Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1844-02-17

|
she chosen to send forty representatives in.
stead Of four to which the law entities her.
and to elect those four (nr those for,y) tn
serve for twenty years instead of two.
would have just as valid claim to have
those persons admitted TO participate in the
business of The House of Representatives
as the four whom she last sent: and so NAV
we say of the representatives from all the
States similarly situated.
This ubject is one with which surely par.
~ feeling ought to have nothing To d.; and
yet the course of the recusan, States is one
which nothing else than party spirit couIh
have induced. To what lengths that spirit
will run, even to the extent of disurranizinu
the government to serve a party purpose.
we have evidence enough in the history Of
parties from the earliest records of The
world to the present day. Under its influ.
ence we have lately seen one of the States
of this Union unrepresen,ed in the Senate
for two whole years; and at this moment
another of the States in like manner entire
~ unrepresented in the House of Represen-
latives. A more wilful disregard of pub
lie duty, under the guidance of mere pas.
sion. or spite, or prejudice, can hardly be
conceived of than that exhibited by the re-
cusant States in the case before us. They
obeyed oue-half of the act of Congress BY
reducing or charging the number of their
representatives according to its provisions;
and they diSobeyed the other half which ex-
acted OF them the duty, towards each por-
ton of their fellow citizens entitled To one
representative, of allowing that portion 10
choose its representative for itself This
simple statement of fact, which nobody can
deny, is conclusive reply to the plea for
efusng 10 execute the law, that il purpor.
ted to be mandatory" to the States. Iii
Their the act of Congress is mandatory, or
it is not. If mandatory, it is mandatory
as to all its provisions. If not mandatory,
why did not New Hampshire send back
here the fUe representatives she had in the
last Congress, instead of the four whom she
has chosen in accordance with that law!
If the law was obligatory upon her 10 re-
duce her number of representatives from
five to four, can any one deny that il
was equally obligatory upon her to elect
those four in the manner prescribed by the
law2 The question is made plain by taking
the case of State the representatives from
which have always been elected by districts.
That State may be one-Virginia, for ex-
ample--some of whose representatives. sus-
tam the recusant States in their action un
The ground that the act of Congress assum-
ed TO be mandatory to the States. But
did not Virginia obey that act in all that
concerned hersef7 Did she hesitate for ii
mnment 10 disarrange and reform all her
congressional districts in compliance with
the act Of Congress? Did she not willing
ly and cheerfully adapt her legislation to
the law of the United States! Having
done this, how can she uphold the resistance
by other States of the authority of thai
act of Congress, every part of which il
equally contOrmable to The constitution
The unsoundness of the objection TO {
compliance by the States with the requisi
ton of the district election law because
of its being mandatory, is susceptible %
further demonstration by reference 10 The
action Of Congress and the States, unde
the organic provisions in the Constitution
, in other cases: in that, for example, Of the
act of Congress providing for the election
of electors. The Congress [says the Con
f siitulion] may determine the time of choos
ing the electors, and the day on which the,
q shall give their votes; which day shall b
!, the same throughout the United States.
This is precisely the same measure o
n authority as is given TO Congress in regar
q TO the places and manner, as well as tn
q time, of holding the elections for represe;
3 taiives, That is to say. Congress ma
!. make such regulations, &c. The act q
:, Congress of March LIST, 1899, according
: provides that Electors shall be appuinte
60 ha al ,Nf lur
;. and Vice President of the United State
d ,c.thin tairty;four days preceding the fir.
q Wednesday, an December, 1892, and with
= lhirty.four days preceding the first Wee
e nesday in December in every 4th year SUI
n ceeding the last elections" and that 9Th
r Executive authority Of each State sha
"a cause three lists of the names Of the Elet
>, tors Of such State TO be made and certfie
% and delivered TO the Electors" &c. Hel
10 is an enactment quite as mandatory in i
70 terms as that of the District law, not mo-
Is obligatory certainly upon the States, thu
.. that law, but which no State Legislator
i. nor any State Executive, has ever bee
- guilty of the absurdity of refusing to ex
r. cute because of its mandatory" characte
m Another objection equally groundIe
n and untenable. TO the act of Congress {
n recting The disiricting of the States for Il
an election of Representatives, has been star
IS ed by some, who admit that the Constit
ii. ton gives to Congress the Iigh, of reg
he lating the whole matter. of resembling
no State laws on The subject, and SUBSTITUTE
10 its own; but who say if Congress does s
nv il is bound 10 legislate completely--to lea
Dr. nothing to be supplied by State law; a
as that therefore, as Congress did not ],