hands, which it not only authorizes but enjoins upon us. The constitution declares that each House shall be the judge of the qualification of its members. It is clearly, then, the duty of the House to expound what is or is not a disqualification; and we are now only about to declare what is such a disqualification-merely to expound the constitution on this head. I know some gentlemen are startled at the idea of expounding the constitution. But do we not do this every day? Is not the passage of every act a declaration on the part of this House that a decision upon it is among their constitutional powers? Or, in other words, is it not an exposition of the constitution? So, in this instance, I will suppose a man returned to serve as a member of this House, and that he is declared, for some reason, to be disqualified from holding a seat. This, according to the gentleman, would be expounding the constitution. We propose doing no more than saying, if the Secretary of State, or Chief Justice, should come here, they cannot hold a seat. We say that an abuse exists under the constitution, and offer a remedy. I have heard some quibbling about the meaning of the word "officer." What is the meaning of office? Agency; it is the office of a man's cook to dress his dinner, of a tailor to supply him with clothes; and it is the office of a contractor to fatten on the land-to acquire lordships, demesnes, baronies-extensive territory— by the advantage he derives from holding the public money, in virtue of his contract. But it is asked, if a contractor is an officer; and whether he can be impeached? because, under the constitution, all civil officers are liable to impeachment. Would you impeach the Marshal of the District of Columbia? It may be answered that you may impeach him, but that you would not probably do so, because that would be breaking a butterfly on the wheel. Would you impeach a deputy postmaster? And yet when the postmaster at New York accepted his appointment, did he not vacate his seat in the Senate? There is no doubt a contractor is an officer pro tempore-it is not an office in perpetuity, but created for a time, and for a particular purpose. And I will ask, if it is not more dangerous to the independence of the two Houses to admit commissioners and contractors within their walls than officers with legal salaries and appointments? If we are to admit either, I say, give me the legal officer, with a determinate salary and definite powers, rather than the contractor who may gain thousands and tens of thousands of dollars by a single job. But, if the gentleman from Vermont is of opinion that a contractor is not an officer, under the constitution, I hope he will join me in another vote, on an amendment which I shall beg leave to offer this goes only to purge these walls, not those of the other House. I mean an amendment declaring void all contracts made with members of either House, and on this principle: between the sessions of the Legislature it is possible for a member to receive a lucrative job, by [H. OF R. which he may put thousands in his pocket, and which being completed in the recess, and there being nobody to take cognizance of it, it will be impossible to apply a remedy. But, I hope this construction, which, so far as relates to our own House, we have an undoubted right to make, will obtain as the true construction of the constitution. But it is said that this House, and Houses which may hereafter meet, may give the constitution a different construction. No doubt of it; and this may operate to the end of time. A former House passed a sedition law; a subsequent House deemed the law unconstitutional. It is true they did not declare it so, and I am sorry for it; but there is no doubt of the fact. Now, we may pass a sedition law again to-morrow, and the people rise up against it, and send different members to represent them. The people may again slumber; as long as you keep your hands from their pockets, they will keep their eyes from yours; and, in the same way, this law may be repealed. I can, therefore, see no force in this objection. The courts of justice undertake to expound the constitution, and shall not the House of Representatives be as competent to do this as any court of justice? I will suppose a case, that of a man condemned under the Sedition law by a tribunal of justice. Suppose men of different principles come on the bench, would they hesitate to reverse the preceding decision of the court? Indisputably not. Here, too, then, we would behold varying and repugnant decisions. Mr. EPPES.-I have no doubt that every objection which can be made to a member of this House holding a civil office during his continuance as a Representative, applies with equal force to his holding a lucrative contract. The framers of the constitution in excluding civil officers from the floor of this House, most certainly intended to prevent any species of dependence which might influence the conduct of the Representative-to_prevent his looking up for preferment to the Executive, or being biased in his vote by Executive favor. A lucrative contract creates the same species of dependence, and every objection which could be urged against an officer, applies with equal force against contractors, who are dependent on the Executive will, and particularly carriers of the mail. While, however, I make this admission, I do not believe we have power to pass this resolution. The words of the constitution are: "No person holding an office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office." These words are plain and clear. Their obvious intention was to have excluded officers, and officers only. It would certainly have been equally wise to have excluded contractors, because the reason for excluding officers applies to them with equal force. We are not, however, to inquire what the constitution ought to have been, but what it is. We cannot legislate on its spirit against the strict letter of the instrument. Our inquiry must be, is he an H. OF R.] ABRIDGMENT OF THE Plurality of Offices. officer? If an officer, under the words of the constitution, he is excluded; if not an officer, we cannot exclude him by law. It is true, as has been stated, that, by the constitution, we are made the judges of the qualifications of our own members. This judgment, however, is confined within very narrow limits. The constitution prescribes the qualifications of a member. We can neither narrow nor enlarge them by law. Our inquiry can go no further than this: has the Representative the qualifications prescribed by the constitution? meaning has been given to the word "office." An extensive How far such a construction of the meaning of this word is warranted, I leave for others to decide. That all contractors are not officers, I am certain. A man, for instance, makes a contract with the Government to furnish supplies. He is certainly not an officer, according to the common and known acceptation of that word. He is, however, a contractor, and, under this resolution, excluded from a seat here. A carrier of the mail approaches very near an officer. The person takes an oath, is subject to penalties, the remission of which depends on the Executive. His duties are fixed and prescribed by law. Near, however, as this species of contract approaches to an office, I do not consider that the word "office" in the constitution can include even this species of contract. I consider the word "office" in the constitution ought to be construed according to the usual import and meaning of that term; and as I do conscientiously believe that the word "office" and the word "contract" cannot be tortured to mean the same thing, I shall vote against the resolution. Mr. ALSTON.-While I am as much opposed as any man to see any holder of public money within these walls, I cannot justify myself in declaring what is or what is not the constitution. If in any case this ought to be done, this surely should be the last. To deprive a member of his seat on the vote of What is its effect? a bare majority, when the constitution has declared that "no seat shall be vacated, but on the vote of two-thirds of the members." Let this House say so, and what becomes of a contractor, if any such there be within these walls? The decision of the House will be in violation of the constitution. No man who knows me will imagine that I have any partiality for contractors holding seats within these walls. I have never held a contract, or received a cent of the public money but for my wages as a member of this House. I am, therefore, as disinterested as man can be on this point. If there is a contractor within the meaning of the constitution, let him be pointed out. certain how I shall vote upon such a proposiI am not tion. But I will not declare beforehand a particular construction of the constitution. believe the case comes within the constitution, If I of which I am not certain, I will vote for clearing the House of such a member. But I will not consent to a majority declaring in this way [MARCH, 1806. what they cannot carry into effect. How can this be done? If you cannot get two-thirds of the members of this House to vacate the seat, I ask what becomes of the resolution declaratory of the meaning of the constitution? But it is idle to pass a declaratory resolution unless it can be carried into effect. One thing I will say, if the mover will modify his resolution so as to impose a penalty on any officer who shall make a contract with a member of Congress, I will give it my consent. For I wish to see no ment. I still adhere to the principle which I man in these walls dependent on the Governset out with, when I entered into public life, for I became a member of the legislature of the State which I have the honor to represent at the age of twenty-one; but there was no office in the gift of any government which I would possess. adhere, and I do not believe I have any relation This is a principle to which I strictly on earth who holds an office, numerous as my relatives are. could not on this occasion, consistent with the Mr. R. NELSON said he was sorry that he oath he had taken to support the constitution, advocate the resolution under consideration. He agreed that it was highly improper for contractors to hold seats in that House, as there were many cases in which they could not give a free and impartial vote; but in his opinion there was no power to exclude members from a seat, unless that power was contained in the constitution. He said he would give his idea of the spirit and meaning of the constitution on this point. They were bound by its letterwhere the letter and the words of it were plain, where, from the wording, the meaning was they were bound strictly to adhere to them; doubtful, or difficult, every member was bound to put that construction which his judgment dictated. But where there was no difficulty, where the words were plain and obvious, he called the spirit of the constitution, or, in other would ever raise his hands against what was words, giving it a meaning which the words would not bear. If this power existed in the constitution, it must be found under that section which declares, that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House, during his continuance in office." The question then comes to the single point: Is a contractor an officer under the constitution? from a seat in this House; but if he is not, he If he is, there is no doubt he may be excluded cannot be excluded. What then is the idea of must be recognized by the constitution, or some an officer under the constitution? It either law passed in conformity to it, for no man under the Government has a right without law to create as many offices as he pleases. The Post MARCH, 1806.] DEBATES OF CONGRESS. Plurality of Offices. [H. OF R. master-General has a right to contract for car- | The passage of such a law will remove the inrying the mail; he may employ for this purpose convenience which might arise from interferWilling decisions made in this House at different fifty, five hundred, or five thousand men. any body thence contend that the Postmaster- times, and will prevent the existence of a differMr. J. RANDOLPH admitted that this might General has the right of creating five thousand ent rule in the two branches of the Legislature. offices? Our constitution has been justly extolled as the freest in the world, and as the best be, as he was convinced it was with many gencalculated to promote the happiness and security tlemen, and hoped it was with all, a question of the people. It has been called free in con- admitting of a fair difference of opinion. It was tradistinction to those despotic governments, a question that respected the construction of where all the offices are held up to sale. Is not the Constitution of the United States. The Are they not point in issue, whether a contractor is or is not this the case with contracts? uniformly given to the lowest bidder? What an officer of the United States, had been set government of principle then is this, which aside by being begged. Gentlemen argue as if proposes to put a construction upon the consti- it was proposed to add a new qualification to tution, by which offices under the Government holding a seat on this floor, when in truth, no shall be thus exposed to sale? But are they in such question existed; the only question was, truth officers of the United States, recognized whether there was an existing disqualification. either by the constitution or laws? No, they While I am up, said Mr. R., permit me to say are not officers of the United States, they are the gentleman from Maryland has, with a pecumere hirelings of the Postmaster-General; he liar infelicity, abandoned the ground which he has not the power of setting up the constitution had first taken. He says that a contract cannot to the highest bidder. If so, it is no longer a be an office, because the former are put up to free constitution; it does not deserve the eu- sale; and because no man, under the constitufinite number of offices. And yet, how are logiums which have been so justly passed tion, can possess the power of creating an indeupon it. Mr. EARLY.-I would not rise to trouble you those men who carry the mail or discharge the were not the yeas and nays to be recorded on duties of postmasters appointed, but on the. The President this question. I am as fully sensible as the mere dictum of the Postmaster-General? And honorable mover of the resolution, or any other how are foreign Ministers appointed? They As to the gentleman on this floor, of the extreme impro- are not appointed by law. priety, to say the least of it, of persons remain- nominates as many as he pleases, and is only ing members of this House who hold a contract limited by the money at his disposal. under the Government to which any emolu- offices under the Postmaster-General, as has ment is attached. With him and them I be- been alleged, being let to the lowest bidder, I We are lieve, that of all descriptions of appointment, believe it would be difficult to establish the allethis is the most improper to be blended, where gation. I understand that that is not the printhe emoluments are not fixed by law, but rise ciple on which they have been let out. or fall with circumstances. I am therefore as told that a contract is nothing but a bargain. willing as any person can be to adopt any It certainly is a bargain. But suppose the office measure to effect a remedy of this evil, which of Postmaster-General, as that seems in this dewe possess the constitutional right of doing. bate to have engaged so much of the attention My difficulty on this subject is not the same of gentlemen, should be let to the lowest bidwith that presented to the minds of some gen- der; would the person that discharged those tlemen, that we are not authorized to pass a duties be less an officer of the United States? resolution putting a construction upon the con- There is one office which I believe is always let stitution. On this subject, by the constitution to the lowest bidder-a common executioner. we are made judges of the qualifications of the Who is he? The deputy of the sheriff: and members of this House. If so, we are neces-quo ad hoc, he is as much an officer as the supesarily judges of their disqualification also. One rior who employs him. power implies the other. I therefore have no The simple question difficulty on this score. is, in my mind, whether a contractor is an officer under the constitution? My own opinion is decidedly in the negative-an opinion formed after the most mature reflection. I can appeal | to you, sir, that I have sought after truth on this subject with industry; and I can appeal to other members to attest my having contemplated early in the session the offering a resolution as the foundation of a law, to give effect to the object of the gentleman from Virginia, to declare void any contract made by any officer under this Government with any member of either House. So far I am prepared to go, if any member shall introduce such a proposition. Mr. ELMER said it was perfectly clear to him, that the members of that House were not at liberty to vote for the resolution under consideration. Both common sense and the constitution forbade considering a contract in the light of an office, and he had never before heard it contended that they were equivalent terms. He would cordially give his vote for any law which could be constitutionally passed, to get rid of speculation and corruption of any sort, but the oath which he had taken to support the constitution limited his power, which he could not transcend. Mr. KELLY said he would concisely assign the reasons which would induce him to vote against the resolution. He did not believe an H. OF R.] Yazoo Claims. [MARCH, 1806. officer and a contractor meant the same things. The bill having been read the first timeMr. R. NELSON said he should not, on this occasion, go into an examination of the principles of the bill, as they were well understood by the House. They went to practise one of the grossest impositions he had ever known. In order to get rid of what he considered a stain on the statute book, and a disgrace to the nation, he moved that the bill be rejected. The question was accordingly put from the Chair, "Shall the bill be rejected?" On the motion of Mr. LEIB, it was deter The question was then put, Shall the bill be rejected? and passed in the affirmative-yeas 62, nays 54, as follows: YEAS.-Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, Levi Casey, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, John Dawson, Elias Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas Halsey, Earle, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Peterson John Hamilton, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Michael Leib, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Several allusions, said Mr. K., have been Moore, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger made to cases which have occurred under the Nelson, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, John Postmaster-General, but until these shall be Pugh, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John particularly pointed out, it will be impossible Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Samfor us to decide how we are to act. I believe mons, Thomas Sanford, Ebenezer Seaver, James that it does not become this House to pass de Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, claratory acts relative to the constitution. It Henry Southard, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, ought, in my opinion to stand on its own foot- Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Whitehill, ing; and every case that is presented ought to Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alexander be decided, not by a declaratory act, but by the Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston. constitution itself. My colleague says that the Betton, Barnabas Bidwell, John Campbell, John NAYS.-Willis Alston, jun., Joseph Barker, Silas judges of the federal as well as State courts Chandler, Martin Chittenden, Orchard Cook, Jacob take an oath as well as we do, to support the Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, constitution; and that, notwithstanding they Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jun., William Dickson, are in the daily habit of construing the consti- James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William tution. But there is a wide difference between Ely, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, their deciding particular cases which properly Isaiah L. Green, Seth Hastings, William Helms, come before them, and this House going into a David Hough, John G. Jackson, James Kelly, Joseph general declaration without any such particular Lewis, jun., Matthew Lyon, William McCreery, Jerecase. Would the judges undertake to declare miah Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelthe meaning of the constitution without the ex-son, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, John Rusistence of a particular case calling for their de-sell, Peter Sailly, Martin G. Schuneman, John Cotcision? So that the very thing which the ton Smith, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, Lewis House is about doing, has been invariably avoided by the judges. The question was then taken by yeas and nays on agreeing to the resolution-yeas 25, nays 86. MONDAY, March 31. Yazoo Claims. A message was received from the Senate informing the House that they had passed a bill to carry into effect the provisions of the eighth section of the "Act regulating the grants of land, and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States south of the State of Tennessee." Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas W. Thomp- So the bill was rejected. Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved that the House adjourn. He said that a few days ago the House had adjourned on account of the death of General Jackson. He hoped they would now adjourn on account of his resurrection. For he had told him, that if he could give a death-blow to the Yazoo business he should die in peace. Adjourned, yeas 58. APRIL, 1806.] DEBATES OF CONGRESS. TUESDAY, April 1. Plurality of Offices. Plurality of Offices. On motion of Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, the House took up the report of the Committee of the Whole on sundry resolutions agreed to by them When the question was on the 28th ultimo. put on concurring in the report of the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the second resolution as follows: 2. Resolved, That the union of a plurality of offices in the person of a single individual, but more especially in the military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the introducing of an arbitrary Government: [H. OF R. to an officer who has actual command of your Mr. BIDWELL said he would very concisely assign his reasons for voting against this resolution. It declares that "the union of a plurali-ers in the same person, powers which at the ty of offices in the person of a single individual, same time he may be called upon to exercise but more especially of the military with the at different and distant places. To separate civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the these powers is the object of the resolution. I Constitution of the United States, and tends to hope the resolution will be agreed to, and the Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-My friend from Pennsylthe introducing of an arbitrary Government." separation take place. It appeared to him that this was not a correct declaration. If the constitution itself be re-vania has left me little to say on the question, of argument, or assertion, but what I was preferred to, it will appear that it recognizes a and indeed I have heard nothing in the shape union of civil and military offices in the same person. Such a union is to be found in the pared to hear, and of which I apprised the First Magistrate of the United States, who ex- House some time ago. It has come out at last ercises the highest Executive civil functions, from the lips of a man who has prided himself and is at the same time Commander-in-Chief upon being the champion of the Constitution of the Army and Navy, and of the militia while of the United States to-day, although but a few in actual service. The same principle pervaded days ago he threatened us with a dissolution the constitution, he believed, of every State. of the Union, that the constitution has no spirit There was also a union of civil and military in it. He calls on any man to lay his finger on Does it not guarantee to authority in several offices, by acts of Congress. that spirit. What does the Constitution of the This was the case with the marshals in certain United States say? cases, and officers who are charged with the each State a Republican form of Government? If it Is there no spirit in this? Is not the constitusuperintendence of Territorial affairs. were proper, said Mr. B., as I do not think it tion then devised under the influence of a Reis, by a vote of this House, to undertake to de- publican spirit, for the benefit of the people fine the constitution, it still appears to me that who are governed by it, and not for the excluAnd that it is congenial to we cannot consistently say that the union of a sive benefit of those who administer it? Will plurality of offices in the person of a single in- any man pretend to say that a Republic is any dividual, but more especially of the military thing or nothing? with the civil authority, is repugnant to the such a Government that the civil and military spirit of the Constitution of the United States. authority should be vested in the same hands? A declaration of that kind would be a vote Is it not of the very essence of such a Governof censure on the people of the whole United ment that the military should be kept in strict States, for having adopted the Federal Consti- subordination to the civil power? And have tution, on the people of the several States, for not your laws, which give to marshals in cerhaving adopted their constitutions, and on the tain cases a power over the military, been Legislature under both Governments, for hav- passed to keep the military under such subjecing passed laws which authorized such a union. tion? How is the military to be kept in such Mr. J. CLAY said, the objections of the gen- subjection, when, according to the usage of the tleman arose from not having properly consid- Romans, the leader of an army is the Governor But I am ered the nature of the union of civil and mili- of a province? If the constitution has no spirit tary office in the First Magistrate. By the in it, it is a dead, lifeless thing, not worth the constitution, the military was placed in strict protection of any man of sense. For this happy that it has a spirit, which I trust will subordination to the civil power. reason the President of the United States had save this nation, even if its letter shall be placed under his control all the officers of the killed. Army and Navy. The union contemplated in the resolution before you, said Mr. C., is that which gives the actual discharge of civil powers Mr. QUINOY said he would merely observe, that, though it were true that a union of civil and military offices in the same person was |