The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-08

4
meat o. & tAs journal which was not agreed 10. .-
ML sCObBsof Alabama, proposed 10 move TO recon
sder the vote OF yesterday the poon 70 suspend The
prety OF repeating the fugiive-sIaye law, He did moi
desire to have the country understand that there were
slxy-eight gentlemen here willing 10 repeal that act, II
The SPEAKER slated that The motion to reconsider
wonld p Suffered on the journal to be considered on
Mr' P6fTER wed the saypspsiog Of the rules to
90 into Commiliee Of lhe Whole Oh he slate Of the
Union, NJ s gsl..,.,' n ~ .',l., '.-,, I'M
Mr.. STRONG moved that the House do now proceed
to The consideration OF the report oil The Committee
OF Elections on The New hampshire contested election
case.
Mr.. BAiLY hoped that both these molisns would be
voted down, aud that the regular order OF business de
ports from comnittees) would be proceeded with.
l. The SPEAKER was understood 70 rule that the report
| nom the Conmlttee OF Elections, being question o
privilege, came before the House without any notion
tard must be entertained by the House whenever thus
Z Mr. JONES contended that the gentleman from Penn
lsyvanR MIR STRoNG] entitled only TO have his mo-
ton putt the House TO be voted on
The SPEAKER decided against the point oi order in
volysd in the tsw remarks made by Mr. JONES
And after few remarks between the SPEAKER ana
Messrs. JONES aud STRONG, the House sustained the
decision OF The Chair
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CONTESTED ELECTION CASE,
The New Hampshire contested election case being
thus brought before the House,
Mr. STRONG took the floor, and proceeded TO address
the House thereupon He commended that the functions
Of the House in this merely Judicial that IN
deciding contested elections they bound to
spect the action OF the State satues in prescribing the
rules under which those elections should be conducted
Ihls House were not Congress and therefore were moi
set at defiance the election laws OF the State OF New
Hampshire, would be an infringement OF the rights OF
the legislature under the constitution, which We're az ga
cred their own, he argued at considerable length
prove
Under the presen, appor,iounent law, New Hampshire
was entitled 70 Tour representatives me asi law Of
seals IN this House should be BY districts This was The first
attempt OF Congress June %, 1922 TO interfere on the
~ G IoSess @ a G asis m h s 81
once. New Hampshire did not, until 1916, when her
legislature bad distrcted the State, not only doing that
but prescribing the rules under which the election should
be conducted F0H Ell tsagel II. f5aas.-aag. Y 4t IN
In 1s4s General James Wilson had been elected from
the district composed OF the counties Of Hlsboough and
Cheshire General PeasIees district being composed OF
three neighbong counties. AT the last session OF the
legislature, our towns OF the county OF Mermack I'm
Peasleen disrcD added 10 Wilson's. Indeed, the
boundaries of all the districts in the State then
changed. II not then known that Mr., Wilson was
about TO resign. He did resign, however. aud the COVER
nor issued his warrant for the election embracing in the
district these four towns OF Mermack county. As the
vote resulted, Mr. Morrison had majority received the
certificate. and held the seat The contestant claim
ed that the four towns in MeIimack county should not
have voted This view Mr., S. conceived TO be wholly
that election to fill the vacancy
could have been held except in pursuance OF the law the
contestant desired the House to set at defiance in the
report OF the mnonty OF the committee h was contended
(sad Mr. 81 that the law of the last session OF the egis
laure had no beating on the election to I'LL q VACANCY.
On the contrary he argued snow was the only New
Hampshire election law existence (al fofmer ones hav-
ing been Iepeaed) under which any election TO l the
vacancy could be held He held ii to be the duty of the
House TO legisaie to carry out the law OF the New
Hampshire legislature II the legislature had smpy re-
aed the fret election law he conended that in such case
there could have been members leg Ally be from that
State. Had all iour OF The New Hampshire representa-,
lives Ihprfh han I'd
the elections ill the vacancies could only have been
held under the last.enaced law not at all There
were members on the hoor who represented districts
changed by law from their original form
MIR. ). then went on 10 show that the queston
was simply whether a State legislature had power 10
change the limits Of congressional districts The power
to arrange districts was general and plenay IN State
legislatures Mr. argued to prove. Though congress
might determine general rules under which members
everywhere 10 be elected. il certain that had
not nterered in the matter except in the law OF 1872;
in which neither the time nor place OF holding
them was nterlered with. Congress had power under
the constitution 10 make any rules i. preferred IN this
connexion But the time clear that in her
legislation, changing the limits OF her congressional DIS
tlcs, New Hampshire had not exceeded her rights
under the constitution and laws OF The general govern
ment II the second election act wa, valdit was also
clear that Mr. Morrison entitled 10 his seat.
The arguments OF the contestant should more properly
been addressed 10 the legislature than TO the House,
which called &C, wholly in indic al capacity.
He had complained that the four towns in MeHlmack
county, having voted in s49 for Peasee could not fairly
represented MIR !. conceived that to deny them this
right under the circumstances attending this case, would
be TO abase the act oil the legislature oil New Hampshire
This appeal founded upon gross ignorance OF tbe
law and oi the fs hts OF this tribunal Judges who
deook 10 lean side The other OF cause, under
tbe plea OF doing justice, violated law constantly In
this case he denied that the counting OF the votes IN
question for Mr. Morrison woui give them double
representation here He next argued that uner the con
suion every representative the representative at
the whole Of his State The gie, oi the contest was,
that certain persons who had opportunity OF voting tor
Mr. Pesslee had also an opportunity OF voting Tor Mr.
Morrison. Now, this, II tne, did not prove that they
arg umsnt against The enactment of the law. but not
against its due execution after enactment In Virginia IT
competent for any one owning land IN two or more
cong essional districts TO vote in each Would mem
be elected by such be refused his seat when was
notorious that such voting was legal IN that State Now
any constituent who voted for General Peaslee in sf9
had he removed in due time the Cheshire and Hills
borough district might have voted for Morrison, and no
Que would have gansaid the legality of his vote
MIR. THOMPSON, Of Kentucky, then addressed the
House 0pposltioni the of Mr. STRONG, arguing
that the legislature of New Hampshire, having once dis
cied the State under the law OF Congress OF 1912 could
not change the districts laid oh, without previously OBJ
tanning the consent OF Congress
Mr. SWEETSER called The attention Of the House to
the tact that the democrats being in power in Ohio after
the enactment of the law OF lsi9, dstrced that State in
compliance with that law and that afterwards the
wbgs obtaining power there, re dscted the State and
further, that under that redis'rcng, the present mem
bers from Ohio held their seals without question.
MIR. THOMPSON, Of Kentucky, continuing his re-
Ohio be anything but proper he taken precedens
here. TT e0.l IHH .4..4...E
Mr. T. then proceeded in his argument, holding that the
act OF the legislature of New Hampshire in redssrcng