The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-01-24

the Committee Of Elections And what Of that petition
Among other things i was understood to aege that the
returns upon which the governor had issued his certh
cate IN favor OF Mr. Thompson imperfect; that the
poll IN gainesville precinct, attached TO Monroe county
wasexcluded from the count, whereby the result was
shown 20 be in Mr. Thompsons favor; whereas, other
wise, il would have been ir the contestants favor.
poll Of this precinct be included in the count MI.
Miller is probably elected; If il be excluded,
This is, probably the whoeat an events is the main
question: and upon its solution the decision of the House
must depend When called upon BY the committee Mr..
Thompson had aversed the allegations OF the contestants
petition and particularly The one mentioned, and upon
the issue thus formed several important questions
first, whether the inhabitants of Kanesye precinct were
entitled TO vote under the State constitution secondly,
If they were, whether Kanewe in fact attached by
law to Monroe county and again, whether OF not i was
organized for election any other civil purpose 1t was
well known in and Immediately around Iowa, that most
all of the persons voting in the Kanesve precinct at
the late congressional election in thst State were
persons called Mormons, who had, notoriously, but
lately before left their former homes in illinois for the
purpose Of removing to California They were I'M
quesonably emgnns to that distant country, sojourn-
ing only Tor season upon the frontiers OF Iowa,
for the purpose OF recruiting their strength and means
10 accomplish their journey. They were in no Just
eres Of Inc peope OF thai State AS wemght il be said
that any inerant person. sojouning for season. in con-
sequence OF sickness detained in consequence OF crime
In that State entitled to vote under her constitution
Found in this situation the Mormons in this precinct
were induced, through the arts and intrgues OF unscu
pulous parsans To vote the congressional election and
In order TO enable them 10 do SO under color oil aw
precinct organization pretended 10 be effected BY the
leaders in this fraud only few days or few weeks be-
fore the election The whole transaction may be regard
ca as wicked PROCLAMATION of the baot-box, deserving
the severest punishment But this was aspect of the
question that Mr. Nice would only glance at now II
might however become proper 10 60 into il at large upon
future occasion. There room to say much upon it,
In regard to the second question: whether Kanesville
precinct was attached to Monroe county and whether il
was organized Tor election purposes, i was proper TO
state that law had been passed by the Legislature OF
Iowa attaching the county due west OF Monroe county to
that county for civil purposes But kanesvle was north
OF due line, and, il attached at all, attached to
amore nofthery county. Ia corohoraton OF this view
should be stated that the clerk Of Monroe county, un
der oil his official responsibility, excluded the poll
OF GAINESVILLE precinct making up the returns OF The
election in the various precincts of the county He
cluded II because the precinct was no part OF Monroe
Mr. SCHENCK inquired whether the precinct had not
been organized under order by the commissioners OF
Nh. McCLERNAND said he was not prepared to say
from his knowledge; but several gentlemen around
him answered" 81 no."
But here was another fact enough of itself to invali-
date the Kanesvlle vote this, that Kanesve
included in the Poitawaome territory, which the
jurisdiction of the State had never been exertedwhich
subject the Jurisdiction of the United States at the
very time of the passage OF the law attaching the country
westward TO Monroe county and which continued TO be
until Iowa passed another law authorizing the Judge
of certain district in the State to organize this territory
into county upon the removal of the Indians theefrom
Of the last law superseded the first and if it
competent to organize Kanesve precinct as SUCH at all
it must have been precinct By the new county OF
Pottawatomie and not as precinct OF Monroe, Mr..
Nee concluded by saying that he should vote against
the amendment and instructions moved by the member
from Ohio Mr. ScHENCK1 and that he should vote for
the resolution as reported by the chairman OF the Com
M. VAN DYKE. after thanking the gentleman from
Ohio ScHEEcK] Tor the lecture he had read the Com
mee OF Elections concerning their duties, ntmaied that
such comments upon the manner in which those duties
had been performed would not be taken in good part by
the members OF that or any other committee They, (he
Of aft
case, had concluded from the testimony before them,
that it their duty 10 request the House TO make the
order embraced in the resolution He did not approve OF
the Recommendation to throw out the sitting member
upon the showing OF his opponent without afford
ing fair and full opportunity to the former to rebut that
Mr. " D. at considerable length, recounted what had
been done by the committee in the case, TO show that
they had dealt fairly between parties and that their
recommendation was necessary to carry out the ends
OF justice He was opposed TO settlement OF this case
the celebsed New Jersey contested election set
tied, viz by oustng the sitting members upon the mere
showing of their opponents the former holding pria
evidence of their right under the broad seal oil the
State The action Of the House in that case was an out
q rage upon the rights OF those members. He had de-
nounced them and should continue 10 denounce the prn
cple now though in this the individual be bene-
flied by il on his own side in politics.
~ Mr'V d. was understood to remark further, that,
from the testimony before the committee, he OF
opinion that the seat rghuy belonged to the contestant
though he in favor of obtaining the fullest possible
evidence, that the might be disposed Of satisfactorily
and understandingly to all
a. MI hlCf1AkDSON moved the previous Queston.
te Mr. McGAUGHEY, before the previous question was
put decided that the proviso the end oil the committees
resolution be again read and was accordingly reported
10 the House.
~ The SPEAKER then put the question. Does the House
second the call for the previous question and IL not
eeconded-yeas SO, nays 70.
~ Mr.. BAKER, taking the floor, announced that at the
request Of the contestant he would explain what the
testsnt mr. MnLERl would be satisfied with That gen.
tleman not opposed 10 the recommendation OF the
committee; but he desired that limit should be put to the
time at which the testimony claimed by The sitting
Der to be necessary to fair understanding OF his
should be returned for the final action oil the House. Mr.
urged that. il entitled TO the seat not proper TO
keep him out OF II at the pleasure o. the sitting member
70 the end Of the session. IL that gentleman hi 10 de-
lay the return OF the testimony 10 that PERIOD as could
be done by the adoption OF the resolution, without
amendment TO the time to be thus occupied
DIR. VAN DYKE remarked that between himself and
the last speaker GMr. BAKER1 there was really no
substantial difference He perfectly willing that the
time should be limited 10 period sufficiently distant
10 afford the sitting member the desired opportunity
protect his rights He believed that every member OF the
committee would endorse the proprey oil such amend.
ment and would add that such had been suggested
by either party 10 the contest IN the committee room.
~ Mr.. HARRIS, of Tennessee, said Mr. Speaker, il
understand the motion of the gentleman from Ohio il
is that the report OF the Committee Elections be
committed with instructions to that committee TO report
10 the House all the proof that has been submitted 10
them in relation TO this contest.
H. air the object OF that motion be from the