The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-10

Rymarln or w1pdveasogpfa+ c'rolina.
DpHssrs3@~ tA4 os8 4f Rspvsaps ssisss, ON Tues
ds& 3uary \, ls51 oa he cs<asd sisefi0" case
}ss~ nv HGSpshifS
Mr.. WpODv FAR said ~ Speaker. feel
n4Rarti4Ilar i61eresf3p this Qnestion; but AZ
shall be compelled to vote contrary to what would
~ sAv aud agreeable " abstract justice, deem i
due to myself to state the reasons which oblige
me thus 10 vote
which reference is made, fair and just measure
in its operation. | do not alIude to it's general
operation for the future, but ts special operation
in the election which IL the subject Of fQnssO-
versy The State having established the district
system, II is not agreeable to abstract justice that
ono portion Of the people should have voted for
two members, both occupying seats on this floor
not have voted for any member at all.
Mr.. MORRISON. Will the gentleman from
South Carolina allow me 70 explain! The gentle
man has misapprehended the facts somew hat.
District No. 4, under the late act, embraces the
sohols Of District No. 4, under the previous act,
and also part Of what was District No. 8, upder
the previous act; that no portion OF the people
on this floor. The act Of New Hampshire which
the gentleman terms unfair and unjust, was in
tended to distribute representation in more equ-
table manner. se7
Mr.. WOODWARD. Then, sir, Il seems that
just one-half Of what stated is not a fact. No
portion Of the people are unrepresenteI, but
only another portion are doubly represented.
This alters the case somewhat. But although the
act of the Legislature Of New Hampshire be not
as unfair and unjust in its operation in this special
election supposed it was still ii is sufficiently
so to induce me to state the reasons why feel
constrained TO vote have indicated that 10, to
sustain and enforce the act.
In this discussion, gentlemen on the other side
Of the question seem to me to have made some
four or five false assumptions. In the first place,
it is false proposition that are the rcpresen-
tatives of distrlc.s and not Of States II is also
false assumption, that this House, or Congress,
has the right to enforce, within the limits Of
State, in reference to elections, whatever we may
suppose to be justice and equality, irrespective OF
the laws and authority OF The State. Ii is false
assumption, too, that justice and right, private
or public, within State, is less safe in the hands
of majority Of this House or majority of Con-
gress. II is another false assumption. that
wherever State might by possibility abuse it's
powers, and do injustice to portion of its cit-
zens. there results to this Government power Of
rectifcation aud indemnfcation; as though this
Government were incapable of doing wrong or of
interfering with State action, except when State
had done wrong. False as these assumptions
are, the argument on the other side has no other
foundation. The gentleman from Kentucky mr.
THoMPsoN] has dwslt upon the abuses which a
State might commit to the injury of its citizens, il
an act like that Of the Legislature Of New Hamp-
shire should be- recognized by this House. 1t
never once occurred to him, that the people Of a
State might be quite as secure against injustice at
the hands Of their own Legislature as at the hands
of majority of Congress or Of this House; espe-
ciay where that majority did not include single
representative from the State. He did not reflect
that the trainers Of the Constitution may have
acted on the principle that the people Of a State
were as safe IN their own hands as in the hands
Of others. In the opinion Of some persons, it is
absolutely certain that the majority will do no
wrong, even to those whom they do not represent,
that the bare possibility that State Legislature
might do injustice to those they do represent is
sufficient reason for putting such legislature under
Congressional duress. h
But, sir, DO not rise TO discuss any of the pro.
positions to which have alluded intended to
notice an additional false assumption, relative to
the construction Of that part Of the Constitution
which provides for the election Of Senators and
Representatives. 1t is not my purpose to dwell
upon the argument, but to call the attention of the
House to the language Of the Constitution, as q
plain question of pathological exposition The
Constitution provides that:
"The times, places, and manner Of holding cleo.
tons for Senators and Representatives shall, il
each State, be prescribed by the lie ;slature there
Of, but Congress may, by law, at any time make
or alter such regulations" &c.
Now, sir, in order to ascertain the compas 30 and
extent Of the power here provided, we must as
certain the nature and extent Of the subject ex
pressed. That subject is expressed in the words
'holding elections Conserving this subject three
things are provided, slime, place, and manner. >
First, as to the subject whit is meant by the
words shedding elections ~ These words express
plainly and unequvocally a transaction, a per.
Torrance, process. Ifanythng more was meant
there was gross improperly OF language. Well
what is that transaction or process that is meant
to be expressed 1t is the transaction of eleciimg
Senator or Representative. Ii comprehends nc
condition or situation of right or franchise within
a State; no distribution Of representative rgh
among the people ola State; no one of the pr;nc
Piles Of apportonment Of representation among
different local divisions Of State Such was The
exposition Of these words by Mr.. Lansing, Mr.
Jay, and Mr.. Hamilton, Of New York. When
in the convention Of North Carolina inquiry was
made as to the meaning of these words that in
"holding elections, I" the celebrated General Dayie
a most accomplished lawyer and scholar, replied
that they meant nothing more than the "act OF
choosing" and that the words, "manner of hold
ing elections" meant simply the "manner Of the
act Of choosing The transaction which takes
place on election day at designated places consti.
tuteS tne WnOle SUBJECT OF the PROVISION OF the
Constitution in question. Who that knows the
meaning OF the plainest words could put differ.
ent construction upon it But If any should insis
that the trainers of the Constitution were ignoran,
enough to attach a different meaning to these
words, let US look at the import of other words &C
companying them.
Now have said that The words holding elections
expressed the subject in relation TO which the Con
stituton made these provisions, and these provl-
sions were expressed in the words 90 times, places,
and manner" The subject is one and identical
and must, therefore, be Of such nature thai
" time and place" as well as manner" can be
predicated of it. II viii not do to give one con-
struction to the word " holding when manner is
the predicate, and wholly different construction
when /" time and place" are the predicate. The
word holding, therefore, must be construed to ex-
press something capable Of being restricted to a
precise fine and to precise place. But lift mean
any thing more than the process Of election, or, to
use the language Of General Davie, the "act OF
choosing" how could it be restricted to time
and place, say the first Monday of the month
and certain cross-roads' The idea is preposter-
Gus. The manner Of holding elections means
nothing beyond the manner in which the people
choose; by vote, ballot, or otherwise man
ner Of receiving, registering, and keeping and