interest. Another fact which the enemies of republican government in Europe have been slow to recognize, is trie conservatism of the masses of the American people. The enemies of republicanism nave through centuries opposed it, upon the ground that the people are governed by passion and impulse, variable in their notions, Culling down-to-morrow what they utlt up to-day, and incapable of a Steady purpose or policy. The ex (terfence of a hundred years with the American people has demonstrated the fact that the great muss are opposed tochahge—are steady, conservative and consistent in their views, and will not consent to any alteration in their fundamental plan of government, except upon the clearest convictions, established by long experience, of the necessity for a change. While we have new schemes of government and of ctvil and social polity springing up among those who claim to be the educated and learued members of society, and in fact are, these proposed changes hardly ever reach i or affect the people. These schemes i spring up one after the other and are i usually very short-lived. New I schools are formed in politics and philosophy among those who assume to constitute the upper classes of society, and succeed each other in quick succession; yet the great mass of the ' people are unaffected by them. It i is undoubtedly true in this country that the great middle class, comprehending the large majority of the American (teople, are the conservative, preserving class—the balancewheel in our political machine, keeping it in steady motion, rejecting new schemes and sudden politics; while the restlessness and tire spirit of change, which have always been the argument against republican government, exist chiefly in that class who claim to be above the people and superior to the masses. The late election for president showed not only that the great purpose for which the electoral college was originally created had utterly failed, but that it is artificial, complex, liable to derangement and accident, and gives rise to a number of questions which may decide the result of an election and yet have no connection with the merits of the contro-

versy. The Constitution provides that no person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector, the object being to preserve the independence of the electors and their total separation from government influences in the discharge of their duties. The system in actual use, by which electors are pledged before their election to vote for particular candidates renders all questions of eligibility unimportant, and yet the fact that an elector in Oregon held a very unimportant postoflice on the day of his election gave rise to great trouble, anxiety, and prolonged discussion, L’ke questions were raised as to the eligibility of an elector in Florida, on account of his having held a small office, and another in Louisiana—offices unimportant and almost wholly unknown to the people at the time of the election—and came near deciding the final result. Experience, as well as reason, now suggests that the rubbish of the electoral college be brushed away entirely, and the people allowed to vote directly (or the man of their choice for president and vice president. Now the people cannot vote for him, but must vole for others who are pledged to vote for him. Ail this requires that, there shall be no political conventions or caucuses which rhall place in nomination the persons to be voted for as •tectora, so that all the people of the «Ame way of thinking may vole lor the same candidates for electors. Considerations showing that the electoral college is not only useless, but dangerous, and tliat it has never Jtfl faithfully represented the people, but has often misrepresented them. Will be the subject of another paper. IT ITi G" HU ■

4ea to the enjoyment ®f«'Tenc Haute society this season.