The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1871-05-09

Mann, and attack upon the JOURNAL on
this dispatch, which, with the exception of
the mere statement of the contested seat
having been awarded to Wallace, is false
in every particular. We reiterate our state
ment that no such action has ever been Ia
ken by Congress 20 such precedent ever
been given. In the case quoted by the
hder, the facts are as follows, aud so clear
ly proven were they that no opposition
was offered to the report of the sub-com-
mttee of election TO which the case was
referred. If the Inden will refer to the
Congressional Globe for the second session
of the 41st Congress, page 1858, vol SIT
will find that Mr.. Cessna, chairman of the
subcommittee, made the following state
ment:
The report in this case is based upon three
propositions: The first is this, when one of
two candidates is ineligible, the votes given
for him are of no effect, and the other caudi.
date is elected. | desire to state to the House
that both my colleagues on the committee Mr..
Hale, Republican, of Maine, and Mr.. Randall,
Democrat, of Pennsylvania dissent from this
proposition, and that no one is bound by it but
myself.
The other two propositions, however,
are of different character. The first is,
that there was such intimidation as, in the
Judgment of the committee, invalidated
the poll in several Of the counties of this
district. The other proposition is, that
enough voters were driven from the polls.
because of violence and fraud, TO hare
changed The result had their votes been adj
united.
Mr.. Randall, member of the sub-com-
mittee, Democrat, and the chairman of
the Democratic Congressional Executive
Committee, said:
Mr.. Speaker, as has been trutbfully said by
my associate on the committee, Mr.. Cessna, /
dissent from the first proposition which he
makes in this report, that Mr.. Simpson being
ineligible, the votes cast for him are null and
void, and that, therefore, the candidate who
received the next highest number of votes
should be admitted. My associate on the COM
mittee (Mr. Hale) also, if understand cor
rectly, dissents from that position. The gen.
tleman making this report gives us no Ameri-
can authority or precedent to sustain his posi-
ton. He relies entirely upon English author
tiles and English presidents. As to the
further positions taken by the chairman of the
subcommittee, have not deemed it necessary
to make any minority report.
am free to say that this Is the strongest case of
naturalization tohich SO far as my knowledge
extends, has been presented TO this Congress.
Hence was perfectly willing that this report
should pass.
Mr.. Paine, of Wisconsin, chairman of
the committee of elections, (same case,)
page 1864, said
The committee of elections have agreed,
whatever may be the opinions of individual
members, THAT 1T IS A PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED
By THE HOUSE, and to be recognized by the
committee, that the mere fact that the candi-
date who received the highest number of votes
was ineligible at the time of the election, DOES
NOT, OF ITSELF, ENTITLE THE CANDIDATE RECEIv-
ING THE NEXT HIGHEST NUMBER TO SEAT.
Authorities and precedents in support
of our position could be multiplied with
out number; but we believe we have pro-
duced enough to fully sustain every asser-
ton we have made, and now we wish the
public to decide which has been guilty of
false statements and reckless assertions,
the Mden or ourselves.
The position taken by Judge Mann and
by the hder shows an inexcnsable igno-
rance of the history of this country and of
England, on the part of men who aspire
to teach and to lead public opinion. The
notorious case of Juttrell VS.. Wilkes.
which shook England to its centre in
1869, and which every school-boy should
be familiar with, they seem never to have
heard Of. The people who elected Wilkes
never lost sight of their rights and liberties,
and for thirteen years fought against this
decision, which manifestly transferred the
right to hold an Office from the man they
had selected to the man they had rejected
and yet this Judge of the Hastings court
of the city of Petersburg has quietly and
almost without protest committed this out
rage, and as justification and precedent
for legal decision quotes suppositious
case on the authority of telesraphic dis
patcn from au agent vi Jus hsSOclateu
Press which is totally false in its conclu-
sions.
Both, the Judge and the editor, seem
to have been entirely ignorant of the case
we have just quoted, and yet it occupies
large place in English history, and gave
inspiration to some of the most forcible of
the series of the immortal letters of "Ju-
MUS" In American jurisprudence, tie
decision of Judge Mann stands alone. He
bases it upon the precedent in the Ameri-
can Congress-of the case he cites-Wal-
lace VS. Simpson, and we have shown
conclusively that the precedent in that
case was against, instead of in favor of,
his decision. By that decision he has de-
prived the people of Petersburg of the
right to choose the clerk of the Hastings
Court of that city--a right guaranteed
them by the constitution of the State
and if the people of that city are of the
stuff we think them. they, too, will fight
thirteen years. If need be, for the Justice of