Twenty Years of Congress, Volume 2: From Lincoln to Garfield, with a Review of the Events Which Led to the Political Revolution of 1860Blaine, James Gillespie
History
Twenty Years of Congress, Volume 2: From Lincoln to Garfield, with a Review of the Events Which Led to the Political Revolution of 1860
Blaine, James Gillespie
United States -- History; United States -- History -- 1865-1898
Mr. Stockton took his seat on the first day of the ensuing session
(December 4, 1865) and was regularly sworn in. At the same time the
protest was presented by Mr. Cowan of Pennsylvania and referred to the
Judiciary Committee. That committee was composed of five Republicans
and two Democrats, and was therefore politically biased, if at all,
against Mr. Stockton. On the 30th of January, after a patient
examination of nearly two months, the committee, greatly to the
surprise of the Republican side of the chamber, reported that "Mr.
Stockton was duly elected and entitled to his seat." The report was
said to have been approved by every member of the committee except
Mr. Clark of New Hampshire. The validity or invalidity of the election
hinged upon the ability of the joint convention of the two branches to
declare a plurality sufficient to elect. The committee decided that
the convention possessed that power, and the report, drawn by Mr.
Trumbull, argued the point with considerable ingenuity.
The subject came up for consideration in the Senate on the 22d of March
(1866), Mr. Clark, the dissenting member of the committee, leading off
in debate. He was ably sustained by Mr. Fessenden, who left little to
be said, as was his habit in debating any question of constitutional
law. He maintained that "the Legislature, in the election of a
United-States senator, is merely the agent of the Constitution of the
United States to perform a certain act. It is therefore under the
control of no other power. No provision of the Constitution of New
Jersey, directing the mode in which a senator shall be elected, or the
course that shall be taken, or the rules of the proceeding, would bind
in any way the Legislature which is to perform the act. Nor would any
law of a previous Legislature have binding force. The existing
Legislature is independent of every thing except the Constitution of the
United States; but while it is thus independent and may disregard those
provisions, being the mere agent of the Federal Constitution, still it
must necessarily act as a Legislature in the performance of that duty.
There must be a _legislative_ act. . . . Whatever is done in relation
to the election of a senator, must be done as a consequence of
legislative action, otherwise it is no election by the Legislature.
They vote to form a convention for the purpose of choosing a senator,
and when they meet in convention that choice may be made. If there is
legislative action previously that is sufficient. The convention can
choose a senator because there has been legislative action which
authorizes them to choose a senator in that form. The Legislature,
when it votes to go into a convention of the two branches, may provide
the mode of election. If it desires to change the ordinary and
received law on the subject it may provide how the election shall be
made. It may say that a plurality shall elect if it pleases. It may
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account