The Arkansas banner., 1844-04-10

1 Ntiitil iit Sttetll bt eit's<A'ti'
 Now. that inhabiianey, within a particular district of State, cannot be prescribed either by the State legislature or Congress, as a re- qaisite qualification of member to this House, is clear. Upon ihis point Alr. Justice Story says:
 sin regard 10 tle power of q State 10 pre- scribe fke qualification of inhabitaRcy, or in diStrici. as an additional quail ieafion, there is this forcibte rcdsoa for de- agiHg H--that it is undertaking 10 aet upo,l He rery qualification prescribed ~ tie con- S3ifatjoa, IS 0 inhabiancy ia the State, and a5ridgiRg is operation. Ii Is precisely tte Sane exercise of a power on the part of the States, as if they would prescribe that rep reseniative should be forty years of age, and citizen for ten years. In each case, the very qualification fixed by tl.e constitution Is completely ecadcd, and indirectly abotjShed.n .n -.Siorg's Com.. rol. ? p. 103.
 Bfr. N. said he took 1t to be clearly estab- lished, land he had not heard 1t denied upon the other side of the House. that the quali- fications or rights of the elected could not be modified or altered in any partieular.- Were moi the rights of the voter, then, equally beyond the reach of legislative control ?- Were not the rights and qualifications of the voters eoextensive with those of the elected He would like 10 have gentlemen explain the distinction, If any existed
 But it may be said that, although Congress did not possess the power 10 prescribe tliat the member elected should be an inhabitant of the district by which he should be chosen, yet that was no argument against the power to district. But did the framers of the con stitution, or the conventions which ratified and adopted 1t, intend to give Congress the power, for the purpoee of producing ''uni- formiiy'' ill the manner of holding elections, to introduce the English system of electng here, by giving to single district ill New Y ork city the right to elect member in Buffalo, and district in Philadelphia a right 10 choose a member residing at Pittsburg?
 Again upon an enumeration of the peo- ple, which was to be made every ten years. 1t became tie constitutional duty of Congress to make new apportionment of representa- lives. Bathow was that to be made?z Why, according to the provisions of the eenstitu- ton, and not otherwise. They were strictly limited ill the exercise of this power by the constitution. But it was (said Mr. N now eontended--and for the first time, he believed, during the history of this government-that Congress had the legitimate right, by virtue of this fourth section, which permits them to regulate the manner of holdiRg the elections, 10 interfere with and enlarge power most clearly defined and limited by the eeHstitu- ton itself. The third clause of the second section of that instrument, declared that representatives and direct tareS shall be ap- portioned among the several States, which may be included within this Union, accord- ing 10 their respective numbers" Here the constitution had expressly defined and limited the districts among which Congress should apportion the representatives and direct taxes. And what were these districts2 Why, they were no other than s.the several States which might be included within this Union.p No where, ill the constitution, is district of any less extent hinted at; and when Congress, by virtue of the constitutional provision, had made such apportionment, their power to act upon the subject was completely executed, and their right 10 act further in the matter was stopped by the constitutional limitation. They could not rightully go beyond it. ii Congress had the right to exercise the extra ordinary power in question, then 1t had not only the cypress constitutional right 10 ap- portion representatives among the several States, but 1t had the further startling and implied right to enter upon the districts eX- pressly defined and limited by the eonstitu- tion, and cut up the States into subdivisions, and to make subapportionment an1ong theSe according to their sovereign will and pleasure. The exercise of such right of distrcting on the part of Congress involved the alarm ing and most extraordinary power of appor- tioning representatives among Hc di6erem counties, or toicHs, or districts, or parishes in C Siaie.
 Mr. N. said he might follow up the train of argument pursued by his honorable friend from Tennessee, Mr. Johnson, on yesterday, to show the absurdites to which the full ex- ereise of the power claimed for Congress under this fourth section would lead Con- gross had precisely the same power 10 regu- late the times and manner of holding the elections of senators as they had to regulate the times and and manner of electing repre- senatives. The election of the former was vested in the iegiStat0re of each State; the choice of the latter was vested in the people of the Several States. The legislature of New Hampshire had the right, under the constitution, to choose two senators; the peo- pie of that State had the constitutional right to elect four representatives. The legislature was composed of individual members; so was the people, Now, if Congress, under the power to regulate the manner of holding elections of representatives, by virtue of the fourth section, can divide the territory of that State and the people for the choice of repre- sentatives, then most clearly they mightdivide her ierritorya and her 1egis7ature into two dis triets for the choice of senators, and prescribe that the members from one of these districts should choose one of the senators, and the members from the other district the other senator. Why, Isaid Mr. NJ if Congress should attempt to prescribe the manner of holding the election of senators in this way, every man in the nation would at once pro- nounce 1t an unconstitutional absurdity-
 N all ,,,i,rb+ f.,,,. Nn.,,