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

great distances from each other considerable time would
be necessary the collection OF this testimony The
az SsS q en Be a lad %
framed hls notice 10 insure far as possible, that
both being member and the contestant shall proceed
as fast as pssibe in the collection OF the evidence OF
their respective sides He conceived that under the cir
instances, il would be impossible TO hx limit TO the
time for taking the testimony-that is with due pro-
priety.
Mi. VAN DYKE remarked that, being member Of
the Committee OF Elections, il was his duty 70 say that
mere was no difference among the members thereof upon
ne question OF the proprey OF recommending the adop-
tlon OF this resolution.
Mr. ROOT. in few remarks. argued to show the pro-
prely o. setting limit to the time at which this estl-
mony should be closed. He reminded the House that.
however anxious either party might be to close this mat
er the olher party, oy delaying the examination OF his
Mr. STRONG remarked that so far as he knew, il had
not been customary TO make such limitations. E
Mr.. SWEErSER inquired, at whose expense are thess
examinations to be made ~
Mr.. ASHMUN inquired how the case stands before
the committee PRESENT. Did not show that the con-
tesiant had received majority OF the votes castl
Mr.. STRONG had no objection to give any proper in
On n ms I was NJ sss Ss can
ton OF things before the committee to be as described BY
the gentleman from Massachusetts; On receiving the
memorial the committee had required the sitting member
to respond, which he did promptly, making out case
that its face, admitted all claimed by the contestant 70
be The contestant then asked permission to hle
The committee met to determine upon their admissbily
as testimony, when II was then found, Tor proper
woaa ah Ge = as resouao Which
the committee had instructed him TO report.
Mr.. ASiA1UN remarked that, from what had been
told him. he had drawn the conclusion that the case stood
before the committee 10 very different position. He had
been informed that this testimony In the shape OF ceth:
Gates, had been examined by the committee, who mad
come to the conclusion from 1t that the contestant
Mr. f. r. STANTON raised question Of order. The
gentleman from Massachusetts, had no right, upon the
Consideration Of the resolution, to 60 into the proceed
ings before the committee
The SPEAKER overrued the point Of order,
il was not in order 10 discuss what has taken place
committee, points upon which no report nad oeen
The SPEAKER sustained the point Of order made by
the gentleman from New York, Mr. p KING j and. sig-
nifyIng that the speaker could proceed in order,
cussnr The facts connected with the action Of he com
m,tee which, having been stated by the chairman there
Mr. SrRoNG,] bore upon the question OF agreeing to
the committees resolution His desire was but TO bring
to the notice OF the House the fact that already there is
before the committee Interrogation sufficient TO show that
the contestant is entitled to the seat The delay ne
thought, asked only TO enable the sitting member 70
60 into Iowa 10 get rebutting proof 50 .
Mr.. ASHE, being member OF the committee, desired
to say that they were wholly ignorant OF ne sa,e OF
had been made for the committee.
Mr. F. p. STANTON insisted on the application Of the
point OF order raised by the gentleman from New York.
tMr p KIkG,l which the Chair had sustained.
M. SGAENGK SCH y R appealed from that decision. .-.,.,
being put, the appeal was oyerrued
Nj SCHENCK here took the fioor and spoke at con-
wseS ssaf the 70 R0ns f O e S
closed and commenting with severity upon the action OF
the Committee of Elections, which had proceeded nqus-
toraly against The rights OF the contestant he mann
tanned that the testimony already in possession OF hs
Committee of Elections sufficient for the decson Of
the case, so tar as they were concerned mat tesu-
ad Tho rUhf nj
ant CMr. MILLER] to the seat by majority OF Twelve
votes On concluding, sss. ~
the Committee Of Elections, with instructions 70 ex-
anime the certificates and other testimony in their hands
the part of the contestant and then TO report the snte
Of the case with the reasons why they ask thai additional
Mr.. FTP. STANTON remarked that. by way Of showing
that the resolution from the committee was but reaeon.
able he would mention that the contestant approved OF
It's recommendation.
Mr.. STANTON, of Tennessee. said: very few
words, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, are neces;nv %
place the point in question properly before the House
The Committee OF Elections have been presented with
testimony the part Of the contestant which, II y as
sumed shows him be emitted TO the seat The sitting
member claims the privilege Of rebuttng this testimony.
and asks an opportunity procure his evidence Ihe
chairman OF the COMMITTEES, IN reply TO question:. put
not yet investigated the effect OF the testimony pro-
duced by the contestant This was surely . very
proper es VINO woda ,s oonena % upo
ex parfe testimony But the gentleman from ONO MI
ScfENCKl not only finds fault with the COMMITTEES Tor not
adudgng the upon pdre evidence but be insists
that the whole subject in its present unfinished and un-
satisfactory condition, shall be brought into the HOUSE,
and that we shall do what the committee refuses TO do
decide the case upon er porfe testimony. ~
Mr.. BAKER, (interruping) What does the gentle
from Tennessee understand BY "s1 Parts testimony
in this casei l' n y-F sse. -
Mr.. STANTON. 1 understand by that expression,
testimony offered by one party which The other hss naa
no opportunity rebut As 10 the character or eoect OF
the testimony now before the committee, profess 70
know absolutely nothing except what has been stated
here this morning And 1t is precisely because we have
no accurate knowledge of this evidence that objected to
it's discussion in the early part of this debate. 1si
The proposition of the gentleman from Ohio 10 10 ob.
vously unjust that the contestant himself has not had
the hardihood to claim such advantage He has as
sened to the very reasonable and usual demand OF the
sitting member be permitted to produce the testimony
which he alleges be in his power There 10 no tn
buna earth, there is legislative body on the globe
which would refuse such a demand II would De con-
tray TO all precedent and subversve OF the hrs pnnc
pies OF justice applicable TO cases OF contested alec
| tons 1-4tfe
Bu sir il there be any real apprehension that there Is
design in any quarter to take advantage OF tins reso
luton 10 proong indefinitely the time Of taking testmo-
nv then agree that reasonable limitation OF the ume
ought 10 be made Yet do not propose to neneie IN
any way with the appropriate duties OF the eommmee.
They are more than competent TO perform tuosS ooues
| without anv advice from me- | merely say, tno& ~
reasonable limitation in the time be insisted on by gentle
men on the other side will not oppose such an amend
men think il ought be passed., But this u all they