Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-12-29
The SPEAKER land before the House the follow


i S,i,: In purs uancc Of the following resolution o
the Houso, dated December IL, 1910: "Resoiecd
Thapthc Clerk Of this House be instructed to repor
! by what authority the SUN Of eleven hundred AM
/ eighty dollars and fifty cents paid TO Charles
Jared ngersnil, ESQ., for his expenses IN taking esli
rloay, &c, the contested election with Charles Nay
lo Esq pending al the last session of Congress- anf
out f what fund such amount paid, rs reported
IN document M. to THIS House, beg leave to re-
porlha on the goth July last paper was handed Tho
accounting Clerk of Tins office, containing lis OF The
witnesses in the contested case of Nay "r and lngeF
soil together with the number of days such wi,nrssc
had hccn IN attendance. On the face of tins paper u
an oder signed -. johnson, Chairman of Accounts,
"tha the witnesses above numed be pld two dollars pei
RI dirm.
Invrtne Of this order paid Mr.. ingersoh ST.
for .il days 50 per day, Tor the purpose al payIns
the sid witnesses. AT the beginning of thescssion Mr.
Ingcsoll returned ih receipts of the individuals paid
and gil 80 in money, stating that TINT amount hat
been overpald In castng up the receipts tnd ihrn
| II anonnt TO SliilO ~
! Add he amount returned by Mr. Inqersol II u
Mlnr SLIPS on
The amount paid to Mr.. Ingersoll. All of which
is respectfully submitted.
HUGH A. GARLAND.
\ NATCRATlZ ,TION LAWS
Mr.. DAVIS ef Indiana, in pursuance OF notice,
moved rrcnn> Iteration Of he vote by which the b!l
introduced hy MIR Hand fer establishing uniform rule
nj mt raj ZatIon had been referred 10 Inc JUDICIARY
Committee.
The question being on the reconsideration,
Mr.. LAWS moved ilr previous question; which was
ordered
member from North Carolina moved call Of tho
House.
The SPEAKER Informed him that after the the pre-
qnnSt on had been ordered, IL was too late 10 move
for call of the House.
The NAN question IN the motion to reconsider was
then ordered, and taken by yeas and nays-feas 10,
nays %
So ihr House refused 10 reconsider
Mr.. Bolts, aficr some brief preliminary remarks,
asked leave Ia s,hmnt the following resolution:
Rcsmirfd, Thatihr Committee on Accounts be m
s,ruced to report to this House by what authority,
and at what time, md OH whose application II WAS or.
drred and paid, thy directed the Clerk Of this House
10 pay the sun ~ 81 l25 Charles J. Ingrrsoli, rs
compcn satinn To witnesses &c. examined n III" con.
tested election between the SAID Charles j. lnyerso
and Charles ,lor
Mr. MEDILL sad Il" was not in his place when the
report was made being absent a special committee
He hoped therefore, that The gentleman from Virginia
Il -. st-'on"''i-
Mr. Bolts desired first 10 ascertain the subject m
tended Ia be rrnlrnccd BY the motion.
Mr. MEDllL said that in the resolution should
be withdrawn n intended to submit motion rec"n-
nt NJ The repor, Of the Clerk, and directing hn L"
report
"B, what authority, on wha, vouchers, and through
whom he paid IL l.. Bn.kley the sum of sou; l"
NpWcOiltP
Lnwrcy the sum Of l0i for services rendered by them
~ taking drpnsiions the of the contested cleo
ton he ween Me~srs nrcrsol aud Nnylnr, as report
ed in Document No. Z: by what authority, ana on
what vouchers he sent In MIR. Naylnr money to pay
his witnesses in the said contest, and which that gen.
tlenon saws he returned: whether the said vouchers
rive the names and time of attendance ct the sad W.T.
nessps in whose handwriting It was tled, ana what
has become nf the same.
Mr. NJ said his reason for making The motion would
con,inren, expenses He not aware That Mr. In
crsn was any more Interested in the payment OF those
cxpcnsrs tIian MIR Naylor. 4 certain sum had been
mad 10 the commissioner at Philadelphia, ais" to The
daor keeper &c Now ic could no. see that The com
missioner was The commissioner Of Mr.. lnccrso any
more than Of Mr. Nayor that the expenses incurred
for door keeper, &c applied to one Of the contestants
any more than the other And YET The gentleman (hlr
Nayor had stated that he ioucicda dollar Of the
money II appeared tina, specific sum OF money had
hcen sent 10 that gentleman for the payment OF his W.T..
nesses Now, how could the Clerk have asceralnrd
lie exact amount of money for the payment OF these
witnesses unless statement Of tho amonnt Ind been
first for wardrd To the Office Of the Clerk Of the House OF
REPRESENTATIVES, Tie CDR NJ understood that such
was the fact and that It was III the handwriting OF inc
gentleman himself VIVA, motive, also, had nfiuencrd
that gentleman in returning portion of the money
and moi the whole, he unable to say. lie hoped
The report would be recommItted as If the House was
IN have statement of the expenses, it ought TO be iu
and complete
Mr.. NAYLOR explained that in his remarks the
other day. he was merely answering question put to
him as TO whether his witnesses had been paid or not
His answer on that occasion was that they had rot hut
that he had offered TO pay them HIMSELF believing they
had no right to receive il from the Committee on Ac-
counts. He had never undertaken 10 drny 'rat e@-
ppnses had been incurred for commissioner, doorkrep-
or &c In relation to the accounts appearing III his
handwriting, Mr. n. was understood TO say that his
witnesses had refused TO receive their compensation
from him. urging that, as they had been summoned ny
Congress- they had n right 10 be paid by Congress-
Under such circumstances he cond do no less an to
certify TO the number Of days his witnesses had been
engaged Mr.. n. said that when the Chairman OF the
Committee Accounts had intima,ed TO HIM, at the
last session. that Mr.. ingersolls money Tor the pay
ent of witnesses had been allowed he expressed his
usonlshment and declared it to be outrage and e
gal Inasmuch, therefore, he had never denied that
expenses had been incurred during the investigation OF
the case in which both contestants were included, he
did not see why he should be subjected TO rebuke
MIR. BRIGGS suggested to the gentleman from IT
ninia modification of his resolution follows
Res0ir6d, That all the papers IN relation IN money
paid for witnesses, and the expense OF taxing testimony
IN the of Nayl"r and lng"rso, be referred to The
Committee on Public Expenditures, with directions to
inquire how much money has been paid III snd case,
To whom for what and by what authority said money
was pad; ais" further TO inquire whether there IS any
existing law authorizing money to he paid IN SAID case
Mr. BOTTS was drsirons that this subject should
he probed the bottom, rs II was evident there was
faul, somewhere But with regard to The proposition
of the gentleman from Ohio, MIR Medl he must de-
cline it, inasrnuch the Clerk, in the report, had
stated the fact that the money paid under the au-
,hnrty Of the Committee on Accounts Aud ~ reia'
ton II the proposition of the gentleman from Massa-
rhusr,ts mir. Briggs,l he must also decline 1t, for
the reason that lie wished tn afford to the Committee
on Accounts, an opportunity Of defending themselves
If they chose He thought it would be unjust TO dis
cuss the matter without afording the committee such
an opportunity.
The question thrn being on tho resolution,
Mr. BRIGGS moved to amend by adding the words
previously suggested.
Mr. UNDERWOOD had seen the origin Of difficulties
like these and four five years ago he had predicted
wbnt had now taken place In the case Of Graham
and Newuud of North Carolina he believed the prece
dent was established of paying both the contestants for