DOCSLIB.ORG

The Constitution in Congress: Jefferson and the West, 1801-1809

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Constitution in Congress: Jefferson and the West, 1801-1809 University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1997 The Constitution in Congress: Jefferson and the West, 1801-1809 David P. Currie Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David P. Currie, "The Constitution in Congress: Jefferson and the West, 1801-1809," 39 William and Mary Law Review 1441 (1997). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 39 MAY 1998 NUMBER 5 THE CONSTITUTION IN CONGRESS: JEFFERSON AND THE WEST, 1801-1809 DAVID P. CURRIE" The original understanding of the Constitution, I wrote not so long ago, was forged not in the courts but in Congress and the executive branch.' That was true of the Federalist period, the first twelve years under the new Constitution-a time of great constitutional con- troversies involving such matters as the Bank of the United States, the Jay Treaty, and the Alien and Sedition Acts and of quaint and curious squabbles now largely forgotten: what to call the president, whether he must accept a salary, how the vice president signs a bill. Some of these disputes sound petty, but even they helped to define what kind of country the United States would be. All of them were initially, and many of them * Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago. I should like to thank the William and Mary School of Law, where portions of this Article were delivered as the Cutler Lecture in September 1997; the Ray- mond and Nancy Goodman Feldman Fund and the Sonnenschein Faculty Research Fund for additional financial support; C. Kevin Marshall for a research paper that stimulated my thinking on several of the issues here discussed; and Barbara Flynn Currie for invaluable advice and encouragement. 1. See DAVID P. CURRiE, THE CONSTITUTION IN CONGRESS: THE FEDERALIST PE- RIOD, 1789-1801, at 296 (1997). 1441 HeinOnline -- 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1441 1997-1998 1442 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1441 finally, fought out in the executive and legislative branches. The same was true of the years that followed, when Thomas Jefferson was president. Jefferson's inauguration was a significant victory for the new system, a peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, which at the time was not to be taken for granted.2 "We are all Republicans," he said in his inaugural address, "we are all Federalists."3 It was a breath of fresh air. Jefferson's brave words, of course, did not put an end to con- troversy. His presidency was another exciting time: the Burr conspiracy, the embargo, the war against the Barbary pi- rates-in which Jefferson, following Washington's example, took a refreshingly narrow view of the president's powers as com- mander in chief.4 The Twelfth Amendment, designed with the simple goal of avoiding the near disaster of the 1800 election, proved to be a surprising can of worms, a monument to the diffi- culty of constitutional drafting.5 In the great Court fight of Jefferson's first term, which rivaled that of the 1930s, judicial independence suffered grave setbacks in the repeal of the Judi- ciary Act and the removal of Judge Pickering, only to emerge more firmly entrenched than ever after the dramatic acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase.6 Jefferson's presidency was also a time of significant events in westward expansion: the admission of Ohio, the Louisiana Pur- chase, and the beginnings of the Cumberland Road. Each of these events raised fundamental constitutional questions. Each was extensively debated in Congress and in the executive branch, not in the courts. And each served as an important pre- cedent when similar issues arose again. 2. See id. at 288-94. 3. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 11, 1801), in 1 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 1789-1897, at 321, 322 (James D. Richardson ed., 1897). 4. See MONTGOMERY N. KOSMA, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE TRIPOLITAN WAR (forthcoming 1998). 5. See David P. Currie, The Twelfth Amendment, in UNINTENDED CONSE- QUENCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS (David Kyvig ed., forthcoming 1998). 6. See David P. Currie, The Most Endangered Branch, 33 WAKE FOREST L. REV. (forthcoming 1998). HeinOnline -- 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1442 1997-1998 1998] JEFFERSON AND THE WEST 1443 I. OHIO The Northwest Ordinance contemplated the creation of three to five new states in the territory ceded by individual states to the Union after the Revolution.! As soon as any of the areas de- fined in the Ordinance had sixty thousand free inhabitants it was to be admitted to statehood, and Congress was directed to admit it earlier if that was "consistent with the general interest of the confederacy."8 Settlement of the Northwest was retarded, however, by hostile Indians; the first western states admitted were Kentucky and Tennessee.9 Then Mad Anthony Wayne defeated the Indians at Fallen Timbers, Jay's Treaty dispersed their British protectors, and Thomas Pinckney's treaty opened the Mississippi to western goods."0 The population of the eastern part of the territory grew by leaps and bounds, and it was separated from the remaining portion, which was christened the "Indiana Territory," in 1800." By 1802 a number of its inhabitants were banging on Congress's door in search of admission to the union."2 Although the 1800 census reported that the Eastern Division had a population of only 45,365, a House committee recommend- ed that its inhabitants be authorized "to form for themselves a constitution and State government."" Congress obliged, 4 but not without a little bloodletting on the House floor. The problem was that not everyone in the division favored im- mediate statehood. Governor Arthur St. Clair did not; the territo- rial legislature did not; neither did the territorial delegate in Con- gress, Paul Fearing. Neither did most Federalists in the House, who perceived that the new state would vote Republican. 5 7. Northwest Ordinance of 1787, art. V, 1 Stat. 51, 53 n.(a) (amended 1789). 8. Id.; see CURRIE, supra note 1, at 103-07. 9. See CURRIE, supra note 1, at 100, 217-22. Vermont was also admitted to the union, in 1791. See id. at 100-02. 10. See 1 BEVERLY W. BOND, JR., HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OHIO: THE FOUNDA- TIONS OF OHIO 275-436 (1941); CURRIE, supra note 1, at 215; STANLEY ELKINs & ERIC McKITRICK, THE AGE OF FEDERALISM 436-40 (1993). 11. See Act of May 7, 1800, ch. 41, 2 Stat. 58 (amended 1804). 12. For petitions seeking statehood see 11 ANNALS OF CONG. 471, 814, 1017 (1802). 13. Id. at 1098. 14. See Act of Apr. 30, 1802, ch. 40, sec. 1, 2 Stat. 173. 15. See 1 BOND, supra note 10, at 449, 467-76. The territorial legislature had HeinOnline -- 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1443 1997-1998 1444 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1441 Fearing led off the debate with what he described as a consti- tutional objection.'6 The resolution proposed that Congress pro- vide for election of delegates to a convention that would decide whether or not to pursue statehood and then, if the convention decided to do so, would take the necessary steps.' v But Con- gress, said Fearing, "had nothing to do with the arrangements for calling a Convention."" There was nothing in the Ordinance about it, and therefore the matter was left entirely to the territo- ry; Congress could no more prescribe a constitutional convention in a territory than in "any State in the Union."9 The comparison with a state was silly. "Was there ever a more absurd doctrine," asked Joseph Nicholson of Maryland, than "that States, acknowledged to be sovereign and independent, should be compared to a Territory dependent upon the General Government?"" Congress, he did not have to add, had express gone so far as to pass a law inviting Congress to redivide the original Northwest Territory into three rather than two parts, with the evident intention of preventing the existence of any single area with a population large enough to qualify for state- hood. See Act of Dec. 21, 1801, ch. 160, 1 STATUTES OF OHIO AND NORTHWESTERN TERRITORY 341-42 (Chase 1833). The House voted 81-5 to disapprove this proposal. See 11 ANNALS OF CONG. 466 (1802); 1 BOND, supra note 10, at 467-70. The form of the House resolution in this matter is puzzling: "Resolved, . .that the act passed by the Legislature for the Territory .. ought not to be assented to by Congress." 11 ANNALS OF CONG. 466 (1802). Though acts of the Governor and judges in the first stage of territorial government were subject to congressional veto under the Northwest Ordinance, acts of the second-stage legislature, which first met in 1799, did not appear to be. See Northwest Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 51, 51-52 n.(a) (amended 1789). Nor was there any report of Senate disapproval, or of presentation of a disapproval order to the president, which Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution would presumably require. Moreover, by November 1801, when the territorial legisla- ture met, it had no further authority over matters affecting the Indiana Territory, which would have had to be divided under its proposal. See Act of May 7, 1800, ch. 41, § 5, 2 Stat. 58, 59. The only plausible explanation is that the House was merely declining to initiate legislation of its own to reconfigure the territory, the peculiar phrasing of the resolution may have been prompted by the fact that the territorial statute had purported to redefine the boundaries "as soon as the congress of the United States shall declare their assent thereto." Ch.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Road Map to Civil War: Northwest Ordinance (1787) Louisiana
    3/17/2014 Northwest Ordinance (1787) (1787) Banned slavery in the Northwest territories A Road Map to Civil War: An Uneasy Compromise Louisiana Purchase (1803) Missouri Compromise (1820) Lead to the debate on expansion of slavery Created MO/ME and banned slavery north of the 36 °°° parallel Doubled the size 36’30 Line of the U.S. Kept the balance of free & slave states 1 3/17/2014 Slavery and Abolitionism Mexican Cession and Gold Rush • Abolitionists • Opened up new debate believed slavery about the expansion of was morally wrong slavery should be ended immediately • Many northerners did not want slavery to expand west • Southerners denied the • Southerners defended the allegations of expansion of slavery, Abolitionists and defended slavery arguing that slaves were and the treatment property of African Americans • The population boom in California lead to its admittance as a free state and an unbalance of power in Congress between free and slave states Wilmot Proviso The Debate of 1850 Debate in Congress centered on California becoming a state The Great Three took the lead in Congress Clay seeks a compromise and makes over 70 speeches in the House (Webster supported holding the Union together) In the Senate, Calhoun (too sick to read his own statements) calls for the south to secede – DIES DURING THE DEBATE 2 3/17/2014 Compromise of 1850 Fugitive Slave Law • Helped California admitted slaveholders as a free state return escaped slaves to the south • Fugitives held without warrants • Commissioners Slave trade paid $5 to release ended in and $10 for return to slave owner D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Two Connecticut Yankees Went South
    Florida Historical Quarterly Volume 18 Number 1 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol 18, Article 5 Issue 1 1939 Why Two Connecticut Yankees Went South Samuel H. Fisher Part of the American Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Article is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Historical Quarterly by an authorized editor of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Fisher, Samuel H. (1939) "Why Two Connecticut Yankees Went South," Florida Historical Quarterly: Vol. 18 : No. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq/vol18/iss1/5 Fisher: Why Two Connecticut Yankees Went South WHY TWO CONNECTICUT YANKEES WENT SOUTH By S AMUEL H. F ISHER General Edmund Kirby Smith was an outstand- ing figure in the War between the States, particular- ly in its closing years when he was in command of the Trans-Mississippi Department. He was Flor- ida-born and his native State was proud to place his statue in the Capitol at Washington. But his antecedents were of Connecticut. His father, Joseph Lee Smith, and his grandfather, Ephraim Kirby, were men of mark in the town of Litchfield in that State. The reasons for their leav- ing their northern homes form a story which may be of interest. The town of Litchfield is small but, at one time, it was the fourth town in population in Connecticut.
    [Show full text]
  • Grade 8 Us History 1754-1877
    GRADE 8 U.S. HISTORY 1754-1877 Pacing Calendar 2016-2017 Social Studies Process Skills for Organizing and Analyzing Information Resources, Websites and Activities Process Standards: The student will Graphic Organizers Interactive Graphic Organizers NEW: Social Studies Web Links and Resources 1. Identify, analyze, and interpret primary and Graphic Organizers Print Outs secondary sources and artifacts. NEW: National Archives—Teaching Documents 2. Distinguish between fact and opinion in Organizing and Analyzing Information Lesson Plans examining documentary sources GIST History Frames Activities and Resources 3. Recognize and explain how different points History Frame Form 1. Decision Making in U.S. History of view have been influenced by social, History Frame Pyramid 2. Use Graphic Novel from Glencoe political, economic, historic and geographic Mind Maps 3. Chester the Crab Graphic Novel changes. Mind Maps History Examples 4. Nystrom United States History Atlas including 4. Construct timelines of key events, periods, Mind Map Examples for Geography the district website copy and historically significant individuals. Mind Map Forms 5. Explain the relationships between One Sentence Summary Websites: geography and the historical developments One Word Summary Links from Tolland Middle School by using maps, graphs, charts, visual Power Thinking Power Thinking Chart images, and computer-based technologies. District U.S. History Power Point Website Power Thinking Chart for Geography 6. Develop discussion, debate, and Prediction with Evidence persuasive writing and speaking skills, District Government Power Point Website Problem-Solution Chart focusing on enduring issues and Think Pair Share Power Point Palooza demonstrating how divergent viewpoints Three Minute Pause have been and continue to be addressed Three Minute Pause Chart Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Establishment, and the Northwest Ordinance: a Closer Look at an Accommodationist Argument Thomas Nathan Peters University of Kentucky
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 89 | Issue 3 Article 8 2001 Religion, Establishment, and the Northwest Ordinance: A Closer Look at an Accommodationist Argument Thomas Nathan Peters University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits oy u. Recommended Citation Peters, Thomas Nathan (2001) "Religion, Establishment, and the Northwest Ordinance: A Closer Look at an Accommodationist Argument," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 89 : Iss. 3 , Article 8. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol89/iss3/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Religion, Establishment, and the Northwest Ordinance: A Closer Look at an Accommodationist Argument BY THOMAS NATHAN PETERS* cholarly interpreters of the Establishment Clause fall generally into two camps: separationists who claim the Establishment Clause bars the federal government from legislating religion' and accommodationists who claim the Establishment Clause bars only the preferential treatment of religious groups.2 While scholars in both camps J.D. expected 2002, University of Kentucky. The author is indebted to the work of Jim Allison and Susan Batte, independent researchers who have spent countless hours studying primary source documents related to religious liberty in America. The author at one time participated with Allison and Batte in a collaborative web page dealing with religious liberty issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Governors of Connecticut, 1905
    ThegovernorsofConnecticut Norton CalvinFrederick I'his e dition is limited to one thousand copies of which this is No tbe A uthor Affectionately Dedicates Cbis Book Co George merriman of Bristol, Connecticut "tbe Cruest, noblest ana Best friend T €oer fia<T Copyrighted, 1 905, by Frederick Calvin Norton Printed by Dorman Lithographing Company at New Haven Governors Connecticut Biographies o f the Chief Executives of the Commonwealth that gave to the World the First Written Constitution known to History By F REDERICK CALVIN NORTON Illustrated w ith reproductions from oil paintings at the State Capitol and facsimile sig natures from official documents MDCCCCV Patron's E dition published by THE CONNECTICUT MAGAZINE Company at Hartford, Connecticut. ByV I a y of Introduction WHILE I w as living in the home of that sturdy Puritan governor, William Leete, — my native town of Guil ford, — the idea suggested itself to me that inasmuch as a collection of the biographies of the chief executives of Connecticut had never been made, the work would afford an interesting and agreeable undertaking. This was in the year 1895. 1 began the task, but before it had far progressed it offered what seemed to me insurmountable obstacles, so that for a time the collection of data concerning the early rulers of the state was entirely abandoned. A few years later the work was again resumed and carried to completion. The manuscript was requested by a magazine editor for publication and appeared serially in " The Connecticut Magazine." To R ev. Samuel Hart, D.D., president of the Connecticut Historical Society, I express my gratitude for his assistance in deciding some matters which were subject to controversy.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson's Failed Anti-Slavery Priviso of 1784 and the Nascence of Free Soil Constitutionalism
    MERKEL_FINAL 4/3/2008 9:41:47 AM Jefferson’s Failed Anti-Slavery Proviso of 1784 and the Nascence of Free Soil Constitutionalism William G. Merkel∗ ABSTRACT Despite his severe racism and inextricable personal commit- ments to slavery, Thomas Jefferson made profoundly significant con- tributions to the rise of anti-slavery constitutionalism. This Article examines the narrowly defeated anti-slavery plank in the Territorial Governance Act drafted by Jefferson and ratified by Congress in 1784. The provision would have prohibited slavery in all new states carved out of the western territories ceded to the national government estab- lished under the Articles of Confederation. The Act set out the prin- ciple that new states would be admitted to the Union on equal terms with existing members, and provided the blueprint for the Republi- can Guarantee Clause and prohibitions against titles of nobility in the United States Constitution of 1788. The defeated anti-slavery plank inspired the anti-slavery proviso successfully passed into law with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Unlike that Ordinance’s famous anti- slavery clause, Jefferson’s defeated provision would have applied south as well as north of the Ohio River. ∗ Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University; D. Phil., University of Ox- ford, (History); J.D., Columbia University. Thanks to Sarah Barringer Gordon, Thomas Grey, and Larry Kramer for insightful comment and critique at the Yale/Stanford Junior Faculty Forum in June 2006. The paper benefited greatly from probing questions by members of the University of Kansas and Washburn Law facul- ties at faculty lunches. Colin Bonwick, Richard Carwardine, Michael Dorf, Daniel W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
    National Park Service The Northwest Ordinance U.S. Department of the Interior of 1787 Courtesy George Rogers Clark National Historical Park. THE BICENTENNIAL YEAR THE NORTHWEST How would this territory be ORDINANCE OF 1787 settled? Would it be a colony? How In 1987, the United States is would the land be divided? What celebrating the Bicentennials of the In the midst of this chaos and were the rights of settlers? What Northwest Ordinance and the Con­ confusion, Congress raised the were the rights of the Indians stitution. As part of these obser­ question about the future of the there? How would it be governed? vances, the National Park Service Northwest Territory. Would a powerful central govern­ is highlighting these two landmark This territory was gained as part ment be necessary to manage so achievements in many of the 339 of the successful campaigns of large an area? Would the members parks within the system. George Rogers Clark and his of the Continental Congress ever Both the Northwest Ordinance frontier soldiers in 1778-79, which be able to agree on one plan? and the U.S. Constitution were had greatly weakened the British Congress debated many pro­ created at a time often referred to hold on the lands north of the Ohio posals to resolve these questions as the "critical period" of American River. At the Treaty of Paris in 1783, about how our nation would grow. history. The very existence of the Great Britain ceded this area to the Ordinances were passed in 1784 Union was threatened by serious United States, thus doubling the and 1785, but they addressed only troubles, both abroad and at home.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Select List of Collection Processed by Craig Moore
    Select List of Collection Processed by Craig Moore Record Group 1, Colonial Government A Guide to the Colonial Papers, 1630-1778 Record Group 3, Office of the Governor A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Patrick Henry, 1776-1779 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Thomas Jefferson, 1779-1781 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Benjamin Harrison, 1781-1784 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Acting Governor William Fleming, 1781 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Thomas Nelson, Jr., 1781 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Patrick Henry, 1784-1786 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Edmund Randolph, 1786-1788 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Beverley Randolph, 1788-1791 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Henry Lee, 1791-1794 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Robert Brooke, 1794-1796 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor James Wood, 1796-1799 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor James Monroe, 1799-1802 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor John Page, 1802-1805 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor William H. Cabell, 1805-1808 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor John Tyler, 1808-1811 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor James Monroe, 1811 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor George William Smith, 1811-1812 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor James Barbour, 1812-1814 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Wilson Cary Nicholas, 1814-1816 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor James Patton Preston, 1816-1819 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor Thomas Mann Randolph, 1819-1822 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor James Pleasants, 1822-1825 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor John Tyler, 1825-1827 A Guide to the Executive Papers of Governor William B.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    FOURTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1795, TO MARCH 3, 1797 FIRST SESSION—December 7, 1795, to June 1, 1796 SECOND SESSION—December 5, 1796, to March 3, 1797 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—June 8, 1795, to June 26, 1795 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—JOHN ADAMS, of Massachusetts PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—HENRY TAZEWELL, 1 of Virginia; SAMUEL LIVERMORE, 2 of New Hampshire; WILLIAM BINGHAM, 3 of Pennsylvania SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—SAMUEL A. OTIS, of Massachusetts DOORKEEPER OF THE SENATE—JAMES MATHERS, of New York SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JONATHAN DAYTON, 4 of New Jersey CLERK OF THE HOUSE—JOHN BECKLEY, 5 of Virginia SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOSEPH WHEATON, of Rhode Island DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—THOMAS CLAXTON CONNECTICUT GEORGIA Richard Potts 17 18 SENATORS SENATORS John Eager Howard Oliver Ellsworth 6 James Gunn REPRESENTATIVES James Hillhouse 7 James Jackson 14 8 Jonathan Trumbull George Walton 15 Gabriel Christie 9 Uriah Tracy Josiah Tattnall 16 Jeremiah Crabb 19 REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE 20 REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE William Craik Joshua Coit 21 Abraham Baldwin Gabriel Duvall Chauncey Goodrich Richard Sprigg, Jr. 22 Roger Griswold John Milledge George Dent James Hillhouse 10 James Davenport 11 KENTUCKY William Hindman Nathaniel Smith SENATORS Samuel Smith Zephaniah Swift John Brown Thomas Sprigg 12 Uriah Tracy Humphrey Marshall William Vans Murray Samuel Whittlesey Dana 13 REPRESENTATIVES DELAWARE Christopher Greenup MASSACHUSETTS SENATORS Alexander D. Orr John Vining SENATORS Henry Latimer MARYLAND Caleb Strong 23 REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE SENATORS Theodore Sedgwick 24 John Patten John Henry George Cabot 25 1 Elected December 7, 1795.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly
    18t3 MANUAL, WITH FOR THE USE OF THE General Assembly OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. 1883. PRINTED BY ORDER OF TIIE COMMITTEE. [Compiled by E.~FuR Coon:.] HARTFORD, CONN.: PRESS OF 'l'HE CASE, LOCKWOOD & BRAINAllD COMPANY. 1883. JOINT COMThfiTTEE ON MANUAL AND ROLL. SENATE. OWEN B. KING. HOUSE. THOMAS II. DELANO, BUELL CARTER, HORACE M. BANCROFT. THE CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT. PREil!BLE. The people of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good providence of God in having permitted them to enjoy a free government, do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights, and privi­ leges which they have derived from their ancestors, hereby, after a careful considerntion and revision, ordain and estab­ lish the following Constitution and form of civil government: ARTICLE FIRST. DECLARATION OF R!GUTS. That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, ~t ~tdart, SECTION l. That all men, when they form a social com­ pact, are equal in rights; and that no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community. SEC. 2. '!'hat all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient. SEc. 3. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profes­ sion and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be 4 CO.KSTITUTION. free to all per ons in this State, provided that the right hero by declared and established shall not be so construed as to ex­ cuse acts of licentiou ness, or to ju tify practices inconsistent with the pence and safety of the State.
    [Show full text]
  • The President Pro Tempore of the Senate: History and Authority of the Office
    Order Code RL30960 The President Pro Tempore of the Senate: History and Authority of the Office Updated April 2, 2008 Christopher M. Davis Analyst in American National Government Government and Finance Division The President Pro Tempore of the Senate History and Authority of the Office Summary The U.S. Constitution establishes the office of the President pro tempore of the Senate to preside over the Senate in the Vice President’s absence. Since 1947, the President pro tempore has stood third in line to succeed to the presidency, after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. Although the President pro tempore’s powers are limited and not comparable to those of the Speaker of the House, as the chamber’s presiding officer, he is authorized to perform certain duties. For example, he may decide points of order (subject to appeal) and enforce decorum in the Senate chamber and galleries. Early in the nation’s history, some Presidents pro tempore appointed Senators to standing committees. While they no longer do so, election to the office is considered one of the highest honors bestowed by the Senate, and Presidents pro tempore are traditionally accorded a somewhat larger salary and allowances for staff. Eighty-seven different Senators have served as President pro tempore. Sixty- one served prior to 1900, when Vice Presidents routinely presided over the chamber and Presidents pro tempore were elected to serve only for limited periods when the Vice President was absent or ill, or the office was vacated. Frequently, several different Presidents pro tempore were chosen in a single congressional session, “on the basis of their personal characteristics, popularity, and reliability.” (See Robert C.
    [Show full text]