The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-03-18
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF HON. M. J. CRAWFORD,
OF GEORGIA.,

OF GEORGIA.
In opposition 70 the resolution reported by majority
of the Committee Of Elections asking power to send for
persons and papers in the Kansas Standardization
delivered in the House Of Representatives March TO- 1856
In KANSAS. .
Mr.. CRAWFORD said: .....
Mr.. SPEAKER: desire the Indulgence Of the House for
short time, 10 discuss the resolution submitted by
ty of the Committee Of Elections II is not my purpose
sir at this time, travel beyond what may be egmaely
properly said reference 10 the question before
the House which do not think involves the necessity of
range Of argument by any extensive but the
contrary, ia prescribed 10 limit somewhat contracted 1t
is true sir that should like this time give expression
to my views in regard other matters concerning Kansas
but am precuded from doing 10y proprety which
suggests that should confne myself strictly 70 the subject
matter which is now under consideration. .s.
majority of the Committee of Elections have submit
ted report concerning the Kansas contested election and
have offered in ceaelpson the following resolution
Reso'vd That the Committee Of Elections in the contest
ed election from the Territory Of Kansas be, and
hereby send for aud papers, and to
examine witnesses upon oath or afllrmation."
hope Mr. Speaker to be able to satisfy every fair and
just thinking upon this floor that ought not TO
adopt this resolution that there Is not the slightest
sity for the testimony il proposes 10 empower the commit
take; and that there does not exist just for
its passage. | address myself 10 the gentlemen the
other side of the House. and request their attention my
remarks in support of the position which have takenre
marks which made with pleasure for the reason
that there many gentlemen who would be pleased,
have doubt hear this fully discussed, and to
support and maintain truth and law where clearly and sat
isfactory established
Why has this resolution been reported2 The object as
alleged to procure testimony to settle the question to
which of these parties the sitting delegate from Kansas or
the contestant is entitled TO the seat
The purpose Of testimony Is always TO elicit the truth in
regard to certain state of facts asserted upon the side
and denied upon the other These facts always assert
ed by the party moving, the in any proceeding
which he may attempt to set sustain And just here
it is proper say that party coming into de-
Lucrative assembly must asserting clear tgal
right which Is withheld from him. demanding redress
for some wrong which he has suffered.
Now sir let examine the state of facts asserted by
the contestant who in the subectmaitef under
sideration and who is bound only show that the
sitting delegate is not entitled 10 the seat he occupies but
further that he himself is the only proper party authorized
| to fill it,
Perhaps it may be well examine this point as there
may be some doubts entertained by gentlemen as to its
soundness Suppose that action of eectment
menced court of justice for the recovery OF real estate
and the plaintiff should that the defendant is pos
session of property to which he has no title not pretend
ing, however that he has any legal title in ii himself
merely asserting that ii is in the defendant sup
pose that action of trover commenced and the
plaintiff should that the defendant possession
of personal property which did not belong him. yet
claiming that the title in himself; what would be the
decision of the under such circumstances in either of
the suggested Its decision would be that il is
enough give the jurisdiction that the defendant
shall have tile but it is further necessary that you
should and set up legal tile in yourself and the
result would be that such would be turned Of
court without moments hesitation.
And, sir, imagine that s To-day in the trial of this
question court In which all rules of law applicable in
such win be recognised and enforced II will there
he necessary and proper that the contestant shall in this
only assert that the sitting member is entitled
bis but that be is the only legal delegate from Kan
Upon this question shall have something to say in
reference the last ground taken by the contestant In his
memorial to this House. when shall have reached that
point
The contestant before with his charges speci-
fed 30 loss understand and determine
the Issue which is made up for our decision and action
have from bis memorial analyzed them There are
four grounds alleged therein upon which IL is coHtended
the sitting delegate is not entitled to his seat
Fret That the election at which the sitting delegate
was elected is absolutely void, being without any valid
law the will of m people, the qualified voters
thorize support IT.
Second That the said election was not conducted ac.
cording TO the forms Of the law itself
/ Third. That illegal votes poed.
Fourth That the memoriasi himself elected the
only valid election held in the Territory for delegate
Congress.
These the facts asserted aud the made by tho
contestant himself and whatsoever Of legal testimony
be introduced support these allegations can and
ought to be- allowed. anxious that nothing shall he
withheld but that thnR1nsy be inquired into touch
ing the above grounds upon which The contestant rests
his right legal delegate from the Territory Of Kansas
Lt examine separately each pout presented, and
certain if there exists any necessity giant The power ask
ed in the resolution Of the conmce The first charge
based upon the ground that the law authorizing the cleo
! ton of n delegate 10 Congress - void.
\ IL Il asserted that the void reasons: first
that emanaed from Isgaiut not elected by the people
Of the Territory but by nourcsdents second that il
passed place unauthorized by law and yiUatye Of the
! provisions OF the organic act.
When examine this branch Of the subject II manifest
y appears that evidence s sought establish the fact that
the ueaLers Of the legislature Of kansas illegally
| elected.
The position which 10 reference that subject
R The Uaiity of the election n closed quesunone
which this House inquire Another and very
different tribunal having full and exclusive jurisdiction 10
determine question: has done and from IL there IL
appeal We have power under the constitution to Judge
OF tho elections returns and qualifications OF
bers but there powers and If we the judges
Of the validity Of the election Of members Of territorial
legislature, know of power which would restrain us
from nquring into the legality Of the election Of members
Of State legislature
To illustrate and enforce this view suppose that the seat
Of member from of the States contested upon
ground that the districts had been altered by the egsa-
ture, portion Of the members Of which had not been
legally elected and the law altering the districts had passed
by exactly the same majority Of votes that there were
members Illegally elected and, under the law IL stood
the contestant had majority OF the votes poedl ask
gentlemen H. upon that statement Of facts this House would
authorize the sending for persons and papers ascertain
whether the members OF the legislature had been elected
doubt would be that although everything which you say
may be true are poweess TO try the question
not 20 behind the action Of the legislature having no
Judge whether the members legally elected To
them alone this subject should have been referred.
Suppose SIR that defeated candidate for the Senate
should go before that body and claim upon the
ground that The sitting member had been elected by
ory Of FIVE by the legislature of HE State and that
be prepared show that the eecton rod because
six Of the members had been chosen by imported
from another State all Of whom had thrown their support
to the sitting mtmberI ask you If the Senate would en-
ertan for the idea Of sending for persons and
papers to investigate and pass upon the legality Of the
\ election Of nep,bsrs Of he State Legsiatpre2
But for the sake Of the argument let admit that the
legislature