Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1842-12-20
Contested Election.

The question pending stril ing out the resolutions
reported by aoriy of The committee Elections and
sorting preamble and resolutions ia favor of Mr. Bca
Mr. ROBINSON said that the report OF the maio 'y was so
full in It's detail OF facts and he hoped, he might adj fair
It's arguments and differences deducod theTefom that
would require hut little anatin 70 satisfy every unpre
iuliced mind, q the correctness IF its conclu,ons Al
though the report has been alluded 10 in rather hateng
terms in respects regretted to hear the gentleman
from Lapoe pronounce it tissue of special pleading,
speech too, which itself was complete T'raao Of pe
Ga, pleading, from beginning end and which, scarcely
a single instance, mot the real question at issue.
That gentleman Nh Speaker has asked OF this House,
what should never ask # any delIbcIatve body Ie has
asked sir, special firor that tins question may be de-
clcd upon as understanding facts and equity
no, according dictates party prejudice pag feel
ing. The asking Of fhs body such thing, favor
presumption on his part that is capable Of outragng
the rights of the people and the laws OF the land through the
influence OF pary and SIR can DC considered IN no other
li,ht than insult 10 the integrity Of this House sir
am no less anxious for such osult than he and
abiding and conscientious belief that the report Is, every
PARTICULAR perfect accordance with the facts the law and
the Justice of the Such being the case look fer
the decision Of the question upon party principles, by
party vote the facts sir decidedly against the
right Of the sitting member, M Bea and IN favor Of Mr..
Marsh. candid examination Of the testimony, will con-
any unpejudiced mind that that gentleman has
/ iority of the legal votes M the District.
What IS the testimony the case, sir But, before
erins upon review Of IT, mnSt advert moment TO the
report Of the minority Of the committee That report and
preamble, and the preamble aud resolutions offered by
Foulke sir do speak Of facts they exist 1t
Tc, Tesents them IN one essential particular IL forth
that at one OF the meetings of the Committee on Elections
one Of the moved resolution that the sitting
Der Nj Bea have heard in person or by Coun-
sell and that he have copies Of the esmonyaud the ohe-
documents the So far sir, their report correct
But th report and the preamble aud resolutions
pctey variance with each cther and upon examination
will be found DO not correspond The member OF the mi
monty who offered in committee the resolution referred TO-
proposed that Enos Bcal-not Nh Mash ant Enos Beal-
should be head by Counsel and have power q Scnt for per-
and p1pes. This onei'Cd proposition, Is c1ucu-
iJeraiy Il the minority and a their dSpo,i
t.n In act with tdiyaes and iHpartidy
4 r..f 10
H. Mr. r. said Mr. Mashs IN the resolution was
inadvertently omitted ant that, the omission
pointed by Of the minority than 1t was amended by
consent r.. addressing Mr.. X, appealed 10 him Il such
was not the fact Mr. r. continued, and sand il true
that the gentleman from Wayne did 10 the insertion
# Mr. MaIshS name butt said Nh r. lie has not stated the
whole fact According my underestimate Ir, SAID Mr.. r.
Of The majority uf Tie committee, Mr. JAcKsoN
who Offered that amendment .ie.e Ar. EDWARDS rose
and said he, ne % the mlaoiitY AMI not Nj Jack
SON who Offered the amendment TO include Mr. Mlsh name
in the resolution.
Nh r, resumed There has, sir, been an uucnlo thrown
debate hat the jouy had predetermined, had pre-
Judged the whole matter aud had cnteci uqIn tie nve,
peplrel ard and drci Tor the Not sir
WHAT arc the fact, What dos the minority resolution
Why did they propose that Nir Beal alone, shou
the power be heard by Counsel and 10 send Tor per
sons and papers Whose conduct the commlttee-th'
majority the min 'Iyev the Puest intention 10 o.
rgh-hc greater dSp SilHu 20 eide according % the las
AMI the facs Dl Mr. JacG~on proposition 20 give Nj
Marsh privilege proposed 70 - gwen Nh
pan evIuce Gsp deal uuisIfy By The claimants
OF 10 withhold from them lul and impartial justice Tn
minority have eyinced sucn masnannnitl or sense
justice lhel SaIJed statements OF what took place ~ th
committee but too clearly show
We have SIR heard good deal said about special ending
and about attempts make the appear De ter side
report winch have had the honor, on behalf OF 70
majority Of the committee 90 submit 20 the iealIIn
House. The sole object Of that report 70 presn
they appeared from t ertdeqc ani suca oher re1
soning a. tie hurry composition. seemed fairly an
legimaiey deducble from the That report,
tains no spec pcadn.-no attempts myst ocar
the truth bewder becoui the judgments q tn
whose duty 10 decide upon the business OF rs concl1
The law applicable 10 the iairy and honestly stated
facts are correctly. The gentleman from porte,
serts that Shoemaker cast double veto - such tact
d,clo.ed by the testimony. Aud willing, sir, e il
issue here. and refer = the dispositions
II i asserted that Mr. Shoemaker has voted twice,
upon this assumption, it argued that his vote should
excluded illegal. Are the advocates Of the right
the sitting member, willing 10 rest the fale Of their eau
here If So sir will say. they bound 70 lose the
cc The testimony does any such infsren