The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-20


Mr. McGAUGHEY, (of the minority of the COM
miiteel explained that the minority did not uneon-
diionaly ask for delay but only that f either par
,y desired time, il should be given.
Mr.. HAMLlN, continuing, confessed that aecor-
ding to the explanation, he had misunderstood the
concluding paragraph of the minority report He
had supposed they desired more time, and 10 this
way new issues might be opened, and the position
Of the ies be entirely changed. la this case, the
opinion of the gentleman from Virginia Mr.. Hen
TsR,] expressed al the commencement Of the ses-
sion, should be adopted and the iaborng oar should
be taken by the man who appears to have a minor,
ity Of the votes, and the apparently elected
should be allowed TO toke the place OF The sitting
member, while the other should lie the contestant.
That man who had majority of the returns,
should ut least have his seat, and let tie other par
~ become the contestant.
He had thus stated briefly the reasons which had
led his mind 10 the conclusion to which the COM
mltee had come. He could arrive at no other con-
clusion than that they must either confne them
selves strictly to the legal returns, and then the con-
testing member elected, or that they must take
the broader ground, (Which was supported by the
precedenls Of this Honse) and 20 the actual state
OF the polls in which case also they could come to
no other conclusion than that the contesting member
was entitled to the seat.
Mr.. CHAPMAN, Ia member of the minority Of
the committee referring TO this fact, proposed TO
show, IN few remarks, how he had been forced
called the minority Of the committee, had sufficient
life and ygor to stand alone to be in position
TO DO kicked" by the pretended majority he would
not undertake TO discuss. He had no feeling as be-
tween the respective parties in this question If his
political prejudices could have led him either way,
certainly he would have been likely to be biased IN
favor Of the contestant But in every vote which he
had given IN the progress OF the investigation he
had gone blindfolded as 10 the consequenees--with
no knowledge as to its influence upon the final re-
suit and he would here say, that at the time the
final vote was given which determined this question
he had no knowledge as TO what would be It's con-
sequence; but on the contrary, he had surinised that
the elect OF II would be 10 give the seat on this
floor TO the contestant. The committee The said) had
proceeded to investigate this on the principles
set forth in a resolution which had been drawn up
by him--on the broadcast principles OF democratic
right-in order TO determine, when il should be
ascerained which Of the parties had received
the greatest number OF votes that he was entitled
to the seat But he did not understand in COM
ing TO this determination, that they were To take
anything and everything for evidence; he did
not understand that, in the language OF one OF
the committee, they were TO receive that which
would be considered illegal evidence in a court OF
justice, and which would be rejected; that as they
were seeking for truth, they had better take such
evidence. The committee, in advancing in its inves.
tigaon, proposed that tho and the sitting
member should submit the evidence on which thew
founded their respective claims. The first paper
offered, was the paper No !, 10 which the honor-
BILE chairman Of the committee had allu ded; and
here he begged leave to state, that on an inspection
Of that paper it would be found that there were no
rrfins IN u, as certified by the secretary Of State
sreept returns made by probate judges That might,
perhaps seem broad assertion after the declaration
OF the chairman Of the committee; but be should
attempt 10 substantate il. There was one return
purportlng to have been made by county clerk
which the secretary Of State had expressly excepted
and rejected. He wished the House, then, to
bear in mind this fact, that there was no return in
statement No. /, which the commission was
issued, except returns by judges of probate.
Mr. A. A. CHAPMAN, Ia member Of the COM
miltee) was understood to inquire il the returns Of
the county Of Nassau not other than by Judges
Of probate,
Mr.. CHAPMAN. II the gentleman will wait
and hear me through, will explain the matter
fully to the House. He had no particular feeling
on this subject (he continued --none; and notwith-
standing II had been said by the honorable chairman
and by other gentlemen, that the minority of the
committee, as they called II, had arrived at an alb
surdity in their conclusions, they would see where
the absurdity lay before he got through. The gen.
temnn, therefore, he hoped would keep cool
The paper No. l, he was about to remark, was
offered to the COMMITTEES by the conts.i.. a;, was
received DIV b.. wnnout being objected TO by The
sitting member, or by any member Of the commit
tee The next paper mo p purported to be returns
made by inspectors of elections directly TO the
rotary of State. The committee had determined that
the proper returns were those legally placed in the
office OF the secretary OF State, and TO which his
certificate would give the force of evidence; that
these were tn be received good returns, and these
alone; and hence that Inspectors returns were OF ad-
mlsslble. The question arose whether these inspec-
tore, under their official oahs could make these re-
turns, and give them, when backed by the certificate
OF the secretary, the force and effect of legal evil
dence. The majority of the committee decided that
they were ilega that the inspectors had no right TO
send up such returns to the secretary of State, and
to use the language of the constitution that they
were not papers legally in the possession Of the sec
rotary OF State, and, therefore, that his certificate
could not give them the force of evidence, Under
this rule ofproceeding, the decision would have Civ
en- the election to the sitting member upon the evil
dence before the committee and 80 it was declared
not by the noo minority ofthe committee, but by the
tt'n majority of the committee. MIR. G. gave the
details Of the progress of the deliberations of the
committee as to whether the whole returns in tabu-
lar statement No. should be received He had
supposed from the statements concerning it, that the
returns had been made partly by Judges of probate
partly by inspectors of election, &c; but upon ex-
aminpon, he found the OF the case the reverse
of this and that all the returns were made bv udg.
es Of probate. He gave the facts which had led him
to this conclusion; from which it appeared that for
several counties, the returns made without spe-
cifymg by whom made; and that, after tracing down
some four or five counties returned in this way they
caHc W oHe, annexed 10 winch was the statement oil
having been made by the Judge Of probatc he thence
inferred, aud he appealed to gentlemen if this was
not fair rule of construction, that the respective
returns above were made by the same officers viz,
judges Of probate. He also referred to details of facts
IN substanaton ofthe statement Of the report of the
minority OF the committee, that of their number
had been directed TO draw up a report, coming to
the conclusion that Mr.. CABELL was entitled to his
seat He had concurred in this order of the then
majority; he had never been into the committee
since, and he never would meet them again to act on
that business. lie stood here to-day the advocate
not of the minority report, but of the majority re-
port. He had learned since, out Of doors, that by
the secession Of ono of the majority ton grounds
which he stately the committee had subsequently
reversed their decision, and thus they, who were
OF the then majority were now left in minority.
Mr. COBB rose for Information of the gentleman
and remarking that he understood him 10 say that
in tabular statement No. 1, on which the commits.
sion was issued were included no returns by inspec
tors, no wished to know how the gentleman recon
cIlcd this statement with the following passage of
In ART .f 4 L..x r At.