Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-12-11

''"uo the ERECTION anu IN THIS he thought him.
self borne out by the language Of the law. II
ms point be proved, he said it put an end TO
the controversy.
Mr.. Carter of Richmond co. thought IL
clear, from the evidence before the House, that
nir' Davis was not entitled TO seat. He
went into brief argument, to prove that
Stark, who was SOME 10 or IL miles from
the Court House al the close of the election,
could have no right TO claim the closing Of the
polls and the declarat0, of the resuit-and
mat II IS not necessary for the same officer
who opens an election to close l..
Mr.. Thompson of Il. chairman Of the com.
Iniitee, sustained the substitute he had offered
lie SAID that no county had more lhas one
sheriff, and that his acts, whether signed by
himself or by his deputy, were, in estimation
OF law, the acts uf the sheriff So clear was
this, that even a notice must be given 10
the high sheriff. through whom alone a
deputy could he reached. He admitted
the existence Of some disagreement in the
returns, but taking them together, the sense
and effect of the whole were in favor uf Nor
rms and Berkeley. Every thing which occurred
~ The progress Of an election was preliminary
To The final catastrophe, the close Of 81; and at
TINS monrnt the deputy who returned Da,is
was, by his own acknowledgements, and that
ol Mr.. Davis himself, absent, which he thought,
disqualified him from declaring and re,urnIn .
The result. He thought it the duty Of the
fiouse TO decide the controversy, however
UNPLEASANT TO do so, rather than declare its in.
ability to do it.
Mr.. Davis again addressed the House. and
attempted to prove that cases might exist. in
which there was no election, notwithstandipg
the guards which the law had provided against
suth an occurrence.
Mr. Watkins, Of p. z. remarked that the
only right IN deputy To hold an election ex-
isted III The absence Of the high Sheriff, who
was the only legal person tn hold the election.
Aud 1.-THE report be adopted, the return Of a
high Sheriff, even in favor of two persons an
qnestunably elected, may be set aside bv his
deputies. This would open the door to iu,-
proper condnct on the part of deputies,
VINO, 10 give their fav0rtes second chance of
success, nayin this manner y,iate an election.
lie also opposed the substitute, so far as il
recognIzed the note or memorandum append
ed 10 the return of oae OF the deputies, which
wasn not entitled 10 the same weight as re-
turn made under oath. The admission that
such memoranda were at all admissible, or
entitled TO consideration, would be productive
OF mischIevous consequences. He, therefore
moved that the report be recolnmtted, with
power 10 the committee to send for persons
and papers.
| Mr. christian opposed recommitmept, on
the grnuod that there was evidences enough be-
fore tue house 10 enable il to decide. Was il ne.
cessary that the Sheriff who commences must
conclude the election Ifso, the election is void
us 10 all the members returned. But if it he
not necessary that the Sheriff who opened
must conclude the election, then il is clear he
said, that Morris and Berkeley were duly elect
ed. The high Sheriff and one deputy had
c"ncnrred IN return-of these members, ard
the other beng absent, he could have no CLAM,
to close tile polls. Ii was not unreasonable
| To expect, that where an election continued
several days, II will in some Instances, be clos
| ed by some person other than the one com
nencnS it. He insisted, that The election
could not be declared void as TO two persons
without being equally VOID as to the other and
such a conclusion he thought unjust towards
Mr. Motifs. uewas in favor Of "a re commit.
msn'.
Mr.. Patteson, opposed asre-comnritment
a"o thought the house might dispose Of the
SUBJECT with the Information now before it
He opposed the substitute, and held himself
prepared 10 support the report, when the
house could sc. to it,
Dir. Watkins insisted that the case was so
much embarrassed by dill ulty, as to require
the more deliberate investigation of the con,
tni!tee. The facts ought To be investigated
i WHO opened, who concluded and who clio an,
the election, ought 10 be reported 10 the l,nuse.
When these facts are known, "A difficult u.es
ZION may then occur as to the right of making
j the return.
MI PatrsOn said, the ground on which the
committee had DECLARED the election void. was
That the Shrrilis had made three different and
contradictory reports, and the committee
knew not which was correct
i Mr.. Thompson saw no necessity for re-
commitment. He objected TO the report be.
cause II was not in compliance with the rule
| OF the house, which in these delicate questions
OF privilege, required the reasoning of fine
committee IN favor of their conclusions TO ac-
| company their report. Such was not tn. case
Thereport was naked declaration of facts.
aud coming "a conclusions Of a character. which
admitted nf much doubt IN the minds of ma.
ny members. There was no necessity far r,.
commitment, because the case was Ggreed
and there were no facts in discu The only
! question related TO the conclusions To be
drawn from the facts set forth
Mr.. Watkins had not been appraised tba The
facts were agreet.
| The house rriecled the motion 10 re-co,-
NIT.
fine substitute was then agreed 10, ayes
| l07, Does79.
Communication was received from the
James River Commissioner, and laid ON the
table and ordered To be printed.
Mr.. Colston obtained leave to bring in a
bill concerning the 10th Judicial circuit. lie
stated that Judge White was unable to attend
q Special Court Of Importance, from having
broken his leg, ADD that Judge Holmes. if an
tliorised by law, was willing TO hold The court
THURSDAY, Dec. 0.
Two resolutions were read from the C..
OF Propositions and Grievances; Isl. that the