Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

•run Georgia jourral I* I'UBLIXlmi WEEKLY BY p |3 T 11 It NO N T IMV 1! * T Ti £11/TOA AMI) pnomturuR, AT TIIIIKK DOLLARS IT.II ANNUM. IN AIIVANrF. ..A Kill'll DOLLARS AT Till'. END OF THE YEAR. pi|t«r ll 1 H«' 'ncrlplionwill l»* racoivetlfor lenMlinn a ym i list outiniietl until all arrearayti art paid * ill t r will not bn aonttouny pernon out of tlm State, until tin ,, r ,.jt,,iii moucjr ii paid in advance or *atinfuctory rofarouce given k •> »*V*. it rUKUI’V PH are inserted nt 75 cent* per niuuro for tin t i.i.iTtnni.iii l oilonnlN pnr*f|u«rnfor micli insertioniliorenltor. A 11,-«i-I t*f' J turn il ta tlio spacoof ton 1 i»»«*► in »innll typo,containing, it il »’R» 100 word". ,, /*S. ll. H «loa of Is\Ntl,\>v Vd mnLtrntorn, F.xoowtor*. or («uni nM, arn ro piircd,by law. to bn In Id on tlm lir»>t Tunailiiy in tin tlm iirnt t binirs of ton in tlio fornnoon mnl t lirnn in tl irt-lionm, in tlio nounty in vrlilob tlm propu «iti it • I. N it ten of those anlei* inii-a bo givci PY l> \YM pravinue to tlm iliiy of »:iln. s tins of NEGROES illUnt bn it :i public r •I iv of t in month, hat*ve<'H the us'inl luoire ol , on tlm first Tin> t tin* plui-e of pul - c. R ims in urn couiii w „ wr „,., u y, of Adniini*trM tnni'or liVtrdi may have linen crnuleil, lir-t K i\"ill SIXTl l)\YS notioit tlici tof.in oimofthn publii irii/. ’ttefof tlii» Si iie.uml ui til • do ir of tlm noiirt-liouim, where Hticb »iilc« are to lie Indil. N’otien fiir tho h »lo of Feraoiinl Properly, iinint begiieu m lihc ninn nee, FORTY dav* previous to tlm dny of Mile. ....i.iui,,,,' ih t Debtors iiud Creditor* of tm K*ttitc mustlm publisl.ec ^NxtnJolVila'f.’i.’iUionivill l.p ramie in lira r.nirl of Oritlnory fm 1'nvn l.i «.'ll UNI) i-l Ira ,inlili»l|pd fur Fill'll 5I< ]' .. .... \ .tic. I'nr In,vc to -nil NKUROKS, mu-l Ira ,'nl.li- ra.l r..r 1 Ol 11 MON* niS.beforeany order absolute ahull be made thereon 1»> Hu * Citations for I. *tt 'u of Administration, days—for dinmi-sioii fro u ndmiuistrut Ml RuL'IVra’f«rnc*o., 1 |rn'or l.n |,uM,-lra.l .»n»lWl) /. ti) ir m i«O f— f ,r est iblis'iinjr lo«t p ipers, fur tin full f pare of I hit m9nl\s -for compelling t itlea from lv where ^ n md has been glvci ^Publications wtll always be contiuuod nacoidingto tlicr*», tho legal requir •ni’iic*, u-ileas otherwise ordr All hnsinnsa ofthlskind continues torccnivc prompt attention nttlic Ofllan of tlm GEORGIA JOURNAL# R.M dl PPANCKst HY MAID—“A postmaster mny enclose monej in a letter to tlm publisher of a newspaper, to pay the miIim riptioii nlu thir | person, anu fr.iiikthe letter, if written by hmuolf dan P. -if a tlm deceased, the fall spa -.linos Ken POLITICAL k i* k non VOL. XXAV nil Alio representatives, or nil in n district vole for a member nlloitril 10 llinl district—these anil ma ny oilier points would depend ii|)on llio legislatures or might materially alien! tlio appointments.”— Thai is if the controlling power were nut given to Congress. For, raid he further “it scorns lo be ns improper in principle, though it might not be as inconvenient in practice, lo give llie stale legisln- tures ibis great authoriiy over the elections of the people in the general legislature, as it would bo to give to tlio latter a like power over the elec tions of llic representatives in ilia State legisla tures.” That the same meaning was generally under stood at tlio time, is abundantly established from wisely and exclusively committed? I apprehend other sources, lint L wilt not detain ilia House by I that lie would, sir; uml that, too, notwithstanding refering further thereto; and I only refer lo those ^ his own opinion might he opposed to that of a tna- opinions now, for the purpose, ns I have said, ol , joriiv of this House upon the question now he- slum ing what was understood to ho tlio import of I fore it- The judge would he shielded with the tlio words, “times, places and manner of holding 1 consciousness that, if the constitution were violnt. elections;” uml that no person appeared at that I ed, it would not ho by his decision ; and so, sir, time to entertain any opinion contrary lo Mr. Mad I with mo ; if n constitutional law in tho decision of ison, to wit—that "they were w ords of great lati- j this question lie disregard, it will not ho by my vole tude,”und that by them, or under their authority, or influence. Hut ns I am sworn to support and the .Stales would Ituve power to decide “whether ! defend that instrument, 1 do so to day, and to tho nil the people in ono Stuto should vote for all their [ utmost of my ability ; and il Ifail in inducii g this MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1S44. into courts of tile country upon this ground t Sup pose, during the session, sumo luw ho passed, and carried by the votes of lltoso members whoso right to seats is now midcr the consideration, making certain nets criminal, and subject to severe punish ment ; and hereafter, some individual, charged with a violation of that law, should raise the ques tion of constitutionality, and insist, by way of de fence, that it was no law, not having bcon passed by a Congress constitutionally organized : would his plea avail him anything ? or would it he enter tained by any court V Would not every judge he bound by the settlement of that question by this House, to whom it has, by the constitution, been o P M R. STEP II K IV s , OF OBottGIA, On the right of Members to their seals in the House of Representatives. Delivered in the House oj Representatives. Feb. 9. 1814. O.t tho report of the Majority of the Committee of Elections, which concluded with the following resolutions for the adoption of tlio House: “Resolved, That the second section of an act for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according to tho sixth census, approved June 23t!r, 1842, is not a law made in pursuance of the Con- st,union of the United States, and valid, operating and bidding upon tho States. “Resolved, That all tho members of this House (ex cepting the contested cases from Virginia, upon which no opinion is hereby expressed) have been duly elected in conformity with the constitution and laws, and are entitled to their seats in this House.” Mr. STEPHENS, (succeeding Mr. Thompson, of Mississippi in the Debate) said: Mr. Speaker: Tlio gentleman from Mississippi who has just taken his seat, in order to sustain the position assumed in the first resolution upon your table, and which is now under consideration, (10 wit; that the second section of the last apportion ment act is,‘'not a law made in puvsuunce of the constitution of the United States,”) insists that the •‘power of districting” was never intended to be conferred by the 4th section of tho 1st article of the constitution, cither upon the general govern ment or ttie State governments; or, in other words that the power or right of providing for the elec lion of members to this House bv districts was not at the time of the formation of the constitution, in tended or understood to be embraced in the terms “times, places and manner of holding elec tions.” In this, sir, l wholly disagree with him; and, as tho same view has been presented by others, and urged with some force, notwithstanding it has not been taken by the majority of the committee, I think it proper not to let it pass without notice; and more especially as, in the opinions of sonic, the whole merits of the subject-matter now before the House turns upon this question. For they admit, if this power was intended to be embraced in the language used in this clause of the constitution, Congress has tho same right to its exercise that the States have. And it seems to mo that the admis sion is no less frank than it is legitimate; for 1 cannot well perceive how any more power under the clause can be claimed for the States, than must bo acknowledged, also, to belong to Con- gress. The language of tho clause is in the following words: “The times, places, and manner of holding elections of Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislatures thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make, or alter such regulations, except as to the place ol choosing Sena tors.” And, of course, so far as the language is con cerned, whatever power over this subject is given primarily to the States, by this clause, is also given ultimately to this government. Tho only question then, upon this point, is to settle tho meaning of the words, or the extent of their comprehension.— If wo refer to the practice of the States os a rule to govern us in coming to a conclusion upon this point, all will admit that it is decidedly against the position assumed. Even from the beginning of the government, most of the Slates have exercised the power; and “in prescribing the limes, places and manner of holding their elections” have divided the territories into districts, and directed their elec tions to be held accordingly; the legality of which, upon this floor, has never been disputed. Hut to avoid tho force of these examples, those who as sumo the position with tho gentleman from Missis, sippi, say that the power of districting, which the States have exorcised, is not derived from the con stitution, but is one of the inherent rights of sover eignty in the States, which they possess indepen. dently of tlio constitution. Now, sir, this seems to be retreating from one difficulty only to encoun ter another, and a greater one. For 1 hold that tho States have no right to representation here, either inherent or of any other character, except such as is derived through the constitution, and in such way, mode, and manner, as was agreed upon in the constitution: How is it that representation is ap portioned among the States upon the Federal busi but because il was so agreed upon, and entered as one of the terms of the sumo compact which declar ed that the “limes, places and manner of lioldin elections” should bo prescribed by the legislatures subject to the control of Congress? Indeed, this view is conceded by the innjoiity in their report ; for they say: “Whatever power the States have over electii ns they derive from the constitution”— which is certainly true ; for without the constitu tion there would have been no Congress, und no representation. Hut, to settle the matter whether the power in question was intended to be embraced in the words used, I think wc have only to refer to the history of the times, and see what those who made the consti tution understood at the time to be the meaning und extent of the terms employed. 1 ask the at tention of the House to the remarks of Mr, Madis on upon this subject, made in the convention, when this clause was under consideration in that body. And these i rend, sir, only for the purpose of show, ing what was then fully understood to be the ex tent of the power conferred by the words. These remarks were made (it may he proper for me al so to add) when the second part of the clause was under consideration; that is, the propriety of giving the ultimate control over tlio subject to Congress. “This view of the question.” (said lie, alter some previous remarks; 8t?e the Madison Papers, vol. 3 page 1*280 ) “seems to decide that the legislature* of the stutes ought not to have the uncontrolled right of regulating the times places, and manner ol holding elections. These were words of great lali tude. It was impossible to foresee all the abuse that might be made of the discretionary power.— Whether the elections should be by ballot or viva voce\ whether the electors should assemble at this place or at that place; should b« divided into dis iric'.s, or ull meet nt one plucc; should ull vote for representatives, or whether all in a district should House to agree with me irt opinion upon the ques vote for a member allotted to such district.” It is tion, I must yield my own to the opinions of tho true 1 might use the authority of Mr Madison hero : majority oftlioso whose province it is to decide it. quoted, to show that lie was in favor of tho incor- j Neither nm I unsupported by the ablest authoriiy poration of the latter part of the clause, which gives i in t lie correctness of my position the controlling power to Congress, and that lie went in argument so far as to say, in effect, that it would be as wrong in principle to leave this sub Mr. Madison, upon this subject, says : “lias tho wisest and most conscientious judge ever scrupled to acquiesce in decisions in which lie has been colleagues,and subsequently to conform liimsellThereto, as to authoritative expositions of the law? And is it not reasonable that the same view of the official oath juct entirely under the control of the legislatures of i overruled by the mature opinions of thelmajority of his the Stutes, as it would be to give to the general go-| ' vernment power to control tho elections ol the • . cy . i . i . , otit rt.'UKuitauit: tuat uie euuie view oi cue uiuuicu uaiu members ol llic -Male legislatures. Hot ns is not j s ; lul ,j ( j i, e taken by a legislator, acting under tlio con- my object at present,, which is only to show that J s titut on, which is his guide, as is taken by a judge act- 11 to power of "districting” is not only embraced in I ing under the law, which is his] tho words used ex vi termini, but was well under- | “There is, in fact, and in common understanding, a stood to be so intended by those who made the con- | necessity of regarding a course of practice as above characterized, in the light of a legal rale for interpreting a law : and Otero is a like necessity of considering it a a constitutional rule of interpreting it constitution.’' — Miles’s Register, supplement to ml. 49, p. 28. This, sir, is the rule by which I am governed and I have been the more full and explicit in giv ing it, because some, who me about as little noted for their sagacity as their integrity, ltavo affected stitution; and that it is in pursuance of tlio same that tlio States ltavo ever since exercised the pow. er. And if this point is satisfactorily established, as I believe il is, I leave it for gentlemen to decide whether according to their admission Congtess has not tho same right to its exercise that the Slates have? 1 here is Mi. Speaker, another particular nlso, j. | 8UC | g|- eal surprise at what they consider in which 1 do not agreo with the gentleman from ! . : B ; 1 , V 1 1 ,, ”‘T f " I the strange inconsistency ol my position. Mississippi, o says tin t to e live 00 1 (laving said thus much upon those points, I now section ol the upporUonmem net to be constitution- , co |0 tho , nui „ u „ s ,^ )n bl , f J lhe lluUse , a. ho would not consent, coming as he docs from u , - . • • . r.i i .• <- ,i ■» ‘ , . . ’ ° i it i which is, the pr< prioty of tho adoption of the roso. Stuto e ectmg m tho same way; anu I believe the 1 • , / , . , , , .. . " , ° . ,, , ,. , , j luttons upon your table, which declare that the see. section of the act alluded lo, and now under constd- o tairily-* in spirit and design, dependent and contingent.— If the legislatures of the States fail or refuse to act in the premises, &c., then Ibis conservative power inter poses, and, upon the principle of self-preservation au thorizes Congress to do that which the Stale legisla tures ought to have done.” Moreover, the report goes on to affirm that “the history of the constitution, and especially the sec tion in qne«t1oIT7~Rbt>W8conclusively that these were the considerations which induced the adoption of that provision.” And again, says the report, in maintenance of the same principle : “Alter the subject of this provision bad oecn fully and ably discussed, maturely considered, and unanimously adopted, the latter clause of the section conferring up on Congress llic* power to make regulations, or niter those prescribed by the States, was agreed to, with an explanation at the time that this was meant to give to the national legislature the power not only to alter the provisions of the States, but to make regulations in case the States should fail or refuse altogether.” Now, sir, this is the argument , uml so far ns what is said of the explanation given at tlio tiin»» is concerned, even that certainly does not warrant the conclusion that the power conferred upon Con- gross by the clause was understood,either in spirit or design, only to ho exorcised in nnsn of the fail ure or refusal of the .States to do so ; and that tlm general understanding at tho time does not war rant such conclusion, I think ubuudautly evident from tho history of that period. No clause in the constitution met with warmer opposition the States; and nothing is clearer than that it was well nudestood that full power there by was given to Congress to exercise absolute and unconditional legislation upon the subject- — This is apparent from the debates in nil tho States as fur as they have been preserved ; and seven of the States ratified the constitution with a proposed amendment that the power, in this section, should be so far restricted as to limit its exercise hv Congress to the contingency stuted. The pro posed amendment offered by Massachusetts is in the following words : “The convention do therefore recommend that tlio lollowing alterations and provisions be introduced into tho said constitution : That Congress do not exercise the power vested in them by tlio fourth section of the first, article, but in cases where the Siatesshnll neglect or nfusc to make the regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations suoversive of the rights of the people to a free and equal representation in Congress agreeable to the constitution.’ ” The language of the amendment proposed by Virginia U in the following words : NO-24 eminent, each being confined within its own appro priate sphere of action, Congress cannot constitu tionally pass any law, which, for its full execution, vvi.l require the Smes to conform thereto, or perfect by their legislation. This view of the subject is the only plausible one to my mind that has been presented for consider ing the section in question us inoperative as it now stands upon the statute book ; and to it 1 ask the particular attention of tlie* House ; for it is not on- ly strongly it lied upon hv the inajori'y of the com. inilleo in their report, hut has been repeatedly urg ed in the debate with a great deal of spaciousness, and by no one with more clearness and force, 1 be lieve, than by my colleague, [Mr. Conn,] who nd. dressed the House on \estprduy ; and yet, I think it will boas unable to bear the test of examination as either of the others. The strength of the nr. gumeut in this view, you will perceive, rests main ly upon the assumed principle, that from the nature of the federuland Stale governments, in our coin- plicated form, in legislation each is confined to its own sphere ; and that Congress car not pass a law, valid in itself, or such ns sliould be regarded effi cient and operative, wltieh, for its execution, will require Stuto legislation ; ami that the States arc* not bound under tl*,' rnn«„lvAioU. to make such hitioii, in any instance, as will be m u.f«!n v for der oration, to bo a constitutional law; und that it oimht to be considered as operative und valid,, . r n, . °. , , . ... consequence, that the elections in four of the States touching the elections of members, \\\ the orgamza- < .. .*. ond section of tlio apportionment act, before allud- ed to, is not a valid and operative law ; and, in tion of litis House. Entertaining these opinions, 1 have been asked how I could consistently retain my seat as a member of this body, sworn, as l am to support the constitution. My answer is, that l which have been held in disregard thereof, urc nevertheless lawful und valid. The language of that section is in the following words : “That every case when a State is entitled to more , *.• , t .,. M .i .. i “I hat every case when a State is entitled to more submit the question to this House, the con ,ull ° / | than one representative, the number to which each al tvibunal, tor* its decision. This, sir, is a cousti tutional question which individually concerns me Stale shall be entitled under thisapportionment shall be elected by districts, composed of contiguous territory, but little; but one in which the people of the State ! equal in number to the number of representatives to l have tire honor in part to represent, as well as the J which each Slate may be entitled— no one district e- people of all the States, have a deep interest; and ! Acting more than one representative.’ one in the settlement of which the same people have * 1 * ,e object of the section eviden bject of the section evidently wns to legis. u vi'dn to bo heard. The people of Georgia, sir.; u P on 1,10 i ,|aces und manner of holding the have a rbdit to representation here, either by the j elections of members of this Mouse, so far as to re- rrcneral ticket or district system. A majority of; sl,c ‘‘ elections lobe held by single districts. Ural people. I believe, agree with me that the dis- j The authority upon which the legislation was trict system, under existing laws, is the legal und ; ^‘sed, is the power given to Congress in that clause proper one. And here 1 would respectfully dis- 1 of the constitution alluded to before. And so far sent from the opinion of one of my colleagues, [M r. | as f° r,n ,s concerned, it is admitted by all, 1 believe, H.ueU] expressed on a former occasion—that the j hint tin* section in question pnssod strictly in pnr- neoplc of that Slate were united upon this subject, | suunco of the mode prescribed in the constitution and that the prevailing opinion of both parties was j for the enactment of laws tliiu is, it passed Hus in favor of tlie general ticket. 1 think if there is " i «r. any one particular in which both parties of that State are more nearly agreed than upon any oth er. it is tlio district system. At the session before the last of our legislature, the Democratic party tvere largely in the majority, and un act was pas sed districting tlio State, which was vetoed by the Governor, and the late legislature which was whig passed another act of similar import, which lias House, the Senate, and received the sanction of the President, and is found in the statue book with the other laws of the land. And of course this House, should require some strong rensons to justify it in the passage of a resolution which declares that, notwithstanding all these sanctions, it is no law, and of no binding force. And hero I will remark that I agree with the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Delser,] as to (lie received the executive sanction, and which is now proper rule which should he adopted in its construe the law of the Slate. ISut I barely allude to this, I tion i which is tlio same that all courts adopt upon to put the mutter right before the House. | tllu construction of statutes touching their validity; The question involved in tlio subject now under \ that is, such construction sliould he given ns will, if consideration, is ono upon which great difference possible sustain the law. The power of Congress, of opinion seems to prevail; and it is one neither the subject-matter of tho statue, with all its rela- f or nm or a majority of tlio people of Georgia, but I Hons, sliould he so considered and construed, that f 01 i|,i 3 House, to determine. This House, by the the whole may, if if possible, stand , or, as tlio constitution, is made tho solo “judge of the elections ‘courts say, -ut res magis valeat, quam pcreal." returns, and qualifications of its members;” and if No* »*»* 1 "“end to insist upon any advantages that you say that the members elected by general tick- "right he supposed to arise front the latitude of this euro legally and properly returned, your decision,; rule ; but, 1 mention il barely because^ a contrary by the constitution, is iiuul and conclusive upon one has been suggested by some, the subject; and, in that event, a majority of the | I have, Mr. Spoaker, been an attentive listener, people of Georgia say 1 am to be one of their rep- i during the progress of this debute, and I have, I he- resentalives; and if you say the law of Congress hove, given no less attention to the arguments of is valid, and otmht to'he regarded as such, why, the j the gentleman who advocate the adoption of the re- present delegation will retire, and another will be solutions, than to the report of the committee, and sent according to tho provisions of the existing law I the reasons winch seem to have led them to the con- of the Stale, in either event, tlio people, if repre- elusions expressed in the resolutions. And I sented at all, ought certainly to be represented by I think, upon proper examination mid analysis, they those of their own choice. will aU be found to rest upon one of three post- 1 have been told by some that my position wns j lions * e llinl of a suitor at court, who cluims a hearing. ?• 1 hat the section in question is inoperative like and at the same time, denies his right. By no and void, because Congress, by the constitution, My position is more like that ol the | has no power to legislate upon the subject. representative of a suitor at court, whentlieiei.no! *• I hat though Congress does possess the pow- doubt as to the right of recovery, hut some differ- ! or °f regulating “the times, places, and manner of ance of opinion as to the right way to he pursued in obtaining it, and which is not to ho settled by tho suitor or itis representative but by tire Court. is a man to be deprived of his rights because lie tray differ from the court as to the proper form of action to be brought? Or, area people to he dis franchised,because they may differ with this House, holding elections for members of this House, yet it is limited in its exercise lo tho contingency of the failure or refusal of the Stutes to do so; which contingency not having happened, it was improper ly exercised, und therefore its action is void. !]. That though Congress does possess the pow. er, and as absolutely us the States, yet the section in question is not such a fuil oxorciso of the power as to the proper and legal mode of election? When I to render it an efficient statue , and that it is so ‘ sworn to support a constitution, sir, which | materially dclcctive in itself as to bo inoperative n man is provides for its own amendment, I hold he is ns much hound to support nu amendment, when made in pursuance thereof, ns lie wns lo suppoil tho ori- inn! constitution ; and when ho is sworn to sup and void as it now stand Those who lake the first ground agree with the gentleman from Mississippi who last addressed the House; and, as I have already answered that view port r constitution which provides a tribunal for the I will say no more upon it ut this lime; The re settlement of any class of cases arising under it, | port of the committee, however, and u large majori- whore differences of opinion may prevail, he isas ly oftlioso who advocate tho resolutions, l believe much hound lo acquiesce in the decision of such it will he admitted, do not rest their argument up. tribunal when made, and to the extent made, until on that ground; they rely exclusively upon tlio reversed, in uny case so arising, as he was bound last two positions, neither of which seems to me to to he governed by his own opinions in relation to it he any more tenable than the first ; and each of before. This, sir. is one of the first principles of them 1 will examine in its older, all societies, and part of the obligation of every j The first position, then, assumed by the commit, individual implied when he becomes u citizen of tee. is, that the power of Congress over elections of government, or takes the oath ofallegiance. Else, memheis of litis House, “in prescribing tire limes, why sliould there he a tribunal to decide suclt i places, and manner," is a conditional of contingent questions, ifubedienco and acquiescence to the do- : power, or ono only to he exercised upon the coudi- cision when made, should not bn regarded, in ; tion or contingency of the failure or refusal of tho every sense of propriety, right and proper, boll) ' Slates to do so; and, as the co itiugency upon which politically and morally ? i h rests had not happened, its exercise by the last Sir without this ruin, there could ho no order j Congress was improper and void, and no "ovornment; but every man would set up I [.Mr. D mg'ass (the author of tho report) Imre in- his own judgment or a much less safe guide, his tcrrupled, and was understood to deny that the com- own conscience ns the rule of his own acts ; and • mitten had taken that position.} the most lawless anarchy would he tlio result. \ 1 think, Mr. Speaker, that i will bo able to allow, Why, sir, suppose the resolutions upon your ta-| not only to the House, hut to the gentleman him- bl& he adopted, and tho sitting members from the , self, that I am not mistaken in the position of the four States elected by general ticket he declared by j report. I have it before mo, atd-from it I read as a vote of the House lo have been duly elected, and I follows : vonr legislation proceeds: will the constitutionality “The privilege allowed Congress of altering State of tho acts passed by this Congress be inquirablc I regulations,or makingnow ones, if not in terms, iscer- “The Congress shall not alter, or modify, or inter fere in thetimes, places, or manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or either of them ex- cepl when the legislature of any State shall neglect, refuse, or be disabled, by invasion or rebellion, to pre scribe the sam-.” And, at the same time, “enjoined upon her representatives in Congress to exert all their influence,and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alteration and pro. vision, in the manner provided by the fifth article of the constitution.” North Carolina proposed the following amend ment : That Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere with the times, places, or manner of holding elections lor senators and representatives, or either of them, ex cept when tirelogislatureof any Slate shall neglect, refuse, or be disabled, by invasion or rebellion, to pre- scribe the same." But it is useless to multiply these instances.— Similar resolutions, as I have before stated, were, passed by seven of tho States ratifying the con stitution; which shows conclusively thnt, however much those States may have been opposed to the existence of suclt power, yet, nevertheless, it wns well understood, at tlio time that tho power did ex ist under lltc constitution as ratified. Nay. more, sir ; 1 have before mo tho journals of the House of Representatives of the first Con- gross, in 1789; and, un page 80, 1 find that the following amendment to the constitution, which hud been offered by Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, was acted, upon, lo wit: “Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere in the times, places, or manner of holding elections of senators or representatives, except when any State shall refuse, or neglect, or be unable, by invasion or rebellion, to make suclt election.” Which was lost. And among those who recorded their voles in tho negative, are Nicholas Gilman, Roger Sher man, and James Madison, who were all members of the convention that formed tho constitution.— Sir, can anything be clearer, or better cstablisned, than that it wns well understood at that day that the uhsolute and unconditional power of regulating “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for this House," either in case of failure or refusal ol the States, or not, was vested by the constitution in tho general government? And not only in this; hut that, in the opinion of the wise men and pure patri ots that composed the first Congress, it ought to re main there. And that there was no such under standing, as stuted by tho majority of the Com mittee of Electors, that it was lo ho exercised only in case of failure or refusal on the part of tin States? That is the limitation to which the State! before-mentioned wished to restrict it by amend incut; and that is the limitation to which the pro posed amendment in the first Congress was intend ed lo restrict it, which itas never been ratified, leav. ing tho power as originally incorporated in thee stitution. Sir, is mure light wanted upon this subject ? or do gentlemen, ostritch like, expect, liy hiding tlteii own eyes, to extinguish the light around front the vision of others? You may, indeed, enshroud your self in darkness; but it scents to me that you may as well attempt to extinguish the light at noon, so long as yonder sun courses his path in the heavens, us to envclopu this subject in mystnry or doubt while the urchieves of your country remain uuob literuted. 1 come now, to arguments and reasons of tho who, abandoning the grounds of ilia first and s coml positions, attempt to fortify themselves unde the third. They admit that Congress does possess the power, by the 4th section of the first article of constitution, to regulate tlie times, places, and man nor of holding elections for members of this House far as to require them to be chosen by districts which, it is also admitted, was the object of the se ond section of the last apportionment act. They admit, also, that this power in Congress is not hare iy an ultimate one, lo be exorcised only in case of failure or refusal of the States lo exercise it; hat is att absolute and controlling power, to ne exercis ed at any time according to discretion. B it they insist that the section under consideration is not such an exercise of it as sliould be regarded us law that it was only an attempt at its exorcise with out such details as arc necessary at all limes to give force and efficiency to legislation—that if Congress hud gone mi and divided the Slates into districts, its action would have been both constitutional and hind ing; hut that, as the section cow stands, it is a per feet nullity within itself, until it shall he perfected either by the legislatures of the States, or this gov eminent, in the formation of the districts, dec.; or in other words, that, as it now stun Is, it is nothing more than a direction, or a mandamus to the State to form districts according to a general principle therein set forth; which they say this government I has no right lo give. They insist that from the nu-1 turo of tlio Slate governments, and the federal gov-1 t:t. tho full execution and operation of a law of C gross. That the laws of Congress, to ho valid, must not depend upon suclt State legislation, but must operate proprio vigore,<.r not nt all. Now, sir, if this assumed principle can In* shown to he wrong, the whole argument which rests upon it, as matter of course, will be overthrown ; and that it is wrong, I think can lie made appear, both from thejeonslilution itself, and repeated precedents of legislation in our history. Tlml tlie principle assumed ns a general position istrtte, I admit ; hut that it is true in any case w hen there is such n con current jurisdiction, ov powers of legislation, if you please, given to tho Stutes und Congress over any subject, and the controlling power conferred upon the latter, as in the case now under consideration. (and there are several such in tho constitution ) I am disposed to question, 1 will illustrate, sir. By tho constitution, il is made the duly of Congress, every ten years, from an enumeration made, to apportion tlie number of representatives to which each State may In*, enti tled, according to the federal basis. And all that Congress does, or has done from the beginning of tlie government, in the exorcise of 'his power, is barely lo fix the ratio of representation, und by luw 10 declare tho number of representatives to which each State is entitled according to the same. Of course, it becomes the duty of each Stale immedi ately to prescribe such new regulations as may bo necessary for conformity to tlie new ratio. For in- stance, in all those Stutes where the district system was the existing inode of electing representatives, 11 has been necessary for a reorganization of the districts by State legislation, in each one of them, upon eaclt apportionment. By the last apportion ment several of tho States are entitled to a loss number of representatives than before. Suppose •hose States had not recognized their districts in in conformity with the late apportionment act, and had sent the same numb r of representatives, und elected in the same way as before ; would they be admitted upon the ground that tlie act was a trim- damns to ltic Stales, and that Congress could pass no law requiring conformity on the part of the States in their legislative notion? Or is the second sec tion of the apportionment net under consideration any more directory or mandatory to tho Stales electing by general ticket, titan the first section is to those electing by districts? All the Stales inclu ded in the latter class, I believe, have conformed to the first section, and without the slightest objection, as far as I have heard. Why, sir, since tlie organization of tlie govern ment there have been six acts of apportionment; and without giving their dates, or detaining the House by reading them, I will venture to say, that there has not been one of llic sex which did not re quire (not in words, hut from Hie necessity of the ease) u majority of the States, in pursuance of their constitutional duty, in order to secure a represen. tation on tills floor, to pass laws recognising their districts in conformity lo die apportionment of Con- gress. I give this ns one instance of the error of the |.o- ition. Another is one alluded to by the gentleman from Vermont the other fay. 1M r. CoLi.AMBit,} re- luting to the apportionmeutof electors for President and Vice President ol tlie United Suites. In the second article of tlie constitution it is provided that ‘each Suite shall nppoiut, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, the number of elec tors, equal to tlie whole number ol senators and representatives to which tho Stale may ho entitled in CongresB.” And in tho fourth section of tho imo article it is provided that “Congress may do- termine the time of choosing electors, and the day on which they shall give llieir votes, which day shall lie the same throughout the United States.” And in exercise of me power hereby conferred. Congress, by aclnpprovcd 1st March, 1792, declar ed tliut ••electors sliall he appointed in each Suite for the election of President and Vice President of the United States, within thirty-four days proceed- ing lite first Wednesday in December, 1792. and within thirty-four days proceeding the first Wed. ttesday in December of every fourth year succeed ing the last election; which electors sliall he equal to the number of senators and representu ives to which tiie several States may by law he entitled, at ilie time when the President and Vice President tbus to be chosen should conic into otliee : Provi ded, always, that, when no apportionment shall have been made, afier an enumeration, ut the time of choosing electors, then the number of electors hull be according to llic existing apportionment ol senators and representatives.” This, sir, has been the regulation of Congress un der which every President of the United Slates I reni tlie first, I believe, lias been sleeted, and to which every State in the Union lias eomformed, as it was in doty hound to do, and without which there Could have been noeleelion of chief magistrate within the lime slated. But again. By tlie lfltlt clause of the 7th section of the 1st article of tlie Constitution, power is eon- ierred upon Congress "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for govern- ing such part of them as may be employed in tile j fish such iaws vvit service of the United States, reserving In mo Stales respectively, the appointment of the ofit.'eis, and the authority of training the militia according to the disciplined prescribed by Congress." Now, sir, as a precedent, 1 will refer to the extent of powor claimed under this clause, in the eeichra- ted nney hill uf thu administration in 1840,ul'uded to yosieiday by the get,t,email from Virginia. [Mr. NevvTuN.*] and which, I believe, was defended hv many ie.ndmg men upon this floor, who now de nounce tlio second section of tlio apportionment act is n mandamus to the States. But 1 will ask the atteutiun-of tlie House to nu act approved May 8, 1792, entitled— “An act more effectually to provide for the national Jcfencc, by establishing a uniform militia throughout he United State*.” Tlie third section of that act il ia the following vords: “ And be it further enacted, That within one year af. ter tlie passing of this act, the militia of the repective Slates shall he arranged into divisions, brigades, regi- merits, Initiations, and companies, as the legislature of each State shall direct; and each division, brigade, and reg meat, shall be numbered at the formation thereof, and a record made of such numbers in the adjutant gen- sra’s office in each State. Each division, brigade and gimeut, shall respectively take rank according to their ■lumbers, reckoning tho first lowest number highest in •lie rank. That, it tho same be convenient, each brig- ■do shall consist of lour reignicnls; each regiment of •>f two battalions; each battalion of four companies ; each company of sixty-four privates. That said militia -hall be officered by the respective Slates as follows: I’o eaclt division one major general and two aids-de- camp with the rank of major; to each brigade ono brig- id.er general, with one brigade inspector, to serve afeo as brigade major, with the rank of colonel commandant, and to each baltallioir one major, and to each company one captain, one lieutenant, one ciiBign,” &c. Now sir, this was alluded to also the other day by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. Collameii;] ami, as n precedent upon the point now under con sideration. i think is is quite analogous. It was u law passed in 1792; which, for its full execution, required action on tlio part of tlio legislatures of the Stales in laying off and arreusging the divisions, bri. glides, fyc., and appointing uUicurs according totiie direction of the net. There was nothing then said about this act of Congress being a mandamus to the States, authorized by the constitution, und therefore inoperative and void, and such ns tho States should not regard. But every State in the Union immedi ately conformed thereto ; and the same, I believe, is the basis of the militia organization of the coun try to this day. Nor lined I he answered, ns I have heard sug gested in conversation, that this measure was adopt- mI before the people were much awakened to tho •iiLi'oachmunts of the general government upon the rights of the States. If there ever lias been a period in „ur history, when the line tliut divides tlio powers of the State and federal governments from itch other was more clearly defined and better un- loud than ut uny other, il wns about the time of the passage of this no. It was then that Mr. Jefferson, tlie acknowledged champion of the rights of the Stall s, was exercising big greatest vigilance in guarding his favorite object. It was just before, that even the incorporation of a bunk was consid. ered unconstitutional, because, amongst other ob jections, it was supposed to eucroach upon tho rights of the States, in interfering with their laws upon tlie subjects of mortmain, descent, &c. , And yet no one amongst the most zealous advo- cjtt.cs of llic rights of tiie Stntes at that day seems Mohave conceived the idea that the act in relation to the organization of tlie militiu was in tlie least degree in violation of those rights, or contained any unauthorized mandamus to control their legis. lu ion. Nor need I he told that precedent is not consti- t itioiml power; and that because Congress has heretofore passed unauthorized acts, tha prac tice should he continued. I do not refer tw- theso precedents for any such purpose. But ns 1 under took lo show that the principle upon which one of the positions assumed by the advocates of the res olution upon your table vested, was founded in er ror, 1 cite these examples to show that I nm sus tained in my view of construction by acts of gov. er intent, dating back almost to its beginning ; and tlie constitutionality or validity of which lias never been questioned. And from these instances and precedents, 1 respectfully submit whether it docs nut appear that Congress may, in some cases, aris- ing under the constitution, puss an act good and va lid within itself; nod yet otto which, for a full exe cution, will require conforming legislation on tlio part of the Stales. To my mind this seems to bo clear. The only remaining question is, wliothcr the second section of tins apportionment act is ooo of that class and description. That it is, seems a fair inference from its striking analogy to tho cas. es just referred to. But, to put tlio matter beyond doubt, it possible, as it seems to me, l will give sonto other illustrations, touching the validity of nets of Congress upon subjects over which concurrent leg islative power is given to the Stale and federal go- verniiicnls ; answering, as I proceed, other argu- meats of the advocates of the resoluiions ; and in conclusion, show that tlio section in question was just such un exercise of this power by Congress us was originally intended by tiie framers of tho constitution. Ami first, [ will take tlie case put by the majori ty of the committee in tlie report, which I appre hend to be ono of the strongest to illustrate their position. “Congress,” say they, possess tlio power under llic constitution to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies througliut tlio, United Stales.” And further, they -ay, “suppose that Congress, instead of passing tho late bankrupt law, had contented itself with a simple declaration, simi lar lo tlio second section of tho apportionment act, that all laws upon this subject of bankruptcies sliould be uniform in cacti Stuto of the Union ; that persons might he discharged from tlie payment of their just debts upon their own application, without the consent of their creditors, upon tho sui render of all their property, except so much as court might allow them to retain, not exceeding three hundred dollars ; and that no man should he released (’torn Itis obligations under uny law which did not conform to these abstract principles : would theso rules be vali I and impose upon the States the duty of so changing their local legislation as to eoiilorm to the abstractions established by Con gress t "If this cannot ire done in case of bank- ruptcy,” say they, "upon what principle is it that Congress may direct tho legislative discretion of tin: Slates in regard to the elections ?” 1 answer, the cases are nut analogous. Tire subject of bank ruptcies is given exclusively to Congress by the constitution. To nmku the coses similar, let us suppose that the Constitution had declared that “tho States respectively shull establish iaws on the sub ject of bankruptcy ; but Congress may, any time, nuke or ulter tiie same.” And suppose, in dif- drent States, various rules had been established, toiiflicling with eaclt oilier ; and Congress, for tho lurpuso of creating uniformity upon this subject, ,ail i hen established the genera! principle supposed y the enmniitteo : tlio cases would then be strictly malogous ; uml I apprehend that no court in the .Inion, under such circumstances, would permit a I seln rgo of a bankrupt under any State rogula. ions made in disregard of the principle thus cstab- islieJ by Congress. Or lake the clause uf the constitution which gives fungi ess the power to establish uniform laws for he ria'uiulizaiion of foreigners. Suppose, instead >1 this power being given exclusively to Congress, it hud la en given primarily to the Stutes to estab- the proviso that Congress might at any time, make or alter the same. And supposo in some of the Stutes, laws Imd been passed re quiring a residence of ten years on tlie part of any alien. Imlore lit- could be i sturilized, or permitted to enjoy the piirili gcs of a citizen ; and in othet Stuns the period was twenty years ; and in some of the States noil.tug sliould be required but an mull before a justice of llic peace to support tlio coiisteii iun ot the United Suites ; and, under this sinie nt ilungs, Congress sliould pass a general law g that two years’ residence sliould be sufli- ”TIk* 39tli pff lion of tlm crL’Ii'nifii miin lii I if Mr. Vnu Huron, wu* in lhe following wont-: “Thai lhe 1rgi*turr»- ol the several SUtew, at lhe rnrli*>»>i period of time afn-rthe adoption of ihn aveletn. enact hlicit law* in may lo* neceaunrv to enml anti orgnnimoth* tnalitia of liittaevarai ^latea according In ilia trovuuma couiuincd herein,”—-dice fix. />««*- I8J9,' 10,|Hifi mnl; Inn tliut, in every instance of naturalization, ilie priiri'cilings should he hud bcfurO some court ot record. Are : can uny man doubt that aucb general law w i a d lie valid, or that any court would hold tlie lir eu ding had upon the naturalization of any alien, vulid, which did not conform thereto? If not, no longer may the “constitution of tlie United States, uml the laws made in pursuance thereof, be regard ed ns the supreme Intr of the land,”