The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 258

                                
258
af^mi)ix 'to *thpi congressional globe.
jan. 1844.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
Abolition Petitions—Mr. Stiles.
H. of Reps.
er heard that this act of 1792, under which all our
presidential elections have been held, except the
first, was unconstitutional, or invalid, because it did
not cover the whole ground, or because it required
the interposition of State legislation to carry it into
execution? ' -
Again, sir: the second section of the same act di-
rects that "the electors shall meet and give their votes
on the said first Wednesday in December, at such
place in each Stfete as shall be directed by the legis-
lature thereof." Here is another law that requires
State legislation to enforce it. Has this section ever
been considered by any one unconstitutional' Has
the act of 1792 ever been denounced as containing
a mandamus upon the States? On the contrary, it
has been acquiesced in and obeyed by all the States
of this Union for more than fifty years, without a
murmur—no one drejuning, during that whole pe-
riod, that the rights of the States were at all in-
fringed, or that Congress had exercised anything
but a constitutional power in enacting it; and yet the
authority to pass such a law is by no means s  ex-
press as in the clause conferring the power to pre-
scribe the manner of holding elections for represent-
atives. The words are, that "Congress may deter-
mine the time of choosing the electors." But Con-
gress did not determine the time; it determined only
the limits of time, and required the States to deter-
mine on some day within such limits.
And yet, the men who have illustrated and.adorn-
ed our history from 1792 to the present time, never
imagined that there was anything wrong in this, or
that the act was invalid because it required State le-
gislation. Such discoveries were reserved for the
more exalted wisdom and patriotism of the present
day! .
But how do gentlemen dispose of the power to
"alter" the regulations made by the State legisla-
tures? "The Congress may, at any time, by law,
make or alter such regulations." Is it to be main-
tained that, if Congress "alters" any of the State
regulations, we must alter them all? On the contra-
ry, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Beardsley]
admits that any alteration by Congress, which, ta-
ken in connexion with the remaining State regula-
tions, makes a system under which elections may be
held, is good and valid. Here, let it be remarked,
is a concession that the legislative action of the gen-
eral and State governments are not always so an-
tagonistic as wholly to forbid coalescence. We have
the. power to "alter" clearly and expressly given.
We pass a law providing that elections shall be held
in districts; wherever, in any of the States of the
Union, the general-ticket system has been adopted,
and is in foree at the time of the passage of such
act, the same becomes altered by the general law.
We prescribe a mode different from that which pre-
vails in the States. Our law, if a law at all, is the
supreme law. Wherever the State regulation is in
conflict with it4 the same therefore becomes altered
or repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Suppose, however, that I am wrong in all this; let
it be conceded for the moment that, whenever Con-
gress shall undertake to prescribe the manner in
which elections shall be held, we must provide
in our law for the whole manner; and that when we
undertake to "alter" State regulations, we must pro-
vide a complete system, in substitution for that
which is altered, so as not to leave in either case
any necessity for ancillary legislation by the State
governments', what follows then? If this were even
so, wou'd it follow that the act of 1842 is un-
constitutional and invalid? Certainly not. If com-
pleteness of legislation 011 any given subject be the
test of its validity, is the legislature bound to fur-
nish this entirety of action, by providing every prin-
ciple, and rule, and penalty, at the same time, and in
the same law? On the contrary, we all know th?t it
is the most usual course of legislation, especially on
important subjects, to prescribe general principles in
one act, and to carry out the details in other and sub-
sequent acts. In this ease it was especially proper to
follow that course. Congress was about to legislate
upon a new subject. It did not possess the neces-
sary information to enable it, at the time of the pass-
age of the law, to provide the details, and supply all
the machinery to carry it into effect. The formation
of the districts could be more conveniently done,
and perhaps more satisfactorily to the people, by
the. State legislatures, having all the necessary local
information for that purpose, than by Congress. It
was certainly more courteous to the States to an-
nounce the principle merely in the first Instance,
arid give them at least the option to conform their
action to it, and form the districts themselves, than
for Congress to have gone on and completed the
whole system at once, by forming the districts, and
appointing federal officers to hold the elections. It
was more proper in every point of view. If the
State legislatures should conform to the principle,
and prescribe the necessary regulations for holding
the elections under it, so much the better. If they
refused to do so, why, then they could not com-
plain of the want of opportunity to have done it
themselves; and, in the mean time, Congress could
be better prepared with the necessary information
to carry out the details of the law.
The act does not command the States to legislate.
It prescribes a principle of legislation as to this
subject. If the States do legislate in conform
ity to that principle, well and good. If they refuse
to do so, we can prescribe the rules and regulations
ourselves to carry out the principle. Well, four of
the States refuse. Suppose, now, the present Con-
gress should take up the subject, and proceed to
form the districts and complete the law. I know full
well that the majority now in this House will do
no such thing. But that does not affect the argu-
ment. They have the power to do it if they choose
to exercise it. Suppose, then, you should do this:
why, the report of the committee and the argument
on all sides admit that, in that case, legislation
would be complete, and the law would be binding.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Douglass] is too
good a lawyer not to know that the two acts upon
the same subject, though passed at different times,
would be taken in pari materia, and construed as
one statute. The whole of it would then be valid
and operative, as his own argument concedes, and
as his professional knowledge forces him to admit.
Well, now, can a law be utterly null and void, to
which such an act of supplemental legislation can
give vitality and force? If the second section of the
apportionment act be a dead letter, as gentlemen
contend, can any subsequent action of Congress
breathe into it the breath of life? Can a thing which
never had a living soul become animate by engraft-
ing upon its trunk a sound and healthy limb?
The fact that additional legislation would make
this a law of force, proves that it is good as far as
it goes. It is only incomplete. It lacks finality.
But if it is good as far as it goes, it is not null and
void If it is not null and void, it must be ob-
served.
The apportionment act announces a principle
which is to govern future elections. It was compe-
tent for Congress either to announce the principle,
and provide the particular regulations to enforce it,
all in one act, or to furnish the principle and the de-
tails 111 separate acts. Now, whether there has been
either State or federal legislation to carry out this
general law, or not, there stands the law itself,
good and valid, as far as it goes. It is a thing of
life, as we have seen. How, then, is it to be
avoided?
There is no way, Mr. Speaker, by which we can
escape from its restraining force, except by the way
of direct nullification. We may shut our eyes and
stumble blindfold over the law, crushing it as we
pass; but it does seem to me that no one, with even
one eye open, can fail to perceive the obstacle which
lies in his path, and the mischief of precipitating
himself over it.
We are asked if we ar« willing to eject the entire
delegations of four sovereign States from this hall?
If these States have not representatives here legally
entitled to remain as members of the body, whose
fault is it? That of the States who have sent them
here, by elections held in direct violation of the su-
preme law of the land. They had the oppoi amity,
as the other twenty-two States had, of conforming
their own legislation to this law, and ofsending mem-
bers here duly qualified to participate in the busi-
ness of the national assembly. They have refused
to improve this opportunity, and they come her©
asking us to nullify the law, rather than put them
to the inconvenience of a legal and proper election.
Sir, we have heard much in this discussion of
State rights and State sovereignty. I will go as far
as he who goes farthest in the preservation of all
the rights which pertain to the States; but, at the
same time, I will not forbid to the general govern-
ment the exercise of a power which I find expressly
granted by the constitution. In exercising a part only
of this power over elections, and inviting the States
to exercise the residue, the general government has
shown that spirit of forbearance and courtesy to-
wards the State governments which I trust will al-
ways characterize its legislation. We are told, that
if the general government undertook to enact a law
at all altering the manner of holding and conducting
the elections, it was its duty to make the law com-
plete; and that it is an insult to the States, offensive
to their pride, and invasive of their sovereignty, to
call upon them in aid of such imperfect legislation.
We 1, now, suppose, sir, instead of the partial pro-
visions of the yet of 1842, and in lieu of the cour-
teous invitation held out by that law to the agency
of the State authorities to carry it out, Congress
had made a complete system ©f its own; had gone an
by its own act to form the districts, and to require
the marshals and deputy marshals of the United
States courts to hold the elections; to swarm over
the land, armed, as they would be, to persuade or
intimidate our people to vote in conformity to the
wishes or dictates of the appointing power: who
can fail to perceive, in the distance, the fearful re-
sults of such a system? Who can refuse to admit
that, in such a case, we should have had infinitely
stronger cause to complain of mandamus acts?
Then, indeed, sir, we might have feared for the rights
of the States, and then should we have had reason
to deplore and lament the discovery of such potent
means of attack upon the the purity of the elective
franchise.
. But, Mr. Speaker, I must close these remarks,
have already trespassed too far upon the strength
of returning health. I could not, however, resist
the impulse I have felt to raise a voice, however
feeble, of protest and of warning against the action
about to be had by the House upon a solemn and
binding law, wrong in principle, mischievous in ex-
ample, and fatal in consequences, as I believe such
action to be.
SPEECH OF MR. STILES,
of georfila.
/it the House ef Representatives, January 28 and 30"
1844—On the motion of Mr. Black, of Georgia,
to amend the motion of Mr. Dromgoole, of Vir-
ginia, to recommit the report of the Select Com-
mittee on the Rules, by instructing them to report
to the House the following rule, (the 25th) viz:
"No petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper
praying the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave
trade between the States or Territories of the United
States in which it now exists, shall be received by
the House, or entertained in any way whatever.
January 28.
Mr. STILES having obtained the floor, spoke as
follows:
Mr. Speaker: Of all the evils which beset our
government, of all the dangers which threaten our
Union, not one can be found, more speedy in its op-
eration, sure in its consequences, or fatal in its re-
sults, than foreign interference with the domestic in-
stitutions of the South. Other divisions between the
citizens of this wide-spread republic, which consti-
tute the groundwork of opposing parties, and whose
violence at times seems almost to hazard the exist-
ence of the country, are but honest differences of
construction as to to the powers of the government.
This variety of opinion is but consistent with the
variety of interest, education, and habit, by which
we are distinguished. It is wholesome, because, it
is a difference based in reason, having for its com-
mon object the support of the constitution; for its
end, the preservation of the liberties of the country.
But far different are such divisions, from that which
separates the true lover of his country from that
band of deluded fanaties, whose only reason is that
"the end will justify the means," and which end is
the desolation of the fairest regions of the earth, the
destruction of the most perfect system of social and
political happiness which has ever existed.
The danger is not only great, but it is increasing.
The spirit of abolition has advanced, and is ad-
vancing. It increases by opposition; it triumphs by
defeat. Scarcely ten years ago, and the few obscure
enthusiasts of the North, who advocated the aboli-
tion of slavery at the South, excited but the deri-
sion and contempt of the whole country. Aboli-
tion was deemed by the enlightened and reflecting
citizen but an insignificant and sickly flame; that, if
it sprung from our own soil, it was but the "ignis
fatuus" which would expire when the gas which
gave it origin had been consumed; or, if dropped by
some foreign hand, either by accident or design,
that there was no combustible matter within its
reach, and that it must be extinguished by the first
breath which swept over it. But time has proven