The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-12-08

the House, for the purpose Of making inquiries ant
reports on the election and qualifications Of mem
bers, oien involving circumstances calling for spe
cal and minute examination. With regard L
themselves, and the practice Of that House, they
had standing committees which embraced the who'll
scope ofsuch inquiries and were of character es
sentially different. These committees were in thei
nature permanent. The gentlemen composing then
were familiar with the duties assigned to them
They were in the habit of investigating such cases
and they communicated TO the House body o
valuable information, deciding not merely from tn,
direct and immediate evidence before them but also
from that derived from their own enlarged eSpe
rience--pfaciical intelligence-extensiye informa
ton and careful study Of the subject from all which
sources the most important aid was attained II
leading them to Just and proper decision. He be
ery appreciate any strictly applicable to th'
case, although perchance, it might bear against the
views which he Mr.. Fl. himself present entertain
ed. Now, in his Mr.. Is) opinion, il was conceded OF
all hands hat the precedent here had been uniform
and was infinitely more decisive and conclusive
than any which could possibly be derived from any
body, however wise, respectable, and experienced
in regard to Legislative matters, whose proceedings
and action were regulated by constitution essen
TALLY different from that which governed that
House. II appeared TO him that the petition in its
very nature, covered the whole ground. The in
qury was, Is the sitting member entitled to his seat
or is he not His right was at present founded
on priina Jacie evidence-the possession of cert
fcate bearing the broad seal Of the State. Tha
prima tacie case remained until peculiar circum
stance occurred, which, they all agreed, was no
thing more nor less than conclusive case; and the
moment such case was presented, after lnvestiga-
ton by committee, the prima tacie case was done
away with entirely; then the petitioning member
took his seat, and the sitting member was super
seeded. But till that case was presented, the primo
tacis case remained, Now, what the state of the
case before the House' The committee, accord
ing to the instructions suggested in the resolution,
ascertaihed printa facie case--noting niere-.be-
cause when the returns were presented to the
House, and the statement that prina tdcie on
ly had been made out the question still remained H.
able to the direction which would be given il by the
subsequent establishment of another case, overturn.
ing the validity of the former-the returns being in
cdenta only to the votes themselves. And thus
they could 60 on--one case overturning another
involving serious cause of legislation the termina
ton Of which might be delayed till the end Of the
session. The committee, however, was well con-
sttued; experienced gentlemen were upon it; and
they could at proceed to the full exercise OF
their duties. The suggestion involved, was that
connected with the incidental circumstance of Q
change from Territorial to State government
which did not at all demand minute examination oil
the votes So, at least he understood the If
no great length of time necessary for the dispo
sal Of the memorial. In conclusion, he had only to
express his regret that any effort had been made To
lead the House into departure from an excellen,
and uniform precedent.
Mr.. GARRETT DAVIS rose to express his
views relative to the precedent drawn from the
practice of the British Parliament. In England, in
ferior officers presided at the elections who made
their report TO the sheriff, by whom the returns
were made to the House of Commons. In the case
Of the contested seat for the borough Of .---, in
the county of Somerset two classes of returning Of
fcers made distinct and separate returns. The high
sheriff accepted the returns of one Glass; and reject
ed those Of the other; and the House of Commons
decided that the question whether the proper Off
GERS had made the returns might be fairly insti
tuted. Now the question in the case to which the
gentleman referred was simply this: did the proper
officers make the retnrnss II not there were no e-
gal returns. That was the only point which form
ed the subject of inquiry in that case before the
House of Commons; and for that reason, it did not
touch the present case. The gentleman from Flori-
da now occupying seat in that House had been re-
turned by the proper officers. If he had not, the
gentleman could, he (Mr. d. admitted,
canvass that point, and make it the ground Of pre-.
liminary procedure. But he would ask the gentle.
man from Virginia if he had ever known case in
which sitting member had been ousted, short Of a
judgment to the effect that he had not received the
legal majority'
MIR HUNTER rose in explanation. He had
cited the English case for the purpose of showing
that the House of Commons had separated the ques.
tons Of return and election 1t was to sustain him.
self on that point that he had cited the precedent
Mr.. DAVIS. The precedent might sustain the
gentleman in the abstract but not with regard the
then under the consideration Of the House; be-
the gentleman had the certificate Of the proper
returning officer of the State of Florida. Allowing
cite solitary precedent either in Congress or in the
British Parliament, in which gentleman holding
his seat by virtue of the certificate Of the proper
turning officer had been deprived Of his seat,
short of judgment against his having received ma
orty of the legal votes cast. If the object of the
gentleman was analogous to that contemplated in
the case cited by him, it was all very well. What
then, would be the inquiry
Mr.. HUNTER was sorry to interrupt the gen.
teman but he wished to set him right with respect
to the facts of the The question was, Whether
the certificate had been given by the returning Off
csr, or by the inspectors Of elections
Mr.. DAVIS. Very we'll lfthe gentleman thus
limited the case, then the precedent cited by him
would certainly sustain him.
He further commended that the resolution Of tn,
gentleman from Virginia Mr. HuNTERl was alto
gether unprecedented and supplementary, mas
much as the idea had never before been broachet
that gentleman, coming here with the great sea
Of his State, could be ousted from his seat until thu
whole case was examined, and the fact ascertainet
that the contesting member had majority of all tn,
legal votes cast at the election He maintained tina
the inquiry with reference to the returns and tn,
election should 60 hand in hand and could not bt
separated.
Mr.. STEPHENS called for division of tn,
question, so as TO vote first on the reference, ant
second on the instructions proposed.
Mr.. G. S. HOUSTON wished to ask question
of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.. HUNTER.
He understood, from the reading Of the resolution
that the object Of the mover was to instruct tn,
committee first to report while the contest was 60
ing on, to the House, declaring who, in their opin
ion, entitled to the seat; aud after that time t.
make another report, entering into the general mer
its Of the question MS to who received majority o
all the legal votes cast.
Mr.. HUNTER. That is precit,ely my object
Mr.. HOUSTON. Well, then, ] think it ough
TO be adopted.
Mr.. HAMLIN said there appear ed to him to b.
misunderstanding on the part of gentlemen witt
reference to the instructions proposed. The gen
tleman himself seemed to misunderstood it, ant
said il was mere resolution of inquiry. As h
(Mr. II understood it, the resolution Of instruc
tons was imperative, and forced the Committee o
Elections to inquire and report the assumed stat