with the happiness of the people of the State—
something connected with their pursuits in life,
or if you please, their political predilections.
if the word manner was to be construed, and it
could be construed, in this sense, there was
nothing in the idea that manner was to be con-
strued as applying exclusively to the mere ope-
ration of conducting the election at the time
the election was to take place, as had been con-
tended for by the gentleman from Kent.
The gentleman had referred to the proceed-
ings in Congress—to the proceedings of the
lower House, and had said that although the
State might appoint the places where the elec-
tions were to be held, and in that sense might
district the State, and that if the people of
number one thought proper to elect a person re-
aiding in number five, yet he would be consti-
tutionally elected, and Congress would admit
him to a seat. He (Mr. B.) had this to say in
reply to this argument, that although the gen-
tleman might produce precedents to sustain him,
they were as such, worth very little—but rather
to be avoided than followed; for he held that un-
less precedents were founded upon legitimate
and correct reasoning, the sooner they were
avoided the better. The mere fact of its being
a precedent in a decision of the House of Rep-
resentatives, added nothing whatever to its au-
thority. He could take up a volume of con-
tested election cases, and show that the very
same questions have been decided differently,
at different times, by the House of Representa-
tives. As soon as one party preponderated over
another, would the decision of one House be
reversed by the succeeding one. He was sur-
prised that his friend from Kent should rely
upon the precedents of the House of Representatives
in cases of contested elections. They
were precedents rather to be avoided by all
clear-headed, sensible men out of the House,
who were free from partisan feelings.
Those who could be supposed to be actuated
by them would be looked upon with distrust,—he
might almost say with scorn and contempt.—
What authority was there to be given to a precedent,
when it was known that all these contested
election cases were more or less determined by
the political complexion of the parties who sought
the office? They were worth nothing as precedents.
But the gentleman from Kent could claim
no advantage even upon the score of precedents.
He (Mr. B.) would refer them to their own le-
gislative decisions for the last forty years. In
1809, chap. 22, the Legislature of the State has
given a legislative construction to this very pro-
vision of the constitution. He had a right to rely
as implicitly upon the construction of our own
Legislature, as the gentleman had to rely upon
the constructions of Congress in reference to the
meaning of this provision of the constitution of
the United States, in 1809 the Legislature gave
a construction to this provision of the constitution
by districting the State of Maryland in regard to
the election of U. S. Senators into the Eastern
and Western Shores. This was a legislative
construction, and was worth just as much as any
precedent that could be found in the proceedings |
of Congress. In addition to this there were several
acts of Assembly laying off the State into
congressional districts. Was not the weight of
precedents then on his aide? The Legislature in
passing these laws acted under circumstances
which forbid the idea that they were biassed by
political considerations. Compromises were made
with regard to party, with a desire to promote the
best interests of the State by a true and fair in-
terpretation of the provisions of the constitution.
The gentleman could show him no decision of
the Senate of the United States denying to the
states the right to district for U. S. Senators,—
When he did so, he would admit the force of
such a decision, as a precedent, however much
he might question its soundness and propriety.
He could not, therefore, see the slightest ob-
jection, nor any infringement of the Constitu-
tion of the United States when they directed
the Legislature, in their manner of electing a
United States Senator, to provide that he should
come from one portion of the State or another.
He wished them to bear in mind that this was
the force of the point which he made, that it
must be a necessary violation of the constitu-
tional provision, because if they both could
stand together, then the act was not void, be-
cause of its repugnance to the Constitution of
the United States. If the person elected had
the constitutional qualifications, it was in the
power of the State to superadd any other which
did not come in conflict with the Constitution of
the United States, Here was harmony instead
of confusion, and wherever things harmonized
and did conflict, they might well stand together,
and reason, common sense, and every principle
of logical deduction, would lend their sanction
to so desirable a result.
He confessed he had thought it very import-
ant this provision should be incorporated upon
the constitution, believing, as he did, that they
had the constitutional power, believing, as he
did, that the time might come when its wisdom
would be seen and felt by every portion of the
State, He could imagine many states of things
in which not only the Eastern Shore ought to
be represented in the United States Senate, but,
in his opinion, other sections of the State. He
held that in the passage of laws by the Federal
Government, it was of the utmost importance
to the agricultural and producing classes that
they should always have a representative on the
floor of the United States Senate. This was
indispensably necessary for the protection of
their interests. If the producers should ever
permit, by any course whatever, the power to
pass from their hands into those of the great
commercial power of the State, in his humble
judgment, their interests would be irretrievably
sacrificed. He had no faith in the commercial
power. He looked upon it as a vulture seeking
whom it might devour. He had always re-
garded the commercial interest as necessarily
inimical to the producing classes. He did not
hold the theory that there was harmony among
all the classes of human labor. One class must
live, and do live at the expense of another.
There were two great divisions of human labor, |
