Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1804-04-27

attendance N Congress on the l1tnoIt tue
same month, a distance Of three hundred
miles from bis place Of rrsidence---that
no person was left residing in his House
and he had no actual notice ofthe service
-Tha.when on his journey, at Lexing-
ton, seventy miles from home and more
than one hundred from GretnbrieF
Court House, on the 9Th of October,
within four days time Of examination, a
copy was put into his hands, as also ap.
pears by affidavit. ... p :.
This notice he said he did not consi-
dersuehas ought to bind the sitting menu
Der. A notice of Eve days atieast was
required by the terms of the warrant
the service on the 9th gave but four days
this of course could not be claimed on a.
ny principle rs legal seryice-Of the CO.
py left at his house, it did not appear, that
he had or could have actual notice-znd
this alone is the notice which can be. pre-
tended to give validity to the evidence.
tits true that by law the magistrate IS
sning the warrant, shall fix the time for
its service-but he shall also fix q con.
yenient time having respect to the dis
lance. II was fact well known through
the country that Congress were to meet
on the 18th and that according to the prin-
ciples assumed in the act fixing the com.
pensation for the travel of members
following one day for 90 miles he might
claim fifteen days for his journey. This
notice was served within eleven days Of
the commencement of the session, and
after the sitting member had in fact COM
menced his journey. His appearance was
to be within FIVE days Of the session.
The time fixed could not therefore be
convenient unreasonable, even If service
had been actually made. Indeed it may
wen be questioned whether the privilege
Of the House does not protect ITS mem
bers, from the service of process so
directly calculated to divert their attenti-
on from the concerns Of the nation, dur
ing the period offs privilege without its
consent. He was therefore of opinion
that the notice was not such a. could on
any principle bind the sitting member
Il appears from the documents that a
friend of the sitting member, attended
rs his voluntarily agent, but il also ape
pears that he protestedagainst the notice.
and that he neither had instructions, or
authority to appear.-Such appearance
eau give no validity to the evidence.
He further observed, that II the notice
such as twas shnald be deemed legal,
and the evidence taken under it admisi-
bic; he still commended the proof VAIN
sufficient to warrant the report. = =.
D. By the laws of Virginia the right of
voting for Representatives in Congress,
is in freeholders having certain specified
quantities of estate, and, when entitled
by deed or grant, with six months posses
sion. The mode Of elections is prescrib-
ed BY law, and known officers are desig-
mated to ssuperintsnd the elections and
certify the result. The result Of this e.
lection is BY the proper officers duly GER
tilted in favor Of the sitting member
from the return Of these officers under
the sanction Of their official oath, the pre-
sumption is in favour of the due .electi-
on Of the member returned and Of the
legality ofhis votes, and cannot be set
aside without stronger proof on the part
Of the petitioner. Let US then. examine
the proof on which he relics. The proof
of the petitioner is in fact nothing more
than the land list of the county. He
rests his elaimson the result Of COMPARE
son ofthe poll with this list, and the re-
lection Of those from the poll whose
names are not on the list 10 z.z a
BY the poll for the county ofGreenbri-
er il appears that $50 votes were given
for the sitting member--245 of which
do not appear on the land list. And 2o2
Of these are eventually rejected by the
committee as bad votes and thus . ma
jority Of SO isreported in favour Of the
petitioner. OF the 2o2 votes thus reject
ed IFS were decided TO be bad on no o.
Their proof than that they were not found
on the land list. As this alone turnsthe
election. IL becomes serious one sfinn