His election was contested, on the ground that
his actual and legal residence was in the coun-
ty, and not in the city, and that, therefore, as
Commodore Barney received a larger number
of votes than any other inhabitant in the city,
he was entitled to represent that part of the dis-
trict, by force of the laws of Maryland. The
question, therefore, was, whether the Legisla-
ture of a State could superadd to the qualifica-
tions required by the Constitution of the United
States, the condition that a Representative
should reside in the district for which he was
elected. No one doubted the authority of the
Legislature to designate districts, within which
the voters were to elect a Representative; but
it was held that the voters in that district might
elect a Representative from any part of the
State, notwithstanding the law of Maryland re-
quired the candidate to be a resident of the dis-
trict, upon the ground that the statute of Mary-
land could not require any qualification other
than that required by the Constitution of the
United States. To apply this to the case be-
fore us: The Constitution of the United States
requires that the Senator shall come "from the
State." Any man within the State is within
this qualification, if this Convention, or the
Legislature, should require a residence in a par-
ticular part of the State—for instance, on one
shore or on the other, in one gubernatorial dis-
trict or another—this would be a qualification
not required by the Constitution of the United
States, and of course an addition to it. To
show this clearly, let us suppose, than in despite
of the act of this Convention, or any statute in
pursuance to our action, a future Legislature
should elect a Senator not residing within the
prescribed district, and a candidate, residing
within that district, who had received a smaller
number of votes, or any other person who should
be dissatisfied, should contest the election be-
fore the Senate of the United States, who are
the sole judges in this matter, to what would
they appeal as the law regulating the qualifica-
tions of the claimant in my opinion, they
would look alone to the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States, and finding there no other qualifica-
tion required than a residence in "the State,"
that is, any part of the State, they would say
he was eligible.
It had been said by the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Bowie) that the Legislature, be-
ing the creature of the Convention, would be
controlled by its action. Now, aside from the
abstract impropriety of our adopting a provision,
as organic law, which is in violation of a law
superior to it, and which we are bound to obey,
I have to answer this suggestion (said Mr. C.)
first, by saying that as to this matter, the Legis-
lature is not the creature of this Convention.
It derives no power or authority whatever on
his subject from this Convention, or from the
people who gave us our authority, it is on the
contrary, in this respect, exclusively the creature
of the Constitution of the United States, or
rather of the people of the United States, by
whom that constitution was framed. Again,
the members of the Legislature will be bound, |
by the solemnities of an oath, to respect the
Constitution of the United States as the supreme
law of this State, as it is of all the States, and if
any provisions in that law shall conflict with,
and oppose our code, it will repeal the enact-
ment of any State authority and render it void
and of no effect, of no effect to impose any
political or any moral obligation on members of
the Legislature to respect it. I have therefore,
sir, (said Mr. C.,) come to the conclusion that
we have no authority to adopt the proposition
now before the Convention.
Mr. SOLLERS inquired if the act of 1810 was
null and void?
Mr. DORSEY. I have not a moment's hesita-
tion in saying it is unconstitutional and void.
Mr. CHAMBERS entertained the same opinion
The Legislature certainly might prescribe arule
as expedient and proper for their own action.
They might select the candidate from any part
of the State, and they might, as they doubtless
would, distribute the appointments to different
portions of the State, but we have no power to
coerce them.
Mr. BRENT, (of Baltimore city,) inquired if
the people had not the right to instruct the Le-
gislature to pass a law which would be in con-
formity to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Undoubtedly. But to su-
peradd to the qualifications which are required
by that constitution, would be in conflict with
it. For instance, if the constitution should say
that a man twenty-one years of age might be a
Senator, and we were to provide that a mall
must be thirty years of age before he could be a
Senator, clearly this provision would conflict
with the constitution. So in the case of a pro-
perty qualification, the constitution requires
none; if, therefore, we were to provide a pro-
perty qualification as necessary to entitle a man
to be elected a Senator, such a provision would
be in collision with the constitution. The form
of expression does not make the injunction less
imperative, and in legal construction, and by
common sense, interpretation, means that the
qualifications enumerated, and none other, shall
be required. I have always regarded the act of
1810 as an expression by the Legislature of a
just sense and feeling of expediency and pro-
priety, and the disposition to conform to it, to
be based upon the acknowledged justice and
equity of such a distribution. Mr. L, read from
the report of contested elections several passages
to sustain his views.
Mr. JENIFER was much gratified to hear the
remarks of the gentleman from Kent. He could
not see how any other construction could be put
upon the Constitution of the United States.
The third section of the first article was:
"The Senate of the United States shall he
composed of two Senators from each State,
chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years;
and each Senator shall have one vote."
No other mode of election could befixed upon
by the Convention than by the Legislature of the
State, because that was expressly provided for
in the constitution. After providing for the |
