The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-18

ators ON the other side of the chamber profess to adhere
shall even In this case be followed Al the mou1n a ,s
be- the committee will act promptly SO that the
legislature Of Indiana may have the question before du
Mr. HARLAN Mr. President some references have been
made the contested election of Iowa. and some differences
been drawn which think not warranted by the
facts that So far the papers themselves
cerned there being certificate of the governor OF the
State of Indiana and also Of the State Of Iowa. and
test of the of Indiana and protest OF the Senate Of
Iowa. suppose the cases parallel They parallel
the number and character the papers before the
Senate but not in the facts that have transpred in
nexion with them as established by the professionals and
concurrent history In the Iowa case there law
qurng the legislature by joint convention to elect
ators at the session next preceding the OF
cancy In addition to this the two branches Of the gem
eral assembly of Iowa adopted joint resolution agreeing
go into election and fixing the time place and
manner of electiDg.
Now, as understand from the showing Of the papers
herefrom the protest of the senate and of thirty -four
members of the house of the State of ndi
ana there is law in existence in that State requiring
the senate to unite with the house in joint convention for
the purpose of eloctng United States senators and that
the senate has never agreed by the adoption of joint
oluton or otherwise to the formation of joint conven-
ton of the two branches of the legislature for that pur
pose and that quorum OF either house acted at the
time OF the pretended election Of the gentleman claiming
seat Hence 80 far as the facts are concerned the two
cases not parallel The Indiana is very much
stronger against the claimant than the from Iowa
The republican members OF this Senate did all vote to
sustain the validity of the Iowa election stated by the
honorable senator from Illinois, Mr. DOUGLASS but they
not therefore, bound by consistency he seemed
suppose to vote in favor Of the claimant from Indiana
They sustained the claimant of seat here from Iowa.
cause suppose they believed from the facts presented
that the legislature of that State had by the distinct and
deliberate decision of both branches agreed elect
tor and that the election took place in Of that
agreement that the M of the legislature the party hav
ing the right to elect senator had been expressed Snd
clearly ascertained. tt@
will take occasion here state in passing what have
not stated hitherto that have no doubt the decision OF
the Senate in that erroneous but do not attrb
ate to any member of the Senate consciousness of po
cal feeling for or against element controlling his
vote endorse fully what has been stated BY the
chairman of the Committee the Judiciary. So far
as an individual concerned he and the members of
that committee treated my feelings with tenderness that
every member of the Senate But then thought end still
think that the great principle which ought to have
that decision was overlooked The Senate did not
to look through the mere techncaity of the
lawthe technicaty of the rule of an election for
the purpose of asceraining what the tc Of the elect
or This view of the did not have been
distinctly raised in the mind of many senator's They
gued as they would argue indictment before
nal court; or as they would argue the validity of title
land under forced SALE where the law must be construed
sriey dsdine the Observation-Disclosures every well grounded
doubt must be fatal to the State They argued If the
wH of the eector should be aside rather than
mere technical rule established to aid in its expresaonas
II the thing done by the party having the right act
not to rather than some ancied defect in the
ner of publishing II.
no one DOUBTS perhaps that the valid election OF Uni
ted States senator must be expression Of the will of the
legislature of State delierdipe body The time place
and MANNER OF ascerainng that will has been left the
legislature ITSELF The legislature of Iowa being composed
OF TWO branches-twO distinct deliberatve bodies-the
will OF the legislature could be ascertened without
consulting the will of each and ascertanng what would
be- the blended or joint will of both branches There
distinct will on the prt of the senate part of the egs
ature and distinct will the part of the house of
resentatvcs another branch of the Legislature and they
were adverse to- and independent of each other Then
lac tloh
Ing OF these distinct and adverse wills Of the branches
OF the general assembly. 1t was impossible to proceed
Wnou. nence the Iowa agreed with the house Of
representatives by the adoption of joint resolution
elect senator They agreed to the time and place and
manner OF eectng and to what would constitute the
eectonhat Is as to what should in the opinion of EACH
constitute the decision of BOTH They agreed that it should
De the vote OF majority of the members of the legislature
az such irrespective Of their position members Of the
senate or of the house. of representatives
The election took place in pursuance of this AGREEMENT
OF the two branches OF the general assembly They at
the m they met in the place. they conducted the election
lhe manner originally agreed upon and they ascertaned
tue result according to the rules which branch of the
general assembly had previously adopted The legislature
thus agreed by the decision Of each branches
every elementary act which was in their opinion neces
acts was performed according this agreement and the
only fact initiating against irresistible conclusion of
validity that the of Iowa. as shown in its protest
was not present forming part of the joint convention in
an organized capacity senate But it had agreed
70 bs there as an organized senate 1t had agreed be
W "eWoeTS, ana agreed that the votes OF
ory OF the members of the general assembly should
stute an election and not the decision of each distinct
branch OF the general assembly delberative body
Hence reerate that have now nor have ever had
doubt that the wM of the legislature of Iowa was fairly
expressed In accordance with the law of the State and
the provisions Of the joint resolution recied and that
was clearly ascerained The Senate of the United States
decided differently; and not inclined now to stop to
review the facts that may have had influence that
decision do not believe however before stated
single member OF the senate supposed himself be in
fuenced by party feelings in the which he gave my
case nor shall be in giving my in the pend
ing. -.
But will attempt to point what conceive 10 be the
distinction between the two They different in
this; In the State of Indians understand there
law requiring the senate to unite with the house of repre-
for the purpose eecng United States senator's
NO Joint resolution adopted by the branches
general assembly agreeing to election No concurrent
agreement OF any kind was adopted They never
adopted rules OF by which election could take
election When the election Is said to have been held
majority OF the senate not presents it present
In its organized capacity. No constitutional quorum of
either branch present So that act necessary
to valid election was agreed to by the Indiana
ate before at the time since And the senate of Ind
ana with thirtonr members OF the house of
tvcs thus notify the Senate of the United States That
notification your table They say that they never did
agree to any joint convention for any purpose whatever
not for the purpose counting the votes given by the
people of Indiana for governor
Then We are called here to vote in favor of admitting
claimant to seat member of this body in the face of
the protest Of the parties who have the right make
the choice where they distinctly say their will
consulted that the will of the legislature OF indiana as
nc members senate and house of was
consulted. These facts all here as well as the