Page images
PDF
EPUB

by the House of Representatives, to wait on the President of the United States, and to notify him of his re-election to the office of President of the United States. Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be transmitted to DANIEL D. TOMPKINS, esq., of New York, Vice-President of the United States, a notification of his re-election to that office.

February 21, 1821. The resolutions above, being under-consideration, were adopted, and Messrs. Barbour, and King of New York, were appointed the committee on the part of the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 8, 1×21.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President and Vice-President of the United States, and of notifying the persons elected of their election; in which they ask the concurrence of this House.

The resolution was read and concurred in by the House. Mr. Clay, Mr. Sergeant, and Mr. Van Rensselaer were appointed the committee on the part of the House.

February 14, 1821. Mr. Clay, from the joint committee, to whom the subject had been referred, reported the following resolution:

Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the chamber of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, the 14th of February, 1821, and the President of the Senate, seated on the right of the Speaker of the House, shall be the presiding officer of the Senate, and the Speaker shall be the presiding officer of the House; that two persons be appointed tellers on the part of the House to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons elected to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected President and Vice-President of the United States, and together with a list of the votes be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Resolved, That if any objection be made to the votes of Missouri, and the counting or omitting to count which shall not essentially change the result of the election, in that case they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner: Were the votes of Missouri to be counted, the result would be, for A B for President of the United States, votes. If not counted for A B for President of the United States, votes. But in either event A B is elected President of the United States. And in the same manner for Vice-President.

Mr. Barbour explained, in detail, the reasons which influenced the committee in adopting the resolutions which it recommended.

Mr. Clay offered some remarks explanatory of the considerations which governed the committee in recommending the resolutions which had been reported. As convenience rendered it necessary for the Senate to meet this House here, in its own hall, it was due to that body, by courtesy and propriety, that the President should be invited to preside, he being the officer designated by the Constitution to perform a certain duty appertaining to the occasion which called the Houses together. As to the second resolution, the state of the votes for President and Vice-President was well known, though unofficially, and, as the votes of Missouri could not affect the result, it was considered by the committee, to obviate the unpleasant difficulty which would otherwise arise in the joint meeting, better to provide for the case in the manner proposed. This course was deemed by the committee the most expedient, under all the circumstances, and he hoped the House would adopt it, the more especially as the Senate had already concurred in it.

The question was taken on the first resolution and agreed to without a division, though several nays were heard.

The question being stated on the second resolution,

*

*

Mr. Randolph said he could not consent to this special verdict, as it had been called, in the case of Missouri. He could not recognize in this house or the other house, singly or conjointly, the power to decide on the votes of any State. He maintained that the electoral college was as independent of Congress as Congress of them; and we have no right, said he, to judge of their proceedings. He would rather see an interregnum, or see no votes counted at all, than to see a principle adopted which went to the very foundation on which the presidential office rested. Suppose a case, in which some gentleman of one house or the other should choose to turn up his nose at the vote of some State, and say that if it be so and so, such a person is elected; and if so and so, whatyou-call-'im is elected-did not everybody see the absurdity of such a proposition? Mr. R. added other remarks illustrative of his opinion of the course proposed by the resolution, deeming it not only erroneous, but erroneous in a matter of vital importance, in the ascertainment of the person who had been elected by the people Chief

Magistrate of this nation, the most important officer under the Constitution-the monarch-for whoever, in any country, commands the army and navy and collects and distributes the revenue is a king, call him what you will. The time of this House was precious, and he would not consume it by saying all he thought and felt on the subject. Mr. Trimble was far from desiring to consume the time of the House, but he could not give his consent to this resolution. If anything was due to State rights, this resolution ought not to be adopted, as it would, however immaterial in the present case, be cited hereafter as a precedent. It was about to declare, not what was the true vote for President of the United States, but to state it hypothetically. It was the duty of the two Houses to enunciate the true state of the vote for President and Vice-President, and the proposed enunciation would not be the fact. He would rather the votes of Missouri were left out altogether than adopt the course proposed.

Mr. Randolph observed that the gentleman was under some mistake on one point. The Constitution of the United States provides, not that the person having a majority of votes should be President, but a majority of the votes of the electors appointed. Now, he desired to know whether the electors of Missouri were appointed or not.

Mr. Floyd was aware that to agree to the resolution was tantamount to a motion to reject, but he would prefer the latter shape for the question to show more strongly his opinion of it. If they had any power over the votes of Missouri at all, it was when her votes were first received; but no such power existed. He protested against this assumption of authority on the part of Congress, and wished to show his disapprobation of the resolution in the strongest manner.

Mr. Clay said the Constitution required of the two Houses to assemble and perform the highest duty that could devolve on a public body—to ascertain who had been elected by the people to administer their national concerns. In a case of votes coming forward which could not be counted, the Constitution was silent; but, fortunately, the end in that case carried with it the means. The two Houses were called on to enumerate the votes for President and Vice-President; of course they were called on to decide what are votes. It being obvious that a difficulty would arise in the joint meeting concerning the votes of Missouri, some gentlemen thinking they ought to be counted and others dissenting from that opinion, the committee thought it best to prevent all difficulty by waiving the question in the manner proposed, knowing that it could not affect the result of the election.

Mr. Rhea said the Constitution had in it neither waiving or elasticity, and it would not bend to circumstances of expediency. The Constitution had declared the duty of Congress in ascertaining the votes for President; it was not competent for them to mend the Constitution, nor to decide such a question as this proposed, and he was opposed to the resolution.

Mr. Culbreth discussed the resolution at some length, but his argument was directed to proving Missouri a State in the Union, and that therefore her votes should

be counted.

Mr. Tracy was opposed to the resolution because he did not believe that Missouri was a State in the Union, and therefore her votes should not be counted.

Mr. Clay would merely observe that the difficulty is before us; that we must decide it when the Houses meet, or avoid it by some previous arrangement. The committee being morally certain that the question would arise on the votes in joint meeting, thought it best to give it the go-by in this way. Suppose this resolution not adopted, the President of the Senate will proceed to open and count the votes; and would the House allow that officer, singly and alone, thus virtually to decide the question of the legality of the votes? If not, how then were they to proceed? Was it to be settled by the decision of the two Houses conjointly or of the Houses separately? One House would say the votes ought to be counted, the other that they ought not; and then the votes would be lost altogether. In fact there was no mode pointed out in the Constitution of settling litigated questions arising in the discharge of this duty; it was a casus omissus; and he thought it would be proper, either by some act of derivative legislation or by an amendment to the Constitution itself, to supply the defect.

Mr. Rhea took the ground that it was not in the power of this House, or of both Houses, by resolution, to remedy a defect in the Constitution.

The resolution was then agreed to-yeas 90, nays 67.

On motion of Mr. Clay, it was then ordered that a message be sent to the Senate, informing that body that this House, on its part, concurs in the report of the joint committee, and is now prepared to proceed, with the Senate, in the performance of its constitutional duty.

It was determined by general consent, on motion of Mr. Clay, that the members of the House should receive the Senate, on their entrance into the House, standing and uncovered. In the same manner it was determined that a sufficient number of seats on the right hand of the chair should be set apart for the Senators.

Mr. Clay moved that a committee of two members be appointed to receive the Senate and conduct the President of the Senate to the Chair and the members to the seats assigned them.

Mr. Clay's motion was agreed to, not without some opposition, and Messrs. Clay and Hill were appointed accordingly.

Soon after, the Senate came into the hall, preceded by its President and attended by its Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms; and the President was conducted to the Speaker's chair, the Speaker occupying a chair at his left hand.

The President of the Senate then delivered the votes of the States, in the following order, to the committee for counting the votes, (Mr. Barbour, of the Senate, and Messrs. Smith, of Maryland, and Sergeant, of this House,) and the official authentications, &c., were each of them twice read in an audible tone and the votes recorded by the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The scattering votes were as follows: For President, in New Hampshire, there was John Quincy Adams, 1 vote. For Vice-President, there were, in New Hampshire, for Richard Rush, 1 vote; in Massachusetts, for Richard Stockton, 8 votes; in Delaware, for Daniel Rodney, 4 votes; in Maryland, for Robert Goodloe Harper, 1 vote.

When the votes of the electors for Missouri were announced by the President of the Senate and handed to the tellers,

Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, rose and said: Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, I object to receiving any votes for President and Vice-President from Missouri, because Missouri is not a State of this Union.

A motion was then made by a member of the Senate that the Senate do now withdraw to its Chamber; and the question, having been put, was decided in the affirmative.

The House was then called to order.

Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, then rose and submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That Missouri is one of the States of this Union, and her votes for President and Vice-President of the United States ought to be received and counted.

Mr. Floyd followed in an argument that Missouri was a State in the Union, and that her vote should be counted.

Mr. Archer, of Maryland, said that, entertaining the same sentiments as the gentleman from Virginia with respect to the refusal to admit Missouri into the Union, he felt himself bound to move, as he now did, to postpone the further consideration of the resolution indefinitely. He was opposed to this House undertaking to proceed in any manner as to the legality of the electoral votes. He could recognize no power in the House of Representatives on this subject separate from the Senate. The expressions in the Constitution in regard to the counting of the votes of electors, &c., he con

sidered as imperative. All questions arising out of it, according to his construction, must be settled in joint meeting of the two Houses. He could not agree that this House had a right to determine whether any vote should be received or rejected. What are the words of the Constitution? "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted." Does it not follow that the votes must be counted in the presence of the two Houses? For what purpose do they assemble together unless it be to determine on the legality of the votes? If not for this purpose, the joint meeting is for form and show and nothing else. We must, in my apprehension, determine the question in joint meeting, and in no other way.

Mr. Randolph argued that to reject the vote of Missouri or to state it hypothetically was not in the power of the House, as Missouri was a State in the Union. He also went back to first principles. The electoral colleges are as independent of this House as this House is of them. "Your office," said he, "in regard to the electoral vote is merely ministerial. It is to count the votes, and you undertake to reject votes."

To what will this lead? Do you ever expect to see the time when there shall be in the presidential chair a creature so poor, so imbecile, not only not worthy of being at the head of the nation, but not worthy of being at the head of a petty corporation? Do you ever expect to see in that office an animal so poor as not to have in this House retainers enough to enable him to reject the vote of any State which, being counted, might prevent his continuance, and their continuance, and that of their friends, in office? He spoke not of the present incumbent; he was not so wanting in common decency and decorum as to do so; he spoke in reference not only to what is past, but to that which is prospective and which every man who looks the least into futurity must know will happen, and in all probability will very shortly happen. He undertook to say that if this House should, by a vote of indefinite postponement-for the form was immaterial-or in any other way-and it would be observed for the first instance in the person of Missouri, of this much-injured, long-insulted, and trampledupon member of this confederacy, was this example to be set-"if," said he, "you do, for the first time, now receive the votes of a State, it will be created into a precedent, and that in the life-time of some of those who now hear me, for the manufacture of Presidents by this House. The wisest men may make constitutions, on paper, as they please."

What was the theory of this Constitution? It is that this House, except upon a certain contingency, has nothing at all to do with the appointment of President and VicePresident of the United States. What was to be the practice of the Constitution, as now proposed? That an informal meeting of this and the other house is to usurp the initiative, the nominative power, with regard to the two first officers of the Government, in despite and contempt of their decision. Is there to be no limit to the power of Congress no mound or barrier to stay their usurpation? Why were the electoral bodies established? The Constitution has wisely provided that they shall assemble each by itself, and not in one great assembly. By this means assuredly that system of intrigue which was matured into a science, or rather into an art here, was guarded against. But Mr. R. ventured to say that the electoral college of this much-despised Missouri, acting conformably to law and to the genius and nature of our institutions, if it were composed of but one man, was as independent of this House as this House was of it. If, however, said he, per fas aut nefas, the point is to be carried; if the tocsin is to be sounded; if the troops are to be rallied, and Missouri is to be expelled with scorn from our august presence-how august, Mr. Speaker, I leave it for you to decide-there are those who will be willing to take her to their arms.

Mr. Archer, of Virginia, said he was willing to go to as great lengths as any man, in this House to support the rights of Missouri. But he could not maintain, what he would do by voting for this resolution, that Missouri is now a State in the Union.

He was a little surprised at one ground that had been taken on this occasion : that the House had no power to pass any judgment on any return. He always thought that, wherever was lodged the power to receive a return, there was also a power to pass judgment on the validity of that return. Suppose any Territory not within the limits of the United States at the time, Florida, for example, to send votes here for electors; was there no authority by which these votes could be rejected? Suppose a State entitled to twenty-seven votes should send thirty-seven votes, would any gentleman contend that there was no power in this House to judge of the proper number? Could there ever be a pure election-could it ever be ascertained who was elected-in the event of the establishment of a doctrine of that sort?

Mr. Randolph said it was highly probable that the few remarks which he had made might give rise to misapprehensions in the minds of other gentlemen as they had done in the mind of his colleague. He therefore wished to explain. His position he said was misunderstood. It had been said, and pertinently said, that Missouri might be admitted into the Union in more ways than one. His position then was that this is the first instance in which Missouri has knocked at the door and demanded her rights. It is now for us, said Mr. R., by permitting her to come in, or rather, by refraining from extruding her from this hall, to determine whether she shall now be one of our Com

monwealth, or, as the fashion is to call it, of our empire. Mr. R. said he had no doubt that Congress might drive Missouri into the wilderness like another son of Hager. If we do, said he, we drive her at our own peril. If either of the worthy Senators and Representatives from Missouri, whose long forbearance had excited surprise in no man's breast more than that of Mr. R.—he did not mean to blame them for pursuing the counsel of cooler heads than his-had presented themselves here, would you (addressing the Speaker) have felt yourself bound to exclude them from the communion with more than papal power; not only from the cup of wine, but from the bread of life itself? Let me tell my friend before me [Mr. Archer] we have not the power which he seems to think we possess; and if this be a casus omissus in the Constitution, I want to know where we acquire the power to supply the defect? You may keep Missouri out of the Union by violence, but here the issue is joined. She comes forward in the person of her presidential and vice-presidential electors, instead of that of her Representative; and she was thus presented in a shape as unquestionable as that of New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or the proudest and oldest State in the Union. She comes forward by her attorneys-her electors. Will you deny them admittance? Will you thrust her electors, and her's only, from this hall? Mr. R. said his friend had not given to this subject the sort of consideration which he knew him to be capable of giving it. I made no objection, said Mr. R., to the votes of New Hampshire, Maine, or Vermont. I have had as good a right to object to the votes of New Hampshire as the gentleman from New Hampshire has to object to the votes of Missouri. Who made thou, Cain, thy brother's keeper? Who put Missouri into custody of the honorable gentleman from New Hampshire? The electors of Missouri are as much homines probi et legales as the electors of New Hampshire. This, Mr. R. said, was no skirmish, as it had been called. This was the battle when Greek meets Greek; it was a conflict not to be decided between the phalanx and the legion, whether the impenetrability of the one or the activity of the other shall prevail. Let us buckle on our armor, said Mr. R.; let us put aside all this flummery, these metaphysical distinctions, these legal technicalities, these special pleadings, this dry minuteness, this unprofitable drawing of distinctions without difference; let us say now, as we have said on another occasion, we will assert, maintain, and vindicate our rights, or put to every hazard what you pretend to hold in such high estimation.

He

Mr. R. said he recollected perfectly well, in the celebrated election of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr-they live, said he, illustrious examples of the merits of their respective partisans-what were we then told? Why, that we must withdraw our opposition, or there would be no election; that a dissolution of the Union impended; that volcanoes began to play; that earthquakes yawned beneath us; and recollect, sir, we had a President in the chair who had a majority in the House, small as it was. treated the idea of giving away with derision and scorn. We said we will not give away, and you must take the consequences. We appealed, said Mr. R., to the good sense of the nation; and I do now appeal to this nation, said he, whether this pretended sympathy for the rights of free negroes and mulattoes is to supersede the rights of the free white citizens, of ten times their whole number. They gave way, sir, said Mr. R.; the sheep is the most timid and helpless of all animals; it retreats before any attack is offered to it. The President of the United States, said Mr. R., possesses great powers and highly responsible functions, and should be looked up to with veneration and deference, because he is the Chief Magistrate of a people, legally appointed by their suffrages. But a President of the United States appointed by the exclusion of the votes of those who are the same flesh and blood as ourselves-for the people of Missouri are not natives of Missouri, with the exception of a few French and still fewer Spaniardsis no more the Chief Magistrate of this country than that thing, that pageant which the majorities of the two houses proposed to set up just twenty years ago-a President made by law-no, by the form and color of law against the principles of the Constitution, and in violation of the rights of the freemen of this country. Sir, said Mr. R., I would not give a button for him. On his personal account and for his personal qualities I might treat him with respect as an individual, but as Chief Magistrate of this country he would be more odious to my judgment than one of the house of Stuart attempting to seat himself on a throne of England in defiance of the laws of succession and of the opinion of the people. We have, I am afraid, so long basked in the impure atmosphere, not of this House, but of this court, that

Mr. Clay here claimed the floor, which he had yielded to the gentleman only for the purpose of making explanation.

Mr. Randolph took his seat, saying he would give way to the honorable gentleman in everything but one.

Mr. Clay made a short speech, showing that when objection was made at the joint meeting the President of the Senate ought not to have put the motion to withdraw, but should have held that the adoption of the joint resolution in regard to counting the vote of Missouri settled the matter, and that no objection could be entertained. He

« PreviousContinue »