The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-01-27
|FORIY- FOURTH CONGRESS,
FIRST SESSION.
WASHINGTON, D, G., Jan, IS, TO.
SENATE.

| Mr., thurman presented Jne Creueu-
tials of James B. Eustis, claiming seat
as Senator from Louisiana, which he sent
to the Clerks desk and had read. The
document consisted of long extracts of
the proceedings Of the Louisiana Legisia-
ture.
Before the reading was finished, Mr..
Conkling inquired who certified to these
papers.
Mr.. Thurman replied that the papers
were voluminous, and it was not neees-
sary to read them. They were certified
to by the Speaker and Clerk of the Lou
isiana House of Representatives, and
the Senator who presided at the joint
meeting.
Mr.. Conkling said the act of Congress
stated that the credentials Of one claim.
ing seat in that body must be certified
by the Governor of the State. He argued
that the papers just presented in the
Senate did not present prima facie case,
and not being credentials authorized by
the statute, he submitted that they ought
not to be read as such in the Senate.
Mr.. Morton said he was not in the Sen
ate when the papers purporting to be the
credentials of Eustis were read. He
asked that the matter be laid over until
tomorrow morning.
Mr.. Thurman said these papers showed
| the title of Eustis to a seat. He did not
ask to have him sworn in then, but only
asked to have his case referred to the
| Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr.. Conkling argued that the papers
| ,Droennfnl trratt,Ior nnI
pers upon which the Senate could not
act as constituting prima facie case.
Mr.. Thurman denied that the papers
were irregular, unless it was the absence
of the Governors certificate, and that,
he submitted was not an irregularity.
The act of Congress had been strictly
complied with in the election of Eustis.
The papers showed that majority of
the aggregate number of members of
the two Houses were present, and also
that majority of those members voted.
The whole question before the Senate
would turn on the act as to whether or
not vacancy existed In the Louisiana
Senatorship. If the Senate should de-
eide that Pinchback was entitled to a
seat, there would be an end to these pa
pers; but, on the other hand, if the SEN
ate should decide that PinChback was
not entitled to seat, the claim of Eustis
must be considered.
Mr.. Sherman suggested that the pa
pers be printed in the Record as they had
been read in the Senate, and the matter
be laid over until tomorrow, so that the
Senate could go on with the mornings
business now. This suggestion was
agreed to, and it was ordered that the
papers be printed in the Record and laid
over until tomorrow.
The Chair laid before the Senate the
memorial of the Democratic Conserva-
tive Convention of Louisiana, held Jan.
6, 1876 concerning the election and con-
dition of the State of Louisiana. Re
ferred.
Bills were introduced and referred, as
follows:
Mr.. Dorsey submitted resolution in
structing the Committee on Postoffice |
and Post Roads to inquire and report |
whether the restoration of the franking |
privilege would increase the cost of the |
mail service, and to what extent, and if |
it is expedient to restore the same, which |
was agreed to.
Mr.. Goldthwaite said he had found on |
his desk pamphlets in the Spencer case.
He felt some delicacy in presenting them
to the Senate, as they were made up of
testimony at best. He asked,
however, that they be referred to the
Committee on Privileges and Elections,
which committee had charge of the case
of Spencer.
The morning hour having expired, the
Senate resumed the consideration of the
resolution submitted by Mr.. Davis on
Wednesday, to appoint special COM
mittee to investigate the books and ac-
counts of the Treasury Department.
Mr.. Boutwell, said when he addressed
the Senate on Thursday last. he stated
the general principles by which he sup
posed full explanation to the argument
of the Senator from West Virginia (Da-
vis) could be given. He (BoutwelD had
no disposition to oppose the examina-
ton called for by Mr.. Davis. He was in
favor of such examination by special
or one of the standing COM
mittees of the Senate. There was not
the least foundation for the suggestion
that the books of the Department had
been changed, and if the honorable
Senator had taken pains to examine the
process of keeping accounts in the De-
he would have seen that it
would have been so difficult to change
the records after they had been made,
that it might be said to be an impossi-
bility. He (BoutwelD found that the de-
tails in figures were 80 voluminous that
it would not be expedent to publish
them to the extent required, and they
would furnish upon the whole very lit
tie of the information demanded. He
would, therefore, confue himself to gen.
eral statements, and leave the committee
to exnlore the details. The first definite
statement made by the Senator from
West Virginia Davis was relative to the
of expenditures The entire
amount of differences, which the gentle
man stated showed an increase in ex-
penditures from 1861 to 1866 of $3,271,-
$40, may be summarized thus: In the
finance report of 1869 is included out
warrants to the amount of $4,-
0lS,09l, which do not appear in the re-
POIO 4OI LOW II In0 iopOIJ III loIV 10
included trust funds to the amount of
81 2l0,062, which do not appear in the
report for 1869. The difference between
the two, 1921 $40, is the exact differ
ence claimed to be an increase of ex-
penditures as shown by the statement.
This, it will be perceived, is merely a
difference in the manner of preparing
Mr.. Boutwell, quoted from the speech
of Mr.. Davis, and said in the finance re-
port of 1869 there was included an item
for the purchase of gold coin authorized
by the first section of the act of March
II, 1872, amounting to $5072;900. Under
the same head there was also payment
of $735,4l6 of outstanding warrants,
nh LnInr.o. "a .,,n.-;n,,n rrnn 70 Thnrn L