Wabash express. [volume] (Terre-Haute, Vigo Co[unty], Ind.) 1841-186?, 1859-02-23

Ter OF privilege. Al any lime 10 make the w"
ton, but i would require vote to take Al
up.
Mr. CcLL.uFR moved to take the matter M.
He thought Il strange that senators should not
be willing TO pass upon the question OF wheth
er these men should be heard or not. II would
he only common courtesy TO Inform them OF
their decision on that point.
Mr. BArARD considered that the action Of the
Senate in laying the subject on the table had
the effect Of dscharging the Judiciary Com
mittee, which was all they asked.
Mr. SEwARD stated that The effect Of the pend.
ing amend nent Offered by Mr. Pueh) would
ne practically to refuse the contestants a hear
ing.
The mo,ion TO take up the subject prevailed
ana the pending amendment read.
Mr.. CRIrrfNDKS said he was in favor OF Civ.
ing these men opportunity To- be heard. al
though, IN his opinion the former action of ths
Senate WAS final, but as the question was now
presented. ii seemed To be impossible Ia arrive
At vote upon the question Of giving them q
hearing
Mr.. BArARD said the Committee exported on
ly upon the Indiana memorial. The prelim
mary question was whether the Senate would
consent to rehear their deliberate decision al
the last session. Until That question had beer
determined until that decision had been re
-
that floor
Mr.. CoILAMER argued that Indiana had
right TO be heard, by its chosen representatives
here. upon this very question. which the Sen
stor from Delaware was disposed TO regard AZ
incapable If revision. Ii Indiana was not Il
be heard by her proper representatives, she
must be heard by those who did not properly
represent her. An unlawful election could
no, be made lawful by decision OF the S.nate
suppose it should appear that some Senator
held his seat by forged credentials. W 'uld moi
the Seuate have power To revise ITS decision
admit ing him TO a seaig II the State Legi-la
ture, havi he right 10 make an election. de
cided that they had made none until nov. and
proceedcd to elect Senators AMI send them her.
they ought tn give those Senators fair hearing
and not fall back upon the ground ofthe infalli
biliiy of some former decision. He cited pre-
cedsDts Of contested elections IN the lioI.r -
In a case W here members were chosen AZ A spec
Ial election. they We're unsea'ed by member
chosen at the ensuing regular election. The
House then re examined and re>cinded IL,
former decision. lie thought it was the righ'
and duty Of he Senate To re-examIne its dccis
ion IN this case. IL might be that The rrsnlu
ton offered by the gentleman from Ono (Mr
Pugh) would he the proper one, after hear
ing. but certainly il would be premature TO n
dopt il before hearing.
Mr.. PUGu insisted that his amendment wa,
not only the proper one. but offered at the pro
per tune. These claimants bad 10 right " hat
ever 10 be heard Their credentials were M
more than blank paper. They were imply
The bearers OF petition from certain
members Of the Indiana Legislature who hao
-ousht 10y legislation Ia override the decl>iof
# the Senate and make vacancies for ihes'
men TO fill. These men. If they had A case
ought certainly to be heard. but they hal ~
case. The first question for the Srnaie 10 dc
termine was, whether there were any contrs
tsnts here. Ii they could reconsider their de
cisions. there would be nothing to preven
contested elections from being argued over an,
pver again. The Con -iitution makes the S~n
ate Judges" OF the elections Of members. ane
heir decisions clearly j1dical. an
iot legislative acts. Chancellor Kent decid,
hat, IN such a case. the House acted ~ a in
icial character. The decision of the Ssnat
ast session was an end Of that case as ther
presented.
a case of forged certificates had been sup
posed In such case. there could be a re
hearing: hut not If the forgery hal been pre-
siocsly alleged and decided by the senate
There must be a new case to authorize new
hearing. If their decision has ou~tcd the S-n
ators from Indiana. nobody would claim thai
they now had right TO a rehearng. Their,
was not a new fact alleged in this Indian,
memorial Whether the Senate bad erred o
no.. they had heard a3d de- ded he Who'll,
case which * sought to he reopened
Mr.. TRUaBULL said they were not only call
ed upon tn refuse the Senator'S from Indiana
hearing but they were TO be refused an oppor
tunity TO vote a TO whether or not they wouls
give them hearing. The State Of Indians
said this matter had not been decided, and tn,
minority of judiciary Committee said tn,
same: but the majority Of that Committee said
it had been decided. and therefore the Senai,
should not hear 1t. A vote upon the resoln
ton Of the Senate, reported without reason
for it. was to be interposed to shield thes,
Senators. who hold their seats Illegally. They
refused to admit Senators. legally aud cons'it
uiionaliy elected by Indiana, because at for
mer session the Senate adopted a resolution
Ii was not reported. and was not pretend ed
that the former decision was right. but In fact
they were setting up this body as the constit
u,ional electors Of Senators from Indiana
He contended that the case was altogether DIFF
ferent from the Que which the Senate decided
last year, and quoted from speeches of III,
sitting Senators made at that session, aileg
ing that there was no contest. and no com
paint from the Legislature or constituted aa-
ihoritiss Of Indiana, only a complaint from ia.
dividuals. The Senate then did wrong. and
Senators would now shield themselves behind
that wrong doing under the claim Of res ad
jadicafa. Tie reviewed the circumstances al
tending the election Of the sitting members
urging that It was wholly illegal and uncon-
-tituiional he read from the proceedings OF
the House. in the case Of Claiborne and Col
son, when gentlemen, now Senator'S. voted To
reseind solemn adjudication of the House
tie called upon those Senators TO show the ir
consistency by opposing thi. amendment.
which would declare this question res adIadi
rata.
Mr. GssKS said the vote on the amendment
pending would finally determine the
right Of the sitting members TO retain their
s~ats: and also that they dad not rant the sd.
vice ofthose gentlemen claiming seats. The
Senate was responsible for its decision. aud
asked for no advice from outsiders " hO had no
right there. No Senator could say be would
be better informed after hearing thee claim
ants Than he - already. he had hoped. when
the Sspsle had deliberately laid this Subject
upon the table. that IL ouid be suffered to
there. lie proceeded b. defend the former de-
ession Of the Senate. aud held that ~ VA, dis
respectful to the Senate and 10 the sitting Sens-
tors TO ASSERT here that that State IL unfepre-
ented. The State Of Indiana had not said
60. because the Governor bad not sanctioned
this late proceeding; and. IL they would 90 TO
the people OF Indiana. they would decide that
they we're Bow fairly aud legitimately r-pres
ensed. A decision a. to filing seat was Of
the nature Of proceeding IA rem: once decided
IN the affirmative or IN the negative. neither
side could claim q rehearing; and to do 30 was
in his opinion. disrespectful to the Senate.
Mr.. Bkrskp urged that The former decision
Of the Senate vas q fuslity. Itwas carrying
out the principle that there nast be, some