The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-07

thus had no opportunity Of examining tbs sabject lie
would prefer that II shuuld go oret Until tomorrow
Mr. HARLAN was not disposed TO press for premature
decision tho but IL ought 70 be remembered that
the protest OF the of Iowa had been before the SEN
ate nearly two years and all the members Of the Commit
tee on the Judiciary had had ample opportunity to inyes
ugate the subject If they had chosen do There
another reason why was desirable 10 have this question
settled as possible The legislature Of Iowa was
now in session. having convened the first Monday in
December and their is limited by the constitution to
fifty days and il due them that this question should
De taken up and decided preceding the OF that
legislature.
The question being taken, The motion Of MI HARLAN
agreed 10.
Mr., BUTLER thought this question ought to be decided
at once and thought IL might just well have been taken
up by the Senate in the first place have been referred
TO the Committee the Judiciary.
Mr. BAYARD moved to postpone the further consdera-
on of the subject until tomorrow which was not agreed
Mr. BUTLER said that he stood in position of utter
difference regards the gentleman who TO be affected
by the decision OF this question: and approached it solely
its merits But there very important principles
involved would be manifest before the termination Of
this discussion The government Of Iowa consists of le
gsature composed OF two legislative bodies the senate and
house of representatives The senators hold their terms
for longer period than members of the house. and
fewer in numbers but are recognised by the constitution as
separate and distinct part OF the legislature The house
of representatives being the body in mat
ters OF election must have preponderang influence and
henc the concurrent action of the senate required.
Mr. b. then proceeded TO give history of the facts con-
nected with the election of Mr. HARAa and stated the
SONS which influenced the majority of the committee in
coming to the conclusion that he not duly elected
These were in brief that the senate body did not at
tend that meeting Of the joint convention which Mr. H.
elected and their teller not there required by
law The senate had dourned over and there was no
senate in session the time minority of the senators
present in their individual capacity but the senate
body not there The president Of the senate the
regular presiding officer Of the joint convention was not
present and the joint convention elected president pro
tenn These Irregularities he contended, vitiaed the cleo
| ton.
| Mr.. TOOMBS dissented from the conclusions of the
chairman of the committee and gave his therefor
He contended the legislature of Iowa composed
of the members of the senate and house of
and upon those individuals devolved the constitutions
al duty ofeecng to this body in the pre-
scrbed by the constitution of Iowa The joint convention
consisted of the members who composed the two Legislative
bodies and as they in joint convention the
distinction heretofore existing between them as members
of different branches was 0blterated their
ranged in alphabetical order list Hence the alb
sence refusal to participate in the proceedings on the
part OF any number less than majority of the whole mum
Der of members composing the joint convention could not
invaldate the doings Of the convention He thought the
fraudulent and acous conduct OF those senators in lows
who sought to defeat the election and PROSTATE the will o.
the people of Iowa ought to be condemned by this body
| and by the whole American people.
Mr.. BENJAMIN wanted to know whether it was compe
tent for branch of State legislature to elect senator
to Congress The constitution Of the United States de-
care that senators shall be elected by the State legislatures
and State Legislatures consist of two branches from which
it follows that the constitution requires senators to bt
elected by those two branches concurrently.
Mr. TO0MBS replied that that construction of the COL
sution would render invalid the election Of great
senator's One branch of State legislature could not cleo
SENATOR but majority of both branches could and
many senators had held their seats this floor against
majority of branch of their State legislatures, moi
| against majority of the whole electors
| Mr. BAYARD asked him to specify an instance where
| this had been the case .9al4
Mr. TOOMBS believed that both the senators from Vir
gna held their seats against majority Of the State
ate. Mr.. CoopER, of Pennsylvania, and Mr.. ARCHER o.
Virginia. had been elected in similar manner. The egs
lature of State consisted of the persons in whom the
legislative power vested matter how they d
vded and Mr. HARLAN got majority of the votes of all
the individuals who had right to vote for United States
| SENATOR and was therefore duly elected.
Mr. PUGH although at first inclined to doubt the legal
ty of the election convinced upon examination, that
it was constitutional and legal 1t had seldom happened
in Ohio that senator had been elected by actual ma
jorty of the votes of both branches. That did happen in
his and in that Of his colleague, Mr.. WADE but
in the of their predecessors Thus it not
new question in fact but had been settled by the practice
the Senate for many years. He concurred in the views
| which had been expressed by Mr.. TooMBs
Mr. GEYER agreed with the majority Of the committee
He agreed that ii the legislature of Iowa could resolve IL
the senate being minority, Congress could do the
He therefore believed the election Of Mr. HARLAN to have
been unconstitutional
Mr. TO0MBS to amend the resolution reported by
the committee by striking out all after the word resolv
ed" and inserting
"That JAMES HARLAN is entitled to his seat senator
from Iowa."
Mr. BAYARD obtained the floor but gave way to
motion to go into executive session which was carried
| and she rtly afterwards
The Senate adjourned.