158 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



amend the bill according to the views of gen- 

 tlemen on the other side, and make the appro- 

 priation in this bill ; but if it does not, then no 

 injustice has been done, because the same ques- 

 tion will come up some other time during the 

 session when we can all discuss it and vote 

 upon it according to our respective views. We 

 say, therefore, you had better take the $600,- 

 000 that is offered you in good faith and not 

 undertake to encumber this bill with amend- 

 ments. The purpose of the bill, not being a 

 general but a special deficiency bill, is to meet 

 cases of emergency. This is the view that the 

 Committee on Appropriations has taken, and 

 delay in passing the bill will undoubtedly work 

 great detriment to individuals as well as to the 

 Government. But no such argument can be 

 made with regard to these special deputies, and 

 the question in reference to their payment can 

 be determined at any time hereafter. It is not 

 urgent at this time." 



Mr. Baker, of Indiana : "It has been argued 

 that the legislation embodied in. the Revised 

 Statutes touching elections is unconstitutional 

 on two grounds : first, because the Constitu- 

 tion does not prescribe the qualifications of 

 electors, and hence that there are no national 

 voters ; and, second, because Congress has not 

 the constitutional power to establish a system 

 for the conduct of elections for Representa- 

 tives. It must be conceded that if Congress 

 has the power to make or alter all the regula- 

 tions touching Congressional elections, it must 

 have the power to enact these provisions of 

 the statute in controversy, as the greater in- 

 cludes the less. It will be my purpose to show 

 that Congress possesses the power, whenever 

 it chooses to exert it, to provide an entire elec- 

 toral system for Representatives. 



"Under the Articles of Confederation the 

 States had sole jurisdiction over the appoint- 

 ment of Representatives. They had the power, 

 which was exerted by one of the States, to re- 

 fuse to send Representatives to the Continen- 

 tal Congress. This was one of the seeds of 

 dissolution existing under the confederacy 

 which the framers of the Constitution under- 

 took to remove. They undertook to form a 

 more perfect Union, to establish a government 

 of the people having within itself the power 

 to perpetuate its own existence. They pro- 

 vided for the choice of Representatives by the 

 people every two years, and prescribed who 

 should be eligible as electors. The Constitu- 

 tion provides, in Article I, section 2 : 



" The House of Kepresentatives shall be composed 

 of members chosen every second year by the people 

 of the several States, and the electors in each State 

 shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of 

 the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. 



" This provision fixes definitely who are 

 electors, and their qualifications. The several 

 States have prescribed the qualifications of 

 electors for the most numerous branch of their 

 State Legislatures. They have thus invested 

 certain persons with the' right of suffrage for 



certain State purposes, while this right is de- 

 nied to the residue of the people. But, being 

 made voters for State purposes, the Federal 

 Constitution expressly invests them with other 

 electoral rights of a national character, name- 

 ly, the right to vote for Federal Representa- 

 tives. Now, if the persons who are made vot- 

 ers by State Constitutions and laws possessed 

 the right by being voters in the State to vote 

 for Representatives in Congress, then the 

 framers of the Constitution are chargeable 

 with folly in prescribing who should be elec- 

 tors for Representatives. If the fathers had 

 not thought this provision of the Constitution 

 conferred some new and additional right, what 

 folly to place it in the Constitution! That the 

 framers of the Constitution considered it im- 

 portant to provide who should be voters for 

 Representatives in Congress is apparent from 

 the language employed in No. LII of the ' Fed- 

 eralist ' : 



" The definition of the right of suffrage is very just- 

 ly regarded as a fundamental article of republican gov- 

 ernment. It was incumbent on the Convention, there- 

 fore, to define and establish this right in the Constitu- 

 tion. To have left it open for the occasional regulation 

 of Congress would have been improper for the reason 

 just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legisla- 

 tive discretion of the States would have been improper 

 for the same reason, that it would have rendered too 

 dependent on the State governments that branch of 

 the Federal Government which ought to be dependent 

 on the people alone. 



" Of what use would it be to ' define and es- 

 tablish the right of suffrage,' if Congress can 

 not protect the voter in its enjoyment? 



"The Federal Constitution having secured 

 to the electors in the several States the right 

 to vote for Representatives, Congress must 

 have the power to guarantee and protect this 

 right. The States are not required to enact 

 laws and provide tribunals to enforce the rights 

 conferred by and existing only under the Fed- 

 eral Constitution. The State governments are 

 provided to protect and enforce State rights ; 

 while the Federal Government is established 

 to protect national rights. But, if it was a 

 duty incumbent on the States to guarantee to 

 each of its citizens the enjoyment of every 

 right conferred by the Federal Constitution, 

 still Congress would possess no method of 

 compelling the States to secure this constitu- 

 tional right to vote against denial or abridg- 

 ment. It is contrary to sound principle to re- 

 mit to the States the protection and enforce- 

 ment of rights conferred by the Federal Con- 

 stitution. It was upon this very rock that the 

 Articles of Confederation so nearly made ship- 

 wreck of the Union. And, notwithstanding 

 the perils and solemn warnings of the past, 

 the State-rights Democrats of to-day would 

 impel the nation on the same fatal rock. If 

 Congress can not guarantee and protect the 

 citizen in the free and peaceable enjoyment of 

 his constitutional right to vote, then the right 

 is a mere glittering generality, dependent for 

 its enjoyment upon the interests or passions of 



