Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-02-16
THE AW-BREAKERs IN CONGRESS-.

For the last week. the report of the locofoco ma
orty of the committee of elections, in favor of ad
hitting the members elected in defiance of the act
of 1912, has been under discussion in the House.
We observe that the representative of this district
goes with the more radical of his own party,-we
say, to violate the supreme law of the land, the
Constitution itself Mr.. Dillingham; admits that
Congress has the constitutional power to prescribe
the time, place and manner of electing members of
Congress, and perhaps the reader may therefore be
curious to know how he ovadcs the law of 1872
AS we cannot, at any rate now, publish the speech
entire, we will state the principal points.
First---ho insists that the power was given TO be
used only in extreme cases, as for instance when
state has refused or neglected to provide for the
election Of members.
Secondhand if Congress does any thing it
should do all that is required in fixing the "time,
place. and manner" of holding the elections,-there
must be no partnership between Congress and tt g
states; ami as Congress had not done all this,
the states had right to come in and do the whole
in their own way.
Third-that the act of '42 was mandatory TO the
states, and therefore unconstitutional as that in
strument does not, as he says, empower Congress
to issue mandauus to u state sovereignty.
To the first point we remark, the Constitution it.
self limits the power of Congress to no particular
case. The power is given Internationally, and if
it be right to exercise it so to compel the states
to elect members at all, it 10 us equally right
to require them TO make this election in just and
proper "inanner"-that is The word in the Constitu-
,l,o a., l.,
doctrine directly in the teeth Of the very clause of
the Constitution in question. That clause empow-
ers Congress TO aiter' I" such regulations" may
have been established by the states; aye, "to al
ter"-a term which expresses partnership pretty
distinctly to our apprehension In other words,
we think Congress may "alter" the state laws
either as to the time or the place, or the manner
that it may act as to one ofthese points alone or all
of them. 1t is certainly very queer NATTER if Con-
! gress can exercise unlimited power over all three
points, and not any one of them-or that the
body which has control of the WHOLE cannot choose
whether to make its own laws on the subject, to
permit the states to do it in conformity with the
principles which shall be constutionally prescrib-
ed to them To the third point say, that good,
it proves too much. The Cd section ofthe act FAC,
requiring elections by districts, is not a whit more
mandatory than the first section, which requires
members to be upportoned by certain ratio Of
population. The states are no more bound 10 re-
gard the one section than the other. To be consis-
tent, Mr.. Dillingham; must insist that the whole act
is unconstitutional and therefore not only admit
members elected by general ticket in defiance of
law, but twice, or ten or twenty times the number
10 which any state is entitled. On the whole, Mr..
d. labors hard to admit members elected by an un-
lawful rule. which he would be one of the last 10
wish to see adopted in Vermont.
Mr. Collamer has also spoken on this subject,
and we shall endeavor to give his speech hereafter
either substantially or entire.