The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-15

be violated the election held and attempted to be made
prescribed day In Iowa. by an act which Is admitted TO
have been with all the forms necessary TO It's validity
under her constitution the branches directed TO as
sembe in convention with minute provisions merging the
distinctive characters of the two bodies and the power ex
pressy conferred upon this aggregate body to adjourn from
time to time by its action until the election shall be
consummated IL very true that the incpent step must
be taken by the action of both banches and
il either had refused neglected convention could
have been held But the convention having once been
anized s action could not be arrested except by the
failure Of the majority of the members OF the legislature TO
take part in its proceedings IL may be that either branch
by passing resolution resembling that by which il agreed
TO go into convention would have legally dissolved 1t
this bad been done am inclined to think thatsuch would
have beet its eect but here the secession OF majority OF
the the individual action Of those who retired
from body in which their distinctive senatorial character
had been lost and carried with other greater cop
more branch. Entertaining these views,
sustain the report of the Judiciary Committee and
shall for the amendment offered by the senator from
George
Mr. ADAMS Like other senator's Mr. President 1T
my purpose in the beginning to say anything on this
question Finding however, that there is such difference
Of this body, have thought it not improper that should
submit the consideration of the Senate very briefly the
views which will govern my vote
think the question turns the fact whether this duty,
to be performed by direction OF the constitution of the
United States be legislative act or otherwise. If it
be legislative act this election was not valid think,
simulated to legislative act in any point of view On the
contrary it s personal act to be performed 10 the dis
charge Of representative duty The qualification Of the
electors is fixed by the United States constitution Upon
that point differ from my distinguished friend from
Connecticut [Mr. ToUcEY,] and ! think the whole
turns on that very point He seems to think 1t
must be legislative act that as the provision Of the
constitution directs the election of senators to be by
the legislatures of the States 1t must be done in legis
atiye capacity and not merely in representative capac
y There 10 no legislative Oct to grow out of this.
admit that the legislature must be in session. that no one
can vore - not at the time Of the election
legislative power and compose under the .a
laws of Iowa. in the under consideration part OF the
legislature But when the two houses together as
has just been very ably and correctly conterded for by the
honorable senator fro Louisiana Mr. SttbEt the doc
rne of merger applied When the two houses dssetbled
Under the constitution and laws of Iowa for the purpose OF
performing this Specific duty they became one body as
much ii the constitution OF Iowa had provided shat the
whole legislative power should be in body for that
specific purpose the performance OF that particular duty
not their legislative duty, There is no legislation connect
ed with It. 1t is an election and the members of the legis
lature the qualified electors. When they cane Into
joint convention they ceased to act senate and house
of Representatives They lost their distinctive features as
two bodies and ali became body II the election had
gone according the usual courtesy of calling sena
tors first and members of the house of representatives
second and they had been called inderenty and in al
phabetical order their votes, apprehend would have
been just legal as If the senators and representatives
When the two houses assembled together they formed
joint convention The whole legislative pewer Of the State
Of Iowa for the specific purpose of electng senator OF the
United States vested in that body and there was
and house of representatives for that parcu
lar purpose and majority of that body thus formed as
convention competent to elect Whether in differ
capacity, its members would have belonged TO one
house the other in my humble opinion Is wholly imma
eria They adjourned to particular time, as they We're
required to do by the law They had power under the
law of Iowa. dissolve that joint convention until the
ddty for which it assembled performed. They did
pretend dissolve it but it is said that the day
Of the adjourned meeting at which the sitting member
.hn fhn ata cfI in
when the joint convention adjourned Friday the Senae
might have declared that they would not meet the next
day with the distinct that they were to go
into this joint convention for they might have said,
need not meet to morrow senate, because we are
meet in joint convention and if after that adjournment
the senators the next day assembled by one in the joint
convention, and majority there, election made
under such circumstances would have been valid and its
validity would hardly be doubted by any one, though
doubt has been intimated here.
Weare to look the substance of things not the form and
this understand to be directory portion of the law of
the State of Iowa. But my friend from Connecticut in
arguing the egaly of these proceedings takes the ground
its journal the proceedings OF the joint convention
the election invalid unless that provision is complied
with Suppose the election had taken place in of the
conventions that met when majority of each house was
present. the incumbent had been elected upon their
to the senate chamber there majority of the
senate opposed that election and they had directed the
secretary not to enter the proceedings OF the joint conven
on the record they had the power to do by
oriy could they have vated the election by that
Was not the act complied WITH The substance OF the
thing is receiving majority of the joint convention when
1t has legally formed
The other branch of Congress has decided questions
bearing this point more repeatedly than this body.
You will recolec sir Mr.. BIaGs in the chair when we
members of that house, that there contested
election from the State of Florida The laws ofthat State
well the laws of Georgia. provide that the returns for
members of Congress 81 all be made to particular officer
upon particular day. In Florida this provision
com ,ied with. If recoect correctly, according to the
report made by the present Secretary of the Navy
Dobbn then your colleague in the house. the of
two counties not returned by the day the law
qured them to be returned and they rejected By that
Congress do In that case in the Georgia and in the
New Jersey and 1t has, believe, become settled
ruler the House where State
provides that individual receiving the highest number
the may be- the very moment the polls closed and
the ballots deposited the person having the highest
number of the legal votes in the box the majority is
entitled to his seat for the prescribed by law The
counting of the and the sending in the returns the
casting Of the figures and all other things provided by
law only to ascertain that fact and If mistake is
made in any way the house being the judge of the qua
cation and election of its members will that
mistake they did in the to which have referred
and give the seat to the individual who received the high
number of votes whether they returned in the
time prescribed in the statute not The principle s
that the important and essential point of the law
shall prevaha that the person receiving the proper
number of legal votes shall be the representative of the
people, and that the failure neglect Of duty the part
Of the returning officer anybody else, either by design
otherwise shall not deprive the people of their right
the individual of his right So precisely in the under
consideration.
is admitted all hands, that majority Of the joint
convention of the State of Iowa their for the sit
ting member and he was declared TO be duly elected.
have nothing to do with the consequences far my
II. Al. -