The Arkansas banner., 1844-04-10


 constitutional judges, to give a construction to- statute inYoling such grave eonseque what was their duty Tie gentleman iron Alabama Mir. Belser had invoked the ashes of Chief Justice Marshall, and asked tho llonse what that able judge would have said in such a case? Why, (said Mir N.,) Inc would tell the gentleman from Alabama, what in his opinion, that learned jurist would have said-and what this House was legally bound To say-that there was applicable to the case l the BIamest, and one of the best settled prln- ciplrs of law, and which was of universal application, that no construction was intend- ed which would lead 10 unreasonable conse- quences. Apply that principle to the case before the House. The act of Congress pre- seribing the rule by which elections should be held in the several States, being inchoate merely, and incomplete, impossible to be performed by the people of the States, whose action il was designed 10 govern in making the elections, it was 10 "6e presuaRedn that Congress intended, as he had no doubt they did intend, that ii should be completed, and made practicable to be performed by the people, by the State legislatures, or, upon their refusal, by Congress. Until such fur ther legislation was had, the law did not, by legal rule of construction, repeal the existing laws upon the same subject. And why? Be- canse different construction must involve the most disastrous and unreasonable re- sHlls; for, he repeated, the act of Congress standing alone, if valid to the extent gentle men had contended, would deprive the peo- pie Of iour States 0f theiF constitutional right of representation and if the legislatures of all the States had refused to conform 10 it, it would, by the same reasoning, deprive the people of all the States of that right. IL was not intended that il should operate any such unreasonable consequence; and {said Mr. N. } he how summoned gentlemen upon the other side of this hall to come before that ultimate tribunal to which they had so o6en referred the people themselyes-and answer whether they imended that this act--passed under the pretext of regulating lAe manner of elections should, by it's own operation, dislranchlse the people of the several States, and dissolve this tTuionl if the legislatures of the States sfould refuse to obey the imperial edct. He called upon them to meet this issue be- fore that august tribunal.
 Again, (said NIr. N he happened 10 be one of those who believed that Congress did not possess the power even hy its own direct legislation, to district the States for the choice of members to this House. If Congress pos sessed such authority, 1t must be under that branch of the fourth section of the first arti- cle of the constitution which conferred the right to make or alterthe regulations preserib- ing the ''BaaRRer of hoidiag elections for senators and represeniatiyes.o He had all ready shown that the State legislatures and Congress were made constitutional agents by that section; and that the powers of this agency, to be legitimately exercised, must be exercised benelicially, and not in derogation of any of the rights delegated to, and vested i'll, the peephe of the several States, under the same article of the constitution. This posi- tion, he believed, could not be successfully eontroverted. The simple inquiry, then, was, would a law of Congress dividing the States into districts be in derogation of 0ny of those rights? The first clause of the second section provides that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State le- gislature.o The People oCa State here means the State in its highest political and sovereign capacity-the body polite, which Is the source of all power within it's territorial limits. This very section of the constitu- ton fully established that exposition. If the clause he had just quoted had declared that the House of Representatives should be com posed of members chosen every second year by the Screraf States, and that the electors in each State should have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature, the electors of the members to this House would have been the same as they now were, and the same rights would have been vested in the people of the several States as were now vested in them. But if further proof be needed to establish that position, it was to be had in the same section. After providing for an enumeration of the people, 1t was de- clared that, ''until such enumeration shall be made, the Stale of New Hampshire shall be entitled 10 choose three" representatives The people of the State, then, here means the body polite, or State itself, in is sovereign cafacllV.
 Here then Isaid Mir. NJ was the right clearly vested in the people of the State, col- tectirciy, as political body, to choose rep rosentatives to this House every second year. Now, he would ask, was it within the iuris- diction of Congress, under the permissive power 10 regulate the manner of holdag elections, to abridge, enlarge, or modify that right'
 The people of the State of New IIamp- shire had right to elect every second year four members to this House. It was no right conferred by Congress; it was a con stituiional right. Every qualified elector of that State had the right to vote for four per sons to represent the people of that State in this House. But t was contended that Con gress had authority to make partition of that rght-to divide the State into four districts, and to prescribe that each elector in the State should vo,e for only one, instead of four representatives. But this would abridge and ltpr bOfh tkp riwhf and qualification. ac tln