The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-08-01

On the resolutions reported from the Committee Of Eec
tons, In the oonested-ceetion from Illinois de
yered in the House OF Representatives July IT. 1856
Mr.. HARRIS, of Illinois, said
Mr.. Speaker There some novel points presented by
the committee in this case and upon few of these only dc
intend remark The election from which this
was held the 7th day OF November 1864 Ii
held in conformity with the law of the State of Illinois
The Judges aud clerks Of the election made their
n due form 10 the canvassng officers of the State and
upon these returns the governor issued his certificate
election 10 the sitting member Now II Is worth while 10
AJAX when IT, where it, and how it, that this
alleged was discovered, upon which IL is sought
eject the sitting member and give his seat to the contest
aut? we look into the evidence to settle this point
will enable Us TO come to satisfactory conclusion, and
afford solution u the whole question. @a
II is true, that notice that the sitting members seat
would be contested served upon him within the time
required by law but il is equally true that the notice did
not eoatain say Of the specifications which the law
qures. II so true that the contestant when he gave
that notice did not know ROW he 10 contest it,
what particular grounds; IL lie did he guilty of
dsingenuousness in not specifying them the law,
every fairness, required him to do But from the
testimony left without doubt that when he gave
the notice be did know bow, or upon what points, he
to make the contest In his notice therefore, he dealt
only in gener~es. He consttctsa drag notice. by
which he could include everything wien Chance OF CIR
might reveal But when did he make an aa-
coveries upon which he thought he could rely? He at
tempted occasion, to take testimony show that
illegal votes had been polled by Cowden and Lowry Bur
that attempt falursj for The pre-
sentiug bis claim TO scat ..
The evidence shows that two illegal votes were cast
one for Mr. Allen, and one for the under Signed but this
uv, not alter the result as one sets oil the other
p. 80.
Now here Ia the statement of Mr. Archer, deliberately
made that one illegal vote poled for him. BY that
declaration let him be concluded for h. spoke the truth
This would give Mr. Allen tVo majority, instead Of enc
But he SAYS there was one illegal that of Cowden
poled for Mr. Allen Fortunately have the testimony
upon which this last declaration founded and the tes
timony shows no such thing AndI now ask any mem
Der Of the House to show one word OF testimony IN the
report sustain that declaration There some tes-
nony that certain persons said that they had heard
other say that he had voted for Allen when he had
right to voe But are we to disfranchse congressional
district of hundred thousand inhabitants hearsey tes
tmony that wod not be received in magistrates court
when shilling was in controversy? And yet upon this
testimony, this Committee of Elections propose and ask
the House the sitting member from his seat and
give it Mr. Archer WHILE by his own declarations he
received clearly two majority of the votes cast
But another point is who discovered the alleged error in
the count Livingston precnct2 The election held
on the 7th of November 1854 and the contestant had
for nearly months been unable to discover
error fraud which he could show to this House. as
right to here. Who made the discovery? The only
light given upon this important point is In the tes
n1ony Of Mr. Hutchinson and be testhes very fairly
What does he sayf will read:
Ouestion BY whom and for what reason were you in
duced TO recount votes the I'd March, A. d. 1885
1usper. The recounted at the request OF
B. Archer who informed US that mistake had been made
IN the count"
Now sir according to the concurrent testimony Of the
witnesses the ballots upon the count the evening Of
the election placed the box and the box was sealed
up and so the witnesses think 1t until the I'd OF March,
1858 All the Judges and clerks they believe they
~ made a return OF the votes AT the time No
bn,nsn hs,r, --""p them knew what was IN the oo1-no
body had key TO ''efe sue Sraamna oS
ly-sheet lay for four moaths-no M. sinformed
mistake until VIM b. Archer, the contestant,
the judges that mistake had been made in the count
Now bow did be find II QUIT BY what sort OF revelation
political penetration II that the CONTESTANT was the
n hka ala rntrf fh4
ges and clerks tell the whole truth and
OF them says that he told Archer OF any mistake
Nor could they for they did not believe any bad occurred
fact the evidence that instead Of their informing
Archer that mistake had occurred Archer informed hem
Of it Now any candid mind come TO any other con-
cluson than that some Il do not mean the judges and
cerks had become appzed that something could be made
by recount And how could they be so apprized with
having had access the ballots And If access bad
been had the ballots candesney then any results fol-
lowing q recount are from necessity to be rejected.
Let US look into the testimony for explanation Of the
difficulty What is the evidence about the keys to the
boxf
Here is the testimony Of Mr.. Hutchinson
"Quon In whose possession was the ballot bo1 and key
the election the 9TH OF November 1854, until the
counting the I'd Of March, 1855 II In yours state why
the not given to Of the Judges and the key
10 another, : required BY the statute
"AHper. They bOh IN MY po''es''on during that
t'"s. The key my private property, and after the
election held The key that belonged 70 the baiot6OH
,oas Lost."-Pp. 81, as.
What now says Birch7
1--WE put the ballots into the ballot box and locked up
do remember who took the box. Itook The key and pH
array and have snos but hiHk that II. ii,
Hutchinson took the balot-bor"
Now, do not think there Is any contradiction in the
testimony OF these two judges this point They both
probably testified TO the truth and taking the statements
OF both IL IL clear that there keysa private
one which Mr. Hutchinson says he had in lieu Of the
which belonged TO the bsllobox, which key was LOST
He thought II iost-bu in fact Birch had itfor he saws
took the key and put away and have since
II Birch put IL away be knew where he put IT, and II he
knew where be put IT, why had he never seen II since
II wanted TO open the box lie one OF the men
who opened IL Why did he get his key which he had
carefully put away2" The only that can be
given Is hat he vent to get at the place where
II was put away II there, and Of course be
could IT, Somebody had taken IL away and used
II and Birch shad IL since No and the prnba
bity h that he never looked for IL much ALL knowing
abed some to inform the contestant that be could
make profitable recount OF the ballots in that box HC
then informed the judges and the had. This
explains how the contestant knew Of the alleged
Mr.. NORTON. II the gentleman viii allow me, viii
reply TO his question. The in which this nforms
ton could have been obtained by Mr.. Archer was simply
70 count the number of upon the talys and
pare them with the number OF returned for both
didaos il notorious that there returned tor Mr.
Archer one hundred Votes and for Mr. Allen fortysever
votes The tsllyst shows that thar, than iha
number Of votes and the easiest thing Ia tn,
world for OF the judges have informed Mr. Arche
that OF the clerks had stricken of from Mr.
Arthers list at the time there being dispute about th
correctness Of the list
Mr. HARRIS II Is an old maxim Of logic "na a0it er
cupi,s7 isrp guod e rerolU" Ii effects nothing
difficulty by raising another. II is said that
was notorious that there discrepancy between th
votes cast for the candidates and the number Of
upon the tay-list and II was the easest thing in tn