From the Pittsburgh Gazette.
{"newspaper_name": "American watchman and Delaware advertiser.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3755, "word_count": 684, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9836000204086304], "ccnet_perplexity": [2246.60009765625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



A. The congr ressmen who voted against 'acAso'
are all internal rascals


H. Why so?


A. Becausc he had majority OF the people
votes, and therefore ought to nave been elected. we
have been cheated out of our rights by SET Oh
intriguing scoundrels


B Stop. friend not so fast Though voted
for Gen Jackson myself, and had my feelings warn
" enlisted in his favor; YET cannot thInk SO haruy
OF the members who voted Tor Mr Adams. II 'he
people had given Jackson majority, he would have
been elected without Congress having any thing 10
do with it He had plurality, but you know where
there are more than two candidates, man may
have plurality, and yet not majority. Among
four candidates, who has less than one'thi1d OF
the whole may have plurality. There 49, 'hete
fore wide difference between majority and a Plu
rality.


A. We'll, say the members OF Congress ought
to have been bound by the will oil their constituents
and should have voted for the candiua'elor "Aom
their constituents voted.


B. But il they had, there would have been no
choice, for plurality will rot elect In Congress
there must be majority there, as well as among
The people, or thee can be no election; and II eve
ry congressman had voted his constituents voted,
there could never have been majority.


A. No, but they ought to have come over to the
sndidae who had the plurality Of The peoples vo'es


B. Ah, tina, indeed But if they ought TO do SO,
Why send the election to Congress at all why,
especially, send three candidates into congress- II ne
one they mast take is alW ays designated: II the
members were bound to take the man who came IN
with The highest vote it would be meckery to say
the choice DE- volved upon Congress. This would be
Hob>on's choice indeed "you may have any horse
in The stable. so that you take the one next the
door - But, have you never considered how
unfairly this principle OF yours, OF gong over
the highest, would operate: Suppose every
state IN the Union had candidate tor the Prescen
cy. New York would give her candidate 30 eIecio
al yo,es Pennsylyania would give hers 28; Nr
vinia would give hers % and on. some OF the
smaller states being able to give theirs but 5 Well
no man has majority; hut three can go into Con
gress,- those OF New Y rk, PENNSYLVANIA, and Vir
ginia The New York candidate IS the highest, o'
course, and you would on your principle oi deci
ding the matter, obge all the members to go over
to him. aud elect him. although he might be an
Aaron Burr! A man may have the highest vote N
the electoral colleges when three ~ more candidates
are running, who, il but Of the others had been
running against him, would have been far in the mi
nority. For instance: suppose the candidate oi
the New England states,-D. the cand9nts OF the
Middle,-E. OF the Souhern.-and +. OF the
Western States. &. receives SO votes-D. 4o-E.
50-F 30 Bot if c the highest, and r., the low.
est had been the only candidates, tie former might
have received but his so votes, wnile the latter uni


ting all the other interests. might have received 80
votes, and would have been elected by clear ma
ority. And yet you would have the members OF
Congress TO overlook all interests of this sort to
hrow aside their own constitutional right OF making
choice, and down that a chOice, which the
people. by the constitution, have declared to be no
choice Think the subject over again. BE reason
able-You may, perhaps. come to the conclusion.
hat, while it would have been rnscaity IN congress.
men TO violate their oaths, by registering that as
heir choice and The peoples choice, which was nei
her.--t was not rascally for them to follow the
dictates Of their own Judgment, and trakr the choice
freely which the constitution freely submitted to
them.