Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1886-08-19
THE NORTHWEST
IFrom the Cambridge JenersOniAn.l
Shall We Ignore the Gerrymander2

What has become OF all the talk OF
holding to the old districts and calling
conventions by the old lines?- GtTnsey
Times.
Do not laugh until you are out of the
woods. The final settlement Of this
question has been left to the aggregat-
ed wisdom of the party as represented
in the State convention. Whatever
course may be determined upon by
that body will be acquiesced In by all
patriotic Democrats. We believe that
the large majority of the Democrats in
this State are in favor of ignoring the
illegal gerrymander of the Rump Legis-
lature. The Jeffersonian has no doubt
at all but that Congress would refuse
to recognize the gerrymander If the
question were brought before 1t in prop
er form. Last week General A. 5.
Piatt announced himself as candidate
for Congress in the old Fifth district,
and we would not be surprised If a can
didate were soon in the field in the old
Warner district-a district the mention
of which will recall many unpleasant
memories to the Guernsey Times. Gen
eral Piatt, in announcing himself, says:
"I propose an appeal to the General
Government for protection. If this
latest act is to pass unquestioned we are
without republican form of govern
ment in Ohio. A mere handful of un-
principled partisans, In our legislative
halls sustained by the executive, and
sanctioned by our courts, can vote
away our lives, properties and liberties.
'sNow our appeal lies in Congress,
through our disregard of the late So
called Apportionmeut Act, and re-
turn of members to Congress from the
old and legal districts. We should ap-
pear before the next Congress standing
upon our constitutional right, and de-
mand through the admission of mem
bers, so elected, return to Ohio of her
republican form of government
Such appeals have been made to Con-
regarded. The Republicans Of this
State have certainly failed to look up
the precedents, or they would not treat
the subject so fiippantly. They imag-
inc that the mere fact that the gentle
men elected in the gerrymandered dis
tricts will obtain commissions under
the hand of Governor Foraker will be
sufficient to entitle them to qualify as
members. This isa great mistake, as
we propose to show by recalling some
history that our Republican friends
have forgotten.
The first session of the 10th Congress
began on December 2, 1889. Hugh A..
Garland, Clerk of the preceding Con-
gress, called the roll until he reached
New Jersey, when, after calling the
name of Joseph F. Randolph, he made
statement to the effect that there
was conflicting evidence regarding the
election of five members from that
State, and he asked if it was the pleas
ure of the Hous, that he should pass
over their names until the call of the
remainder of the roll was completed.
This gave rise to an animated debate,
which continued several days. Ogden
Hoffman, of New York, claimed that
the members from New Jersey, who
had produced the certificate, from the
Governor, were as much entitled to
their seats as any members Of the
House. Ifthere were two sets of GER
tificates from the Governor of New
Jersey of equal force and effect, then
there might be some reason for passing
by that State; but as that was not the
case, and as the five gentlemen named
had laid the only legal evidence of cleo
tion before the House, it would be in
competent for the body to pass over
the State of New Jersey and proceed
In calling the balance of the roll. Mr..
Halstead said he was one of the men,
bers from New Jersey and he demand
ed, as representative of that sovereign
State, that his name should be called.
The only reason given by the Clerk for
not calling his name was that there was
other evidence upon his table, and that
there were other persons claiming the
seats of the members from New Jersey.
But that these other persons had pre-
sented no evidence under the seal of
the State of New Jersey. He and his
colleagues had their commissions from
the Governor of New Jersey, and he
asked what authority the House had to
say that those certificates should be dis
regarded. His position was that until
the House was properly organized and
decided upon the question, the COM
mission of the Governor must be taken
as prfnaa facie evidence of his right to
seat. He argued that the certificate
of the Governor, whether given proper
~ or not, was conclusive evidence of
HIS W d SthU III tie llISU luSLduC6S
and he was entitled to hold it until the
matter was decided upon the petition
of the contesting members.
Mr.. Slade, of Vermont, would have
preferred that the Clerk, the moment
the question was raised, instead of sub
mitting the decision to the House, had
assumed upon himself the responsible
ty and proceeded to call over the names
of the members from the other States
about whom no difficulty existed-pass-
ing over those from New Jersey. There
was in fact no other way of organizing
the House. Then the moment quor-
um was formed, that quorum had the
right of deciding who had the prin,d
.fdcie evidence ofthe right to seats. Mr..
Bynum, of North Carolina, said that
the sovereign people of New Jersey
were entitled to some respect, and that
the representatives that they have sent
to Congress are as much entitled to
credence as those commissioned by the
Governor. Ifit should be found that
the Governor of New Jersey had pro.
ceeded without law, his certificate
should be treated with the contempt
that it deserved. Each House is to be
the Judge of the qualifications of its
members, and we must judge them
with all the facts, as we'll as the law
before us. He defended the Clerk, say
ing that he would be unworthy of the
place he held if he had acted otherwise
He thought the House should proceed