The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-12-24

ADJUDICATION He asked the House merely to do what
ouths OF the States had done their election
matters The bill met the appreciation OF all the mem
bers OF the House who were present when u was pro-
posed to them and he believed that every member OF the
committee was iis friend.
Mr.. SCHENCk moved the reference OF the bill to the
Committee OF the Whole The state OF the Union he
did MOI understand how the parties 70 eonies. under
could have sixty days before the meeting OF the House
for taking the testimony, when, in many States, the
elections held sixty days prior to that event
Mr.. STRONG explained He had not said, in de.
scrbng The provisions of the BILL sixy days before the
meeting Of The House,, but that the testimony TO be
closed in sixty days after the serving OF the contestants
notice on the person getting the certificate.
Mr.. SCHENCK was not content to have this bill
passed without due deberaton and examination. He
had failed 10 re enact the bill Of The Fifth Congress on
which il was based. This, he held, conveyed the inn.
preston that It was found not TO the purpose in
Mr.. STRONG was willing to have its consideration
postponed TO certain day. but would not consent TO lis
reference to the Committee OF the Whole the state OF
the Union which would defeat Its enactment for this SEES
sion al least
Mr. JONES urged in few words that it should be
Mr.. SCHENCK had heard nothing in the course OF the
debate far to satisfy him of the propety OF excepting
this bill from The usual ordeal Of examination IN Com
accordingly made that motion
Mr. McGAUGHEY urged immediate action on the bill
II was not designed to affect any particular case but was
the Recommendation OF the Committee OF Elections, with
Mr. NC here detailed the history Of the contest for
when the sitting member, after holding his seat for nine
months, turned out Both contestants paid per
diem and mileage This was gross EVIL All aid be i'm
pored the House at to dispose OF the bill without
sending to the boneyard OF nearly all the good laws
which had been proposed in twenty five years past
Mr. JONES said that when this bill was introduced he
was opposed 10 it's enactment Since however, he had
thoroughly examined its provisions, and was con.
sequently It's friend He would point ont single defect
in it. This was the provision requiring the contestant to
give the notice Of intention 10 contest within thirty days
Mr. j.. at considerable length. explained his view of
the mprdpriety Of limiting the time in which the con-
testant shall give the notice. There other point
in the bill requiring amendment, according to his judg-
Mr. STRONG was not very tenacious relative to the
preservation of this clause in the BILL though he doubted
the propriety Of striking il out In Ohio twenty days
notice. in New Jersey forty days notice, in another
State ten days, and in than forty given
This limitation was general one in all States having
Mr.. HALL addressed to the House few remarks TO
show that the time of thirty days short for
Missouri case or California case.
Mr. STRONG would not insist thirty days, but
would agree to longer Limitation if the House fit
to amend the bill There should be limitation, he
argued to show or the law would prove comparative
Mr. JONES moved TO strike out the limitation of thirty
days in the first section
Of Mr. JONES by inserting ninety days instead OF
having no limit. as Mr. J. had proposed.
But the SPEAKER decided the amendment to the
amendment 10 be out OF order.
The question on the amendment OF Mr. JONES being
put, it was not agreed TO-
Mr. HALL proposed 10 amend this section by giving
contestant thirty days after he is able the notice
as the time in which it must be served.
Mr.. HUNTER addressed the House to show that the
adoption of this amendment would defeat the purpose OF
the bill Il would leave matters precisely they now
He did not believe that any contingencies could
arise in which thirty days would prove too short time,
Mr.. HALL remarked that he designed his amend
rnent to come in after the word some in the 18th line
Mr.. KAUFMAN urged Mr.. H. 10 accept, as a modih.
cation Of his amendment proposition TO strike out " 80
days" ard insert so days instead thereof.
Mr.. X then went on to show the importance Of hav-
ing some limitation; and that the 30 days proposed in
the bill afforded time too short for district like either
Mr HALL said that in case Of contest for sea,
from California or Oregon, sixty days would be too
shoft
Mr. PUTNAM proposed to amend Mr. HALLS amend.
ment by authorizing the contestant TO the notice
some member oil the family OF the person receiving the
certificate OF election in case OF the absence OF that
MIR. p. argued TO prove that in case OF such alb
sence, the would lose his rights unless he
was protected in their enjoyment by such amend
MI. McGAUGHEY understood the proposed amendmeo,
OF Mr. HALL To refer 10 cases in which the holder OF the
certificate night be absent from The district lie therefore
PUTNAM, and desired 10 see both adopted These mooied
points had escaped the attention OF the Committee Of
Elections. The House, after all, to be the final
Judges whether the contestant had served The notice
coon under the circumstances he could conveniently
Mr. SCHENK was glad to hear from Mr. MctiAuoHEY
the admission that this bull required amendment He
(Mr, 81 had eerved long the Committee OF Elections,
and knew well the difficulties of such II it was
Lot too late be should like again TO its reference 10
the Committee OF the Whole the OF the Union.
He believed that such would be lis final destination, after
the House had become weary Of this debate which, he
foresaw, 10 continue Tor time.
Mr. McMULLEN urged, in few remarks, the pro-
pretty Of al once committing the bill.
MIR. SCHENCK, again taking the floor, went TO show
the detects in the BILL well in the amendment pro-
posed by Mr.. PUTNAM. There not member OF the
32d Congress from Ohio who knew from the receipt OF
has ,6er1yfcofs that be elected Such also the
case with the members from Pennsylvania He (Mr 81
thought the thirty days should after the cert
cate Of election had been issued to he apparently
full candidate When up before, he fully aware OF
the defects in the BILL and bad therefore moved ifs
miiment He had been borne down. however, by the
earnesfness with which Messrs STRoSe and McGAuGHEY
had urged immediate action, saying the latter did, that
the Committee OF Elections had made the act perfect De-
bate had already taken place it, sufficient to show that
the Whole. He woud therefore the motion for
its commitment But Mr. g. gave way the request OF
Mr. SACkETT, who proceeded 10 point out what he
conceived 10 be radical defects in the bill
MIR. McCLERNAND then moved the previous ques-
Mr.. BOWLIN. " the previous question is sustained
on what will be the first question
The SPEAKER. First on the motion to commit and
then on the pending amendments
The question then put the previous question.
and it was seconded by the House
Mr.. STRONG did not design making speech. lie
desired 10 reply to the inquiry of Mr. SAcKETr as 10