CAUCUSES.

THERE are two principles which must be admitted by the friends of a causus nomination. The first is, that the nomination by a caucus ought to influence the subsequent election; and the second is, that a small number of persons, self-appointed, can decide better, who is worthy of public office, than the people themselves.

If the nomination by a caucus be the mere naming of a candidate, and is not designed, of itself, to affect the election, why so much anxiety to have a caucus assembled, and why are the people told that they must, at all events, acquiesce in such a nomination? The "National Advocate" has repeatedly asserted, that the people must and will abide by the decision of a caucus; and that all who will not promise to submit to such decision do not belong to the Republican party. The same doctrine is supported by the "Richmond Enquirer," and receives some countenance from the "NewHampshire Patriot.”

If the people are to abide by the decision of a caucus, then the President of the United States is in fact to be

elected by a caucus. It is then the doctrine of a party

among us, that the people ought not to elect their chief magistrate, but that a ruler should be set over them by a privileged few.

The reasons assigned for a caucus nomination are, that without such a nomination, the votes of the electors would be scattered; and that if the votes were scattered, there might be no choice by the electors. This is the apprehended evil. If there were no choice by the electors, a choice must be made by the members of the House of Representatives, voting by states. This is the constitutional remedy. But if a previous nomination were made by a caucus, and if the electors were bound to vote for the person designated by the caucus, the votes would not be scattered, and there would be a choice, in the first instance, by the electors. This is the proposed remedy.

Now who are the privileged few, who are to dictate to the electors? The members of the House of Representatives? And why not the officers of the army and navy? Why not the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of State, with their respective clerks? A writer in the "Savannah Republican" proposes, that the Ex-Presidents should call a council of a few distinguished men, and "by and with their advice and consent," select a President for the people. This, in Europe, would be called aristocracy; in the opinion of the "National Advocate," a plan perfectly similar is to be the only test of republicanism.

We have heard, that in a distant state, some years ago, an important cause was pending in court, in which the facts were so doubtful, that it was apprehended, that on the trial

the jury would not be able to agree in a verdict. On the morning of the day in which the court was to sit, the friends of one of the parties, who had been summoned to court as his witnesses, finding themselves together near the court-house, very naturally fell into conversation respecting his cause. Upon comparing together and talking over the testimony which they were severally prepared to give, the case seemed a very clear one, and they were surprised, that any question should be made about it. They regretted that so much time should be lost, as would be necessary to try it before the jury. They at last concluded in the simplicity of their hearts, that the ends of justice would be promoted, by preparing a verdict, at once, for their friend the plaintiff. The verdict was accordingly drawn up; by which it was decided, that the plaintiff should recover the whole estate demanded in his writ. As soon as the jury was empannelled and the cause called on for trial, one of the witnesses rose and respectfully addressing the court, informed them that he had the pleasure to state, that the cause was already decided; that although it was a necessary formality, a very absurd and antiquated one, to be sure, -that the jury should pass upon the cause, in compliance with the letter of the law, yet that the plaintiff's witnesses had drawn up a verdict for him; and they were, at the same time, unanimously of opinion, that if the jury hesitated a moment in confirming that verdict, or the court in rendering judgment upon it, that they should be turned neck and heels out of the court-house, according to law.

This was a Caucus, and ought to have been submitted to without reluctance. But it is said, that the presiding judge, who was a vile aristocrat, committed the witnesses to prison for a contempt of court; and that, on the final trial, the jury, who had strange notions of equal and exact justice, found a verdict for the defendant.

Portsmouth Journal,

August 16, 1823.

PRINCIPLE OF SPECULATION.

The

THE sudden rise of merchandise during the last ten days, and the speculations (as they are called) which have been made in consequence of it, have been the subject of much conversation, and the question has more than once been asked how far such speculations are justifiable. doubt may perhaps be lessened by stating one or two cases. If, in consequence of tidings from Europe, there should be a sudden advance in the price of cotton at New York, which it is certainly known, will produce a correspondent advance in Boston, is it fair in a merchant of New York to send an express to Boston in anticipation of the mail, and purchase cotton in that city before the news of the increase of price could possibly be received? A large portion of the merchantile world would probably answer this question in the affirmative. It would be called a fair speculation.

If a man, passing an office in which a lottery had just been drawn, should be told that a certain ticket had come up the highest prize, would it be fair in him to send an express to the owner of that ticket and purchase it, at the market value of tickets, before the owner could possibly be in