The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-18
CON RE y SION AL.
SPEECH OF MIR. JENKINS,

In the House Of Representatives March 4, lsl6-On
the contested electlon-case from New Jersey.
THE majority Of the COMMITTEES on Elections con-
sisuuS Of Messrs. DoBBtS, CHAPMAN, HARPER,
MeCAUGHEY, and CULyER, reported IN favor Of
the election Of the sitting member, Mr.. RuNK, and
the minority, consisting Of Messrs. HAMLG,
CHAsr, ELLswoRrH, and CHIPmAs, made an adj
verse report, having come 10 the conclusion that
the contestant Mr.. FARLrE, was entitled to the
seat
Mr.. SrsAxER. On the Rftha and sixth days of Mo-
ysmbsr 1874, an election was held in the State Of
New Jersey for the choice Of electors of President
and Vice President OF the u nied Stnsss, and tpr
membess OF c~rcss in ths several districts OF that
State. The third congressional district OF New Jer-
sew is composed Of the counties OF Hunterdon, sum
erset Mercer, and Middssex. Isaac G. Faree and
John Runk were the opposing candidates for Con-
gress-Farlee for the democratic and Runk for the
whig party According 10 the returns, Runk had
majority over Fahee OF sixteen votes.
Thirty students, four OF whom were then at col.
lege and the residue the Theological Seminary at
P9inceton appeared at the polls in that district and
Congress One Of these collegians testified that he
voted for the contestant, and It is alleged that the
remaining tweuty-nine voted for the sitting mem
Der.
The majority Of the committee have put the ques-
ton For whom did these students votei but have left
point; for il be not sufficiently proved that at least
eighteen ofthe twenty-nne students voted for the
sitting member, any further investigation Of the
case will be Of no importance.
Nineteen of these students were examined, under
oath, as witnesses in Sent last upon this subject.
The remaining eleven had nearly all graduated, and
all had then left that section Of the country, and
could not be produced for examination. The four,
who we're first called testified that they voted for
the sitting member, and the one who voted for the
contestant admitted the fact, Of his voting for Far
lee. The remaining fourteen, who were examined
as witnesses, utterly refused to disclose for whom
they deposited their ballots For the purpose Of
proving for whom seventeen OF the students voted
composed of part of those who had refused tes-
tfy on the subject, and part Of the absentees,
idence was taken disclosing their declarations made
before, and about the time Of the election, where
in they admitted that they belonged TO the wing
party; and Of them, after the election alleged
that they voted for the sitting member. This class
embraces the three collegans alleged to have voted
for the sitting member, and fourteen students Of
the theological school. The remaining eight be-
longed also to the theological institution
Proof from reputation was received that these
eight students also belonged to the wing party at
the time, of the election--that the democratic
dents in the theological school, prior TO the election
were advised not to offer their yotes--that it was
generally spoken Of in the theological school that
none of the democratic students intended to vote,
and afterwards tnat none Dul wing IN tnat
institution had voed--made up strong current OF
syidsnce tending TO establish, and, in my judgment
fully establishing the fact thai the tweny-Dne stu
dents cast their against the contestant and in
favor of the sitting member. ..-...
am Of the opinion that this species Of evidence is
admissible, where, as in New Jersey, the law al
lows of voting by ballot, thus intending to enable
the elector to withhold the knowledge Of his choice
from all; that law cannot so run counter to own
spirit as to compel him, some other occasion, to
unfold the secret. Hence the necessity of resorting
to grade Of evidence less direct, but which may
be, and often il, no less certain than the oath Of
the voter. This position is supported by the deci-
son in the election case from New Jersey, in this
House, which was determined in ls40. In that
case the majority Of the Committee on Elections,
consisting of Messrs. Campbell, Rives, Medill,
Crabb, and Brown, laid down the following rule
as their guide: "Although in numerous instances
the voter being examined as a witness, vol
UNFAIRLY discloaed the character Of his vote;
vet in many cases he did not appear, or
appearing chose to avail himself of his legal right
10 refuse an answer on that point. In such cases
proof Of general reputation as to the political char
acter of the voter, and to the party to which he
belonged the time of the election, has been suff-
ciently demonstrative of the complexion of his
yote.' In the same case, the minority Of the COM
mittee, consisting of Messrs. Fillmore, Smith, and
Bolts, adopted rule of similar import. 1t is this
"If an unlawful vote be cast how are we to ascer-
tain who had the benefit of such vote II seems to
the undersigned, to be indispensable to resort to
secondary evidence (when better be obtained
to this point such the declarations of the voter
either at the election after, and also proof OF
his political character, which, when well defined
will be sufficient guide to the truth"
Resort to this kind of evidence is often had ia
prove the character of a witness Marriage or the
pedigree and relationship Of family; and if, fol
such purposes, this grade Of evidence is compe
/ mi qu IN
-r The honorable gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr DoBBIN,) without urging this point of the
with much emphasis, inquired whether it was moi
common for electors 10 vote for their opponents in
politics. Although an elector, from motives Of per
sonal friendship or some other special cause,
times may cast his ballot for candidate belonging tc
the opposite party, yet in 1874 at an election carried
on with more ardor and acrimony than was ever be.
fore known in this country; when the last die in the
political fortune Of the distinguished kentuckiar
was be cast 1t ia not to be presumed, in absence
of all proof that one Of his followers would breal
from party drill and vote for candidate to Congress
opposed to all of his leading measures. ] think
cannot be seriously denied but that sufficient /
shown by legal evidence, to establish the fact tina
the twenty-nne students voted for the sitting mem
Der. ...
Inow proceed to the discussion Of a question o
more interest. Under the constitution and laws o
New Jersey, were these students entitled to vote Ii
the third congressional district Of that Slater
The new constitution of that State framed in June
1874, went into effect in September, Immediately
prior to the election. The second article is as fol
lows:
Every white male citizen Of the United states, Of tn
age oftweny years who shall have been ident
this State one year and Of the county in which he claim
his FIVE months next before the election shall be
titled TO for all officers that are or hereafter
be elected by the peope Provided that person in tn
military naval or maritime service Of the United States
shall be considered resident Of this State by being ST.
toned in eny garrison barrack, military ornaval plac
orsston within this State and pauper IDIOT insane
son. or person convicted Of crime, which now exclude
him fror being witness unless parhoned OF restored
hw to the right OF suffrage shall enjoy the right OF an ele
tors
Although the whole question will be found to tur
upon the Interpretation given to a very commo
word; yet the inquiry is one of some importance t
that State, and especially to the third congressont
district In that district there are two colleges an
one theological seminary, together having some 81
hundred students, and probably a majority Of whor
are above the age oftwenty-one years " these SIT
dents have right to vote, they hold the balance
political power in that district
These institutions hold out favorable inducement
a, n,ron, the nunil and youth from ali M