Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-03-21

| evidence in the case of the contested election
between General Whitfield and Gov. Reeder, the
majority thereof submitted report in favor Of the
! proposition, and the minority Of the committee
against it. The questions of fact proposed to be
inquired into by the majority fully set forth in
the following extract:
MAJORITY REPORT.
The relative position OF the cOntesting parties,
and the disputed questions OF fact, appear in the
memorial OF the contestant, who denies the entire
validity Of the election law under which the sitting
delegate obtained the certificate of the governor
of the Territory This denial is based on the al
legged fact that the legislature which passed it wac
imposed upon the people by a foreign invading
force, who marched into the Territory at the cleo
ton, and seized upon the powers Of government
which Congress had provided for the actual nhabl
tants: which powers, it is said, have been held and
exercised since by these strangers TO the soil
under no other title than that of a strong hand
and superior numbers and to the entire suhjugatOn
OF the people OF the Territory. Two other reasons
are assigned for the iuvaidity Of the same statute
but they are questions Of law rather than Of TACT
The contestant also states that at the election for
delegate held under said Law, and at which the Sit
ting delegate claims to have been elected, many
hundred illegal votes Of nOn.resdents were polled
and the rules for conducting it, prescribed by the
statute, disregarded
We understand the sitting delegate TO deny these
asserted facts, and also to contend that, the con-
testant was Governor of the Territory when the
first election for members of the legislature
Cured, and gave certificates Of election 10 the
persons pretending to be elected, he is estopped
from setting up nov that they were not legally
elected, whatever the state of facts may be and
that, therefore, the evidence indicating those facts
cannot be heard or the alleged wrongs investigated
Thus the case stands before us now as TO the right
~ tho Hon I NJ NIitGaId IN Tho
A. II. Reeder, the contestant bases his right TO
the seat on election held at a different tme--n
right TO which attention has not as yet, been
directed inHsmuch as we understand no process
for Witnesses in relation TO it is asked by either
party.
The questions, thea, 10 be considered are
]. The importance and necessity OF having full
investigation Of the facts thus in dispute.
,. The effect OF the alleged fact that the contes
tSnt, in his capacity of Governor Of the Territory,
issued certificates Of election TO portion OF the
FIRST legislature
g. Whether the evidence to establish the facts
can be had satisfactorily and efficiently in any other
mode thsU that suggested 10y The committee.
The report Ct the minority OF the committee
viz: Messrs A. II. Stephens, w. r. Smith, and
VI. Olver-is in the nature of a demurrer The
following extract will present the issue between
the two reports:
MISORITY REPORT.
These papers, with their references, make up
the whole il now stands before the commit
tee; aud, from the whole, it appears Rbundantly
evident TO the minority that the memoriaist looks
to object but TO vacate the seat occupied by the
sitting delegate, upon the assumption, which he
wishes To be allowed TO attempt to maintain by the
testimony OF witnesses TO be brought from Kansas
aud elsewhere, that there Is legally constituted
government in Kansas Territory This is the ob
Ject OF the present application send for persons
and papers. Ii is true, the memorialist alleges
that several hundred Illegal votes cast for the
sitting delegate at this election. That however,
does not make case sufficient to displace him,
unless IL also be shown that the memorialist, or
some other person at the same election. received
more legal votes than he did. This We consider
wel-setIled principle by repeated decisions ia this
House. IL IS not enough TO vacate the seat OF a
member 10 show that he received Illegal Votes hut
II must toe made 10 appear further that come one
else received greater number Of legal votes than
be whose seat is contested. II the pols for In.
stance, in this case, showed it is said, twenty.
nine hundred votes for the sitting delegate, and il
be true, as asserted that several hundred or even
twenty-eisht hundred, Of them were illegal yet he
would still have hundred legal votes to 90 upon
and TO hold his seat upon, unless il be shown that
some other person received more than one hundred
equally legal votes. But this is not pretended 10
THIS case; II Is not even alleged. The memorialist
sets up his claim by the denial Of the legal authority
ander which the election Of the sitting delegate
vas held, and by virtue q an election held at
different time by pTOmiscuous gatherings Of the
people, without even the forms OF law, and indeed
In open opposition 10 the only recognised Laws Of
the Territory. Nor has be adduced or rendered
any certificate or evidence Of any kind whatever,
from any quarter. Of bis election, even in this
irregular dlsorderly, aud coufessejly Illegal man
ner; so that hts sole object and that Of the pres
ent application, seems 10 be to deyolve upon the
committee and the House an inquiry into the valid
ity OF the territorial Law under which the sitting
delegate was elected and returned, aud mainly
upon the grounds that the members composing the
territorial Legislature which passed that law we're
themselves not properly elected and returned
The minority conclude their report by adopting
com uunieauon, addressed to the committee By the
sitting delegate, Gen. Whitfield as presenting the
proper views Of the questions in issue Watk ins.
toti JBion.