The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 215
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:
Feb. 1844.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
215
28th Cong 1st Sess
Report of the Committee of Elections—Mr* Dromgooh
H. of Reps-
of the States to comply; but a failure to do in this
case what Congress desired or prescribed, is to be
visited upon the heads of the freemen and sovereign
people composing the States, with degradation, with
a forfeiture of the right of representation, and
Itumiliating subjection to laws in the passage of
which they have been denied all voice and all agency.
Mr. D. further remarked that the regulation by
Congress of the value of United States and foreign
coin, and fixing the standard of weights and meas-
ures, had not the remotest analogy to the second
section of the apportionment act. Congress having
regulated the value of these coins by laws duly
published and made known, has fully exerted the
power confided to it by the constitution. Nothing
but gold and silver can be made a tender in pay-
ment of debts. Every citizen may demand, of
right, of his fellow-citizen, the payment of a debt
in gold and silver, to .be received at its regulated
value. This right all the courts, both State and
federal, will enforce. State laws cannot vary this
regulated value, nor is it at all dependent upon them
for efficacy. State laws are not required to
strengthen and uphold this constitutional right of
the citizen, nor can they infringe or impair it.
Congress, having fixed the standard of weights and
measures, has perfectly exerted that power; and
the validity of their standard is not dependent on
State legislation, nor can State legislation interfere
with the universal obligation to observe this fixed
standard in all transactions connected with weight
and measurement.
Mr. Speaker, (said Mr. D.,) my honorable col-
league, [Mr. Kewton,] an old friend and school-
mate, who spoke first on this subject, having; vamly
endeavored to discover some similitude between
previous legislation of Congress, and this unprece-
dented claim to prescribe the form of State enact-
ments, and dictate the substance or matter to be in-
serted, he has resorted to the extraordinary expedi-
ent of conjuring up a ghost to guard his defenceless
positions, and give security and apparent triumph
to his desperate cause, by intimidating the assailants
with a supposed hideous spectre. His ghost is not
that of any former congressional enactment, or of
any once living and efficient statute of like class
with the present case. No; it is the ghost of a
still-bom recommendation of a Secretary.
In reference to Mr. Poinsett's army bill, (said he,)
my colleague has thought proper to single me out,
and to make a direct and emphatic personal appeal
to me, intimating some inconsistency between my
£ resent and former positions. My colleague, (said
!r. D.) will pardon hie, but my mind cannot per-
ceive any connexion between the subject under dis-
cussion, and the question of my individual consis-
tency. He would not suffer himself to be drawn
aside from the consideration of the subject before
the House into a controversy concerning his own
political consistency, or that of the party with which
he cordially acted. Mr. D. said he was rather too
old to be caught L?y such a contri\ance.
He, however, took no exception to the appeal
made to him by his old friend, [Mr. Newton.] He
deemed it no imputation upon his moral courage,
or reflection on hia mental sanity, to be challenged to
meet a ghost. It required more firmness of pur-
pose, more intrepidity of soul, to combat a ghost,
than any argument his colleague had advanced.
His colleague might perhaps be as usefully employ-
ed in examining his own consistency as in question-
ing that of others. Mr. D. related an anecdote of an
old friend of his, in Brunswick, a widower, who was
desirous of repairing his loss, by a second marriage.
He decked himself m new apparel, and exerted him-
self to improve his personal appearance. Having
completed his toilette, being desirous to form some
estimate of the probable favorable impression which
his improved person might produce, he surveyed
himself at large in a mirror, and, wonderful to relate,
so complete was the metaphorsis, that he did not
know himself, and made frequent inquiries during
the day m the village for himself. Could his col-
league (said Mr. 0.) have the benefit of an ample
political mil ror, in which he could behold himself
as he now is, after all his various transmutations, and
retain a distinct and vivid recollection of what he
appeared to be in the commencement of his public
career, he would not recognise himself as the same
individual; like my old friend, who went wooing
in a new dress, he would not know himself. When-
ever his colleague (said he) desired hereafter to con-
lure up a ghost for the puropose of illustrating po-
litical inconsistency, it might be most appropriate
to raise the ghost of his own departed political opin-
ions.
Another of his colleagues [Mr. Summers] had en-
deavored to prove that the statute was good as far
as it goes; that Congress having full power to
make or alter the regulations prescribed by the
States, as to the manner of holding elections, might,
nevertheless, exercise the power, in part, without
covering the whole ground; that other acts may
be subsequently passed in aid of this partial exer-
cise of the power, and thus make the legislation
complete and effectual; that several statutes,
in pari materia, must be construed m connexion
with each other, and taken as a whole. The
rule of construction had doubtless been correct-
ly laid down by his colleague; but, - unfortu-
nately there is no opportunity for its application.
Where, so far as the four States are concerned,
are the several statutes in pan mateiia? Where is
the auxiliary legislation, State or federal, which in-
vigorates and perfects the district system, announced
in the second section only as a lofty generality.
The act of Congress proclaims that members of the
House of Representatives shall be elected from sin-
gle districts; but fails to secure the division of the
States into districts—provides no means of enforcing
the will of Congress—prepares no details for the
execution of the plan. The four States, on the con-
trary, provide for the election of all their members
by the general voice of the qualified electors, and
prescribe sufficient regulations for the complete ex-
ecution of their general-ticket system. Here, then,
are statutes, State and federal, in pari materia, on the
subject of electing members ot Congress. Can these
be construed in harmonious connexion, and blended
into one consistent whole? The act of Congress,
proclaiming or prescribing the district system, was
nastily ushered into being;, with its purpose only on
its lips; and it has stood still ever since in gaping
astonishment at the bold spirit of independence
which defies both usurpation and dictation. It
stands alone, an instance of weakness and novelty;
deriving no aid from the charitable assistance of the
State legislatures; and receiving no succor from ad-
ditional, federal legislation. Of itself, it can effect
nothing; it is, as has been heretofore demonstrated,
a nullity. It can take no efficient step, so as to be
good as far as it goes. It cannot expand into effect-
ive authority, so as to cover any part of the ground.
Mr. D. said, his colleague had attempted some
illustration of his argument by a supposed case of
letting several tenements, with the reserved right of
entry into some part of them. He (Mr. p.) did not
comprehend the doctrine of landlord and tenant,
lessor and lessee, with the laws regulating their mu-
tual relations, as applied to the provisions of the
constitution of the United States. Not perceiving
the bearing or application of such an illustration, he
would not undertake to examine or criticise it for
ear he might become embarrassed, confused, and
unintelligible.
Mr. D. Kaid that gentlemen on the other side had
based all their arguments upon the assumption that
the introduction of the district system into the place
of the general-ticket system was only altering the
"manner of holding elections." Thus far he had
admitted that the "manner of holding elections"
embraced in its meaning the institution of the one or
other plan. The admission had been made for the
sak'e of argument solely, in order that gentlemen
might be met and refuted upon their own ground.
He came now utterly to dewy that the division of
the States into districts was included in the term
"manner of holding elections." He contended that
the division of a State into districts equal in number
to the number of representatives to be elected, and
the assignment of one member to be elected from
each district, was not a regulation of the "manner
of holding the election," but an apportionment of the
quota of members among the people of the State.
Such was the view; entertained by the frameis of the
amended constitution in our own State, (said Mr.
D.,) as you very well know, Mr. Speaker; for you
were of that body, and shared in their delibera-
tions. It-was not once hinted or suggested that
the power of Congress to alter the "manner of
holding elections," authorized the division of
the State into districts for the election of one
member from each district. It was not questioned
that Congress might and ought to apportion repre-
sentatives among the several States, according to
some fixed and uniform ratio, applied to their num-
bers, to be determined in the mode designated in
the constitution. But here the apportionment
ceases, so far as the power of Congress can affect it,
A common divisor is applied to the federal num-
bers of each State, tne result is ascertained,
and by law a certain number is apportioned each .
These members who have - been thus apportioned
have been chosen every second year by the people
of the' several States, and the electors in each. State
are to have the qualifications requisite for electors
of the most numerous branch of the State legisla-
ture.
The language of the constitution looks to the ap-
portionment, simply, of a certain number to each State,
to be chosen by die people. From the words of the
constitution no inference CM be drawn that a divi-
sion of the number to which eticn State might be enti-
tled, was intended to be confided to Congress. As
to the choice of the members, reference 38 made by the
constitution to the people aggregately, as also to the
electors qualified to vote. The authority is flot ex-
pressly given (nor can it be fairly implied) to suo*
divide the people and the territory of the severs!
States into election districts, restricting the electors
therein to a single vote for one member. On the
contrary, Congress, under a strict construction of the
terms used in the constitution, must regard the whole
number of membera, parcelled to each State, subject to
the choice of the people, the undivided people; and that
in the actual choice, the electors generally, without
restraint or limitation, have the right to vote for the
whole number. Each elector, in the eye of Con-
gress, so far as its own apportionment is concerned,
has an equal, common, ana undivided right tc? parti-
cipate in the election of each—of all. Congress can
find no warrant in the constitution to impair, abridge,
alter, or subdivide this collective and general right of
the electors; but it remains for the States themselves
to provide for the exercise of the elective franchise,
by the electors generally, each elector voting for the
whole number; or to apportion ^ the number among
subdivisions of the State, securing the election of all
by providing for the election of each separately, the
electors of each subdivision or district being re-
stricted to the choice of a single member.
whilst the power to apportion the number oi each
State among the people thereof, and to divide ube
State into districts for the better accomplishment oi
that purpose, is denied to Congress, it is readily
conceded to the State legislatures. The State legis-
latures have full power to provide for giving effect
to the right of the people to choose their representa-
tives. The people, through the legitimate organ of
their will—their general assembly—may decide to
elect the representatives to which the State is en-
titled by the general aggregate voice of the electors;
or, through the same Channel, may agree and con-
sent to apportion the number among themselves,
and provide for the election of each member sepa-
rately, from a defined district of the State, by the
qualified electors thereof. And such authority is
neither derived from the federal constitution or limit-
ed, or in any wise regulated by that instrument.
The provision that "the times, places, and manner
of holding elections for senators and representa-
tives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
legislature thereof" confers no power, not be-
fore possessed bv the legislatures; nor does it
profess or intend to enumerate all the cases
and particulars embraced in the general legis-
lative power of the States over the subject of the
elections of members of Congress. It enjoins the
duty specifically to exercise the power already pos-
sessed to prescribe the times, places, and manner of
holding elections, because this enumeration and this
injunction make more clear and intelligible the ulti-
mate power given to Congress to supervise the State
legislation in these enumerated cases. In this man-
ner could be better expressed the extent of the pow-
er given to Congress to alter at any time, by law,
such regulations as the States might make to pre-
scribe the times, places, and manner of holding elec-
tions; or to make such regulations as the State legis-
letures were enjoined to make, in case they should
fail or neglect altogether to make them. The con-
clusion reached is, that dividing the State into dis-
tricts is not any part of the manner of holding elec-
tions and that therefore Congress is not empower-
ed to make or alter the district system; that the
States have the right, if they so will it, to elect their
representatives to Congress by general ticket, and
that Congress cannot interfere to prohibit it, destroy
it, change or modify it; that the substitution of the
district system for the plan of the general ticket, is
essentially and truly an appoiiionment of members
among specified districts: which - the legislatures
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/m1/225/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.