should be engrafted in the constitution, as propo-
sed by the gentleman who had just taken his seat,
it would, in his humble judgment, (and he con-
curred with what had fallen from the gentleman
from Kent, [Mr. Chambers,] it would be so
perfect a nullity that it would be hardly worth
consuming the time of the Convention in regard
to it. But he did attach importance to resisting
it, in one point of view, and that led him to
participate in this discussion. He did not in-
tend to go into that branch of the discussion
which seemed to be invited, by intimating that
there was a distinction as to the extent of the
power of the people of Maryland, acting through
their delegates in the Convention, and the peo-
ple of Maryland, acting through its representa-
tives in the House of Representatives and the
Senate, so far as the General Government was
concerned. He believed that long since it had
been well maintained that in the provisions of
the Constitution of the United States, speaking
of the States, they had not a meaning confined
to the Legislature or the Senate, but that they
had reference to a political community, formed
of human beings, residing within certain con-
fines. Any other doctrine would be destructive
of the Constitution of the United States.
1 If the people, by delegates to a Convention
of any State, could, so far as the General Gov-
ernment was concerned, do that which they
could not do in the House of Delegates and the
Senate, why it was only necessary to organize
a State Convention, and through its action, make
null and void all essential power conferred upon
the General Government. But he would not
moot such a question; it had already been fully
discussed elsewhere. Assuming that they were
here under the same restraints that the Con-
stitution imposed upon the people of Mary-
land in any political form in which they might
assemble, let us then look into some of the pro-
visions of the Constitution of the United
States and see whether the article proposed
is not in direct conflict upon several essential
points with the provisions of that instrument.
The third clause of the third section of that
Constitution, declares that "No person shall be
a Senator who shall not have attained to the age
of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of
the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which
he shall be chosen." What was the design, the
object of this clause? Was it not to fix qualifi-
cations, without which a member of the Senate
of the United States could not qualify? Did it
not propose to cover the whole ground in that
particular?
Mr. BOWIE. I think not.
Mr. THOMAS thought that it prescribed all
the qualifications and restrictions that were in-
tended to act upon the individual aspiring to a
seat in the United States Senate.
They had a similar provision in relation to the
qualifications of Representatives. "No person
shall be a Representative who shall not have
attained the age of twenty-five years, and been
seven years a citizen of the United States, and |
who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of
that State in which he shall be chosen."
They had another with reward to the Presi-
dent of the United States: "No person, except
a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the Unit-
ed States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of
President; neither shall any person be eligible
to that office who shall not have attained to the
age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years
a resident within the United States."
Now, each if these articles of the Constitu-
tion of the United States, intended to prescribe
all the requisites, so far as age, citszenship, and
residence were concerned, that were to be com-
plied with before members of the House of
Representatives, members of the Senate, and
the President of the United States, could quali-
fy under the Constitution of the United States.
The gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Bowie,) seemed to maintain the converse of this
proposition, and to insist that whenever the Constitution
of the United States did not deny ex-
pressly to the States the power to prescribe
qualifications to functionaries of the General
Government not found in that Constitution, that
then this State was competent to exercise such
power, and insert a clause in her Constitution,
rendering ineligible to a seat in the Senate of
the United States, one who is not disqualified by
the government of the Union. If this be true,
a very strange state of things may be produced.
To illustrate, he would take a case of a Sen-
ator of the United States, and refer to the ar-
ticle prescribing his qualifications.
By the clause fixing the qualifications of a
Senator, if a citizen, seeking a seat in the Sen-
ate, is thirty years of age, he is eligible so far
as his age is questioned. Was it competent for
the Legislature of any one State to superadd to
this requirement and say that a citizen should
be ineligible unless he was forty years of age?
If forty, he would of course, be thirty years of
age, and the provision in a State Constitution
requiring him to be forty, would not be in direct
conflict with the Constitution of the U. States,
if it be true as contended in this debate, that a
State in this respect may insert in its constitution
an article, or may pass a law attaching any
qualifications to the candidate for a seat in the
United States Senate, which the Constitution of
the United States dues not directly forbid. Let
such a strange construction of the Constitution
once prevail, and we shall have one State fixing
the age of a Senator at forty, another at thirty-
five, another at fifty, and the Senate of the U.
States, when about to exercise its power to judge
of the election and qualification of its members,
will find it necessary not only to consult the
Constitution under which they derive their pow-
er to judge, but they must look to the provis-
ions of each Constitution and to the laws of
every Legislature of every State in the confed-
eracy.
The same may be said as to the qualifications
of members of Congress and of the President.
indeed, if a State may change or modify the qual-
ifications for President, it would not be difficult |
