The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1840-03-26

eeived, ana What rejected on either side.
In Pursuance thereof, the committee pro
ceeded TO hear Injections and al suments or
the competency Of tie evidence. Nest Of
the testimony on The part OF the noa.com
missioned claimants consisted Of certificates
snd sworn copies Of papers, the affidavi,s
appended to which were er pdrte, and ia
Ken wlsdout notice. And most of that ad
duced by the commissioned claimants, be-
sides their commissions, consisted of depo-
siiIons taken before Stale officers in New
Jersey, upon notice 10 the opposite party.
Numerous objections were taken 10 the CON-
potency Of this evidence, but the uBderslen
ed felt no embarrassment in respect TO any
of them, except that which raised an inqui.
~ as to the SuficieRey of the notice of TAX
ing the DISPOSITIONS there being nc law OF
Congress or of the State, applicable to this
case, directing the mode Of taking evidaace,
the committee experienced great difficulty
10 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 contest
ed election, taken on reasonable notice; but
had not settled what was reasonable notice.
The commissioned members indicated vii
hngness that, lnssmuch as they were to re
turn 10 New Jersey TO obtain additional
proofs, the committee should reject all iesIi
nony in respect 10 which there Was much
doubt, TO the end that they might retdke the
evidence, and place the matter beyond dis
pute.
II is proper to state that this suggestion,
made from motives of prudence, avowedly
influenced the action of one of the under
signed, who voted for The exclusion of test
mony which he would not have hesItated to
receive if compelled TO proceed at once. and
dispose Of the case on It's merits. The
chairman seemed disposed TO take liberal
view On The subject, and 10 admit nearly the
whole of the evidence on both sides treat
Ing what we deemed objections to competen.
cy as mere objections TO the syffeieK-y of
the proofs the effect Of which was, with
the aid of the other four members concur
ring 10 the report already submitted, TO let
ia much the most important par, of the ties
tinony adduced by the non commissioned
claimants, though taken er pGrte, and With
out notice. But when tho testimony on the
ether 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
II so happened that IN consequence Of the
doubts OF one OF the Undersigned, ard The
influence Of wish which be INDUCED to
have the case cleared Of all embarrassment
BY re-iaking the evidence, much the most
important part Of the proof offered By the
commissioned claimants was rejected, an6
The testimony before the committee vas
len N very confused. imperfect, and cha
rnc state, ana 10 such a condition as to rem.
der IL, in the judgment of the Undersigned,
10 high degree unjust 10 make it tie basis
o. their action either in the committee or
the Hease for any purpose whatever.
When the committee had thus disposed
Of The question Of competency arising on
the evidence before II, the commissioned
members again renewed their application
for further time, 10 flush taking their test
nouy and again verbally stated to the /
committee the various difficulties which har T,
presented the cor pletion Of their proofs be
fore the session Of Congress. Aud this
statement not being denied BY The non com.
missioned claimants, the committee, In con
ssderallon those difficulties, and also IN re.
ference 10 the fact that much Of the tesii
mony a3dJced had been rejected in the
manner above stated, deeraed the request
reasonable, and determined to gran, il and
both parties beng decidedly Of the opinion
that the testimony could not be taken before
tbe second Monday of Al fil next, the com.
mlilee adopted preamble and resolution as
follows:
Whereas ihc People Of the State Of New Jer. /
ser arc = present deprived II lYe.six.hs Of Their
EtpresehialloR ~ the Hoase Of Representatives F.
sii1 = beng highly c1psoient that the decision Of
he question between the several claimants 10 the
i've contested seats II tic House aforesaid be /
Hasoe a. sPeSiily a. practicable, consistent with
Cue inFtstIg CATION aad delber1tloa. ana r A.
cFigg. william H-.sted, and others hayiny rn,3a I
application 70 the committee for tine 10 take fur
il.er evidence 70 maintain their rights to seat, IN
$40 ti9Lse. AID ss eontestofs having alleged that
Il ehe com.As..ee 81 into an investigation Of the
question e; Hho received the plurality Of legal
votes, lhey Ges4ia time also to "a ke taslirgouv
Ih99Ts res5loed, That the Chairman b.
required . notify tie several ciairp5u,s fo,csai,
tA-I .1is committee vii not proceed 10 final ds.
elslor Of thc question Of ultimate night da,gnJina
Deiois iasn e3a Fac second Monday in Aprfl
next q Hhlch tine he committee Vim roport
Tie proofs 70 lE closed, and siii 10. rler,g' AN
testimony taken y sitsr Of the parties ailsr tn.
Time bat nothing ~ tbs resolution shall p-e.
Ieht re committee al any time g. ore thai day H
IRON taxing up and deciding s4id case # tie
parties shall declare themselves ready with am
the.r tezilmcHy.r
In justice 20 the chairman Of the conni,
tee, IL should be stated, that he indicated 10
the committee an ANXIOUS wish that the time
allowed for the completion Of the proof.
should be abbreviated, with view 10 bring
The case, upon lis merits, before the House
IL as early day as practicable and three
1f the Undersigned, in Difference TO the op,n.
oas and feelings Of tho chairman, co.oper.
lied With him ~ an effort to procure a re.
Of the above resolution ,,b;.L