Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

veniently be put. He was opposed also to increasing the size of committees. Experience had taught him that the larger they were made, the less efficient they usually be came. It was often difficult to get a quorum of a committee together now. If the quorum should be enlarged, it would be harder still.

Mr. SUTHERLAND suggested that it would be better to adopt such rules as were not objected to, at once, and defer the consideration of the rest for the present.

After some further conversation, this was agreed to; and the old rules were adopted, with the exception of the 9th, 55th, and 76th, above referred to.

Mr. WARDWELL offered the usual resolution for supplying the members with papers; and

Mr. GRENNELL offered the usual motion respecting the appointment of Chaplains, (two, of different denominations,)-both of which were adopted.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4.

KENTUCKY ELECTION.

[DEC. 4, 1833.

No one can pretend that the meaning of this certificate has been changed, or that any new weight or additional authority has been communicated to this paper by the mere fact that it was taken out of the Secretary's office, and sent here by the Governor. So the right of the gentleman who claims under this certificate, if right he has, must be sought for upon the face of the paper itself, and not in any surmise that the Governor of Kentucky has furnished any other evidence. But, sir, this certificate does not contain the same evidence of the election of the gentleman who offers it as is contained in the certificates transmitted here by the Governor to establish the claim of the other members from Kentucky.

There is this essential difference between the certificate in question, and those held by all the other gentlemen from Kentucky. This certificate states that the vote of one of the five counties of the district was not taken into the calculation when the polls were compared, and it is only signed by three of the five sheriffs. Each of the certificates from the other districts in Kentucky are signed by all the sheriffs of the districts respectively. Now, Mr. ALLAN, of Kentucky, called the attention of sir, the question is, whether this certificate is prima facie the House to the question of the contested election for evidence of the election of Mr. Moore? There is upon the fifth congressional district of Kentucky, which was the face of the certificate two defects, either of which pending on Monday, and which was deferred, by their would render it a nullity. The fact is certified that the consent, until the organization of the House should have vote of Lincoln was not counted. The sheriffs, being been completed; that having now taken place, he proposed mere ministerial officers, had no power to reject a single to proceed to the consideration of the subject. [A gen- vote. The law made it their duty to count the votes of tleman from Alabama (Mr. McKINLEY) rose.] Mr. A. the whole district, for the puspose of ascertaining who could not on such an occasion waive his right to the floor. had a majority. Will any one contend that this law is Mr. McKINLEY. I rise to a question of order. There complied with by a certificate that states that a part only is no distinct question, that I am aware of, at present be- of the votes of the district were counted? The right to fore the House. elect a member to Congress is in a majority of the voters The SPEAKER said that both the gentlemen claiming of the whole district. A certificate showing for whom a the disputed seat, had agreed to defer the question of majority of a part of the district voted does not prove how right to it until the organization of the House should be a majority of the whole voted.

completed, and that having been done, he conceived the But again: to make a certificate valid, the law positivegentleman from Kentucky [Mr. ALLAN] was not in-ly requires that it should be signed by all of the sheriffs fringing upon the order of the House in calling their con- of the district. This certificate has the signature of but sideration to the subject.

Mr. ALLAN said the remarks which he was submitting to the House, on Monday, had been suspended by the voluntary withdrawal of the two gentleinen claiming the seat. He would now briefly conclude what he had to say in presenting this subject to the consideration of the House. We have now before us the certificate under which Mr. Moore claims a seat, and also the law of Kentucky, from which the merits of this controversy may be easily comprehended.

three out of the five sheriffs; in this case, one sheriff cannot act for another-nor can a majority of them act for the whole. They do not represent the same interesteach one acts for a separate community-each one had in his possession the official evidence of the vote of his county

each one was the organ by which this official evidence should be conveyed to the rest. The law, therefore, required the action of the whole of the sheriffs of the district; in the first place, to ascertain who had a majority of the votes of the whole district; and, in the second place, required the signatures of them all to authenticate the certificate of election.

It is therefore manifest, that the certificate under which Mr. Moore claims his seat, is a mere nullity.

It is likely, from the skirmish we had the other day, that there exists a mistake as to the character of this certificate. Mr. A. saw by the printed reports of the debate on Monday, that Mr. Moore stated in his speech that "the Clerk of this House has received the same evidence It appears from this certificate that all the sheriffs met from the Governor of the State of Kentucky that I am the at Harrodsburg, on the 15th day after the election, the representative of the 5th congressional district, that he time and place appointed by law for them to convene. It has transmitted to establish the claim of the other mem- is difficult to imagine how they could so far mistake their bers from Kentucky." duty. The result of the election in every county was Mr. A. said that he understood from this statement, then a matter of public notoriety. The election of Mr. that the impression had been made that the Governor of Letcher was announced in the newspapers; the sheriff's Kentucky was (like the Governors of several other States) had their poll-books before them, that showed at once authorized to give certificates of election to members of that he had a majority of the whole district. Congress, and that he had, in this case, actually given They met on the 20th of August, and adjourned until such certificate. It is proper that any misapprehension the next day. Whence this delay? To add up the polls on the subject should be corrected. There is no law in and give the certificate was not the work of an hour, yet Kentucky that requires the Governor to certify who is it appears from the certificate that the subject was under elected to Congress: in this case the Governor has not un- consideration two days. dertaken to give any such certificate. He has fully dis- It appears that a part of the sheriffs were not willing to charged his duty in transmitting to this House the original abide by the voice of a majority of the district; and to certificates of the sheriffs of the several congressional dis- control the majority, it seems that the sheriff of Lincoln tricts, which were filed in the office of the Secretary of marched off with his poll-book, and, in his absence, three State, and this is all the Governor has done in relation to of the sheriffs has undertaken to say who should represent the certificate in question.

that district.

DEC. 4, 1833.]

votes.

or not.

[blocks in formation]

In Lincoln county, Mr. Letcher had a majority of 149 to his whole argument; for, if the facts were as had been stated by his colleague first up, what need could If this certificate should prevail, the people of Lincoln there be of any committee to judge of them? The sole (which is one of the oldest and most highly improved question in the case was, whether the certificate which counties in Kentucky) need not be at the trouble of had been produced, was or was not of a legal character? going to the polls at the next election; they can send The duty of the sheriffs was plainly pointed out by the their sheriff to say whether they shall be allowed to vote law, and all to be decided was, whether they had complied with it or not. He then reviewed the certificate, and insisted that it was palpable that they had not. Nor could he admit, as had been concluded, that though the evidence furnished by such a paper might be incomplete, yet it was the next best that could be obtained in the case, and therefore ought to be received. Would it be admitted in a court of justice, in a case where there were two witnesses to a fact, one of them competent, credible, and disinterested, and the other of an opposite character, that, if the first could not be obtained, the testimony of the interested witness must be obtained, because it was the next best? Surely not.

In good old times, in Kentucky, said Mr. A., a certain candidate who had been beaten at an election, was asked the reason of his defeat. 64 Nothing but the want of a sufficient number of votes," was the reply. In those times of simplicity, this was thought to be a very good reason; indeed, the idea of getting into Congress without a majority of votes, had not then entered into the mind of any one. But, said Mr. A., if the precedent which a decision of this case in favor of the gentleman whose name is returned (Mr. Moore) be once established, there will in future be a way of coming to Congress independent of the will of the people.

Mr. C. dwelt upon the dangerous consequences that The poll-books from all the counties in the district reg- must grow out of the reception of such a paper to the ularly certified, according to all the requirements of the purity of elections, and the safety of the elective franlaw, was now on the Clerk's table, from which it appear-chise. If the nullity of the certificate had not been upon ed that Mr. Letcher had a clear majority of all the votes its face, then the case ought doubtless to take the usual given in the district. If the gentleman now offering to course, and go to a committee; but the defect was palpabe qualified should, for the present, succeed as the sitting ble, open to all, plain at first sight. member, and should finally lose the seat, the treasury Mr. LANE contended that the question before the would be charged with the mileage and per diem of both House was not, who had or had not received a mathe claimants, until the final decision of the controversy. jority of the votes given? but, who had produced the Mr. A. said he did not present this as a very prominent best prima facie evidence of his right to a seat? Now, he consideration; but still it was one that had a bearing on had yet to learn that Mr. Letcher had produced any certhe case, and ought not to be entirely unattended to. tificate of any kind. It was a principle of law, that in Mr. A. concluded by observing that he had endeavored cases where acts had been performed by persons legally to do his duty in bringing before the House this most sin-appointed to perform them, it was to be presumed that gular occurrence. He had presented the law and the those acts were rightly done, until the contrary should be facts of the case. It now remained with the Representa-shown. Now, there might have been good reasons why tives of the people of the United States, assembled here, the votes of Lincoln county had not been included in the in the House of the people, to decide whether they will certificate; no election might have been held in that give their sanction to a proceeding by which the arbitrary county, or no returns received from it. It had been conwill of the deputy sheriffs shall be substituted for the vote tended by one gentleman [Mr. ALLAN] that a member of a whole district-a proceeding destructive to the rights was not to be admitted to a seat without papers perfect in and liberties of the people of the fifth congressional dis- all respects: but had Mr. Letcher such papers? If not, trict, injurious to the interests of the State of Kentucky, how, then, would the gentleman receive him? and may, as a precedent, affect the right of suffrage in every part of the Union.

vanced by two of his colleagues [Messrs. ALLAN and CHILTON] against the validity of the certificate, he had deemed any further remarks unnecessary to prove its utter insufficiency to entitle Mr. Moore to take his seat and be sworn in as a member of the House. But, as the debate had been continued by the gentleman who had just addressed the House in support of the certificate, he felt it to be his duty, as one of the Representatives from the State of Kentucky, where this question had arisen, to present his views to the House.

Mr. MARSHALL said he concurred fally in the remark just made, that this question lay within a very Mr. HAWES would not undertake to contradict narrow compass. Indeed, so narrow was the inquiry, what his colleague had stated as the facts of the case, and so palpable, as it seemed to him, was the corbut contended that these facts, according to his own rect conclusion, that, after the argument already adshowing, proved that the ancient method of admitting members to a seat ought to be resumed. He admitted that the certificate of the sheriffs was informal and defective, yet he insisted that it ought to be received, in the present stage of proceedings, as prima facie evidence of Mr. Moore's claim, and that he ought thereon to be received as the sitting member until further investigation It did not appear from the face of the certificate that if the votes of Lincoln county had been included, Mr. Letcher would have had a majority of the votes in the district. The omission of one of the sheriffs to certify, The single question now before the House was, whether was a case not provided for by the laws of Kentucky. A the certificate under which Mr. Moore claimed, containsimilar omission in the election of Governor, however, ed upon its face such evidence of his election, that this was provided for; and there the majority of the sheriff's House could safely, with a due regard to the law, to the were competent, after waiting for a prescribed period, to rights of its members, and to the rights of the great body make a return which should be valid in law. In case of of free electors, admit him to qualify as the representacongressional elections, the law assigned a punishment tive of the fifth congressional district of Kentucky. The for the delinquent sheriffs, yet their failure ought not to gentlemen who have maintained the sufficiency of the deprive a man of his seat under such certificate as might certificate, have done so on the alleged ground that it be furnished him. Mr. H. professed entire impartiality, contains prima facie evidence that Mr. Moore is elected. and only desired that justice might be done between the Prima facie, he said, was a term exceedingly indefinite. parties. When the right of a gentleman claiming a seat here is unquestioned, this fact alone may perhaps be considered as prima facie evidence that he is elected. A gentleman who has rumor in his favor, who comes forward as the

Mr. CHILTON followed on the opposite side. Ile thought that his colleague's admission of the accuracy of the statement of the facts of this case was fatal

H. OF R.]

Kentucky Election.

[DEC. 4, 1833.

reputed member, and whose right of membership is un-certificate making known the result shall be signed by contested and unquestioned, would doubtless be admitted the sheriff of each county in the district. The law, to qualify and act as a member. But if his right were therefore, does not admit of any good reason for excluquestioned, if he were called on to exhibit the evidence of ding the vote of a county from the count-or, to speak his election, if another were on the spot claiming to be more accurately, it does not admit that the result can be the elected member from the same district, he must bring ascertained and certified by the sheriff, if the vote of a forward a different grade of testimony from that which county be excluded. If there was room for conjecture mere rumor would furnish-he must prove the fact of his or surmise, as to the causes of the exclusion of the Linelection by that testimony which the law requires-by coln vote, those who claimed that the certificate on its that testimony which the law and reason declare to be face conferred or evidenced a right, were not at liberty to evidence of the fact. aid it and eke it out by surmise. If conjectures and surmises were to be allowed, they belonged to the other side. Against a paper so illegal and defective, the strongest presumptions might be indulged.

It is apparent, he said, that while gentlemen insist that this certificate contains sufficient evidence (prima facie of Mr. Moore's election, they find themselves compelled to supply its defects, to make it sufficient, by conjecturing The certificate, Mr. M. said, is not only defective in its facts which the certificate does not state. The certifi- contents, by failing to state the main fact, the result of cate (due weight being given to all its parts) does not the election, and by showing that the legal means of ason its face assert that Mr. Moore has been elected by the certaining that fact had been omitted, it is also defective, whole district, but that he has received a majority of the and, as he contended, fatally defective, in its execution votes in four of the five counties which compose the dis-or authentication. The law requires the certificate of trict-the vote of Lincoln county not being taken into the election to be signed by the sheriffs of all the counties of calculation. The law of Kentucky, by which this case the district. This certificate is signed by but three, when must be decided, requires that all the votes shall be it should have been signed by five sheriffs. Partial as the counted. There is not in law or in reason, any other statement of the certificate is, that statement is not evimode of ascertaining who has received the majority, but denced as the statute requires. And yet it is contended by faithful addition and comparison of all the votes given. that this paper is sufficient to entitle Mr. Moore to a scat It is by such addition and comparison that the law of Ken-in this House. tucky requires the result to be ascertained; and it is the If this paper, signed by three out of five sheriffs, staresult so ascertained which it authorizes the sheriffs to ting that Mr. Moore has received a majority in four out of certify. This certificate shows upon its face that all the five counties, is to be taken as sufficient evidence of his votes were not counted. It shows upon its face that the right to sit as a member of the House, on what ground entire vote of one of the five counties was excluded from could you refuse the seat to a gentleman who might prothe addition and comparison. It shows upon its face that duce a statement, signed by three out of five sheriffs, that the legal and only means of ascertaining the result of the he had received the majority in three, or two, or even election were not adopted. It shows that the result of one, of fire counties composing a district, the vote of the the election was not legally ascertained, and it cannot other counties not being taken into calculation? If this therefore pretend to state the result. It could not state is called a certificate, and is therefore deemed prima fucie the result of the addition and comparison of the vote of sufficient, so might that be called a certificate-and therefive counties, when it expressly states that the vote of one fore be good. If that should be deemed insufficient, beof the five was not included in the estimate. The fact cause it is not what the law requires, so must this, for the that Mr. Moore received the majority of votes in four same cause, be deemed insufficient. If the defects in counties, does not prove, it does not tend to prove, that he received the majority in five counties. It does not prove, in the slightest degree, what the vote of the fifth county was. It does not furnish any ground of inference that the addition and comparison of the vote of the five counties would show a result similar to that exhibited by the addition and comparison of the vote of the four counties. How, he asked, can an instrument be deemed prima facie evidence of Mr. Moore's election by the fifth dis- The great fact, Mr. M. said, of which we are seeking trict, which neither states that fact itself, nor any other evidence, and of which this certificate is presented as facts from which that fact must or can be properly in prima facie evidence, is the vote of the fifth congressionferred? The most that can be inferred from the body of al district-the election it has made of a representative in the certificate is, that Mr. Moore is or would be elected, the present Congress. By the laws and usages of Ken if the vote of Lincoln be not counted. But it neither tucky, the name and vote of every voter is entered in a appears that the vote of Lincoln ought to have been ex-book, at the moment his vote is given, by a clerk, and cluded, nor why it was in fact excluded from the count. under the inspection of judges of the election, appointed Gentlemen, however, guess that there was, or that there for the purpose. This is a record of the fact itself, made might have been, some good reason for excluding or while the fact is in progress, and is an essential accompa omitting the vote of Lincoln. He must repeat, in an niment, if not an essential part of the election. It affords, swer to these surmises, that the law required all the votes prima facie, the very best evidence of the votes given, to be counted, and allowed no other mode of ascertaining and of the election made. It is so regarded by the stat the result. The law of Kentucky, he said, requires the ute of Kentucky, which requires the sheriff's to ascertain sheriff's of the several counties comprising a congression- the result of the clection by faithful addition and comparal district to meet, with the poll-books of their respective ison of the votes appearing on the poll-books (or reccounties, at a time and place prescribed, and, by faithful ords of election) of their several counties. The polladdition and comparison of the votes, to ascertain who is books being the record of the facts from which the reelected. The sheriffs have no discretion to exclude or sult stated in the certificate is a deduction, constitute the omit from the count any vote actually given, even by a sin- primary evidence, and, in comparison with the certificate, gle individual. That the law does not contemplate the the best evidence of the facts. How, then, does the cerpossibility of the entire vote of a county being omitted, tificate, which is secondary and derivative in its characappears not only from the mode prescribed for ascertain-ter, acquire the force of evidence at all? It is solely, said ing the result, but from the express requisition that the he, by virtue of the statute which authorizes the sheriffs

the present case can be passed over, or supplied by conjecture-if this certificate, utterly defective in the most essential requisites prescribed by the law, is still to be deemed (under the character of prima facie evidence) sufficient to admit the gentleman named in it to a seat, what paper can be brought here, in the shape of a certifi cate, signed by one or more of the sheriffs of a district, that may not equally have that effect?

DEC. 4, 1833.]

Kentucky Election.

[H. OF R.

to meet with their poll-books, add and compare the votes, received the highest number of votes, was elected. But and execute a certificate, the very object of which is to neither the original state of the vote, nor the process by make known, that is, to be evidence of the result. By which the result was attained, appeared, as he understood these provisions the certificate is made, for the sake of the case, in the certificate itself; and of course the House convenience, the substitute of the original record, the re- was not and could not have been called upon in that case sult or general effect of which it should state with pre- to judge of the correctness or legality of the process in cision and truth. The certificate now under considera- this preliminary stage, even if the certificate had been tion, he said, was a paper which showed upon its face that called for and inspected. In the case before us, he said, the sheriff's had not acted according to the authority and it appears, upon inspection of the certificate, that the requirement of the statute; that they had not ascertained vote of an entire county had been omitted in the count, the result, nor used the means for ascertaining it required and the House was obliged to determine whether such by the statute; and that they had not stated the essential omission was legal, whether it did not vitiate the certififact which they were authorized and required to state-cate. He had sufficiently examined this question. But the result of the election in the whole district. It, more- he wished it to be distinctly understood that there was over, wanted that authentication, by the signatures of all not in Kentucky, as there seemed to be in Michigan and the sheriffs, which, by the statute, is necessary to make it elsewhere, a board of canvassers, who had the right to a certificate of election. It is therefore clear, that, with scrutinize the poll, to judge of the character of votes such defects, it is not the instrument which the statute standing on the poll-book, and strike off or reject from authorizes; it has not the character which the statute im- the count such as they considered illegal. It was the parts to a proper certificate; it is not the substitute for the duty of the officers of the election to know, and, if neoriginal record provided by the statute; and, deriving no cessary, to investigate the right of every individual preaid from the statute, to which it does not conform in any senting himself as a voter; and, by their decision, his vote essential requisite, as a statutory paper, it has no authority, was either rejected or received and entered on the polland proves nothing. He submitted to gentlemen of the book. But there was no intermediate tribunal between legal profession, of whom there were many in the House them and this House, with power to scrutinize the polls, of the highest attainments, whether, if such a paper were and reject illegal votes. The sheriff's had no power but presented as evidence in a court of justice, it would not to count and compare the votes, make a certificate of the be rejected as utterly incompetent, except against those result, and send it to the Secretary of State. The Govwho signed it, to prove even the facts which it stated. It ernor had no power but to transmit to this House the certainly could not be prima facie evidence of the result certificate of the sheriffs, without addition, inference, or of an election which it did not pretend to state. comment. There was, he said, so far as he had heard, no The principle, he said, which gave importance to this precedent for the present case. It was a new one. There case, and which impelled him to oppose the claim to a had been no instance in which the certificate under which seat under this certificate was, that the people have the a seat was claimed had been objected to at this stageright to choose their representatives in this House, and there had been no instance in which two gentlemen had that their choice, when made, shall not be defeated or presented themselves while the House was in the act of disturbed by the acts or omissions of ministerial officers, organizing, each claiming to be sworn in as the representwhose agency is called in merely for the purpose of as-ative of the same district; each asserting that he had the certaining and making known that choice. The law of best evidence of his right; each endeavoring to be receivKentucky on this subject had been made with a view to ed as the sitting member, and to throw the burden of conthis principle, and had sought its preservation by exclu- testing the seat upon the other. Such was the case at ding the returning officers from all action after the people present. It was a preliminary contest, the determination have voted, except that of adding and comparing the of which, in favor of either gentleman, would not prevotes, and by expressly requiring the signature of each clude the ultimate rights of the other. He insisted that of them to the paper making known the result. Although it should not be decided in favor of him whose evidence Congress might, by its own legislation, change some of did not show that he had received the highest number of these provisions of the State laws, yet, as it had not done votes. so, this House, sitting in judgment upon the qualification The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LANE] seems to have and return of its members, or those claiming to be so, supposed that those who object to Mr. Moore's taking the was bound by the laws of the States, and could not, in seat, because his certificate does not conform to the law, the present instance, dispense with any principle or re- must also object to Mr. Letcher's taking the seat, since quisition of the statute of Kentucky. The certificate he has no certificate of the assembled sheriffs. This, Mr. must be measured by the statute which authorizes it. M. said, was not his view of the case. He objected to How far it fell short of that standard and its consequent the certificate under which Mr. Moore claims, because, worthlessness, he had attempted to show. He could not, while it has no force or effect as evidence but by virtue of he thought, be mistaken in saying, that without the aid the statute, it varies so materially in form and substance of the statute, a oertificate signed by all the sheriffs, sta- from the requisites prescribed by the statute, that it is ting who was elected, would not be legal evidence of the not the instrument to which the statute gives effect, and fact. therefore is not evidence at all of the result of the With regard to the case of the contested election from election.

Michigan, which had been referred to by his colleague, If the certificate had been signed by all the sheriffs, [Mr. Hawes,] Mr. M. stated various particulars, showing and had been legally sufficient in all its statements, still, that it had no analogy with the present case. The fact, it would at best have been but a compendium of the pollhe said, that in that or in any other case, a gentleman had books--a statutory substitute for the original record; and qualified as a member with a good certificate, and when in case of variance between them, the evidence of the there was no objection, is surely no precedent for per-poll-books must prevail. Much more must it prevail over mitting a gentleman to qualify under a bad certificate, and a certificate defective as this is. In the present case, he when there is objection. It appeared, he said, from the said, Mr. Letcher had produced exemplifications of the report of the committee in the Michigan case, that the original record; he had laid upon the Clerk's table copies board of territorial canvassers to whom the votes were returned, had rejected or omitted from the count as illegal several of the votes actually given, and had, by this means, come to the result that Mr. Wing, who had not VOL. X.-135

of the poll-books themselves of each of the five counties of the district, certified by the officers in whose custody the law places the originals, showing the name and vote of every man who had voted for representative in that

H. OF R.]

Kentucky Election.

[DEC. 5, 1833.

Mr. POLK objected to this, as opening the whole testimony, of all sorts.

Mr. McKINLEY wished the reading to proceed--it could do no harm--it was relevant to the preliminary question.

district, at the late election, and showing that, on a faithful giving Mr. Letcher a difference of 48 in his favor. Mr. addition and comparison of the votes, he had received the ALLAN then called for the reading of the returns from the majority, and is therefore entitled to take his seat, as being judges of election in each county. prima facie the member elect. Whatever might be the weight of this evidence, if the credentials of Mr. Moore were such a certificate as the law makes evidence of the election, he contended that, in the absence of any such certificate, these copies of the poll-books constituted the best evidence that could be offered, and were prima facie Mr. BURGES objected to the certificate, because on its sufficient to prove who had received the majority of votes face it was evident sheriffs had certified to what they and who was entitled to the seat. By requiring a record could not know. Four sheriff's had certified the result of of the election to be made and preserved, the law of the election in five counties. They might as well certify Kentucky had, he said, provided the means of curing all the number of prisoners in the jail of an adjoining coun defects, omissions, and irregularities, casual or intentional, ty. Each sheriff could only legally certify for his own in the addition and comparison of the polls, or in the cer- county. tificate intended to make known the result. That record is competent to aid a defective certificate, correct a false one, or supply the place of one where there was none. It bore with it sufficient weight as evidence to secure a seat in this House to the man whom the people have elected, although the sheriffs should refuse to give him a certificate.

Mr. ELLSWORTH presumed that, if either of the claimants could satisfy the House what had been the actual state of the ballot-box, the House would be governed by that fact, and decide accordingly. This was not one of those cases where a majority of sheriffs could act for the whole. Had they certified that A B had been elected according to the votes of one county, could that be deemed sufficient? Surely not. Suppose they had certified the same according to two counties, would that be admitted? or of three? Why then of four, when five counties had voted? Would a certificate be admitted that a certain paper was the record of a court, except one page? This was just such a certificate.

it

Mr. POLK withdrew his objection to the reading.
But, before the reading was resumed,

Mr. McKENNAN moved an adjournment; but withdrew to receive the Speaker's report of sundry communications received by him from the Heads of Department. After which the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5.

KENTUCKY ELECTION.

The House then resumed the consideration of the contested election between Mr. T. P. Moore and Mr. Letcher.

Mr. HARDIN rose and said, he thought, from what he had heard on the preceding day, that many gentlemen had felt embarrassed, owing to the question not being before the House in a tangible form. He would offer two resolutions, the object of which was to obviate this difficulty. The resolutions were then read.

Mr. HARDIN said he rose for the purpose of referring Mr. BEARDSLEY maintained that the question was to to the laws of the State of Kentucky with regard to elec be settled solely on the face of the certificate. Now, tions. He discovered yesterday, that many gentlemen though the certificate stated that the Lincoln returns were were desirous of further information on this point; he not included, it did not say that any votes had been given would therefore enter a little more in detail into that in Lincoln, or that if they had, they would have given a subject, hoping, as he did, that he might be able to majority to Mr. Letcher. And though the number of state, briefly, yet clearly and distinctly, what were the sheriffs certifying was less than the whole, yet the princi- laws of that State, governing elections. It would be reple of law applied, that in all public bodies, the act of a collected, that the constitution of the United States, after majority was the act of the body. Had one of the sheriffs prescribing the qualification of members, contained the died before certifying, would that have destroyed the following provision: "The times, places, and manner of certificate? holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall Mr. POLK stated several precedents from the history be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; of elections in the State of New York, where claimants but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter had been admitted to a seat, although, from the fault such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senof the officers returning, the word "junior," though ators." But Congress had not legislated for Kentucky on appended to votes as given, was omitted in the elec- this subject; and, therefore, whatever might be the laws tion returns. By this, a Mr. Teneyck was admitted, and rules of the Territory of Michigan, the Territory of and Daniel Huguenin, the person really chosen, had to Arkansas, or the State of New York, as to elections, they wait till the case was passed upon by the Committee of had nothing to do with the laws and rules of Kentucky, Elections. The same thing had happened in the case of as to this subject, nor could they enter into the question Silas Wright. If the House should open the poll-books, before them. The decision on that question must be govthey must receive affidavits, and all other testimony, and become, in fact, a Committee of Elections.

Mr. WARDWELL further explained the facts referred to by Mr. POLK, and showed them to be stronger than he had put them.

erned solely by the laws of Kentucky, just as questions on its land titles, &c. were governed. If gentlemen would turn to the laws of Kentucky, they would find that that State was laid off, like other States, into counties; it had its county courts, its circuit courts, its courts of appeal, &c. Mr. ALLAN was surprised that it should be said Mr. By an act of its Legislature, it was made an indispensable Letcher had produced no certificates. They had been duty of the county courts to appoint a time and place for on the Clerk's table since the opening of the session-the election of members of the Legislature every year, and they would show the following result of the district and members of Congress every other year. election:

[Mr. H. here went into an explanation of the rules of election pursued in the State of Kentucky, and read several extracts from the laws of that State on the subject.] He would call the attention of the House to one point. He had read to them the act under which each gentleman claimed his seat on that floor. Now, what were the facts of the case? There were five counties, forming the fifth -3,143 congressional district; polls were opened in these five

Jessamine county,

For Letcher.
581

For Moore.

Garrard do

1,075

Anderson do

199

Mercer

do

686

489 240 436 1,469

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »