Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-01-18

Mr.. Gregory amendment. Mr. X. stated ne was one
of the majority who had voted against the amendment
but was now satisfied that the whole election ought to
be sent back and he made the motion for that purpose
Hfr SouTHALL hoped the House would make this
motion test question, and that every gentleman who
in favor of the amendment, would vote for the re-
consideration Mr.. S. then proceeded to discuss the
proposition of Mr. Gregory if the motion for recon-
sdcration had prevailed He contcnled that the whole
election was ndivsible, and that any egalty IN con.
Quoting the election if it affected delegate would
extend to both lie controvered the distinction r"9a
yesterday By the gentleman from Accomack, NJ. T..
" between voldabe and void election. He argued
length the subject and in favor oe NJ Gre
CORY amendment rejected Yesterday.
Mr. BAYLY replied and justified the distinction ho
had taken in this In the course OF b. remar.s,
Mr.. B. said he would not send the election back il
were satisfied tha, Mr. Evans had majority Of tae
votes; but if motif he even had any doubts upon .ss
point, he would send it back. lie was clear that ,c
had right to tost upon the people Of Iionon gala :
delegate whom they had not elected This might he
called Loco Foco doctrine, If others pleased-he cared
not. He in favor of the people being fairly re-
presented. lie would vote against the motion 10
reconsider. He would first upon the question
about Mr. Evans seat; and il it determined ,ia
he not entitled 10 his seat, he would then 2: iEto
the return of the other delegate. lie had reasons I,
believe and he would produce evidence to show, t-t
election had been held a, of the precincts &c
| The discussion continued between Nlr. SUvTu.
Az and sir. BAyLY until half past :. O'Clock.
The House .t:;Eed to suspend the ru!es: aye; SO,
noes 81
Mr. SMITH of Isle @: Wigh: offered the following
amendment as substitute for Mr. Ai'yns amendments
Resolred, That SO much of the ai"m0rlal OF Caleb
| I .nzcy, claims seat in this House be rejected;
and that james Evans has not been legally returned,
having received fewer votes than Caleb Tauzcy and is
not therefore entitled to his seat in this House.
Mr. ; stated his for believing that Mr. Evans
had not received majority Of the votes Ha argued,
rom the statements made by the Editor of the Morgan.
town paper, and The Sheriff, and Mr. Evans himself, that
the last was returned only by majority OF oncana lie
commended that this forced majority that tn 70
fraud in the transaction; and therefore the rytarn
ought TO be set aside He said the evidence before the
House left reasonable doubt on has mind that ,.ero
had been fraud IN the matter.
Mr. B.SEs concurred with Mr. Smith and called fc7
| the ayes and noes
Mr. JAcxsoS of Wood called for division CT the re-
solution he question 10 be first taken the Isl clause
ending with the words she rejected
Mr.. SMITH objected to the division. He was wiling
after his Substitute had tccn adopted in place Of c
original amendment, TO divide his resolution Mr C..z.
CORY in favor of the division. Some further arou-
merit enSucd on the par: OF Nh SINH. Mr. TcNs!A.;
requested his friend from Wood 10 withdraw i. ""or1.
s.on; winch IL consented II d. = save time, and he
called the previous question winch carried.
The question was then put on the adoption os ;Ir
Smith Substitute, and rtjectcd-ayes ~, noes 20
The question then REQUIRED on the adoption q. NJ
ALLYS substltute.-Mr. CHAPMAN said, be hal "y'y@
against Alr. SMITHS amendment, because be ,r.
satisfied that Mr. Tanzey had majority of ..e
votes-But he believed from the evidence be-
the House. that votes had been improperly excl, !.
which would have gwen the majority 10 Ian1ey, h,
therefore contendcd, upon the precedent set IL tic
Norfolk case, the election ought to be sent back. Mr.
c. then referred 10 the evidence and cited the Csc Of
several voters who had been improperly exc!cdcd -
lie asked whether with these facts before them il was
not evident the decision would have been reversed Z
those voters had been permitted to vote; II hgy II
been put on the poll book, who would have been c:.-
tied TO the scat And is i nat perfectly r-hr, thu; t.,
Election should BE- sent bach, lie referred also t, 90
polls al the Pawpaw precinct, ana showed from the cv
and vet how does II turn OUT That from The copy
Of the poll book sent he:c, Mr.. 1anzoy VS.
only allowed sxtv-ninc votes. He contcnG-.. from
this fact alone, TINT the Election ought 10 Re sent
blck-iie argued also, that the rctu:: was Heal be-
cause the polls had been sent the Clerk Office
in time; and that the Sheriff had not mad lis retain
within the SIX days Had he made it within that l"
he would have been compelled 10 return Tcazny be.
cause he lsd affirmed at that time that 7 was 81 ,set
But It turns out, that he made ua;il ~ end
o! II days Docs this laoii suspicious: H.. coz
tended that this stronger than tie ~ E:
case. In that case, there might be dgy5 who
would have been elected bat in tbs cas" il appears
from the postre evidence oftwo voters, that the le.
/ ton wo;.:d have gone in favor OF Tauzev.
| Mr.. SMITH Of t. of W. contended, that the drtr.
cncc between the present and the Norfolk was hs
that the voters in the Monongala did MT de!aaG
to vote, but in the Norfolk they dld-lie ais e.
pressed his concurrence in the views taken b; Sir
Souhall against sending the Election bac! til rec
pie OF Monongaa, al this season, and in the present
period Of the session.
On Mr. WoRrHISoTos's motion, the House adjourn.
ed.