Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-01-05
1l-nNr1NIrn TRoM TIHsT rAGE.l

n.
determined the oath TO be merely directory, the Com
,nissiouers would iii case take it. his conclusion
was different. Fhe country would have its attention
drawn the subject by the proceedings here, and the
oath hcreailer would be taken.
M Norris chairman of the Committed referred
so the relationship between one OF the gentle
Mr. Stuartl and himself as the reason of his de-
clining 10 present bis views to the Houseand asked
to he excused from voting for the rcason-to
which the House assented
W. HansJyoagh of Culpeper, Was excused from
voting, tie ground that the contest from Cupep-
err, invoved of the Questions tina, from
Patrick.
Mr.. Stun-l then addressed the House as fulows:--
Mr. Speaker As it is manifest from the tenor of
both the original report and the proposed substitute,
that am likely 10 be but for short time upon this
Stage Of action, hope the House will indulge me i'll
last speech and dying declaration. trust shall be
eXonerated from the charge OF ndelcacy, when de-
clare to the House, that far the report of the
Committee deprves me of my seat, it meets my en-
tire appreciation. For fear however, that it may be
suspected that in the remarks which had the honor
to submit to the House the day which took
my seat, acted the part of the fox in the fable, and
called the grapes which could not reach. or IN
other words. that dscain,ed wishing to hold Il seat
which knew I could not hold, ! will state some
facts which not set forth in the report OF the Com
Isittee, and which will show that two grounds
could have retained my seat. had been so disposed
In the first place the notice which received that my
election would be contested, given subsequently
the November Of the county court of Patrick,
when the law requires that such notice should have
polls. And inthe second place--,he only evidence
which the contcstng candidate offered to the Com
nittoe to show that he had received the greater
number Of votes wus statement of the polls OF the
court house and the precinct elections signed by the
Sheriff. 1t is obvious, that had | avaed myself of
either Of the Irregularities have mentioned, had
even remained silent, the Sherihs return would have
secured me my seat. Sn; beng disposed to hold my
seat under existing circumstances, [ acknowledged
legal notice. and agreed that the statement of the
polls correct, and might be received as legal
ideDcc. claim credit, Mr.. Speaker, for these
concessons-y did not make them to the contestng
canddate--f made them to the people Of my county
| offered up my individual claims sacrifice upon
The altar of the peoples rigts-l knew that the
testing candidate had received majority of the
votes, and could not think of availIng myself of shy
legal advantage to hold my seat. I knew that wle-
Their the election legally Illegally conducted,
was not elected The same devotion TO the rights OF
the people which induced ME to give up my clam to
seat impels advocate the substitute which
has been proposed to this report of the Committee.
After the decision the contested election from the
county of Orange, made almost without dissenting
voice, console ltiously believed, and still believe,
Twill; all Difference the enlightened Committee of
Privileges and Electons,) tii.t ncw writ Of election
ought to be issued 10 The county OF Patrick ] ana
that it is the disposition Of this House Is pre-
IS far possible uniformity and consistency in
its decisions, and TO deal cut TO every county in the
State, the measure Of Justice.
shall not, therefore, attempt TO show that the de-
Clsion in the from Orange correct dec-
sion. shall only endeavor to prove that if the peo-
people Of Patrick clearly so entitled.
Let us then enquire upon what prnciple The
House decided that writ of election should be is
sued to the County of Orange. | cannot believe
that the election sent back merely to crafty
the sitting member and the contesting candidate,
by a'fording them opportunity 10 have. win
fcr's campaign, at the Hastings, take it for
granted that there something in the case as
it was presented to the House, which deemed
sufficient to vata the election without reference to
the wishes ofthe parties Interested What then we're
dered it necessary that it should be set aside7 phe |
report of the Committee in that forsh that
the election rregularly conducted, and specifies
that the superintendent were not sworn, and that q
variant construction put atthe different precincts
upon the clause of the constitution which reg1I-
ates the right of suffrage, by whereof, full
and fair expression of the public will could not be
had Did the Committee in king that report, and
the House in giving it IFS sanction say, that
tho failure OF tina superintendent 10 take the oath
prescribed by law, vas NOT in itself sufficient to va
cate the election, but that in order to do So the addi-
ti0nal circumstance of tho variant construction of the
constitufIcn mode by the superntendants vas al.o
necessary? If this be the principle settled in the
Orange case, then the House nave come 20 the
conclusion either that the last mentioned crcum-
stance was the consequence and effect of the first,
or that two Irregularities not connected with each
other, neither of which. Was in itself sufficient to va
cato the election, when taken together ought to pro-
GuCe that result that the difa rent rncton put
upon the constitution alone, ought 10 SET aside the
election ! cannot believe that the House considered
effect of tho commissioners not being swo'n, that
the swearing of the commissioners, you'd have pro-
dnced uniformity i'll that construction. an oath can
only address itself to tho conscience Of the iudvid
Gnl who takes it; it certainly cannot influence bis |
judgment, and the construction of the constitution
Is matter which the Judgment aoneis concerned
aud in which the most honest and conscientious may
differ is impossible to believe that the swearing oft
the uperntondants, would necessarily have produced
uniformity Of construction. GID equally clear, that
The House could not have intended to decide that al
though neither the failure Of the superiutendants
take The oath prescribed, tue variant construc- |
ton put upon the constitution, was in itself sufficient
to vacnte the election, yet when taken together they
were sufficient 10 do 1t appears to me- that do2-
on irregularities not connected with each other and
not sufficient Individually to vacate elcstioD can
not be made so, by taking them collectively
come noW to the last branch Of the alternative
Was the variant construction put upon the consttu-
ton, by the superintend1ns ALONG, sufficient to vacate
The election 1 Think not. This Hsuse would GER
amy not vncae an election on account of irrcg-
MARTY, an ample remedy for which. is provided Jy
lIe law regulating contested elections. Each candi-