Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-10-16
SPEECH OF MIR. HOKE,
OF LINCOLN,

f,ro tho Senate is one of great Importance. The
Mint presented for our consideration IS VINO Is
anttod to take the seat in the first instance VINO
has the right to qualify now, and not who mas inc
rirbt to retain the seat in the end! Or. Sha" anu
Mr.. Barnard, have both presented certlhcates-Ine
former from the Coroner of Currituck, 1.-THE she III
having died before the day of comparing votes, }
the latter from the Sheriff of Camden. But IN
addition to the certificate of the returning onlcer
of Currituck DIR. Shaw has presented to the 0G"
ate a certified copy of the returns showing 'i:o
number of votes given to each of the cahuc'' -
Camden and Currituck counties The inquiry IIon
Is. What was the duty of the Sherllis "uu VI
is the power of the Senate! The Sherliis "re 0,y
ministerial officers, the inspectors alone are Ili0
;,anas. Tho Sbcrffs have no right to look at any
49, oxcont what has been certified to them by the
;psnectors of election precincts they have not Tue
norar TO investigate and to sit in Judgment on the
lii and tn say what is legal and what Is not le
g9aI they have no power to go behind the cert'neo
r.tnrns of inspectors of elections, to purge the
MILLS The inspectors returns is record 10 the
Sheriffs: it would be a dangerous doctrine 70 al
low the returning officers the power to ucc,oe on
the locality or illegalitv of votes 1t would place
the elective franchise completely in the hands OF
the Sheriffs of North Carolina; it would give the
absolute control of the ballot-box to the returning
officers of the State If such was the doctrine inc
Marty who could obtain the Sheritts, whether Oy
fair means or by foul means, could control the Po
Ht;cal complexion of the State. 1t must be that
the record binds the Sheriff the lawmakers could
never have contemplated placing the valuable PRIV
ilere of the ballot-boX in the hands OF the oher-
ifs of North Carolina Assuming then, MIR. SPEAK
err. that the Sheriffs of Camden and CurrtucA were
bound by the certified returns of the inspectors
was it not their duty to have proclaimed the etEc-
ton of DIR. Shaw and signed his certtcate by
the returns exhibited to u.s. and certified under the
hands and seals of the two Sheritfs, DIR. Shaw has
received majority of one vote; the poll DOCKS
foot I'D one majority the inspectors certhcates arc
in accordance with the poll books, and the Shenfs
had only this evidence before them and could have
no other guide But the Sheriff of Camden has
refused to sign the certificate OF DIR. Shaw, ana
has given his certificate to MIR. Barnard Nhat,
then, is the proper conrse for the Senate ms
beinr only contest for the seat in the hrst IN
stance, and. not case of regularly contested
election the Senate can only pass upon the certh-
Gates of the contestants; we are the Judges, we
have the right to correct the OF the Sherfs
We have the right to do what the Sheritts ought
to have DONE 1t is clear that the certificate OF
election ought to have been given to DIR. Shaw
What is the substance of his claim? He presents
the certified record from the Sherltts OF camden
and Currituck as certified to them by the lnspec-
tors electing him by one vote; there is no form for
a
DR.. Shaw certified copy of the returns, gave him
all the Certificate necessary-he has a majority
according to these certified returns and has there
by better certificate than The joint certificate OF
both Sheriffs could have given him; he has the
voice of the ballotbox on his SIDE which Is higher
evidence than the certificate of any Sheriff.
Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the Sheriff of War
rem had refused to give you your certificate OF cleo
ton you could have demanded a certified copy
of the returns, you would have presented that to
the Senate, and you would have demanded your
seat for you would have been armed with the voice
of the baot-box; your weapon would have been
invincible-no man could have stood against it
Does not DR.. Shaw present this claim? Does he
not come armed with this weapon Will we not
hear the voice of the people? Will we trample
down their rights, and place them in the hands of
mere ministerial officers? DR.. Shaw presents what
is invincible-he presents the certificates of the
SherifB of Camden and Currituck, certifying that
he received majority of the votes of the two
Counties whether that majority be one one hun
dred it is the same Is this not the best certificate
of election he could have received! Is it not the
strongest proof of his election | am not regard
ing forms, am looking at the substance of his
claim. Are we not bound in justice, then, to make
perfect in this stage of the proceedings what the
Sheriffs have omitted! We are the judges to re-
wise their conduct the law requires the certificate
of election to be given to the candidate receiving
the largest number of votes-the Sheriff can only
be guided by the inspectors returns. The Sheriff
Of Camden has failed to fulfill the requirements of
law, and it is the duty Of the Senate to perfect
what the Sheriff of Camden ought, in the first in
stance, to have done What then, Mr.. Speaker,
can be obtained by a reference to a committee
They can only report what we have before US
they cannot go behind the inspectors returns, nor
can we If committee were appointed could they
open the question and take testimony as to illegal
voting Certainly not. If this were done then
the law relating to the mode of proceeding in ca
ses OF contested elections would be abrogated
That law requires notice of thirty days before the
meeting of the Legislature in this case nothing
OF the kind has been done, and the evidence which
would be brought before the committee would be
er parte necessarily, and therefore void. Had Mr.
Barnard proceeded regularly and as the law points
out, there would then have been a necessity for
committee but he comes forward and presents his
claims without Forwarding his adversary, and asks
the Senate to 60 behind the record without giving
Dr. Shaw the necessary warning or time to prepare
AN Investigation; such proceeding is unjust and
improper, and in clear violation of law. The Senate
acts as judge i'll two ways-the one is as to who has
the right to take the seat in the first place-the
other is as to who has the right to retain it in the
end. The case before the Senate is of the first
class of casesthe second class is where notice has
been given and proofs taken.
1t has been said that the question should be re-
ferred to the people, but we have not the power to
send it again to the people. The Senate have the
power to order a new election where on proofs ia
ken neither party appears to have been legally elect
OIL L.