Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-09-08

eminent is or has been observed, that every de
Lucrative body, for the purpose of making laws
or other purposes, the sole judges of the quail
fcations of its own members. BY the Engsl
law, from which much that relates to our repre-
sentative system is borrowed, this rule is strictly
observed. The practice in England touching thu
subject, when the rule is the same as ours, may
be taken as safe precedent
One of the first legal authorities declares the
mode OF making returns of elections for members
OF the British Parliament, and the power of the
House to determine the qualifications OF its own
members, to be as follows, viz: 'The election
being close, the returning officer in boroughs re-
turns his precept to the sheriff. with persons elect
ed by the majority and the sheriff returns the aphote,
togetherwith the writ for the county and the knights
elected thereupon, to the clerk of the town in
chancery, before the day of meeting, &c. But
the members returned by him are the sitting
members, until the House Of Commons, upon
petition, shall adudge the return to be false and
illegal. The form and manner Of proceeding
upon such are now regulated by statute and
made perpetual, which directs the method of
choosing by lot select committee Of fifteen
members, who are sworn to well and truly try
the same, and true judgment give according
to the evidence. The analogy Of the statute of
England to the rule Of procedure in the United
States, will be readily detected by the least OBJ
servant. We are of opinion that the power of
the Governor of this Territory in making out the
certificate OF members, is similar, and only SINH
lar, to the English clerk of the crown. He
should have made out certificates in favor of
those who were returned to him as having ma
jority of votes by the returning officer, and the
members having his certificate should be entitled
to seats until the body to which they assume to
have been elected determine the subject.
1t cannot be supposed that in republican Anne
RIGA, an Executive has greater and more arbitrary
power than is given by the English law. If he
had the power TO determine the character of
voters at that election, it could only be done Judi
cially, and must have the additional power Of
examining witnesses, for it is only after hearing
OF the evidence that it can be judicially deter
mined The statement Of persons not under
oath would be entitled to little weight, and we
are utterly ignorant of any authority vested in
him to administer such oath.
The fifth clause of the Constitution of the
United States, which is re-affirmation of the
English rule, declares that 'each House (of
Congress) shall be the Judge of the election re-
turns and qualification OF its own members, I" &c.
by affirming this power to vest in each House,
il negatives the idea of a similar power elsewhere.
II may be urged that the authority granted by
that clause extends only to the returns and quail
hcations OF members as regards the regularity of
the returns and the eligibility of the members,
but the English rule shows the true meaning Of the
clause to be that they have a right to 'sexamine"
the member. If is not conclusive from direct
law that the Governor should not have refused
certificates to the members who now contest
ing, we find abundant reason why such an as
sumption was not contemplated by Congress.
The fathers of our Constitution, approaching
the rights they had won with blood, and being
alive to the interests of those who were to follow
them, were most careful in protecting each de-
partment of government from the encroachments
OF the others. No subject was of more deep and
intense concern TO them. Having Just rescued
themselves from the government of England,
they could but contemplate with awe the danger
Of comforting undue power on either department,
or that system of laws which might enable the
one to assume the functions Of another.
A magnificent government had no charms for
them but government composed of the people,
with each department confined by rigid laws to
its respective sphere, their aim and object.
Such government is ours. With no law beyond
the popular will, no power uncreated by it, and
no power it may not destroy
Under our present happy system, the Legisla-
tive department enacts the laws, the Judicial de-
termnes, and the Executive executes them.
Were either capable of encroaching upon the
other, the glory Of our Republic would soon pass
away
In ali governments where the will of the peo-
pie is not the basis of legislation, the supreme
magistracy, or the right of both making and en-
forcing the laws, is vested in one and the same
man or body of men, and whenever these powers
are united there can be no public liberty.
If the law would permit tho Executive to inter-
fere in the organization of the legislative depart
ment, the day is not far distant when he would
centre in himself both the power of making as well
as executing the law. Such result is to be
guarded against, and such an attempt should re-
ceive the rebuke of every patriot in the land.
Suppose the Executive of the various States
representatives ofthe people, and could give GER
tihcates 10 those whom Inc might prefer, and
withhold them at will, every member would be
merely the appointee Of the Executive, and their
enactments nothing more than his will, instead
of the solemnly and formally expressed will of
the people. Nor would this evil be limited to
the States only, but the Legislature having the
power of electing Senators Of the United States,
would be demoralized and corrupted, and the
pernicious influence, like drop of poison in n
vein, would soon permeate the entire system.
But if, us we have before minated we admit
the right of the Governor to determine who were
lawfully elected, and who constituted members
Of this Council, no one, we presume, would deny
that such decision would at least SAVIOR Of judi
cial character.
Then evidence should have been taken, for as
well as against the members recognized by us,
otherwise the decision was rendered on ca parie
evidence, and should therefore be deemed void.
ne snly attempt AZ proving the alleged hlegalty
Of the election of the Both Of March, was the
afhdavits of few persons, whose motives
whose veracity il is not our purpose to impugn,
as the truth or falsity of their statements in no
wise affects the validity of the result. Upon
these aflidavits, which in substance stated that
the actual residents were driven by violence from
the polls, by persons not residing in the Terrific
ry, and that the votes of those persons we're re-
ceivcd, the Governor pronounced the election
void and ordered another
If we should admit that illegal votes were
polled il by no means follows that all the votes
cast for the gentlemen on the pro-slavery ticket,
were illegal, or that they did not receive a ma
jority Of the legal votes cast Granting that
same Of the votes were illegal, IL would not fol-
low that the election should be declared void, but
rather that it was vodable by the Legislature
land not the Governor,) TO the extent Of its ile-
gality. Otherwise, how easy would il be for the
people to be deprived of their choice by the intro
duction Of few illegal votes
Your Committee have weighed well the entire
subject herein involved, and have come TO the
deliberate conclusion that the Governor had no
other power over the election than 10 define the
DISTRICTS appoint the Judges, grant certificates TO
those who, from the returns, had n majority; and