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


mission 10 the sitting membfr. This paper pre-
scented returns from three classes Of officers. IL SAs
true, the law Of Florida provides by what class
Of Officers the returns shall be made A portion Of
these returns were made by judges Of probate !;
the majority of the committee say they are legal
returnsi another portion were made by county
clerks; the majority Of the committee said they were
legai and anothtr portion, giving 10 ths sitting mem
Der Mr.. CABELLl $40 odd VOTES, and 10 the con-
testing member Mr. BaocKESBRououl some $50
votes, which We're made by Inspectors directly 10
the secretary ii State. He was for receiving and
counting every vote Of all these returns no matter
what was the result which was arrived at thereby.
There We're additional returns made by Judges Of
probate TO the seereiarys Office after the thirty days;
the contestng member presented certified copies Of
them, and they were allowed by the committee.
The eontestng member also presented returna made
by inspectors of elections in Monroe county.
These were made directly TO the secretary of State
but after the thirty days. and were by the secretary
certified to this House; and as of the commit
tee, arriving at the conclusion OF the secretary Of
State, he Mr.. II went for counting these votes,
and for his life he could see no distinction between
counting the same class returned to the governor
within the thirty days, or those which were re-
turned after the thirty days But they were told
by the minority that the first paper was offered by the
contestant whole, and that all its contents should
be received Both gentlemen, he granted, had a
remote interest in this question, but il the peo
any admissions or objections which were made by
either OF these gentlemen could not have the weight
Of a single feather. The gentlemen themselves
could not have considered the force Of such an argu-
ment; and when they fairly looked at IT, il would
not be found TO have strength enough to stand alone
and II really required the minority report To give il
strength To stand up TO be kicked over. Further,
IN order 10 show the inconsistency Of this position Of
the minority ofthe committee, he reminded them that
they received the certificate Of the same secretary Of
State on which.the commission was issued, whose
certificate the other case they objected to as extra
Official, and TO be considered only in the nature Of
an affidavit. II certainly required perception much
nicer than his to understand the justice OF such
distinction.
He further urged in reply to the argdnen, of the
minority, that the committee were not necessarily
hound TO take the whole OF the paper; in the view
that they were narrowing the matter down TO a
mere individual concern-whieh in case Of book ac-
count he admitted would be correct-but here the
people mainly were interested and although the
paper had been introduced by the contesting mem
Der, the committee not bound TO take such parts
of il as were inconsistent with common sense or
with law the committee were Judge Of It's force and
effect. Again; the secretary Of State bound to
certify all papers coming legally into his possession.
The constitution did not provide that they should
be legal papers in his possession but that any paper
legally in the possession OF the secretary OF State
may be certified, and the paper thus certified, have
would have taken these returns from Monroe If
they had never gone to the secretary Of State; he
would have traced back to that county and ascer.
tanned what were the returns made by the inspect
Of the votes legally cast and he would have re-
ceived them in evidence. The strictly legal chan
mel would have been for them to have gone through
the Judge OF probate; but nevertheless, they had
been received, and legally received by the secretary
Of State and when certified by him, they had all the
effect ofthe original papers. They were papers
latng to the election Of that State; they had gone to
the secretary of State in legal manner, and were
certified to by him. Why, then, should not these
votes, certified to in this evidence, be taken equally
with the class certified by the same officer TO
the governor on which the commission had issued
and which had been received by the minority Of the
committed
Then, if they confined themselves strictly to the
returns made by the proper returning officers, Mr.
BRocKENBRoUeH was elected; If they took the aggre-
gate of the votes Al the polls and returned Mr.
BRocKEsBRouoH was elected: and it would seem that
they should at least have the consistency of taking
one ground or the other.
But the minority say that the majority are bound
to draw their conclusions from minority premises
Gentlemen labored under mistake there. II was
not lfit was proper to refer TO the proceedings
of the committee, he could very easily show uho
had changed fronts upon the committee, and to
show that there was no drawing cnr~,.iion from
minority Hn-:oadses. A majority Of the committee
sure, dlifecn, gentlemen took different views, and
had travelled different ways in arriving at that con-
clusoD. The gentleman from Tennessee Mr.
CHASE took more technical view than he, mir.
H. but he arrived at the same conclusion.
The minority also stated that the committee d.
rected one of their number to draw report stating
that Mr.. CABELL was elected. Such was not the
fact. The journal of the committee would show
it. .... .s... .....
IA voice. Perhaps the journal of the committee
shows false."l as ....u .r
The gentleman on my lef, (said Mr.. H says
that the journal of the committee shows false. Ii
does not; and Mr.. Fl. appealed to the majority of
the committee to say if such a vote was passed.
Mr.. ii. here gave his statement of what had passed
in committee, and of the vote which had thus been
referred to by the minority showing that was not
a vote directing report TO be drawn which SHOULD
conclude by declaring that Mr. CAbELL was elected
referring % Mr. CHASE (who assen,ed) and to other
mentbers Of that committee to sustain HIM in regard
to the fact,
One single remark further with reference to
| statement No. |. Gentlemen on the other
side might tell them that there was no evidence
IN that paper that any returns were included
in it which were made by inspectors; but that
paper showed that the returns were made by
judges of probate, by county clerks, and there
were other returns, with the names on each pre-.
cinct, which they were justified in saying were the
returns of inspectors. Ii they were not INSPECTORS
they had no right there at ALI and there was no
reason why they should include them, and exclude
returns of precisely the same character from Mon
roe.
In relation to the matter Of the notice which was
given by the contestant to the sitting member, he
had one word to say. This matter was strictly
confined to record evidence. The notice originally
given was not, perhaps sufficiently broad and spe-
cihc TO include any particular vote or precinct; but il
sufficiently covered every fact which could he proved
ny record, asa notice, general in its character,
would put the gentleman on his guard, whilst a
specification as to record evidence would by no
means charge that record. - ...a. ~
The minority conclude their report by asking for
delay, and the statement of the sitting member, he
understood, had been printed and placed on the ta-
blcs OF the members of this House BY the record,
and by all the evidence he thought the oontesting
member entitled to his seat. Now, should new is-
sues be opened $50. -- ....' .ss-r-ta.--,.a.--
T. Mr. M. BROWN inerposed to inquire of the
gentleman whether the return all in as he UNI
derstood, from remark Of the gentleman, that this
might not be the case in regard to them all.
b Mr.. HAMLlN replied that he could only say
that there waa definite fnrn,atinn bef,,.. ,hn