Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1852-02-04
The Boston Atlas.


The Atlas of Saturday contains an article on
the election Of Sergeant-at-arms by the Legisa-
ture, which would not claim notice at our hands,
but for the grossness of its misrepresentation
both direct and by implication, The venom of
the editor is particularly directed toward the Sc
nior editor Of this paper for the part which he has
found it his duty to take as a member of the
House Of Representatives, and especially because
he wished to have the Lowell contested election
case settled before the election of Sergeant-at-
arms took place. The Atlas says:
Mr.. Earle, when the hour had arrived for going
into ballot in the Hense, moved that the time be
postponed for an hour, In order that the report of
the Committee on Elections upon the Lowellelec
ton case should be taken out from the orders of
the day, and acted upon. He was extremely
anxious that the three claimants should be sworn
in before the election took place, and to do this
he was milling to violate parliamentary prece-
dent, and force the House TO a vote upon an so-
lated case, although there are about dozen other
election cases now in the hands of the committee
that have not yet been acted upon.
This is very fair specimen of the loose and
random assertions of the Atlas, and very well ex-
emphes the acute and discriminating character
Of the editors mind Whatd he mean By ''vio-
lating parliamentary precedent" If he refers 10
taking the subject out of the orders of the day for
immediate consideration, that was no Violation of
parliamentary precedent. Ii is done repeatedly,
every session of the Legislature, whenever there
is any occasion for it, and was done in the Pymp-
ton election last year. If he refers to voting
"upon an isolated case, although there are about
a dozen other election cases now in the hands of
the committee as violation of parliamentary
precedent, he is still more at fault 1t is the uni
form practice, in contested elections, to vote
upon isolated cases to let each case stand upon its
own merits, and not to be put into an omnibus
with others, to which they have no likeness, and
with which they have no affinity.
Ii Col. Schouer meant to have his readers under
stand by the manner in which he couples this case
with the others which have not been acted upon that
they the same grounds, or that there is any
similarity between them, then he meant TO deceive
them. fhe intended to be understood that it would
be unfair toward the whg party, to act upon the
Lowell case beies he 10 o6R edsve Them in that
spect also. OF the 'sabout dozen election cases.
not acted upon, all of them exec I one are the cases
of ,cligs, who in their seats, voting on all
questions, and enjoying all the rights and privileges
of members, notwithstanding their doubtful right 10
the seats they occupy. Any change, therefore, in
the cases not acted upon, must be to the dsadvan-
tage of the wings, by reducing their number in the
House. lnasmnch, therefore, as these wings are
holding their contested seats, while the Lowell mem
bers excluded, although their right had been
clearly ascertained, and even certified to, by Col
Schouier himself, the only unfairness in the case
consisted in not promptly admitting them to their
seats; and for this unlarness, Col Schouer and
his friends responsible. If Col. Schouler did
not intend to impose upon his readers, one or the
other OF these ways, then, We should like to know
for what purpose he couples the cases together and
speaks of the non-action upon those yet undisposed
Of, as reason for not promptly giving their seats to
the Lowell members.
With the maleyolence which has character
lied the course of the Atlas man towards us for
the last three years, land for the existence Of which
we are quite at a loss to account, he attempts to
impugn our veracity on this occasion. He says
that,
'tWhen the member from Worcester first made
his motion, he stated distinctly thai his sole OBJ
Ject in making it, was to have the Lowell contes-
tants voted into their seats, that they might take
part in the election. When he withdrew the mo-
ton, he stated as distinctly, that he had accom-
plished his purpose, all that he desired to, and
therefore he Withdrew his notion
MotS fhara ara t,,,a c,Is.hoodz - III. .
lion. Firstly, s'the member from Worcester
did not state that 'hs sole sbiect'' in making the
motion was to have the Lowell contestants voted
into their seats, that they might take part 10 the
election. He gave that as reason aohy the
House should act promptly upon The subject; and
if the editor of the Atlas has not discernment to
perceive that there is wide difference between
a motive of action held up TO others, and the OBJ
ject which induces the urging of it upon them, we
are not accountable for his stoIidity. While the
action indicated might very well have been one
object we had in view, that it was the ssole
object" or even the principle one, we neither
stated then nor since. Again; the latter clause
of the quotation, contains another falsehood. In
saying that we had accomplished our object, we
did not say it was sail we desired to do'' Those
words are interpolated by the Atlas. We had
accomplished The special object Of giving to the
House the opportunity of doing an act of simple
justice, and Of throwing the responsibility of with
holding it upon those to whom il belonged, and
having done that, we were willing to withdraw
the motion. without having obtained all we de-
sired, rather than have the time of the Legisla-
ture wasted by the factious attempts of the
Wings to pervert justice, and perpetuate wrong,
by still longer excluding from THAR soats shoe