The Rhode Island American, And General Advertiser

FOR THE RHODE-ISLAND AMERICAN.

To the Freemen of Rhode-Island.

When a party present a candidate for the support of their fellow-citizens, it is incumbent on them at least to nominate one who can by law enter on the duties of his office in the event of an election. If they nominate one who cannot by law serve, if elected, they manifest a disregard of principle and a contempt for the people. They shew that their only object is to keep alive a spirit of party and present a prominent character, who will bring out all their party on town-meetings. It appears by a law in our statute book, say the democrats, that no United States' officer can be elected to any office in this State. Mr. Knight the democratick candidate or Governour is now an United States' officer and will continue to be one on the 16th of this month, town-meeting day. At the time when he is voted for, he is as completely ineligible, as if he was no freeholder. Now suppose a man who owned no freehold in our State, should be nominated for Governour and the people should be cajoled into a belief that it would please the great folks at Washington to elect him, and a majority of the votes should be in his favour, will any man in his senses say such a person could or ought to be admitted to take his engagement. If it be said the cases are not parallel, for Mr. Knight is a freeholder, and by resigning his United States' offices, he may qualify himself on or before the first Wednesday in May, when the engagement is to be taken, we answer, if William P. Gerrish, or any other person destitute of a freehold, should next Wednesday receive the majority of votes for Governour, and on the first Wednesday of May go to Newport, dressed up for his office, with a deed duly recorded of land worth $134, executed on the day before, none but Billy Hawkins would say he could be sworn in. And why, because on the 16th of April, the time when he was in fact elected, he, having no freehold, was ineligible. Just so is Mr. Knight's case. He is an United States' officer, and the law makes him, as to holding a State office, just like the man without freehold, incapable of being Governour. Such then being the fact, all who vote for him, vote to have no Governour, or all who vote for him shew their determination and wish that the State should be disorganized, all who vote for him violate "an express law among our publick statutes." Republicans, consider this. If Governour Jones has in aught offended, displace him, but remember you cannot do it by voting for Mr. Knight.

LAREDEF.