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


ment, that it could not be proved that the
signatures were authorized.
The minority resolution was then adopted
by the committee by q vote OF 81 to %.
Mr.. SECOMBE moved that the commit.
tee rise and recommend the adoption of the
minority resolution.
Mr.. ROBERTSON opposed the motion,
aud confined his remarks to the testimony
OF Mr.. Fish, who he contended was fast
witness, in swearing to several facts he knew
nothing about, having been absent from
the State at the time of the election. Such
a witness would be kicked out of any res
pectable Court; but Was just such wit.
ness as the majority of this House wanted
for their purpose. The reasoning of Mr..
Cleveland was that because there were
irregularities in The election return. there
was presumption of fraud, and the sitting
members must prove there was no fraud
This reasoning did not reflect much credit
upon the gentleman as lawyer or conscien.
tious man. The position about to be taken
showed concusively how corrupt large
majority could become; but be thought
when their actions came to be reviewed by
the people of the State, they would receive
q rebuke to be remembered in the future as
a warning. He was satisfied there was only
one question presented here to-day, and that
was whether because the majority had the
power, they would GUST the Democratic
members. without the shadow of authority.
Mr.. COGGSWELL said he felt as
though he was attempting to talk to indi-
viduals who had made up their minds, and
that no amount of reason or common sense
would induce them to change, but he hoped
he was incorrect in his opinion, and so he
would make few remarks. He proposed
to meet this question not as Republican,
but as member who had sworn to support
the Constitution. Before adopting the re.
port, he wished the House to be sure they
were right, then to 60 ahead. The reasons
urged by the opponents of the reports had
not been attempted to be replied to, and the
gentlemen who had spoken in the affirmative
had been very careful not to produce one
adjudicated case to sustain the positions
taken. He would lay down certain positions,
and would back them by authority, and
wanted the opponents to come up and face
them, and answer them, if they could:
LIST. That no informality or irregularity
in the manner of conducting an election or
returning the canvass, avails in case like
this. For this position, he referred to Mr.
Cushings Manual, and he deied any man t
produce an adjudicated case to the con trary
In maintaining the position assumed, all
that was said about the Judges not being
sworn, &C., must fall to the ground, and is
of no force in this discussion.
I'd. That every person voting at any cleo.
ton is presumed to be legal voter. This
is we'll established principle; and another,
that every person is presumed to have voted
in the precinct be had the right to vote in.
Ii these were correct, the presumption must
be overthrown by direct proof.
He submitted another principle: The
fact that a name found upon one poll list
is no evidence that the same name on an
other poll list Identifies the persons as one
and the same. The Identification must be
proved by direct and positive evidence. He
spoke of the testimony. He differed with
most of the speakers. He thought the per.
sons who had endeavored to show to this
House that there was fraud in the election,
had committed great fraud upon him, and
upon the whole House, in introducing such
testimony to an intelligent body for the
purpose of ousting the sitting members
He thought there was an evident intention
on the part of the committee to have the
witnesses swear all around the point at issue,
and that they had succeeded admirably
none of them having been definite. He
looked upon the testimony of Mr.. Fish, in
recognizing the persons named as residents
OF Scott county, as applying to the time at
which he gave his testimony. He does not
say that they were residents Of Scott county
on the 18th of October. The members
who thought be did so, only infer that he
ought to have said so, and, so inferring,
propose to contend that he did so swear.
The fact Of his being an engineer and sur
veyor does not prove his knowledge of the
county line. The testimony of all the
persons when put in juxtaposition are about
nip and tuck for explicitness. His state
ment OF the survey was indefinite. 1t might
be on the west or south line. Everything
definite must be inferred, and the members
must draw upon their imagination for their
understanding of the county line. And
then again, Mr.. Fish was absent from the
State when certain things transpired, to
which he swears positively. And the pre-
sumption that these men voted where they
had right to vote, and there being no
evidence to show that these men did not
reside in Dakota county, the return must be
taken as correct. He questioned Mr..
Fish's ability to decide upon the county
line, because he had run but few miles of
the line, not having gone the distance be.
tween the two corners of the county. He
was surveyor enough to know that with any
OF the compasseS used in Minnesota, in run
ming line of several miles, a variation of
from one quarter to three quarters of mile
might be made and this is the kind of
testimony that this House is expected to
consider as definite concerning the
county line. He took up the evidence,
to show that there was nothing ex-
plicit in it, and with men of com.
mon sense it would not convict a dog
MIR. Fish was absent at the time of the
election, and for nearly month previously !;
aud when his attention is called to where
these persons lived at the time of the cleo
ton, he don't know anything about them,
and for this reason the counsel for the con-
testants were very careful not to ask where
EE<rn Al