The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 200
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:
200
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
Feb. 1844.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
Report of the Committee of Elections—Mr. Stephens.
H. of Reps.
result practically the- same, whether the law was
passed by this government or the State government'
But I said his view of the law, in this particular, I
conceived to be wrong. He says the power to
"make" is not a power to "unmake,!' and the power
to "alter"is riot a power barely to '-'repeal or annul;"
and that, when Congress undertakes to alter any ex-
isting State mode or manner of holding- elections, it
must not be a bare repeal of such mode or manner,
but something should' be substituted for the pro-
vision changed. And I say, sir, such is the fact in
relation to the act under consideration; and, without
inquiring intothc correctness of his position in gene**
ral, it is sufficient for me to say that it dots not ap-
ply to this case; for the act of Cottgl*ess is not a re-
peal, but something is substituted in lieu of what is
altered, as far as tlife alteration goes. It altered, if you
please, the gnurul-ticket, and substituted the single-
district system in its stead, which, I apprehend, was
exercising the power over the subject conferred upon
Congress in just such a way and sense as was ori-
ginally intended by the framers of the constitution,
x'heir object in giving the controlling power to
Congress, was to give Congress power to establish
general principles upon the subject of elections for
the purpose of having uniformity throughout the
country, leaving the details and particulars to the
action of the State legislatures. For, when Mr. Mad-
ison, in the Virginia convention, was asked by Mr.
Monroe, "Why Congress had the Ultimate control
over the times, places, and manner, of holding elec-
tions?"—he said, "It was thought that the regula-
tions of time, place, and manner, of electing repre-
sentatives should be uniform throughout the conti-
nent. Some States might regulate the elections upon
principles of equality, and others might regulate
them otherwise. It was found necessary to leave
the regulation of them in the first place to the State
governments, as being best acquainted with,the situ-
ation of the people, subject to the control of the gen-
eral government, in order to enable it to produce
uniformity, and prevent its own dissolution. And
considering the State government and the general
government as distinct bodies, acting in different and
independent capacities for the people, it was thought
tJiat particular regulations should be submitted to the
former, and the general regulations to the latter."
Now, I would ask, what Mr. Madison could have
meant by general regulations, if he did not intend to
include just such a general principle or regulation s
that contained in the apportionment act, providing
that all the'members of this House, in all the States,
should be elected by single districts; and leaving, as
was originally thought best, the particular regula-
tions—the detail if you please—the laying off the
districts, &c.—to the State governments. But so far
as the argument of my colleague upon this point is
concerned, he is certainly fully answered in this:
that Congress has substituted something in li£u of
the provision altered. It repealed—or annulled, if he
will have it so—the general-ticket, and substituted in
its place the single-district system.
It seems to nie, then, Mr. Speaker, to be clear,
not only that Congress may, 111 some instances, pass
a law constitutional and valid in itself, which will,
nevertheless, require legislation 011 the part of the
States before its operation can be full and efficient,
but that the second section of the apportionment act
is just such a law; and, in exercising the power
over the subject-matter, Congress went just so far
as was originally thought to be best, and no further;
and, having arrived at this conclusion, I will say
nothing more upon this subject, but respectfully
submit to the House whether, in the course of what
has been said, it has not been made to appeal"—
1. That the "power of districting" is embraced
in the terms "times, places, and manner of hold-
ing elections," as used in the constitution, and con-
sequently is vested in Congress.
2. That the power in Congress to regulate the
times, places, and manner of holding elections for
members of this House, is neither, in letter or spirit,
conditional or contingent, dependent upon the failure
or refusal of the States to exercise it; but is full and
absolute, and to be exercised, as all other such
powers, according to circumstances, and a prudent
discretion.
3. That the second section of the last apportion-
ment act (the object of which was to legislate upon
this subject so far as to secure or establish uniformi-
1 v .if elections in all the States upon the single-dis-
1 i'-t plan) seeks to do nothing which is not clearly
within the power of Congress; and, so far from
l.emg so imperfect within itself as to justify its be
ing considered inefficient or inoperatiye on that ac
count, it is just such an exercise of the power of
Congress over the premises as has often been exer-
cised over other subjects, under other similar pow-
ers; and just such a one as was originally thought
to be best by the framers of the constitution in this
case; and, therefore, under no consideration, should
it be pronounced by this House as either void, in-
valid, or noperative.
And here, sir, I might perhaps properly close
what J have to say upon this occasion, but there are
one or two other matters growing out of this subject
to which I wish briefly to allude before doing so. .
The majority, of the Committee of Elections, in
their report which is now under consideration, affirm
that the "second section of the act of apportionment
is an attempt, by the introduction of a nem~principle,
to subvert the entire system of legislation adopted by
the several States of the Union, and to compel them
to conform to certain rules established by Congress
for their government."
Sir, I cannot agree with the committee in opinion
that such was either the object of the act in ques-
tion, or can, in any way, be its consequence. If so,
I should be the last to advocate the measure. I con-
sider myself as one of those who hold the doctrine
that the permanency of our institutions can only be
preserved by confining the action of the State and
federal governments each to its own proper sphere;
and that, while there should be no encroachment
upon the rights of the States by 1 this government,
there should also, on their part, be 110 disobedience
or failure to perform their duties according to the
terms of the constitutional compact.
But, sir, is it true that the second section of the
act alluded to does subvert the entire system of State
legislation, or even attempts to do so? Have not all the
States of the Union conformed thereto but four?
Yea, all but three—forGeorgia is now amongst those
which have established the single-district plan of
electing members to this House. And is not the
system of our State legislation as fixed and firm as
ever? Do we not regulate all such matters as belong
exclusively to ourselves, as fully and as absolutely as
before? Have we not our legislatures, our execu-
tives, our judiciary, and all our officers, military and
civil? And do not all things move on as smoothly
and harmoniously as before?
Sir, I do not see this entire subversion and break-
ing up of all the State institutions complained
of by the committee; and suppose it must have its
origin only in the heat of their own imagination.
And I only allude to it to show the extravagance of
the views entertained by the committee upon this
subject, and which forms one of the links in that
chain of argument by which they come to the con-
clusions expressed in the resolutions. Another
point I would call attention to, is the remark made
the other day by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr.
Kennedy.]
He spoke of this as being a party question; and
said all the democrats were made up 111 mind upon
one side, find all the whigs upon the other.
Now, sir, though I admit that the whigs are most-
ly united upon one side of this question, and that a
large majority of the democratic party upon this
floor are also united 011 the other side, (which I re-
gret to see upon any great constitutional question,)
yet, if I mistake not, this feature originated with a
distinguished member of the democratic party in the
last Congress, who not sits before me, [Mr. Camp-
bell of South Carolina.] And 011 the journals of
that Congress, which are now before me, I see the
names of several of that party recorded 111 favor of
the measure.
And who. sir, moved, the other day, the adop-
tion of the minority report? Was it not the gentle-
man from Alabama, [Mr. Belser?]—a member of
the democratic party, and one who favored the
House also with a very able argument in favor of
the validity of the section in question.
Another gentleman [Mr. Elmer] said, the other
day, that he considered this question as involving
the great principle which at first divided parties in
this country—the federal, or those in favor of a
strong national government, 011 the one side, and
the republican, or those opposed thereto, 011 the
other. If so, I ask the gentleman on which side of
the line does he place himself and his friends. Cer-
tainly he is not on that side of the question upon
which the distinguished leaders of the republican
party stood in their day. I had thought, that Mr.
Madison stood amongst the first in the republican
ranks. I care not by what party name you charac-
terize his position. In this matter, as in most oth-
ers of a political nature, i profess to belong to his
school; and I care not whether you call him a
federalist, a republican, or a democrat. I regard
the name but little. We, on the whig side, howev-
er, certainly fellow in his lead upon this question,
as I have before shown. . .
Upon tht general policy of the single-district sys-
tem, or its relative merits, compared with the gener-
al ticket, I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that it would
be proper, at this time, to say anything. But I
should not feel that I had discharged my duty fullyr
if I permitted the occasion to pass without at least
giving the expression of my opinion quite as de-
cidedly in favor of the policy as the validity of the
act now under consideration. I am, sir, a district
man; and believe a large majority of the people of
both parties, of the State from which I come, upon
this subject agree with me in sentiment.
Sir, it is the most equal system. It is the most re-
publican. It gives every section of the State a rep-
resentative. It gives the minority in the State a
voice in the-national councils. It increases the re-
sponsibility of the representative to his constituents,
and better enables the constituents, from personal
acquaintance and intercourse, to judge correctly of
the man to whom they confide the important trust of
legislating for them. But I cannot enumerate the
advantages of this system at this time; I will barely,
however, add that, if from no other consideration, I
should be in favor of it from its conservative tend-
ency. Under its operation, parties in the different
States are more nearly balanced against themselves,
and their violence is more nearly neutralized by ite
counteraction. This tends very much to check that
high degree of excitement, which otherwise would
prevail on many questions, and might be most dele-
terious in its consequences. To be useful and salu-
tary, laws must have some continuance and stabil-
ity. But if the opposite principle should prevail,
or, if even the four larger States in the Union
should adopt the general-ticket mode of election,
who is so careless an observer of men and things
as not to see the consequences that would result'
The representatives from each of these States, in-
stead of being divided as they now are, so as almost
to balance each other ill party strength, would most
probably all be on the same side of the question;
and might, perhaps, be elected by only a few hun-
dred majority in their respective States; and to the
next Congress another delegation, equal in number
and equally divided on the other political side,
might be returned by about as large a majority
the other way. The effect would be an entire change
of measures; for the past admonishes, and the
present speaks in language not to be misunderstood,
that party rules everything.'
Sir, amongst the dangers to which our system of
government is exposed, I consider as not amongst
the least,.the effects upon the public interests of the
country of those fearful shocks produced by the
sudden change of such large party majorities upon
this floor. The human system, in its soundest
health and fullest vigor and strength, cannot long
sustain its healthful action against quick transi-
tions from the extremes of temperature. Sir, the
most deeply laid and substantially built of human
edifices cannot stand amidst the oscillations of an
unsteady earth; nor can the government of a free peo-
ple, the noblest of all human structures, remain firm,
if its elements and foundation are subject to constant
vibrations. Its basis is public opinion; and the elements
of the human mind are notunlike those of the atmo-
sphere about us—which, however still, and calm,
and quiet, to-day, may be roused into the whirlwind
to-morrow. And as the nnld air we breathe, when
put into commotion, assumes all the power and ter-
rific force of the tornado, laying waste and in rum
everything in its desolating sweep; so with the pas-
sions, prejudices, and ambition of men, when ex-
cited and aroused into factious strife: without rea-
son or argument to control their action, everything
relating to order, right, law, or constitution, is equal-
ly disregarded; and government itself cannot bo
saved from its ruthless destruction. Wise legisla-
tion should always guard against everything tend-
ing to promote such excitements. It was in this
view of this subject, and to guard, as far as posst
ble, against the liability of such results, that the
same wise statesman—the pure patriot, the sage of
Montpelier—to whom I have before alluded, while
the adoption of the constitution was before the
American people, urged upon them the necessity of
establishing such checks and restiaints in their gov-
ernment as would be a "defence for them against
their own temporary errors and delusions"—as-
suring them that, if the people of Athens had had
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/m1/210/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.