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

The question raised by his colleague in this resolu-
| ton Was, who SHOULD be the contestor! The con-
testor Mr.. peterborough, raised two Questions In
his memorial; first, he conended that he was EMU
tied to the return; and second, that he had major
ity of the votes cast The constitution OF the United
States separated these questions. IL provided that
eeach House shall be the Judge of the elections re-
turns and Qualifications Of It's own members" IL
was true that the sitting member MIR. CAsBLLl had
the great zeal Of Florida; but the memorial laid on the
table by the contesting member conclusvely showed
that the certificate was founded on mistake. I'm
der these circumstances, was 1t possible that the
House would not correct the mistake, and give the
seat to the member entitled to IN and then the BUSH
ness might come Up in usual order As to, prece-
dents, he cared nothing about them the consttu-
ton distinctly separated the two questions of cleo
lion and returns and the resolution of his colleague
followed the constitution.
Mr. GRAHAM, referring to the clause of the con-
stitu,ion eaeh House shall be the Judge Of the cleo
tons, returns, and qualifications OF It's own men,
bersn said that the resolution proposed to
this order and put the second question, viz: Of the
reurns;" before the first one Of the ELECTION" This
was entirely wrong. Ii they went into the ques-
ton OF returns at all the correct mode and the only
correct mode, to ascertain who had the MAORI
ty of votes He thought the proposition was to 20
into this question hastily, prematurely, and rever-
sing the natural and the necessary ORDER and that 1t
would, in its practical operation involve many abb
surdities.
Mr.. CABELL (the sitting member whose right
to seat was now under considcration,) was entire
ly unconcerned, as far as he was concerned, what
course was taken by the House on this memorial.
He felt satisfied that due investigation il would
be found by the committee that the return prop
erly made; that majority of the legal votes were
cast in his favor; and that he was entitled to his
seat. He had risen for the purpose of replying to
a remark of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr..
RI I AZ pAn
Of election and the commission of the Governor of
Florida were given by misrepresentation, or by mis-
take; and further, that, by the laws of Florida the
gentleman contesting his seat was unquestionably
elected. He presumed that the gentleman had only
looked at one statute of Florida; if he had seen the
entire laws of Florida on the subject of elections, he
was satisfied he would come TO the conclusion, in
the gentleman's own words, that he Mr.. CO. was
unquestionably entitled to the return. He proceed
ed briefly to advert to the circumstances under
which the returns had been made and TO the history
of the election, going to show, as he contended,
that majority of 300 of the legal votes actually
cast were given for him.
Now, inasmuch as the action of the secretary Of
state--the political friend of Mr.. Brockenbrough-,
prevented him from obtaining certificates from four
or FIVE counties whereas, if the secretary of state
had given information, he (Mr. CO. would have had
at least 200 votes of majority in his favor there
being several counties in the western part of the
State which would have given him majority to
that amount which the judge of probate had not I'M
cluded in the return. Now that memorial came be-
fore this House. asking 1t to disregard 300 votes CIV
en- to him, but not credited to him, in consequence
of the action of the secretary of state He begged
to ask for the reading of the certificate from the
rotary Of state, to which the gentleman had allu-
ded.
The Clerk read the certificate of the return of Mr..
CABELL, signed by the secretary Of state.
Mr.. CABELL proceeded. The amount of that
certificate was that if the secretary of state had de-
clared the result of the votes legally, Mr. B. would
have majority; but now, since his votes are de-
clared illegal, he has not the majority He did not
know it was necessary to aude to the law of their
State then; for that was matter for investigation
before the committee. II it required, he would
read it, but if referred to the committee, he was sat-
sfed, conscious that it would do strict justice
Mr. DOUGLASS said that the discussion on that
question satisfied him that they ought to attempt
to decide in defiance of proper information on the
question. The attempt made there to do SOTO
foresall the decision of the House by reading the
certificate, and by, other means-made him think
that it the duty of the House to refer it to the
Committee Of Elections, with instructions to report
specially on the points at issue. Now, if it was
true, as assumed, that the contesting member had
majority of votes, and the sitting member had the
certificate without being entitled to it, the committee
could ascertain that fact better than the House. IT,
at the time the certificate was issued, the sitting
member was not entitled to seat, the contesting
member ought to have been returned as the sitting
member. Which ought to be eligible to sit in that
House would be known after examining each vote
by the committee contested elections, and SO de-
termine tho question much moro satisfactorily than
judge the decision of the euse, nor his own decs-
ion. The whole qucstoU ought to be referred to
the Committee of Elections TO report on the whole
affar-the sitting member 10 retain his seat till that
decision. He repeated, the House could not deter
mine any of the facts Of the case until that should
take place. He asked, were the facts and so; If
they were, the committee could report, and deter
mine in intelligent manner which ought to be the
member, and entitled to the representation on that
floor. He therefore hoped that the whole matter
would be referred to the committee, with instructions
to report He could see nothing in that improper.
1t was but justice to both parties.
Mr.. BAYLY followed. He had but a word or
two to say. His friend from Florida--for he had
the happiness to stand in that relation to both gen.
tlemen-had very much msconceived the facts of
the case, if he supposed that he (Mr. b. had made
up his mind on the legal question in reference to the
law Of Florida, without examination of that law.
Recently, when going into an investigation of the
question, he had all the laws Of Florida on the sub
ject of elections before him; and not only that, but
also the laws of other States; and, from such nves-
tigation, he was convinced that the secretary Of
state of Florida obliged to admit Mr.. Broken
brough as entitled to his seat. Whether he (Mr
3D. WINS better judge Of the law than the secretary
of state or not he would not stop to discuss. But
whether he was lawyer or not; and would add that
if he had given his opinion upon the action of the
Judge of probate, as attributed to him, it was most
injudcious. He did not know that that officer had
examined the subject; most likely he took the re-
turns heller skelsr Just as they came at the time.
II might be that Mr.. Cabell had majority of votes
within 80 days. If disposed to say that the en-
tire majority of votes given would entde to the
seat, he must say that Mr.. B. was returned. But
the gentleman disregarded the law, in calculating
to account for those returned AFTER on the ground
that the law of Florida prohibited the reception Of
votes after that time. II the law had been adhered
to- as it ought to have been, by counting the votes
returned, Brockenbrough was the member returned.
But the secretary of state had neither adhered to,
nor departed from, it altogether. He would show
his friend from Florida that he did not make up his
opinion without examination. He had referred to
the facts, not for the purpose of deciding, but to
show that two distinct questions were raised by the
facts: to the return the other as To the elec-