Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-05-12

pcation was made TO hun, and his confidence that
none such made; ead ea-soltary witness, exam
med in behalf of the sitting member; stating that be
had 'heard the thing mentioned by several, but he
could not recollect who they we're" notice this
with the set the members right as 10 a fact,
alleged b. established by the dispositions; and not
from belief that such application If clearly proved
TO have been made, aud reiuted at preceding cleo
tcn. would furnish the slightest support the posi-
ton nc has assumed: unless, ndeCd. il showed N
application made, and decided. urun the ground that
the law gave no discretion thdi he mayor could,
der no circumstances, continue The roll ore1'.
IL IL objected, secondly that the dCpostious taken
on my behalf are Illegal snd, therefore, ought not
to be Tread evidence" sn unwilling Mr.. Chair
man. u take mp the time OF tho Committee in follow
ing out the Of reasoning, urged III support OF
this objection, as moments consideration viii cua
bic every one 10 ascertain the weight due to 1t This
testimony should be rejected, because it taken
according to the form prescribed 10y law concerning
disputed elections of members of the General Assem-
oily of Virginia" Mark, Sir, there is act of Con
gross IN force prescribing the mode OF taking deposit
tons IN contested elections. But the Constitution
oil the United States provides that 1.-THE elect oTs in
each State of members to this House, shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors the most nune-
rous branch of the State Legislature. The mode
then prescribed by the laws of the several States
where laws exist on the subJCct for ascortaung tho
qualifications Of electors, other words of deter
mining the right of voters in disputed elections if
not the only, must uuquestorabiy be tho best mode
at establishing Ike qualifications, and determining
the same rights, in contest for here. Ii this
objection, however, could derive any aid whatever
from the allegation that the act applies exclusively tn
contest for a scat III the Legislature of Virginia.
some contamination must first appear 10 have result
ed from the simple act of appointing these commits
sioncrs, before such appointment be made To iRa
pair in the smallest degree, the evidence taken be-
fore thclnfor Justices OF tie peace ard Dotnries
public for the borough of Norfolk, and county of
NansCmond,) they were fully authorized, by the laws
Of the State, to administer ouhs, and in that charac
ter, and possessing that power, up To the full
measure of competency, demanded by the argument
I'm : - eft
Gent that the testimony exhibited my behalf is
the only evidence admissible before the Legislature
OF Virginia IN contested oection--tho qualification
requisite IN electors OF members 10 either branch
there. and 10 this bCiy, being precisely the same
ine evidence produced on behalf Of, the sitting
member would not be received In the Legislature OF
NlTglnia, III determining the qualifications of the
electors Of the most numerous branch. And have
always believed that whcEsUovrr durbt o7 difficult.
y arose IN any investigation carried on by tie Cur'-
mltee on Elections Of this House the settled prac-
ce and decisions O! the State Legislatures upon the
point, whether 10 principle form of proceeding
were rcga' ded as high authority, il not conclusive
IN cases, mean, where in this, express rcuula-
uon of Congress exists in relation TO the matter.
Upon this ground alone, should be conteHt 10 rest
the validity of the testimony. Yet. SIR, il will DC
recellocted, that have raised objection to the
mode adopted by the sitting nbcr. in takinr his
evidence; and whilst he protests vehemently against
the proceeding indicated IN the law as my guide, Is
it not little remarkable tha,, alter having received
from me, IN due form, notice with lists Of votes OBJ
jcctcd to on the several polls taken for him in the
district, he should have moved pnyi p1ssu in return
ing similar ils's Of votes the polls taken for me-
precisely IN the form, md within the time prescribed
by this very act, the authority Of which he reDud.
ates' This IS attestcd By the documents; but il will
not be denied For what measure, | would nsE was
this done, but the convenience of the thior-,be
convenience, If not positive necessity OF following
some rule and in the absence of any regulation Of
Congress the subject, it could not escape the nj
tention of the member, that the mode of proceeding
marked out in his own Stntc law for attainlnr the
same end was to say the least of IT, safe and Irnod
The documents Will further show that after this first
STEP the departure by the sitting member himself
from this good and safe mode Of proceeding led 10
all tho inconvenience experienced in subsequent sn
gcs of the contest. The act Of the Virginia Assem-
bly, provides that in contested election the pei,ion
er and the returned member shall respectively begio
to take their dispositions within two months after
such election This every one will admit is rigb..
there is an obvious proptlcty in it. Accoidinniy !
on due notice, | commenced within two months
The sitting member did not commence till nearly fnur
months had expired. Now, as there was no estab
lished rule OF proceeding coeIcve upon him (and
concede that none existed, contending for nothing
more than that no INJURY could possibly result, but
on the contrary much good, from the course which
pursund) was he not upon his own hypothesis
upon the broad principle OF what is due betwee 1n
and man, bound to act with diligence II both par
ties IN such case, are not held TO proceed within
reasonable time, (Which any law il might be the plea
sure Of Congress 10 enact upon the subject you'd
certainly prescEbe) then contestng n seat here Is
I possession %
it, may fold his arms in perfect security-may retain
ii by representation indefinitely, not only without
having obtained ma ory Of legal votes in the cleo
tlon but In open, continued and wauon defiance of
the electoral body l advert to this, Sir, not in a
spirit Of complaint, but simply showing that the
moment the sitting member left the plain onward
path before him. he found himself bewildercd and in
no little danger Of losing his way. Have VIC not
evidence Of this IN Of the papers annexed to this
report Flo then says-that ''many are fully satisfied
that the petitioner had more bad votes on his poll i'm
the borough of Norfolk, than HE majority over me
there. lie could not object my poll in the borough
TO more than twenty seven votes; his not obiec-
ting 70 larger number if he could, is not oying to
I forbearance-pneteen twenticths Of which are rood
votes. On his poll in the borough. objected 10 one
hundred and SIXTY yak. | believe I ara entitled TO
majority of legal votes in the borough, and further
examination Of ae poll gouid prore IT," This sweep
| ing charge Of perjury against more than one hun.
drcd voters OF the poll taken for me in Nor
folk borough, it is modestly intimatcd by the
sitting member, would be sustained, If he ont1
had more time, Notwithstanding seven months had
oil from in c1o ~ 3 o. II.