Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1840-09-24

OF that controversy as far as regarded
the legal votes. could be decided Here
Mr.. Bolts exhibited the volume OF testi.
mony IN the New Jersey case Mr.
Jones not answering-Mr. Bolts said be
desired the gentleman 10 answer IN the
presence OF his constituents. aye or no.
had be ever read OF heard the tesiim ony
IN the case.
M Jones replied-No he had not
: M. BOtis-There is another question
! wish 20 pu, 20 the Hon. gentleman
Did you not only refuse to examine the
testimony yourself but did YOU not refuse
time TO other gentlemen who demanded
1t as right and refused 10 vote unless
that right was granted to them
/ Mr.. Jones-I do not -eeolect.
.Nr. B0ifs-lf you do not recollect, sur
Il Is the most remarkable instance OF
treachery OF memory that has ever come
under NY observation for of all the re.
markable scenes that have ever witness
ed in legislation. tina, was the most re-
markable, and one tha, had supposed ne
yer could be forgotten by any that Wit
messed II.
But fortunately. have conc here
armed 20 the teeth with documentary
proof ready TO establish every assertion
/ make-and here IS the proof tha, you
did give that vote.
Here, Mr.. Bolts commenced reading
the report OF the proceedings OF the
House.
.H. Jones Il recollcct now, sir-I
believe did give that vote.
M. Boits.-l believe SO, too. SIT
Now, fellow. citizens, what more can
say on this subject. Mr.. Jones has. in
one word. Acknowledged as much as |
could prove IN twelve month lilo has
Acknowledged tina, he decided this great
controversy, 10 which the sovereignty
/ OF State and rs representatives. IN Cor
gress were concerned in perfect ignorance
i aud blindness of the whole merits OF the
cause.
Let Us suppose controversy 10 have
arisen between two neighboIs IN the coun-
/ " of Chesterfield. upon a long unsettled
account; each claims OF the other. n con.
! siderable balance; they each select an
other neighbour, a. referees; and IN the
event Of their no, being able 10 agree,
the selected umpire is to decide the con.
troversy. The referees disagree, y re-
ports b TO be entitled TO balance; G
reports ID TO be entitled to large bal
ance; lays the vouchers before the umpire,
and demands thatthev shall be examined
and assures hun, If he will examine them
fairly. he must sustain the judgement he
has rendered. The umpire refuses to
look az a single paper, but turns upon
his heel and says. have more conf
dence in the judgment or IN the politics,
OF A than have in YOU. Mr.. &, and my
decision is tina; d shall pay to Il precisely
what A has declared him entitled 90
This is case precisely analogous 10 the
New Jersey case.-The claimants IN that
case were the dispu,an,s here-the com.
mIttee of elections the reieTees-,hev
were divided four 10 fve-the House was
the umIire--the four demanded an exam
Inalion of the testimony; and the Admin
isira'ion party said substantially. damn
your testimony, we have more confidence
in these five members, than in YOU and
the testimony together, and we decided
as they have decided.
n such a case were to occur in private
life, Ineed not ask, what your judgment.
on that umpire would be.
However party spirit may justify The
act Of rejecting the New Jersey (Whig'
members, without even a trial, or reading
Of The testimony, the finale OF the case
was supe'laiively mean. On the last day
of the session. Sir. Smith OF Conpeciicut
submitted a resolution for paying tho on
position clsimanls the usual com pensaiion
Thi, required suspension Of the rules
and the Administration party defeated
the motion The New Jersey prsiender
| refused 10 vote for this motion designe,
TO give the lsiI and usual compensation
20 the men whose seats they occupy -
Mr.. Slanly called the attention Of tn,
house 10 this Characteristic mcanness.-
But the decree had passed, and its au
thors are memorable in uurighteousness.
We understand 1t has always been III,
3 practice in cases OF contested elections
= to pay both claimants the usual per die1
compensation un,il the matter IS dispose,
Of as weil as TO refund the expense Ehicl
either may have incurred ia colIeciin,
his testimony. Mr.. lngersoll. Who con
tested Mr.. NaylorsseAt, and whose CLAIM
was not sustained save by very SINAI
portion Of his own party, received on To
$ latter account eleven hundred and TWEEN
, ty.eigh, dolIar' as The following receip
: will show
July 2O,h, 1870. Received OF ~. a. Garlanl
d ClcIk House % Representatives.. sisrsn hunlrs
and fCsHig-,igh doilHr' Tor pay II The above nam
81 witnesses, being 5Gi days az 81 per day.
(Sgncd) {. J. ING EitSOLL
We leave the reader to make his Owl
r comment upon this principle OF choakin
al gnat aud swallowing wind mill
Peoria 10 Rsgi,'sr.