New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-17
vHr TVDIAyA CONTESTED ELECTION.
p,aate in the United states Senate.
m. ssWARD'S EXPUNGlKG RESOLUTION.
The souatten, Bright and Fitch, Sustained.
s<roe Of The ". Y. Tnbane.


has taken place during this Congress. ~ 'Oe
slese Of Mr.. Hunters speech on the Tariff tae ne"
Senators from Oregon, the thirty third S'a'o Vi
tAe Iyniop were sworn in, and then the case was
called no. The following is an abstract OF lne de
hate. reported for THE N. Y. TRIBUNE;
NJ. CoIIAxrR desired TO call up the case OF tas
Indiana Senators. II the Chair decioea taas "a'
not a privileged question, he would move 70 tske u up;
Tsfv,cr.pKKsIpEyT said the motion was one o.
,ri,,sge bot vet under the control OF the senate.
r. Ser ate having decided 10 lay u on the tsoie, ne
"a the yigbt ss matter Of privilege at any time TO
81 the motion but il would require vote TO take
M. CoLLAmrR moved to take the mater up. He
sAopeht il srsrge that Senators should net be willing
~ nsse upon the question Of whether these men should
be heard or not. Il would be only common courtesy 20
inft rm them OF their decision on that point
Mr. BAyARD considered that the action Of the Sen
sAe in laying the subject the table he'd the effect Of
Sisehugipg the Judiciary Committee, which was all
Mr.. SKwARD stated that the effect Of The pending
snxndnent Offered by Nh Pugbl would D. practically
70 REFUGE the contestants hearing.
The motion to take mp the subec prevailed snd
the pending meDdmsbts were read.
Mr. ERIIIEsDEg said he IN favor OF giving
these men an opportunity to De heard although, 10
his opinion the former action OF the benste vas maj;
but 40 the question presented, II seemed 10
be impossible to arrive at vote upon the question o.
Sivip them hearing.
Mr. BAYtRp said the Committee reported only upon
de Indiana memorial. The preliminary question was
whether the Senate would corsent 10 rchear their
deliberate decision Of the Gst session. UntI that
qaestion had been determined, until that De ,son hsd
been revesed, claimant had right TO be heard on
that floor
Mr.. CoLLAsER argued that Indiana had right 70
be heard, by its chosen representatives, here, upon
this very question which the Senator from Delaware
vas disposed 10 regard az incapable Of revision "
Indiana was not TO be heard by her proper represents
ives she must be heard by thoee WHO did not prop
srly represent her. An unlawful election could not &c
made lawful by decision OF the Senate Suppose u
should appear that some Senator held his seat by
forged credentsls would not the Senate have power
10 revise ts decision admitting him to seat If the
State Legislature having the right 10 make an cleo
ton decided that they had made none until now, and
proceeded TO elect Senators and send them here they
ought 10 give those Senators fair hearing land not
fall back upon the ground OF the nfallbity of some
former decision. He cited precedents OF contested
elections In the HOuse. 10 case where members
were chosen at special election they unseated
by members chosen at the ensuing regular election.
The House then reGxanined and resciDded its former
decision He thought it was the right and duiy oil the
Senate TO reexaInne its decision in this 1t might
Dc thst the resolution offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Pugh) would be the proper one, after
hearing but certainly it would be premature TO adopt
before hearing.
MT PpGB insisted that his smendmen was not only
the proper one but offered at the proper time These
claimants had no ri Sht whatever TO be heard. Their
credentials were no more than blank paper. Tney
members Of the Indiana Legislature who had sought
by legislation 70 override the decision of the Senate
and make vacancies fer these men to fill These men,
they had case, ought certainly TO be heard, but
no case The rtQueston for the Senate to de-
termine was whether there any contestants here
II they could reconsider their decisions, there would
be nothing TO prevent contested elections from being
argued over aud over again. The Constitution makes
tbe Senate "iudges" OF the elections of members aud
their decisions clearly judicial and not legislative
acts. Chancellor Kent had decided that in such
"A e.. I'D, - Iabn
chion OF the Senate last session end of that
case as then presented.
case of forged certificates had been supposed. In
such case there could be rehearng but not if the
forgery had been previously alleged and decided by
the Senate. There must be a case to authorize
new hearing. II their decision had busted the Sena
tors from Indiana nobody would claim that they now
had right 10 reheariDg There was not new fact
alleged In this Indiana memorial. Whether the Sen.
ate had erred or not they had heard and decided the
whole case which is sought to be reopened.
Mr.. TRuMBuLL said they were not only called upon
orefuse the from Indiana hearing but they
we're TO be refused opportunity to vote as 70
whether or not they would give them hearing The
State of Indiana ssd this matter had not been de-
cided, and the minority Of the judiciary Committee
said the same; but the majority of that Committee
said 1t had been decided, and therefore the Senste
should NO. hear it, vote upon the resolution of the
Senate reported without reason for it, was to be in
tespesed 10 shield these Senator'S who hold their seats
Illegally They refused to admit Senator's legally and
esnstitutonsy elected by Indiana, because at for
mer session the Senate adopted resolution. 1t was
not reported, and was not pretended that the former
decision was right, but in fact they were setting up
this body the constitutional electors of SenstOrs
from Indiana. He oontended that the alto
gether different from the one which the Senate de-
siaed last year, and quoted from speeches of the
friends OF the sitting Senators made At that session,
alleging that there no contest, and no complaint
ften the Legislature or constituted authorities of
lsdasa, only q complaint nom individuals; The
Senate then did wrong, and Senators would now
skied themselves behind that wrong. doing under the
claim Of adjHdicata. he reviewed the circum-
stances attending the election Of the sitting mem
bers urging that il was wholly illegal aud unconsti-
tstional. He read from the proceedings of the
House, in the case of Claiborne and Colson, when
geptlemen, now Senators, voted 10 rescind solemn
adjudication of the House. He called upon those
Senators to show their consistency by opposing this
amendment, which would declare this question
sdlsdscate.
Mr.. GREES said the vote on the amendment pend
ing would finally determine the right Of the sitting
members TO retain their seats and also that they did
not want the advice Of those gentlemen claiming
seats. The Senate responsible for its decision,
and ssked fer no advice from outsiders who hal no
rights there. No senator could say he would be better
informed after hearing these claimants than be is ST.
ready. He mad hoped, when the Senate had dehber-
stely laid this subject upon the table that would be
suffered TO rest there. He proceeded TO defend the
formsr decison Of the Sensts, and held that it
Aurespecfu to the Senate and 10 the sitting Senators
20 assert here that that State unrepresened TIE
6tate Of Indiana had not said co. because the Gov
ernor had not sanctioned this late proceeding; and,
they vould so to the people of Indiana, they would
decide that they were fairly and legi.imately rep
resented. decision as 70 filing seat was Of the
oatuIe Of proceeding IN /: once decided in the
Affirmative in the negative, neither SIDE could claim
rehesrng; and to do SO was, IN his opinion disre-
spsetful 70 the Senate.
Mr.. BAYARD argued that the former decision Of the
Senate was fnahty. 1t cSrying ont the prinei-
pie thai there must be, some ne or other, an end to
litigation ard dispute. The State Of Indians had
re ht only I'll vacancies occurring her representa-