The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-01-06

the testimony of Fish, upon whom this
House expects to base their action. He
did not think it necessary to inquire into
the other testimony contradictory of Mr..
Fish, because he has testified to nothing
that amounts to the least shadow of claim
for the contestants. If there is any fraud
in this transaction, it is in the proposition
to GUST these members on testimony having
no force whatever. 1t was fraud lying at
our own door. We are judges of the cleo
ton Of members, but he did not propose that
this House should be judges as Democrats
or Republicans, but from the evidence
before US. He was opposed to making this
party question and if Democrats had
been guilty of acting as partisans, there
was no reason for the majority OF this House
to commit the same wrongs. He wanted a
wholesome precedent, and such a one that
he could point future Legislatures, whether
Democratic or Republican, to it as one
founded in justice.
Mr.. SANBORN said that in the perfor-
nance Of their duties as Legislators they
were here to act as jurors and not as parti.
sans. He was in favor of the minority re-
port at first, but upon the examination he
was forced to abandon that position and
view the majority report as the correct pro-
ceeding for this House. Notwithstanding
all the informalities in the huntsville election
the minority report can only be adopted by
the House upon its determining that no elec-
ton a0as held in the BvnsviNe precinct. But
the House can not so determine because
there is prima facie evidence that there was
an election held He then reviewed the
obligations urged by the majority report, to
the receiving of the return OF the huntsville
precinct. He contended that in the occur
renee of row by which the ballot box was
broken up, the rights of the persons who
had cast legal votes at the election could
not be invalidated, and their votes ought to
be counted by this House. In point Of fact
as to the dividing line, if there were persons
voting at the huntsville precinct under the
impression that they were in Dakota county,
their votes could not be thrown out. He was
satisfied that there was prima facie evidence
that an election was held, and the only bust
ness OF the HOnse now was to sift the return,
and see what illegal votes, if any, were cast.
Mr.. ROBERTSON said that he was
surprised at the position of Mr.. Sanborn,
who bad demonstrated the case completely
against the report, but had determined to take
the opinion of the committee as evidence of
the conclusion of illegal voting thus shield
ing himself behind the referee, and declining
to stand upon his own opinion.
Mr.. PURDIE explained that as one of
the members of the House, he had made up
his mind from careful examination of the
case, that there was no evidence before the
House that an election had been held in the
huntsville precinct.
The committee rose, and reported the
recommendation agreed upon to the House.
The question coming up before the House,
Mr.. KNOX moved that the whole subject
be referred back to the committee, to take
further testimony. He explained, in sup.
port OF this motion, that the committee had
agreed to receive certain testimony, which
they did not give the opportunity to re.
ceive.
Mr.. BARTON explained how the sitting
members had been treated in this matter.
He had spoken to each member of the com.
mittee with reference to the best manner to
conduct the case. That the committee had
told him that he need not send for his wit
nesses until the contestants witnesses should
be examined, and they should have plenty of
time to get their witnesses. But they did
not give him that time but shut down upon
them, without an opportunity for defence.
The chairman of the committee knew that
the Auditor of Dakota county was in
the city here, and know that he proposed to
show by him that other returns in Dakota
county were more informal than those of
huntsville. The committee had not been
true to him !; and he had the evidence to
prove it. He did not ask any additional
witnesses than those named in the subpoena
held by the Sergeant at Arms, but which
the chairman of the committee refused to
sign. All he wanted was fair hearing,
and in getting this he would abide the
decision but if the majority report was
adopted, he could bring testimony to prove
that illegal votes were cast at various pre-.
cincts for the contestants, sufficient to show
that the contestants were not entitled to
seats in this House.
Mr.. BUTLER explained matters in
behalf OF the committee.
Mr.. ACKER spoke in defence of the
committee, and against the motion to re-
commit.
Mr.. WALKER explained as a member
of the committee.
Mr.. ABRAHAM was opposed to the
motion because it was too late now to hand
the subject over to the committee again,
after the House had decided the question,
and was about to give it's final verdict.
Mr.. SHULTIS explained as a member of
the committee.
Mr.. BUTLER asked that the subject, if
referred, should be to special committee.
MIR. WILKINS, as member of the
committee explained
Mr.. BARTON explained with reference
to his having agreed to submit his rights
without further evidence. He said he was
willing himself to submit, but his constitu
ents were not willing, and one Of the com.