Jenks' Portland Gazette

FOR THE GAZETTE.

To the inhabitants of the District of Maine.

The incessant ravings of the hired minions of the executive against the wise and politic act of our legislature, establishing a general choice of electors throughout the state, can proceed from no other source than a persuasion that the doings of their master have rendered him so unpopular with a majority of our fellow citizens that there is no prospect of his having any of their votes at the ensuing election. Having seen nothing but general declamation against this act, unsupported by the least appearance of reasoning, I doubt whether the public attention need be occupied by any attempt to vindicate it.

It sometimes happens, however, that an inveterate perseverance in clamor produces an impression; it being difficult to believe that so much complaint should exist without any cause, and the people not generally knowing that the actors in the farce in fact perceive none of the evils which they undertake to proclaim, but all endeavoring to inflame the public mind for purposes useful to the party of which they are faithful and obedient slaves.

On this consideration it may be well to devote a little time to this reviled proceeding of our legislature, in order that we may be prepared to resist the attacks which will increase in fury against it until the day of election.

I need not cite the act itself, it has been printed in every Newspaper, and its provisions are generally understood. The contested principle is the establishment of a general choice of all the electors by all the people, instead of confining the choice of the people to one elector in the district wherein they reside.

Until it shall be proved by democratic arithmetic, that nineteen are less than one. it will not be in the power of the disaffected to convince the people that their privileges have been infringed by this measure; indeed too entirely are they destitute of grounds on which to support their opposition; that they have not thought it convenient to expose themselves in an argument upon the subject--They have thought it sufficient to publish the jacobin bull of denunciation, with as little pretence of right to support it, as the pope has to his claim of infallibility.

One of their dogmas is that this is a contrivance by the federalists, aristocrats, and tories, to secure an undivided vote of this state against Mr. Jefferson; Be it so, if a majority of the citizens of this state are averse to the administration of Mr. Jefferson,the vote of the state ought to express that aversion. Look at the democratic states of Virginia, and Pennsylvania--the former considered by democrats as the chosen seat of freedom, where the master and slave exhibit the state of mankind under the terrific reign of jacobin liberty and equality.--Here you find that a general ticket is not thought aristocratic; they have no federalists in their legislature, and yet that legislature has taken care that the people shall not vote by districts--because the majority of the people of that state, black and white willing that Mr. Jefferson may be re-elected they will not permit the possibility to exist: that the people of one section in their state should counteract the voice of that majority. Pennsylvania too, the elysium of democrats, where the goddess of liberty is enthroned, with law, order and religion under her feet, instead of having them the supporters of her throne, as federalists would place them; in this resort of alien worthies, where there is but one step from the pillory to the post of honor, it was not thought inconsistent with the true spirit of democracy to establish a general ticket. Other states of like political character have preferred the same course, and yet the measure is denounced by the half taught democrats of Massachusetts as partaking of the features of aristocracy, not recollecting that they are accusing their ardent brethren in the same breath with their political enemies.

Though not disposed to admire much of the doings of the democratic states above alluded to; it cannot but be acknowledged that in the measure under consideration, they have consulted the true spirit of- the constitution. On this subject there have been various opinions, but that of a general choice has prevailed in most of the states. The words of the constitution being that "each state Shall appoint," it would seem clear that Such mode of election, as would best secure the voice of the state, would be most conformable to the constitution: The mode of a general ticket is liable to no objection on this ground; the result will give the clear and unequivocal voice of the state, or the people of the state, convertible terms in this part of the constitution; whereas in the district choice contended for by the opposition; it may happen and probably would happen that the majority of electors in some of the states would vote for a candidate, against whom a decided majority of the citizens would declare their dissent. Thus a minority in those states, in a matter of high political import, would triumphantly carry their point against a strong but defeated majority.

This proposition may be illustrated by a familiar hypothesis. Let us suppose that the choice of governor in this state was in the manner prescribed in the constitution of the United States for the choice of president; and the districts which now exist for the choice of electors of president, were to return electors of governor'; would it not be practicable with a little more straining of democratic lungs and purse to produce a majority of one elector, who would vote for the democratic candidate; Mr. Sullivan for instance &. Would it not have been so even at the last election? The electors from Berkshire, Middlesex, Bristol, Barnstable, Norfolk, York, and Kennebeck, would have voted for Mr. Sullivan without any doubt one district in Essex and that of Plymouth might have been with an application of very little more democratic stimulus, which a near prospect of success would have furnished, added to the list; Mr. Sullivan would have been declared governor thus while a majority of more than six thousand of his fellow citizens deprecated his choice. How preposterous must that system be in a republican country which thus gives the minority the command over a majority, and yet fellow citizens, tis this system which the democrats, the pretended guardians of the people's rights lament the loss of.. The reason is plain; they are a minority. and by any fair mode of election must have their views defeated; they wish therefore to establish one, which shall. give chance for the. minority to rule, the only way by which they can come into power in this state.

And now- fellow citizens let me ask you whence all this clamour, and wherefore all this abuse against your representatives and senators for determining in favour of a general ticket.= By the conduct of the state faction in this particular, you may learn the general system of these restless disturbers of the public tranquility.= Give them not your confidence, they aim to destroy the influence and popularity of the good and great men you have been accustomed to honour! with no other view than to abuse your credulity and gratify their own passions.--Your neighbours of Newhampshire have. narrowly escaped falling into their snares... The. constant exertion of the democratic party in that state, had produced a concession the last spring which threatened a total change of political character but danger produced union and spirit, and the contrivers of mischief are put to shame. Be persuaded fellow citizens to prevent an evil rather than suffer it and enlarge the trouble of a cure -adhere to old principles and listen to tried friends and approved patriots.