The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-02-09

distinction to any mandatory law Of Congress. To
sustain hun IN his argument, he referred 10 the Com
stitution aud the kederslsst which he commended full
~ sustained him IA his views of this great constiu
tionai question, aud his right 10 seat this floor.
IL C,ngress can exercise the power claimed under
hs section, the people may, IL they become dssatis-
he'd ask Congress TO change the districts they
i aud Tins power is claimed under the magic words,
may alter and amend the election laws OF the
/ States II this power should DO exercised, IL
would be unqlestionably the most dangerous
That could be enforced by Congress, because,
under the same power, IL could district one
state and let another alone they might dis
lr CT The States to suit the political complexion OF
both branches OF Congress- and If they shou be-
come corrupt they might control the whole egisla-
lion OF The country, which was dangerous to the
| sovereignty OF the States.
MIR. STEPHENS said that although he held his
seat under the general ticket system yet he believed
the law dssrictng the States constitutional, and
that The States were bound To obey that law. This,
however, was his individual opinion but the ques-
ton was now before the tribunal TO which the Con.
stitution has submitted this subject, and TO whose
Judgment he willing to abide difference 81
opinion must exist, because the human mind cannot
think alike upon all questions, and there has been
diversity oil opinion upon constitutional law, which
wall continue 10 exist so long the Government ex
lists lie said the district system referred to, IN
the Convention, by Mr.. Madison, which adopted the
Constitution, which, in his mind settles the question
that the law is constitutional lie was glad to find
that this was not party question, because the bill
dstricting the States was brought forward by mem
Der OF the Democratic party, and that other mem
bers OF that party also in favor Of this la
though he believed that the largest portion of
that party denied the constitutional power TO Con-
gress to enact such law. II had been stated by
one of his colleagues, that the PEOPLE of Georgia
were united upon this subject, and that it was
not party question. lie did not agree with his
colleague, because, although it not party
question, the people of Georgia were in ia
vor OF the district, system The Legislature Of
Georgia, which, at The time, was Democratic, did
pass law dslIictng the State but it vetoed by
| Democratic Governor and the State held her cleo
ton according to the gene al Ii ket system and he
was returned Representative from that State;
and that he was entitled TO vote upon this question in
| judicial point of view and, although he believed
the law was constitutional yet, if this House, in its
Judicial capacity, should decide that the law null
lity he was entitled to his seat Representative
from the State Of Georgia, and the fault would not
be his, but OF this judicial tribunal This great
constitutional question, which should be met fairly;
because il affects the Constitution of the country,
which was framed by the wisdom Of our fathers. He
did not agree with The gentleman from Mississippi,
(Mr Thomr son, who said that representation an
inherent right which he utterly Denied because
presentation is constitutional right derived alone
from that instrument He read from various autho-
rites to support has argument and called upon gen
tlemen to search the archives of the country, and
form themselves upon this subject, before they nhict
wound upon the Constitution, which will last for
ages.
Mr.. A V. BROWN said that he had presented
bH now upon the Speakers table, repeating the
second section of that bill, which bill was necessa
rily involved in this question, because the report
| under consideration declares that section 10 be
null and void Under this consderaii he hoped the
House would excuse him for participating in this de-
bate II he believed, as The gentleman from Georgia
does, that he was not consttutonay elected, he
would not hold seat on this floor one moment. But
he gentleman from Georgia does rot understand the
origin OF the second section of This bill he would
have referred To il correctly. This Government had
moved on since lis tormatIon and this power had ne
yer before been tx, rcised by Congress but tits bill
bad been foroel upon the country to pepelua,e the
power of those who composed the last Congress.
Mr. STEP HENS asked Mr.. Blown if he had not
stated that the bill introduced by Mr. Camp
bell
Mr.. BROWN admitted what the gentleman stated
but he did not understand its origin. Ii was not of
Democratic origin stated by that gentleman but il
originated with Mr.. Hasted, OF New Jersey. and the
gen eman from South Carolina Mr.. CAMPBELL
stood godfather for the illegi,iuatr bauting and that
the Democratic party, in solid phalsnI, bat led
against that law. Did he say solid ph5lanI Not
so, howevr, because the gentleman from South Ca.
rolina, solitary and alone, went To the enemy,
and be was made a captain to l. al on their cohorts
and well d res he recollect how Ley were tckled al
the valuable acquisition of their leader But he
here boldly asserted that every ether DemocIa ratio !
member in that Congress voted against the BILL with !
The e1ccp ion Of the gentleman from Souh Carolina |
lie then gave the true history of the Appyrtonmenl
bill the minn'r in which IL was originated; the
ner IN which the second section smul " led into
the bill; and the object the Wing party had in
lacking II on the Apporonmcnt BILL which, if it had
been def sted would have been a dissolution of the !
Union Why not this second section brought I
forward in a separate bill 1t was preconceiyed by /
the orginaors Of that law, TO tack The second
tim OF the bill, to perpeuate their political exist
ence. However, they had lot the nerve TO say that
no person was entitled TO a seat this floor should
the States refuse to comply The Constitution says
Congress may alter the time, place, and manner of
holding such elections but the second section of the
Airport onment act does not alter the manner the .
time, or the place of holding such elections but it 1
commands the States TO district, without naming the I
time, the place, ana the of holding such cleo
TONS therefore II was a nudity void and imperative
The power given to Congress TO alter the time, man
ner, and place Of holding elections was to change il .
from place TO another, from the rira rose system
TO that OF the ballot Does this second section the
Apporiionment act do this Certainly not II com
mauds the States TO district which power he denied
to this Government. The States created tins Gov
ernment-they blew the breath Of life into its nos
uils which gave it life and vitality but he would as
think of breaking his dying fathers will as to
violate the Constitution. The Constitution never in
tended to give the power 10 Congress 10 entail upon
poserty such law this, and he was willing and |
ready to vote in favor of the gentlemen claiming
seats unucf. ue general ticket system, and /
thus bring the Government back 10 the same |
track in which fathers left il a legacy and not
to legisate for those who to after US but to
leave the Constitution as we found it.
Mr.. Chiffon then took the floor and contended /
that the law constitutional, and as SUCH was not
null void, and imperative. He said from reading /,
several pages of the report, he led to believe
that this power could only be exercised in case the
States failed comply; but examining the report
farther he found that the report conceded hat Con.
gress could exercise the manner of designating such
elections which he should treat concession bat
he believed that Congress could exercise one power
and leave the rect TO be performed by the States and
yet the law would not be void and imperative as as
serted by the report because Congress had not regu-