The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 2] Page: 1,853
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:
1853
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
1854
March, 1824.
Massachusetts Contested Election.
H. op R.
fond of technical phraseology, he had the animus
revertendi, but, unfortunately, he had a much strong-
er animus manendi, which proved victorious, and
kept him from returning, which, had he done, he
would have avoided his present difficulty. But,
sir, what has. all this trumpery about the quo ani-
roo, tile animus revertendi vet.manendi, about Vattel,
and Pufi'endorff, and all that sort of thing, to do
with this plain question of Constitutional law and
fact1? Just about as much as we have with the
man in the moon.
Gentlemen seetn to have fallen into some strange
hallucination on this subject. In maintaining their
doctrine, they undertake to subvert a plain and
imperative requisition of the fundamental statute
of this land, by applying to it, constructively, the
principles of the common law of nations. Suppose,
that in some of the State courts, any lawyer, in a
plain case of law and fact, a case where a statute
applied explicitly to some crime, a case in which
the evidence was completely made out, and the
law and the fact in entire unison—what would be
thought, in such a case, of any lawyer who should
attempt to overthrow, by applying to it the prin-
ciples of the British common law, from Black-
stone, or by preaching a politico-moral homily
from Paley and Beccaria 1 And yet it would be
of a piece with what is now attempted.
Mr. Speaker: I have prescribed to myself a
very plain and simple method of construing this
instrument which I hold in my hand, the Consti-
tution of the United States—a method which, if
pursued with a view solely to the truth, will gen-
erally be right. It is, to take the plain vernacular
meaning of the words in which any subject is
couched, and endeavor, in their plain sense, to
find what was the intention of its Cramers. Hav-
ing, to the best of my judgment, done this, I ad-
here to that interpretation, without attempting to
bend or twist it to answer, by a strained construc-
tion, any other purpose—which, were I to do, I
should be guilty of treason against my under-
standing and my moral sense. I have applied
this rule to that part of the Constitution which
says "that no person shall be a Representative,
who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-
five years, and been seven years a citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected,
be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall
be chosen." Prom which, it appears to me, that
the fratners of the Constitution meant to exclude
two orders of persons from the House of Repre-
sentatives as members—-persons who are not citi-
zens of the United States, and citizens who are
habitual non-residents of the States in which they
are elected. So that the Constitution demands,
in so many words, that, to be a Representative, it
is not only necessary to be a citizen of the United
States, but, in addition to this, a person to become
so, must live among those who are to become his
constituents; evidently drawinga plain and marked
line of distinction between citizenship and inhabi-
tance. I do not believe it ever entered into the
contemplation of the framers of the Constitution
that Ministers and Consuls resident in foreign
countries, or heads of Departments, or their clerks,
residing in this District, or any other persons,
living in any of the Territories the property of the
United States, were proper persons for selection
as members of this House. Ministers resident, by
the very force of the term, and the nature of the
office, includes the idea of inhabitance, pro hew
vice. But a man may cease to be an inhabitant
of one place or country, without having a fixed
or permanent residence anywhere. A man leav-
ing this country and travelling thirty or forty
years over Europe, Asia, and Africa, could hardly
be said to be an inhabitant, all this time, of the
United States. I should like to know by what
sort of hocus pocus, Ministers and Consuls re-
siding habitually at foreign Courts and mercantile
places, in foreign countries, or Heads of Depart-
ments, and their clerks, residing for a series of
years in the District of Columbia, surrounded with
all the means and appliances of domestic enjoy-
ment, having their wives and children, being
housekeepers, in possession of wealth, and all the
comforts of life, can be all this time living in
Georgia or Massachusetts, or any other State in
the Union?
Gentlemen fall into this error by confounding
the abstract political right of citizenship with, the
act of inhabitance which the Constitution re-
quires; but, sir, I consider them doubly disquali-
fied from becoming members of this House, by
habitual residence out of the State for which they
were, or might be, elected, (I know of no better
definition of inhabitance than.habitual residence;
I would thank any gentleman for a better,) and
office-holding under the United States, which, so
long as they continue to do, is a disqualification
in the face of that part of the Constitution which
requires that " no person holding any office under
the United States shall be a member of either
House during his continuance in office"—showing
clearly an intention to keep distinct and immisci-
ble the executive and legislative functions of the
Government; and, sir, to return to the gentleman
from Massachusetts, I feel no hesitation in saying
that his seat ought to be vacated upon this ground,
if he labored under no other disability. I know
the decision in the case of Herrick and others,
has been quoted as bearing analogy to this part of
the case under consideration, but I never take, as
a precedent to follow, that which I believe is not
founded in truth and principle. I think that de-
cision was wrong, and was so decided only be-
cause a number of persons voted in a case that
tried their own, which, had they been prevented
from doing, as they ought to have been, the de-
cision would have been against them. What are
the facts in the case now before us? Why, that
the election took place on the 8th of September,
1823, at which time he held an office under the
United States, though the Congress for which he
was elected commenced the 4th of March previous,
and he still held the office until the 23d of Octo-
ber thereafter. Sir, I had always thought that
the people made members of the House of Repre-
sentatives, taking care, however, to make them of
such materials as were not obnoxious to the Con-
stitution, which is specific in.prescribing the quali-
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/m1/81/: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.