The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-07-14

this or any other territory in their terrific
rial capacity. The constitution of the
United States decides how the election
of our territorial delegate shall be deci-
ded, but it only has bearing upon MEM
bers of the two Houses of Congress. L
am aware that the constitutions of the
several States make the several legiSla-
tive bodies the tribunal before which to
test the legality of the election. But Jet
US contrast this case with those of the
States and of Congress. Members elect.
ed to the two Houses of Congress come
forward with their credentials, and the
constitution expressly declares that the
respective Houses shall decide upon
them.
In the several States there is no other
tribune except the Legislature itself te
declare members elected-the Governor
has no power given him to do it-there
it is constitutional provision that each
House shall be the judge of the election
of its members But there is no similar
ity between that case and this; the con-
stitutional enactments of one State have
no bearing upon the actions of another
But it is said that precedents have been
established by which this decision must
be governed. have not been able, sif,
to find precedent. No decision can be
a precedent unless the facts upon which
such decision was founded be similar to
those in this instance; and no case can be
similar, unless it be that arising in the
first Territorial Legislature, constituted
by an act of Congress similar to this.
But the organic act of this Territory is
unlike that of any other that has come
under my observation, l have lnyesH-
gated the organic acts of Wisconsin: To-
wa, and Minnesota, Indiana and Michi-
gan: and find the powers delegated to
the Governor more limited than in this
Territory. The organic act for each oil
these Territories requires the Governor
to declare those persons duly elected who
shall receive the greatest number of votes;
not giving him the power to decide upon
the legality of the votes; the word 'legaf'
is nopin the act. That very n,sterially
changes the powers of the Governor; the
one requires the Governor to declare those
elected who shall receive the greatest
number of votes, giving him no power to
decide upon the legality of the votes;
while the other makes it his duty to as
certain and decide the legality of the vote
before he can declare tho members elect,
ed.
believe, sir, the world legal ha:
some meaning; / believe the men who
| framed and voted for the Kansas bill ap
piled a meaning to it. I believe it wa
intended by the insertion of that word Il
give him power to decide the legality O
votes; therefore he, not this body, is tn
absolute elective tribunal.
Again, the act of those several Terri
tories gives the Governor the right to cal
new election only when two or NOR
shall receive the same number of votes
hence by those acts he had no authorit,
to declare vacancies fromany other cause
but it is provided in the Kansas bill tina
he shall order new election in case va
cancy shall occur from any cause what.
soever. There is wide contrast, sir,
between the powers delegated. by the one
act and those delegated BY the other
Why were the words cor vacancy other
wise" used, unless discretionary power,
unless .plenary power was given the Gov
ernor to decide upon such vacaney?-
Who else could decide? The very fact
of those words being used necessarily
implies that the Governor is to decide in
this matter. Again, the organic act ol
these territories makes only those legal
voters who were ia the several territories
at the passage of the act, providing there
fore against any such violation or abuse
of the act as has been witnessed in this
Territory; hence such full power did not
need to be delegated to the Executive
Department.
l know there have been various deci-
sions given in the several States and in
Congress, but they are no precedents.
Show me decision made IN Territory
existing under an organic act like this,
and ] will look at it. As for me, if | ac-
knowledge precedents, they shall be pre-
cedents. If am governed by decisions,
they shall be decisions given in cases
similar TO this. Having, as / believe,
substantiated the several points l have
made, / will here submit a few ques-
tions. Will you admit that the organic
act empowers the Governor to prescribe
a form of returns, or will you violate the
English language? Ifhe has this power
and the returns are not made according
to form-if they show no persons legally
elected-must he regard them as true, as
proper returns !? Ii they show no legal
election, is there not vacancy ? IL a
vacancy, who but the Governor is TO de-
clare it? Ifa vacancy, is it not his duty
to order new election ? If this be bis
duty, if he discharges it, can this House
interfere?
But it is further clsimed that when
this House is legally organized, it can
legislate upon any subject not incompati
bic with the Constitution of the United
States, or the organic act and that all
such acts are binding, and that therefore
this House has the power 20 oiIst or re-
ceiye members. But, sir, ] claim that, |
annulIing the May election, and thereby
,ustine members then legally elected and
duly declared so, would be an act con-
iicfing with the organic act for in pass
ng that act, this House exercises powers
delegated to the Governor.
Let us now examine into the claims of
ny competitor. and the ground on which |
his committee declare him entitled To-
lis seat.
Has hean official certificate of h;selec- |
ion? When was he elected 2 Isitpre-
ended by him or by his friends that he !
las been declared elected BY the proper
No; no such pretenee is Of
cred. Was he voted for at the MAY
lection /? No, sir.
The committee report that they vent
'ehind the May election, and found the
'oI-book Of . prior election, and that
HA~, kk,.~- 9. = |