right. The implication was, in his opinion, directly
the reverse."
"Should the States be allowed the power to determine
the qualifications of the elected, more
especially where they have the right to superadd
after the constitution had enumerated certain
qualifications, that incompatibility, that interfer-
ence of powers, which he had mentioned would
exist."
Mr. J. Clay said, "if the Legislatures of the
States had no constitutional right to narrow the
qualifications, they had no right to superadd to
them.
"The Constitution of the United States gave to
the people the right of making an election of
members of Congress from all the inhabitants who
were within the State. He believed the question
involved the liberties of the people. If they de-
cided the Slate had a right by law to add to the
qualifications of Representatives established by
the Constitution, they decided that the right of
the people to choose out of the whole State might
be taken away, and the liberty of election thus
abridged."
Mr. Smilie said. "by the Constitution of the
United States, every citizen having the qualifications
pointed out in that instrument, was qualified
to serve as a member of this House. If they re-
jected the report of the committee, they would
say that persons, although possessing the qualifi-
cations laid down by the Constitution, could not
be entitled to a seat. Had they aright to do it?
Mr. S. said there had been a good deal said about
negative or positive declarations in the Constitu-
tion. Would the gentleman say that the States
had a right to pass laws of naturalization contrary
to those of the United States, and to the provision
of the Constitution which directed that they
should be uniform ? Many articles in the Constitution
pointed out the same principle."
Mr. Alston said, "once permit the States to
depart from the straight line, and where would
they stop them ? If they were permitted to go
one step, were any bounds prescribed in the Constitution
at which they could be stopped ? He
had understood that the Legislature of Virginia
had prescribed, among other qualifications, that
no person should be elected a Representative un-
less he was possessed of a freehold estate. What
might be the consequence of this ? They might
gay that no man should be elected who did not
possess fifty, a thousand, or ten thousand acres of
land. They might even prescribe the particular
quality of the land, or its situation."
Mr. Quincy said, "when the whole right of
voting was the subject of consideration, as it was
at the formation of the Constitution, the exclusion
of a part was the inclusion of the remainder.
The Constitution had said that certain persons
should not have a light to be elected members of
this House. Was not this a declaration that all
others might ? This was aright, then, which was
reserved to the people, and not to the States."
Mr. Rowan said, "had the Legislature of the
State of Maryland the power of thus contracting
the choice of the people? If they had the power
of restricting the choice of Representatives as to
place, why not as to other qualifications ? They |
might say that no man was qualified to serve as
a Representative in the Congress of the United
States who was not a farmer, a mechanic, or of
any other profession. Grant them the power of
adding qualifications, and where would they fix a
limit? The Constitution did not provide against
the introduction of a political test. The State
Legislature might enact that no person should be
a Representative who was not a Federalist: how
would the committee reconcile this with that part
of the Constitution which had undertaken to
guarantee to the States a Republican form of government?
If the Legislature determined that
members from the State of Maryland should pos-
sess a certain property—that they should be worth
500 or 1,000 pounds, would it not be verging
towards aristocracy ? If they were to say that all
the members of the State should be chosen from
the town of Baltimore, would it not appear ab-
surd ? And yet they had as much light to do this
as to say that each member should be a resident
of a particular district. The Legislature was
only authorized by the Constitution to say that
they should reside in the State from which they
were elected."
It was a principle in law, that every thing
which the parties who wrote had said in a writing,
was all they intended to say. If they had said
nothing, it was presumed that they had reserved
it for future consideration; but if they said any
thing on a subject, it was supposed they had said
all they meant. Now, the framers of the Consti-
tution had prescribed certain qualifications; if
they had intended that any other should be necessary,
they would have said so. In the preceding
clause, they had given to the State sovereignties
the right to fix the qualifications of Electors: "The
Electors in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for the most numerous branch of
the State Legislature." Here they have thrown
upon the State Legislature the whole power to
affix qualifications to the Electors, as well of the
members of Congress, as of the President and
Vice President. Not so as to the elected; it might
have. been unfortunate if they had. The different
interests of the different States would have as-
signed different qualifications. In such circum-
stances, could any unanimity have been expected ?
No. It had, therefore, forcibly obtruded itself
upon the people, that they should affix permanent
qualifications, which were only that a member
should have arrived to the age of twenty-one
years, have been seven years a citizen of the United
States, and should be an inhabitant of the
State for which he should he chosen.
Mr. C. said he would particularly invite at-
tention to the very able, and, he must think, con-
clusive argument of Philip Barton Key, then a
Representative from this State. That gentle-
man's seat had also been contested, and that fact
probably had caused him to direct his powerful
intellect to the consideration of this subject with
peculiar earnestness. It was known to most of
us here that Mr. Key was for many years, one of
the most eminent lawyers in Maryland, distin-
guished as an ornament to his profession, when
the prominent men of the profession were brought
into contact during the days of the General Court. |
