rights, whether he was not by this proposition
making a fatal stab at what he was most desirous
to protect? If you assume that the Convention
has the power, or can vest in the Legislature the
power, to lay out the State into Congressional dis-
tricts, as is proposed-
Mr. BOWIE made a remark or suggestion, not
heard by the Reporter.
Mr. RANDALL. Exactly; but if the States can
do it, Congress could do it, or they could change
the action of the States on the subject. There
would be a great danger in this. Suppose in any
future Congress a decided majority should be
elected in each House from the free States, there
might be a danger to our State in the exercise of
this power. They might so change the districts
into which the State had been divided, or they
might make such division, if not before made, as
would require the next Senators to be elected from
that section of the State most opposed to slavery
or in favor of emancipation. Again, they might
defeat the election of some favorite of the State,
by requiring the Senator to be elected to be taken
from a district of the State in which the favored
candidate of the State did not reside.
Instances need not be multiplied. This power
in the hands of Congress might be wielded to the
great detriment of the States in this and many
other modes.
You would thereby enable Congress to control
to a certain extent the election of Senators, and
thus this branch of the National Legislature,
where the States in their sovereignty are repre-
sented-where especially we look for protection
against majorities in Congress-might be injui-
ously operated on by these very majorities-the
States and the rights of the States disregarded,
or it may be, sacrificed.
Mr. BOWIE was surpised at the question of the
gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Randall.)
He asked him [Mr. B.] whether he was willing
that Congress should have the power to district
State in reference to the elections to the House of
Representatives? He [Mr. B] said, if they had
it in one branch, they had it in the other; because,
although the States might make any rules and
regulations respecting the time, place, and man-
ner of holding elections, yet Congress was author-
ized to alter them at pleasure, except only as to
the place of choosing a Senator. To show, there-
fore, that under the Constitution, the power was
granted to Congress to make uniform laws on this
subject, he would refer again to the language of
the Constitution of the United States:
"The times, places and manner of holding
elections for Senators and Representatives shall be
prescribed in each State by the Legislature there-
of, but the Congress may at any time, by law.
make or alter such regulations, except as to the
place of choosing Senators."
Now, that was clear, broad and comprehensive,
so that he who ran might read. Was there any
thing wrong, then, in his argument that Congress
possessed the power to alter and change any rule
or regulation which the States might make in re-
lation to the time and manner of choosing Sena-
tors? He thought not. The Constitution had
declared that regulations respecting the manner |
of choosing Senators shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof, but Congress
may, at any time, by law; alter such regulations.
That is, such regulations as to time and manner,
as well in regard to Senators as to members of
the House of Representatives. If the power ex-
isted in relation to the one, it must necessarily
exist as to the other. And, lie would ask, did his
friend suppose that he would deny to Congress
the power, because the same power was also
clearly granted to the States? He [Mr, Bowie]
would not go so far as that, although it might, to
some extent, strike down the power of the States
over the same subject. The power was lodged in
Congress concurrently with the Legislatures of
the States. Whenever they chose to exercise that
power, they could do so, subject to the supervisory
power of Congress, precisely as a State has a
right to pass an insolvent law or a bankrupt law,
in the absence of a uniform bankruptcy act by
Congress—precisely as Judge Story says they
had a right, under the old Constitution, to pass
naturalization laws, in the absence of that power
not being exercised by Congress. Under the old
articles of Confederation, such laws were con-
curred in until they were otherwise provided for
by Congress. This was a power derived solely
from implication—a power derived only from the
inherent and reserved rights of the States. But
here it was expressly delegated to Congress, and
also expressly delegated to the States, in the absence
of legislation by Congress. Each State
shall prescribe by legislative enactment such rules
and regulations as to the times, places, and man-
ner of holding elections, with the reservation,
however, to Congress to alter them in cases where
they have been made by the States, or to make
them, in cases where they have not been made by
the States.
Congress had undoubtedly jurisdiction over
the subject. The grant was there—the power
was there, in black and white, too plain for any
man to controvert or deny. As to the conse-
quences, his friend from Anne Arundel (Mr.
Randall,) in his imagination, might carry them
out to any extent. It was true, that if the abo-
lition party should gain the ascendancy—if the
doctrine of free soilism should succeed in Con-
gress, and there should be a clear majority in
that Congress in favor of such doctrines—they
might, he admitted, so district a State as to suit
their party purposes That was one of the
great dangers that we were subject to. But
that was an extreme case, and was not the ques-
tion they were discussing; it was not properly
before them. The States had been laid off into
congressional districts by the States themselves
under an act of Congress, and the question was,
what was the legal effect of such legislation ?
What was the main purpose of it? it was to
prevent the majority from governing and con-
trolling every thing. It was for the protection
of minorities in different portions of the State.
Would gentlemen, in the very face of the Con-
stitution, nullify and utterly destroy the whole
object .and design of districting a State? How
then was he to be charged with culling down
State rights, by acknowledging the right of |
