True American. [volume] (Steubenville [Ohio]) 1855-1861, 1858-06-09
Hon. John A. Ringham's Speech,

said -
desire to submit very few wo Ids in
regard to this Standardization case, II
is no part Of my purpose here at this time
to enter intOany discussion touching negro
suffrage or the qualifications of electors
in the State of Ohio. But, sir, ! desire
10 present single question Of fact here.
for the consideration of the House; and
that is that there is no legal proof that the
contestant was elected, or even tending
to show that he was elected. If by the
testimony adduced by the contestant, or
by that adduced by the sitting member, it
had been made apparent that the contest
ant was in fact elected by majority OF
the legal voters of The third congressional
district of Ohio, he should have my vote
Tor seat in this House. am willing,
If gentlemen can show that question to
be decided by the proorin favor, of the
contestant, to record any vote in his favor
and against the sitting member. But that
has not been shown, nor can it be shown
upon any testimony before the House.
Sir, think the contestant manifested
great wisdom when. in his labored speech
at the opening of this discussion, he sta
ted 10 the House that he would not dwell
upon the facts of the case. In the ab-
sence of proven facts. it throws no light
upon the question now before us for the
contestant to tell the House what have
been the rulings of the British Parliament
in cases Of contested elections upon the
admission of heresay testimony. How
ever successful the gentleman may have
been in his researches upon this head i,
his array Of ancient British precedents
and modern instances throws no light up
on the question who received the largest
number of legal votes in the third con-
gressional district Of Ohio. Instead of
citing here at great length nice decisions
which have been made upon questions Of
evidence In contested cases, the gentleman
would have greatly obliged some of us if
he had laid his finger upon the facts,
the legally proven facts, upon which he
based his assumed conclusions that he
received majority of the votes given by
qualified electors Of the third congressional
district of Ohio. l should have been
especially obliged 10 him if he had pointed
distinctly and plainly TO the facts proving
that my colleague Mr.. Campbell recei
we'd nineteen votes less than were counted
and certified 10 him in the official returns.
That is the question in the case, and that
is the question upon which, unhappily,
the gentleman failed to give us any light.
challenge him, or any Of his friends, to
point out any testimony that would be
admitted in justices court in case in
volving the worth of jack-knife, much
less in case like this, showing, or tending
to show, that my colleague received a
single illegal vote which was counted for
him in the official returns. | defy the
gentleman to do it. The proof is not
here.
| have looked into this case with some
degree Of care. | do not intend TO delay
the House with many remarks upon the
subject; but do ask the attention of the
House to the character Of proofs upon
which it is sought, by the votes of this
House, to oust the sitting member. and 10
elect man to seat here from the third
congressional district of Ohio, contrary 10
the expressed will of majority of the
legal voters of that district.
shall not raise any question as to the
validity or sufliciency of the notice, tho
| think that therein grave question is
involved. [ waive all that, and call the
attention of the House to facts, as they
appear from the poll-books, the abstract
of which is duly certified! That my
colleague, the sitting member, received
nine thousand three hundred and thirty.
eight votes, and that the contestant at
that election received nine thousand three
hundred and nineteen votes. This official
and legal evidence, this abstract of the
returns made by the county officers of the
several counties in the third congressional
district of Ohio, proves that the sitting
member Mr.. Campbell received ma,
ljority Of nineteen of the legal votes cast
at that election.
How is this proven fact 10 be got rid
off My colleague is here with the Ger,
tifcate of the Governor of the State, is
sued in pursuance of law, certifying that
fact to the House, and upon that he is
sworn in, and takes his seat. How is
that certificate, under The great seal oI
the State, to be got rid of? Why, by
raising mist, in the first place, about
votes having been given for my colleague
by legal voters, non-residents of the ward
in which they voted. The fact that these
persons voted at all is attempted to bt
proved, not by the best evidence which
the nature of the case admits of, (which
is the only regal evidence,) but it is at
tempted TO be proved, as everything els'
in the case is attempted by the contestant
to be proved, by illegal testimony, ant
that which cannot be held admissible fol
I any purpose, except it might be to cor
a robora other and better testimony
+ testimony, sir, which would no, be ad
mitted in any court of justice whatever
y the mere declarations of men that otbe
men had declared that third persons ha
s said that they voted in given ward, an
n that they voted for Campbell. II is j
vain that the learned counsel for the cor
lestant, a>brief of whose argument wa
9 filed, and is published with the testimon
d in this case, attempts to show that tn
Il poll-books of this election were not re,
O ords, and that it was therefore not nece'
y sary 10 produce them before the commi
y tee, as the best proof Of the fact tn
i certain persons voted at that election