Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-05-19
WHOLE NO. 476.
ELECTION LAW FOR WASHINGTON CITY.
speech Of Hon. III. w. Davis. Of MARYLAND, ,

ELECTION LAW FOR WASHINGTON CITY.
speech Of Hon. HI. w. Davis, OF Maryland, !,
In the House Of Representative, Hay is, 1856,
on tie Bill defining the duties of Cona,nission &,
Of Elections IN the city Of Washington, and for
other purposes.
nr. DAVIS, of Maryland. The existing Admir-.
istration seems to have degenerated into super
intendent Of municipal elections. For about oue
month We have had, time and again, objection to
every attempt to consider business out of the reg
uar parliamentary order by the resistance Of that
stern Democrat, my friend from Tennessee, fMr.
Josxs. Il Is to be supposed, of course, that thss
gentleman must have had some very grave reasons
to induce him to do violence to the courtesy of his
own nature-that some great object must have ir
duced his stern refusal Of his ordinary courtesy 90
repeatedly 70 gentlemen who have sought II.
desire TO inquire what has occasi0ned this
course and perhaps In that pursuit We may fnd
why II is that 80 much importance is attached to-
this bill touching the municipal elections Of the
city of Washington.
the Corporation authorites--that men of all pai.
ties are in favor of not some bill-not some alter.
alton Of the existing law--but Of this bill now
under consideration. say, sir, there has been o
expression on the part of any corporate autholi-
ties In favor OF the passage of this bill; but OH
the contrary, have in my hand--which shall
before finish my remarks, send up to the Clerk
to have read-a remonstrance, on the part of those
authorities, against the passage Of any such Law.
If, therefore, there be no application for tho
passage Of this law, we are relieved from the ne
cessity Of considering the weight we ought to at
tribute to the application OF parties who are to b.
governed by the law and we are at liberty to ss4
tho question whether there is any existing evil
which this bill remedies, or any future good whcli
this bill sccomplshes, which ought to induce us
to change the existing law, passed in ls4s, and
which, down TO this time, no great body Of tho
men Of the city Of Washington have found to in
torsre with their civil, political, or religious rights
If there be no other object to be accomplished By
it, we may be led to surmse that there il polit.
cal purpose--that 1t is to break or bend the inde
pendence of the judicial opinion Of the Commits
sioners f Election into conformity to an interpre
tation Of the existing law which, in their opinion,
1t will not bear, and which It has been attempte,
to enact here by the first section Of the original
bill, now stricken out and abandoned
Where did this bill come from ? II is said that
IL was recommended by certain officials to con-
mittee Of the Senate. But, whosoever recommen :
ed II, in its origin it came from the Senate commi
tee AS IL came from the committee, II proposes
radical alteration In the suffrage law and in de-
6ning the qualification of voters. 1t was not, es
the honorable gentleman from Vermont supposcs,
because we objected to the general form Of that
section, but because we desired to insert an addi.
tional clause, that the only controversy which has
arisen in this House did arise No man objected
to the change proposed touching the registration.
We were earnestly in it's favor, That therefore,
was not the reason for striking out the first clause.
Il is possible that it was dropped because they
found that they could not pass 1t in the shapsthey
desired
The penalties would incorporate the extrajudi.
bal Interpretation Of the existing law into that law
he penalties, therefore, we're allowed to supply
he place Of the missing section.
We have had some discussion here as To what Is
he Interpretation Of the existing law. desire TO
ny that law distinctly before the House. The ex-
sting law provides:
"That every free white male citizen who shall
have resided one year previously, and who shall
have been registered and paid q tax assessed on
The 31st Of December for the year previous, shall
vote at the June election"
The first difference between the court and the
Judges of election is as to the meaning of the words
. free white male citizen in connexion with the
residence. The commissioners Of election decided
that the residence was required of person having
the quality Of citizen. He is not described, ss
most of our constitutions describe him, a. resi-
dsnt--as white person--but as a free white male
citizen having resided, &c. The commissioners
followed rigid rule Of grammatical construction,
when they said that person must have resided
here, being citizen, for one year previous to tho
,lection.
The circuit court Of the District Of Columbia in
formally, extrajudicially, without having before
them any case which entitled them to pass judy.
,nent upon that point, intmAted different eph,-
lon. It was question not submitted to their judi
cial cognizance. It uas . question directly sub.
mitted to the persons appointed as judges Of the
election. They are sworn, by the existing law OF
the District, to admit the vote of every person
who, according to the best of their Judgment and
is entitled to vote. The court de-
cided that they could not issue mandamus to the
Judges Of election. "They are the parties to bo
but this court cannot operate upon
them by mandamus. They are quasi Judges, and
are scorn to decide the qualifications votsrs, az
cording to their Judgment and belief" II Is, there
fore, left to them to pass judcialy upon the ques
tion, and not to the circuit court ; and the count
has discaimed, under the existing law, the right
10 control them. But they have minated that
they think the construction placed upon that lag
by the judges of election il an erroneous one.-.
Still sir, that does not according to the existing
law, change the tribunal which Is entitled to pass
upon that question. The judges Of election are
bound to decide, untrammeled and unmsnaclod by
the opinion which the gentleman from Tennes-
zee wishes to force upon them. They will
rsiterate that Judgment Gentlemen have tried
In this House to change that law BY the missing
hvt section. Gentlemen have fAiled to change
that law And now they come for the purpose of
clearing up the doubts Of the commissioners by
their fears--of enlghtenins the Judgment by q
penalty of throwing In the darkness Of dungeon
and the weight Of fine, in order to influence tho
human Judgment. That is the meaning Of this
clause, and there is no other meaning in t.
Now, ask the attention of the House to the
precise phraseology Of IL; and then We shall see
where the shoe pinches, and why gentlemen do not
Wish, or why they are very wrong in not wishing,
, matsriAl modification of the law:
That II any commissioner or other person sp-