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

|
Mr.. Boyce.- They say that there are not
sufficient justices of the peace in the Terri
tory to take the testimony. Here imagine
is the real objection the majority of the COM
mittec have to going into an examination of
this case in the usual manner. They are un-
willing to do it in form which might seem,
in any sense whatever, to recognize the cx-
isting government in Kansas. But it seems
to me that there is no necessity of going into
this new mode of proceeding in order to
avoid that difficulty. The House may guard
against that difficulty by declaring that the
justices of the peace, de iacto, shall have the
right to take the testimony. The reasons,
then, stated by majority of the committee
for this novel course of proceeding are not
satisfactory. This is entirely a new course
of proceeding. In the whole practice of the
Government, so far as have been able to
ascertain, we have never before authorized
the Committee of Elections to send for per-
sons and papers in the case Of contested
seat, except in the New Jersey case, and that
was precedent originated at time ofpar-
ty delirium.
Mr.. Washburn, of Maine.-Thc gentle
man will find, if he will examine the matter,
that during the First or Second Congress,
after the adoption of the Constitution, that
the House expressly gave to the Committee
of Elections the power to send for persons
and papers.
Mr.. Boyce.-But never since that time,
except in the case I have mentioned. The
House doubtless found the practice bad
one, and repudiated it from the time of the
Second Congress until the New Jersey case
came up. Now, in reference to this new
and unusual mode of taking testimony, if
the question were between this or no other
mode, there might be some reason in the
proposition of the committee. But it is not
so. We have the old mode, authorized by
the act of 1851, and We have another alter
native, as suggested the other day, to send
special commissions to Kansas. Therefore
the question is not between this mode and
no other, but between the old mode and this
new mode.
1t seems to me there are grave objections
to this mode. What witnesses will you have
brought here, ifyou send to Kansas for per-
sons? They will be willing witnesscs-swift
witnesses. Those are the very men We do
not want here We want men who have
been attending to their own business; who
have not been excited to fever heat by affairs
in that Territory; and who have something
to do besides coming here upon crusade to
furnish evidence. 1t seems to me the pro-
posed method is the worst possible mode of
obtaining evidence. We should have here
only partisans; while we want the evidence
of that portion of the community which is
calm and dispassionate. Besides, this mode
involves immense expense. There is no es-
timating what the cost of it will be. Proba-
bly, s200,000 or more. Once open the door
for everybody to enlist in this army of wit
ncsses, and under the zeal of partisan feeling
there is no telling where the matter will end
Every man in Kansas who wants to take a
trip to Washington at Government expense
will have budget of news to unfold
1t seems to me that this mode Of obtain
ing evidence is not the proper one, in exam
ining who is entitled to scat as Delegate
from Kansas. 1t would be much more ap-
propriatc if it were general examination of
all the affairs of Kansas. If you desire that
sort of an investigation, appoint a special
committee, and refer to it the special mes
sage Of the President, land confer upon it pow
er to send for persons and papers to make
such examination but let them not take
this special election case to hinge this indef-
initc exploration upon.
think, then, that the committee have
failed to give sufficient reasons why We should
adopt this new plan which they have pro-
posed. The Recommendation of the COM
mittce, if adopted, leaves them at liberty to
examine the whole history Of Kansas, and
everything which has taken place there,
from the inception of the government down
to this time. I do not think that this case
should give them that unboundcd license
It is confined in Il narrow compass. We
have not a boundless sea of discovery upon
which to take voyage. Our limits are
narrow, as | conceive the question. 1t seems
to me, sir, there is perhaps only one question
in the ease; and that is to whether legality
of the action of the Legislature Of Kansas
was affected by the Legislature removing
from the town of Pawncc to the Shawnee
Mission.
When this question was taken up the
other day, different opinions were expressed
as to the rule which should guide the House
in the investigation of the case and | apprc-
hend that there u.ht to be some rule. We
ought not to pursue this matter vaguely and
without any landmarks. The chairman Of
the Committee of Elections, if | understood
him correctly, seem to think that We had
the power to proceed in this matter under
the Constitution, giving us power to deter
mine the qualifications of members, &C.; but it
seems to me that this is an entire misconccp-
tion of the matter, because Delegates of the
Territories are not, accurately speaking, mem,
! bers of this House.
Again it was insisted by SOME other cen.
tleman that, in the investigation of this case
we are absolutely bound to pursue the dircc
tions of the act of 1851. That, perhaps, i;
not strictly correct either. Ny own impres
! sion is. that the act of 1851, though not ab