The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1857-02-18
Congressional.
WASHINGTON. Feb. 9

of Graham N. Fitch, setting
forth that he was elected Senator by
the Legislature of Indiana, and moved
that the oath be administered to him.
Mr.. Trumbull said he had placed
in his hands by a special messenger from
that State, the protest of the Senate
against the legality of the election, and
also a protest signed by t%hirty-four men,
bers of the House of r representatives, to
the same effect.
Mr.. Bright said it was not necessary
to read the protests, and he believed his
colleague, according to precedent, was
entitled to be sworn in.
The protests were read.
Mr.. Trumbull objected to administer
ing the oath.
Mr.. Douglas thought it best that Mr..
Fitch be sworn in, and the Senate inves-
tigate the legality of the election after
wards, as had been the custom hereto
fore.
Mr.. Trumbull replied that custom
had been both ways, and cited cases
where the administration of the oath
had been refused, until the matter had
been discussed and decided. He thought
that no additional light could be shed
on this matter until all the facts are
known.
Mr.. Trumbull took it for granted that
no gentleman desired to occupy a seat
in the Senate for a moment unless he
was legally entitled to it. 1t would be
wrong for any one thus to occupy o seat
in the Senate for a single day, if the
case is of such a character that the senate
can decide upon it Immediately. The
present case could be easily understood,
justice requires its immediate decision,
for it was only from the necessity of the
case that q different rule had ever pre-
vailed. Committee on Judiciary have
recently investigated and reported up
on a case involving the same principles
which are involved in the present case.
Thew decided that Mr.. Harlan was not
entitled to a seat because he had not
been elected by a quorum of each branch
of the Legislature of his State, and the
Senate lad diacussed the matter fully,
and sustained the Committee.
How then could there be a doubt in
the present case where u similar state
of things is presented.
Mr.. Toombs thought there was but
one question before the Senate, and that
was on the sufficiency of the credentials.
The Senator from Illinois (Mr. IT, had
advanced from behind the credentials,
and therefore had no pertineDcy to the
prtseut question. He commended that the
universal rule of the Senate had been
that where credentials are in prop err
form, upon that prima facie evidence,
the claimant took his seat. He urged
that the oath ought to be administered
in the present case.
Mr.. Seward said it would be better in
all cases OF contested elections that the
investigation be mad Immediately upon
the presentation of the claim, and the
seat remain vacant until the claimants
title was established. The precedent
cases stood in this way. In the early
history of the Senate, the claimant was
denied a seat which was held in allegiance,
until the investigation was and a decis.
ion pronounced, and then he was admit.
ted or rejected definitely or finally, but
during the latter history of the Govern.
Ament a different practice has prevail
ed.
He contended that the case did
not fall within the rule and precedent
which were claimed to nave been settled
BY the Senate, aud that the credentials
did not present such prima Jacie evi
dences of title az to entitle the gentleman
to a seat.
Mr.. Pugh argued that if the creden
tials of Mr.. Ficth were in proper form
he was entitled to be sworn in anc
hold his seat until his right was contes
ted.
Seward showed the case of Archibald
Dixon, whose claim to a seat as a Sena
tor from Kentucky was debated fourteen
DAYS before he was allowed to take tn
oath.
After further debate the Senate, b,
a vote of SO to IL, refused to refer tn
credentials and protests to the Judicia
} ~ Committee, and Fitch took the oath
; Adjourned.
HcusE.-The House passed, by vot,
of ll9 against %, Mr.. Chapman's bill
= for a wagon road to the Pacific.
The pending question was stated to b
on the motion of Mr.. Barbour, to sus
pend the rules, to enable him to intro
ducc a resolution from the judiciary com
mittee, declaring that John G. Watrou:
u. s.. District Judge for the district @
Texas, be impeached of high crimes ant
misdemeanors.
MI. Letcher said these were seriou
f charges, and demanded that the repor
of the committee on the case be read.
8 The report says that specific charge
are made against John G. Watrous, {
currupt combinations for the determine
ton of suits in his Court, and ofhavin
acted with partiality, and in disregar
of law and of the rights of litigants.
d Mr.. Bocock wished to know whethe
Judge Watrous ever had an oPportun
}, ty to defend himself.
j. Mr.. Humphrey Marshall, member
the judiciary committee, thought tt
investigation ought not to proceed will
out notice to the accused party.
n Mr.. Evaus said Judge Watrous ha
e been Judge ever since the admission
d Texas. As Immediately after his a
n pointmens suspicion regarding his inteI
rity took place in the public mind, an
# no person in Texas, except a few person
r who are engaged in litigation, pretend
y defend him, it was due to the p 'rity
the courts and administration of JUST,
= that Judge Watrous be put on trial,
IF order that he may show whether tt
1t charges result from persecution, pref
dice, or a combination of circumstanc
10 against him.
8. 1t was a mockery for a District Judg
In whom the public have no confidenc
to be continued in the Office against Il