any other qualifications. That is the plain rule of ordinary construction; but, for a reason above all technical considerations, it is applicable here. The object of the Federal Constitution was to have a body framed by a uniform rule throughout the United States, coming here to constitute this great council of the country-coming here by the agency of the same elective power, the State legislatures-coming here under the same requirements, and with the same qualifications and standing here upon a perfect and exact equality in all respects to represent the nation justly and equally, and with a sole regard to the common welfare of the Republic."

[Extract from a speech of Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, adverse to the right of Mr. Trumbull, delivered March 3, 1856, taken from pages 549, 550 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.] "The Senator from Kentucky claims, in Mr. Trumbull's behalf, that the Constitution of the United States has prescribed the qualifications requisite for a Senator, and that no State can add to or subtract from those qualifications.

"I am not disposed to try the virtue of this conclusion by logical tests; I deny the truth of its premises. The Constitution of the United States does not prescribe the qualifications of a Senator in the sense here assumed. Its language is that of exclusion, and not of qualification:

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.'

"In this instance, as in all others, the language of the Constitution was aptly selected with a view to the nature of our Federal Government. It was intended that each Senator should be thirty years of age, and should have been nine years a citizen of the United States, because the duties of his office were thought to require an experienced judgment and considerable familiarity with the course of public affairs. And to secure the election of Senators from all extraneous influence, such as might have been apprehended perhaps from the dictation of the large States or the patronage of the Federal Government, it was furthermore declared that each Senator should not merely be a citizen but an actual resident-'inhabitant'-of the State for which he is chosen.

"I agree that no State can dispense with or subtract from the requisites prescribed in the Federal Constitution; but I can see no pretense for asserting that the States may not superadd any qualification which is consistent with those requisites. A Senator is an officer of the Federal Government; he is also an officer of his own State. He is elected to represent the people of the State, in an aggregate and organized capacity, as one of the sovereign parties to our Federal compact. He is elected, to be sure, by the legislature; but the legislature is itself a body of representatives chosen by the people. His constituency is equal to that of all the members of the legislature taken together. It consists of the people at large acting through counties, districts, or other established subdivisions, and thus expressing the will of the State as a public corporation. While the Federal Constitution might prescribe certain requisites, therefore, in order to secure the interests of the Federal Government, the rights of the citizens of all the States, and the welfare of the whole Union; while it might well do this and bind each State to an observance of such requisites, no reason can be assigned why the people of a Statewhose peculiar representative and officer in equal degree their Senator is-might not prescribe other qualifications, in addition, for the purpose of protecting their separate interests, rights, and welfare. I agree, of course, that such additional requisites must not only be consistent with those specified in the Constitution of the United States, but with the whole spirit and tenor of that instrument. No mischief can result to the Union or to other States from this course of decision; and it leaves to the States that degree of independence, that reservation of powers, which the tenth amendment to the Constitution so plainly inculcates.

"There is no conflict between the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Illinois. They are perfectly consistent. Now, so far as my learning extends there is no principle more firmly established in the law of England and of America than this: that whenever two enactments can stand together-whether they be called constitutions, statutes, or by what name soever they shall stand together, and both shall be obeyed.

"It is suggested, however, that the legislatures of the States derive their power of electing Senators from the Constitution of the United States and not from their respective State constitutions. But this, if admitted to its full extent, will be found immaterial. It is not a power conferred on any legislature as matter of gift or permission from the Federal Government, but as a matter of right, and because the legislature represents the people and acts only as an agent for the people. Surely, I submit, the Constitution of the United States never designed to exalt the agent above the principal, the creature above the creator, the minister above the sovereign, as this proposition assumes."

[Thirty-fourth Congress-Third session.]

JAMES HARLAN,

Senator from Iowa from March 4, 1855, to January 12, 1857, and from January 29, 1857, till May 15, 1865, when he resigned.

December 13, 1854, the legislature of Iowa met in joint convention in the hall of the house of representatives for the purpose of electing a United States Senator for the term beginning March 4, 1855. After several ineffectual ballots and adjournments they met January 5, 1855, and adjourned to 10 o'clock of the next day. After this adjournment of the joint convention the senate returned to its own chamber and adjourned to the same hour. When the senate met January 6, it at one adjourned till 9 o'clock, January 8. The senate, therefore, not being in session after 10 o'clock on January 6, did not proceed to the hall of the house as a body, though certain members of the senate attended. The body thus assembled consisted of a majority of the house and a minority of the members of the senate, together constituting a majority of the members of the convention. They proceeded to ballot, and Mr. Harlan received 52 votes (52 being a majority of the members of the joint convention), and was declared duly elected. The senate of Iowa sent resolutions to the United States Senate protesting against the validity of the election. Mr. Harlan was admitted to the seat December 3, 1855, the first day that Congress met in the term for which he was elected. December 15, 1856, the subject was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. January 5, 1857, the committee reported the proceedings of the Iowa legislature and the resolution "that the seat of the aforesaid gentleman be declared vacant," which resolution passed the Senate January 12, 1857, by a vote of 28 yeas to 18 nays. The question to be decided by the Senate, which was debated at great length, was whether the body electing Mr. Harlan was the legislature of Iowa within the meaning of the first clause of the third section of Article I of the Constitution; whether it was essential to the va lidity of the election that the senate as a body should be present, or whether a majority of the individual members of the convention constituted the legislature even if the senate as a body was not present, nor even a majority of the members composing the senate. Extracts from speeches, which are given below, give a full statement of the facts and points discussed by the Senate. The history of the case here given consists of an extract from a speech of Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in support of the resolution reported by the committee, taken from page 249 of the Congres sional Globe, 3d sess. 34th Cong., 1856-'57; an extract from a speech of Mr. Seward, of New York, in opposition to the resolution, taken from pages 260, 261 of the same volume; a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to the case from Senate Journals, 2d sess. 33d Cong., 1st and 2d sess. 34th Cong., and 3d sess. 34th Cong.; and the report of the committee from Senate Reports, 3d sess. 34th Cong., Report No. 300.

The debates in the case are found in the Congressional Globe, 3d sess., 34th Cong., 1856-'57.
Special references to the debates of each day are inserted below.

[Extract from speech of Mr. Bayard delivered January 7, 1857.]

"The substantial facts of the case I understand to be these: A resolution was passed in the house of representatives of Iowa on the 13th of December, 1854, proposing to the senate of Iowa to meet in joint convention on the 15th of December for the purpose of electing a Senator of the United States. The resolution was amended by the senate by fixing 2 o'clock or 2.30 o'clock of the same day for the joint meeting. The house concurred in the amendment, and the bodies went into joint convention on that day, a quorum of each house being present when they met. They proceeded to ballot, and having balloted ineffectually they adjourned at various times-on one occasion, I think, from the 14th of December, 1854, to the 5th of January, 1855. On the 5th of January they met, and still failed to elect a Senator. They adjourned to 10 o'clock on Saturday morning, the 6th of January. The senate (as throughout the whole of these proceedings it appears each house did) after they separated returned to their own chamber and adjourned to the same hour on the next day. When the senate met at 10 o'clock on the 6th of January they, without doing any business whatever, adjourned to Monday at 9 o'clock. This adjournment was carried by a vote of the majority, on the yeas and nays-16 to 15-the whole body, consisting of thirty-one members, being present. The senate of Iowa was, therefore, not in session on Saturday after 10 o'clock.

“The house of representatives met at what hour I do not know; but after transacting appropriate business as a house of representatives they proceeded to receive, not the senate of Iowa, which was not in session, but to receive members of the senate of Iowa as members of the joint convention; and when those members were assembled there, together with the members of the house, they constituted a majority of the two branches combined, that is, a majority of the whole number of persons in the convention. But there was present-I speak now of persons present in the sense of legal presence, as evidenced by the vote-only a majority of the house and a minority of the senate, a quorum of one body and not a quorum of the other. The speaker of the house assumed that the members thus assembled were a regularly-organized convention of the legislature with the power to elect a United States Senator. No vote was taken by the convention

on that point. An appeal was taken from the decision and it was contended that the house ought to decide whether it was organized. That appeal the speaker denied, and there was no vote taken by the convention on that question at all. The roll was called, and as a majority of the members of both branches (not a majority of each branch) answered to their names the speaker declared that the joint convention was regularly organized according to its adjournment, and they proceeded to vote for a United States Senator. After electing first a teller in lieu of the senate teller, who was absent, and also a president pro tempore of the convention, the members proceeded to vote viva voce for a Senator of the United States. A majority of the members of the house of representatives voted, but only fifteen senators voted on that occasion.

"These are the real facts of the case as they appear from the journals and papers. On the vote to which I have just alluded being taken, it was declared that the honorable gentleman who now holds the seat was regularly elected to the Senate of the United States; and he came here and was admitted. The senate of Iowa met on the Monday morning next after the adjournment of Saturday, and after this alleged election had taken place, and their first act was to protest against it as done without their authority as a co-ordinate branch of the legislature of Iowa.

"It will be observed also from the facts of this case that the journals show that on all occasions when the two houses met they met as houses; a message was sent from one house to the other. The record shows that the senate, preceded by its president, came to the hall of the house of representatives, and the members of the senate had seats assigned them as a co-ordinate branch of the legislature; and after that was done, at all previous meetings, they proceeded to vote. On this occasion there was no senate in session; but the record shows that several members of the senate, without saying how many, were present. The fact is conceded, I understand, that there were but fifteen members of the senate who voted on that occasion, the whole senate consisting of thirty-one; and hence less than a quorum of the senate participated in the election.

"On this state of facts the question which I suppose to arise is, whether 'the legislature' of a State, under the language of the Federal Constitution delegating to the legislature the right to elect Senators of the United States, is to be taken to mean the individual members of the legislature or the body or bodies of which the legislature is composed. I suppose the term as used in the Constitution means the bodies of which the legislature is composed. The honorable Senator from Georgia, if I appreciate his argument, insists that the power being delegated to the legislature is vested in the members of the legis lature, and that whenever a majority of the members of the whole legislature under a law such as that existing in Iowa vote for a man he is elected, though one of the coordinate branches of that legislature may not vote for him, and may, as a body, refuse to go into an election. Sir, I hold it to be a principle of law which has, I think, no exception that where two integral bodies are authorized to do an act it cannot be done without the consent of those two integral bodies. They must both be present and act in the matter or there can be no validity in the act done. This is a universal law. I can call to mind no case where a contrary principle prevails, whether relating to legislative action or corporate action. Indeed, in reference to corporations it has been decided over and over again that where there are two integral bodies who must concur in an act they must both be present and act upon the matter as bodies, not as individuals." [Extract from speech of Mr. Seward delivered January 9, 1857.]

"The objections rest on these grounds:

"First. That the legislature of Iowa consists of two co-ordinate branches. "Second. That it can do no valid act without the co-ordination and co-operation of both of those branches, each acting, or at least appearing in the transaction distinctly by a majority of this branch, or a quorum of it.

"I think the objection is unsound. The legislature of Iowa sustains double relations— one a local one, as the law-making authority of Iowa; the other, Federal, an electoral college to choose Senators in Congress from Iowa. In the one relation, it acts exclusively under the constitution of Iowa; in the other, exclusively under the Constitution of the United States. I may concede that in the former relation it must act by independent co-operation or co-ordination of both houses in all cases.

"I admit that the regulations, which are under review, do require the two houses to resolve themselves into one common body, in which the separate identity or individuality of those separate branches is extinguished, for the purpose of choosing a Senator in Congress. And that, when the merger has been made, and the convention constituted, it is independent of each of the two branches, and as to that transaction supersedes them both, and cannot be terminated or arrested by its own act, or by the concurrent and co-ordinate action of the two houses, being a creation of both.

"In this view, the appearance of the senators in their collective capacity at the convention was merely formal, proper in itself, but of no essential value; and the failure of the

senators to practice the same form cannot vitiate the election, nor can the subsequent protest of the senate.

"It is alleged that such a complete extinguishing of the two houses of the legislature is anconstitutional.

"But it is too late to raise that question. Legislatures in the States are divided into two distinct houses, whose members differ generally in qualifications or in terms of service, to secure delay and deliberation and moderate collision in acts of legislation. But this very delay, deliberation, and collision practically disqualifies such bodies from acting as an electoral college.

"It was found necessary in the very beginning of the Government to provide for bringing the two branches of the legislature to an agreement in that case.

"The expedient adopted was the simple one, probably the only practicable one, of merging the two houses into one, for this purpose. The expedient has been adopted in nearly all the States, and is used either in the first instance, as in Iowa, or a last alternative, in case of disagreement, as in New York, Georgia, and Virginia. It has been acquiesced in by the Senate of the United States from the first, and is therefore settled and constitutional.

"Nor is it without reason. The legislature of a State is merely a college of suffragans interposed between the Senate of the United States and the people of the States. The choice of the legislature is the indirect choice of the people of the State.

"The function of choice is in no sense one of a legislative nature. It is an extra-legislative act, an executive transaction, an action, so to speak, ex officio. The Constitution of the United States gives supreme right to Congress to prescribe in what manner the legislature of a State shall perform that act independently of all State constitutions. "The Congress of the United States has practically waived this right, and devolved that duty on the legislature of Iowa, as it was authorized to do by the Constitution of the United States.

"The manner prescribed by the legislature of Iowa does not conflict with any article of the Constitution of the United States. It would not be at all affected by any conflict with the constitution of Iowa, insomuch as no control over the subject whatever resides in the people of Iowa by whom the constitution was made.

"Mr. President, this transaction is a judicial one. I have approached it, I trust, free from partiality or prejudice. The question is an important one. The decision may be drawn into a precedent to affect hereafter the rights of sixty States, and the safety, welfare, and union of this confederate Republic hundreds of years hence, when this people shall number, not as now by tens, but by hundreds of millions.

"I therefore confine my judgment to this case as it stands on the facts. I do not prejudge other cases which shall present other facts, nor lay down principles for other and extreme cases. I can foresee possible abuses to come from a misapplication of the principles I have adopted. But abuses will attach themselves to all principles as barnacles will to the smoothest and strongest bottoms.

"I repose on my conclusion with the more confidence because it is one which tends to secure the Senate, and through it the Federal Government, against the efforts of faction and of ambition to disorganize the Union and subvert the republican Government here, which is the chief guarantee of civilization everywhere."

SATURDAY, March 3, 1855.

The President pro tempore laid before the Senate a letter of the president of the senate of Iowa, accompanied by resolutions of the senate of that State, relative to the joint convention alleged to have been held by the general assembly of Iowa for the election of an associate judge and a United States Senator; which was read.

Ordered, That it lie on the table.

MONDAY, December 3, 1855.

Mr. Jones, of Iowa, presented the credentials of the Hon. James Harlan, chosen a Senator by the general assembly of the State of Iowa "to represent" the said State "in the Senate of the United States;" which were read.

On motion by Mr. Mason, the resolutions of the senate of the State of Iowa, communicated March 3, 1855, were read.

The oath prescribed by law was administered to Mr. Harlan, and he took his seat in the Senate.

[These resolutions are found in the report of the committee given below.]

THURSDAY, August 14, 1856.

On motion by Mr. Jones, of Iowa, that the credentials of the Hon. James Harlan, of Iowa, with the resolutions of the senate of Iowa relative to his election as a Senator from that State, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ordered, That the further consideration of the motion be postponed to and made the special order of the day for to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

[Remarks in regard to the reference of the subject to a committee are found on page 2098 of the Congressional Globe, part 3, 1st sess. 34th Cong., 1855-'56.]

FRIDAY, August 15, 1856.

On motion by Mr. Hunter that the special order of the day be postponed, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 201) making appropriations for certain civil expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1857, it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 27, nays 19.

[The vote may be found on page 593 of Senate Journal, 1st and 2d sess. 34th Cong., 1855-'56.]

[A debate on the subject of postponement is found on pages 2129 and 2130 of the Congressional Globe, part 3, 1st sess. 34th Cong., 1855-'56.]

MONDAY, December 15, 1856.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made by Mr. Jones, of Iowa, the 14th of August last, to refer the credentials of the Hon. James Harlan to the Committee on the Judiciary.

On motion by Mr. Bayard to amend the motion by striking out "to the Committee on the Judiciary" and inserting "a select committee,

The question was put on referring the same to the Committee on the Judiciary, and it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 31, nays 13.

[The vote is found on page 42 of the Senate Journal, 3d sess. 34th Cong., 1856-'57.] So it was

Ordered, That the credentials of the Hon. James Harlan, of the State of Iowa, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[A statement of the facts of the case by Mr. Harlan, also a debate on the question whether the subject should more properly go to the Committee on the Judiciary or to a select committee, are found on pages 112-117 of the Congressional Globe, 3d sess. 34th Cong., 1856–’57.]

MONDAY, January 5, 1857.

Mr. Butler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the credentials of the Hon. James Harlan, a Senator from the State of Iowa, reported the following resolution:

'Resolved, That the seat of the aforesaid gentleman be declared vacant." Ordered, That the report be printed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

[The Committee on the Judiciary consisted of Messrs. Butler (chairman), Toucey, Bayard, Geyer, Toombs, and Pugh.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JANUARY 5, 1857.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Butler made the following report:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the credentials of the Hon. James Harlan and the protest of the senate of Iowa, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following statement:

The following proceedings were had in the legislature of the State of Iowa in the election of a United States Senator:

SATURDAY, December 9, 1854. "Resolved (the senate concurring), That the house of representatives will meet the senate in the hall of the house on Tuesday next at 2 o'clock p. m., for the purpose of electing a Senator of the United States and judges of the supreme court.

"On motion,

"The resolution was laid on the table."

DECEMBER 12, 1854.

Resolution fixing the time for the election of a United States Senator was taken up and amended so as to fix Friday, the 15th instant, as the day for an election.

64

Message from the senate, by Mr. Rankin, their secretary:

"Mr. SPEAKER: I am instructed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has concurred in the house resolution to go into joint ballot on Friday, the 15th instant,