Legislature. There was no difficulty, when the question came up in the Legislature, in arguing that it was desirable to change from appointment by that body to election by the people, although a change at that time, under the circumstances, looked like a fraud upon Mr. Crawford. But beyond that there were other material questions upon which opinions differed. One class said, "Elect by districts," and another, "By a general ticket; another claimed that "a majority of all the votes given should be necessary to a choice," and another "that a plurality should be sufficient." Neither plan commanded a majority of votes in the Senate. Eventually the bill was postponed and the Legislature adjourned without agreeing upon any change in the old law. The partisans of Clay and Adams soon passed fever-heat, reaching a boiling temperature. Governor Yates convened the Legislature, and it immediately adjourned, accomplishing nothing. The Legislature eventually appointed electors who gave a divided vote— Adams 26, Crawford 5, Clay 4, and Jackson 1.

Among those voting to postpone the bill, after failing to agree upon any mode of electing, was Silas Wright, who was denounced, burned in effigy, and subjected to numerous insults. These things turned the attention of the people to a modest, sincere, and honest young man, who profited more than he was injured by such exhibitions of violence.

In this struggle, New York gave only sixteen effective votes. The next Legislature adopted the district and plurality system, and at the election in 1828 gave Jackson 20 and Adams 16 votes, thus giving only 4 effective votes. This act gave satisfaction to no one; and the next Legislature, by common consent, adopted the general ticket and plurality system, under which, at the presi dential election of 1832, General Jackson received the whole 42 votes to which the State was then entitled.

The attempt to change the electoral law, on the eve of an election, to promote the interest of one candidate and defeat another, occasioned much excitement, and in the end elevated those it designed to crush, while sober experience has settled the whole matter in a rational and sensible manner.

It would, in our estimation, improve the national Constitution

if the people could vote directly for President and Vice-President, and save the States the legal formalities and expense occasioned by the intervention of presidential electors. The people are as competent to express their wishes directly as through a repre- sentative agent. These presidential electors, in no way, promote the interests of the voters or the persons voted for, while they enlarge the circle claiming influence in the distribution of the patronage of the man for whom they cast a representative vote. It would be equally as sensible to provide electors to elect a Governor, or any other representative man. The fewer public agents the better, and the more direct the action of the voter, the more certain he is of attaining his own object. He should be his own agent as far as possible. It simplifies the machine of government, which always improves it.

60.-ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

Mr. Adams was an extraordinary man. His mind was wonderful as a storehouse of facts. His patriotism and love of country were ardent. He was educated a Federalist, but served long in a Democratic school. When not swayed by prejudice or passion, his enlarged mind played fairly and was well balanced. His defence of General Jackson for the taking of Pensacola and St. Mark's was able and conclusive, as well as disinterested. His negotiations were able, and often very skilful. His labors were endless, his memory tenacious, and he delighted to convey information to those in pursuit of knowledge. In relation to the affairs of our country, he was an index to a whole library. But he lacked tact as a politician, and did not understand the sentiments and feelings of the common mind. His vision had been elsewhere directed, and often to very great advantage. His efforts to be "hail fellow well met " were not spontaneous and natural.

in

Public opinion and long practice had made caucuses of members of Congress a portion of the election machinery. It was, 1824, the recognized mode of selecting from among friends, and presenting a party candidate. Three members of Mr. Monroe's Cabinet, the Speaker of the House, and General Jackson, all

claiming to be Democrats, were candidates. Which should the Democratic party make its standard-bearer? The old mode of caucus selection was repudiated by all but Mr. Crawford. He received the nomination as others had, for near a quarter of a century, and which the Democrats treated as binding. The others were presented by State Legislatures where they had friends. Mr. Adams received no nomination, deemed binding, from any political party. He claimed votes on the score of not being bound by the shackles of party. His course precluded his having any claim upon the Democratic party. He had spurned its usages and repudiated its action. He put forth no platform of principles, nor did he show that those he professed were superior to those of his competitors. A damaging fact was, that every Federal State gave him her votes, and no Democratic State gave him all of hers. He failed before the people, and was elected by the House. He thus had the misfortune to be elected President with no party to sustain him, though, like Tyler, he felt the need of one. Nor was he calculated for a daring leader among the great men by which he was surrounded. Those who concurred in his election could not agree upon the principles which should govern his administration. No great State had given him her electoral vote. The voting people and voting members of Congress were found to be widely different in sustaining an administration. Unfortunately for Mr. Adams, most of his real strength lay in New England, and there the old Democrats and Federalists could not act cordially together. Removals and appointments, involving discrimination between them, were hazardous. His inaugural message shows that he considered party spirit nearly extirpated, an error in which he could not long indulge. It is a document containing many patriotic sentiments, with but one point specifying practical policy. He distinctly announced his approval of internal improvements by the national Government. On this a great battle was subsequently fought, and the proposed system fell dead under General Jackson's veto.

If Mr. Adams had had a party to sustain him in the country, his administration might have ended differently. He had friends, but not a party linked with him in feeling and principle;

and had had adversaries, all of whom readily combined against him. Proposed internal improvements had mere interested localities, which did not include States and broad regions. Besides, the States were making the improvements they desired with their own means. New York, after once being refused assistance, when that would have increased the value and sale of the public lands, had nearly completed her gigantic canals. Other States were actively progressing, and neither desired the meddling presence of Federal officers not responsible to them. Besides, the Federal Treasury was nearly empty, and our national debt not yet paid. No man, knowing and appreciating all these circumstances, could reasonably expect to succeed on such an issue. Although the public business was well discharged, there was no element of popularity about the administration, while the people were sweeping along in swarms to the standard of General Jackson, who was an avowed Democrat, and so were his supporters, although he was not a politician, and had once left the Senate because disgusted with the wiles and tricks of politicians. He was outspoken and bold on political subjects, as he had been in his military acts. which closed the war in splendor. He had all the elements of popularity. The people, men and women, love a bold, sincere man. We don't believe there is an American woman who would stoop so low as to marry a known coward. Jackson touched the popular chord, and it vibrated harmoniously. The people gave him 178 votes and Mr. Adams 83. The next time he ran he received 219 out of 288. While he professed to be a Democrat, Mr. Adams should have adhered to the time-honored usages of the Democratic party, and submitted his pretensions to the arbitrament of his friends, and if elected he would have had a party to sustain him, without which no administration can be strong and effective. We cherish the kindest feelings toward Mr. Adams, for he had many great and good qualities. But his administration has left no great marks in our history. Both before and after it, he accomplished more than during its existence. Mr. Adams was born July 11, 1767, at Braintree, Massachusetts, and died in the House of Representatives, at Washington, February 28, 1848.

The race was his.

61.-EQUALITY THE ONLY HONEST BASIS OF LEGISLATION.

Natural justice requires that those who unite to form a government should enjoy equality of rights and privileges in the means of pursuing happiness. They can never live together in peace and harmony where this principle is not recognized and acted upon. Envy, jealousy, and strife, must spring up where it is ignored, producing the most fatal consequences. In framing our Constitution, its authors sought to avoid these evils by inserting prohibitory clauses, deemed sufficient to meet every possible occasion, and secure perfect equality of rights and privileges through the whole Union. It was the expectation of its authors, that whenever, in a practical question, the subject came within the admitted principle, if it did not within the express letter of the prohibiting clause, it would equally restrain action. It was not the expectation of our forefathers that a continued struggle for them would be necessary to the enjoyment of our constitutional rights, and the free application of the principle of equality. They inserted these provisions in the ninth section of the first article of the Constitution :

"No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.

"No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of any one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another."

These provisions, though clear, full, and explicit, have failed to secure that equality of rights contemplated. They have been not only expressly violated, but indirectly circumvented and defeated. The promised equality in the pursuit of happiness, demanded by democratic principles, and intended by the framers of the Constitution, has been practically defeated by legislation. Motives, more or less laudable, are always assigned when these wrongs are perpetrated. These are less calculated to prove that