Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-01-25

I-4D.
Mr. BAfLY commenced by saying he felt cmbar.
rass"d IN addressing the House as he ALWAYS did after
FORMAL notice oI MS intention do So gwen in The
shape OF motion to adjourn. Had he consulted his
o" wishes alone, he would have preferred address
me 'o'sr on Yesterday: and he moved 10 adjnurn
ne remarked Il: the time, Difference Ia the sup
posed inclination of the House Than of his own The
remarks CT the gentleman from Fauluier (Ar. Scntt)
lad been extended 10 such length, that he prcSu.,I-
ed the House would not hay" listened to a reply to
them Yesterday. He would have hecn glad had ii been
otherwise, as lie could have spoken in manner
satisfactory 10 himself, il he could have replied while
ne was under the excitement produced BY the debate
lie promised tn" House thing his remarks would
be shorter for the delay.
The gentleman from Fauqucr, (A1r. So rcpudlatcd
the doctrine which MIR. b. had advanced that in case
OF wcl-ioundcd doubt as to who had received a
l"riiy oil the qualified voters, the matter should be
;'rred back, Tor decision to the people The gentle.
man ikencd II 10 a case of plaintiff making demand
IN court. ana he asked Il any would in such case,
from mere dpua, give verdict against the defendant
Mr. Is. sad, that the ference between the gentleman
and himself fundamental, and originated in the
different school Of politics to which they belonged
The argument of the gentleman implied an opinion,
that delegate here has individual claim OF his
own 10 his seat, independent of the people, while, Mr..
b. regarded the delegate being merely the agent Of
the pcoplc-hc would not scrvan;-tor though thu,
was the term used in the Blll of Rights yet IN these
astdlous days o ours, members would tolerate the
idea OF standing III III" relation TO which that
term implied. Mr. H. regarded the delegate as the
agent OF the people hence his opinion, that if there
WAS any wcl!-ioundcd doubt about his agency. hr
Sould not be recognized SUCH but be referred back
10 his prlncpl who could remove all doubt Mr.. Il.
appealed t" The gentleman lawyer, and asked h!.
II client should consult INN 10 the propr"tv Of NJ.
gotratnr with an agent, about whose authority there
was doubt, what advice would he givc. Would he
not tell his client to require the agent back To his
urtncual and have all doubt as
In THIS casc, however, Mr. B. sad, he comcurrcd with
tho gentleman that there doubt; and though he
still concudcd 70. the position, that of doubt,
the House should not undertake to decide for
who should represent her: but that should refer the
matter back TO tt" people, who could solve the doubt
without the possibility of error; but III this case, he
would saw Il ne did not succeed III showing the House
thai there for doubt that Evans ought
to hold the seat he would give up the contest.
The gentleman from lauguIcr (Alr. 81 asked If the
House prepared tp condemn the officers conduct;
ing tins election 10 lniamy; and he went to say,
THAT the election could not be- aside without the
same time rendering verdict of condemnation upon
those officers AMI he contcnded that this verde,
should no, be gwen without clear proof The gentle
man, continued lr. b., mistakes what at;
criminal court trying these officers for alleged
misconduct IN conducting the election. Were ;Iat
the ease, Nr. B. would not condemn them, unless the
proof clear, not only OF misconduct, but of
minal intent. Bu the question which are trying
whether Evans entitled III tins case discharge the
duties oI delegate from Monongalia And # the Off.
GERS conducting Tie election erred Judgment,
though they erred honestly, yet II tha, affected
The final rcsu;, so as ave Evans the return which
lie Otherwise wouid not have received i fatal
10 the election Trough those officers had acted never
so corruytv. Va dec which we can make IN this
matter will be criminal condemnation of these Off
GERS. Nothing which do VII! De brought up in
Judgment against them.
When We sent back the election from Norfolk, in con-
seqGcucc OF the illegal rejection of voters certain
~ dd not pass Judgment of condemnation upon the
Mayor the extraordinary ground now conte nd
ed Tor taken IN that
The gentleman from r seemed to have very great
rrpugnlncc 10 casting ccnsurc npon deputy SnrrIt!s
Rather than to DO IT, he prefers that large and
poDHo,Is county should be compelled 10 submit
representation whole Session. Mr.. b. had rather
orc regard or IL" @hs G.! the people than for the
feelings Of deputy oheris, whose conduct II say the
least, had hccn Of doubtful propr,cty
The gentleman from +. seemed 10 think, that TIC
pcrintcdrns Of election the sole Judges oi III"
right Of any person 10 The position novel
one The House, by express provision the Constr
uon was the Judge the last resort. Nobody had
ever courndcd that the reception of bad vi
ated an election 10 make IL proper to SCI it aside
The election could be contested that ground and if
there were enough votes of that description 10 have
changed The result the House would decree, they
were III the habit 81 dong But when legal voters
rejected you cannot put them afon The poll The Con,
stutiun requires that the vote should be actually gwen
rira By the voter and Mr. g. con'ened that where
there were enough OF that kind rejected 10 have
changed The result, II they had been poed the only
cnrrs,. for the House was 10 set aside the election.
The gentleman, howcvcr SAYS, that if send this
election back and If The ser'iis should be Of opinion,
a, thcy properly rejected the voter referred to, they
would be bound /" DO the same thing over again. Ar
b. was Of very diirrcn, opinion. The proper course
was very clear under the law. If they doubted about
the voter right VOTE they could him. if they
still doubted and he insisted upon vctng, they were
bound to take the vote and poll IL, either upon the lace
or back of the poll book; and then The cand dates could
bring the question before this House, III The ordinary
way.
The rcntlcn,an from + asks if in every Of ir
rcnularItv we will ASIDE the election; and he argues,
IN that event, that all o.! our rights 10 seats this
floor would be shaken. Mr. b. only contrndcd, that
such irrcrnariy effected The final result either
ainly or probably should induce 10 set Is dc
election lie had commended for more III the Nor
folk case. But that more doubtful case than
this The number of voters excluded would not even
probably have changed the final result. Hence, 1t was
ARGUED bv those opposed to sending the election back
that as il not shcwn that the votes rejected would
have changed the result, had they been poilcd, the
House should give Cunningham the seat, III whose
favor the committee had reported. All these who
adoptcd this argument, implicitly admltcd Tia: II the
number Of votes excluded, winch would have been
given 10 tic unsuccessful candidate, would have
changed the result, the election ought TO have
been set aside But in that case, Mr.. u. had con-
tended, ldl llc ttfffiDH SET drldc,
had been a riaSs of voters excluded, even though it
was uncertain how many Of that class the unsuccessful
candidate would have got But that class large
enough TO have changed the result II the whor-or
even very large majority Of them had voted for the
successful candidate and he unwilling TO go into
vague conjecture to how the matter would have
cvcntuacd. had these votes been policd, lie went Tor
sending the election back and the House sustained
him. In this case Mr. B. said he took higher gronnd
and if he did not shew that enough good votes had
f.l cd mt
ask the House to sustain him. Mr. Is. here went into
minute examination Of the evidence 10 establish the
legality of The votes Of number of persons, whose
votes had been rejected by the Sheriff The first on
the list, F. NJ Brands vote, he commended was IN
questionaby indspuabc. He read from the report of
the Committee the evidence, which IS as follows
the deposition Francis Marvel Brand appears, that he Of
rred the sheriff refused 10 take his vote when he IN
formed sheriff had voter four yearsMr. Hanway
was present informed the sheriff that owned
land sheriff persisted in his refusal take his VOTE The
deponen he intended vote for Mr. Tanzey which he be
eveS the sheriff knew
Mr. b. continued: The deposition taken differs from
,Ia this n ference n very