Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1844-07-04

but think that inassertng the charac' erstic difer
ence between the two parties which have done,
fully borne out by facts, to some of which, only
on this occasion, can refer, and these shall all be
of a recent nature.
The first, to which shall call your attention,
has occurred during the present session ofCongress
The variety in the mode of electing members to the
House OF Representatives of the United Sates,som
being chosen by whole States, and others by sepa-
rate Districts, was long subject of deep and gene
raj complaint II gave to the States unequal pow
er in the Councils of the Nation. Mississippi or
New Hampshire, for example, by general ticket
securing the election of its members to the House
of Representatives, all Of one political party,
might acquire more power, IN that House, than the
State of New York, which, electing its members
by Districts, might return an equal or nearly an
equal number of members of both the parties Ac-
cording to the Gennral Ticket system, it Is impos-
sible that the elective franchise can be exercised
with the same discretion and judgement as under
the District system. The elector cannot possess
the same opportunity, under the one system as un-
der the other, of becoming acquainted, with, and
ascertaining the capacity and4delity Of the candl-
date for his suffrage An elector, residing in one
extreme ofthe State, cannot be presumed to know
candidate living at distance from him, perhaps at
the other extreme. By the General Ticket, the
minority in State is completely smothercd. From
these and other views of the subject, it has been
long patriotic wish entertained that there should
be some uniform mode, both of electing members
to the House of Representatives and choosing Elec-
tors of President and Vice President i recoliect
vel, Rome twenty years ago, when public opinion
appeafakto be almost unanimous upon this subject.
Well, tH6Sast Wing Congress, in order to prevent
the abuses, and to correct the inequality, arising
oat ofthe diverse modes ofelecting members of the
House of Representatives, passed an act requiring
that it should be uniform and by Districts. This
act was in conformity with an express grant OF
power contained in the Constitution of the United
klotSs tba md
manner ofholding elections for Senators and Rep
resentatives shah be prescribed in each State by
the Legislature thereof: but the Congress may, at
any tae, By iGac, make alter s,tch regulations,
ercept as to the places Of choosing Senator's With
that reasonable equal and just act of Congress, every
Wing State, whose Legislature assembled in time
after its passage stry complied, and laid OIL their
respective States ina9 Districts accordingly. But
the four States with Democratic Legislatures, of
Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri and New Hamp-
shire, refused to conform to the law, treated with
contempuous neglect and suffered the elections for
members of the House Of Representatives to pro-
ceed in total disregard of its provisions. This
new species of Modification, not less reprehensi-
BILE than that which attempted formerly In an
other State, though admitting of more easy and
peaceful remedy. That remedy was to refuse to
allow the members, returned from the four States,
to take their seats in the House of Representatives,
which they had no Constitutional or legal right to
| resentatyes had to decide. But it was predicted,
long before they assembled, confidently predicted,
that the members from the four refractory States
would be allowed to take their seats, the Constitu-
| ton and the law notwithstanding. Why was it
I so predicted? Was it not becauseit was known,
from the general character and conduct ofthe dom
inant party in the House, that it would not hesi-
tate to trample under foot beth Lazy and Constltu
tion if necessary to the accomplishment of party
object? Accordingly, the question recently came
up in the House, and the members from the four
States were admitted to their seats. And what,
fellow citizens. do you suppose was the process OF
reasoning by which this most extraordinary result
was brought about? Congress, you have seen, is
invested with unlimited power to make regulations
as to the times, places and manner oRholdng cleo
tons for Representatives, to alter those which
might have been previously made by the State
Legislatures. There is nothing in the grant Of the
power which enjoins upon Congress to exercise the
whole, Of it, or none Considerations Of obvious
convenience concur in leaving TO the several States
themselves, the yation of the times and places of
holding those elections. In that, each State may
be governed by its sense of its own convenience,
without injurously affecting other States But it
is different with the manner of holding elections;
that is, whether it be by General Ticket by the
District system. If some States elect by General
| Ticket, it gives to them undue advantage over
those States which elect by the District System
The manner, therefore, of holding elections was
the grant of power, for Congressional legislation
| If Congress had legislated beyond that, it would
have overreached the convenience and necessity of
the case. But the dominant party, in the present
House of Representatives, have strangely assumed
that Congress could not execute part Of the grant
ed power, without the whole. According to their
| logic, the major does not include the minor. In
1 their view, Government cannot execute part OF
power with which it is entrusted without it exc
cutes the whole of power vested in it. If this
principle be true, when applied to part of the
Constitution, it would be equally true in its appli-
cation to the whole Constitution; but there are
many parts of the Constitution that never have
been, and probably never will be executed. And,
ifthe doctrine of the dominant party in the House
Representatives be sound all the laws enacted by
Congress since the commencement of the Govern
ment null and void, because Congress has not
executedall the powers Of Government with which
it was entrusted. The doctrine applied to the en-
joyment of private property, would restrain man
from using any part of his property unless he used
the whole of it, FL , b. 1853
The case Of the New Jersey election is familiar
with every body There the Wing members who
presented themselves at Washington, to take their
Seats bore with them the highest credentials, under
the great seal OF their State, demonstrating their
right to occupy them. They had been regularly
declared and returned elected members of the
House of Representatives, by the regular authorities
and according to the law of the state of Jersey
Agreeably to the uniform usage, which had pre-
vailed in that House from the commencement of the
Government and according to the usage which pre-
walls in every representative body, they had right
to demand to be admitted to their Seats and to hold
and occapy Them until any objections which might
exist against them should be subsequently nvesti-
gated In the case of the four states already no.
tced it impol tant to the interests of the DOM
inant party, in order to swell their majority, that
.l,z Ill