The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 276
This book is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Globe and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOfifi.
" " THE FOUR STATES.
The SPEAKER announced the ordef of the day
to -be the report of the Committee of Elections.
Mr. DOUGLASS, who was entitled to the floor,
rose and said, in consequence of the peculiar posi-
tion which he occupied on this question, it was to be
expected of him that he shoula say something, m
the conclusion of this debate, in defence of the report
which he had the honor to make, under the direc-
tion of the Committee of Elections, against the as-
saults which had been made upon it m many
speeches on this floor by various gentlemen. It
could not, however, be expected that, in the short
time of one hour allotted to him by the rules of the
House, he could answer all the objections that had
been made in some fifteen hours upon the same
question. It had been often said that it was easier
to make an objection in a given time than to answer
it in that time three times multiplied; and therefore,
in die course of his argument which he proposed
now to submit, he should proceed to answer those
positions which have been assumed by gentlemen,
upon which the other side of the House seemed to
place the greatest reliance. Before proceeding, how-
ever, to the main question, he trusted he should be
indulged in a few remarks on the course which this
debate has taken. They had been charged (with a
boldness and an assurance which seemed to leave
the impression that the gentlemen making the charge
were sincere) with having political motives and po-
litical considerations and designs in the decision of
this question. That was a serious charge to be
made by any member on this floor against the ma-
jority in this House; and one which, if true, he
would say for himself, ought to brand infamy on the
man who was capable of coming there to decide this
question as a judge, and then should decide that
question according to his politics, and not according
to the constitution; and, if such a grave charge had
been made unjustly, without reason of pretext, let
the infamy of making the charge rest with those who
made it, and recklessly brought it forward in this
House. When did politics become introduced into
this discussion in a tangible and (if he might be al-
lowed the expression) an authoritative manner?
This House passed a resolution directing the Com-
mittee of Elections to inquire whether all the mem-
bers on this floor had been legally and constitution-
ally elected: the Committee of Elections took up
that resolution and ascertained the facts, and direct-
ed one of their number to draw a report in obe-
dience to the resolution of the House. The author
of that report did not deem himself at liberty to re-
fer to politics, or to make an appeal to passions, or
to prejudice, or to any other consideration inconsis-
tent with his duty as an honest, impartial, and con-
scientious judge in the case. He laid down no rule
for the other members; but for himself, he did not con-
sider such a course consistent with his duty, and hence
the House found no allusion in that report to politics
or to any other subject than that referred to the com-
mittee by the House. In order to show how it was
that politics, passions, and demagoguism were
drawn into the debate, he proposed to read an
extract from the minority report. The minority of
the Committee of Elections came into this House
and asked leave to make a report. They took two
or three days to answer the report of the majority
of the committee, and they then presented the docu-
ment from he proposed to read an extract:
"We could not contemplate the House of Repre-
sentative assaulting and declaring a law of Congress
to be void and of no effect, without the most gloomy
forebodings. The case which would authorize such
an interposition must be flagitous indeed; but the
American people might readily believe that the nul-
lification of this law by the present House may be
portentous of many such assumed cases. If this
great, wise, just, and sanitory measure is thus to be
struck down, what power can stay the same arm,
when, in the course of the successive rise and fall of
parties, it may aim blows at, other laws equally ob-
noxious to a daring, dominant, and unscrupulous
faction of a day? It is true the House is not the
tribunal which is to pass on the validity of many
laws; but, with all the elements of opposition and
resistance that perpetually exist to those the most
wholesome, none can have their proper moral force,
and all may lie defied, when the popular branch of
the law-making power desecrates itself by joining a
league for their subversion. What a fearful open-
ing would such a state of things make for able and
reckless demagogues—for profligate and desperate
ikctions! How distinctly would it mark the cor-
ruptions of politics, the decayjof national morals, and
the impending dissolution' of our institutions. Our
abiding trust is that the people will arouse, t h row'
their betrayers from them as 'the lion .shakes the
dew-drops from his mane,' and snatch the govern-
ment ana country from this hopeless abyss."
He wished to observe that the word "assumed
was italicized by the committee. .
He then continued. Now, was not that an admi-
rable constitutional argument, addressed to a consti-
tutional court, to enable that court to decide, under
oath, upon the validity of a law of the land; ana
more especially when it depended on that decision,
whether four independent sovereign States of this
Union should be disfranchised, and their represent-
atives sent from this hall, and their seats on this
floor vacated? Admirable constitutional argument.
Who could believe that such language would be
urged as a legal dispassionate reason on such a sub-
ject? Yes, "daring, dominant, and unscrupulous
faction of a day"—"able and reckless demagogues"—
"profligate and desperate factions"—is the language
used in this report; but it further charged on this
body its "desecration" by "joining a league" for the
"subversion" of laws. Such was the language used
by the members of a party who came into this
House, and with sanctimonious ana puritanical faces
charged on the majority the conduct he had de-
scribed—with, in short, permitting improper con-
siderations to influence them, and to bear on ques-
tions which came before them for decision.
Such a charge came with a very bad grace from
men who had penned and produced m that House
a document which had never been equalled by any
which the most desperate demagogues ever address-
ed to the most unscrupulous faction which had ever
combined to overthrow the liberties of a country,
and to betray the rights of the people. This might
be harsh language; it was not his language only,
and it was good enough for those who were ready
to desecrate this House by their acts. He must be
allowed to trace his subject a little farther. The
member from New York, [Mr. Barnard,] when a
motion was made to take the question out of the
Committee of the Whole, and bring it into the
House, where, as the able gentleman from South
Carolina himself acknowledged, according to par-
liamentary usage, it could be most appropriately
decided—the gentleman from New York, when this
motion was made, declared that he knew enough of
the character of the majority on this floor to know
what it meant; that its object was to suppress and
smother debate. When did that gentleman learn
enough, of the character of the majority of this
House to authorize him to make such a declara-
tion? The gentleman never got that idea from any
other source than his own imagination. He thought
perhaps that he saw the same motives which governed
his own conduct; and if it were true that the same
motives did actuate them, he was fully authorized to
come to the conclusion he had. And suppose ^ the
majority had intended to stifle debate: what right
had that gentleman to complain? Did he not come
into the House at the opening of the session with a
paper, signed byjiimself and forty-nine others, in
which he pledged himself to decide, right or wrong,
against the right of the members from four States of
this Union to hold their seats upon that floor, and
endeavor to procure the insertion of this document
upon the records of the House? What did the een-
lleman want with debate? If they were to debate
the question until doomsday, and convince every
man's conscience, yet that gentleman was not at
liberty to decide according to his conscience, be-
cause he had pledged himself to decide in a particu-
lar manner. What would be thought of a judge,
who, before taking his seat upon the bench to try a
case between man and man, would sign a pledge,
before hearing the evidence, to decide the ease in a
particular manner? The same opinion which they
would have in reference to the judge, they necessa-
rily entertain in reference to the gentleman from
New York, who had pledged himself in advance not
to decide the question according to his conscience,
but to keep warring until he turns these members
out of their seats. Under these circumstances, with
what grace could the gentleman come forward, and
tell the majority of that House that they ought not
to permit party considerations to operate upon this
question, while, at the same time, by the reports
and spsjeches made by himself, and those who act
with him, the most inflammatory appeals were
made to the passions, in order that they might have
an effect upon the presidential election—in order to
make party capital, and produce.political effect?
Much had been said about the policy of the law;
aimost every member who had spoken on that side
of the question had talked about the policy of the
law; but upon a judicial question like wus, what
had the policy of the law to do with it? That, too,
was drawn in for the purpose of demagoguism. In
relation to the policy of the law, he had only one
word to say. He was one of those who, in his own
State, had advocated the establishment of the dis-
trict system, by the only power authorized under
the constitution to establish it. When they came to
the question whether members should be elected by
districts or by general ticket, he did not yield to any
one in the warmth and zeal with which he should
advocate the former; but this was not the question
to be determined. On the contrary, it was a ques-
tion as to whether the district system had been es-
tablished by a power authorized to establish it by
ths constitution of this country. That was the
question. .
But gentlemen asserted that, unless this act was
sustained, the large States would be forced into the
adoption of the general-ticket system, and we
should have that system fixed upon the country.
Let us see whether this will be the case or
not. Had gentlemen read the history of this coun-
try?- Did they not know that, until a little
over a year ago, there was no law requiring the
States to be districted? Yet, when this law was
passed, there was a smaller portion of the members
of that Houseelected by general ticket, than there was
at the time of the adoption of the constitution. The
large States adopted the district system—not under this
law, not in obedience to this law, but of their own
free will and choice, as they had a right to do. Did
not the gentleman know that this law had not the
effect, of preventing New York, Pennsylvania, Vir-
ginia, and Ohio, from resorting to the general-ticket
system, if they had desired to do it? Still this bug-
bear was conjured up to operate, not on that House,
but on the country.
But there was anotlierconsideration. It had been
stated so many times on that floor that probably
some might believe it, that twenty-two States of this
Union had been districted in obedience to the act of
Congress. Was it so? The gentleman from New
York had told them that the State of New
York was districted in obedience to to the law of
Confess. But what was the fact? Being a mem-
ber from that State, and living at the seat of govern-
ment, the gentleman might be supposed to know.
The very legislature which passed the law district-
ing the State, passed, also, a resolution protesting
against the validity of the act of Congress, and de-
claring that they did not district the State in obedi-
ence to that act; and yet the gentleman came forward
and gave the lie direct to the record of his own State
legislature.
Mr. BARNARD rose for the purpose of explain-
ing; but,
Mr. DOUGLASS refused to yield the floor. The
privilege of explanation had been refused him yes-
terday by the gentleman from New York, and he
would now thank the gentleman to wait until he
had done.
Nearly two-thirds of all the States stood upon
the same footing as the State of New York. His
own State (Illinois) first passed a resolution, declar-
ing that the law of Congress was invalid, inopera-
tive, and not binding upon the States; that it was a
political trick of a desperate party to perpetuate its
own power, in defiance of the will of the peaple.
After doing this, the legislature districted thtMBte,
according to their own wishes, and not in obrtfrence
to the law. The State of Ohio did the same thing.
A majority of the States of the Union did this; vet
the gentleman from New York told the House that
they did it in obedience to the law. The gentleman
wanted to controvert, the statement of the gentleman
from Virginia, that New York had the district sys-
tem in force before the passage of the act of Con-
gress; and when the gentleman from Virginia
brought the question home to him, he sneaked from
this position, and said he placed the whole force of
his denial on the word "single"—he skulked under
the word "single." He hoped now the gentleman
from New York was satisfied with his answer to
this twice repeated question.
Mr. BARNARD. Perfectly, perfectly.
There was another argument which he (Mr. D.)
would notice, rega rding the benefits to be derived from
the enactment of this law of Congress. Thry were
told that the object ofinserting the clause in the con-
stitution which confers upon Congress the power of
making or altering the-regulations concerning elec-
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 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/300/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.