Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-12-07

ter wsne for prescribed period. make return which
shoud be valid IN law In Of Congressional elections
the law assigned punishment Tor the Delinquent She
yet ter failure ought not deprive OF his seat
der such certhesc as might be furnished him. Mr. IT,
rrofessed entire imparisly and only desired that justice
might he done between the parr,
MIR. Chiffon Of Kentucky, follow ed on the cppo.i,e side
lilo thought that his colleague admission the
Of the statement OF the ,hs case was fatal 10
his whole arguments tor II the facts were n. had been
stated by his COLES first up, what need could there
be Of any committee TO judge OF them! The sole qnes
ton in the wac, whether the certificate which had
been produced, not Of legal character The
duty Of the Shes plainly pointed out by the law,
and all to be decided was whether they had complied
will, not He then reviewed the certificate and in.
sisted that papabe that they hat not. Nor could
he admit, had been concluded, that though the evil
dencc inished by such paper might be incomplete,
ye, the best that could be obtained in the case,
and therefore ought to be received. Would II be admit
ted in court Of Justice, In where there two
witnesses TO ac,, Of them competent credible, and
dnteresed aud the other OF opposite character that,
IL the first could not he Obtained the testimony Of the in
.e.esec wnsss must 10 admitted, because 1t was the
Mr. {. d~clt upon the dangerous conse quenees that
must grow out OF the reception OF such paper the
purity OF elections, and tho safety OF the elective fran.
chise II the nuly Of the certificate had not been upon
its face, then the ought doubtless take the usual
course, and 70 10 committee; but the defect was palpa.
Bile, open TO all, plain al first sight.
Mr. Lane Of Indiana conended that the question before
the House not who had had received nsjoi.
~ Of the votes given but who had produced the best pri
ma facie evidence of his right to seat Now, he had
yet learn that Mr. Lecher had produced any certificate
Of any kind II was principle Of law. that in
where acts had been performed by legally appoint
ed TO perform them, to be presumed that those
were rightly done until the contrary should be shewn
Now, there might have been good reasons why the votes
Of Lincoln county had been included in the
no election might have been held in that county, or no
returns received from It, II had been contended by one
gentleman (Mr ALBANY that member not 10 be AL.
med TO seat without papers perfect in all repec,s but
had Mr. Letchcr such papers II not, how, then, would
the gentleman receive him
Mr. Marshall, OF Kentucky denied that the ou, s,ion
was as YET which OF the claimants had produced The
Primd Jdeie evidence: Mr. Letchers evidence had not
ye! come up at all: the question was whether Mr. Moore
had furnished such would enable the House safely and
properly TO admit him TO Lis sea!
Mr. ~ then went into examination OF the certificate
on which Mr. Moore claimed, and insisted that court
Of justice In the country would receive II evidence
der the law OF Kentucky The paper did contain evil
na. o, me man ae, IN ,hs cs;e VII. what was the
what the House wanted, and this could be obtained from
the legal record, the poll books certified copies Of all
which were the Clerks table. The certificate
was only substitute for these admitted out of
but Il was defective. then be had the
cords hemselves-whch the very best possible evil
dence In the case As 10 the provision by his
colleague. (Mr Hawes) in case Of tho election Of Go
vernon 1t only went to strengthen his argument. The
Legislature were willing In that case to take less than
the certificates OF the whole number Of sheriff.. but in
case Of Congressional election, insisted that epcry
sheriff should certify. Instead Of Mr. Letchers having
evidence he had the certificate every OH Ger holding
poll throughout the State Mr.. A. commended that this
case was new aud that preceds mt referred by Mr.
Halves did not apply.
could satisfy the House what had been the actual of
the ballot box, the house would be governed by that
and decide accordingly This of those cases
where majority Of Sherifs could the whole Had
they certified that had been elected according 10 the
votes OF one county, could that be deemed sufficient
Surely not Suppose they had certified the same accord
ing to ftco countless would that be admitted of three?
why then OF four, when fue counties had voted would
certificate be admitted that certain paper was the re-
cord OF court except one page? This just such
certificate.
Mr.: Beardsey maintained that the question was to be
settled solely on the face Of the certificate Now though
the certificate stated that the Lincoln return. were not
included il did say that any had been given in
Lincoln, or that II they had, they would have given
majority to MIR. Lecher And though the number of
Sheris flying less than the WHOLE yet the prin
clps oil law applied, that in al public bodies the act of
majority the OF the body. Had one Of the Sheriff,
died before certifying, would that have destroyed the GER
tfcatel
Mr. Polk stated several preceden from the history of
elections In the State OF New York. where claimants
been admitted TO seat although from the fault the Of
hccrs returning, where the word "Junior though APP
turns BY this, Mr. Teneyck admitted and Daniel
Huguenin the really chosen, had 10 wait ill the
case was passed upon by the Committee Of Elections. The
same thing bad happened in the OF Slas Wright
the House should open the poll books they must receive
affidavits and oil other testimony, and become fact
Committee Of Elections.
MIR. Wardwe further explained the facts referred 10 by
Mr. Polk and Showed them be stronger than had put
them
Mr. Allan surprised that il should be said Mr. Let
cher had produced certificates They had been on the
Clerks table since the opening OF the session and they
would shew the following result ofthe District election
For Late