tion, the inhibition to the States of the right to
district the State for the election of Senators, if
the right exists; and I presume it is admitted, en
all hands, that the power to district a State in re-
gard to representatives does exist, and has existed,
because the same words which give the power in
the one case give the power in the other. The
same identical language in reference to the power
is contained in the Constitution of the United
States. We would have no power, I humbly ap-
prehend, to say that a Senator should be elected
by the popular vote, because we would come in
direct conflict with the Constitution of the United
States, which says and prescribes that the Sena-
tors shall be elected by the Legislature; but I think
it would he competent for us—if we exercise the
power which, I believe, would be unwise in us to
do—to lay off the State into districts, and take
one Senator to represent certain interests, and
another other interests. But the language which
has been used by the gentleman from Anne Arun-
dle with regard to the writings of Mr. Hamilton,
it seems to me, goes to show that the whole power
and the only contest for power which was in con-
flict between the General Government and the
State Governments, with regard to the election of
these different officers, was narrowed down to this
one point, and that. in reward to the Senators—
the object of the States being to deprive the Gen-
eral Government of any control as to the place of
the meeting of the Legislature, lest it might be
fixed at such inconvenient points in the different
States that a large portion of their population,
through their representatives in the Legislature,
might not be heard in the election of Senator, and
the time might be fixed by Congress in such a
manner as to preclude a large portion of the State
from participating in the election of a Senator of
the United States. State sovereignty was involved
in the issue, and the States were not willing to
surrender it to Congress. It was their intention
that the Senators should represent the great body
of the State, and that the Senators of the several
States, in one body, assembled in the Senate of
the United States, should represent the State sov-
ereignty of the Union, while the delegates repre-
sent the popular branch, and represent the differ-
ent interests of their constituents. Sir, I call the
attention of gentlemen to the language of the Con-
stitution, and ask them to draw me the difference
in regard to the qualification of Senators and Rep-
resentatives, and show we why we had the right
to district in regard to Representatives and not
the right to district for Senators, when the same
identical language is used in regard to both.
Mr. HOWARD said: I have the volume in my
hand which I referred to yesterday, in reply to the
gentleman from Kent, (Mr. CHAMBERS,) and I
have brought it here to-day because it furnishes
an answer, perhaps, to the objections made by the
gentleman from St. Mary's. I understand his
proposition (certainly a very nice one) to be this,
that if you admit the power of a State to district
in regard to Representatives in one branch of Congress,
you must admit a corresponding power in
the State over the other branch of Congress, be-
cause the same clause of the Constitution included
both. Certainly the argument was very well put. |
There is a difficulty about it, and the only escape
from the conclusion the gentleman has drawn is,
to deny the power of the State to require a residence
in any particular district, as a qualification
to be elected to one branch as well as the other;
and that, if it be well founded, is a sufficient
answer to his objections. Now, the case referred
to by the honorable gentleman from Kent settles
that point, it will be seen, as far as the decision
goes.
The House of Representatives did decide that
a State had no right to insist upon a qualification
of residence for members of the House of
Representatives. The case is "Barney vs. Mc-
Creery, and is found in a volume called "Con-
tested Elections in Congress." I read only a
paragraph or two, to show what the case was.
The marginal note, which is fully warranted by
the case, is as follows: "The Constitution of
the United States having fixed the qualifications
of members, no additional qualifications can
rightfully be required by the States."
The committee reported that by an act of the
Assembly of Maryland, passed in November,
1790, it is required that the member shall be an
inhabitant of his district at the time of his elec-
tion, and shall have resided therein twelve cal-
endar months immediately before.
By another act of Assembly, passed in 1803,
it is provided that Baltimore town and county
shall be the fifth district, which districts shall be
entitled to send two representatives to Congress,
one, of which shall be a resident of Baltimore
county and the other a resident of Baltimore
city.
Three persons were voted for. Two of them,
viz: Moore and McCreery, resided in the county
and received more votes than Barney, who re-
sided in the city. The latter contested the seat
of McCreery.
Mr. Barney claimed his seat on the ground
of the controlling operations of this law. that
one only could be elected from Baltimore coun-
ty, and the other from the city, and that he was
the only one to take his seat. There is a vol-
uminous report of the committee, with which I
will not trouble the Convention.
"On the foregoing state of facts the House of
Representatives passed the following resolution:
"Resolved, That Wm. McCreery is entitled to
a seat in this House.
The argument turned entirely upon the con-
stitutional right of the State to annex any addi-
tional disqualifications to those enumerated in
the Constitution of the United States; and it
was argued that to prescribe residence in a par-
ticular part of the district would be to affix such
additional disqualification.
The concluding remarks of the compiler of
this is:
"By the decision of this case it seems to have
been settled that the States have not a right to
require qualifications from members, different
from or in addition to, those prescribed by the
Constitution."
Mr. BLACKSTONE. I will ask the gentleman
whether he can show me any authority which
prohibits any State from districting the State |
