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

from their seats Oh this floor lie said this was
case Of expulsion, and he should look upon H. re-
cause there were no persons here eonieshng their
seats lie then referred TO various attempts expu-
sion which had taken place since the formation of
the Goyernnent, (slludng 10 the of Matthew.
LYON MIR. Adams and Mr. Giddings,) M Illustration
Of his argument lie then passed on TO a eonstitu
tional view OF the subject, and denied the power of
this Government 10 pass such law. In the course
OF his remarks he alluded TO the number Of fights
which had taken place this hoot being slogether on
the Wing side Of the Housed aud none OF those Who
engaged In them were even cepsured, much less
expelled; but this proposition is 10 expel the members
Of four sovereign States Who have not been guilty of
breach Of the privileges Of this House, power no
where be found III the Constitution and If carried
out, would be dissolution OF our glorious Union
Mr.. DICKINSON next took the floor in favor Of
the law and, in the of his remarks he
alluded TO the remarks Of his colleague Mr.. A.
Browpl who had said that the Wing party had car
ried the election OF lo4O by fraud but his colleague
cannot say, he dare not say IT, that the election in Tie
Stale Of Tennessee was carried by fraud. He then
gave history Of the passage of the appoflionment
law and said that bis colleague had voted against the
proposition 10 lay the bill on the table, and IL not
of Wing origin asserted by his colleague. IL wa,
brought forw ard by Mr. Campbell a mem err Of the
Democratic party, hut II was amended on the Ia
ton OF Mr.. Halsed of New Jersey.
Mr.. A.V BROWN said that he had never voted
in favor Of that bill in any shape. II is he voted
against Mr. w. Cost Johnson's proposition to lay il
upon the table, because that gentlemen opposed
the ratio OF representation and not 10 the second
section Of the bill The object that Mr.. Cost John.
had in view was to recomDt the bill as to al
ter the ratio, and his Mr. Brown'sl object was to
defeat the bill.
Mr. DICKINSON resumed the subject and SAID
that his colleague from the Lincoln district Mr.
Joncs had denied the power CT dstricting the States
and contended that the only constitutional represen-
taon was by the States.
Mr. JONES said that he commended that the Con
stitution only gave the power 10 Congress 10 appor-
ton the representation 10 the States, and that Con.
gress had not the power TO district State, but tina,
il was competent for the States themselves 10 district
il they chose. He was not opposed to The district
system but he was opposed to the dangerous and
sodatiDg power claimed by this law, which, If exer-
cised, destroys the sovereignty Of the States.
Mr.. DICKINSON then proceeded in his argu
men, and commended for the consttutionality Of the
law, and said he not present when the protest
presented but il he had been he would have signed
It but he had voted in favor OF spreading upon the
Journal, because he believed that was the proper
course to pursue, Il al it might 60 TO the country
Mr.. McCLERNAND addressed the House and
made an able constitutional argument, denying 10
Congress the power to pass law commanding the
States to district or to district them itself but con
tended that the power given 10 Congress was concur
rent with that of the States which was only intended
to be exercised in of extreme emergency. If the
doctrines contained in this law should be xercsed tho
State Governments are forever overwhelmed in The
vortex of consolidation, and State sovereignty is
gone.
MIR RATHBUN said gentlemen, in the begin
ming of this controversy ,vnced greaudea of anxI
ETY. upon this important question, and hoped it would
be met in liberal manner, devoid Of all party
considerations but in the very beginning OF the
sion they had come forward with written protest
which contained their prcconceived opinions that de-
cided this question in their minds. At the time tbs
protest was attempted to be forced upon the Journal
he had not made up his mind whether or not the gen
temen claiming seats under the general ticket sys-
TEN entitled 10 them; bot he was now prepared
to say that his mind made up, and he had not
come to that conclusion, as gentlemen had said from
mater ias found in the armory in another end of the
Capitol but that opinion had been formed from The
materials in this end Of the Capitol and welded by
those who advocated the constitutioDay of this Law
He believed that the power given 10 Congress TO
change the time and the OF holding such cleo
tons, was intended as a conservative power, which
should be exercised unless the States refused
send their Representatives here; in which opinion lie
was sustained by the speeches Of Messrs. Rises ana
Berrien, at the time this bill before the SENATE
who boldly predicted the result Of this law, which
all gentlemen verified. He then went into
constitutional argument, and said, the question was
nothing nor less than one between this Govern.
meDt and four sovereign States; and the law
mandate which they were no, bound TO obey-hencs
il was void and imperative.
MI. LABRANCHE presented a bill establishing
port of entry at Lafayette, Louisiana, which Wa.
read the rst and second time, and made the order Of
the day for Tomorrow, referred to a Committee Of
the Whole House, and ordered 10 be printed.
And then the House adjourned.
Mr.. HARPER presented the petition Of Edward
Rex and 30 other citizens Of Muskingum county,
Ohio, parying for retrenchment IN the expenditure
Of the General Government.
Also, the petition Of VIM. II Moore, and AS other
citizens Of said county, for the same purpose
Also, the petition Of Jacob j. Anderson and 10
other citizens Of said county and State for the saug
purpose.
Also, the petition Of VIM. Young, and 81 other
citizens Of The counties Of Franklin, Knox aud
Licking, Ohio, for the same purpose.
Mr. CALDWELL withdrew from the files Of the
Clerk, and presented TO the House. the petition 'and
papers Of the heis Of Nathan Fairs, deceased Re.
lerred 10 he Committee on Revolutionary Claims.
Mr. WENTWORTH presented the petition Of 200
citizens Of Lake county, Illinois, praying for the
erection Of lighthouse at Littcfort Lake county,
Illinois. Referred 10 the Committee on Commerce.
Also, petition from John DAVIS Alderman, t
Dupage county, praying for the refundng OF Tie mo-
ney paid by HIM for land TO which The patent with
held. Referred TO the Committee on Public Lands
MIR. WENTWORTH also presented the petition
OF the widow Of William Besland, Of Well county.
Illinois, praying for pension money due her husband
Referred 10 the Committee on Claims.