Southern telegraph. (Rodney, Miss.) 1834-1838, 1838-04-03
Speech Of MIR. Prem tiss.
MISSISSIPPI CONTESTED Ell ECTIoN
Delircrcd en- the House of Representa-
tires, January II, 1888.


Delirercd an the House Of Representa-
tires, January II, 1888.
(coNcLuDEDl
Suppose the Governor Of Mississippi had
issued his writ, and, according to the author j
uy which tho gentlemen ascribe to him, had
ordered an election TO have been holden al
The same time prescribed for tie general
election, bat at different places from those
designated by the law; suppose that por-
ton OF the people had voted at the places
hxed by law, and the remainder of them
at the places appointed by the Executive
authority; two sets of representatives are
chosen; which are entitled to seats? The
elections are Simultaneous, but under two
distinct authorities, each claiming the con
st'tntionaI power to order and direct the
same. My opponents admit that each pos
sesses the power; but both, of course, cam
not exercise il. IN the case supposed they
come IN direct collision. Which is para
mount, the la" of the State, or the Execu-
tive writ2
Even if the powers are concurrent, it is
clear principle, that where there are con
current jurisdictions, that which frs, attach
es, controls the subject matter. Now, the
law OF the State fixing the time for the G.
lection of Representatives to the 25th Con
gress on the LIST Monday of November and
day following, was enacted, and Of course
It's Jurisdiction attached, long before the
Governor claimed his jurisdiction and is
sued his writ. 1t is admitted that but for
The Executive action, the election in Novem-
Der would have been valid. This drives
gentlemen inevitably to the position, that
the authority of the State Executive is par
amount to the law; and that every law, CT
Their OF the States or Congress, fixing the
tune of election for Representatives, after
the expiration of the previous term, can at
any time after such expiration of the previ
Gus term be abrogated and utterly annullcd
at the discretion Of the State Executive
Suppose Congress under lis constitutional
power TO make or alter the election laws,
had passed the very law that Mississippi
has enacted: still, according to gentemen's
| argument, such a law would have been en-
! tirely at the mercy of the State Executive.
This is notification with vengeance.
South Carolina clained the power to nnlify
an unconstitutional law of Congress: my
| opponents contend for the right in The State
Executive TO nuiliiy an admitted constitu-
ii"nal law, either of the States or Congress
ior the principle is precisely the same
| whether applied to law of the State or a
law OF Congress. The law of the State OF
Mississippi is either constitutional or it is
If ii iscansi.....;e,,-,l,.h on tire uppo!n,
men. Of the first Monday in November for
the time of election, is constitutional de
cision by the constitutional authority, thai
the first Monday of November is propel
time for such election. The Legislature
has exercised, in fixing that time the gene
raj discretion which by the constitution, i
undoubtedly possessed over the SUBJECT; i
may have exercised it improperly. Tht
period fixed may be too late for public con
venlencc and the general interest. But S,
long as the law continues to be constitution
al, the time designated in it is constitutional
ly.right and proper. But it may be asked
is there no remedy? Can the States, b,
improper regulations on this subject, sto
or impede the operations of the Govern
menf?
This question has been already answer
cd in the previous part ofthe argument.
The sage founders of our political syster
contemplated the possibility, that the State
might refuse TO make any election laws, c
might make improper ones, and, IN conse
quence expressly delegated to Congress tn
power "to make or alter such regulations.
s The discretion of Congress in decidin
what is a proper time, is thus made para
mount to that of the State Legislatures
+, But in the present instance, Congress h
not thought it necessary to alter the Stat
regulation. This, of itself, is an admission
on the part of Congress, that the State l.
gislature has not improperly exercised |
discretion. 1t has, then, been decided
the Legislature of the State Of Mississippi
having, by the constitutions, full and c
press jurisdiction over the matter, that Il
first Monday of November last was a pr
per time for the people of that State to
lect their Representatives TO the 10Th 20
gross.
eu This decision has been recognised
Congress as correct, by-tils failure to int
pose its supervisory power to alter the reg
lation And yet the monsirous doctrine
y advanced by my opponents, that there res
s ed in the Executive breast a special DISC
ed ton, paramount to the general discretion
the State Legislature and Congress comb
on ed, and fully competent to decide that
vember was not proper time tor inc p
81 pic to elect Representatives; but that y
= was; and, accordinglytoa alter the time fr
Novemner to July. Will gentlemen pc
out to me the clause of the constitution G.
ferring upon the State Executive so strar