The Arkansas banner., 1844-04-10
REMARKS OF MIR. NORRIS
oF NEw HAMPsnlRE.

hv general ticket to the 2sth Congress from New
 Hampshire. Georgia Mississippi, and Missouri,
 to hold seats in tile House of Representatives
 (coNcLUpED.)
 Mir N. said he would here leave this mat ter. for gentlemen to reconcile 1t to their con- sciences, their country, and their God. He said he was happy to find himself agreeing on one point. at least, with gentlemen on the other side. They had assumed the proposi- ton. both in their report and their remarks on that floor, that ..this second section Of the last apportionment act was to be considered precisely as though 1t had been passed by all the State legislatures themselyes.o Again that report says: ssAnv alteration il Con gress) may make of the S.aie laws, has tho identical effect it would have, if made by tho State Legislaturesn Now, so far as the con- stitutional powers of Congress extended to change or alter Sga,c laws, that was rmdoubt- edly true. Tkis law of Congress under con- sideraiion, then, was to have the identical effect upon the people of New Hampshire il would have if ii had been passed by the c- gislature of that S.ate.---=
 To this 7dr. N. said he agreed. But the minority report then proceeded to draw the conclusion from the premises thus assumed as follows:
 ..The Stafe of New Hampshire elects by general ticket. Were her legislature, at its next session. to pass law with the single provision that, for the future, her elections of representatives should be by districts, each district electing bat one representative such q law would unquestionablv dlier, repeal, her general ticket system, although ii omit ted, whether from aciifalaess or inadvertence, 10 constitute the proper districts. An cleo ton by general ticket would be against her existing law; and she would continue with out representatives i'll Congress, until her le- gisature should again convene and remedy its defective legislaton.''
 He (Mr. NJ said he denied this eoncin- sion altogether. He denied it because such construction of such an act of the legisla- ture would be directly at war with the pecu cular organization and vital principles of our republican form of government, us he bad already attempted 10 show; he denied il be- cause sucha conclusion, from such premises, would be a complete subversien of every principle of legal construction. He said, il he maintained successfully his side of this lssue-tlat such a construction would be subversive of every principle of legal con struotion-then 1t necessarily followed that the members from the four States had beer legally and consdtutionally elected. Sup pose, then, the legislature of New Hampshire had passed an act prescribing that the repre- sentatives from that State should be elected by single districts, and had stopped there, without making any districts or enaeline any clause expressly repeating the existing regu- latlons upon the subject of the election: this would be law. without any operative force. prescribing to the people of that State a rule of action to be pursued by them in eleeting members to this House. But could 1t possi- ply be performed? Could the people, hy any possibility, elect their representatives in con iormity to |? Clearly not; because no dis trcts would exist within inc S!ate by which such an election could be made This Is in- controvertibIe. Now lsaid Mir. N apply that wellestablished and fundamental princi- pie of law-and he would add, of common sense, too-qnoled by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr Newtonl whea speaking upon the opposite side of this question, but upon a different point. The law, as read by that gentleman, was laid down by every elemen- tary writer upon the construction of statute law. It was this
 s.s3cls of Parliament Mat orc impossible to De performed are of ao ratidi{y; and if there arises out oi them, collatcrally, any absurd consequences, manitestly contradicto- " to common reason, they are, with regard to those collateral coaseqHeaces, vod''
 The law in question, then, being imposs- ble 10 be performed, 1t was of no validity :; t could repeal no existing laws upon the same subject. This conclusion, he said, was inevitable upon every principle of law and common sense. This principle of construc- ton was too firmly established to be now shaken by any sophistry which ingenuity could devise. Indeed, who eyer heard it gravely contended, till now, even in the most tyrannical and despotic government under heaven, that law which was mpracticable, which could not be performed, was of any valltlity' The avowal of such an absurd and despotic doctrine had been left to this age of fruitful invention; yes, 1t had been left to gentlemen upon the floor of the Ame- rican House of Representatives, first to dis cover and promulgate this new principle by. which the people of four of the sovereign States of this confederacy were to be e'dsllan- chised, and thrust out of the Union for. not executing an act of Congress, which they could Rot crccMe. Mr. N. said, the conclu- sons which gentlemen upon the other side drew from the premises. reminded him very much of the ancient Roman despot who posted his imperial edicts upon pillars so high that they could not be read, and then inflicted the most sanguinary punishmenis upon the people for disobeying them. But he would now take different view of the subject, and ask gentlemen what was the true legal construction of this act of Congress : Would they attempt to maintain that 1t was complete in itsell and that it required no ac- tion the State legislatures to perfect t, t ;iil, make 1t practicablei No one had had the hardihood to assume such position It was admitted on all hands, that without further legislation, either on the part of the Sate le- gIslatures or of Congress, that 1t was impoS- sible for the people of the S.aies IL. elect