The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-14
CITY OF WASHINGTON WEDNESDAY MORNING. JANUARY a. 1857

written opinion of of the three judges of the supreme
court of Iowa TO the effect also had certificate
of the clerk Of the supreme court showing that the third
Judge of that court elected under the circumstances
that accompanied my election, in and permit
ted TO occupy his seat unquestoned from any quarter
Thus had the express opinion of the executive and
two Of the judges OF the supreme court and the aco OF
the third judge in support OF the validity OF this election
The whole being thus practically settled, did not
deem it to be my duty interrupt iii but since this mat
ter has been referred to in the Senate think in rather
personal manner apparently for the purpose OF mpca
ting in the neglect OF supposed duty will state
that this subject has been called up oc because have
been informed by friends at Iowa City, the democratic
members of the legislature of Iowa. in session. have
adopted resolution in caucus requesting it to be done.
did not wish to introduce this political view of the to
the attention of the Senate but seemed TO be required
by the line of remark adopted by the honorable senator
from Illinois.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. The senator from Iowa is mistaken if
he supposes that making these references to him in
personal manner, with view Of mpeachng bis ac-
ton have not ntmated that he had not done his duty
properly but was repelling the unworthy motives cast By
his friend at his side mr. HALE upon the action of men
who dischargng their duties conscenousy he
claim do for himself But will say that If
if the senate of my State had protested against the
fairness and honesty my election should have demand
ed an investigation of The correctness of that charge
should not have deemed it sufficient for to take TIE
opinion of partisan governor at home who had pre-
judged the case by giving certificate in violation OF the
laws OF his own State should not have deemed it suffi
cen to intrench myself behind the opinion OF court at
home part of which court into Office by the
unlawful and irregular Why should not have
lied on such authority For the simple that the
constitution of the United States says that the Senate of
the United States shall be the judge of the elections,
turns, and qualifications Of its members This body
is the only tribunal earth having the right to give
valid opinion in regard to the reguarity of this election
regret that these political illusions have been made
the other side of the chamber in connexon with the de-
cson of this had deemed it matter of congra-
ulaon that question of this Importance had arisen
der such circumstances that partisan politics could have
no influence in the decision II the senator from Iowa
shall be turned out Of his seat not having been legally
elected presume the only effect will be to send him home
TO be reelected again by legislature of his friends
and to give him perhaps thousand five hundred dol
lars extra mileage There be partisan advantage
gained none lost by the deeison whichever way it may
be, and no personal injury be inflicted the
from Iowa. on the contrary, he will be gamer by it,
Why them is 1t necessary on the argument of purely
legal and constitutional point to thrust In intimations
that the Senate here is incapable of acting upon high and
honorable considerations in the discharge Of this great
duty
II is my conscientious conviction sir that under the
constitution of the United States and the law of Iowa the
election OF that senator invalid aud void shall
go into argument in detail length for the that
IT has been we'll presented before although the
from New Hampshire did not think it amounted even
decent sophsry. In the first place. the constitution of
United States s the highest authority upon tie case and
must govern the decision. The constitution says that
United States shall be chosen by the legislatures
OF the ates The poirt h what constitutes the le
gislature of Iews2 The constitution of Iowa which
bold ia my hand says:
The legislative authority Of this State shall be vested in
house Of representative which shall be desg
mated the general assembly of Iowa."
1t then provides that
"a majority of each shall constitute quorum to do
business, but smaller number may adjourn from lay
day. and may compel the absent members in
such manner and under such penalties each house
provide"
Mr. BROWN Will my friend allow me to interrupt
him, as he aud differ somewhat this question: and
really want TO arrive at correct conclusion2 take his
Mr.. DOUGLAS think it would be better for the
senator to allow to state my position before he an
swers il,
Mr.. DOUGLAS. have shown by the language of the
constitution OF Iowa that its legislature consists Of two
branches, senate and house of representatives and
that majority of each constitutes quorum and that
no less number than majority of each perform any
otner duty than that compelling the attendance of absent
members Now, let ask how the from Iowa
eecedby legislature composed Of two branches with
majority Of each present constituting quorum7 If not
be was not elected by the legislature of the State of iowa
There could be legislature without the presence OF
quorum of each branch So says the constitution of that
State and that constitution accordance with the gem
era end the constitutions of the other States of the
Union
Then how is the attempt made avoid the force of this
constitutional obligations 1t is said that the legislature
OF Iowa passed law by the terms of which the members of
the two houses must assemble and effect an election by
joint ballot Suppose they have passed law to that efect
does il change the constitution OF the State the legislature
of which made the lawf While the constitution Of Iowa
fully submit that not competent for the legislature to
provide another mode in violation of that constitution
Hence the law of iowa has been correctly construed and
under that construction does give authority to the two
houses to assemble and resolve theselyes into one and
thus to blot out the separate existence of either and make
majority OF the whole quorum for the two houses it is
violation Of the constitution of the State of Iowa in that
respect law of Iowa in violation of her constitution is
null and void so far there is conflict existing and the
constitution must be the rule of action
But sir IL you look into this law of Iowa fair inter
probation of it is consistent with the constitution of that
State and of the United Sates Ii is that the first sec
on provides that the members Of the legislature shall as
sembe in the hall of the house Of representatives 10 effect
an election OF SENATOR but is the meaning that they shall
assemble as individuals who have been elected members of
the legislature that they shall assemble their egisla
tive capacity members of the and Of the house of
representatives coming together to make Joint conven
on2 Let which of these constructions is correct
The second section provides that the president of the
ate or in hs absence the speaker Of the house represent
aves shall preside the deliberations of the couven
ton and in the absence of both president ro esppore
shall be appointed by joint voten The third section pro-
vdes that at any time prior to meeting in convention a
ter the day has been designated each house shall appoint
The frst section provides that the members shall as
semoe In the hall Of the house Of at such
as each house has ordered and prescrbed hence it
meeting by the authority Of each house They
gether as houses and when they together they
by joint vo'e is usual In other States Now desire
to test the regularity of this election by the law pf the
State OF Iowa, construed by gentlemen on the
you hold that this is valid election First the law of
Iowa has been violated in this the law requires thai he
judges OF election should be chosen by each house
Y enc IN this case there judges of election chosen
In either house at any time This point is not controver
ed Inc law was compulsory that jndge should be elect
h i'm ...fx ~.