The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 45
xxiv, 696 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:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
m
ification. It instructed the Committee on the Judi
ciary to inquire and report whether the second sec-
tion of the apportionment law 0. e. the section re-
quiring elections by single districts) be of any bind-
ing force on the several States of this Union.
Mr. JAMESON said he would determine whether
he would accept the proposition of the gentlemen in
■lieu of that which he had made. "When he had
given way the other day, (he said,) he was attempt-
ing to show to the House that there was no necessi-
ty whatever of referring this matter to the Commit-
tee of Elections; and he would now state that the
original proposition had come from the wrong side
of this House. It was from the gentleman from
Kentucky, [Mr. Davis,] who, with forty-nine
others, had prejudged this case, and put their names
to that solemn protest (as it was styled) by which
they had determined that we (said Mr. J.) are not
entitled to our seats. The object of a committee was
that it might investigate and report back all the facts
that would entitle the House to judge on the sub-
ject. The gentleman, then, and forty-nine others,
had already assumed and decided upon the facts; and
is fifty members of this House had already deter-
mined this question, truly they could need no more
__ ight upon it from the report of a committee. Mr.
J. called, then, upon the other members of this
House who had not, as yet, acted upon this matter,
to know whether they were not as well prepared to
decide this question in this House as they would be
if a report were made by a committee.
This was a motion (as Mr. J. apprehended) with-
out a precedent in the annals of the legislation of
this country. They had, for the first time, a propo-
sition made in this hall by members from one sov-
ereign State, contesting the rights to their seats of
members from another sovereign State. " All the
propositions of this kind heretofore had been from
citizens of the same State from which the member
elect came. They established, then, a precedent
here, that in this hall the members from one State
were to rise up and contest the rights to seats of
members from another State. Carry out this pre-
cedent, and the time might come when it might be
necessary for a small majority of this House to rid
themselves of the minority, and they would put
themselves to contest the rights to their seats of the
minority, and thus disfranchise the States from
which they they came. Was there any precedent,
any right, any law for such a proposition?
In this matter, Mr. J. took the high ground that
this was not a referable subject; that it was not to
be referred to a committee. It did not stand upon
the grounds of a contested election; it stood on the
ground of sovereign States contending for their
rights to seats upon this floor under the Constitu-
tion of the country. They stood here with their
seats uncontested, with the same evidence of rights
to seats as any gentleman on this floor had; and, so
long as they kept the matter before the House, their
right could be maintained, so far at least as that the
States from which they came should not be disfran-
chised on this floor. Mr. J. begged leave to differ
from some of his friends who were situated as he
was on this floor; for, when they conceded the prin-
ciple—representing, as they did, sovereign States—
that a member from any other State had a right to
select them out from the other members of this body
and refer their case to a committee for adjudication,
that veiy moment they placed themselves in a pre-
dicament where, from delicacy and from the rules of
this House, they were compelled to disfranchise
their own States, as they were precluded from vo-
ting upon their own case.
This matter should not go to a committee. It
was admitting that there was some doubt as to their
right to their seats. Having once admitted that—
having referred the matter to a committee, and that
committee having reported, they were instantane-
ously placed in a predicament where they would
have no right to act upon the case. Delicacy itself,
if not the very rules of the House, would prevent,
if these States were fully represented, twenty-four
members of this House from voting upon the re-
port. Mr. J. was not willing, by any act of lus,
either now or hereafter, to establish a precedent
which would hereafter disfranchise the State which
he had the honor in part to represent. It was very
clear that the gentleman who had introduced this
proposition, and those who acted with him, as he
had before observed, wanted no light from the re-
port of a committee, because they had already de-
cided upon the case; they could not complam if
there was no report made. Let him suppose a case—
that these four States should come precisely in the
same position in the 29th as they were in the 28th-
Congress, and that the majority should not be so
large as it was at the present who believed that this
law was a nullity: they would then be setting this
precedent, by which—having admitted that there
was some doubt upon the subject; not having taken
the high ground that they had the same right to
their seats as the other members on this floor—they
would be precluded,when the report was made, from
a voice upon it, and by which they would all be sent
home in the 29th Congress. Did their States ex-
pect this? Had they not sent them here for the di-
rect purpose of maintaining their rights on this
floor? _ It was not the mere object of holding a seat
here; it was not Mr. J.'s own, or his State's inte-
rest in a seat here, that was most to be weighed in
this matter: it was the question, whether four States,
by this operation, either now or hereafter, were to
be turned home from this floor.
Mr. J. knew it had been said, that when the re-
port of the committee was made, they might call a
division of the question. But did that satisfy gentle-
men's delicacy, when once they had given up the
high ground which they • should occupy here, pro-
testing against one member, or any set of members,
selecting them out and sending them before the
Committee of Elections? Having taken that high
ground, they then stood here contending for equal
rights and equal privileges on this floor; but, yield-
ing the first ground, they yielded everything. They
might call a division of the question; but when they
had once agreed to an adjudication of this matter—
when, by their own consent, they had yielded that
there was doubt, although the rules of the House
might permit them, yet the rules of delicacy would
prevent them from voting. Gentlemen, then, see-
ing the predicament in which they would necessa-
rily be placed by it, should protest against this mat-
ter going before any committee for adjudication.
It had been said, and might be said again, that
they were aiming to back out from an investigation
of this matter. It was not so. If this matter was
before the House from now to the 1st of June, Mr.
J. trusted that no gentleman would make any move
to stop a full investigation. He wanted a full inves-
tigation, but he wanted it by the House; and he
wanted the members of the House, in a body, to be
their judges, instead of having the subject investi-
gated by a committee, and having a report from
them. That was the ground he took here; and it
seemed to him that when members of this House
looked at the subject, they would see the position in
which they placed themselves, by their own consent,
by a different course, and would concur with
him. If it should turn out that the House, by an
overbearing majority, should refer this matter to the
Committee of Elections, notwithstanding his vote
and the vote of the other gentlemen interested
against it, Mr. J. held that they would then have the
right to act on this matter on this floor. It was bet-
ter at once to take that course than that they should
be placed in a situation by which these four States
should be disfranchised.
Did not gentlemen see objections to this course of
proceeding? Let him suppose that those fifty mem-
bers had got fifty-three members more to act with
them—thus making one hundred and three members
of this House—who, before they were sworn in, and
before they had a right to judge, before the case was
fairly placed before them, had prematurely judged
of this matter, and then that it was referred to the
Committee of Elections. One hundred and three
members had already decided, and there was no ne-
cessity for a report for them; yet, on that report,
when they cut out those members interested from
acting on it, they would leave this matter to be de-
cided by this minority of one hundred and three;
the majority would be ousted, and the minority would
take possession of this hall. Let them deny them
(heir right to their seats: they would thereby dis-
franchise four States, would convert the minority
into the majority of this House, and turn the chan-
nels of legislation differently from what the people
of the sovereign States of this Union had intended.
That might be the operation m the 29th Congress,
and he warned gentlemen how they acted in this
manner. Mr. J. would not admit that there was any
right or power in any member of this House to con-
test his seat upon this floor. That was the ground
upon which he stood. If any gentleman eame
from Missouri, and said by his memorial that
he had been elected instead of him (Mr. J.,) and
contested his seat, and it became necessary to
inquire into the matter, which they would be
bound to do, then it was a. proper subject for
reference to the Committee of Elections,: whose
proper sphere it was to decide between conflicting
claims to seats on this floor. But what did .®«fy
propose to refer hero? It was the rights of sover-
eign States to that committee for adjudication.
Why would it not be just as proper, forrnm ~$6 ."in-
troduce a resolution "here that the right of the gentle-
man from Kentucky and of gentlemen from other
States, if they pleased, should, be referred to the '
Committee of Elections? He had the same right.
Mr. J. stood here on the same testimony as that
gentleman did, and he had the same nght. to' make
that proposition. The very -fact of entertaining; a
proposition of that kindt or adopting it, would form
a precedent which would have the tendency here-
after to produce anarchy and confusion in .this hall.
There was no one of them that knew to whatSnjus-
tice it might lead. They would by it be putting
State against State; the States that should have -a.
majority here freeing to oust the Representatives
from the other States, and they themselves to have
no voice in the action of this House. It was- put-
ting the States at war with each other, and the most
direful consequences would ensue.
A great deal had been said about laws and consti-
tutions; about conscience, too, and all that. Con-
science ! when the effect of the reference advocated
by gentlemen must be to confer on a majority to
pass a law (so far, at least, as the action, of this
House was concerned) of the very worst and most
injurious character that could possibly be imagined.
This districting law had been intended, from the
very first, to bring the Representatives from the
non-districted States before a Committee of Elections
of this House; and gentlemen had full and timely
warning that such must be its effect. It was passed
with this direct purpose. The majority who passed
it were distinctly apprized that there would not be
time for the legislation it contemplated—for district-
ing the States before the approaching election for
members to the present Congress. Even had the
law been constitutional in its character, it must of
necessity have been practically inoperative. The idea
expressed by the gentleman from Indiana (understood
to be Mr. Kennedy) was perfectly correct, that no
such proposition as that now offered could constitu-
tionally be entertained in this House. An act like
this, passed just upon the eve of a congressional
election in two or three of the States, against the
solemn warning that there could not be time for com-
plying with its provisions before the election, and
against the earnest remonstrance of gentlemen that-
the majority would at least make such an exception
in the wording of the act as should make provision
for members elected to this'Congress to take their
seats here this session! Why, they knew well
enough that notice could not reach the Governor of
Missouri until a very few days before the election.
A law passed under such circumstances, looked very
like a settled determination beforehand to deprive
sovereign States of the Union of their rights on this
floor. They were shown that such would be its prac-
tical operation, and still they passed the law.
Mr. J. said this on the assumption taken by the
gentleman that the apportionment law was constitu-
tional. And even on that assumption, unless gentle-
men were prepared to admit that a triumphant party
majority may keep sovereign States out of all their
rights in this House—in fact, might keep them out
of the House altogether—there could be no founda-
tion for a reference of their case to the Committee of
Elections, as now proposed by the gentleman from
Kentucky, [Mr. Davis.] One of die greatest ques-
tions was presented by such an attempt which could"
be mooted in this body, viz: Whether the House
could pass such a law that in the approaching 29th
Congress entire States might be kept out of this
House? That, alone, was quite enough to make
any law void. The mere fact that, by its operation,
entire States must be ousted from this House, and,
in effect, ousted from the Union, was enough to ;n-
duce every man who loved the Constitution to In. Id
it void and of none effect. Such was the posture of
things under which this famous apportionment law
had been passed. Three or four States of tlie Union
were by its operation to be disfranchised—driven
out of the Union! If gentleman wanted to see a
specimen of real nullification—not in word, but in
deed and in fact—here was a law which did no less
than nullify this Union.
But, Mr. J. said, it was not his purpose, at this
time, to go into the merits of the apportionment law;
nor should he attempt it till the present question
should be decided. When the question of the va-
lidity of the law came legitimately and in props?
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/m1/69/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.