The Hawk-eye and Iowa patriot. (Burlington, Iowa) 1839-1843, 1840-04-09

n This resolution the committee a.
. doPted, without knowing how it
would affect the interests of either
e party, or which should be the first to
: ASK tor time; for it depended on what
!, portion OF the testimony might be re-
celved, and what rejected on either
t side.
In pursuance thereof, the commit
tee proceeded to hear objection and
arguments on the competency of the
: evidence. Most of the testimony on
: the part of the non-commissione
Claimants consisted of certificates and
sworn copies of papers, the affidavits
appended to. which were ex parte,
, and taken without notice. And most
OF that adduced by the commissioned
+ claimants, besides their commissions,
f consisted Of dispositions taken before
} State officers in New Jersey, upon
notice to the opposite party. Numer-
Gus objections were taken to. the
! competency of this evidence, but the
undersigned felt no embarrassment in
respect to any of them, except that
I which raised an inquiry as to the suf-
ficiency. of the notice of taking the
dispositions there being no law of
! Congress or of the State, applicable
to this case, directing the mode Of
] taking evidence, the committee ex-
perienced great difficulty in finding
any rule that would do Justice to all
concerned. The usage of the House,
for many years. had sanctioned the
practice of receiving dispositions, in
cases of contested election, taken on
reasonable notice; but had not set
! tied what was reasonable notice.
The commissioned members indicated
a willingness that, inasmuch as they
were to return to New Jersey to OBJ
tain additional proofs, the committee
/ should reject all testimony in respect
to which there was much doubt, to
! the end that they mi ght retake the
evidence, and place the matter be-
yond dispute. st
1t is proper to state that this sug-
gestion, made from motives of pru-
! dence, avowedly influenced the &C.
ton of one Of the undersigned, who
voted for the exclusion of testimony
which he would not have hesitated to
receive if compelled to proceed at
once, and dispose of the case on its
merits. The chairman seemed dis
posed to take liberal view of the
subject, and to admit nearly the whole
of the evidence on both sides; treat
ing what we deemed objections to
competency as mere objections to
d. the sufficiency of the proofs: the
effect Of which was, with the aid of
!! the other four members concurring
in the report already submitted, to let
in much the most important part of
the testimony adduced by the non
commissioned claimants, thong taken
ex parte, and without notice. But
when the testimony on the other side
came under consideration, the same
four members voted against it's COM
potency, though taken on notices, in
some instances at least, ample and
abundant; and it SO happened that in
consequence of the doubts of one of
the undersigned, and the influence
of wish which he indulged to have
| the case cleared of all embarrassment
by re-taking the evidence, much the
most important part of the proof Of
tered by the commissioned claimants
was rejected, and the testimony be-
fore the committee was left in a very
confused, imperfect and chaotic state,
and in such condition as to render
it in the judgment of the undersign-
ed, in high degree unjust to make
it the basis of their action either in
the committee or the House for any
purpose whatever. s Es&a
When the committee had thus dis
posed Of the questions of competency
arising on the evidence before it, the
commissioned membersagain renewed
their application for further time, to
finish taking their testimony and a.
gain verbally stated to the committee
the various difficulties which had pre-
vented the competitions of their proofs
before the session Of Congress. And
this statement not being denied by
the non-commissioned claimants, the
committee, in consideration of those
difficulties, and also in reference to the
fact that much Of the testimony adj
duced had been rejected in the man
ner above stated, deemed the request
reasonable, and determined to grant it
and both parties being decidedly Of
| the opinion that the testimony could
not be taken before the second Mon
! day of April next, the committee
! adopted preamble and resolution as
] follows
! Whereas the People of the State Of
New Jersey are at present deprived
! of ive-sixths of their representation
in the House Of Representatives, and
j it being highly expedient that the de-
I cision of the question between the sew
eral claimants to the FIVE contested