The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-11
On motion Of MIR HALL. the said bill then refer
red 10 The Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. SACKETT asked leave TO introduce bill repeal
ing the act supplementary 10 an act granting patent 10
VIM WOODWORK Tor the planning machine
But Objection being made, leave was no granted
The regular order of business being called Tor,
The SPEAKER, by leave. laid before The House sun
dry COMMUNICATIONS from executive departments winch
were read and appropriately disposed oil.
THE HAMPSHIRE ELECTION CASE.
The SPEAKER then announced the regular order OF
business TO be the further consideration OF Inc report
from the Committee OF Elections on the New Hampshire
election
Mr.. HALL. who was entitled TO the floor. remarked
that 10 striving for H. his purpose was only to move the
previous question But the last speech on lhe ques
ton had been made by democrat he would consent TO
refrain from doing give any gentleman on The other
side an opportunity to make closing speech. provided
that gentleman would pledge himself TO move the pre-
vious question on concluding his remarks
Mr. SCHENCK, declaring himself willing e make
that moon Then went on 10 address the Rouse ehsh
in favor OF the contestants claim to the seat and IN de-
fence OF the conduct OF the wing senators OF The ONO
legislature who on occasion resigned IN body, IN
order to accomplish party purpose.
Mr.. DANIEL then demanded the previous question
which having been seconded by the House,
Mr.. STRONG rose to make the closing speech, under
his right the floor as the chairman OF the committee
reporting the bill, and said
He had heard nothing in the arguments Of his oppo,
nens controvertpg any OF his positions He designed
replying only to few OF the points made by them, 10
which he had not SO far referred.
Thus, Mr.. VAN DYKE (said Mr. SrRoNG,l while ad-
hitting thai lawful Tor the Legislature OF New iamp.
shire to repeal their fret appo'tionment law. held that
filling vacancy
He could not comp ehend Mr.. VAN Ds alluson to the
vested rights of the electors of the district He COM
pretended what he (Mr VAN DYKE) had said relative
to the vested rights OF the member, after he had been
elected, which obtained from the constitution The
only vested right OF constituent TO exercise the
right of suffrage. But suppose there such rights
Mr.. VAN DYKE (said Mr.. SrRoNG) held them TO be the
exclusive rights 10 participate in the election Ihls was
all wrong II not true that constituents had vested
right to exclude all others not within the bounds OF the
original district for two years They were confined 10 the
right Of each constituent 70 vote only me paIea n
districts but regulation OF the manner m which
representatives should be chosen. How could the agent
act after the authority by which he was constituted
was revoked! How could future act Of an agentacs
yet to be done-have any authoy No sound lawyer or
thinker would contend that those agents Qhe people OF
particular disct could act after the authority under
which they had acted in the previous election had been
withdrawn &
The second dstrcting act embraced clause putting it
in operation on its passage, whereas all other laws OF
that body only go INTO effect after considerable delay
This proved that il was intended by the New Hamp-
shire legislature. that il vacancy should occur should
opinion that the repeal of the frs, law was perfect and
that the contestant elected under no law district
ing The State b b sa ,se
could Only be filled by the very constituency electng
Gen Wilson: This argument led to an absurd conclusion,
as Mr. STRONG went prove, quoting the fact that
persons moving from distance into the district
clearly entitled 10 participate in the special election. He
denied that the law of Congress male it necessary for
u
chosen by the people OF district MIR. Webster had
taken the view of the constitutional question which he
(Mr. 81 held In 1882 appouonment bill was under
consideration Mr. Webster was IN the SENATE, and re-
ported On that bill.
Mr. s. here quoted al considerable length from that
paper. saying that the constitution OF the United States
looked not subdivision of States o represenlaon)
into districts, and that that was State right, with the
exercise Of which the general government had nothing to
do, having right even to inquire into the manner IN
which the State exercised that right.
| Here followed conversation by Messrs. VINTON.
DUER, and STRONG, in which the two former held that
the repor, made before the law OF 1912 was enacted
! Mr. STRONG held that law to be denial OF the au.
thorty of Congress 10 pass the law OF lsi2 II was a
constitutional argument not TO be shaken by the suose
either the other side in ths controversy were wrong or
Mr.. Webster was wrong Mr. Webster had clearly laid
down that in arranging lis apporonments, Congress was
bound to regard each State as unit Granting The
soundness OF this theory how much the less had THIS
single House the right TO do that which Congress could
not do He failed to subscribe to the doctrine that The
law OF ls42 was a bar the action OF the legislature OF
New Hampshire, the ncorectness OF which he argued at
some length; The argument Of Mr. DurR had en.
braced (said Mr. Sd the strange doctrine that the people
OF the original district bad no right to vote TO MI The
vacancy, he (Mr DurRl holding that the law OF 1912
provides that hey shall vote for only one and one hav
| ing been voted for at the regular election g
| Mr. DUER (interrupting Mr. 81 argued to show that
he had not denied these constituents the right to fill
vacancy, but The right have more than one representa-
| Mr.. STRONG (continuing) comba,ed the argument
tina, to grant the seat 10 the sitting member would be to
1 for members. This not So
| The SPEAKER then announced the question to be,
first the amendment proposed by Mr. luck declaring
Mr. Jared Perkins, the contestant TO be legally entitled
/ to the seat.
On which motion the yeas and nays having been
called,
| Mr. SWEETSER moved adjournment He did so,
that by calling the yeas and nays upon that motion,
sufficien, time light be consumed TO allow the absent
members to reach the hall before the questions in issue
were voted upon And, having called the yeas and nays
they were ordered BY the House. which refused to adj
lourn-yeas 2, nays 1873.
The yeas and nays agreeing TO The amendment OF
Mr. Tuck were then orderd and it not agreed to-
yeas 81, nays i03--as follows;
| YEAS-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Ashmun, Bennett,
Brcck Briggs Brooks, Burrows Butler, Calvin, Campbell,
~, hickey, Dixon, Doty Duncan, Durkee Eliot Nathan
/ Evans, Fowler Frcedcy, Giddings Goodenow, Cot,
Gould Grinnen. Holloway. Hampton, Hay, Raymond He
bard, Henry, Howe, Hunter, Jas Johnson Juan Kerr,
Marshall, Matteson, McGeughey, Mckissock Mclean,
4. Miller Moore, Morton. Neson Newell, Ogie Ots Phr.
nix. Pitman Reed, Risley, Rockwell, Root Rose Rum.
sey, sacket Scbenck Schcnerhorn, Schoocra sllvrs-
Thorn p.on Thurman. Tuck, Undcrh, Van Dyke, Vnson,
White, and Williams-St -
NAYS essrs Albertson. Avcrctt, Bayly, Beae Bell,
B,sse, Booth, Bowdon, Bowlin Boyd, A. O. Brown, W
Caldwell Cartier, Cleveland, Cingman, W W Cobb,
Daniel Danner. Dmmick, Disney, Duer, Dunham, Ewing
Festherston, Fitch Fuller, Gentry Gerry, Gilbert cofmap,
Green Hail, Hammond, HARRISON, Harlan, l. g. Harris,
s. w. Harms, r. l.. Harris, Hibbard Holaday, Howard.
Inge ]. w. Jackson Andrew Johnson, Robert John.
son, Jones, La Stre, LETTER. Ddcicd. job Mann. NC
Clernand, Mcdonald, Mcdowell, McLanahan McLsne,
McMuien. Mcqueen, Melville, Meade, j. X. Miller,
Nilsson, Morris, Morse, Orr, outlaw, Parker. Peasee'
| Peck Penn, Phelps. Richardson, Robbins, Robinson.
Ross, Savage, sawieile, Seldom shepherd, p Stanton