argument when he spoke. He had merely ex-
plained his own views.
Mr. BOWIE said that the arguments were one
and the same; and they were all based upon the
assumption that it was not in the power of a
State to superadd a qualification to those pre-
scribed in the Constitution of the United States.
without looking to the more important inquiry,
whether the superadded qualification was in
conflict with the constitutional qualification or
not. In looking to the case of the contested
election of McCreery and Barney, from which
the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers) had
so largely read this morning, it would be found
that those who took the ground now taken by
the gentleman from Kent, and the gentleman
from Frederick, were men belonging to the old
Federal school, who favored a concentration of
power in the hands of the Congress of the Uni-
ted States, while those opposed to such concen-
tration, such as Mr. Randolph, Mr. Bibb, and
others, had taken the opposite ground, and had
submitted as lucid, and satisfactory arguments
in support of their views, as had ever been pre-
sented to the public when the division was be-
tween these two classes of politicians, was it to
be said, as the gentleman from Kent had said,
that the well-settled and deliberate opinion of
the country was all one way? In reference to
the election of members of the House of Rep-
resentatives, as to the time, place and manner
of holding the elections, it was very evident,
said Mr. B., that the States, in the absence of
any legislation by Congress, had entire and com-
plete jurisdiction over those subjects. What-
ever powers Congress possessed over these sub-
jects, the States themselves possessed in the
absence of Federal legislation. This was ex-
pressly provided for in the fourth section of the
first article of the Constitution of the United
States. "The times, places and manner of
holding elections for Senators and Representa-
tives shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at
any time, by law, make or alter such regulations,
except as to the place of choosing Senators."
It was no more in the power of Congress to su-
peradd qualifications or to make regulations not
prescribed in the Constitution of the United
States than it was in the power of the States to
do so. From the time of the adoption of the
Constitution to within a few years past, the
States, with but few exceptions, had established
congressional districts, and no one had ever
doubted the power. But Congress, not many
years ago, had assumed jurisdiction over the
subject, and passed a law requiring the States
to establish a uniform system of congressional
districts throughout the Union. This law the
States had conformed to, and under it all our
congressional elections were now held. To
test the soundness of gentlemen's opinions, Mr.
B. would ask, whether, now that Congress had
assumed jurisdiction over the subject, and
passed such a law, it was competent for the
people of one congressional district to elect to
the House of Representatives a person residing
in another district? If so, then the act of Con- |
gress was of no value, and all our State legisla-
tion in conformity to it was but idle mockery.
But Congress, said Mr. B., had passed no laws
upon the subject of the election of United States
Senators, It follows as a consequence that the
States can exercise the same powers in refer-
ence to the election of Senators, that they
formerly possessed in regard to the elections of
members of the House of Representatives. If
they had the power to form congressional dis-
tricts, they have now the same power to estab-
lish senatorial districts. All that the Constitu-
tion of the United States required on this subject
was that the person elected should be an inhab-
itant of the State from which he was elected.
If he was an inhabitant of a senatorial district
in the State, he must necessarily be an inhabit-
ant of the State. He was not less an inhabitant
of the State because elected from a particular
district. He could not see how gentlemen could
escape the force of the argument.
The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,)
had appealed to him to withdraw the amend-
ment he had proposed. If gentlemen from
the Eastern Shore thought proper to abandon
their constitutional rights, and to trust simply to
an act of Assembly, which was in its nature repealable,
and which he believed would be re-
pealed by those who are to come into power un-
der the Constitution now forming, be it so. He,
Mr. B. could not agree with them. If he were
an Eastern Shore man, he certainly would not
be willing to trust to a majority whose interest
it would be to violate the provisions of the act
of 1809 more particularly when they were told
that the act itself was a nullity, because it con-
flicted with the Constitution of the U. States.
Mr. B. said his only object in offering his amend-
ment, was to secure to the Eastern Shore the
benefit of the compromise of 1809, by making
it a part of the Constitution. He could not be-
lieve that any future Legislature would dare to
violate the constitutional provision. The gen-
tleman from Kent, had said that such a consti-
tutional provision would be void in itself—but
Mr. B. thought that this was assuming the very
thing to be proved. The gentleman from Kent
had also said, that the Senate of the U. States
were the exclusive judges of the election and
qualifications of its members, and that, if the
proposed amendment should he engrafted in the
Constitution, it would be disregarded by the
Senate, in the event of the Legislature electing
a person from a different district than the one
required by the State Constitution. That the
Senate would look only to the fact of the per-
son elected being an inhabitant of the State, and
not to the provision in the State Constitution,
requiring the election to be made from a partic-
ular district in the State. But did not the gen-
tleman perceive that this was also an assump-
tion of the thing to be proven? For, although
the Senate were the exclusive judges of the
election and qualification of its members, yet,
if the States possessed the power to establish
Senatorial Districts, the judgment of the Sen-
ate would conform to the constitutional rights
of the States, it could not be presumed that |
