The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-12-20
Gol.4re8s.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY, Bee. l2.

TIC buildings that he wss ready to proceed in
ieouring the ceiling of the chamber of the
Houfe.
On motion of Mr. Bidwel, the Houfe refoIv-
ed itfelf into committee of the wboie-Mr.
BAssEr in the chair-on the bill to revive and
make permanent " An aa TO prefcribe the
mode Of taking evidence in cafes of conteted
elections for members of the Houie of Repre-
tentatves of the u. S. and to compel the at
tendance of witnelIes," and in addition to the
lame.
Mr.. ]. Clay remarked that in all the contefcd
elections which had been conducted by ballot,
a comfortable difficulty had arifen in afcettain-
ing from which of the candidates the votes
given by unqualified perfons ihould be dedua-
ed. For the purpofe of removing, or at leaf
leIening this difficulty, he had drafted a new
fiction, which he purpofed to fubmt for conf
deration. The objection heretofore made to
examining the votes, to determine for which
candidate they had been given, had been found
ed on the opinion that it nterfered with the
facrednefs of the ballot. This, if found OBJ
jeStion, could only apply to perfons legally
qualified to vote, as principle fitted to fave
the rights of electors, and not of perions not
legally qualified to vote. Mr.. Clay faid his OBJ
jeet was to authorize magfrate 10 examine on
oath perfons who had voted without being
qualified for whom they had voted that votes
thus given might be deducted from the candi-
date for whom they were given. This would
obviate much of the difficulty at prefent exit
ing. Intending to offer fuch proviion, he
moved that the committee lhoud rife aud ak
leave to fit again.
Mr.. Bidwell obferved that the principle of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania was a new
enc, that they ihoud undertake to decide by
law what votes fhall not be examined. 1t ap-
peared to him ulelefs, as it was fettIed by the
contribution, aud unlefs constitutional evidence
was given to the Houie of the eXitence OF I'M
qualified votes, this proviGon would abrfdge
its constitutional power. A deciiion on the
qualification of electors was expressly vefted By
the contribution in the Houfe. 1t, therefore,
appeared to him improper by aatute to decide
this point, which was the proper province of
the Houfe. A provition of that kind would go
to put contribution by ftatute on the mean
ing of the contribution, or to interfere with the
constitutional powers veited in the Houfe.
Such being his prefent fentiments, he felt re-
pugnance TO the propoiition.
Mr.. J. Clay faid it was true that they could
not by law decide what were the qualifications
of electors. But he would ak, if in cafes of
voting Uiva Voee, where the votes given for
particular candidate were proved not to be
good, they were not deducted from him. His
object was that the fame procefs fhould be pur-
fued where the election was by ballot. They
had unqucaionably right to fay that man
who votes, without being entitled, fhall fay for
whom he voted. Such aprovlion would not
be putting a contribution on the contribution
not at prefent attached to it. 1t would only
require thofe not entitled to vote to declare on
oath for whom they had voted.
Mr.. Smile faid he had no objection to the
committee riiing for the purpofe of more fully
coniicieriug ie ffuss;;jeeat. He :ecc!!eSted that
in the fate in which he lived this point had Of
ten been difcuiied. Where votes were given
piqa poce there was no difficulty. But where
ballots were received, they could not compel
the voter to fay for whom he voted. He a.
greed with his colleague, that it would be no
violation of principle to compel the unqualified
voter to fay on oath for whom he voted. The
principle was 70 plain, it could not be denied.
He hoped, however, that the committee would
rife, that his colleague might be enabled to
bring forward his prepoftion.
Mr.. Bidwell faid he was not difpofed to pre-
cipitate decihon. He had, therefore, no OBJ
je6tion to the committee ri(ing that gentlemen
might mature their ideas the fubje6t. He
would, however, obferve that he conGdered
the propolition Objectionable in one point of
view, as giving rnagifrate the right of deter
mining who were qualified votes, point only
to be decided by the HOMIE.
MIR 7. Clay obferved that before the quefti-
on was taken he would fuggeft the proprety of
recommitting the bill, either to felett COM
mIttee or to the COrnmlttee or electIOnS, to de-
termine the propriety of his amendment, where
the fubiect might be canvahed, and the amend
meutf 70 modified as to be unexceptionable. He
hoped the gentleman from Mafachufetts, who
had brought in the bill, would make this mott
on.
The quefion was then taken on the rifng Of
the committee, and carried without diviion-
whea the committee rofe and obtained leave to
ct again.
Mr.. HoInes moved that the Committee of
l,ims fhouid be discharged from the further
Moderation of the petitions of Arnold Martin,
" Sarah his wife, William Kincad, John
ht1eitheimer, Philip Turner, and Ludwig
hp, all barred by the Ratute of limitations,
anobat they fhould be referred to the com
n''tN appointed to couider what proyifon
hnou\be made for fuch claims, to which mo-
ZION Houfe agreed.
Mr. Randolph obferved that during the
Ian lem feveral petitions from perfons cnga-
ged IN hcolle6tion of the public revenue, pray
ing ftr aincreale of emoluments, had been re-
ferred to,e Committee of Ways and Means
Hkewife + report ofthe Secretary of the Trea-
fury bat the committee under the infruc-
tons ofthtHoufe, as well as from the general
powers debated to them, had taken up the
fuhjed in ,eoeral point of view, in order to
modify the exiting fyaem as circumstances re-
quired. The fubjett had required much attcu-
ton, and aftet fcheduIe had been made out,
VI by fome m ans got millaid. MIR. r. conclu.