The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1840-03-19
REMARKS OF DIR. FILLMORE.
Id 1910

INC Auc otbtt ud1 III iNiNioHtt w pioAtNu-
ings Of the Committee Of Elections, when
they agreed upon the basis Of a report, re-
Gently made by majority Of that Committee.
to this House. observed, Yesterday, that
there seemed 10 be some misunderstanding on
this subject ] am the more DESTROYS now
Of making this explanation, and setting TINS
matter right, so far as am concerned,
because the proceedings of that committee
have since been reported to this House, ana
| am now at liberty to speak Of facts as they
exist and not alphabetically ! will endea'or,
therefore, 10 be so distinct as not TO be ms
understood
The point of controversy is this: stated or
intended 10 state, and now aver, that at the
time that the committee adopted the resolu-
ton under, and in pursuance Of which that
report was drawn up, the evidence then IN
the possession Of the committee, and which
had been referred 10 it by this House, tending
TO show unlawful votes was neither read nor
considered by the committee, but the report
was expressly directed TO be made by adding
10 the votes allowed by the Governor and
Priv Council, the votes from Melville and
South Amboy, without any inquiry into their
legality or illegally, and without taking any
evidence into consideration, at that time, to
ascertain whether any unlawful voIes were
proved or not but that, on the contrary,
majority of the committee expressly refused
TO take up that evidence and consider it for
that purpose. | also stated, that, after that re-
port was drawn up, and while it was under
consideration, and before it was adopted.
sealed package, said TO contain testimony on
that subject, came into the hands of the :
chairman, addressed TO the Speaker, which
the minority OF the committee desired to have
sent 10 the Speaker, that it nigh, be opened,
and the testimony which it was alleged 10
contain, considered by the committee before
they made their report, and that this request
was denied by the majority, and that test-
mony was thus excluded from the considera-
ton ofthe committee. This is the substance
Of what said, or intended TO say, about the
refusal Of the committee to examine that evil
dence, when acting under the resolution Of
this House, Of the 28tb Of February last.
| understand, from what has been here
said, that the attempt has been made 10 create
an impression that | am mistaken in that
statement, and that the testimony which was
in the possession of the committee at the
time they met under the resolution of this
House, requiring them to report who received
the greatest number Of law(ul votes, was then
read and considered by the committee. This
is what denied and still deny; but, that
may not be misunderstood, beg leave to
state, that long time prior to the adoption of
that resolution, by this House, under which
that report was made, and | should think
about the FIRST Of February, the committee did,
at the request of both parties, take up the ev-
idence then before it, simply for the purpose
OF determining whether il was competent or
incomp etent, whether it was admissible or
lnadmissble, but not at all with view of de-
termining what II proved | have not the
journal of the committee before me, and
cannot state the exact day, but my impression
is, that we were employed some or | 0 days
in hearing objections and arguments by the
parties, on the competency of this evidence,
and | am quite sare that the whole was com
pleted as early as the / 9th of February, nearly
20 days before the adoption of the resolution
of the House, of the 2Slh of February, d.
recting the committee to report who received
the greatest number of lawful votes.
But, as said before, this inquiry was limit
ed wholly to the competency, or, in other
words, the admissibiliy or inadmissibility of
the evidence, and no examination was had by
the committee at that time TO ascertain what
it proved, or whether it proved any thing. In
deed much of il was not read through at all,
but was by unanimous consent considered as
read, for the purpose of hearing and deciding
upon the objections as to its competency. Its
sufficiency to prove any thing was expressly
reserved until the whole should be completed,
and we were prepared to take up the case for
decision. II was therefore unnecessary to
look INTO the contents at that time, and TO save
the time Of the Committee and parties, the
reading was often dispensed with. And this
was the only examination which the commit
tee ever gave that evidence at any time, so far
as recoIect, and | believe attended every
meeting from the commencement.
did not hear the gentleman from Virginia,
(Mr Rives,) when he said that some part Of
my statement was not tue. As il seems now
TO he uncertain VIII tt It was, l shall not attempt
to answer it. Bat have seen some remarks
from the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.. Medill,)
as published in the GLOBE, in which he may
have been misrepresented, or about the con-
structIon Of witch there may be some doubt
| will now read one passage, to which | call
his attention.
But. said Mr. NJ, the gentleman has seen proper to
attack the majority OF the connttee and by surprising
OF conduct which he desires the House to con-
slider having taken place in the committee room has
charged them with acts Of the grosses injustice The
reasons urged IN favor of setting aside The election at
South Amboy were that Of the officers of the cleo
ton unlawfu'lv prevented from acting and another
person substituted in his place, aud tina, certain aliens
had been permitted to vote 10 taking up his eigned
issue the gentleman has charged the majority OF the
committee with refusing consider the dispositions that
were taken TO establish these facts. and seeking sup
press them by the force of numerical strength Sir said
Mr. NJ, am not OF those who will permit asser-
lions of this kind to 90 forth, where am personally
concerned although they be hypohetIcal without ac