The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1865-01-27
VOL. 5, NO. 26.

IiOst SOieinH III It's nature, Juugtn8 IL SOlSiy Dy
the facts which the record raises for our con.
siderati IN, judging it by the return (Which is
the proper word, instead of ''papers, y this
House is bound by law and bound by equity to
say that the men who, by the returns have a
clear majority of the vote of the district, shall
be called and shall be sworn.
Mr.. PERSHING. Mr. Clerk, do not want
TO protract this discussions but this is the first
time that | have ever heard it said that gentle
men who come here, complying with all ,he
requisitions OF the law-preSenting a certificate
signed by majority of the district, are perpe-
trating fraud upon the House. 1t seems, sir,
that the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. MClure)
occupies much more ''perilous' position in
regard TO this question than |. We are not
yet in position to investigate this question of
fraud and he has made matter of allegation
what must necessarily be matter for nvesti-
CATION. Allegation is not to govern here but
law and precedent are to govern in the deter
minaton of tins question. / agree with him
that this is matter of very great Importance
We ought now to establish precedent, or ra;h-
er we ought not 30 violate all the precedents of
the past
Now, what is the position Why, that one
return Judge, refusing to sign the return made
by his colleagues whethsrthey be three or a Dozen
has right to send his return he, e, and that the
return Of that one Judge is to be taken in pre-
ference to the return of all the other Judges as
sociated with him. That is simply the position
of the gentleman from Franklin (Mr MCLURE J
The first, lie says, shows that Messrs. Meyers
and Findlay were not elected The second,
H. Sb, Al,
elected. And the question, as be presents it,
is simply this: Whether minority shall have
more power in the discharge of their dutes than
a majority. We are not to impute perjury to
these men. The two gentlemen who signed the
certificate returning Messrs. Meyers and Find
lay are equally responsible and respectable with
the other judge. They come here with just as
high reputation and with just as much evil
dence that they have discharged their duty, as
do the other gentlemen. 1t is the gentleman
from Franklin who occupies The '.Perllous"
position, whilst follow all the precedents and
the letter OF the law itself.
Bat. he says there is No remedy! Certainly
there is a remedy. If these return Judges a.
gainst whom lie makes these serious charges are
guilty of the offence, the law provides for their
DuUl1itiutHt' IL liitit SOt upL a8eiCY,
as he alleges. men are brought upon this floor
who have no right to seats, the law HIS provi-
ded n way for their expulsion. am for follow
ing the law-folowing the precedents as they
are now laid down. Let us have an investiga-
ton; let the guilty be punished, but let US not
act upon mere matter Of allegation The
very case which the gentleman alleges is thus
provided for:
EVERY petition, as aforesaid, complaining of
an undue election or a false return of mem
Der of the House of Representatives, shall be
delivered" &c.
There is the remedy provided; and we are
not left in the situation which the gentleman
from Franklin (AIr. McClure) imagines when
we follow law and precedent and the clerk "a
dopts uniform practice. The only question
is whether we shall follow the beaten path and
make a new precedent which may hereafter oc-
casion very great mischief-by which one of
the return judges may modify the act Of a dozen.
Mr. SHARPE. Mr.. Clerk, in the remarks
which previously made, l carefully avoided
any accusation Of fraud in this matter: but my
colleague from Franklin (Mr. McClure) has sta
ted in broad terms that the record before this
House shows that bIr. Ross and Mr. Armstrong
had majority of the votes in that district
Now, my colleague from Franklin saws that the
record proves that fact. If | understand the
papers in the possession Of the clerk, there are
two different returns, one ct which shows that
Meyers and Findlay have majority, and the
other that Ross and Armstrong have maiori-
ty. The Gdestlon is which OF these papers is
the record in this case? And that brings up an
other question-what is necessary to constitute
record in this case? Does my colleague from
Franklin pretend TO say that minority Of the
return judges can make record? Does he pre-
tend to stultify himself by saying that a minor
ity of the return Judges of district can over
ride majority! If he takes that position. he
overrules decision which the Attorney Gen
eral of the Commonwealth made in a case aris-
ing in this very district, and with which ha is
just as familiar as | am. In that decision. al
though Mr. KooEtz, the Republican candidate
for Congress, had his certificate signed by a mi
nority of the Judges of that district. the Attor-
ney General declared that that was no certiii-
cate at all-that it was no evidence of any,
thing that was set forth upon It's face
Now, sir. apply that doctrine to this case
to the case of the returns signed by the single
iudge-and | ask the gentleman from Franklin.
(McClure,) and | ask every member upon that
side of the chamber, is that record that this
House IS to be governed by! Can one man make
a record which contradicts the record made by
the only parties that the law recognizes as hav-
ing the right to make the record as to election
in that district? Does he pretend to say that
one man can make a record IN opposition to the
record made by majority Of his colleagues,
when qualified in law to make recovd? Then,
if he cannot make record which ccntradets
the record of his colleagues. there IS but one
record in possession Of the clerk, and that shows
that Meyers and Findlay have received ma
lority of the votes in the district
did not intend to enter into the question
Of fraud, but dislike the allegation of fraud
coming from my colleague az this early stage
| of the investigation. There is no evidence of