The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 2] Page: 1,843
1697-3280, cxxxvi p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1843
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
1844
H. ofR.
Massachusetts Contested Election.
March, 1824.
compensated by the acquisition of correspondent
privileges in this District. At all events, no one
can say, with any expectation of being credited,
that lie would not have been eligible had he
crossed the river into Virginia, and resided there
six years, as he has done in this city.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Cook) has
favored the House with an ingenious argument,
but which, when tested, will be found inconclusive
and unsatisfactory. He says we have two forms
of Government, meaning the State and Federal
that to carry on the operation of the latter, the
citizens of one State are sometimes sent into ano-
ther, or into a Territory, in the character of offi-
cers; and that to say they lost the rights of in-
habitants of the States which they might leave,
would be violence to State rights, as each State
had an interest in the service of its citizens. Mr.
O. said this had frequently been the case, and the
officers continued in the State or Territory, and
enjoyed all the privileges of citizens; as in the
case already mentioned, what was lost at one
place was fully made up at another. Correlative
rights press upon the emigrant, and he may enjoy
them it" he chooses. To make the case still more
intelligible, Mr. C. said, he would suppose an in-
habitant of the State of Illinois were appointed
a register of a land office in Ohio, and were to
move with his family there. What would be his
relation in regard to the two States? Certainly
his connexion with the first is severed, and a new
one formed with the latter. Certainly he ceases
to be an inhabitant of Illinois, and becomes a
citizen of Ohio. To affirm the State he left is
still entitled to his allegiance and service, would
give a negative to the right of locomotion—a right
which we see exercised every day without com-
plaint, or any supposed prejudice to the right of
the States.
The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Liv-
ermore) contends, if the word inhabitant be prop-
erly defined by the Committee of Elections, no
person can be eligible to Congress who is not ac-
tually in the State on the day of election. • This,
Mr. C. thought, was putting an extreme case.
Such an idea he supposed no member whatever
entertained. He was certain even the term " lo-
cality of existence," which had been examined
with so much attention, was not intended to con-
vey this sentiment. It could not be said we were
not inhabitants, in the Constitutional meaning of
the term, of the States we respectively represent,
although in the District of Columbia. To de-
clare we would be ineligible, should an extra ses-
sion require our attendance here at the period of
an election, would be an absurdity, without com-
parison. A case may be put to operate equally
strong against the gentleman. The public archi-
tect came to this city six or seven years ago from
the State of Massachusetts, with his family. He
owns real estate, has built himself a house, and is
entitled to all the privileges of a citizen of this
District. Is he an inhabitant of Massachusetts?
The answer is easy. Or, Mr. C. said, he would
put a stronger ease. He knew a clerk who emi-
grated to this place more than twenty years ago
from Maryland, had reared a family, and was the
owner of houses and lots, and appeared located
for life. Would the gentleman say he was eligi-
ble in the State from which he came? Surely
not; or else it must be admitted a man can, at the
same instant, enjoy the same privileges in two or
more separate and distinct jurisdictions. Cases
may be supposed, which prove nothing but their
own folly. Mr. C. said his opinion was, we ought
to give the word inhabitant a rational meaning-
it ought to be construed to a common and judi-
cious intent—not so as to impair rights, yet so as
to guard against the evils designed to be prevent-
ed, which have been ably exposed in the report,
and by the gentleman from New York, (Mr.
Storrs,) and then applied to the facts, as they
have been disclosed.
Such is the condition of man, such are his wants
and necessities, as to require him to be employed
in some avocation. To obtain a livelihood the
means are diversified, as if to suit the versatility
of genius. Some prefer a maritime life; others
choose agricultural and mechanical pursuits;
others seek the learned professions; and not a few
depend on public favor for subsistence. The
clerks of the different departments we know de-
pend almost exclusively on their salaries for sup-
port. A clerkship is one of the many ways of
obtaining a living. It was the sitting member's
preference for the last six years, within which, we
are informed, he intermarried. It seems to me,
said Mr. C., a man's ordinary business indicates
the "locality of his existence." What answer
would a plain common sense man, acquainted
with the circumstances of the case, give to this
question ? Of what place was the sitting member
an inhabitant, at the time of his election 1 Would
he not say of the District of Columbia? Let us
say so, too, and support the resolution submitted
by the committee.
Mr. Owen, of Alabama, addressed the Chair as
follows:
Mr. Chairman: I shall be pardoned by the House
for giving the reasons which influence my course,
when it is known that I am in the minority.
Were I of the majority, at this stage of the inves-
tigation upon this subject, I would not trespass
upon your time, because the world and posterity
always presume that the majority is right. This
presumption is correct, sir; and, as this question
will live beyond the existence of this Congress,
and is to be handed down to those who follow us,
as a precedent, with it, I wish to go the reasoning
upon which my mind compels me to oppose so
large a majority. Sir, I do not rise with the vain
hope (for such it certainly would be) of endeavor-
ing to change the opinion of this House, which
has been so clearly manifested. It is true, that I
should be much pleased were the majority to go
with me, but not so, if induced by any power I
possessed, when their settled opinion was to the
contrary. I am the more anxious upon this sub-
ject, sir, because it is one of Constitutional con-
struction—because it is one that strikes at the very
root of the democratic principle of our Govern-
ment. Were it upon a matter of expediency, or
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales and Seaton. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 2], book, 1856; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30369/m1/76/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.