Source: https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/sto-311/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:14:35+00:00

Document:
§ 813. This clause does not appear to have attached much attention, or to have encountered much opposition in the convention, at least so far as can be gathered from the journal of that body.1 But it was afterwards assailed by the opponents of the constitution, both in and out of the state conventions, with uncommon zeal and virulence. The objection was not to that part of the clause, which vests in the state legislatures the power of prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections; for, so far, it was a surrender of power to the state governments. But it was, to the superintending power of congress to make, or alter such regulations. It was said, that such a superintending power would be dangerous to the liberties of the people, and to a just exercise of their privileges in elections. Congress might prescribe the times of election so unreasonably, as to prevent the attendance of the electors; or the place at so inconvenient a distance from the body of the electors, as to prevent a due exercise of the right of choice. And congress might contrive the manner of holding elections, so as to exclude all but their own favorites from office. They might modify the right of election, as they please; they might regulate the number of votes by the quantity of properly, without involving any repugnancy to the constitution.2 These, and other suggestions of a similar nature, calculated to spread terror and alarm among the people, were dwelt on with peculiar emphasis.
§ 817. There is, too, in the nature of such a provision, something incongruous, if not absurd What would be said of a clause introduced into the national constitution to regulate the state elections of the members of the state legislatures? It would be deemed a most unwarrantable transfer of power, indicating a premeditated design to destroy the state governments.10 It would be deemed so flagrant a violation of principle, as to require no comment. It would be said, and justly, that the state governments ought to possess the power of self-existence and self-organization, independent of the pleasure of the national government. Why does not the same reasoning apply to the national government? What reason is there to suppose, that the state governments will be more true to the Union, than the national government will be to the state governments?
§ 818. If, then, there is no peculiar fitness in delegating such a power to the state legislatures; if it might be hazardous and inconvenient; let us see, whether there are any solid dangers from confiding the superintending and ultimate power over elections to the national government. There is no pretence to say, that the power in the national government can be used, so as to exclude any state from its share in the representation in congress. Nor can it be said, with correctness, that congress can, in any way, alter the rights, or qualifications of voters. The most, that can be urged, with any show of argument, is, that the power might, in a given case, be employed in such a manner, as to promote the election of some favorite candidate, or favorite class of men, in exclusion of others, by confining the places of election to particular districts, and rendering it impracticable for the citizens at large to partake in the choice. The whole argument proceeds upon a supposition the most chimerical. There are no rational calculations, on which it can rest, and every probability is against it. Who are to pass the laws for regulating elections? The congress of the United States, composed of a senate chosen by the state legislatures, and of representatives chosen by the people of the states. Can it be imagined, that these persons will combine to defraud their constituents of their rights, or to overthrow the state authorities, or the state influence? The very attempt would rouse universal indignation, and produce an immediate revolt among the great mass of the people, headed and directed by the state governments.11 And what motive could there be, in congress, to produce such results? The very dissimilarity in the ingredients, composing the national government, forbid even the supposition of any effectual. combination for such a purpose. The interests, the habits, the institutions, the local employments, the state of property, the genius, and the manners, of the people of the different states, are so various, and even opposite, that it would be impossible to bring a majority of either house to agree upon any plan of elections, which should favor any particular man, or class of men, in any state. In some states, commerce is, or may be, the predominant interest; in others, manufactures; in others, agriculture. Physical, as well as moral causes will necessarily nourish, in different states, different inclinations and propensities on all subjects of this sort. If there is any class, which is likely to have a predominant influence, it must be either the commercial, or the landed class. If either of these could acquire such an influence, it is infinitely more probable, that it would be acquired in the state, than in the national, councils.12 In the latter, there will be such a mixture of all interests, that it will be impracticable to adopt any rule for all the states, giving any preference to classes or interests, founded upon sectional or personal considerations. What might suit a few states well, would find a general resistance from all the other states.
§ 819. If it is said, that the elections might be so managed, as to give a predominant influence to the wealthy, and the well-born, (as they are insidiously called,) the supposition is not less visionary. What possible mode is there to accomplish such a purpose? The wealthy and the well-born are not confined to any particular spots in any state; nor are their interests permanently fixed any where. Their property may consist of stock, or other personal property, as well as of land; of manufactories on great streams, or on narrow rivulets, or in sequestered dells. Their wealth may consist of large plantations in the bosom of the country, or farms on the borders of the ocean. How vain must it be, to legislate upon the regulation of elections with reference to circumstances so infinitely varied, and so infinitely variable. The very suggestion is preposterous. No possible method of regulating the time, mode, or place of elections, could give to the rich, or elevated, a general, or permanent advantage in the elections. The only practical mode of accomplishing it, (that of a property qualification of voters, or candidates,) is excluded in the scheme of the national government.13 And if it were possible, that such a design could be accomplished to the injury of the people at a single election, it is certain, that the unpopularity of the measure would immediately drive the members from office, who aided in it; and they would be succeeded by others, who would more justly represent the public will and the public interests. A cunning, so shallow, would be easily detected; and would be as contemptible from its folly, as it would be difficult in its operations.
§ 820. Other considerations are entitled to great weight. The constitution gives to the state legislatures the power to regulate the time, place, and manner of holding elections; and this will be so desirable a boon in their possession, on account of their ability to adapt the regulation, from time to time, to the peculiar local, or political convenience of the states, that its representatives in congress will not be brought to assent to any general system by congress, unless from an extreme necessity, or a very urgent exigency. Indeed, the danger rather is, that when such necessity or exigency actually arises, the measure will be postponed, and perhaps defeated, by the unpopularity of the exercise of the power. All the states will, under common circumstances, have a local interest, and local pride, in preventing any interference by congress; and it is incredible, that this influence should not be felt, as well in the senate, as in the house. It is not too much, therefore, to presume, that it will not be resorted to by congress, until there has been some extraordinary abuse, or danger in leaving it to the discretion of the states respectively. And it is no small recommendation of this supervising power, that it will naturally operate, as a check upon undue state legislation; since the latter might precipitate the very evil, which the popular opinion would be most solicitous to avoid. A preventive of this sort, addressed a priori to state jealousy, and state interest, would become a most salutary remedy, not from its actual application, but from its moral influence.
§ 822. But why did not a similar objection occur against the state constitutions? The subject of elections, the time, place, and manner of holding them, is in many cases left entirely to legislative discretion. In New York, the senators are chosen from four districts of great territorial extent, each comprehending several counties; and it is not defined, where the elections shall be had. Suppose the legislature should compel all the electors to come to one spot in the district, as, for instance, to Albany, the evil would be great; but the measure would not be unconstitutional.16 Yet no one practically entertains the slightest dread of such legislation. In truth, all reasoning from such extreme possible cases is ill adapted to convince the judgment, though it may alarm our prejudices. Such a legislative discretion is not deemed an infirmity in the delegation of constitutional power. It is deemed safe, because it can never be used oppressively for any length of time, unless the people themselves choose to aid in their own degradation.
§ 829. The fifth section of the first article embraces provisions principally applicable to the powers, rights, and duties of each house in its separate corporate character. These will not require much illustration or commentary, as they are such, as are usually delegated to all legislative bodies in free governments; and were in practice in Great Britain at the time of the emigration of our ancestors; and were exercised under the colonial governments, and have been secured and recognized in the present state constitutions.
§ 832. The propriety of establishing a rule for a quorum for the dispatch of business is equally clear; since otherwise the concerns of the nation might be decided by a very small number of the members of each body. In England, where the house of commons consists of nearly six hundred members, the number of forty-five constitutes a quorum to do business.26 In some of the state constitutions a particular number of the members constitutes a quorum to do business; in others, a majority is required. The constitution of the United States has wisely adopted the latter course; and thus, by requiring a majority for a quorum, has secured the public from any hazard of passing laws by surprise, or against the deliberate opinion of a majority of the representative body.
§ 834. But, as a danger of an opposite sort required equally to be guarded against, a smaller number is authorized to adjourn from day to day, thus to prevent a legal dissolution of the body, and also to compel the attendance of absent members.29 Thus, the interests of the nation, and the despatch of business, are not subject to the caprice, or perversity, or negligence of the minority. It was a defect in the articles of confederation, sometimes productive of great public mischief, that no vote, except for an adjournment, could be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the states;30 and no power of compelling the attendance of the requisite number existed.
1. Journal of Congress 218, 240; Id. 354, 374.
2. 1 Elliot’s Debates, 43 to 50; Id. 53 to 68; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 38, 39, 72, 149, 150; 3 Elliot’s Debates, 57 to 74; 2 American Museum, 438; Id. 435; Id. 545; 3 American Museum, 432; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 277.
3. The Federalist, No. 59; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 276, 277.
4. The Federalist, No. 59; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 38, 39; Id. 276, 277.
5. 1 Elliot’s Debates, 41, 45; The Federalist, No. 22.
6. The Federalist, No. 59.
8. The Federalist, No. 59; 1 Elliot’s Debates, 43 to 55; Id. 67, 68; 3 Elliot’s Debates, 65.
9. The Federalist, No. 59.
11. The Federalist, No. 60.
13. The Federalist, No. 60.
14. The Federalist, No. 61. — The full force of this reasoning will not be perceived, without adverting to the fact, that though in New- England the voters generally give their votes in the townships, where they reside. In the southern and western states, there are few towns, and the elections are held in the counties, where the population is sparse, and spread over large plantation districts. 1 Elliot’s Debates, 68.
15. 2 Elliot’s Debates, 38, 39.
16. The Federalist, No. 61.
17. See 1 Elliot’s Debates, 44, 47, 48, 49; Id. 55; Id. 67.
18. The Federalist, No. 61; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 38, 39.
19. 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 192.
20. Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 191, 192.
21. See Journal of Convention, Supplement, p. 402, 411, 418, 425, 433, 447, 454.
22. Journal of Convention, 351, 374.
23. The Federalist, No. 52.
24. 1 Black. Comm. 187, 188, and Christian’s Note; 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 151, 155.
25. 1 Black. Comm. 163, 178, 179; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 4, p. 46; 1 Kent. Comm. 220; 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 153, 154.
26. 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 201, 202, 203, 229. — I have not been able to find in any books within my reach, whether any particular quorum is required in the house of lords.
27. The Federalist, No. 58; Journal of Convention, 218, 242.
28. The Federalist, No. 22, 58.
29. Journal of Convention, 218, 242; 4 Instit. 43, 49.
30. Confederation, art.9; 1 Elliot’s Debates, 44, 45; The Federalist, No. 22.

References: § 817

§ 818

§ 819

§ 820

§ 822

§ 829

§ 832

§ 834
 art.9