The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1881-01-08

| Fl9tOD, h1Is hlCo Was OcOiHtCo ObhhACo
to the seat. The proceedings may be
found on page 5447, vol. so. OF the
Congressional Globe.
In the Fortieth Congress Simeon
Corley of South Carolina. Pierce III.
B. Young and Nelson Tiff OF Georgia,
and RoderiCk r. Butler of Tennessee.
and in the Forty-frst Congress Francis
E. Shober of North Carolina, mem
bers Of the House, were relieved OF
their disabilities long after their
election. and yet, whsn 30 relieved.
we're admitted to their seats in the
House. All were ineligible wuer
chosen, but in neither case was the
seat given to . competitor, nor the
election even declared void.
In the case of Joseph G. Abbott, in
the Senate, (Forty-second Congress),
the doctrine now asserted by Mr..
Campbell was fully considered, and
was repudisted by the Senate. There
has not been aud probably will not be
in this country another discussion of
the subject co exhaustive as that which
was had in this case. The English
authorities we're ali presented. and
very few, il any, American decisions,
whether Judicial or parliamentary,
escaped the scrutiny Of the Senators
who submitted the report OF the COM
mittee and the views of the minority,
which are printed together in Senate
Report No. So. Forty second Congress.
second session.
In the case oil Max we'll Us. Cannon,
decided in the Forty-third Congress,
the same question was raised, and
the committee and House, without
division, rejected the doctrine now
asserted by Mr.. Campbell.
8. In reply to Mr. CampbelFs |
assertion that the females in the Ter
ritory who claimed the right to vote
outnumhered all the votes polled all
the late election. l respectfully sub !,
nit, in the first place, that this al
legged fact probably does not appear
ON the face of the returns; and, in
the next place, that il it be iact
capable of substsntiation by ex-
traneous proofs, and at the same time
entitled to weight in any aspect OF
this case, the only tribunal invested
with power to ascertain the fact and
use it as basis of judicial action is
the House OF Representatives Of the
United States.
8. Mr.. Campbell asserts that it
must be taken for granted" that ell
votes cast by females were cast for.
me. On this point also Mr.. Camp
bell is mistaken. II this is not shown
by the returns, the canvassers can
neither presume it nor permit Mr..
Campbell to attempt to prove it be- {
fore them by extrinsic evidence, nor {
can they consider the fact when 90 &
proven. II he shall contest my seat ]
Ia the next Congress, and shall deem 8
the mode in which the females voted '
to any issue in the contest, {
he will learn that the House will not Q
presume what he asserts on this point s
% be true, but will compel him to o
prove it.
10. Mr.. Campbell asserts. that the '
erritorisl legislation which extends :
he right OF suffrage 10 females is Vlid
because sit attempts 10 confer the
privilege by special act on different
nd easier terms OF justification than
bose required by existing general n
avs applicable 10 the other sex, thus i
the rule of uniformity II b,
his assertion be true, it can have no th
earring upon the action OF the can O
assers. who have no power TO look d
eyopd the returns for the purpase =
I ascertaining ~hether females ,
oted, how many voted, or Tor
HON they voted, but OILY upon d
le action of the House of Repre-
entatives ii a contest or under
protest before that tribunal. II is
OF a necessity of my case, therefore, n:
lat | shall vindicaie The "act con. nj
Ering upon women the elective Is Is.
anchiss." approved February IL, the
SO.
IL. The next proposition OF Mr..
ampbeli is, that i: is, IN view OF the and
-emises, impossible to determine, Bio
lthout proof, that the 1858 votes Cai
'st for me included more legal votes HI
an the 1857 votes cast for him.
~ Ah'OAseS elukuldI mieCOUCtD Sur
IN OF the effect of these returns and sue
the relation sustained TO them by ." olS,
e Governor and Secretary es can 7
ssipg officers. Mr.. Campbell as
IT'S the presumption to be that the -
ties returned for me were illegal
tea. and that they are not to be Id
nvassed for me in the absence of
1rmstlve proof deh3rs the returns
owing that they were in fact legal TI
les. The shsurdity OF this asser. L
n Is not even mitig4ied by and nnid
ncesslon that the same presumption ny
ses as to votes cast for him. The DIS DIS
e does Lot, in his judgment, WORK ROY
10 ways" The truth, however. on int
8 point ls very manifest. The Dre. Yor
nption is that all votes shown by asse
urns, legal In form, to have been he
I Tor him or for me were so cast x zIE
] were lawfully cast. This IRE. Bro
nptlon Is not conclusive on the is
use IN contes. duly prosecuted. =
may be overcome By extrinsic
OF. But 1t is conclusive On the W.
wasting officers, and cannot before =!