The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-30

cure d seat in Congress 10 a wing.
Mr.. THOMPSON. OF Pennsylvania, next addressed
Mr. TOoMBS felt called upon to participate in this
discussion He had direct interest therein were
member or the contestant He believed that the case OF
the former il sustained, would be so sustained IN VIOLA
ton OF the received construction OF the law Except IN
single instance since contested election cases have
been coming before Congress- all embracing questions
similar TO those involved in this contest had been decided
in favor of the principle contended for BY the friends o
Of the majority OF the voters OF the district He held that
State laws the OF conducting elections sbonld
never be construed to deprive legal voters OF their
franchise They regulations to facilitate the exer
else OF the right OF suffrage, and TO guard its purity mot
to destroy it's efficacy The authorities Of Monroe conn-
" had the ghtto establish the precinct OF Kanesve, and
he maintained that the voters residing there were entitled
70 take part IN the government OF the county 81 whch
they were citizens The Iowa law did not require that
the precinct should Be due west OF the county with which
the result OF any survey could deprive the GAINESVILLE
people Of their constitutional rights The election regu
State, for instance, citizen Of any county in con-
gresslonal district could vote Tor member OF Congress
any other coanty Of the district; while in Iowa
and elsewhere North particularly these regulations
Mr. STRONG (explaining) held that the Irregularities
against which the friends Of the sitting member COM
planned attractions OF the constitution rather than
OF the statutes OF Iowa.
Mr. TO0MBS saw no force in the new objection Of
Mr. 8 L was merely one OF the arguments being urged
in this case to override the practice OF the House for
sixty years in settling such questions II had been de-
signed by the Iowa legislature 10 secure not to vtae, the
exercise The elective franchise TO decide the question
upon the technical grounds urged by the other side would
be to determine thai such not their purpose. The
and those voting there Cat Kanesvej had voted in good
faith. He held that the purpose OF establishing an cleo
ton precinct was to facilitate the exercise Of the right OF
suffrage, not 10 vitiae it, he again remarked With the
exception Of the decision in the New Jersey every
congressional precedent had been against the claim Of the
sitting member He was no believer in presidents. more
especially in such In that case, Che New Jersey
case,) the friends OF the contestants (he democrats)
raised great outcry because, it was said it pro-
ceained will Of the people Now, thew tths democrats
insisting that teChncates should be acknowledged
to possess virtues not to be accorded to them in that in
stance.
Mr.. r. next went on to crcise the points in the test-
mony reported by the Committee Of Elections, by the
general principles which he had just laid down, and
drew herefrom the conclusion that there could be no
serious question as to the right OF the contestant.
He held, further, that the House had right to decide
that, Tor violation OF the laws Of Iowa regulating cleo
tons there, the penalty should be dsfranchisement
Had there been fraud in the election, Acknowledgement
in the particular case might be imposed But such was
not the allegation here.
In conclusion he went on to show that clear major
y OF the legal voters had voted for the contestant that
they had exercised their rights under the firm belief that
they were doing so in legal manner. He conceived
that the voice OF the people of the first district Of Iowa
clearly in favor Of the contestant and should there
fore y0 yaH pS RE h the seat amend
K
ton reported by Mr. STRONG, from the majority Of the
Committee of Elections declaring the sitting member en-
titled to his seat BY striking out all after the word
aresoved and substituting therefor declaration that
the contestant d. F. MILLER) is entitled to the seat
Mr. " d. then spoke for hour in favor of his amend.
ment going over each point in the case seratim and
urging that the case OF the contestant was of prima
/ fdcte right
MIR, BURT said that though the debate had been very
other. This probably from the fact tina, all had
read the two reports The condition OF the business
curing attention such as to induce him to move the
Mr.. STRONG, the chairman of the Committee OF Elec-
TONS rising TO make the closing speech,
Mr.. VAN DYKE made point. Of order; the pre-
vous question having been moved, MIR. STRONG not
entitled to the benefit OF the rule authorizing the member
reporting to deliver the closing speech but,
The SPE AZ! everything the point OF order,
MIR. SCHENCK urged that the sitting member and the
contestant should be permitted to address the House
The SPEAKER replied that, under the special order OF
the House, they could avail themselves OF the privilege
| Mr. STEPHENS then spoke 10 the point Of order
made by MIR. VAN DYKEsagung at length to show that,
continue the debate until the House had decided on the
call for previous question Mr. s., in conclusion, took
an appeal from the decision Of the Chair.
Alter conversation on the point oil order between the
SPEAKER and MIR p. KING. the rules bearing on the
question were read from the Clerks desk; when
The SPEAKER explained his decision to the House.
Of order, in which the SPEAKER, Mr.. WHITE, Mr..
WOODWARD, Mr EVANS, MI. RICHARDSON, Mr..
VAN DYKE, and MIR. BURT participated
Mr.. STEPHENS having withdra wn the appeal,
The SPEAKER stated again that the contestant should
now address the House, desiring to participate in the
discussion.
MIR. SCHENCK made point OF order He held that
the contestant could at any time address the House, un
der their special order granting him permission do
but
The SPEAKER ruled that this was question to be
decided when that gentleman should rise to address the
House.
| MIR. EVANS, of Maryland, remarked that the ques.
ton 10 the right OF the member reporting measure TO
make the closing speech after the previous question had
been called, was and OF great importance. IL was
due that the decision OF the Chair ruling that Mr. STRONG
could speak after Mr. Burr had moved the previous
question, should be tested by the judgment OF the House
He therefore, pro Jormd renewed the appeal himself
coincidng in the correctness OF the judgment OF the
Speaker
The question the appeal being put, the judgment Of
the Char was sustained.
Mr. STRONG then proceeded to address the House for
an hour reviewing the arguments OF the advocates OF the
right OF the contestant holding that they unsound
and urging the House to sustain the sitting member
Mr.. SCHENCKr remarked that the contestant conceiv-
ing the case TO have been sufficiently argued did not de-
sire TO address the House.
Mr.. HOLMES moved an adjournment; which was not
Iagreed TO.
The resolution OF the Committee OF Elections declar.
ing MIR. THOMPSON entitedto the seat was then read
from the Clerks desk.
| The amendment recommended by the minority OF the
Committee OF Elections. declaring the contestant d. f.
MILLER TO be entitled TO the seat and sang the grounds
on which that decision had been arrived at being next
| read,
| Mr.. BURT asked Mr.. VAN DYKE (the mover thereby
modify he resolutions NJ Tho t,io,ritv