Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1862-04-09
The Leglslature-A veto Mc,,oge

| y,
on mercantile affairs and insurance reported a
bill on the usury question. 1t provides that
bills OF exchange, promissory notes. and any
negotiable securities for the payment of money
within six months, shall be exempted from
the operation of sections 8, 4, and of the
general statutes, so that banks may take inter
est on such bills and notes not exceeding nine
per cent. The duration Of this new act is
limited TO April l, 1864.
The governor sent in a message vetoing the
bill to divide the state into districts for the
choice of representatives in congress-" His
objection to the bill is that it confines the
choice of candidate TO the district that makes
an election. This he holds to be unconstitu-
tlonal. In his view the state government has
no power to restrain the people of congress
sional district from choosing congressman
whose domicile may be in another district. In
support of this view, he quotes the constitu-
ton of the United States, the opinions OF
Judge Story and Chancellor Kent and also
certain cases that have been decided in con-
gress. AS the question has considerable i'm
portance, we print the governors argument -
"The conclusion TO which, after anxious
| elaboration and research, my own mind is
compelled, is that the clause in the bill at.
tempting to contine the range of selection for
representative i'll congress TO the district Tor
| which lie may be chosen. would be a clear
usurpation of popular right Neither con.
| greSs nor any state legislature, nor any other
governmental agency, has any authority to
control the people in their free right to select
| their members OF congress, restrained only by
the limitations which they imposed upon them
selves in the federal constitution.
THE legislature, in laying out the state
into congressional districts, acts under power
| conferred by tile federal constitution, since all
| powers relating to the choice of officers Gre
ated thereby spring from that instrument.
And the legislature can have no power in ihe
premises which the people have not by the
terms and meaning Of the federal constitution
conferred upon it. The selectmen of the
smallest town in the commonwealth, in issuing
their warrant notifying the people to come to
the polls and give in their votes. have as much
right to attempt to limit them in their range
| OF selection has the whole government OF
the commonwealth.
't'rhis conclusion seems to me so clear that
l cannot escape nor evade it; and if | should
affix my signature to this bill l should feel
myself guilty, with my present convictions, Of
seeking to usurp an ungranied power, and to
affect guardianship over the judgment and
opinions of the people of the commonwealth.
Ours are representative governments, based
on democratic ideas, their powers limited by
written constitutions. Zach Of these elements
must always be remembered, for they are all
required to test our powers of government and
the methods OF administration. And what can
be a more significant offence against democrat
ic ideas than for the government to assume to
govern and guide the popular choice-espe-
OltTrav 81,
right, the elective tranchise-bv the assunp.
ton OF undelegated power! This is a case,
moreover, in which all the doubts, if there are
any, must weigh against the power of the leg
islature, not in its favor. There are cases in
which the doubts are to weigh in favor of
power. For example, for the purpose of re-
pressing individual wrongs and grievances,
asserting and indicating rights, curing or pre-
venting public or private injuries or evils,
and furnishing fragrant crimes, it is the part of
good magistrate to amplity his jurisdiction,
! because it is the office and design of govern
ment TO secure right aud justice, protect the
weak and prevent wrongs. But this is not
within that category. This is case between
the powers of the legislature, on the one hand,
and the powers of the people in their primary
capacity, on the other 1t is question wheih.
er the people, in whom all the sovereignty of
this government resides, have parted with
their original, private, personal, individual
imprescriptible right and power to choose
whom they will to represent them in con.
gress, any further than they have doae SO by
the specific limitations they imposed on them
selves in the federal constitution. And until
see that the people have clearly impaired to
the state government the power to restrain
them, cannot but regard any statute which
affects to do so as usurpalion of their undel.
egated powers and violation of their sover-
eign rights.
GAS TO the expediency of such a provision,
were it competent for us to make it, | would
not presume to review the Judgment of the
senate and house. Their wisdom would be
my guide. But constrained by my own duty
to obey the supreme law, and therefore to ex-
anime in its unvaryng light every bill present..
ed for signature, l can not shelter myself even
behind their great authority, if accused in my
own conscience OF transcendng the proper
powers of the constitution.
at has been suggested that if this bill is an
usurpatiOn of power IN the particular ques.
toned, then Massachusetts has for long time
, had upoIsher statute book law open to the
same objection. But the former inady ertent
adoption of an unconstitutional act of leeisla-
, ton, can not surely be pleaded as authority
for its repetition. The former adoption of a
statute is a fact not to be forgotten when con.
sidering the question of its unconsttutionality,
since there is presumption that what the leg
isature has heretofore done has been done
: rightly and have given full weight TO that
: presumption in my own mind. But STILL il
. does not preponderate over the weight of great
jurdcal authority, and over the solemn Iudg.
! ment of the houses of congress, repeatedly
rendered, in the regular exercise of their dis.
: tinct constitutional powers, and uncontrolled
: by the influences of party. &c. too, it has also
; been suggested that If the criticism of the un.
constitutionality of the clause in question is
correct, then our members of congress elected
for many years, under just such an act have
been unconstitutionay chosen. This, how.
ever, is a sophisnI. Those who have been
seated in the house of representatives from
Massachusetts have received the requisite
votes of the people, and if the people have
selected as members persons inhabiting the
districts for which they were chosen, the ega
presumption is that the people did so because
they chose to do so, not because an unconsti
tutional law so directed. In other words, theil
choice and their direction of the law were Co
incident in the particular cases. Even if il
!. were true that in any instance the people
y. thought they were bound by the law, and SC
followed it, when they would have preferred
g to have done otherwise, the election was new
20 ertheless constitutional, because they appar.
Of ently and professedy chose the candidate for
whom they voted, being in truth and in fact
lree 10 nave done otherwise and duress is not
= De presumed without proof
"a 1T IS urged further that it is extremely up.
y desirable that persons should be elected to