The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-02-12
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
MONDAY, February II, 1914.
Prayer by The Rev. Mr.. Tusros
The CLERK then read the Journal Of Saturday; al
ter which,
The SPEAKER announced the first business in
order to be the
REPORT or TIE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
Mr.. FRENCH said that what he had to say upon
this subject would be more Of a conversational cha
racter than that of speech because 1t was imposs-
BILE for one So feeble in health as himself TO speak
to be understood in this Hail. which is the worst
for hearing that be ever saw. However, he would
pass on TO two topics involved in this discus
sion The question first is whether the States ought
to be represented by general ticket by districts,
and he was free to admit that the district system is
the true Jeitersonian mode Of electng Representa-
tves but, in the beginning OF the session. he had yo
ed against the spreading Of the protest OF the minority
upon the Journal because it prejudged the question:
outside OF the courthouse, which made It's authors
and those who signed IL, unfit Judges in this natter
and because they had expressed an opinion before
it came before this body for its judicial action.
He denied the action of the second seton Of
the apportionment act, because IT wanted the
necessary machinery to put it into opera
ton; therefore the gentlemen from the States
of Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia and New Hamp-
shire were consttutioDally elected, because Con-
gress had not, in the apportonment Law, fur
nlshed that machinery and because the States did
not choose to obey the second section, (Which would
have left those States without representation If they
had not used their own machinery TO carry their
elections,) II was why they should not
be entited TO representation tins floor. To make
the second Sc, ton of the apportonment act law il
is necessary that il should be possessed Of the ma
chnery necessary TO put II into operation without
this machinery 1t is no law, and such il Is void
and imperative. Ii Congress exercises the power
given 10 II by the Constitution, must alter the sys-
ten VIII oh IN force in the States al the time
law does not alter the State system, but IT is a des
tructon Of the State laws which is not alteration
within the powers vested by the Constitution 10 Con-
gress, because no machinery had been supplied
cure to the people their repr, sentation should the
State Legislatures refuse TO comply. He then went
into long and able constitutional argument against
the validity oi the second section Of the apporion-
ment act. lie conceived that the law was detective
aud IN fact II was no law at all because it could not
execute itself for the want OF machinery. Then II
was only rule, not rule Of action, and such il
was not binding upon the States.
Mr.. NlNrON then took the floor and contended
that the spportionmeut law was constitutional and as
such II was binding upon the States; and said that
the report OF the majority admitted that Congrei
could alter part without touching The Other State
regulations.
Mr.. DOUGLASS said tina, the report admitted
Congress could alter one part o. a States regulation
provided the necessary provided 10 carry
II into operation but, m admitting that Congress
might alter one branch OF a States system the com
mittee did tot admit that under the power to alter
il could district State.
Here a message was received from the President
OF the United States
MIR. NINTON said the gentemans explanation is
what he had stated and that the second section Of
the did not district the States but left il TO the
States themselves. Ii only altered the system so as
to require the States to district which some of them
hid pnt. lid, Wit a..
claiming seats this floor from those States. were
not constitutonally elected. He said that, at the
adoption of the Constitution, some OF the States OBJ
jeced to this power because they said il was dan
gerous one which fully admits the consti,utopay Of
the law
MIR. BLACK. Of Georgia, said the question was one
ofexpuls and not one of privilege asserted be-
f the question should be decided in the afir-
native, II would expl twenty-ono members from
this door, and as such he should meet it
He was Representative from the State Of Georgia
not OF part OF the people, but of the whole people
and he was surprised at the sentim, nls of his COZ
leaDe, (M StePbens,) who had said that the people
u Georgia were 10 favor Of the district system and
II II lad soi been for the remarks which fell from
bis honorable colleague, he should have coptcntcd
himself with giving a silent vote lie would ask his
colleague II the Wing State Convention had not NOM
mated their ticket under the general ticket system
and were defeated, although they had acknowledged
the constuionslity Of that law. They had succeed.
ed, however, IN one or tNo instances at speoisI
elections, IN elcctlng two three Representatives.
Mr.. STEPHENS said that the sentiments he had
expressed on this subject the other day, he express
ed IN that Convention, and they were circulated
throughout the State
Mr.. BLACK said his other honorable colleague
(Nr. Chsppcl) was also in that Convention who was
known to be opposed 10 the constItutionay Of that
law.
Mr.. STEPHENS said Mr. Chapel as in that
Convention and he believed that he was opposed 10
the oonstitutiopaly OF the law Of Congress, but
It was not generally known IN the convention. How.
ever he would inform his colleague that the vote al
the special election TO which he alluded was much
greater by ,overa thousand than at any former clec
ton.
Mr. BLACK said he would pass ON 10
the Subject, and said II true that the Legisla.
ture OF Georgia had dis,rcteJ the State. but il
had eye to the Twenty NINTH and not to The pre-
sent Congress.
Mr.. STEPHENS asked his colleague IL he had
seen that law II he had not, he would inform him
that !, also bad an eye to this Congress
Mr.. BLACK said he had seen the law and il was
true that there was provisional clause looking To