Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-01-03

an individual took the oath of insolvency. his property
ed In the sheriff. and the nsolvcnt deprived OF his
property qualifications as a voter.
Mr. Williams, thought there some doubt ON this
head He would suppose that individual had periured
himself in taking the oath OF insolvency and had retained
apiece oil land and paid the taxes upon Twas he not
good voter! The question whether his perjury dis
quaiied him. He appealed 10 tho lawyers OF this House
or reply to this question He knew il would be matter
OF deicacy as to receiving such votcand he would
desire the vote OF such individuals but the question was
whether or not he possessed the requisite qualifications of
q voters
Mr. Marshall considered the principle well established
that person who has taken the oath of insolvency. was
dchsrred the privilege OF voting. Otherwise encourage
men would be given TO persons TO pcjure themselves.
Mr.. Brodnax said il with great reluctance that
he said werd this subject But the question invov
ed was of much importance He agreed with the fact
entirely with his concsonor he certainly held the opi-
Mon OF the gentleman from Ptsylvana was true that
the legal title to the property of insovent was trans
erred to the Sheri but the insovent might hold
sonary title TO it, upon which he would be qualified TO
voe-as IN the transfer of property trustees by deed
oil trust II deed OF trust given of property to the
amount oil $1,000 TO pay debt of 500, was question
able, whether the individual would be so far deprived of
his htc as to be Invested of the right vote upon that
property. He did not agree with the gentleman from,
kockbrdge, that the taking the nscyent OATH was con-
elusive evidence that the insovcnt had not that right
MIR. Moore explained The commissioners books were
Pmd Jdc'e evidence OF the property qualification of the
voter But the oath conclusvcy denied that evidence
Mr.. Brodnax observed that might happen i'm
wch the lsovent had forgotten 10 place certain proper
y in the schedule And although he might have per;,re
himself ntaking the oath, il in way conclusive that
whe
established, constitute disqualification; hut not until then
While up Mr.. ID. would take to correct mscon
cepiion Of remark of his, in the debate on Friday He
had seen report of that debate in which he was made to
say that he had written the election law session This
was not his statemcnt- was that he had framed the
clause of that law then under consideration He regret,
ted that he had not been here Saturday TO have cor
reced this he had taken himself the mer-
1t OF the great labor required in framing that ac-Hc also
regretted the decision made by the House on Saturday
which he feared could involve the Legislature in numerous
pPNng contests hereafter thousands and thousands
oil expence and render necessary take measures for
board Of scrutiny. ~ " e
The House disagreed with the Committee, and rejected
the resolution-Aycs 81, Noes 80.
several other re solutions partially discussed and
The 18th was disagreed TO.
Mr.. Kelly rose and said
MIR SPEAKER 1t is with reluctance that 7 presume
at TINS late hour TO cast myself upon the indulgence of
sc nousc-a reluctance which, in part, originates in
consciousness oil my inability do Justice TO the sub
yect now under consideration, also reluctance NJ n
from the TACT OF being unaccustomed 10 address eg
IauVe Dodies The subjcct-mater upon which have
10 say may perhaps be considered by some as
one at exclusively interests myself ntlv an
unit one Tor me 10 discuss But Sir, he who considers
IN s ght must surely take exceedingly superficial
view OF the subject stand advocate cause
exclusively my own TO utter forth my own feelings ON the
suIgect, or TO advance my Individual interest M
Sir lar otherwise IL in obedience TO the ecIoe9
'ches and the osce'taned oH majority of The ncone
OF that county which have the honor IN renreent H.
.hat ook my seat as members and it is in behalf of
the rights and the soW of that majority that now assume
inc exercise OF an inestimabc prerogative which the
beiieve Sir that it not the wish of majority of NV
county That should represent it, far would be from me
10 wish TO Jorce myself into their services But as re-
publican, who has always bowed 10 the decision oc
the majority, when against me, without murmur 7 an
Peaea mere their representative and claim on this occa
sion ue right oil being heard a question INVOLVING
principle held dear by freemen and directly
ing to the people of Monroe. If the decision of the
question shall be such with their views of tbe
subject and with the decision which they have alrcndv
made then Sir, will they be satisfied: for permit me to
remark by the way, that the people of Monroe have too
TO suiier their success pass or unappaued
1t the humble individuals engaged in tbs contest
mat attach Importance TO it in their estimation 1t is not
production for that has excited their felinos on
tis subject No Sir: it will be the decision of this
iiousc on great fundamental principle of government
which the people of this ancient Commonwealth hold sa-
cred therefore ask the attention indulgence of this
House iora lew moments whilst briefly review the subject
now Pen1hg its considerationlt appears that the cleo
ton held by the sheriff. for the county of Monroe was
according to law, inasmuch objection has
pecn raised to 1t either by the returned member or the
conestor must therefore, infer that in this incipicnt
stage every thing was fairly and legally done In fact il
need not be inferred because ii is admitted by both that
the election fairly conducted-It also appears hat
inc scrutiny required by law was c0rrecU and Iepallu
made. lhis las also been admitted by ne contesting
member; and indeed the fact of his taking no executions
or raising no objections to the proceedings of the commits
siohes VINO made the scrutiny, proves clearly that he had
no grounds on which 10 raise objection He has not
cared 10 charge them openly, either with assuming prnc
Piles In their scrutiny which were erroneous or ncon,pa
pie WIN the Constitution: he say they did not
inete 10 MN every thing that justice demanded Then
r Tins corrected poll before this House supnored
by the testimony of these commissioners Will tIs
rouse reject poi-book thus presented TO it, and thus
sustained by the concurrent evidence of seven persons an
o'zcd to scrunize the original polls Ii is true that the
Committee OF Privileges and Elections did rccc;,o a 80,
hiS corrected poll, made up by the commissioners ne
PTd deie evidence of its correctness but another f
Oh IL they would not receive prta face evidence
On the corrected poll appear about seventy votes which
these commissioners certify not goo0-and ON this
same corrected poll appear six hundred and eleven votes
Whch these same commissioners certify are good Now
mere are TWO act sustained by the kind of testimony
one oil winch The committee received fact and the
other they would not receire as fact The seventy o,o
tnat were pronounced bad by the commissioner; when
mey maze me scrutiny, were pronounced bad by the
committee oil this House What evidence have tlIev 10
say they are bad votes Why, other testimony hui the
commissioners VINO scrutniZcd the polls The cOinmissi
ers have certified that these arc not GOOD voes and M
committee take as evidence That they are not rood Bt
e commissioners have also certified that the six hundred
ana ecVen good votes this poll are good: vet
inc committee oil this House would not receive them as
good although sustained by precisely the same evidence
that ihe votes, declared bad, sustained by If he
evidence IS good with regard the one fact il ought also
10 be equally good with regard TO the other have AL
ways understood, Mr. Speaker, that IL was nof oool
rule which would not tcoTk boil, WAYS But Sir fbo
hohce nat me petitioner served the sitting member il
not legal The 4ls section Of the General Election az,
requires that the objection a voter should he in tbcsc
Not qualified TO vote according TO he Coustit,,-
non but uc objection made by the petitioner l. i'm
these words" No frccholder or leasebodcr nor noI 70
venue tax Tor $780, Now, these men Objected n Inv, Ito
petitioner, might not be in possession of any one nj &
quahhcauons' and yet they might possess other oualG
cations recognized by the Constitution which would cnt
TIC then to vote, vet surely no one womb reouirc
me TO prove what the petitioner did not deny s.
ABhh-lhe contesting member has not pretended TO