Year: 1875

forming their Constitutions, it may be held
to be conclusive.


1t is true that story, writing from a high
Federal stand -point-deoply imbucd with
consolidation doetrines-ha5 questioned the
soundness Of Mr.. Jeilerson's views upon this
interesting question; but mainly his reasons
for differing from a greater man than him
self, strike quite wide of the particular quss-
ton with which we are at present concerned.
Combating the validity of certain State laws
of disqualification, he insists that as the res
ervation Of powers by the Tenth Amend
ment to the Constitution, is to the States or
to the people, Legislatures must show n war
rant of power from the people of the State
in the State Constitution, to authorize the
enactment OF such laws. And he further in
sists that the reservation of powers to State
by the Tenth Amendment applies only to
powers which were possessed by the State be-
fore the Constitution was made and not to
those called into existence by it. Neither of
these reasons apply to the present question,
which is Can the C6a|tvii0a of the State
forbid the appointment of a member of the
| Legislature to any other Office within the gift
of the state, during his Constitutional term?
ICleary such general power OF control over its
own officers was possessed by each State an
terror to the Constitution, and it remains to
be shown that it does not yet exist in its
plenitude and wholly Independent of that in
strument.


But it may be freely conceded that the
Senate of the United States, in Judging of
the quail 6cations of its own members is not
bound to enforce provisions of disqualitica-
tiOn found in State Constitutions As ques-
ton of jurisdiction it may be held that the
power to consruc and to apply the State
Constitution in its application to choice Of
Senator rests exclusively with the Legisla-
ture Of the state, and that Legislative judy
ment will not be reviewed or reversed by
Senate. This view is sustained by the opin-
ion of Mr.. Crittcndcn, pronounced in a SEN
atorial debate in which the eligibility Of a
member Of the Senate, under the Constitu-
tion Of His own State, was brought in ques-
tion. He said:


"What is the authority on this subject
The highest possible. 1t is the authority OF
the Legislature of the State who are charged
with the election ofa Senator Of the United
States, and who are bound to observe the
State Constitution and also the Constitution
of the United States. Who but they have the
power to determine the true meaning OF their
own Constitution in relation t o this particu-
lar subject? Will the Senate iuterpose against
, the action OF the Legislature in deciding a
question on their own Constitution and law
and settle it for them? Look to the analogy
, Of the Federal judiciary. They do not de
eide the statute of Il State TO be invalid be-


ton. That is matter for the State courts


The Federal courts do not interfere to say t


the State Legislature, Your act is not Con


stitutional because it conhit5 with your owl


Constitution.' II it conflicts with the Const
: tuition Of the United States, then it is a prop
er question for the Federal judiciary Sure


ly we may allow the Legislature of the State


invested by the Constitution of the Unite,


states with the power and agency of select
ing Senatorof the United States, to dcterm


inc whether or not there is q Constitutions
, provision of their own State interfering wit
y the election which they actually make.


this body were now to deprive this gentle
" man, their elected Representative, Of hi
" seat, they would decide contrary to the judg


mcnt Of the Legislature of the State, on thei
own State Constitution"


This opinion appears to be an entirel
y sound one, thougA in view of the Stockto
- case in Congress we cannot say that a


against party interest, it will be ragarde


in future cases by 4 partisan Senate,
L We may conclude, however upon ground
l. of reason, upon the highest political author
At ty, and in view Of the practice of the State
pt that it is competent for State by Constitl
l. tional provision to forbid the appointmer
r. of State official to the Senatorial office, an
is that jurisdiction over question of eligibil
te ty arising thereon is exclusively with th
A. State authorities who make Senatorial az
e, pontments and are bound by oath to SUI
x port, obey and defend tho Constitution {


the State.


in This view dispcnses with all further arg
d. ment upon the question of Senatorial pow'
es to enforce disabilities beyond those exprCs
at ly indicated in the Federal Constitution,
a upon the power of Congress to add to the
al number by the enactment of All lron-cli
It's oath or other restrictive provision Of statu
We law.