Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-12-30
TirgEata NsglaIature.
HOUSE a. DELEGAYES- Eridnn- - II

mIttees of Me House.
! Mr. Jackson offered the following Resolution:-
Reoed That the Auditor of Public Account be direct
ed to report to this House the amount of money
III the support of Agent appointed to spriiuisnd line
veying the military lasdS in the state of Kentucky oo
uhoer what authority those different expenditures Ina We been
made; and such other information he may possess show
ing the necessity OF continuing propiey disseminating
SAID agency and that he also report this House whether
or not any warrants have been drawn OH the Treasury
SINCE the session OF the last Legislature which were not
warranted by law and if make report each case
Mr. ). explained; 1t appeared primo Gtcie that mo-
ncy had been expended touching the premises without
the authority of the General Assembly. Seven hun.
dred dollars IT appeared had been paid to Robert Trip
ieto oil hentucly, for services for which there was no
authority from this House. He wished for full infor
'naton on the whole subject.
On cir. Harcies motion, the rule of the House was
suspended Tor The reception of petition from the CT
tiZenS OF Richmond relative to the tariff of tolls ON
James Ever, aud the said petition presented ami
! referred
| Nh. Rccs of Pr George. called up the Report of
The Ccmnee of Privileges and Elections, on the peti-
Ton OF Tho Spencer contestng the election of VIM.
a. Wardaw returned from the county of Greensvle
Alter examining the doubtful votes on both poles the
Committee came 10 the Resolution, that VIM A. Ward
law is entitled to his scat in the House of Delegates.
.h1 RtUcS offered a substitute to the Report aud Re-
solution OF the Committee. The Committee had adj
vanced the principle That the poll book was evidence
me right OF the voters to exercise that privilege. Mr.
X contested this principle, and contendel that the poll
oOoh was eFluenCe Onj mat the persons whose
appeared thereon had voted His objection was only
to the reasoning of the Committee, for his substitute
came to the same conclusion, wit, that VIM a. Ward
law, the sitting member, entitled to bold his seat
.u1 Ece1at defended the Report of the Committee:
The Sheriff officer and the po!l book was
record of his proceedings 1t could not be presumed
that the Sheriff had admitted any person vote who
was no rceho!derthe presumption was therefore that
the election had been conducted according 10 law: and
the contrary must be demonstrated by evidence before
hn lot tod bio
the Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the
poll book was pi1mn fdcie evidence THE right those
persons whose names appeared on it, to vote.
M. Ghohon replied to MIR. Rives and the argument
contained in his Substitute. The fundamental princ.
plies asserted by the Committee received his appro-
baton. Both justice and policy sanctioned the conclu-
sion that the po3boo1 pria 1cie evidence of tile
II the poll book was not priG acie evidence, to what
conclusions would it lead? You throw upon the person
returned the necessity Of proving the validity of every
vote on his Pol-a consequence leading endless trou-
ole and eXpencc In many instances, to his individual
knowledge persons had been excluded from voting
because their did not appear on the Commission
ers BOOKS. Ihey did not appear there, because they
paid their taxes in the adjoining counties, in which the
greater portion OF their land was situated Should it
be sand that they were not entitled to their votes because
| their names were not found in the Commissioners
books OF GreensrIlle? He thought therefore, that the
poll book primo jcc evidence and that those con-
testing must establish their right by superior evidence
O'lr Boutdin thought there little difference be-
tween the Report and Substitute, between the argu
ments Of their respective supporters The poI hook
was pri1a jitcie evidence but liable to he overthrown
by better evidence, either from the Commissioners
book by the exhibition of will deed or other title to
freehold. He could therefore see no difference
between the Substitute and the argument of Mr. Ghol
! .Hr. GhoiSon and Mr.. Boultlip mutually explained
| Jur Droiss, Of Hanover, supported the Report of
the Committee at length-and mr.. Douihat the Sub
stitute
! 10 I0uco To IL C,,I-
| GO; Noes 81.
M. zas6n, of Southampton, moved, in the absence
of the Chairman Mr.. Watkins of P E. to lay the re-
port on the table.
MIR. Gt0lSOn opposed this cOnrse--the views of the
Chairman had been fully developed by the Substitute,
and he could discover necessity for farther discus
son The motion further opposed by mr.. Everett
Mr. Ghoison, and ONr Crump, of Cumberland; and
supported by .Aiesrs. Rires and Blackburn. The mo-
ton was loSt-Ayes II, Noes 70.
Mr. Aiason, of King George, then made motion 10
recommit the report The motion was lost-Ayes 78,
| Noes 80.
| Mr. Pa'teSon Of Augusta moved to reject the whole
OF the Resolutions except those declaring the right of
the sitting member TO his seat. the iutcc of every
election and of every doubtful vote were TO be exam.
ned here, there could be end the discussion. He
moved TO disagree therefore all The Resolutions except
those designated above.
Nh Gho6on thought the mode suggested.to abridge
the trouble Of these examinations extraordinary for the
motion to disagree would provoke discussion upon each
separate resolution.
/ Mr. Patteaon then changed his proposition by NOV
ing to strike out The whole of the report except the
solution specified.
M. Crwap, of Cumberland, opposed this course-as
shifting the duty of such examinations upon Commit
tees, and evadins duty.-The motion was lost
On motion of Uur. Gordon, the report was recomnit-
ted.
The Spea]rer presented the report of the Superin-
| tendant of The Penitentiary the table fer
printing.
Mr.. ,HcCulloch offered the following Resolution.
That leave be given to bring in I'LL authorsog the
County Court of Mason, sell the l5tthoreUn the old
jail of said County stands such time
as they may think expedient.-Adopted.
An eugrOssed bill "oT altering the time of holding
the Courts in Wood and Jefferson countiesD was read
the 81 time and passed.
Sundry resolutions from the Committee of PROPOSE
tons and Grievances read The LIST rejects the
petition Of sundry Inhabitants of Grayson, who pray
that Law may pass prohibiting any nerson from rang
ing more live stock within that county than they can
support by the cultivation of lands within the county,:
The 2nd resolution agrees to the contemplation from
the said county, which prays a such be passed
that which is