Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1886-08-19

evidence that the Clerk must passiN ely
enter his name on the rolls and permit
the villain not only to defile the seats,
but to participate in the incipient and
most important acts and deliberations?
Must the poisoned fruit of fraud and
viIlainy not only be produced and reap
ed, but actually eaten, before we can
interpose an effectual veto to II? This
was case sal generis. The distinction
between this and the ordinary cases of
contested elections was that here the
question arose upon the return, not
upon the merits in the more enlarged
sense of the word.
The debate continued in this vein un-
til Dec. 5th, when, on motion of
Mr.. Rhett, of South Carolina, Ex-
President John Quincy Adams was
called to the chair until the House or
ganized. A motion was then made that
the House proceed to call the names of
all the members but the contested New
Jersey delegation, and after the names
of such members are called and before
Speaker is elected, they shall hear and
adjudge upon the election, returns and
qualifications of the claimants to the
seats. The debate on this was ended on
Dec. 18th by the adoption of the mo-
tion. On Dec. 18th, Mr.. Wise, of Vir-
gina, offered q resolution that the
credentials of the Whig claimants
signed by the Governor of New Jersey
were sufficient to entitle them to take
seats in the House. This was defeated.
On Dec. 14th, r. M. T. Hunter, of Vir-
ginia, was elected Speaker. On Decem-
Der 18th the oath was administered to
the members from the several States,
except New Jersey, and the Speaker
referred that question, whether the New
Jersey members should be sworn, to
the House. This gave rise to another
long discussion, one of the most impor-
tant speeches being made by Mr..
Droomgoole, of Virginia. The Globe
reported him as follows:
He believed there was not a single ex-
ception in cases decided in either branch
of Congress, where gentlemen present.
ing themselves, and whose credentials
were objected to, in which the matter
was not referred to a committee, who
reported before there was any further
action upon it. The book was full of
such cases, and gentlemen, with all
their ingenuity, could not find a single
case in which a contrary course was Ia
ken. He found cases where the Gov
ernors of States had commissioned
members, and where they were not
permitted to qualify, but were sent
with their credentials to a committee.
Where no question with regard to the
credentials was raised, the member pre-
senting them was always permitted to
quality, of course; but when the ques-
tion was raised to the validity of their
commission, they were not suffered to
qualify until it was decided that they
were entitled to their seats. Mr.. D. in
this part of of his argument, read the
case of Mr.. Landon, in the Senate of
United States in March, 1926, by which
it appeared that Mr.. LIS credentials
having been objected to, he was not per-
mitted to qualify, but the matter was
referred to committee.
Mr.. Wise-What were the objections
to Mr.. Landon's credentials?
Mr.. Droomgoole-Not that they were
informal-not that they were not
signed by the Governor, accom-
panied by the broad seal of a sovereign
State, but that the Governor had no
right to give them. In the case of Mr..
Landon, there was proposition that he
should be permitted to take the oath,
and it was rejected, and his credentials
were referred to a committee. There
was, also, long list or precedents to
the same purport, which he would not
take up the House by reading, though
he would cite one of the cases to show
that, where the objection was raised as
to the credentials, the House went into
an examination of them through the
agency of committee. Mr.. d. here
i read q case of member from the State
of Ohio, in which this course was taken
by the House. In all cases where no
objection were raised to the credentials,
the member was permitted to qualify;
but in every case in which objections
had been made to them, they were not
permitted to take their seats till the
validity of their credentials was dicided
on.
| Ifthe doctrine for which gentlemen
contend, that these certificates, no mat
ter how obtained will give seat in this
House, should prevail, you will strike a
fatal blow at the freedom of elections
and the purity of a representative Gov
ernment! 1t is this elective franchise,
Mr.. d. said, and the belief of the peo-
pie that they may, through it, of right,
carry out the Democratic principle, and
do what they cannot do but in their
primary assemblies, that is the surest
Safeguard of our liberties. But, said
D., if you establish the principle that
the credentials given by the State au-
thorities, no matter how fraudulent
no matter how much at variance with
the will of the people of the State, as
expressed in the election shall out
weigh the popular voice, you strike a
stab at the existence of the elective
franchise, and destroy every principle
that makes Democracy both lovely and
practicable.
The House finally decided not to per-
init the gentlemen commissioned by the
Governor of New Jersey to be sworn.
On Dec. 30th, the Chair announced the
committee on Elections, Of which
VIM. Medill, afterwards Governor of
Ohio, was member. The majority of
this committee made preliminary re-
port on March 5th, 1840. in favor of
seating the Democratic claimants, and
disregarding the certificates of the Gov
ernor Of New Jersey. The report
was adopted on March 10th. and the
Democratic claimants were sworn in.
A final report was made in s:5 case on
July 16, 1910, showing that the Demo
cratic members were elected without a
doubt, and that the Governor of New
Jersey had commissioned the Whig
members in pursuance of a fraudulent