The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-02-14
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
WEDNESDAY,, Feb. IA, 1874

after which
MIR. CHAPPELL rose and asked leave to call the
attention of the House, and particularly of his col
league (blr. Stephens to what he (Mr. CO. bad no
doubt was misreport of some remarks made in
debate by his colleague the day before yesterday
in which remarks his (Mr. C's) name was intro
duced
The SPEAKER here interposed by saying that the
leave asked by Mr.. Chappe required the general
consent of the House; which having been granted,
MIR. CHAPPELL said that the report in the Madi-
sonan, to which he alluded, and to which he called
the attention Of the House and of his colleague pur-
ported to give the remarks made by his col
league Oh Monday, in reply to another colleague
(Mr. Black). Mr.. said he happened not to be a
his seat during the discussion between his two COL
leagues, and consequently did not hear what was
said. The discussion appeared however, from The
report, have had reference to the proceedings OF
the Wing Convention in Georgia, and to the nomna-
ting and running of candidates by the Wing party
evidence Of what the sentiments OF the Wing
party in Georgia the constutionality Of the dis
tricting clause OF the apportionment law.
MIR. CHArrELL here read from the Madisonian the
report in question: and called the attention OF his col
league (Nir Stephens) to the following part of it
" Mr. BLACK said he would ask his colleague (Nlr.
Stephens) IT, the Wing State Convention had not nom
mated their ticket under the general ticket system,
and were defeated, although they had acknowledged
the constitutionaiy Of that law. They had succeed
ed, however, in one or tao instances at special
elections, in eIectng two three representatives.
MIR. STEPHENS said that the sentiments he had
expressed on this subject the other day. he express.
ed in that Convention, and they circulated
throughout the State
Mr.. BLACK said his other honorable colleague
(hlr. ChappeD also in that Convention, who was
known to be opposed to the constitutionaity OF that
law.
Mr.. STEPHENS said Mr. Chapel in that
Convention, and he believed that he was opposed 10
the consi,utionality of the law of Congress, but
il was not generally known In the convention. How
ever, he would inform his colleague that the vote at
the special election to which he alluded was much
greater by several thousand than at any former cleo
ton
Now, said MIR. c., both my colleague and myself
were members of the Wing Convention of June
last, and also members of the committee of twenty
one raised by that Convention, which committee re
ported TO The Convention resolution which was
adopted by that Convention declaring the const tn
tionolty Of the districting clause, and denouncing
elections under the general ticket system uncon.
stitutIonsl and invalid IL was knoun TO his col
league that he, (Mr. CO in that committee strenu
ously opposed this resolution and maintained the
constitutionaty of the dstricng clause and that
election by general ticket would be valid, no,with.
standing that clause.
This same committee was clothed, by the Conyen-
ton, with the authority of nominating candidates TO
fill any vacancIe. that might occur after the sd ourn
Inent Of the Convention, in the representation in
signaton aud the committee, three weeks before the
election nominated him. (Alr. c. to fill that vacan-
cy, with ul knowledge Of his (Mr. C.'s) senti.
ments.
His colleague had been previously nominated with
out opposition, by the Convection itself, 10 I'LL an
other ysncsncy which had not then occurred but
which wa, anticipated with certsnty, and which
soon afterwards actually occurred.
Thus IT will be seen that the nominating bodies,
by which hi. colleague and himself were brought
f,r ri Il, hn,, ,tc
Convention in the and permanent commit
tee Of that Convention IN the other case. And IL is
mainly because his colleagues remarks, reported
are liable 90 the inference that his (Mr C opioDons
were unknown TO the body by which he (Mr C)
was nominated, that be called his attention TO
the subject. lie is his colleague did not intend
10 author any such inference, and that " his
marks had been fully and accurately reported, no
room would have existed for such an inference.
l. MIR. CHAPEL made some further remarks
pressve Of his belief that this question
sidered by The people of Georgia involved in the
late elections, for Congress, now viewed by the
Wings Of that State as test question Of party.
MIR. STEPHENS, in reply, SAID that there wa,
one or two slight mistakes IN the report TO which his
colleague had alluded. In reply 10 his colleague,
Mr.. Black he had said that his colleague (Mr c J
on the Committee that reported the resolution
mentioned by MIR. b And though IL was known to
that committee that his colleague (Nr. O. dissened
IN committee from the majority on this question, We,
ne oiu not btIcNc MS sentiments upon The SUBJECT
were generally known, not in The CONTENTION, but IN
the State, before his election. Another stake in
the report was that he Mr.. s corrected his col.
league (Mr. b as to the Conyent in which ,h-
resolution had been adopted. II in IS43 and
not in lSt2, as stated by Mr.. B. and which was moi,
noticed in the report and the ticket nominated at
the time Of the adoption OF the resolution we. not
def ated, as stated by Mr.. but elected by large
major ~.
again, as to the special elections he did not say
that the vote larger than at any former election
but larger than at the time Of his colleague (Mr
B.'s) election.
The other remarks Of his colleague (Mr. C) are
also true. r..
lie was nominated subsequent to the Convention
by the committee as he has stated And II is true
tlst his colleague (Mr G did oppose the rssolu-
ton IN committee and IN tins way his opinions were
made known TO them.
Mr.. STEPHENS said he did not intend 10 init.
mate that his colleague (Mr C.s) opinions were no,
known TO the members Of the committee who nomi-
mated him, but that ne did not think they gene.
rally known to the country.
A debate of an explanatory character took place
between Mr.. STILES and Mr. STEPHENS, which
the STEAMER pronounced out Of order
The SPEAKER then ann unced the special order,
Of the day being the
REPORT or the COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS.
Mr. DOUGLASS said II would be impossible for
him, with the short time allowed him, TO answer all
Of the objections which had been urged by gentle.
the other side. II was much castor to find
fault aud to pull down than 10 build up, and IL requr-
ed more 10 answer objections, than TO discus.
the mefIts Of the question before the House. Gen
tlemen the other SIDE had said that the report Of
The majority was conceived m spirit Of party
which, " II true, that commit would deserve
the execration of the world The committee had
been constituted by the rules OF thi. House. and IN,
SUBJECT under consideration had been referred Ia ina,
iftcca ndth cv hadtp .t~J 40
port TO this body, ard there Is nothing in that report
ola party character. lie then drew parallel between
the character Of the reports Of The majority and mi
nory, and ssld that the authors Of the minority re-
port which closes with the hope tina, the "people
would shake such an incubus from them I" the lion
shakes the de- from, h,s " IF . 81.