The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-29


ment of their property in the territories.
The Senate then went into Executive session.
and afterwards adjourned. -&n
In THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Yesterday, Mr.. PARKER, by leave, offered a
bill respecting the National Armories at Spring
field and Harpcrs Ferry; which was referred to
the Committee on Military Affairs. s ..
Mr.. COBB, of Alabama, by leave, introduced
resolution directing the Committee on Printing
to inquire into the expedency of dividing the
second part of the Presidents annual message
into two volumes, eachcontaining about nine hum
dred pages; which was agreed to.
Mr.. BURT urged, in few remarks, the press
ing necessity for proceeding to the consideration
of business on the Speakers table, in the course
of this and the next day. @ ..s..
The SPEAKER remarked that the first bust
ness in order the consideration of the reports
OH the Iowa election case, from the Committee on
Elections; when s,aga .~u ...a'.a.., .s@
. Mr.. AsuE (remarked Mr.. TEIOMPSON) had
declared that the people Of GAINESVILLE had voted
honestly. This was not denied, so far as the
mass Of them were concerned. His MR. AsHE'sl
views relativeto the propriety ofoverooking rregu
larity in these votes, did not apply to the want of
jurisdiction. No ono contended that the sheriff Of
Monroe did, or ever attempted to, collect taxes Of
the people Of Monroe The ignorance of the COM
missioners of Monroe no excuse for their
sumption Of jurisdiction, nor did it legaize their
Illegal act. . ...a f.. .'.
Here followed an inaudible conversation be-
tween Messrs. EVANS, of Maryland, and THoMP-
SON, concerning the running out Of the line of
Monroe county. ....... ....... ....
Mr.. Il. (contnuing) said that every man voting
at Kanesville could have voted in Mahaska county.
The laws required them to vote there, and, to JUS
tiiy their votes cast elsewhere, would be to nulfy
the constitutional right of Iowa to prescribe the
place at which they should vote. 1t was admitted
that the people Of Kanesvillc could not be punish
ed for any nfracton of the election law, of voting
as in the county of Monroe. Yet it was claimed
that the GAINESVILLE vote should be received as a
portion of the vote of Monroe county.
In conclusion, Mr. t. argued, that it would be
idle to talk OF State sovereignty, if the contestant
in this case should obtain the seat; as he could
only do so over the entire prostration of the rights
under the constitution Of the State Of Iowa.
Mr.. TOOMBS held that it was the received con-
struction Of the law to respect the accustomed
will Of the people in deciding such cases; and to
maintain this position he quoted from previous
decisions Of the House. Mr.. T. next argued to
show that acts Of State Legislatures should not be-
construed so as to disfranchise citizens, but as
statutes designed simply to prevent frauds. He
held that the county court of Monroe clearly
II. Il. -
VILE The voters in question were entitled by the
Constitution to participate in the government of
their country. He rejected the construction of the
law Of Iowa, saying that the precinct must be due
west of the county, under or in connexion with
which it might be organized: and he saw no
soundness in the position virtually assumed by the
advocates of the sitting member, that the Kanes-
willie voters could be Surveyed out Of their rights
American citizens.
The law i'm issue was mere municipal regula-
ton, to perserve the purity Of the ballot-boS.
In Geogia, citizen could vote anywhere in the
district for member of Congress. Such laws
were very various and comp!icatory.
Mr.. STRONG Gnterrupting Mr.. T. called his
attention to the constitution of Iowa, which gave
the voter only the right to vote in the county of
his residence. %. g.
Mr.. t. (continuing) held that the objection Of
Mr.. STRONG of no importance. TWAS but
one of the series being urged to override the uni
form practice of Congress in settling such ques-
tons, for sixty years, as he spoke at length TO
show. ".. IL .... ....5a....t
The Legislature Of Iowa intended clearly TO
give the inhabitants Of her unorganized territory
the right to vote, of which they would be deprived
on technicality if the construction of the statute
URGED bv the advocates Of the sitting member pre-
vailed. \
From the beginning to the end, there had been
GOOD faith and the precinct had been established
Inv the proper authorities. The establishment of
, ,recinct was merely to insure the convenience of
The exercise of the right Of suffrage not to regu-
late it, Though the precedents were all against the
rights of the sitting member except in the New
Jersey case; he placed little reliance upon them.
In that case the friends of the candidates, who
were in the situations of the contestant in this
instance raised great hue and cry against the prop
osition to let technicalities override the clearly
ascertained decision Of the people Applying his
views ofthe constitutional rights ofthe yoters,to