The Alexandria herald. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1811-1826, 1813-07-02
CONGRESS.
HOUSE or REPRESENY.ATI
REEORT

y.
REPORT.
The committee Of elections, to svhom syas
Tc-comnitted The Petition Of John 2aiia.
fcrro confesfing the election of John p.
HunSeJord, returned as q member of
this house. svifh their rehort thereon, hape
according TO order, had The same undcr
consideration and
FURTHER REPORT,
THAT from the polls of the several
counties the sitting member appears TO
have obtained majority of twenty-four
votes in the district.
The petitioner claims the seat on the
ground, that majority of the legal woes
at said election were given for him, and as
evidence to support his claim produced the
land list of 1879, with copy of the noll
taken in each county in the district at said
election. That on comparing the poll OF
each county with tho aforesaid land list,
and taking that as the tie st, it appears thai
1913 persons who voted for the petitioner
and 234 persons who voted for the sitting
member were not qualified to vote that
deducting from both polls the persons chal-
ienged who do not appear to have been
qualified 10 vote according to the land list
aforesaid, there is left for MIR. Taliaferro
majority of IL over Mr.. Hungerfol d 4.
he petitioner contends, that the difficult
ties OF ascertaining the names, places of
abode and property Of the voters, present
&c by the omission of duly entering their
names In the poll book, forbid the hope Of a
fair and successful scrutiny of the poll, by
means OF any other evidence than that OF
comparing 1t with the land list, on which
alone ought to rest the merits Of his claim
aud the right of the sitting member to his
seat But the committee were of opinion.
that 1t was competent for the pa, ties to
support their challenges and polls by other
evidence, and therefore admitted the ac
companyiDg afhdavits with the testimony of
tienry Lee, jun. Daniel c. Brent and John
COOK, 1.-THE two latter gentlemen produced
by the petilioner) as sufficient to support
As OF the votes on his poll that were chal-
lenged by the petitioner and not found on
the land list as aforesaid; and the petition
er, by the testimony Of the said Lee, Brent
and Cook, proved the legality of Is votes
found on his poll challenged by the sitting
member and not found on the land list
that by adding the aforesaid IS votes to the
poll OF Mr.. Hungerford and the said IS
votes to the poll of Mr.. Taliaferro, there is
lett for the former gentleman majority of
ten votes over the latter.
The petitioner contended, that the evil
dcnce exhibited by the affidayts fell far
short OF supporting the votes it was intend
ed Tor, because it did not shew that the vo-
tiers had had the posse ssion Of the freehold
TILE to their lands as well as of the land it
self, in right of which they voted, six
months prior to the day of said election, and
which, as he alleged, the laws of Virginia
required to entitle them to vote, EXCEPT in
cases where they came into posses sion of
the land by marriage, descent or devise. If
this construction of the law, which the
strict letter oft seems to warrent, had been
adopted by the committee, it would have
lett ID OF the aforesaid 43 votes, given for
Mr.: Hungerford, unsupported, and to the
petitioner majority of four votes but
from the best information the committee
could obtain of the construction given this
Jaw 6y the usage of the Virginia Legislature,
majority were inclined to the opinion,
that the spirit and intention of the law were
satisfied when the voter had been six
months in the scWal possession Of the