The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-04-14

heartily with the Senator from Louisiana, and
would have agreed with him had he made the
statement much broader. As an original prop
ostion, in my judgment, the members of one
branch of Legislature, being in an accidental
political majority, ought not, by factious oppo-
sition, to defeat the election of Senators to the
Senate of the United States by the majority of
the members of the two branches but am now
merely reminding Senators of the history of the
Democratic party on this subject for the purpose
of showing how far this implied denunciaton of
the Republicans in Indiana, by Democratic Sem
ators here, is just. When first became a mem
Der of the Senate of the United States, there was
but one Senator here from the State of Missouri.
One seat was vacant. When the vacancy oc-
cured the two branches of the Legislature of
that State, in consequence Of political differ
-snce, were unable to agree to elect a Senator.
! There was but one Senator on this floor at that
time frem the State of Pennsylvania, from sim
liar cause but one from the State of California,
from similar cause and | am reminded that
there was but one on this floor from Indiana
but to that case have previously alluded.
Mr. GREEN. Let me correct the Senator. In
the case of Missouri, there was no disagreement
between the two Houses; but after they went
into joint convention, they could not give
majority of votes for any one.
Mr. HARLAN. That may be so as to the
case but, as ] understood the case at the time,
the failure to elect was in consequence of politi
cal differences of opinion between the members
of the Missouri Legislature. They were unable
to perform constitutional duty, because they
could not agree politically. But, sir, have an
other case in point. The State of Iowa, after
having been admitted into the Union as one of
the members of the Confederacy, was unrepre-
scented on this floor for two years and that, too,
in consequence of a refusal on the part of
Democratic Senate to unite with Wing House
in the election of Senators. AT the first session
of the first Legislature of the State, the Senate
and House met in joint convention to elect two
United States Senators. On the first ballot, it
became manifest that the Wings would be able,
probably on the next vote to elect their nominee,
Mr.. Jonathan McCarty, who opposed Augustus
G. Dodge, my immediate predecessor. The SEN
ate arose in body, and was on the point of
leaving the chamber; but some one making
motion to adjourn, the joint convention was dis
solved, and the Democratic Senate returned to
its chamber, and thenceforward persistently de-
clined to unite with the House. Two years after
wards, both branches of the Legislature being
Democratic, my predecessor and also my col
league Mr.. JONES were elected
| cite these cases, and might mention others,
for the purpose of showing that the Democratic
party initiated the policy of defeating the cleo
ton of United States Senators when their oppo
nents were a majority of all the members of a
State Legislature but in a minority in either the
Senate or the House; and they have been uni
formly sustained, l believe, by the party. At
least, The right of Democratic Senate, or a
Democratic House, to defeat the election of Uni
ted States Senators by their opponents, when in
a majority, if in joint convention, has been uni
formly defended by their leaders the stump,
in legislative halls, and, generally, even on this
floor. They have never repudiated member OF
their party on that account. The Senator from
l. -
gained by initiating and pursuing this policy ;
for | think the very first case that ever occur
red was initiated by the senior Senator from
Indiana. ! am not willing that those with whom
/ act politically shall be denounced for having,
in one or two cases, followed the precedents set
for them by their political opponents. 1t seems
to me- at least that it is unfair for Democrats to
arraign Republicans for doing the very thing
which they, by their official acts, say is right,
and which some of them defend on constitution
| al grounds. They say that the power to elect
Senators is vested in the Legislature of State /;
that where the Legislature is composed of two
branches, the responsibility equally belongs to
! each branch and if they choose to be unrepre-
| sented in the Senate of the United States, they
| have a right to refuse to elect Senators. But
| whether this be defensible not, it seems to me
| to be unfair for Democratic Senators to arraign
| their opponents on this ground, as having acted
improperly, as reason for maintaining the for
mer decision of the Senate of the United States.
| If that decision can be defended, let it stand on
| its own merits, and not on the supposed wrong
| Now, sir, What is the question presented to the
Sonate? The Legislature of Indiana, after hav-
ing examined her own record, ascertains, as she
alleges, that she is unrepresented on this floor
by members elected by her votes as Legisla-
ture." There may be gentlemen here claiming
| to represent Indiana, elected by individual mem
| liars thoT hut
upon the very ground laid down by the dstin-
guished Senator from Louisiana in the case
| from Iowa, the Indiana Legislature maintains
! that that was not the act of "the Legislature"
| doubt not the honorable Senator will remember
the point presented pertnently, as l thought
at the time, by him, by antthesis in my case.
| He read from the Constitution of the State of
Iowa the provision declaring that the legislative
| power OF the State should be vested in Senate
and House of Representatives and then from
| the Constitution of the United States, the pro-
! vision that the Senate of the United States shall
! be composed of Senators chosen in each State
by the Legislature thereof" thereby demonstra-
ting, from the text of the two Constitutions, that
| the election of Senators to the Senate of the
United States was, in his opinion, the act of "a
| LEGISLATURE if not Legislative act' He ar
gued, then, that no election to the Senate of the
United States could be valid, not made by
Legislature; and that where composed of two
branches, it required the distinct act of each
branch of that Legislature. He united and read
as one paragraph the provisions of the Constitu-
| ton of Iowa and the Constitution of the United
States
legislative authority Of this State shall be vested
in Senate and House of Representatives. which shall be
designated the General Assembly of the State Iowa The
business Of tits legislative authority is pass laws
elect United States a majority of each House
shall constitute a quorum to do business. -
And then argued:
Now, sir, ii be in part the business the Legislature
States then cannot elect that Senator terms of
the Constitution the State unless there present quorum
of the Houses. In the bar is admitted ON all
hands that there quorum of the Houses The
constitution provides explicitly that the Senator shall be
elected by the legislature The Constitution of pro
vdes that the legislative power shall be vested
in Senate and House of Representatives The Legislature
every state has the power of determining the fine and
place and manner OF elecng Senators but so deermn-
appears they do To
express direction the Constitution of the United states
They cannot determine that the election be held at
such time and in such manner as that shall not be held by
the legislature" when that convention fails TO
be convention of the Senate House Representatives
no longer has the legislative power OF the State
and Is therefore not such body under the terms of the
Constitution II the United States, elect Senator"
In the case from Iowa, which is in some re-
spects similar to this case, it was maintained
by the now chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, Mr.. BAYARD, that the Senate of Iowa,
as Senate In its organized capacity, had never
agreed to the decision of the Joint convention
that 1t had agreed to form joint convention
had met with the House of Representatives re-
peatedly, and voted but that when the election
took place, the Senate was not present as an
organized Senate, and hence could not agree to
the act of that joint convention. He said:
On this state of facts the question which suppose to
arise is whether the Legislature State under the IAN
guage of the Federal Constitution deegatng TO the
the right elect Senator's the States TO be taken
to mean the individual members of the Legislature or the
body or bodies OF which the Legislature composed sup
pose the term as used the bodies which he ees
latdre IS composed" "They must both be pres