The Madisonian., 1840-02-06

's o'"eL from oouth CatOilna. SlTt very Ittldlh-
aoie STATE Of things is exhibited hefe there is ma
Jorily OF this House who think that the New Jersey
members who hold the Governors commission are
eMled TO their seats under the Constitution OF The
Ouiled states and laws Of New Jsrsey, and yei you
cagnot get them in. They have so voted, but we
cannot get them all to vote at the same time. One
day the question is put, and there is tie vote-llI
10 III. The next day gentleman from Kentucky,
whon severe indispositiJn had kept from The House
comes in, al the hazard OF his life 10 decide the
uoversy, and two Of the gentlemen who had thus
declared their solemn convictions thai they were
thus entled changed their rotes, and say they must
surrender their constitutional and conscientious con-
Hlctions because II men had not been able 10 carry
2 question against | IL men. Now, sir, there has
oeen no decision Of this question. tie vote Is no.
lhng more than spent ball. Aproposiiion is made,
The vote IS tie the negative prevails, only because
you have failed TO carry your proposition and you
Stand precisely where you stood before aud II IS per
ecliy competent for either party 10 offer the same
proposition whenever after they think proper yet i
IS by these means that New Jersey is robbed Of her
representation here.
My honorable colleague who sits on my left (Mr
WiSe) when this subject was up some time ago,
called upon my worthy friend and colleague over
The way, and now in my eye, (Mr. Dfomgoole,) }
waile he held the book OF Contested Elections ia his
hand, TO tlow him 10 put case That gentleman,
with saglciiy shrewdness, and cunning for which
he was remarkable long before he came here, anti
cipatng thar my friend on the lei would naturally
put TO him case some what similar TO the before
league could put case that he could not find, but
then there was some sixty or seventy cases in The
book nor like the one he would put, and he would
therefore prefer 10 read OF his own; that was
one not al all like the New Jersey case. This was
substantially his answer Now, sir for the benefit
OF my colleague will refer him To a case more like
this than any in The book that have been able to
find, which he entirely overlooked; is the case of
Basseti and Bayey, from our own Saie, in the year
1913, book oil Contested Elections, page 25l In
that case The cOnnIlee reDDrleu follows
:" The laws Of Virginia, prescribing the mode of con-
ducing such elections, direct that the sheriff, other
officer conducting the polls shall close the day,
unless the electors be prevented from attending by
rain the rise of waer-courses or unless there be
more electors attending than be polled in one day
1t appears that neither the rise Of wa,ercous
prevented the electors from attending the FIRST day
OF the election III the couny Of Accomsc yet the poll
IN this county continued three days; for what
cause docs not appear his eoniended5y The petitioner
at there as erdence that Ms continuance tas for
cause acarranted by arr, ami therefore, Il ought 10 be
presumed 10 be illegal the eiecton poid and nc,c one
ordered
II is urged on the other hand, by the sitting mem
ber saat until dlsproyed the o6icers return ayho con
ductSd the election The being the officer authorized by
the aMoi Nrgina TO grant the returnl ougM 10 he
spectcd prmd fattc eridence Of ihe legality of The
procecd'ngs and The coamitee unanimously of his
op,nion.n
And This, not before the House was organized for
i bdSSetl mao 100 Uuch SuOd sense 10 raise such q
question at such time, but after the organization
OF the House, and after it had been regularly refer
red TO compiee and reported upon ; and then the
committee and the House both Sci aside al last the
vote OF Accoinac on The second and third davs Of
The election, by resolution 10 this effect page 257:
" Resolred That the adournmen. Of The poil in Ac
comac county, IN the election between Bur,e Bassett
and Thomas NJ Bayley. Illegal and that the votes
taken IN that coury subsequent to said adjournment
ought TO be set aside"
In this case, then ii was the unanim opinion
oil The committee and the House that the return OF
the oihcer authorized by law to make the return
ought TO be respected as prima facie evidence OF
the legality Of the proceedings; yet in the New Jer
sey case, mere certificate OF partisan friend is
deemed sufficient 10 aside the regular olfca re-
turn Of the Governor and Council OF a State the
highest most respectable, and responsible officers
known 10 the laws of the State and that carrying
with it the seal of the State itself.
an sorry to be compelled to compliment the In
genui'y Of my colleague at the expense OF his can
dor and fairness.
One word - another Of my colleagues When
the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, T Mr.
Briggs n few days since, called on the House to
mention an instance in which this parliamentary rule
had been departed from, one my colleagues Mr.
Rivesl pro pity replied that case had occurred in
the Virginia Legislature and he referred to the
of Berkley and Davis, which occurred about the
year 1924, from The county Of Hanover | have an
indiSlnct recollection Of the circumstances OF that
case, and if am not mistaken it was case alloge-
ther unlike the case before have searched the
journals of the House Of Delegates Of virginia but
have not met with the case; but my recollection Of il
is that there donble return The laws of Vir-
glnia authorize the sheriff conducting the election
al the courthouse To grant the return and believe
The high sheriff conducted The polls in the early pau
Of the day. (not anticipating dificully) and the
de miy for the remainder OF The day. They each
granted return, and The question arose which had
the best right That clearly case of double
return, apd il was impossible for the House, except
,lnr Itcin inv ~.
pior right each party presenting return from the
Sheriff conducting the election at the court house
therefore this case is not al all in point II am
wrong can be corrected by those who have more
distinct recollection of the circumstances than
profess to have. OF this | am certain and sneak
with absolute confidence, that no case ever did arise
in the Virginia Legislature where the legal return
was not recognised as prtma faetc evidence, which
entitled the party possessing it 10 occupy the seat
iii il was 0 herwise decided. And Take occasion
here 10 call on another of my colleagues-a gentle
man who presided over the deliberations Of the Vir
gina House Of Delegates for twenty odd years
where, BY the bye, there are more contested election,
than in any State in the Union--to say il, in the
course OF his experience he has ever known n case
in which it was proposed TO deprive the party pre-
Senting the legal return Of his right 10 occupy the
cat in the first instance. ] attach much importance
To the opinions OF that gentleman, IMr. Banks |
from his long experience in parliamentary proceed
ingS
Mr. BANKS said, shall | answer now, or when you
have closed your remarks :?
Mr.. Boris. The gentleman may take his choice
Mr.. BANKS said he had not wished 10 be drawn into
this discussion, but as he had been appealed To- he
would state, so far as he recoected, what had been
the practice in the House of Delegates Of the State
of Virginia. he knew that the usual practice had
been, that the certificate Of the sheriff should be re-
cevcd as prima iacie evidence of The election, and
the party holding it was qualified, when there was
no illegality, and nothing vate the election, in
which case il was sent back
He ~ nlle tSfa.
ken III material fact in the from the county Of
Hanover; il occurred in 1924 Ii contest be-
tween Messrs. Berkcly and Davis, he had certified
copy Of the record from the clerk Of that House. and