Congress under the general ticket system. He maintained and vindicated the rights of his state under that system. Though personally in favor of the Congressional District system, as he believed a majority of both political parties in Georgia were, yet he contended that the people of that state had not assented to the principle, as asserted in the second section of the Apportionment Act, and that, therefore, it was invalid and inoperative, because Congress possessed no constitutional power thus to direct the legislation of the states.

"We have been characterized," he said, "by honorable members of this House, in solemn and formal protest, which they sought to enter upon your journals, as violators of public law, as disorganizers seeking to overturn the government itself; and, in the course of this discussion, some of these same honorable gentlemen have declared it to be an act of nullification on the part of the people of four states of this Union, whose election laws have not been made to conform to the legislation of Congress by their several State Legislatures. I am not of that school of politicians who, ten years ago, had their existence as a separate and distinct political party, and were denominated 'Nullifiers,' and, consequently, can not speak for them on this occasion. They can, and no doubt will, defend their own position, if necessary; but I desire, sir, to enter my own solemn disclaimer to the charge of insubordination to the constitutional government of this country-the constitutional laws made in pursuance thereof. My honorable colleague [Mr. Stephens], while he admits the obligatory character of the law of Congress under discussion, and urges the duty of compliance on the part of the State Legislatures, also admits that this House is not only the proper, but the sole judicial tribunal, whose duty it is to determine the question of the validity or nullity of the late law. The same position has been conceded by every member who has addressed the House, without a solitary exception. The members from these four states have presented themselves and the rights of their constituents at the bar of this House, affirming that the second section of the Apportionment Act is invalid, inoperative, null and void, and that the only law in force and in operation is the law of their several states. These grave and important issues, involving the great and inestimable constitutional right of the people to be

represented in this government, are now under your consideration by the only conceded constitutional tribunal that is to determine the whole question; and yet, in the face of all this, we are called disorganizers, violators of public law, manifesting insubordination to regular government, our Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof. This, sir, is trifling with the dignity and importance of the subject, and the interests involved, and does not comport with the high-toned character of American statesmen. Mr. Speaker, as well might a party-litigant in the Supreme Court of the United States, now sitting in the other end of this Capitol, who relies for a recovery on some defect in your statutory law, or because it is unconstitu tional, be termed a disorganizer. The Supreme Court itself, whose duty it is to determine all questions submitted to them, and to pronounce on the constitutionality of existing laws of the general government, as well as to give force and effect to them by construction, might, with equal propriety, be termed disorganizers and violators of the law, and subverters of the Constitution and government of the country."

In support of his constitutional right to represent the people of Georgia, without any additional legislation on the part of the state or general government, he relied, first, on the second section of the first article of the Constitution, which declares that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." This was the basis of the right which he contended had been secured to the people of the several states, and of which they could only be deprived by laws of the general gov ernment, made in the just exercise of power granted expressly in the Federal Constitution.

He relied, secondly, on the fourth section of the first article of the Constitution, which provides "that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators."

This constitutional obligation, which imposed upon the states an imperative duty that could not be disregarded, without implying faithlessness to the national compact, had, he contended, been completely fulfilled by the Legislatures of the states who

had passed such laws as was therein contemplated, and who could not, therefore, be censured for any failure on their part to comply with this primary constitutional duty. If any of the State Legislatures had neglected to make the necessary regu lations under this clause, Congress would then have had the right to step in and make all such regulations. In answer to the argument that the second section of the law had been passed under the power given to "alter" the state regulations, he contended that the legislation of Congress, which attempted to interfere with the legislation of the several states, should be so far perfect and complete as to form, by the substitution of its own enactment, a full exercise of all the power conferred by the Constitution primarily upon the Legislatures of the several states, and permissively, or supervisorily, on Congress. This perfect and complete legislation the law had not attempted. He admitted that Congress, under the Constitution, had the power to exercise full control and authority in making and altering all regulations, so far as regarded the times, places, and manner of holding elections for representatives; but he did not think that any exigency had occurred which justified the exercise of this authority, or an attempt to control the manner of holding elections in the different states of the confederacy. In other words, he doubted whether such a necessity actually existed, as was foreseen and provided for by the framers of the Constitution, to justify the attempt of Congress to control the manner of holding elections by unprescribed districts. We have elsewhere noted the results of this controversy.

Mr. Lumpkin exerted himself indefatigably and successfully to procure reparation to his immediate constituents, many of whom had served as mounted volunteers in the Florida war, for horses lost in that service. Congress had provided by law for the payment of such claims, but up to the date of his election few of them had been liquidated. The records of the third auditor's office will show what his labors in this behalf were.

In 1843, the Legislature of Georgia divided the state into Congressional Districts, by which process Mr. Lumpkin and his Democratic colleague, William H. Stiles, more recently charge des affaires at the court of Austria, were thrown into the fifth Congressional District. Their friends were divided between them, but the nominating Convention gave the choice VOL. I.-Y

to Mr. Lumpkin as their candidate for the twenty-ninth Congress. He was elected over his Whig competitor by a majority of twenty-eight or twenty-nine hundred votes. This election took place in 1844, when the whole country was convulsed in regard to the presidential contest then pending between James K. Polk and Henry Clay. In 1846 Mr. Lumpkin was again elected by a majority over his Whig opponent of nearly four thousand

votes.

He has uniformly acted and voted with his party. He says, "I am a Democrat by nature; I have been raised among the people, and all my sympathies are with them." He has given a cordial support to the administration in all matters connected with the prosecution of the Mexican war. In a speech delivered on the 18th of May, 1846, a few days only after the pas sage of the War Bill, he vindicated the executive from the charges of aggression and usurpation in respect to Mexico. Speaking of that functionary, he said,

"I am unwilling to believe that there is an American citizen, of any party or section of this Union, who would withhold the means for defense against a hostile invasion from any quarter. It is enough for us to know that our soil has been desecrated; that our country has been invaded; that a hostile band of armed soldiers have killed and wounded our citizens; and that the American army, under General Taylor, is in a hazardous situation, and in need of assistance. At a time like this, shall we be struggling for a mere party triumph? Can no circumstances or condition of the country-no perils, however great, induce gentlemen in the opposition to cease their cavilling against the administration, or postpone their hostility to the President? Is not this an occasion when, for a time, all party distinctions and differences shall be forgotten, and with one voice, with one heart, and with one hand, we all shall march forward in defense of the soil, the rights, and the honor of the country?

"If the President had done less than to have prevented, with all the means at his command, the invasion of this territory by a hostile band of Mexican soldiers, he would have been censurable for permitting the desecration of American soil by ruthless invaders; and the same gentlemen who now charge him with a violation of the Constitution, and with a usurpation of power to make an aggressive war upon a friendly sister republic, would

have raised the cry long and loud against his imbecility, his cowardice, and his want of ability to discharge the duties of the chief magistrate of this Union. I do not expect that the President can satisfy such individuals. It would be vain, and worse than idle for him to make the attempt. But the great body of the enterprising, industrious people of this country, of all parties, with one accord, will respect him for his prudence, cherish him for his wisdom, and honor him for the bold and fearless manner in which he has discharged his high and responsible constitutional obligations."

Mr. Lumpkin has uniformly manifested an active interest in all measures connected with the prosperity of his own district and state. He has urged again and again upon the consideration of Congress, since he first entered upon the discharge of his duties as a representative of the people, the propriety and expediency of establishing a national foundry in Cass county, Georgia, a central point in his district. The subject has been brought before Congress under the most favorable circumstances. It has been referred to select committees as well as to the regular standing committees of the House, and the efficient aid which has been rendered by Mr. Lumpkin in these investigations has contributed materially to the favorable results which have always attended them. For the period of four years bills. have been reported carrying out his views, but, as yet, no decision has been made upon them.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he has introduced, and procured the passage of a bill through the House, dividing the State of Georgia into two judicial districts, organizing a separate district from the northern counties of the state, and conferring upon it circuit-court powers and jurisdiction. To this course he has been prompted by the interests of that growing section of the state which he represents.

As a public man, he is said to pride himself more on his character for firm and consistent devotion to one set of political principles than for distinguished abilities. As a debater he is somewhat diffident, rarely ever speaking in the House or before the people, unless forced to do so by some imperative necessity. When he does speak he is rapid and impetuous, having more regard, we should suppose, to the strength of the column than to its beauty. It is known to us that he has ap