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

- 49, - - - - =
luton annexed TO the memorial, because il con-
| tained matter entirely unconnected with this House.
They had not besides, received the memorial Of the
other claimant. of the neat nor did they know the
| grounds UPON which the contest had proceeded
! what facts were involyed-which were eonsidera-
tons proper to be laid before the committee, and to
be by them determined; and he thought II would, in
view OF this, be premature 10 instruct the committee.
Mr.. HUNTER explained, that the resolution
was merely for neuify
| MIR. HAMlIN understood it to be partly of
inquiry and partly obligatory. Now it would
be the duty Of the committee to examine all
| the facts of the case, and to report them to
this House, with the reasons on which their con-
illusions should be founded. Such II struck him
was the usual course of the ordinary proceedings of
this House. By referring the memorial to the
committee, they would report not only the facts
contained in the resolutions, bat -, other facts
relevant to the case. u might be the resolution was
too narrow L might be il too broad Ii seemed
| to him that all facts stated by the gentleman con-
testing ought to before them; and that ii the
duty Of the committee to state the facts committed
to their examination. Suppose thisHouse should
differ from the report OF the Committee on Public
Lands, or Manufactures, any other question for
them to decide upon. Every memorial presented
to this House contained such facts Why not, then,
act consistently He thought it would be hardly
respectful to the commltteeI and this his obec-
l
| this memorial
Mr.. HUNTER would not, he said, detain the
House on mere question of inquiry, but would ex-
press hope that there was no objection to his say
| ing that he knew not the parties Of whose names
| the signatures to the petition were composed. In
respect to the novelty Of the prayer Of the petition,
1t might be somewhat new in its facts; but all it
asked that the inquiry should be divided into two
questions: first that of the return; secondly, in re-
gard to the election 1t essential to Justice that
81 r,.,. - l.. T. -
in the petition. Ii appeared to him to be matter
to be regulated entirely by the laws Of Florida.
The petitioner that he received majority of
| the votes approved by the judge of probate, and
brings proof that, such being the case, he is entitled
| to seat in that House IL such facts were the
case, il was desirable to ascertain it, and they asked
| the committee to say so. There was another cleo
| ton question before them which would take some
time to determines at present it was right that the
gentleman should take his seat for Florida Al
though it was new to this House to distinguish be-
| tween the two questions involved in the memorial
yet in of contested elections, il familiar to
all who had studied the usages of the British House
| of Commons, that 1t was common to separate the
| two questions.
He had read the report of case in which two sets
! of members were returned. The question of cleo
| ton arose before the committee, and the actual
| members were allowed to sit while the contrasting
members were bringing up their claims. Now, as
to the correctness of this petition from the State Of
Florida, it was not Immediately his object to pro-
nounce upon ii; it asked only for committee to
examine how the Stood setting forth that there
was manifest proof sanctioned by the Governor of
Florida, that justice, the seat in that House be-
longed to him. They all knew enough Of the pro-
cesdings in cases of contested elections to be aware
| that petitions may be fpun out for weeks and
months, and so keep the member out of his seat;
and although 1t might not be in such cases the de-
sign to cheat such proves to be the inevitable
That MIGHT be the the member Flor
ida II was evident that the case would take some
| time II he was right in his construction of the
laws of Florida-agreelng as he did, with the
tary of staie-he had doubt Of the sitting men,
ber's return; the House thought so he asked them
to confirm 1t. That all the petitioner asked, to
separate the question of return from that Of election.
| Mr. GARRETT DAVIS arose to say he was
opposed 10 the resolution, because it altogether
| opposed to the usual proceedings of that House,
and because separated the two ssues-that Of the
| return and the election. The consequence might
be, that the reports on the two issues might be
adverse; which would be inconsistent with all the
| proceedings of that House, as well as unjust Two
members from the State of Florida were claiming
seats on that floor. The gentleman who was de-
cared the member by the regular return had the
right the seat according to all the privileges and
usages of contested elections. IL the gentleman
who held that return had taken his seat, what was
| the usage of that House, According to the usage
Of that House, he was entitled TO keepit.
Mr.. HUNTER, in explanation, observed that
the petition was in relation to both the return and
| election.
Mr.. DAVIS replied that, in doing so, the petit
toner had departed from, all precedent. The whole
question resolved Itself into thS--which of the two
claimants entitled to the seat not which was
entitled to the return; which after the scrutiny Of the
legal votes, had received the majority That
was the real issue, and the only issue involved
In the whole case, upon which the committee
was to decide Suppose the committee should
report on the two issues-and in one instance say
that members were entitled to hold their seats
count Of receiving the majority of legal voes in the
other case, that the member entitled to his seat
because returned? Would that not involve alb
surdHy! lie (Mr. d. knew ofno principle or prac-
tice going to say who was entitled to the return, and
which to the seat The only question was, which
| of the parties entitled to his seat by legal de-
csion; nothing short of that would do. Was it be-
cause gentlemen chose to make two issues that one
gentleman could be entitled to the seat and the other
| to the return' Such reasoning involved a contra
diction. He was opposed to that mode Of instruc-
ton. He trusted that late presidents of contested
elections would be adhered to. The memorial would
be referred to the Committee of Elections, whose re-
| port to the House would state which claimant had
received the majority of votes, and who, conse-
quently, was entitled to seat in that House.
Mr.. JOSEPH X. INGERSOLL arose, and hav-
ing obtained the floor, gave way to
Mr.. HUNTER, who desired TO set the gentleman
from Kentucky right. The gentleman had nsinuated
that the procedure contemplated by the resolution
was extraordinary. Had the honorable gentleman
from Kentucky consulted the precedents applicable
to the case, he would hardly have ventured on such
an assertion. He (Mr. II. could refer, amongst
other analogous cases, to which came up before
the House of Commons. He referred to the case
of an election in the borough of --, in the coun-
ty of Somerset. If the gentleman would look into
the history of such proceedings in England, he
would discover that nothing was more common than
to separate the question Of return and that of cleo
ton, making each the subject Of distinct nvestiga-
ton. And If the constitution of the United States
be consulted 1t would be found that special provis
ion had been made, constituting each House the
Judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of
! its members. And was there not an obvious reason
for that The present exactly in point;
but the reason that precedent to be found in
their books, was simply because no case surrounded
by similar circumstances had hitherto occurred
The same evidence which determined the question
Of return in that would also settle the question
Of election. Thus he to the case put by the gen.