present session, and at the next Congress it would be no more thought of. Let the inquiry be confined to the individuals suspected, and aimed at once at them. Mr. A. said he was as friendly to Indians as any other man, but he believed that their intelligence was much underrated; and that in most land treaties they got the better side of the bargain.

Mr. HAMER explained why he and others had voted to lay this resolution on the table. No gentleman in that House could desire to screen public agents in malfeasance, nor to prevent the investigation of their conduct, provided reasonable ground of suspicion was exhibited against them; but there could be no need of going back into all transactions in our land offices for ten years. Why did not gentlemen tell the House in what State the supposed frauds had taken place, and in what year they had happened? Let something explicit, something tangible be presented, and he would support the resolution. Mr. BYNUM explained his former remarks, which he supposed had been misunderstood by Mr. Love. He would never urge the question of expense as an objection to investigation, where there were reasonable grounds of suspicion; but otherwise he always should. Let the gentleman exhibit a specific charge, and no man would go farther in bringing it to a full and fair investigation. It never had appeared that the pending resolution had for its object to expose fraud, till the gentleman [Mr. Love] had let it leak out; now, that object was avowed by the mover. Let him move for a select committee, and point out a specific object, and nobody would oppose it. But as to mere idle rumor, got up very possibly for political effect, he would never make that the ground of investigation. The nation had had enough of that matter. They were satiated with it.

Mr. LANE said that, since the resolution had received its present direction, he approved and would vote for it. He passed a very high compliment on the integrity of the people of his own State, who were all, he said, highminded, honorable, and utterly incapable of fraud of any kind.

Mr. MCCARTY explained to Mr. BYNUM, reminding him that he had expressly stated that he did desire the investigation with a view of detecting frauds.

Mr. PLUMMER explained why he had moved to postpone the resolution. He was in favor of sending it to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and hoped that motion would prevail. Mr. P. referred to the investigation which had been ordered in the Senate, and the rigid and searching manner in which it had been made in Mississippi. The returns, he understood, were in the hands of the printer, and would soon be laid before the public. The investigation had cost the blood of one of their most valued citizens.

Mr. BOON said something about moving instructions to the committee, but the motion was premature. The question being put, the resolution was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

The House then proceeded to the orders of the day. Sundry bills from the Senate were twice read, and committed; and

Several engrossed bills were read a third time, and passed.

RICHARD W. MEADE.

The bill for the relief of R. W. Meade, &c., having been announced,

Mr. POLK moved to resume the consideration of the appropriation bill for the civil list.

Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. VANCE opposed the motion. The information Mr. V. desired had not been received; if the motion was pressed, he should be obliged to urge the amendment he had proposed.

After some conversation of a desultory kind, the House

[H. OF R.

refused the motion of Mr. POLK, and consented to the urgent request of Mr. R. M. JOHNSON, by proceeding to consider a bill for the relief of

COLONEL JOHN EUGENE LEITENSdorfer,

And went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. PATTON in the chair,) on that bill. It was passed through committee without debate, read a third time in the House, and passed.

After taking up, and ordering to a third reading, the bill for the relief of Colonel Thomas Buford, The House adjourned.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 24.

MEDAL TO GENERAL MORGAN.

Mr. E. EVERETT from the select Joint Library Committee, reported a joint resolution in effect authorizing Morgan Neville to have re-struck, from the original die, a medal, similar to the one presented by Congress to General Morgan, which had been stolen, and which was supposed to have been melted down.

The resolution having been read a first and second time,

Mr. EVERETT stated that the medal referred to was presented by Congress to General Daniel Morgan, who bequeathed it to the memorialist, Morgan Neville. The memorial of Mr. Neville (upon which this report was founded) set forth that the medal was stolen from a bank in Pittsburg, some years ago, and that all attempts to recover it had failed. The medal was of gold, very highly valued by the family, and was stated to be worth, intrinsically, thirty-one guineas. The memorialist asks that a new medal may be struck for him from the original die, which is, or ought to be, at the mint, in Philadelphia. He did not ask that this should be done at the expense of the Government; though, under all the circumstances, he (Mr. E.) would be willing that it should be done at the public expense. But, as it would be necessary to commit the resolution in that case, which would delay and endanger its passage, he had preferred to move its engrossment in its present form.

The resolution was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. J. Q. ADAMS, from the select committee to which was referred the bill from the Senate in relation to the establishment of the boundary line between the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, reported the same without amendment, and with the recommendation that the House do not pass it.

THE JUDICIARY.

The following resolution, heretofore offered by Mr. HAMER, proposing an amendment to the constitution, was taken up for consideration:

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of amending the constitution of the United States, so as to limit the service of the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts to a term of years."

The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. VANCE, directing an inquiry also into the expediency of amending the constitution, so as to prevent the President of the United States from removing any person from office without the assent of the Senate of the United States,

Mr. ALLEN, of Ohio, remarked that his colleague, the mover of the resolution, was absent, and he therefore asked that the resolution might lie over.

Mr. GAMBLE said he wished to move a substitute for the resolution, by way of amendment.

The CHAIR stated that the motion would not be in order, as an amendment was pending.

On motion of Mr. ALLEN, of Ohio, the further consideration of the resolution was then postponed till Monday.

VIVA VOCE ELECTIONS.

The House then, in the order of business, resumed the consideration of the following resolution, offered by

Mr. REYNOLDS:

"Resolved, That hereafter, in all elections made by the House of Representatives, (for officers,) the votes shall be give viva voce, each member in his place naming aloud the person for whom he votes."

Mr. CROCKETT moved that the resolution be laid on the table.

[JAN. 24, 1835.

Much opposition being manifested to this motion, by cries of "no," "no,"

Mr. CROCKETT asked for the yeas and nays on the motion; and they were ordered.

The question being then taken on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the orders of the day, it was decided in the negative: Yeas 64, nays 146.

The question being then taken on the motion to lay the resolution on the table, it was decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Chilton Allan, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Bates, Baylies, Beaty, Bell, Binney, Briggs, Bull,

Mr. REYNOLDS also moved a call of the House; which was ordered.

The call having been made, 178 members answered to their names.

Mr. GAMBLE moved a suspension of all further proceedings in the call.

Mr. MILLER ssked the yeas and nays on this motion, and they were ordered.

Mr. GAMBLE withdrew the motion.

The absentees being then called, it appeared that forty-five members were absent, for whom no excuses were made.

Mr. EVANS moved a suspension of the call, as the morning hour had expired, and this was a day set apart for the consideration of private business.

Mr. McKINLEY asked for the yeas and nays on this motion; which were ordered-and Mr. EVANS withdrew the motion.

On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, it was ordered that the members in attendance be admitted.

Mr. R. M. JOHNSON moved a suspension of the call. Mr. CROCKETT said he hoped that the House would not proceed to vote on the resolution under consideration, without affording to every member of the House an opportunity to record his vote. It was a proposition to alter an old established principle of our fathers. He called for the yeas and nays on the motion, and they were ordered; whereupon,

Mr. JOHNSON withdrew the motion to suspend the call.

The absentees were again called, when it appeared that there were now present in the House 197 members. Mr. JOHNSON again moved a suspension of the cail; but the yeas and nays being ordered upon it, he with

drew it.

Mr. TURRILL moved an adjournment, which he withdrew, the yeas and nays having been ordered upon it. Mr. HARPER, of New Hampshire, moved a supenIsion of the call.

bers, Chilton, Wm. Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Crane, Crockett, Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Denny, Dickson, Dickinson, Evans, Ewing, Felder, Fillmore, Forester, Foster, Fulton, Gamble, Gholson, Gilmer, Gorham, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine, Hiester, Inge, Wm. Jackson, Ebenezer Jackson, Janes, Wm. C. Johnson, Henry Johnson, S. Jones, King, Lea, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Martindale, Marshall, McCarty, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Miner, Moore, Peyton, Phillips, Pickens, Pinckney, Potts, Reed, Rencher, Shepard, Shepperd, Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Steele, William P. Taylor, Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Trumbull, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, Frederick Whittlesey, Wilde, Williams, Wilson, Young

-102.

NAYS-Messrs. John Adams, John J. Allen, William Allen, Anthony, Archer, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Blair, Bockee, Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Burns, Bynum, Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, Claiborne, Samuel Clark, Clay, Coffee, Coulter, Cramer, Day, Dickerson, Dunlap, Ferris, Wm. K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Gordon, Joseph Hall, Thomas H. Hall, Halsey, Joseph M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Hawkins, Heath, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Huntington, Jarvis, R. M. Johnson, N. Johnson, B. Jones, Kavanagh, Kilgore, Kinnard, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, T. Lee, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, A. Mann, Joel K. Mann, Manning, Mardis, J. Y. Mason, M. Mason, May, McComas, McIntire, McKay, McKim, McKinley, McLene, McVean, Miller, R. Mitchell, Morgan, Murphy, Osgood, Parks, Parker, Patton, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, F. Pierce, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Pope, Ramsay, Rey. nolds, Robertson, Schenck, Schley, Shinn, Smith, Speight, Standefer, Sutherland, F. Thomas, Thomson, Turner, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Whallon-113.

The question being on the adoption of the resolu

tion

tion; which were ordered.

Mr. POLK asked if the messengers had been sent for the absent members.

The CHAIR replied in the affirmative.

Mr. ASHLEY asked if it was in order to call for the orders of the day.

The CHAIR stated it was not, in the present state of the question.

The question was then taken, by yeas and nays, on the motion to suspend the call, and decided in the negative: Yeas 95, nays 109.

The absentees were again called over, when, on motion of Mr. ANTHONY, the call was suspended, without

a count.

The question recurring on the motion of Mr. CROCKETT, to lay the resolution on the table,

Mr. A. H. SHEPPERD called for the orders of the Jay.

One is that ex

the House, and had not heard what had passed. He then asked the Clerk to read the resolution; which being read, he then said, this resolution seems to involve some new and important principles, and, since its introduction, I have found little leisure to reflect upon or investigate them. From the little consideration, however, which I have been able to give this subject, I am induced to be lieve that an appointing power, vested in a legislative body, may be divided into two kinds. ercised by every legislative body in appointing its own officers, whose power and authority are limited entirely to the body which appoints them, and who exercise no general jurisdiction or authority whatever over the rights of the citizen. The other is that often conferred upon, and exercised by, the Legislature, in appointing officers for the nation or State. The former may, with equal propriety, be exercised either by ballot or by an open nomination, viva voce. It partakes of the nature of

the sovereign authority of the citizen when exercising the elective franchise. In my State, when exercised by the citizens at large, it is always by ballot; and it is the same in the State Legislature. We elect our Speaker by ballot, and I am not aware that any inconvenience has been found to result from this rule, or that there has been any attempt made to change it.

But when the appointing power is exercised by a legislative body, for the State or nation, I am clearly of opinion that it should always be done by open nomination. It is then an exercise of delegated power, in which the constituent is interested, and he has a right to know how the trust has been discharged.

[H. OF R.

ject, I am inclined to think that he is not an officer, but a mere contractor. He takes no oath of office, he exercises no authority, but merely contracts with the Government to perform certain services, and gives security for their performance; and, if he does not comply with his contract, he is liable to be prosecuted upon it, and be compelled to respond in damages. But, perhaps, a better criterion for determining whether he is an officer or a contractor, is this: Can he resign? Every officer on whom authority is conferred may resign his office at pleasure, and restore the power to the fountain whence he received it. Not so with the contractor; he has received no power, he has none to resign. He has entered into a contract to perform services, and must perform his contract or subject himself to a right of action for a breach of it.

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. And he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint, ambassadors or other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Departments.' Here the constitution clearly points out the distinction which I have taken between officers of the United States and officers of this House. The one is to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and can in no event be appointed by this House. It is not even in the power of Congress to confer this power upon the House. Congress may create an office, and declare its duties, and, if it be an inferior one, may confer the appointing power to fill it upon the Presi dent alone, the courts, or the heads of Departments, but in no event can they confer that power upon this House. The constitution has given no such discretion, and our authority is limited simply to the appointment of officers for our own body, and not, in the language of the constitution, for the United States. And whether these officers of our own body shall be elected by ballot or viva voce, I think not very material. Unless there be some good reason for changing the rule at this time, I should be disposed to let it remain as it is.

But, sir, I suppose that the fact is that this change is to be effected for the purpose of having some influence in the election or appointment of a printer to this House. It can have no influence on any other appointment. All others, which we have the power to make, are already made. We may as well, then, meet the question fairly, and see whether the resolution will reach this subject; and, if it will, whether we have the power to effect it.

The first inquiry is this: Is the printer to this House an officer? If he be not, then the resolution will not reach his case, or affect the mode of his appointment. This is rather a difficult question to determine; but, from the consideration which I have been able to give the sub

resolution provides that in case the printer with whom we contract to do the printing of this House shall fail to perform his contract, that then the Clerk of this House may employ another printer to execute any portion of the work. Now, if this person be an officer, and an officer of this House, then he must be chosen by the House. The constitution expressly declares that we shall choose our "Speaker and other officers," and gives us no authority to delegate this power of choosing our officers to the Clerk, or any other officer or department. But if it be said that he is an officer of the nation, and not of this House, then it is equally clear, from that part of the constitution which I had read, that we have no power to appoint him. Congress itself could not confer that power upon us. The constitution has expressly vested this power of appointing "officers of the United States" in other departments.

cer.

The legislative authority of the nation has, by this joint resolution, created us an agent to contract with any person whom we shall designate by our votes to do the printing for this House. This power to make this contract might have been vested in any other body or offiIn a certain contingency it is now vested in the Clerk of our House. Does the Clerk, when he exercises this authority, act as an officer of this House, or as an agent of the United States, under the authority conferred upon him by the joint resolution? Clearly in the latter capacity. As Clerk he is authorized to make no contract. This House, by itself, has never even attempted to authorize him to make any contract. The authority comes from both Houses of Congress, with the assent of the President, and has the force and effect of a law. It is the same to him and to us, derived from the same source, and might be conferred, as well to enter into a contract to build this Capitol, as to do the printing for this House; and in my opinion the printer is no more an officer in the one case, than the builder in the other.

But suppose I am mistaken in this, and that the printer is an officer of this House. Then, sir, by the constitution, we cannot elect him for the next Congress. "Each House is to choose its own officers." The authority of this House will soon be at an end, and another is to succeed it. Can we elect a Speaker for the next House, or Clerk? No one will pretend it. And by parity of reasoning we cannot choose a printer, if he be an officer of the House. This question was a good deal agitated last winter. It was then said that the printer was an officer of this House; and that, by the constitution, each House was to elect its own officers; and that, therefore, the appointment of printer by the last House of Representatives was not binding upon us, and we might go on and choose another for ourselves. I have some curiosity to see how those who maintained these

doctrines will act now. Will they be inclined to choose a printer for the next House of Representatives, and, if so, by what authority will they do it? Clearly, they cannot, under the constitution; for each House elects its own officers. Then they must under this joint resolution, and we will look to its provisions again. It was passed in 1819 by both Houses of Congress, and approved by the President, and is, in reality, a law of the United States, so far as it has not been repealed. It first provides for the form and manner in which the printing of Congress, not of this House, shall be done. It then establishes the prices which are to be allowed for composition and press work, and then provides, as follows:

"That, as soon as this resolution shall have been approved by the President of the United States, each House shall proceed to ballot for a printer to execute its work during the next Congress; and the person having the greatest number of votes shall be considered duly elected; and shall give bond, with sureties, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, respectively, for the prompt, accurate, and neat execution of the work; and in case any inconvenient delay should be at any time experienced by either House, in the delivery of its work, the Secretary and Clerk, respectively, may be authorized to employ another printer," &c.

Now, sir, it is clear that this resolution can only be altered or repealed by an authority equal to that which enacted it. We cannot, by a simple resolution of this House, repeal a law of Congress. No one will pretend this; and I find no subsequent law or joint resolution altering the mode here pointed out for electing a printer. This resolution declares, expressly, that it shall be by "ballot." Can we then say it shall be viva voce? We must either elect this person under the resolution, by virtue of the authority there conferred, and in the manner there prescribed, or else under the authority conferred upon us in the constitution to elect our own officers. If we take the former, we must pursue the authority given to us. We can no more alter the mode of executing that power than we can add to the power itself.

But if we take the latter, then we cannot elect at all. Each House must elect its own printer, and we cannot elect one for the House that is to succeed us. So gentlemen may take either horn of the dilemma, and I do not perceive that the resolution under consideration is calculated to aid the objects which they have in view. If we will alter this mode of appointment, it must be done by a joint resolution; it cannot be done by a simple resolution of this House; and as that is evidently the intent, I shall be compelled to vote against the resolu

tion as it now stands.

Mr. REYNOLDS observed that he had not the least intention of producing any excitement when he had the honor to offer this proposition for the consideration of this House, and he sincerely hoped that none would be now created by it. He was not himself considered at home a violent party man, and he condemned excessive party excitement either at home or abroad. The gentleman [Mr. FILLMORE] from New York urged in this discussion Mr. R's motives in presenting this resolution. He stated them to be to operate on the election of public printer. In this allegation, Mr. R. observed that his friend [Mr. FILLMORE] from New York was entirely mistaken. He did not now entertain any great feeling or interest about the election of a public printer, and, at the time he introduced the resolution, he did not even know that there was one to be elected at this session of Congress. He had nothing to do with the election of a public printer, and did not care on whom, or on what printers, the resolution would operate.

He observed that he moved it because it was the rule

[JAN. 24, 1835.

of action of the Representatives in the State of Illinois, in which he lived, and had the honor to represent in part, and it was adopted when he had the honor to be in the Legislature of that State; and that it was the republican rule in every representative body. This was the reason he offered it, and on these principles he hoped it would be sustained by the House; consequently, the burden of the song of the gentleman from New York, the election of a public printer, was out of the question. It could not in fact be discussed on the proposition which is now before the House. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Let the abstract principle be once established; let the republican rule be adopted, and then let it operate on preachers, speakers, printers, and all officers of the House, on whom it ought to ope

rate.

Do right in all cases, and let the consequences provide for themselves.

Mr. R. remarked that, as his motives and the election of public printer were disposed of, he would bring to the consideration of the House part of the fifth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States; which he read, as follows:

"Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal."

This is the rule of action in all cases when it is appli cable. It is the supreme law of the land. The object of this part of the constitution was to preserve a record of the proceedings of Congress, and to give them publicity to the people. This is expressly required on all questions in the proceedings of Congress, where one fifth of the members desire it. No member of this House will contend that an election is no question. It is the most important question, frequently, to members of Congress, of any that could be agitated.

Mr. R. said he recollected well, last summer, it was an important question to your humble servant. He appeared often on the "stumps" before his constituents; and each party, candidate, and constituent, took it for granted that it was a question. Is not the election of a public printer a question also? There is too much discussion about it in this House for it to be no question. Some may say that a rule of action under the provisions of the constitution has been for a long time different, and ought not now to be changed from this mode of bal loting. He considered the principle to be just, that, whenever we found an error to exist in our proceed ings, if those proceedings were as old as Jerusalem, we should change them. It may be that this provision of the constitution was never discussed in relation to this subject, and consequently never acted on. If neither an examination nor discussion has been had on this part of the constitution, the prevailing practice of balloting should not receive much consideration from its antiqui ty-"An ancient error cannot make a modern right." The object and meaning of the constitution was to give publicity to the proceedings in Congress; and, as all elections were questions in which the people were interested, the conclusion is irresistible, under the provi sions of the constitution, that the proceedings in all elections should be vita voce, and published to the world in the journals.

It cannot be seriously contended that, under the con stitution, the yeas and nays ought to be used literally in an election; but even this could be done. The candidate proposed for office could be voted for in this language. The voter could say yea or nay to him. And one fifth of the members present may require it. But, independent of the express provision of the constitu tion, and independent of the spirit and meaning of that

instrument, Mr. R. observed that this proposition was of such a character, arising from our republican institutions, that it is almost as susceptible of demonstration as any mathematical problem.

In this Republic the supreme power rests with the people, under such rules and regulations as are prescribed in our constitutions and laws. The people are sovereign, and of right must be, while our Government continues to exist as a Republic. No tyrant or irresponsible lord or representative can rule over us. The people are responsible for their acts to no earthly power, while they remain within the pale of the constitution and the law of the land. This principle needs no demonstration to an American. It is self-evident to every republican: and I hope I address such. Arising out of this principle, the system of representation must of necessity be adopted. It would be folly to suppose that all the people of this widely-extended Republic could assemble together to provide for their various wants, and to transact their public business. If they were present they could not do any business, as the body would be so unwieldy. Hence resulted the representative form and principle in our Government. It is the great improvement in Governments which gives the modern the great superiority over the ancient Republics. This is the principle, above all others in our Government, which should be preserved pure and sacred. Any intervening circumstance, although trivial in itself, that tends to injure the purity of elections, or the purity of the representative principle, should be condemned as dangerous to our liberties.

Judging from the experience of a few years past, Mr. R. said he had arrived at the conclusion that the people of the United States are determined, at all hazards, to preserve the purity of elections. This is the greatest evidence of the vigor, strength, and long life of our Government.

Next in the order of events is the responsibility of the representative to his constituents. This is as important, and, in fact, as necessary to be cherished and preserved in its purity, as the elective franchise. It is a yoke fellow; one will not exist in vigor when the other is in decay and rottenness. They will both rise or fall together, as they both stand on the same political ground. A moment's reflection will satisfy all of the necessity of the responsibility of the representative to his constituents. The very name will show that he is not acting for himself in his official capacity. He acts for others, and to them he is responsible for his official conduct. He should be the mirror, to exhibit the sentiments of his people, and, in fact, the miniature picture of the people. Although I am at a great distance from my constituents, and perhaps not one of them will witness any of my official conduct, yet I consider myself bound, by the nature of my office, and by my own feelings also, to represent in this House the will and sentiments of the first congressional district of the State of Illinois. Should I disregard their republican sentiments on the subject now before the House, and vote to hide my vote from their examination, I would be taught a lesson, through the medium of the ballot-box at home, which would be a warning to me on all future occasions. This, I think, would be my lot. I judge not for others. This principle being established, that the representative is bound to represent the sentiments of his constituents, truly and honestly, and that he is responsible for the Same, the question then arises, how is this fact to be as

certained?

The proposition now before the House is nothing more or less than to require the best evidence to ascertain the responsibility of the representative of which the nature of the case is susceptible. This is the common sense, and, I may add, the common law rule of evi

VOL. XI-67

[H. OF R.

dence in our courts of justice. And should it not be extended also to transactions in the most high and august tribunal in the nation? The record evidence of each individual's vote on the journal is the mode the best calculated to exhibit to the people the acts of their rep resentatives. This is the mode pointed out by the constitution, and it is found by experience to be the best manner to preserve the history of any transaction in courts of justice, or in legislative bodies. It is much the best for the member himself. There can be no perversion of his vote, if it be recorded as it falls from his mouth. His constituents and the world, if they please, will know how he acts." Mr. R. said he was satisfied that there was no person in this House who would want to hide his vote on any public transaction. The people, as they are sovereign and not responsible to the representatives or to any body, have the right to vote as they please, by ballot or otherwise. The ballot system is the best for the people, and the viva voce for their public servants. It is idle to contend that the constitution requires the record of the proceedings and votes of members on measures to be recorded, and not on men in elections. On measures, one fifth of the members can require the votes to be recorded, and on elections of men to office the same rule and principle should be applied. They are both within the meaning and letter

of the constitution.

Mr. McKINLEY did not consider it a matter of the

least consequence, so far as this resolution was concerned, whether the printer to this House be regarded as an officer of the House, or one bound by contract to perform a particular duty. The joint resolution of 1819 could have no influence upon the mere question of election or appointment of printer, because that part of it which directed that the printer to each House should be elected by ballot was temporary, and expired with the first election under it. The residue of the resolu

tion, which regulates the duties of the printers, is still in force. The joint resolution of 1829 is the law regulating the election of printers; by it there is no mode of election prescribed; consequently there is no law of Congress requiring that the election of public printer shall be by ballot.

There is

But, sir, if there was such a law, it could have no weight in a case like this. The constitution confers the power on each House, to determine the rules of its own proceedings. That part of the resolution of 1819 which directs that the printers shall be elected by ballot does nothing more than prescribe the rule of proceeding in the election, therefore is not obligatory on either House longer than either chooses to conform to it. nothing, therefore, in the resolution of 1819, if it were in force, which could, or ought to restrain this House from adopting the resolution under consideration. Sir, I deem it unnecessary to follow the argument of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. FILLMORE,] further upon this part of the subject. The resolution under consideration is one of great importance in principle; it proposes that the vote of each member of this House shall be entered upon the journal in every election, and thereby promotes the great and leading principle of the Government-the responsibility of the representative to his constituents. In doing this, it conforms to the spirit and intention of the constitution. Why should any gentleman desire to conceal his vote, or to shield himself from just accountability, upon this, more than any other subject? Upon all other questions, it is admitted that one fifth of the members present can compel each member to vote viva voce, and have his vote recorded in the journal. Are elections exempted, in any way, from the influence of this rule? Is there any reason why they should be? The constitutional rule is broad enough to cover every case that can come before either House.