The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-12-04

1
Mr. TILLINGHAsT, Of Rhode Island, said il
would make NOT The slightest difference which was
read 1rsisince all would, doubtless sooner or LATER
be read; The order was immateTial. But the call
| had been made for The law Of New jersey in order
that II might be decided what sort Of evidence could
! law He therefore should consider II more conve-
nien thai the law should be read al once, in order
| 10 determine that point
/ Mr.. JENiFER, OF Maryland, said he understood
the Clerk TO say that he had received five other
lifcales in the same form with thar which had been
Just read; we're there any more tnan these ski Ii
not. why did he not call the names of the other GER
ti6ed members as he had that Of MIR. RANDOLPH
| MIR. RlVES, OF Virginia, recommended that this
whole matter be laid upon the table until quorum
OF the House should have been obtained; then there
/ would be House which could do something; ill
then nothing could be done, because there was no
| House TO dot He thought gentlemen on both sides
had better at once, acquesce ia this by gene
raj consent. When there was House OF Repre-
sentayes, although it might not yet be regularly
organized, question could be put and decided;
| now no question could even be put.
| Mr.. MAXWELL again spoke, again insisting on
| an immediate decision on the rights OF those who
had presented regular credentials 10 take their seats
The CLERK now said that there were three distinct
propositions on which the House was requested to
| vote FIRST that the law Of New Jersey, touching
elections be now read secondly. that the testimony
ia favor Of the opposing claimants be first read and
thirdly, that the whole subject be, for the present.
laid upon The table, -
MIR. WISE. Who are TO vote to lay il on the Ia
biel Is there quorum. of members called II not
are less than a quorum 10 Votel III any question
shall be pu, before we have quorum Of members
whose seats are mol disputed, We shall gel into end
le confusion.
The CLEaK said that, II he was permitted 10 reply
he would slate il as his own judgment that there
no possible mode Of deciding The admission Of
claimants to the remaining seats OF the New Jersey
delegation until the calling of the roll should have
been gone through with. This could be done only
by general consent.
MIR. WISE. Does that mean universal consent2
If any one objected, could il still be done Were
those who claimed seats TO vote that question:
The CLEaK declined deciding in the case.
MIR. MERCER objected TO the proposal OF his cnl-
league, Mr.. RivEs,) who seemed TO desire that the
House should vote to lay subject on the table be-
fore il was ascertained whether there quorum
present. He had desired TO have the law Of New
jersey read before The remaining testimony in the
hands bf the Clerk but he should insist upon his
II gentlemen preferred it, let all the testimony be first
gone through with.
Mr., RiVES explained He had not proposed that
vote should be taken, but that, BY general consent
the question in relation these should for the
present be laid aside He hoped that such would be
the disposition of all present. When The roll had
been gone through with, it would doubtless appear
that quorum was present. The House could then
return this subject take il up, hear the evidence
and the law and come TO correct decision
| Mr.. HOFFMAN, Of New York, said that the
proposition was to proceed and complete the calling
| OF "the roll. or what roll Who were members
| Of the House Who but such as held the regular
legal certificates OF their election by the people q
Mr.. IL asked the Clerk by what right he had called
| his own name2 Was il not on the regular legal
evidence Of his election4 And if the gentlemen
| from New Jersey produced the same evidence, had
they not the same ght TO their seats If, indeed
there were two sets of claimants and both produced
the certificates Of the Governor, in conformity with
the law of their State, then there might be TO
hesitate; otherwise how could there be 2 Ii the
laws of New Jersey declared that, 10 entitle man
TO act its representative in Congress, he must
have certificate, signed by the Governor that he
had been duly elected, would the Clerk dare 10 in
Ser upon his roll the name Of any man not bringing
such certificate Suppose set OF men should get
together, and draw up dispositions that Mr.. II. had
not been duly elected by the people, would the Clerk,
such dispositions, dare 10 reject the commission
Mr.. III. presented TO him in due form of law, and
refuse place his name upon the roll He insisted
on the reading Of the New Jersey law they had no
right on the threshold to pass over and disregard
its provisions. They had right 10 set aside or
postpone the claims Of men presenting themselves as
The representatives OF sovereign State, and bring
ing in their hands the legal proofs Of their official
| character and rights.
Mr. HALSTED, of New Jersey said that he de-
manded as the representative Of one of the
reign States OF this Union that his name be called
The only the Clerk had given Tor not calling
1t was that there were certain other claimants to The
seats oil those whose names he had mentioned, but
had not called as on the roll Of the House Would
| the Clerk say that other persons had come TO him
| with commissions in their hands under the broad
seal Of the Satetha attestalion which represented
the sovereignty Of the Stale in its most solemn form?
"a form OF evidence known 10 The uSages of the
State from the earliest days OF its Political existence
| Would he say that2 If the Gle would produce
such certificates in support OF the other claimants
demand, Mr. FL. would then consent that the ques-
ton should be passed over as proposed but he could
| not consent-merely because certain gentlemen,
! however personally respectable, might suppose that
they had valid evidence Of their right seats though
/ that evidence not according to the laws Of New
Jersey, or in conformity TO any decision OF this
House, or OF any Parliamentary body since the re-
hottest ages Of Saxon ancestors-that one Of the
stars in the galaxy OF our national sovereignty
should be stricken out while he and his colleagues
stood recreant by, without lifting their voices in the
assertion of the rights OF the State and without in
sisting, 1t was their bounden duty TO do, that her
seal should be received prin'a acic evidence
of the rights OF her representative claiming in her
name. He was entirely willing that any other gen
temen should be received here with the same cour-
/ tesy as himself and his colleagues, provided they
| produced evidence in conformity with the aw-if
they brought in their hands certificates duly signed
by those public unctionaries whose express and ex-
elusive right and duty il was to certify the election
Of representatives. But il they produced no such
| evidence what right had that House to reject The
proof which was in conformity with law The
Constitution declared that The times, places, and
manner Of holding elections should be prescribed in
each State by the Legislature thereof; and until
/ Congress took 1t into their own hands 10 examine
into The regularity of such elections, the decisions of
the Stale authorities must oil course be conclusive as
the rights Of those returned as elected The House
of Representatives the only body which had au-
thorty 10 decide as 10 the qualifications OF its own
members and Mr. HIS. position was, that until such
House duly organized, certificates in the legal
form to be received prina tacie evidence OF
membership. They could only be set aside by the
representatives Of the people OF the United States in
Congress assembled-aer Speaker had been
chosen and the members sworn. Ii that position was
sound one, then who here had any right to decide
that New Jersey should be blolted out from among
the States and the names OF her representatives
omitted on the roll of Congress- II gentlemen un-