Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-12-24

been admitted days ago. That gentielfsss course
however reconc liable to himself, irrcct ncale 10
him, and had been inconsistent Throughout evesy stale
of the proceedings of the Hou.e, and he e 6Snd that
hiss votes were too soon, and his speeches TOO late
Mr.. Wise then went into examfnGssGl of MIR. RS
votes his subsequent pr position and The three propo
sitfons OF himself, and the decisions .hem for the
purpose OF showing that Mr.. R.. not
cilable with the reasons he gave few days Tor
change Gift He hoped the gentleman would pardon
him for being thus particular in scanning h course
;, He of the few whom he rel'cd-his vote,
heavy or light, kicked the beam; and the gentleman
would therefore excuse him IN having tnns -..ancA
his votes he had. What the gentleman cou!G
have had for voting for his Mr. VS. direct propos ton
substantially the that he subsequently, voted
against he could not conceive. Certainly he would not
ascrbc to personal vanity So it was, he has given
notice that after having voted for the proposition once
and voted against it, he would now vote against u.s.
and on what grounds-on the grounds of jud'cota
1t known 10 all, he said that the discussion
Of the Mississippi question: were all disguised even
TO with this res judieata Mr. w. then referred
! to the of Mcssrs Claiborne and Gholson, and
which was, upon pGrr report, decided that they
should be qualified, and which decision h. considered
erroneous Mr. W. then commented OF the
in which Mr.. r. applied the jHdieota
He then denied that the principle had been adjudgcd,
! and that il jnGicGta He then went on and
contcnded that the House imperfect state of
organization, when the decision made that the
members were not sworn: there was no Speaker; and
that they were then competent decide, having
taken no oath as the Constitution required The mat
ter was non udics: and therefore, there could
be no legal decision. He then went to explain what
constituted House of Representatives and considered
three things essential 10 IL LIST, representation; ID or
gan!zation: and Sd, Legislative power; and any thing
short Of that not House lie SAID, in the first
place, when The decision of the House made, that
body merely assemblage of members elect, and
had not the power send for the Presidents
sage, communicate with the Senate-t had no Ser
gean Arms and could not protect itself from
mob In calling the gentleman from Massachusetts
| Mr. Adams TO the Char, and in adopting ru cs OF
proceeding, it merely instituted parliamentary pro-
ceedings tor the purpose of organization. he con-
tnucd some length to show that, before they
organized and sworn, they were not House OF Repre-.
scntatives.
The question, he said had arisen in this case, whe
| thcr 20 behind the Governors certificate? We
are under the Constitution Of the United States, the
Judges Of election, qualifications and returns OF MEN,
hers Now, sir, what does the word ''rcturns mean:
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Rh"tt, the
other day, of the ablcst efforts ever heard hm
make committed but mistake, and that was In"
distinction between the return and the commission The
only meant the Constitution, the return from
the State to the Speak the commission OF the Govern
the contemplated BY the Constitution, and
sosyas the certificate of sheriff in Virginia There
distinction between them and Mr.. W. went on To ar
que this point contedng that the return, contemplated
as return to the House. the ultimate return, and
not the subordinate returns from the Judges OF elections
the Governor The return behind il belonged to the
State itself aud to her archives which the House
had control. The State authorities max make the
ultimate returns what they plc0ss and wa n" an-
toriiy 10 prevent ii. But gentlemen INSIGHT there
other reurns--that there returns from the
" clerks to the Governor and Council that you
may go behind these ultimate returns, and 20 the
subordinate returns, which belong to the State. Gen
cmen assume that there subordinate returns OF
the clerks, which were suppressed He denied that
there any evidence that they unprecedented
deemng newspaper evidence, the certificates of the
Secretary OF State such evidence not being authorized
tho, oT NM.
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.. Randolph,
relied evidence. Were constituted a court Of
Justice to take evidence tennis, and he
examined Was the House trying the cause: Again.
if you take part Of the evidence, you must take all
/ He then went into history of the Melville and
South Amboy returns and argued, that accord ng to
the laws of New Jersey these returns were not cx
cluded by the Governor He denied that the Sccre-
tary of State the keeper of the returns ii the
Judges If elect ons and consequently he had right
$ to certify respecting them. Mr. w. then went
answer that part of Mr. Pckenss argument, IN regard
to the power OF the States to purge the pcs after they
e counted VIII CHI argument he cons dcred novel
and extraordinary doctrine, and referred to law OF
Virginia now repealed, which instituted ccmms-
sion to examine the polls which may have been taken
by the shers, and with power to strike cut the names
If all who not cnt tied to vote He sd d the gem
tIenan from S nth Carol m, Mr.. ckens, State
ghts man. had prem unccd that law institutional
), Nlr. RIVES said his colleague had quoted law,
which, consequence Ct It's bad effects, had Leen re-
peaed
Mr.. WISE inquired of his colleague whether he
said that this law repealed because It uncon.
s.itutiona
Mr.. RIvEs answered Mr. w that the law was re.
pcaled for One party, who opposed II. be
cved that il unconstitutional and the other partr
opposed it, because they believed that such power
ought not TO be trusted TO persons who might abuse l.
For these reasons the law was repealed by very !a"
majority.
/ Mr.. WISE thought his colleague mistaken. He
4 had another colleague he sad, by his side, who
i the Legislature at the time, and who said that cbec
ton made to the law constitutional grounds.
| Mr. RlVES asked when that law repealed; and
Mr. Wise replying that il was in 1884, Mr.. r. r'joinod
that he was IN the Senate of Virginia at the trmc.
Mr. WISE still thought that his colleague mis-
taken, and that the law opposed by con-
sutona! grounds: and then went on N lengthy ar
gumcnt to show the unconstutionalty Of the assumP
ton that State had right to pass laws to purge the
polls after they had been taken He then went INTO
rcfutann of the arguments of MIR. Dromgoole, the
other dav and in the first place, opposition 10 the
assumptions of that gentleman, conended that II was
the States that parties TO the federal compact in the
combined of territory, Government, and people,
and not "thc people of the States, Mr. d said, who
parties to that compact This was the first State
Rights doctrine that lie had learned II in Oh" og
greCatc capacity of the people territory and Govern
ment combined that these States were parties to the
Federal compact. This the doctrine he had always
entertained, and it was the doctrine OF Mr.. Madison.
| He then proceeded to answer hr. DIS arguments
throughout and commented on the presidents cited hy
that gentleman which he contendcd did not sustain the
positions assumed by HIM.
\! Mr. w concluded by Withdrawing his propo-
sition, and compliance with the pledge made 10 Mr..
Turney who had yielded to him the floor, renewed the
proposition Of that gentleman, and called for the pre-
I vlous question upon the same.
i MIR Turneys proposition was, in substance, TO refer
the subject of the contested seats TO the Committee of
Elections when appointed, and that neither party of
the claimants should be entitled to seats until the Com
nittre shall have investigated and reported upon the
same
i Mr. w c. JOHNSON then raised the point of or
der which he had waved this morning, and hoped il
would not be considered out of order to support the
Constitution of the United States. He contended that
the previous question could not moved while FIVE gen