The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-04-14


Of their calculation. The majority Che said) to the
result:
Almshouse votes illegally received Hs
Illegal votes from Rardalrs Island IL
Illegal votes at 9th district of l6th ward
Riley's vote twice counted
Making in all of illegal votes l62
Deduct OF these Illegal votes given to Monroe
Number to be deducted from jackson ioa
Jaeksons majority 80
Leaving majority for Monroe OF
Mr.. MURPHY said the conclusions to which he had
arrived after most careful examination OF the case and
the evidence were different from those OF the majority
of the committee reporting, and conclusive to his own
mind that he would venture to lay them before the
House. He might add another reason why he should
espass on the time of the House 1t was because he
had observed the most sudious efforts made to PREJUDICE
this casehe would not say in this House. but through
the public prints these efforts had been made in every d.
and again, that immense frauds were perpe
trated in the congressional district. the right of whose
representative to seat this floor is contested 1t
had been charged that even convics were taken from
the State prison. and permitted to vote in this district Not
only had the contestant himself INDUCED in making this
charge; but the majority of the committee In their re-
port Notwithstanding the proesations OF its chairman,
Mr. K w. THoMPsoN0 have even gone out OF their way
to assert that frauds of this kind have been pepeated
He asserted that there was no case OF fact In the evil
dence TO such charge either the part of the
contestant the committee But, on the contrary, there
ample proof that such frauds perpeated in
the district the election under consideration To
tain this affirmation he quoted from the report and print
ed evidence number OF extracs-al going to show, from
investigation before the grand jury of the district,
ect of presentmen Immediately after the eection0 that
there was not particle OF proof to sustain the charge
but that on the contrary, the fraud that was attempted
detected and prevented; and no such illegal voting
charged did actually take place.
Mr.. M. then went into an examination OF the general
facts of the case, stating first, particularly, that he dis
agreed with the majority of the committee both to the
law and the facts and adding, that he understood the
report the chairman of the committee was incorrect IN
his statement that the minority Of the committee agreed
with him as to the construction OF the law.
He then read the suffrage qualifications by the consti-
tuition of the State of New York, which provides also
where the elector shall vote. The qualifications OF
voter are, that he must be free white male citizen,
wenyone years of age resident Of the State one year
and OF the county six months With these qualifications
he is permitted to vote, and he vote in the county
ward in which he actually resides This provision of
the constitution speaks of the residence of the voter in
the State and county, and makes distinction between
this and the place where he actually resides.
Mr. M then proceeded to deny the power OF the State
Legislature to change constitutional provisions and to
show that the law Of New York of 1912, which provides
that person shall be deemed to have acquired lost
his residence by remaining at school, consignment to an
amshouse service in the army or navy, &c, was in
conflict with the New York State constituton-giving
several cases by way of illustration
not contended by the minority that these pau
pers acquired legal residence by being in the aims
house. They contended only that the amshouse
their actual residence But for the merits of the case it
hardly necessary to rest on these facts for the State
of New York gives to all free white men, rich poor,
the right to vote and free black may vote if he pos
sesses freehold OF the value of $3.50.
He then proceeded to show, that if the paupers
not entitled to vote, the sitting member still held
just claim to his seat Because of in the figures
OF the majority report he showed that the result should
have been stated at 1852 paue votes for Jackson of
1877 Having taken Oft these five pauper votes he proceed
ed look al the balance and showed how the 1853 pauper
votes were made up-making copious reference to the
relation to these pauper voters designated in schedule
of the printed testimony: He showed that John Nc
Gowan, Cor McGovern,) William Harrison, James Nor
rill, George Carr, and Daniel Moran-ve proved
beyondqueston to be charged against the sitting member,
who were not in the amshouse at the time OF the cleo
ton He mentioned also other five names OF this
schedule charged against the sitting member who were
never in the amshouse at all He proposed throw these
out of the question: except in the first count Others
admitted 70 the amshouse tilt after the election; and
thus he added two names to the nine which he proposed
to throw out of the question He proceeded in these ex
amnatons the close of the hour showing in the total
twenty votes thus improperly charged against the sitting
member; which result would still leave him majority
of votes, the legality of which must be admitted by all
MI. COBB, of Georgia. followed, examining the con-
sttuona question involved and the legality of the votes
cast arriving at conclusions from the law and the facts
OF the which most clearly vndicated the claims of
the sitting member.
Mr.. NICOLL moved that the House adjourn, but gave
Mr.. WENTWORTH, who moved call of the House
upon which motion the yeas and nays were demanded
and ordered, and being taken resued-yeas rs,
Mr.. VAN DYKE said that there no disposition
upon the majority side OF the House press the question
al the present time, gentlemen wished to be heard upon
the subject, and he therefore moved adjournment
which agreed to-
And the House adjourned.
CORRECTIONAL material error occurs in our sketch of
the remarks of Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia, commenting on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the of Prigg
Us. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania The substance
Of what Mr. B. said, instead of paragraph, should
have been reported as follows:
Three leading points were made in this case:
First That the constitution provided for Its own execu-
ion, and no legislation was necessary
Second. That the constitution contemplated egisla
lon. and that the power was exclusively IN Congress
Third. That Congress and the State legislatures pos
,essed powers of legislation upon the subject
,ut in all such cases. the legislation OF the States must
in aid OF the Legislation of Congress, and not in con-
Iavention of it.
Of the first opinion Mr. Baldwin seemed to be.
Of the second, majority of the court, whose opinion
Judge Story delivered
OF the third, were Judges fancy, Daniel and Thomp-
This last opinion he (Mr b. believed to be the
rue law of the case
Petitions under the Rule.
By Mr. Bolts: The memorial of enlisted men of the
Ordnance Department. praying to be placed on footing
With the of tho ne far relates to bounty and
pensions, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs
Aso the memorial of the citizens OF Richmond Va, ask
ny appropriation for the establishment OF breakwaer
the north point of the island of Nantucket referred to
he Committee on Commerce.
BY Mr. BOYD. The petition of W. s. Ross for the issu
of land scrip for land warrants referred TO the Com