The Madisonian., 1840-02-06

'nc ViheI from South Carolina. Sir, n very fenalh
aoe STATE OF things is exhibited here; there Is ma
Jofisy OF this House who think that the New Jersey
members who hold The Governors commission are
enlhifd 10 their seats under the Constitution OF The
uuned states and laws Of New jersey, and yei you
cannot get them in. They have SO voted, bu
cannot get them all 10 vote at the time. One
day me question is put and there is tie voe-ll7
70 III The next day gentleman from Kentucky
whon severe indispositiln had kept from The House,
comes in at the hazard Of his life decide the
uoyersy, and two Of the gentlemen who had thus
declared their solemn convictions that they were
MUS enllled changed their 7oes and say they must
SURRENDER their constitutional and conscientious con-
sicnons because II men had not been able 10 carry
q question against III men. Now, sir, there has
oeen no decision OF this question. a tie vote Is no
th'hg more than spent ball A proposition is made,
lhe yo'e y tie, the negative prevails only because
you have Jailed TO carry your proposition, and you
sand precisely where you stood before and il Is per
iecly competent for either party 10 Offer The same
proposition whenever after they think proper; yet il
Is oy these means that New Jersey is robbed Of her
representation here
My honorable colleague who sits on my lefi (Nir
Wisc,3 when this subject was up some time ago,
called upon my worthy friend and colleague over
The way, and now in my eye, (Mr Drongooie J
waile he held the book OF Contested Elections in his
hand, oAlow him 10 ru case. That gentleman,
WIN sagacily, shrewdness, and cunning for which
he was remarkable long before he came here, anti
cpaiing that my friend the let would naturally
put TO him case some hat similar TO the one before
league could put case that he could not find but
then there was some sixty or seventy cases ia The
book nor like the one he would put, and he would
therefore prefer 10 read case 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 10 case more like
This than any in the book that have been able to
hnd which he entirely overlooked; il is the case Of
Basseu and Bayley from our own STATE in The year
1918 book OF Contested Elections page 25i In
that case the committee reported as follows:
I" The laws Of Virginia, prescribing the mode OF con-
dHcting such elections, direct that the sheriff. or other
officer conducting the polls shall close it the same day,
uulcss the electors lie prevented from attending by
ram, or the rise Of water-courses unless there be
more electors attending than be polled in one day
II appears that neither rain the rise Of
prevented the electors from attending on the FIRST day
OF the election ~ the county Of Accomsc yet the poll
IN this county Was continued three days for what
cause does not appear H,s eoniended by The petitioner
that there IS no fridcncc that ks continuance Iras for
ioaanted By lar, and therefore ought 10 BE
presumed 10 be illegal The eleenon roid and ne,c one
ordered.
1T is urged on the other hand, by the sitting mem
Der, tlat until dlsprosed the oDiecrs return who con
Quoted the election ho being the officer authorized by
the law OF Virginia grant the eturn ought 10 be re-
specfed prrma facte erdence Of The legality Of The
proceedings, and The eoan,ee unanimously of this
opinion"
And this, not before the House was organized for
DdSsttt ndU 100 Ulucn SUt1 sense 10 RAISE such
question al such lime, bu, after the organization
OF the House and after it had been regnlarly refer
red to committee and reported upon; and then the
committee and the House both sci aside al last the
vote of Accomac on the second and third days OF
The election, by resolution to this effect page 257:
Rcsolred, That the adjournment Of The poll in Ac.
comac county in the election between Bur. ell Basset
and Thomas NJ Bayley, illegal, and that the votes
taken IN that courty subsequent to said adjournment
ought to be set aside
In this case, then il was the unanm ius opinion
oil The committee and the House that the return OF
the officer authorized by law to make the retarn
ought 10 be respected as prtma faeis evidence OF
the legality OF the proceedings; yet in the New Jer-
sey case, mere certificate OF a partisan friend is
deemed sufficient 10 set aside the regular Official re-
turn OF the Governor and Council Of State The
highest, most respectable, and responsible officers
known to the laws of the State and that carving
with il the seal of the State itself
atn sorry to be compelled TO compliment the In
genuity Of my colleague at the expense OF his can
dor and fairness.
One word to another Of my colleagues When
the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, I Mr.
BriggS,l a few DAYS since called on the House TO
mention an instance in which this parliamentary rule
had been departed from, one of my colleagues Mr.
Rves] pro pity replied that a case had occurred in
the Virginia Legislature and he referred 10 the case
Of Berkeley aud Davis, which occurred about the
year 1924 from The county of Hanover have an
indistinc recollection of the circumstances Of that
case, and, il am not mistaken il was case altoge-
ther unlike the case before us have searched the
journals OF the House Of Delegates Of Virginia. bu,
have not met with the case but my recollection OF it
is that there was doubis return. The laws of Vr-
gna authorize the sheriff conducting the election
al the court house TO grant the return, and believe
the high sheriff conducted The polls in the early parl
Of the day, (no anticipating difficulty and the
denny for the remainder OF The day. They each
granted return, and the question arose which had
the best right. That was clearly case of double
return, apd i was impossible for the House, except
on regular judicial investigation tosdecide on the
pior right, each party presenting return from the
sheriff conducting The election at the court house;
therefore this case is not at all in point. II am
wrong, can be corrected by those who have more
distinc, recollection of the circumstances than
profess 10 have. OF this | am certain, and speak
with absolute confidence, that no ever did arise
in the Virginia Legislature where the legal return
was not recognised as prima facie evidence, which
entitled the party possessing il to occupy the seat I'M
tit il heTwise decided. And take occasion
here 10 call on another Of my colleagues gentle
man who presided over the deliberations Of the Vr.
gina House Of Delegates for twenty odd years,
where by the bye, there are more contested election
than in any State in the Unon-to say IT, in the
course OF his experience, he has ever known
in which it was proposcd 10 deprive the party pre-
Sening the legal return Of his right to occupy The
cat IN the first instance. ] attach much importance
10 the opinions OF that gentleman Mr.. BaDkS,|
from his long experience iii parliamentary proceed
ings.
Mr., BANKS said, shall answer now, or when you
have closed yonr renarksl]
Mr.. BORIS. The gentleman may take his choice,
Mr.. BANKS said he had not wished TO be drawn into
this discussion hui as he had been appealed 10, he
would state, far he recolleced, 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-
ceivcd as prima i5cie evidence OF The election, and
the party holding il qualified, when there was
no iiegaity and nothing TO viiiate the election, in
which case il was sent back.
He (MR. BASks) thought his colleague was misia-
ken 10 material fact iii the from the county Of
Hanover; il occurred in 1874. II a contest he
tween Messrs. Berkely and Davis; he had certified
copy Of the record from the clerk Of hs, House. and