The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1865-01-27

rests upon the naked allegation Of my colleague,
unsustained BY q single scinfilla Of evidence.
because the only record in the possession Of the
House shows that Messrs. Meyers and Findiav
are the legal members Of this House. The
whole difficulty arose from -ttroubler in Isra-
ELI interfering with the proper discharge Of the
duties of the retnrn judges of Bedford county.
As my colleague from Franklin well knows,
the judges were proceeding to perform their dn-.
ties properly when third party chose to step
in and dictate as to certain kind Of perform
ance of duty which ought to govern certain
par: OF the return judges, AMI there was the
commencement of this whole difficulty. But
that is question which ought to be investiaa-
ted before committee, and no. in this House.
! The only question, as ] apprehend, before this
House, is which Of these papers is the record ?
say that the paper signed by majority Of
the return judges is the record and the oply
record. That record shows that BTessrs Ross
and Armstrong are not elected; but that Messrs
Meyers and Findlay are elected.
MIR. MCCLURE. Mr.. Clerk, my colleague
! from Franklin, OR. Sharpe), and the gentle
man from Cambria, (Nir. Pershing, are both
quite mistaken in. assuming that have asked
this House to receive the certificate of single
return Jddge as the return. have net done
so, and allow me at the outset simply to state
that the remedy proposed by the gentleman
from Cambria. Mr.. PershingJ in the case of
alleged frauds or false return of votes, DOES not
help Us here. There isRs false return before this
Ho~se. | hold and stated as distinctly as the
English language could make it, that the return
made by the judge for Somerset county is
part OF this return. A conflict is thus presen-
ted upon the face of this return, and therefore
IS not the false return contemplated in the act
OF Assembly. If all the judges from the three
counties of this district had signed the same
return, declaring the votes wrongfully, that
would be false return and the House would
be bound TO accept it. But this case is most
essentially different. The inquiry is presented
upon the face of the return itself wherein is il
right and wherein is it wrong. The gentleman
from Cambria, and every gentleman in this
House who knows anything about it, knows
that the return made by the single judge is cor.
rect'-Bear in mind that they do not assume
to contradict the statement made by this single
return Judge; they carefully avoid saying any
thing of that sort.
Mr.. HAKES. (Dem.) Mr. Clerk, the mo
ment we attempt to discuss this question upon
It's merits we shall have to consiler the whole
case or make such suggestions as are entirely
incompatible with our dutes-such as this al
legation Of fraud. Now, we are not to alere
fraud; we are not TO suppose any fraud; we
have no legal evidence before Us what the facts
are. hls House. as body, cannot decide this
question upon its merits neither can the clerk
decide IT upon its merits. [ speak now of the
te3at merits, the merits which the law requires
to give man a permanent scat. That can on
ly be done by committee of the House select
ed for that special purpose, with a special oath
administered, and having the power to send for
persons and papers, and collect all the evidence
Acting here upon our general oath, we cannot
decide it. We are not permitted TO do So The
law has appointed other ways in which this
must be done.
Neither is it necessary to decide this case up
on its merits. This is simply preliminary or
ganization, and it canntot be decided now who
are entitled to seats under the returns of the
return judges Now, in the absence of any le-
gal evidence which the law requires to decide
the matter permanently. we must take the ev-
idence before US. What is that? Why, the
evidence that majority of return Judges have
certified that Messrs. Meyers and Findlay are
competent for the clerk to act upon And il
may be doubted whether the House has any-
thing TO say about it, whether it is not mat
ter OF duty for the clerk TO act upon the evi-
dence in this case. as he does in every other
case where he enrolls a member, and to decide
whose names are to be enrolled upon the rolls.
l do not know that the gentleman from Frank
lin upon my right, Mr.. NJ Clure) had com-
petitor- But, suppose he had suppose some
person had the audacity to run against him, as
they do against other gentlemen, and that a
majority of return judges had certified that he
was entitled to his seat. / want to know if
he would willingly give up that seat in the pre-
hmnary organization when single return Judge
certified that he was not entitled TO his seat
why. sir, we may all tremble if it be estab-
Hshed here that in our preliminary organiza-
tion single return judge may, in the face of a
majority, oust a man from his seat. We can
not tell who shall be safe. No, sir no one
will pretend that a minority of return Judges
from any district can give such certificate as
will entitle any member to his seat here in the
preliminary organic alton. 1t is absolutely i'm
possible. Nothing but majority Of return
Judges can give valid certificate.
Now, sir, | am not in favor of instructine
the clerk. do not think it competent for the
House to instruct him what he shall do, in this
behalf appreciate the motives of the clerk
in asking instructions, bat how is it possible
tor the House to give the clerk Instructions
To do that we must decide upon the merits of
the case as it now stands in the papers before
the clerk for his inspection. And if the clerk
takes the liberty, or assumes the right to say
that majority of return judges is no evidence,
is no primo faeis evidence upon which he can
enroll a member, then he must take the respon-
sibility, and if he decides that single judge in
spite of the majority, can give q member or
members seats in this House in the preliminary
organization, so be it. | am wiling to leave