Mr. Key had entered into a comprehensive and
satisfactory review, as well of the just interpreta-
tion of the Constitution an it is, as also of the
reasons why it is so; and shows us the propriety,
if not the necessity, that existed with the framers
of the Constitution, to submit to the States the
power to define the qualifications of voters, while
they retained the exclusive power of defining the
qualifications of the persons to be elected. The
Convention must, therefore, excuse a liberal ex-
tract from Mr. Key's argument. Here it is:
" Let it be remembered that the Convention
who formed the Constitution of the United States
had met to form a National Government, and
that the right of suffrage presented itself clothed
with great difficulties, no two States having
precisely the same qualifications, in the State
of Virginia a freehold qualification was neces-
sary to entitle a citizen to vote. In some States
a certain amount of personal property was ne-
cessary; in others, universal suffrage prevailed;
in some was combined, with the elective fran-
chise, a longer or shorter period of previous
residence, of age; and one permitted a certain
class of females to votes. From this view of
the elective franchise, may at once be perceived
the difficulties under which the Convention act-
ed, and the almost impossibility of a uniform
qualification: for, had the Convention adopted,
as a uniform rule, the qualifications prescribed
in any one State, it would have violated the
habits and practice of almost every other State.
To avoid this difficulty in a government founded
on compromise, and to go into operation on the
subsequent adoption and approbation by the
citizens, a most happy expedient was devised,
which was, to give to the electors in each State
for Representatives to Congress the same quali-
fications that were requisite for the most numer-
ous branch of the State Legislatures. This
could not fail to be acceptable to each State,
because it adopted tde usage of each State.
Our patriot Convention conformed, as far as
was practicable, to the wishes of the several
States, and this spirit of compromise pervading
the Constitution of the United States was the
pledge of its adoption."
" The Constitution begins; " We, the people
of the United States;" and the Constitution hav-
ing defined the qualifications of the electors, it
proceeds to define those of the Representatives,
or elected. It was surely competent to the
Convention, who represented the people of the
United States, to say what qualifications their
agent, representative, or law maker should pos-
sess, and they accordingly fix three. 1st. That
he shall be above the age of twenty-five. 2d.
Seven years a citizen of the United States.
And 3d. An inhabitant, when elected, of the
State in which he shall be chosen. Uniformity
could not, I have shown, be obtained as to
the qualification of the electors; but it was most
desirable in the elected, and as it could easily
be obtained, is accordingly specified in the Con-
stitution; and the expression of these qualifica-
tions in the Constitution, is the exclusion of all
others; so to define the qualifications of the
elected, was within the power of the Conven- |
tion, was their duty, and is set forth in the
Constitution itself."
" If the doctrine of reserved powers applies
to one case, so they do to the other. What
would be the absurd consequence of investing
the State sovereignties with power to add other
qualifications to the President. The nine small
States-might add qualifications of age, residence
or property, and the eight large States, from
their numbers, might elect a President without
any of the qualifications limited by the majority
of the States. What a singular phenomenon
this would produce ! A President elected by a
large majority of the electors, without the quali-
fications prescribed by a majority of the States!
An argument producing such absurdities need
not be pressed further."
Mr. BOWIE, in his seat. That is mere as-
sumption.
Mr. C. if the gentleman will but read the
argument of Mr. Key, I predict that, in despite
of his deep-rooted prejudices, he will be con-
vinced by it, at all events I am content to stand
upon these authorities as a support to the argu-
ment I have advanced. There is one other
speech in that debate to which I will refer, not
so much for the able argument it contains as for
the particular illustration employed by the
speaker. Mr. Howard, alluding to what had
been urged on the other side, said, "While gen-
tlemen contend for this rule of construction,
they ought to be aware of its operation when
applied to other sections of the constitution
couched in the same terms. Apply it to the
section which prescribes the qualifications of
your Senators, and if gentlemen be correct, the
States have the power to enlarge the qualifica-
tions of a Senator, to say for instance, that he
shall have attained the age of thirty-five instead
of thirty, or that he shall have been fifteen years
a citizen of the United States instead of nine,
as required by the Constitution; or what would
be still more absurd, that a State has the power
to add a new qualification that no person should
be elegible to the Senate, unless he resided in a
particular part of the State designated by the
law itself."
There were no prophets in those days, for it
was then supposed to be impossible to entertain
aproposition, which now in its most extreme
extent is gravely advocated. The gentleman
must perceive that the rejection of his proposi-
tion may lead to embarrassing misconceptions
of the causes which occasioned its defeat, and
thereby promote a practice which it is his ob-
ject to restrain, and as adecided majority of the
Convention are convinced that we have not the
constitutional power to adopt it, I hope, said
Mr. C., the gentleman will withdraw it.
Mr. BOWIE said that lie had certainly seen
nothing in the argument of the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) or of Mr. Key, to which
that gentleman had referred, and which had
been reproduced in this discussion by the gen-
tleman from Frederick (Mr. Thomas) to induce
him to change his opinion.
Mr. THOMAS stated that he had not read that. |
