Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1883-12-05
The consideration of Mr.. fuckers resolu-

The consideration of Mr.. fuckers resolu-
ton was then entered upon.
Mr.. Calkins, (rep.) of Ind, contended that
the prima facie right had already been set
tied by the swearing in of Mr. Mayo.
The previous question having been
seconded, Mr.. Keifer, of Ohio, spoke
in opposition to the resolution, contend
ing that, should it be adopted and Mr.. Gar.
rison allowed his prima facie right to the
seat, Mr.. Mayo would be deprived Of all
power Of contest. This was a plan by which
a man already sworn in could be unseated
on prima facie case and forever deprived
of the right of contest, and the House should
hesitate before it undertook to put any gen.
tleman in that position.
Mr.. John S. Wise, (N1ahoneite) of Va,
asked his colleague whether there was any
question as to who has the prima facia title
to the seat
Mr.. Tucker-I will answer my colleague
yes.
Mr.. Springer Of Illinois, said that he I'M
derstood that Mr.. Garrison had made con-
test as TO the prima facie right to the seat as
we'll as to his right on its merits. Under
the constitution the House was the judge
OF the election of its members but it was
necessary, in the first instance, to give 70
SONIC Quiet pO"tl vi 10 'iii
Gates. Now that the House was organized
it was Judge of everything which pertained
to the right of a member. 1t was getting to
be too common for returning boards i'll the
States indiscriminately to throw out whole
counties las was done in this case) in order
to accomplish partisan purpose. The
House could not be stopped from nquiring
into the legality of this proceeding rs well
rs into the merits Of the case finally. Would
the House allow q returning board to usllrp
the authority of the House and dlsfran-
chise whole communities in the granting of
prima facie certificates? II there ever had
| been an arbitrary exercise Of a quasi judi
cial power by a returning board it was III
| this case.
Mr. J. S. Wise said that the assumptions
made by the last speaker were based on
facts which were not in the record, and his
conclusions reached to the point of deciding
"A case before trial. The only case from Nir-
ginia in which the question of returning
| boards was raised was in the case Of Platt
against Goode when Platt was elected, but
Goodc given seat by a democratic House
1t therefore came with II bad grace from the
other side to make statement that the
frauds Of returning boards were becoming
too common in Virginia.
Mr.. Mayo, (NIahoneite) of Va, declared
that the certificate which allowed him 10 he
sworn in was identical with that presented
by his colleague Mr.. Tncker.l He asked
in common Justice that the House should
deal with his case fairly, sqnarely and justly
for he should he sorry 10 have to say that
he belonged to body oi men who so taI
forgot what was right rs TO decide upon a
case in advance merely because he belonged
to the minority.
Mr.. Calkins appealed to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tucker not to establish Il
precedent Which would endangcr every
man in his seat After the Clerk of The
House had put man on the roll and hi
was sworn in the prima lacie right was re-
mJndicafa.
On the suggestion of Mr.. Randall o
Pennsylvania, the matter was allowed
to go over until to-day