The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 191
viii, 784 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
F eb. 1844.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
101
Report of the Committee of Elections-—Mr, Jameson.
H. of Reps.
follow several gentleman who are much more able
and experienced than myself. The magnitude of
the question is conceded by all. It is not merely a
question between contestants for the same seat; nor
one that only involves the individual right of the
members from the States of New Hampshire, Geor-
gia, Mississippi, and Missouri, to seats upon this
floor—for these are of minor importance;—but it is
a question that rises much higher in the scale of im-
portance. It involves the right of the people of four
<5f the sovereign States of this Union to representa-
tion in this House. It involves the fundamental
principles of this confederacy, the elective franchise,
and the dismemberment of the Union. And it is to
be determined by the House whether this question
shall be so decided as to disfranchise these four
States, drive their members from this hall, and the
States which sent them from the Union. And
this, too, by force of a void act, passed by
the famous twenty-seventh Congress to effect
that very object so that they might perpetuate
their power. The deep interest, therefore, which
my constituents have in this question, leaves me no'
choice in this matter. They expect to be heard,
and have a right to be heard upon it, through their
immediate organs on this floor. And I will first,
Mr. Speaker, dispose of some collateral questions,
which have been raised in the discussion of the
main question. The four States have been charged
with the act of nullification, in not returning their
members here, in conformity to the second section
of the apportionment act of 1842; and also the mem-
bers here who sustain them. For this assertion there
is not the slightest ground. Congress passed this
second section on the eve of the election of some of
these States, and was told at the time that it was
impossible, even if they were so disposed, for these
States to^conform to this act, as there was not time
to call the legislatures together before their election.
To this warning there was no attention paid. But
I hold that it makes no difference whether these four
States had it in their power to conform to this man-
date of Congress or not. The legislatures were not
bound to obey it; and even if they had been, they
failed to do it. And Congress, therefore, making
the operation of the act depend upon a contingency—
that is, upon the action of the legislatures to carry it
out, and the legislatures refusing or failing to do it,
the people were not to blame; they had a right to
representation, and under that sacred and con-
stitutional right they collected together according to
their State laws, (being the only laws in existence
on this subject,) and elected ana sent their repre-
sentatives here; by which they have given conclu-
sive evidence that, so far from being in favor of nul-
lification, they have done everything in their power
to prevent the nullification of this very Union it-
self. And if any be guilty of this charge, it is the
27th Congress, who passed this act for the purpose
of disfranchising four of the States, and cutting
them off from the Union. This intention is not
only shown by the passage of the act itself, but also
by an after act which was passed by that Congress,
(whieh the President, however, put in his pocket,)
in which they made their clerk thejudge, in the first
instance, of the elections, returns, and qualifications
of members of this House at this Congress; and to
that end directed that he should enroll no one's
name as a member of this House who was elected
by general ticket—than which, a greater outrage
was never committed against the constitution. This
charge, too, is m?de against members on this floor
who have thus far sustained us in our seats. And
how is it sustained? Why, merely by declarations,
and not either by fact or argument, for, if I under-
stand the meaning or common acceptation of the
word nullify, as applied to the affairs of otir govern-
ment, it is to disregard, resist, or set aside a law
passed by a competent authority, by an authority
not competent, or which has no jurisdiction over it.
Apply, then, that definition of the term to these
members: and how does the matter stand? The
constitution answers the question. It says that
"each House shall be the judge of the elections, re-
turns, and qualifications of its own members."
Then it appears that this House has exclusive juris-
diction over, and is the only competent
authority to decide, this question. And, in
doing so, it is compelled to decide upon the
constitutionality or validity of the law under which
it is attempted to oust us. And all on both sides
seem to concede this fact except some few on the
other side who seem to be wild in their notions on
this subject. And as the House, m deciding upon
OBr right to our seats, is compelled to decide upon
the constitutionality and validity of this act, how
can it be called nullification if it should decide
in our favor and against the validity of the act' Has
it ever entered the brain of any man to charge the
hupreme Court of the United States, or any court in
any of the States of the Union, with nullification
for having declared any act of Congress or the State
legislatures unconstitutional where the jurisdiction
was incomplete? Or did anyone ever think of charg-
ing the President of the' States with nullification for
vetoing an act of Congress, because, in his opinion,
it violated the constitution? I presume not. And
yet there is as much ground for the charge of nulli-
fication in the two last cases mentioned, as in the
former. And when one hears such reckless asser-
tions, having not a particle of foundation in truth,
he is necessarily led to believe that it is done for
political effect; or, in other words, to make political
capital. But in this case, the gentlemen will fail in
their object; for their cry of nullification lies on too
shallow a foundation to take hold of the mind of
any man of common sense. The next tiling, Mr.
Speaker, that T will notice, is the attempt that was
made the other day, and will no doubt be made
again, to prevent us "from voting on this report. The
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cobb] was so full
upon this point, and his Mews, in my estimation,
being correct and unanswerable, I will not consume
much time on this branch of the subject.
It will be recollected that, early in the session, the
unprecedented attempt was made by certain mem-
ber.':, to contest our rights to our seats—that is, they
undertook to set the precedent, that the members
from some of the States in the Union could conte.it
the right of members from the other States to then-
seats; and, if needs be, to carry out their political
designs, arbitrarily oust them, and have, the legis-
lation of the country to themselves. And to that
end they proposed that we should be selected from
the others, and sent to the Committee of Elections
for adjudication. But upon the discussion of that
proposition, they saw that their scheme was too
palpable—too ridiculous; and that they could not
be sustained upon it before the country, nor by any
■one who was fond of our institutions; and therefore
withdrew it, and accepted the proposition of the
Committee of Elections, [Mr. Elmer,] which was
nothing more nor less than what was substantially
contained in the 77th rule of the House, which re-
quires the committee to examine into, and report
upon, the certificates of election, or other creden-
tials of the members returned to serve in the House.
Then our cases were put by that resolution on the
same footing as other members; we were not sepa-
rated; but all our rights to seats in this House were
sent to that committee to be inquired into; and under
that resolution the committee has examined and re-
ported generally, that all the members on the floor
are entitled to their seats (except the two contested
cases from Virginia, which they give no opinion on,
as they had not inquired into them.) Then, Mr.
Speaker, who is to vote upon this report?
The gentlemen say we are interested, and can-
not vote; and they are precisely as much in-
terested as we are; and, according to their own
doctrine, cannot vote; and yet, according to the
rule and the resolutions, the committee were
required to examine into this matter and report:
they have reported; and every report of a commit-
tee must be acted upon by the House. Then, if
gentlemen are right, what is our dilemma? Why,
the government is blocked. Here is a report that
no member can vote upon—a report, too, that in-
volves the right of every member (the two except-
ed) to a seat upon this floor; and no one else has
the right to decide it for us; and yet it must be, de-
cided, in order to ascertain whether we have a con-
stitutional House. Nor would it help the matter
any to divide the question by letting the district
members vote upon the right of the general-ticket
members to seats, and the general-ticket members
upon the right of the district members. For the
latter do not constitute a quorum. Then what is to
be done? and what will relieve the gentlemen from
the dilemma and absurdity into which they have
run, m their anxiety to carry out their original de-
sign—the disfranchisement of four of the States?
The constitution answers the question. And if
they will turn to it, they will find themselves re-
lieved from this apparent difficulty they have work-
ed themselves into. It says that this House shall
judge of the elections, returns, and qualification of its
members: and in doing so, it must vote upon this re-
port; there is no other way given by the constitution
by which you can do it. And the interest mentioned
in the rule upon which gentlemen had harped so much
does not apply to a question like this, where the rights
of States and constituents are at stake; but to a
direct or pecuniary interest, where the member alone
is concerned. We have therefore just as much
right, and the same right, to vote upon this report,
as any members of the House. But I will pursue
this subject a little farther. These gentlemen have
talked a great deal about our being disqualified from
voting on this question. Suppose, for a moment,
for argument's sake, we are: what is their condition?
Surely, the fifty who signed that notable and famous
protest should not contend that they are qualified,
or are competent judges to sit, decide, and vote upon
our case. Delicacy, the common law, common
sense, reason, justice, and the rules which govern
all our proceedings in courts, or elsewhere, where
men's rights have to be decided on, forbid that they
should act, decide, and vote in this matter—I mean
so far as the members from the four States are con-
cerned; unless, indeed, they claim the .right ac-
cording to the law as laid down by Judge Lynch,
which would, when applied to this question, be first
to oust us, and send us home, and then afterwards
try our case. That, in fact, has been their course—.
they have prejudged our case; for, before we were
heard—before we were tried or put upon our trial—
yes, before the House was organized—before the
Speaker was elected—before they were sworn in as
judges, although they expected to be—before they
knew whether we had the proper credentials, or by
what authority we were rettirned here—and before
they in any manner inquired into, or could legally,
constitutionally, and officially inquire into our right
to seats,—they assumed all the facts that suited their
purpose, and decided our case; and the decision was,
that we should be forthwith ousted of any rights
here, and sent home; that we were a lawless set of
fellows; had trampled down, nullified, and rode over
constitution, law, and good order; were not fit to sit
with them; and therefore, as a consequence, our
States were to be disfranchised, and driven from the
Union. This is their decision, given beforehand;
and yet it would seem, from the manner in which
they talk m this House, that they consider them-
selves the only Simon Pure, impartial, and fit judges
to decide over again upon our rights to seats.' And
let me ask, sir, whether all persons thus acting do
not, in like cases, render themselves incompetent to
sit as judges upon the rights of their fellow men?
Can a judge, juror, arbitrator, or anybody else, ac-
cording to the rules of law, reason, or justice, sit in
a case which he has prejudged, or on "the merits of
which he has formed and expressed an opinion?
Certainly not; and yet the position of these fifty
gentlemen in this case is worse, (a position, by-the-
by, that is not a very enviable one, when it is con-
sidered that tlicy are determined to vote upon this
question;) for they have not only prejudged, and
formed and expressed their opinions, but have writ-
ten out their decision, signed, and promulgated it.
And, what is stranger still, they talk more, and
make more noise than any members in this House,
about the importance, of debating this question, and
about the intention of the majority to stifle debate;
that it is a grave and vital question; and that full and
ample time should be given for its discussion, as if
they who have already decided itneed any discussion,
or any more light upon the subject.
And this, sir, brings me to the speech of the
gentleman of New York, (Mr. Barnard, who
no doubt wrote this protest.] When the gentle-
man from Virginia [Mr. Dromgoole] made a
motion to take this report out of the Committee
of Ihe Whole, and bring it before the House,
he got iig, and, with a long face, as if he was
the special guardian of the constitution and the
country, ami as if he really thought that some vital
stab was about to be given to our institutions, and
with a put-on, skin-deep, sanctimonious appearance,
said that he was perfectly astounded and astonished,
that the gentleman from Virginia should have made
such a motion; that nothing that had transpired du-
ring the session, but one thing, had astonished him
more, and that was, the report of the majority of
the Committee of Elections, that we were entitled to
our seats; that it was a great and important ques-
tions, and required lengthy and grave discussion;
and that he had no doubt that the object of the gen-
tleman from Virginia was to take this question out
of the Committee of the Whole and bring it before the
House, where he could call the previous question,
and thereby cut off and stifle debate. The gentle-
man's fine sensibilities, tender conscience, and scru-
pulous regard for the constitution, seemed to be per-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book 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 Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2368/m1/201/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.