The Arkansas banner., 1844-04-03

tions with which they had been furnished. without substituting others. This proposi- lion Che sa;d) was mpregnable; 1t sprung otlt of the peculiar organization of our repnb-
 ican forms of government. If this were not so, then, the existence of this government depended upon the will of a dominant party
 or faction within the walls of this Capitol.--
 IN ot only SO, but every State government III
 this Union held it's existence by the mere lofpeafanee oi majority in their respective
 oa iegis. .atufes, for they ould Il; vc noth-
 Ing to do but 10 alter the regulations pre-
 scnbing the manner of holding the elections
 III the state so as to render it impossible for
 the people io eject by the rule prescribing
 such alteration, and inc work was slone-the government dissolved. That he might be correctly understood, he would illustrate this position. The constitution of his own State
 (New llampshire) vests in the people of that
 State the right to elect by districts, every
 year, five councillors and twelve serators.-
 The constitution enjoins it upon the State
 legislatures to divide the State into five dis
 trcts for the choice of the former, and into
 twelve districts for the choice of the latter.-
 The legislature had performed this duly and
 the people of that State had enjoyed their
 constitutional right of clecting their eornci-
 lors to this day But (he put this case in it's
 strongest light suppose the last legislature
 of that State had passed an act for an abso-
 iute repeal of the laws dstricting the State
 fer the choice of councillors and senators
 would such an act be of any validity? Surely
 not. It would be not only constitutional
 right, but constitutional duty, for the people
 to elect their councillors and senators agree Y HbN t1 the laWc fha., tod
 attempted repcll otherwise the government
 ol the people would be dissolved by the ,rI-
 constitutional act of a corrupt and treacher-
 eus legislature. He would suppose another case Ter illustration, which was parallel, and
 directly applicable to the case now before the q House. Suppose the present Congress should
 pass an act prescribing that, in every case
 where State entitled to more than ono rep resentative, that such State should elect by
 double districts and If there should be any
 odd number, that that odd number should be
 elected by a single district; aud that the State legislatures should refuse to district their re-
 spectlve States according 10 the rule pre- scrlbed, and should elect members to this
 House Ill the next Congress. according to
 the regulations now established in the several States ask (said AIr. NJ would this gov- l,
 dissolved' or, would the members thus elect
 ed constitute d legal and constitutional House.
 Most certainly the latter would be true. The people would have made the election agreea-
 ply to the only regulations by which 1t was possible for them to do it; regulations which,
 he eenlended, were constitutionaly and inde- ieaslbly theirs for that purpose, until others , were prescribed, by which they could exer- else their constitutional rights. But, accor- ding to the federal party-ss the law and orr
 der partyo-upon this floor, with one or two honorable exceptions, this government would be at an end the Union--yes, this glorious
 union--be dissolved. Upon this issue, which covered the whole case before the House, he I (Mr NJ invoked the judgment of the ulti-
 mate tribunal to which gentlemen npon the 1, other side had so often alluded--the people f themselves.
 f Again he would assume another position. , It was this that the act of Congress in ques- , ton was unconstitutional and void, because
 it was completely subversiye of the intent
 and design of the fourth section of the first , article of the constitution, under which the power was claimed for Congress to pass it. f He had just given what he considered to be true exposition of that section. Gentlemen , on the other side aontended that it's construc- ' ton was plain; that il could not be msun-
 dcrstood; gentlemen on his (Mr. N.'s) side
 of the question said the same. But tlle con- f clusons at which they arrived were different
 and opposite.
 Where, then, were ilnv to go to find a true c exposition of this constitutional question? He 5 would refer to an authority which he thought . would have some weight in this House, and 8 which would be found in l6 Peters, $40, in Il the case of Prgg rs. the Commonwealth of ! Pennsylvania. Tine Supreme Court of the e United States says:
 = s' IL will probably be found, when we look Q to the character of the constitution of the q United States itself, the objects which it seeks . to attain, the powers which it confers, the s duties whichiit enjoins, and the rights which ,J it secures--as well as to the known historical [. fact, that many of its provisions were matters
 ofcompromise of opposing interests and opin- |. ions-that no uniform rule of interpretation : can be applied, which may not allow, if 1t do not positively demand, many notifications in : it's actual application to particular clauses.- : Perhaps hte safest rule cf Interpretation, after . all, will be found to look to the nature and :. objects of the particular powers, duties, and 2 rights, with all the lights and aids of contem- r porary history and to give the words of each : just such operation and force consistent with l. their legitimate meaning, as may fully secure e and attain the end proposed"
 | Veil, then, he would resort to contempo- l. rary history to fortify the exposition which - he had before given of the fourth section, and t to establish the proposition which he had last e assumed. What were ss the nature and objects 0 of the particular powers, duties, and rights'' - conferred upon Congress under this section, l. as explained with all the lights and aids of r contemporary historyin He might, if the c brief hour allotted to him would permit, quote } the cxposilons given of this section by Nich- : olas, Madison, Davy, Wilson, Strong, and . I,,,;itou ,vhn rora all ,,a,,,hors s,f tto ...,n