Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1856-03-27


theory of government rests; to lose it is per-
dition. When we divorce ourselves from it,
We embrace anarchy and understanding
despotism-we canonize the sword, and pre-
pare the way for ourselves and our posterity
to pass through fire to the grim idol of in
testinc convulsions.
I take it that those two propositions are
as clear as the monday sun. The delegate
ship from Kansas is legal Office. and the
Delegate must have had his election under
law Tt is idle for any man to pretend to
claim his scat here in violation of these prin-
ciples.
The claim of the sitting Delegate (NIr
Whitfcld) seems to me very plain-l'rima
facic, at least. How does he claim q scat !?
lie claims it under the certificate of the
Governor, by virtue of an election held I'M.
der the authority of the Legislature, which
Territorial Legislature was elected in pursu-
ancc Of an act of Congress-, and deriving
their authority TO act from Congrnss-going
back, therefore to the fountain head for his
commission. His title, therefore, is what
the lawyers call 4 good paper title, unexcep-
tionablc, unless it can be attacked by evi-
dcncc outside Of the record.
What arc thc objections raised to his IT,
tie? The objections are twofold. First,
the inyalidity of the law under which he
was elected and, second, that he was elect
cd by Illegal votes. I will commence with
the last first. The first point I make is that
this objection is not sufficiently specific
1t does not comply with the act of 1851,
which requires the contestant to "speciN
poticalaIy" the grounds of his objections.
1t is not a compliance with that act to-day
that a B, or c D, got illegal votes. But
the act of 1851, justly interpreted, requires
that the names of the illegal votes should
be set forth. If, then, the act of 1851 is
to be binding and operative upon this ques-
ton, that objection which Mr.. Reeder rails
cs is at an end, because it is not sufficiently
specific; and l think, as I have said before
that We ought to be guided by that act. But
if We are not to be guided by that act, we
are not, therefore, to be guided by our own
vain imaginings. We are to be guided, then,
by parliamentary law-by the general law
of Parliament; for there is general law of
Parliament, as Blackstone says, known but
to few, but yet known to the Parliamcnt-a
law existing in prccedcnts What are the
preccdcnts on this subject? You will find,
by referring to the contested election cases,
that this very point has been considered and
determined. In the case of John G. Var
mum, (pagc ll2,) it was held that "t the al
legation that votes were given by persons not
qualified tovote is defective, unless it shows
the names of such persons" Again in the
case of Easton VS.. Scott, Delegate from Mis-
souri,, Contested Elections, 272 y it was held
that general avcrment in the notice con-
testing an election that the votes arc illegal,
is not sufficient, and the names ot'Me per-
sans excepted to must also be stated
The objection was, as it is here, the ille-
gali:y of votes. But the House, upon the
adoption of the report of the committee, held
that general specification was insufficient;
and hold, without referring further to au-
that the general specification in
this case is also insufficient.
But I do not rest upon this objection. I
approach now the very marrow of the case
on this point. What is the objection? That
there were illegal votes given. Is itnot OBJ
vious, from the slightest examination, that
that objection has no validity in it; and that
it is unnecessary to 90 into minute exami-
nation of it? Why? Because it is not
pretended that Ill the votes cast for Whit
field on that occasion We're illegal votes
Well, suppose fifty, Or one hundred, or five
hundred, or even one thousand of the votes
east were illegal, that does not alter the case,
unless tho@c who did not vote, being equal
in number to the legal voters actually vo-
ting, were kept away by force. If they were
restrained by durcss or reasonable apprehen-
sions of violence from going to the polls,
and the opposite party did 60, then the elec-
ton under these circumstances would be
void.
Eut, the case docs not stand on that ground.
They did not stay away from apprehension
of violence; they stayed away on the calcu-
lation that the law fixing the election was
yoil. They placed their case on that cast,
and they must stand the hazard Of the die.
They stayed away because they would not ac-
the validity of the law There
fore, let them stand to their own ground;
which was, that the law was invalid, and
not that the votes were illegal. There is
nothing in this point which merits investisa-
ton.
now approach what is considered the de-
batablc ground in the case, but I think see
my way clear
1t is said that the election under which
Whitfield was elected was invalid, and this
on two grounds: 1st, because the Legisla-
ture was elected by illegal votes; and I'd, be-
cause they moved to Shawnee Mission.
In reference to the first ground, / object
10 the jurisdiction Of this House to deter
mine the validity of the election of the
members to the Territorial Legislature, be-
cause 7 say that the Kansas bill appointed a
special forum TO determine that question:
the Territorial Legislature itself. I do not
say that the act expressly in so many words,
confcrs thispower; but that it tisa power natu-
rally implied and necessarily flowing from
the formation of 4 legislative power, in the