The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 30
xv, 408, 421 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
30
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
ble to hold the election ofelectors oiMhe first Mon-
day in Decemberj and that the elector should cast
their votes -on the<ftrst "Wednesday.
"Mr. CAMPBLL said it was a mere provision of
law th&t the electors should meet on the fist Wed-
nesday in December; and an amendment could rea-
dily be incorporated in this bill to change the day
to' the third Wednesday of December, or any other
convenient day.
"Mr. ELMER said the gentleman from South
Carolina was undoubtedly right; but it appeared to
him that it would be prudent not to fix a later day
than that which the law now designated. His im-
pression was, that it would be better to fix the elec-
tions yet earlier than they were; there were many
reasons for such a change; one, however, was, that
that the agitation generally commcnced in the spring
of the year, and it would be better to diminish
rather than to extend the time during which such
agitation would continue. With respect to the bill
before the House, he did not altogether approve of
the phraselogy in which was couched, but in sub-
tance it was better than that suggested by the gen-
tleman from Virginia. He did not approve of so
wide a latitude being given to the State legislatures
as would defeat the objects of the bill. If they fixed
a day at all, they ought to make it imperative; but
whatever amendments were to be made, he hoped
the House would make at once, and not send the
bill to any committee.
Mr. W1NTHROP said that he would' not now
$ay anything of the merits of this bill; he was ready
to vote for itjat any time, in any shape. He certain-
ly would rather take the measure of the gentleman
from Ohio, but he would take any measure; and the
remarks which he should make would be of the
course of proceeding in relation to this particular
subject. When, at the last session of Congress,
this bill, or something like it, passed this House by a
largemajority, there were a few who ventured to re-
cord their names against the bill on the ground that
it was not maturely prepared, and also on the ground
that it would be oppressive to several of the States,
which would be put to the trouble and expense of
c^Jling together their legislatures to make provision
to carry out that measure. The whig Senate, at
that time, ventured to put their veto upon it, and
since that time those senators and the few members
in this House who had voted against the bill, had
been much censured for the course they then took,
by the presses of the majority in that House. A
few moments ago he had found in the official organ
of this House a reference to this matter; which, after
referring to the bill of the last session introduced by
the gentleman from Ohio, asks—
"How did whigery treat this effectual bill for the preven-
tiou of the species of frauds to which we have referred?
The whig members of the House ofRepresentatives gene-
rally voted for at, because they were so soon to answer to
their immediate'constituents that they dared not vote against
a bill so obuiously necessary to put down a most atrocious
and dangerous fiaud in the election of a chief magistrate.
But how did this act fare with the whig majority in the
Senate? Every whig senator voted against the law for the
suppression of the fraud, while every democratic senator
votedJor it.
'"Tnis shows conclusively that the whig senators were
willing to take the odium oi licensing this system of wcll-
orgamzed and widespread fraud, to avail themselves ofit in
the. election of Mr. Clay. They will now hardly venture to
stand out against public sentiment; and refuse to repress it
bv passing the act at this session rejected byj their votes
alone at the last."
Well, this bill has been again introduced, but in a
modified form; and it had been considered day after
day, until at last it had been discovered by that
portion of the House of which the paper from which
he had read was the organ—and he was glad that
the discovery had been made—that the bill did re-
quire revision, and that it was expedient, for that
purpose, to refer it to a special committee—that it
was rather dangerous to pass a snap-judgment upon
it, and that it was regarded by South Carolina as
dangerous in anyway. Now he only hoped that
these facts would be remembered in extenuation of
the enormity ot the offence of those whig senators
and members of this House who, at the last session,
ventured to record their negative against it.
Mr. BIDLACK said he had not risen to say any-
thing in relation to what might be called party poli-
tics, like the gentleman who had preceded him, in-
asmuch as the proposition before the House was
simply therreference of this bil! to a select committee.
He, however, if he indulged at all in such remarks,
should wish to say a word in justification of his
friend who had introduced this- bill, and who was
entitled to all the credit that would result from it.
Now he (Mr. B.) should vote to refer this bill to a
select committee, for a reason which he had not yet
heard stated; and that was, that it seemed to him
the proviso at the end of the bill was calculated, as
he feared, to defeat the object, the main object, with
which the bill was introduced. It would provide that
if any State should fail to elect on the day desig-
nated, then a subsequent election might be
held, which held out inducements to defeat an elec-
tion by a division of votes amongst various candi-
dates, and thus prevent the elections taking place, in
fact, on one uniform day throughout the Union.
Now, he was of opinion that the bill should be sent
to a committee, to consider well whether that pro-
viso was not calculated to defeat the object of the
bill.
The SPEAKER then put the question on the
amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina
for the appointment of a committee of five, to whom
this bill should be committed.
Mr. DUNCAN called for the yeas and nays
thereon; and theywere ordered.
The question upon referring to a select committee
was taken, and resulted yeas 69, nays 131, as fol-
lows:
YEAS—Messrs. Abbot, Ashe, Baily, Barnard, Bidlack,
James Black, James A. Black, Brengle, Milton Brown, Wil-
liam J. Brown, Bufiington, Burt, Campbell, Carroll, Catlm,
Oausin, Chappell, Chilton, Clinch. Cobb, Collamer, Cran-
ston, Daniel, Darragh, Garrett Davis, Deherry, Dellet, Fish,
Foster, Fuller, Goggin, Grider, Hale, Holmes, Hudson,
Washington Hunt, Charles J. Ingersoll, Joseph R Inger-
soll, Irvm, Perley B. Johnson, John F. Kenned}', Daniel P.
King, Kirkpatrick, Marsh, Moseley, Newton, Norris, Pey-
ton, Charles M. Reed, Rhett, Rockwell, Russell, Saunders,
Schenck, Senter, Severance, Simpson, Caleb B. Smith, Ste-
phens, Andrew Stewart, Summers, Thomasson, Tyler, Van
meter,*Vmton, Wethered, Woodward, and Yancey—69.
NAYS—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Arrington, Atkinson,
Baker, Barringer, Benton, Edward J. Black, Blackwell,
Bower, Bowlin, Boyd, Bnnkerhoff, Brodhead, Aaron V.
Brown, Jeremiah Brown, Burke,^Caldwell, Carpenter, Jere-
miah E. Cary, Reuben Chapman, Augustu^A. Chapman,
Clinton, Coles, Cullom, Dana, RicharS D. Davis, John W.
Davis, Dean, Dickey, Dillingham, Douglass, Dromgoole,
Duncan, Dunlap, Ellis, Elmer, Farlee, Ficklin, Florence,
Foot, French. Giddings, Byram Green, Grinnell. Hannibal
Hamlin, Haralson, Hardin, Harper. Hays, Henley, Herrick,
Hoge, Hopkins, Houston, Hubard, Hubbell, Hungerford,
James B. Hunt, Jameson, Jenks, Cave Johnson, Andrew
Johnson, George W. Jones, Andrew Kennedy, Preston
King, Labrancne, Leonard, Lucas, Lumpkin, Lyon,
McCauslen, Maclay, McClelland, Mc( lernand, McConneil,
McDowell, Mcllvaine, McKay, Mathews, Edward J. Mor-
ris, Joseph Morris, Isaac E. Morse, Murphy, Nes, Owen,
Parmenter, Paterson, Payne, Pollock, Eiisha R. Potter,
Emery D. Potter, Pratt, Purdy, Ramsey, Rayner, Relfe, Rit-
ter, Roberts, Robinson, Rodney, Rogers, St. John, Sample,
Thomas H.Seymour, David L. Sej mour, Simons, Slidell,
Albert Smith, John T. Smith, Thomas Smith, Robert Smith,
Steenrod, Stetson, John Stewart, Stiles, _4Jfred P Stone,
Sykes, Taylor, Tibbatts, Vanco, Weller, Wentworth,
Wheaton, John White, Benjamin White, Williams, Win-
throp, William Wright, Joseph A. Wright, and Yost—131.
Mr. CAMPBELL, in order, as he said, gen-
erally to meet the views of the House, modified his
amendment so as to provide as follows:
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall apply to
any State where the elections of Tresident and Vice Presi-
dent, are4now chosen by its legislature, until such time as
such State shall give the election of electors of Presi-
dent and Yice President to the people.
Mr. C. said he had but one remark to make. In
reply to the gentleman from Illinois, (understood
to refer to Mr. Douglass,) he read the provision of
the constitution on this point:
•'The Congress may determine the time of choosing the
electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes,
which day shall be the same throughout the United States.1'
And ho remarked that there was nothing in his
amendment conflicting with this requirement of the
constitution—the day which was made uniform
throughout the States, not being the. day of choos-
ing the electors, but of their giving their votes.
Mr. DROMGOOLE regretted that it was not in
his power to concur with the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Campbell] upon this proposition.
If there were no constitutional impediment in the
way, he could not vote for a proposition which ex-
cepted any State from the opeiation of a law which
he believed good policy and the security of the
purity of our elections required. The constitution
said, that "Congress may determine the time of
choosing the electors." A portion of the electors, or
all the electors of the United States? If any State
was excepted, that now elected its electors by legis-
lature, did this bill determine "the time" of choosing
the electors? Certainly it did not. But the gentle-
man from South Carolina, he feared, would produce
a discussion here if he pressed his amendment,
which he (Mr. D.) wished to see avoided; that was,
whether the election of electors by any State was in
fact in pursuance and accordance with the proper
meaning of the constitution. It was known that
many entertained doubts concerning iti
Mr. D. did not desire to have this House involved,
either directly or indirectly, in the decision of "that
question. He did not raise any question about the
validity of the electors thus chosen. But it would
be perceived at once that those who voted for the
proposition of the gentleman from South. Carolina
declared indirectly that, in their opinion, the election
of electors by the legislature was a fair interpreta-
tion of the constitution. .Mr. D. inclined to the con-
trary opinion; but, as he had said, he desired the
House to avoid this knotty question, and simplj to
"determine the time of choosing the electors"—the
electors of all the States, not excepting South Caro-
lina. If they accommodated South Carolina, (and
he would go as far as he could consistently to do
so,) how could they refuse any gentleman who
asked that his State be excepted from the opera-
tion? They would thus virtually defeat the great
object of the bill, which was to have the election of
electors on the same day throughout the United
States.
Mr. RHETT observed, if the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Dromgoole] were to "put in practice
the argument he had advanced, he did not know
how he could avoid voting against his own bill. In
that (certainly in the bill of the gentleman from
Ohio) there was a provision under which
not a State in this Union could be compelled
to vote on any particular day—a provision, in case
the election were not held on the day designated, that
the legislature should provide for the election being
held and consummated thereafter. Where, then, was
the gentleman's argument in reference to the word
"time?" The bill, as it lay on their table, might pass,
and not a sing^ State in the Union elect their elec-
tors on the day designated.
But the other argument, and that which lay nearest
the gentleman's heart, was that the form of South
Carolina for electing electors was unconstitutional.
Virginia had begun that way, and so had almost"
every State in the Union. The framers of the con-
stitution, then fresh from the convention—the peo-
ple, they who ought to understand their own handi-
work—had adopted this system of electing by legis-
lature as the best mode; and now they were to be
told, at this late time of day, because others had
chosen to change, and they had not, that they,
forsooth, under the^new lights of modern times, had
all along been acting unconstitutionally—that South
Carolina had given unconstitutional votes. Was
that the argument?
If there were any States-rights men here, they
would be chary how they undertook to force a
State. Both branches of Congress, a short tiaie
since, had passed a law implicated in this very clause
of the constitution, declaring that all the States
should be districted for the election of members of
Congiess. What had then been the opinion of Vir-
ginia and of the gentleman himself? Why, that the
law was null and void. And when the members
elected in violation of this law came up here, had
not the gentleman and many others taken the high
ground that a sovereign State was not to obey the
mandate of Congress2 and had they not admitted
the members so elected? And are these the men
(said Mr. R.) now to turn short round, and say
that, because South Carolina had been exercising
her right erroneously, she is not to be an excep-
tion, but is to be compelled to conform to the mode
the other States have seen fit to adopt' That excep-
tions^ may be made in favor of Maine—in favor of
theNorth—but, as for South Carolina, she is
Sir, I will say no more.
Mr. ELMER referred to and explained the pro-
vision of the constitution, and said there was no
constitutional objection to their adoption of the pro-
posed amendment; and he did not see why in prin-
ciples they should not allow any of the States,
whose laws now authorized their choice of electors
by the legislature, or who should hereafter make
such enactments, to do it at any day* they pleased,
because their choice did not include the evil sought
to be remedied.
Mr. WASHINGTON HUNT said, if there was
any force in the argument used for excepting South
Carolina, it seemed to him it was sufficient ground
for rejecting the bill. The object of the measure be-
fore the House was to secure uniformity in the €iec*
of. electors of .President ond Vice President of
the United States. Now it must have been perfectly
well known on the part of the mover of this bill, that
it would compel new regulations on the part of the
States. In another State beside South Carolina-«
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/46/?rotate=90: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.