Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[blocks in formation]

To this note Mr. GARLAND returned the following reply:

"For Mr. GRAVES: If a majority of the members whose seats are uncontroverted signify in writing their desire that I shall proceed with the call of the roll made in the conscientious regard to my duty, and that I shall then present to the House the testimony in con ested cases, I will then proceed. I hope Mr. GRAVES will see the necessity of my proceeding in this way, and that he will appreciate my motives in adhering to that course. nestly believe that to be the only course I can take; I most solemnly aver to him that I believe no party advantage can be taken in that course; and that none such is intended on my part.

"Respectfully,

I ho

"H. A. GARLAND."

So that his friend from Massachusetts, Mr. GRAVES continued, would see that if he, or any member of the House, should ask the CLERK to proceed with the call of the roll, and it should be so desired by a majority of the undisputed members present, he will not consent to it, but will proceed only with the roll "which he has made out in the conscientious discharge of his duty."

Mr. ADAMS continued. I am under the necessity of appealing to you, fellow-citizens, to set aside the decisions of the CLERK and act for yourselves. In making this proposition, I have no reference to the CLERK. I propose that the House shall act in whatever form it pleases; it may choose a temporary Clerk, or not, as it thinks proper. I put this question to the majority of the House. It is their duty to organize it; and therefore they ought, as a preliminary step, to put themselves in such a situation that no decision of the CLERK can force upon the House an organization in the manner he dictates. The House may set aside the CLERK, but it is not forced to obey his despotical dictates. I make no objection to the CLERK himself. I speak only of his acts and the position in which he has placed us, which makes it impossible for us to come to any decision upon any proposition that may be made. I offer this resolution in its present form, because it was laid on your table, and your CLERK will not put the question on it. I appeal to the House, from the decision of the CLERK, to act for itself. If any genleman present does not like the resolution, let him propose an amendment to it; and let the House decide both on it and the amendment. I wish to see what is the will of the majority. The CLERK, by his decision, makes it impossible for us to ascertain that will, through his agency, and I therefore wish to ascertain it directly from the House. I call upon this House in the first place to save us from the evils entailed upon us by the decision of the CLERK. We may be here a whole week, nay, a whole month, in our present situation, unless we devise some mode by which we can be relieved from it. I ask, if it is creditable to this House, that we shall consume further time in perfectly idle, useless debate, because the CLERK has placed us in a situation in which no question can be put. Now, I am willing that the CLERK shall be held responsible to the people of the United States for the four days of the time of this House that have been wasted idle, unprofitable debate, upon questions that he will not put. I say that he is responsible for the waste of time that he has already occasioned; but now this House itself will be responsible for any further waste of time. I will go further, and say that the one hundred and twenty-one members which have been set down as friends of the Administration, are responsible to the people of the country, if the organization of the body for the despatch of the public business is not forthwith completed. I say that if there is a majority of this House determined to set aside the five members from New Jersey who have produced their credentials precisely in the same form with those produced by the member from that State, whose name the CLERK

in

has called-if the majority of this House will say that those members shall not be permitted to sit, why let it say so, and that majority will be responsible to the country and the world for such decision. Now, I believe, that they cannot say so; and in my private opinion, I believe that it is the rights of the people of New Jersey that are involved. I say nothing about the Governor of the State, nor any portion of the State, but the people. These five men came here with the authority of the Constitution and the laws declaring them to be the representatives of the State of New Jersey; and the laws and Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the State of New Jersey, declare that no other evidence of membership than that produced by them shall be received here. Now I say that these men came here presenting that evidence; that one of them has been received as a member, and if you refuse to receive the others, then it is not those members that you turn out of the House, but the sovereign people of New Jersey. Whoever may finally, and after proper investigation, be determined to be the true and lawful Representatives from New Jersey, these five are the present Representatives, and you cannot deprive them of their seats without outraging the people of their State. If you say that they shall not be received, it is the people they come to represent whom you reject, and whom you deprive of five-sixths of their representation. Now I have heard about an attack on the rights of the people of New Jersey; and have heard it stated that there is a contest between the people of New Jersey on the one hand, and the Governor and Council on the other. Why, that Governor and Council represent the people of New Jersey; and it must be borne in mind that long after these contested elections took place, and long after the Governor and Council decided who were the persons duly elected, they have been called upon to pronounce sentence upon the correctness of this decision, and they have done so by re-electing this very Governor and Council by whom it was given. My honorable friend over the way, [Mr. VANDERPOEL,] who intends to offer an amendment to the resolution I have submitted, in his ardent appeals to this House in favor of the sacred rights of the people of New Jersey, proposes, in the very act of flattering them, to take away their rights; for if the members from New Jersey are not called, the people of that State will be deprived of their rights, and fivesixths of their voice will be suppressed in the important proceeding of organizing this body. The appeals of the gentleman in favor of the rights of the people, and his manner of showing his regard for them, put me in mind of a story I have read in the Bible, where a man goes up to another and affectionately asks, "Art thou in health, my brother," and then stabs him under the fifth rib. Now the manifestations of love and respect are very various. I profess to have as much love and respect for the rights of the people as my friend from New York, who I understand is to be one of the leaders of this House, and therefore I speak of him with great respect and deference; but his mode of showing love and respect for the rights of the people, is to take away their rights, while mine is to use my best endeavors to prevent their being deprived of them; and as I cannot give them a double representation on this floor, which the Constitution does not allow, I will give them that representation which the evidence of their constituted authorities shows to be the true one. Mr. A. then submitted the resolution which he had previously read.

Mr. MERCER suggested to his friend from Massachusetts, that the same difficulty would again occur of puiting the question on this resolution.

Mr. ADAMS said he was willing to wait awhile to see what amendments gentlemen might propose to the resolution. He then proposed to put the questions to the House himself. He protested against the CLERK's putting any question.

Mr. RHETT asked of the CLERK if he had determined that he could not put questions to the House?

The CLERK proceeded to state that the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in accordance with past usage, was compelled to make out a roll

of the members of the 26th Congress, to the best of his knowledge and ability, and under his own responsible sense of duty. Under that conviction, he had made out a roll on certain principles, which appeared to him to be true. Those principles he had not been permitted to state. He had not been allowed to explain the grounds upon which he had acted in performing, according to his sense of duty, the delicate charge which had been forced upou him. This first part of his duty being performed, he had, at the appointed hour of 12, proceeded, also according to usage, to call the roll. His duty was, when the roll was called, and a quorum was present, to put to the House all questions arising up to the time of the election of Speaker. All this the Clerk came prepared ts do. In the call of the roll he was arrested

[Very loud cries of "no! no! you were not arrested."]

The CLERK proceeded: A'quorum had not been ascertained. The CLERK then, of course, could not proceed further until the House had determined in their own mode what was a quorum, and who were entitled to vote or not to vote. Unquestionably a quorum was present; there might be many more-there might be gentlemen who were not entitled to sit here. The CLERK, then, did that which he was bound to do-he took the roll as his guide.

If he had put a question, and a division by tellers had been called for, what would have been the result? Those in the affirmative would have passed through the tellers, and the number would have been taken down; then those who voted in the negative would have passed through the tellers, and the number taken down. Upon the enunciation of the vote, it might have appeared that there were two hundred and forty-seven votes; more votes than members of this House. The vote would be entirely lost, which ever way it went, or the CLERK would be compelled to take upon himself a responsiblity which does not belong to him; and which he had before endeavored to avoid, to decide between conflicting claims to the same seats.

[The CLERK was again interrupted by Mr. STANLY, who rose to put to the CLERK the following interrogatory: "Who arrested you?]

The CLERK. Whether the CLERK was arrested or not is matter of no consideration; he was not allowed to get through his roll, or to determine what was a quorum of the House. He was prevented from performing that duty. The gentlemen present might act one way or the other-they might organize themselves, as was done in the first Congress. He could not now put questions as CLERK of the House, but, if it was the pleasure of the House, he could put questions as chairman of the meeting.

Mr. RHETT then offered a resolution that LEWIS WILLIAMS, the oldest member of the House, be appointed Chairman of this meeting until the House should be organized.

Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the introduction of the resolution. He thought they could have questions put if the CLERK would only do his duty as all other Clerks of the House had done. Besides, if it was competent to put the question on this resolution, it was also competent to put the question on the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which preceded it.

Mr. UNDERWOOD asked of the CLERK if he would be willing to put a question if a majority of members present desired it?

Mr. GARLAND stated that he was willing to put questions if it was the will of the House that he should do so.

Mr. UNDERWOOD then asked the CLERK to put the question on the resolution submitted by him. Several voices were heard crying "No! no!" and much confusion prevailed at the time.

Mr. THOMPSON of South Carolina submitted to the House, that sooner or later they must adopt the resolution just offered by his colleague, [Mr. RHETT,] as it would be impossible for them ever to organize without some proceeding of the kind. The objection of the gentleman from North Carolina, that there was a resolution that had precedence, could only apply in regularly organized bodies, where Parliamentary rules could be observed,

and did not apply to this meeting, which was yet in a state of disorganization.

Mr. RHETT then varied his motion, so as to call Mr. ADAMS to the Chair, instead of Mr. WILLIAMS, and putting the question himself to the meeting it was carried, and Mr. ADAMS took the Chair.

Much confusion and noise being heard in the galleries, and some hissing,

Mr. THOMPSON of South Carolina said, that he announced to the galleries that if there was the slightest interruption to the business of the meeting, he would call on the President for a military force to preserve order.

On motion of Mr. MERCER,

Ordered, That the Rules of the last House of Representatives be adopted for the government of the proceedings of this meeting.

Mr. WISE then moved that the acting CLERK be directed to call the members of the House, including, in such call, the members from New Jersey, who have the certificates of the Governor of that State that they are elected as Representatives of the Twenty-sixth Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON of Tennessee moved an adjournment.

Mr. JENIFER called for the yeas and nays, but withdrew the call afterwards.

Mr. PETRIKEN renewed the call for the yeas and nays, and was sustained by several voices.

Mr. BRIGGS said that, as the rules of the last House of Representatives had been adopted, the yeas and nays must be called at the desire of onefifth of the members present; but there was one difficulty in the way, the roll of the CLERK was not completed, and, therefore, the yeas and nays could not be called.

Several gentlemen calling for the appointment of tellers, to count the ayes and noes on the question of adjournment, Messrs. JOHNSON of Tennessee and DAVIES were appointed by the CHAIR, and the members severally passing between them, they repor ed that there were for the adjournment 103, and against it 90-so

The CHAIR announced that the House was
Adjourned.

IN SENATE,

FRIDAY, December 6, 1839.

Mr. SPENCE appeared in his seat this morning. Mr. WRIGHT presented the credentials of the Hon. SAMUEL S. PHELPS, elected by the Legislature of the State of Vermont, a Senator from that State for six years from the 4th of March last, which were read.

The usual cath was then administered to Mr. PHELPS, and he took his seat in the Senate.

Mr. BENTON gave notice that, at the earliest day in which it would be in order to do so, he would ask leave to introduce the following bills:

1. A bill to provide for the armed occupation and settlement of that part of Florida which is now overrun and invested by marauding bands of hostile Indians.

2. A bill to define and establish the southern boundary line of the Territory of Iowa.

Mr. DAVIS gave notice that, at the earliest day in which it would be in order to do so, he would ask leave to introduce the following bill:

Bill to remit such duties, and to cancel such bonds, as have been required of persons engaged in the whale fishery, to restrain all future exactions of duties of such vessels and their cargoes. On motion,

The Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY, December 6, 1839.

At twelve o'clock, Mr. ADAMS, appointed yesterday the Chairman pro tempore of the meeting, called the House to order; when

Mr. DROMGOOLE rose, and asked if the journals were to be read before proceeding to busi

ness.

The CHAIR replied that the rules of the House required that, not only the journal of the preceding day should be read, but the journal of each day's proceedings since the commencement of the session.

The CLERK then read the journals; after which,

Mr. WISE rose, and proposed to correct the journal, so that it might appear that the CLERK had refused to put questions to the House, and that it was in consequence of this refusal that the House had been compelled to appoint a Chairman pro tem. Mr. W. then submitted an amendment to the journal of last Monday, to show that the CLERK had refused to put any question to the House. Mr. DUNCAN desired, if the journal was amended, that the whole truth might be told. The CLERK had distictly stated that, if it was the pleasure of the Honse, he would put questions. Let this be put upon the journal also.

Mr. BRIGGS then proposed to amend Mr. W's. motion-"the CLERK stated that he did not feel himself authorized to put any question to the members present, and a motion being made to adjourn, the CLERK decided he could not put that motion to the House."

Mr. WISE accepted this as a modification.

Mr. DROMGOOLE submitted, whether, in fairness to the CLERK, this motion ought not to be varied. The CLERK had stated that, in his opinion, he could not put questions until a quorum of members were ascertained to be present. This was the ground taken by the CLERK, and he thought, in perfect fairness, that this ought to be stated in the proposed amendment to the journal.

After a few remarks by Mr. CUSHING, Mr. DROMGOOLE proposed the following as a substitute for Mr. WISE's amendment:

"The CLERK having declared that under the present imperfect stage of the organization of th House, no quorum having answered to. their names, and there being no rules for the government of the body, he did not feel, under these circumstances, authorized to pat any question to the members, except by general consent.

"A motion was thereupon made to adjourn. The CLERK decided that he could not submit that motien to the House."

Mr. WISE accepted this as a modification of his motion; which was agreed to by the House.

Mr. WISE then moved the following amendment to the journal of Tuesday, which was considered and agreed to:

"A motion being made to adjourn, the CLERK decided that he could not put that question to the House: Mr. CUSHING, of Massachusetts, objected to the CLERK declaring the House adjourned without a vote of the House."

Mr. WISE then moved the following amendment to the journal of Wednesday, which was considered and adopted:

"A motion made to adjourn, the CLERK stated that he was now of opinion that he could submit a motion to adjourn, but could submit no other motion."

Mr. W. C. JOHNSON then moved the following amendment to the journal of Thursday, which was considered and adopted:

"Mr. RHETT asked the CLERK if he would put questions to the House? To which the CLERK replied, he would put no question except to adjourn, but said, with the consent of the House, he would put questions as chairman of a meeting of gentlemen present, but not as Clerk of the House of the Representatives, if instructed to do so by the members presen!;' when

"Mr. W. C. JOHNSON objected to his acting as chairman."

The CHAIR then stated that the questing pending was on the resolution of Mr. WISE, that the Acting Clerk be directed to call the members of the House, including, in such call, the members from New Jersey who have the certificates of Gov. Pennington.

Mr. RHETT then rose and stated that, before he sat down, he intended to make a motion to lay the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia on the table, for the purpose of offering the following resolution:

Resolved, That the IIouse will proceed to call the names of gentlemen whose rights to seats are not disputed or contested, and after the names of such members are called, and before a Speaker is elected, they shall, provided there be a quorum of such present, then hear and adjudge upon the

elections, returns, and qualifications of all claimants to the seats contested on this floor.

This resolution was substantially the resolution offered by the Chairman [Mr. ADAMS] at the last session of Congress; it was substantially the resolution proposed the other day by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE]; it was substantially the resolution proposed yesterday by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD]; and it was also substantially the first motion made upon the subject before the House by the other gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. RIVES.] It would thus appear, that the course which this resolution proposes we should pursue, was no invention of his, but the result of able minds from different parts of the House in their search for truth and justice. The resolution proposes partiality to none, and injury to the claims of none. It put both sets of claimants upon precisely the same footing; while giving the members whose qualifications were unquestioned their seats, a tribunal was established, by which the claims of the contestants could be determined. The case, the whole case, so far as the papers on your table contain it, (as in the case of Moore and Letcher,) will then be read, and laid before the House; and which ever way we determined, it could not be said that we acted unfairly, by excluding the testimony and the grounds by which either party claim their seats. The resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] if adopted, would give the gentlemen from New Jersey who claim under the Governor's commission their seats, without the House having heard a single word of the testimouy and credentials by which their constituents affirm that they are entitled to them. Is this fair? Will the country deem it fair? Right or wrong, is it decent, or even poli. tic, to force them away without granting them a hearing? It did appear to him, situated as we are, that the only equitable or honorable course was such as the resolution he offered proposes. Gentlemen must know that there is no precdent precisely in point to guide us, and they ought to meet this question in a spirit of compromise and accommodation. All that is asked is, to consider the whole matter as presented by the contesting parties. Do not consider a part. What can be gained? Might not a great deal be lost by such a course, so revolting to the most obvious dictates of equity? It is not to be presumed that gentlemen would claim seats upon this floor without a perfect conviction of the validity of their claims; and it was that they should be satisfied, and the country be satisfied, that we had carefully examined, and, to the best of our ability, determined, who, in this preliminary state, should take the seats belonging to New Jersey, and assist in the permanent organization of the House, that he proposed his resolution. He moved that the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia should lie on the table.

Mr. R. concluded by moving that the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia be laid on the table.

Mr. MERCER appealed to Mr. RHETT to with. draw the motion, but Mr. R. declined doing so. Tellers being called for,

The CHAIR appointed Messrs. DROMGOOLE and BRIGGS tellers.

Mr. DROMGOOLE rose, and stated that he had been called upon by the Chairman to cischarge a duty, and he wished to know how that duty was to be discharged. He was informed that there were eleven gentlemen on this floor, all claiming to represent the State of New Jersey, when that State was only entitled to six members; and who of these members was he to count when the House was divided. He would not take upon himself to say which of them should not vote, and if he had to act in the capacity of a teller, he would count them all.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ADAMS) here stated to the House what he conceived to be the rule. He conceived the rule to be, that the persons who presented the evidence required by the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the State of New Jersey, were entitled to sit and vote in the House until deprived from doing so by the act of the House. This was his opinion, and he expressed it with more confidence, because he had de

15

[ocr errors]

clared it before he was placed by a vote of the House in the chair he now occupied.

Mr. VANDEPOEL appealed from this decision of the CHAIR, and said the question would then arise whether the gentlemen from New Jersey would vote in their own case. Mr. V. would like to know whether the Chairman had been appointed for the purpose of usurping to himself the power of deciding the very question which had been agitating this body for the last three or four days. Was this Chairman appointed for any such purpose as this? He apprehended not. He would respectfully appeal from the decision of the CHAIR, and then we would see whether these gentlemen would claim to vote, or be permitted to vote in their own case. If so, he would say that it would be not only an unprecedented, but a shocking spectacle.

Mr. WISE inquired if this appeal was debatable?

The CHAIR decided that it was.

Mr. RHETT then called the attention of the CRAIR and the House to the thirty-fourth rule of the House, which had been adopted for the government of the body, in the following words: "No member shall vote on any question in the event of which he is immediately or particularly interested."

Mr. R. made it a point to the CHAIR whether, under this rule, the members from New Jersey could vote.

The CHAIR considered that this rule did not apply to the present case, because it was not the members from New Jersey, but their constituents who were interested.

Mr. THOMPSON of South Carolina held that the members from New Jersey, who had the Governor's certificate, were entitled to vote in their own case, and that it was not in the power of the House to deprive them of that right.

Mr. STANLY replied to the remarks made by Mr. VANDERPOEL. He had no idea that the members from New Jersey should be deprived from voting on what was called here their own case. He would leave it to their own good sense to say whether they would vote upon it or not, but he hoped they would not decline voting on account of any false delicacy. If they declined Voting on this case, he held that they would not exhibit the same spirit which animated the Jerseymen of the Revolution. If they did not maintain their rights here, which were guarantied to them by the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of New Jersey, they would be unworthy of the confi dence of the people of New Jersey.

Mr. BRIGGS contended that it was not a usurpation on the part of the CHAIR in deciding who were entitled to vote from the State of New Jersey. The CHAIR had answered the question of the gen tleman from Virginia as he was bound to do, and he had answered it in strict accordance with the Constitution and the laws. The CHAIRMAN had not usurped the powers of the House, because he had merely decided that which he was bound to decide, and which he could not escape from deciding, namely, that the five members from New Jersey who had the evidence of their right to seats under the Constitution and the laws, were entitled to vote on the present question.

Mr. GRANGER replied to the remarks of Mr. VANDERPOEL, Contending that those who had the certificates of the Governor of New Jersey were entitled to all the rights and privileges of members of the House until their case was examined by a Committee of Elections, and decided upon by the House. Mr. G. then referred to the case of Allen and Fellows in the New York Legislature, contending that it was precisely similar to the present case, and stating that, at that time, the attor ney general of the State of New York held the same opinion that the gentleman who held the certificate was entitled to his seat, and he took his seat and participated in the business of the House until the Committee of Elections decided agaiast him, although by his vote alone the party in power held the preponderance.

Mr. CRAIG thought they were becoming more involved in difficulties every step. Let us turn as we pleased, there was a stumbling block in our way. He thought the proper mode of proceeding

would be to settle the question of right. Let us have all the evidence presented to us, and then we can decide upon it according to the laws and the facts. We might as well hear all the evidence in the case, and then decide it, for to that we would have to come at last.

Mr. WISE thought if his colleague was ready to decide this question now, he was one of the most powerful and extraordinary judges who had ever decided on any question in this country.

Mr. CRAIG stated that he had not said that he The was ready to decide on the question now. course of proceeding he had suggested was to examine the evidence first, and then decide; and the sooner that course was adopted, the better it

would be.

Mr. WISE contended that they had no right to examine into any thing further than the prima facie evidence under the Constitution and the laws, and that it was not competent for the body at the present time to enter into such an examination of the question as was suggested by his colleague. The House must first be organized, and the members sworn, before they can enter upon the discharge of so important a judicial investigation as the one proposed by his colleague. The members from New Jersey had exhibited to the House prima facie evidence of right, and could not be deprived of the privilege of voting upon every question which might arise.

Mr. W. said they had now got back into the position to which he had predicted on Monday last they must come; that was, that the presiding officer must decide the question. He had told the CLERK at that time that he would be bound to decide the question as to who was entitled to rights on that floor from New Jersey, and the CLERK had only escaped from making this decision by declaring that he could make no decision. The present Chairman, however, had decided the question, and this had fulfilled his prediction that it must be decided by the presiding officer of the body. The CLERK had decided that he could put no question to the House, and the House, from the law of necessity, was compelled to put some person in the CHAIR who would put questions, and when the gentleman from Massachusetts declared that he would put the question to the body, hope rose within him, and he saw that the House was about to be relieved from its embarrassments. Mr. W. proceeded to comment upon the course of proceeding, at some length, and concluded by eulogizing the conduct of the Chairman for his efforts to bring about an organization of the House.

Mr. FRANCIS THOMAS observed, that he was very reluctant to take any part in this debate, for he was sensible that very little new could be said by any body on the subject; but yet he could not sit tamely by and see it decided that the claimants to seats from New Jersey should dispose of a question in which they are personally interested. Before he proceeeed to treat of this question of order, he hoped he might be permitted, as latitude had been allowed to others, to say a few words looking to the merits of this controversy. It has been said from one side, that this Huse has no evidence in its possession by which the truth of the certificates of the Governor of New Jersey, to the five members who claim seats under it, can be controverted. Now, said Mr. T. is that the fact? Is it true that this House is not advised of matters justifying a resistance, in limine, to the rights claimed under these certificates. Have we not that before us which should make an upright and impartial judge refuse to decide the question in favor of those who claim under the Governor's certificate, until he has examined further? Is there a member here who does not know that there are facts, not on the face of the certificates, which are material to the truth of this issue? Is it not notorious that a majority of the popular vote of New Jersey was given to the five gentlemen who came here as Representatives from that State who have not the certificates of the Governor? Had not the Governor of New Jersey himself admitted this in his several messages?

Mr. GRAVES rose to a question of order. The gentlemen was debating the merits of the question

as to the elections in New Jersey, which was not before the House.

Mr. T. said that, if the gentleman would permit him to go on, he would show that in the nature of the main question was to be found proof that the gentlemen are interested in the decision of the question now before us, and are, therefore, under the rule, precluded from voting. I put it to this House, Mr. T. said, if we have not be fore us facts which should make us all pause if we would do justice. I would give the seats to neither party for the present. But have we not the evidence of the Governor himself, that the five gentlemen to whom he gave his certificates did not, and that the other five gentlemen did, receive a majori ty of the popular vote? Did not the Governor, in the labored argument he made on the occasion, express his regret that the technicalities of the New Jersey laws prohibited him from doing justice to the gentlemen who had a majority of the popular vote, and console himself with the belief that the Congress of the United States, who would be bound by no such restrictions, would, on hearing the evidence, award to them their seats? Besides this evidence of the Governor of New Jersey himself, what other testimony is before us entitled to consideration? We have the certificate of the Secretary of State of New Jersey, verified by the broad seal of the State, that he has in his office a tile of the original poll books of the elections, by which it appears that these same gentlemen, whom this House is called on to exclude, received a majority of the popular vote.

Mr. T. said he knew that it had been averred that illegal votes were given in the two election districts, the returns of which were suppressed, which, if deducted from the whole number of votes given, would leave a majority of votes in favor of those to whom the Governor awarded the certificates. But, said Mr. T. the Governor himself, in the statement he has given, never said one word about illegal votes, and that is not now the question before the House. We are not now about to decide upon the elections; we are about to decide on the returns. Before the final question as to illegal voting is determined, we must elect our officers, that we may conveniently collect testimony.

How do I, asked Mr. T. connect these remarks with the question of order? The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wise] has offered a resolution that five of the claimants from New Jersey shall be treated as members. This resolution the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RHETT] moved to be laid on the table. The motion for laying the resolution on the table is, in effect, as much a motion to reject it as it would be if we had the proposition itself directly before the House on its adoption. All these rights, arising from an occupancy of seats on this floor, are, therefore, involved in this question. What are those rights? A member of Congress has certain personal privileges, and when he has taken his seat he has those personal rights to protect, as well as his political rights, which he shares with his constituents. He need not dwell to enumerate those personal rights. They would occur readily to every intelligent person. They were, pri vilege from arrest for debis, title, pay, and others of like character, all of which were valua ble and protected by law. And yet gentlemen not only contend that these rights and privileges shall be secured to the parties by their own votes in the first instance, but they tell us, that when once sworn in, these Jersey candidates are to assume such a position as to maintain their seats, by their own votes throughout the session. No one gentleman is to vote in his own case. four of the New Jersey members might vote upon the case of one of them as it arises, and thus they are to elect a Speaker and other officers, and afterwards reject or pass all the measures we are to have before us. A more monstrous doctrine he never before heard advanced. Mr. T. here alluded to the declarations made by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. THOMPSON,] and said it gave hi u pleasure to hear that gentleman declare, that delicacy, as well as the feelings of a man of honor, would prevent him from voting under these

But

[ocr errors]

circumstances, although he believed that the rule, strictly_construed, did not forbid it.

I

Mr. T. asked if any members could take the Speaker's chair with that generous exultation which ought to be feft by any one called to preside over such a body, if elected to it by such means. must protest, Mr. T. said, that the Chairman, (for whom I must always manifest personal respect,) has usurped power in this instance that does not beong to his office. He has undertaken to draw his question within the vortex of order, and to detide that which the House itself only can decide; ce has undertaken to throw the weight of his chaqacter in the scale against us, and to determine who shall be allowed to vote as members of this House. In conclusion, Mr. T. invited the members to read the rule, and have the facts in view. The facts are, that five gentlemen from New Jersey claim seats on this floor, under the same evidence, and the CHAIR decides that they can not only vote for each other, but that each can vote for himself. The rule is, that "no member shall vote on any question, in the event of which he is immediately and particularly interested. Now, if these gentlemen have not an immediate, a particular, and personal interest in obtaining seats on this floor, then he could not conceive of a case to which the rule would apply. He was in favor of requiring all the claimants from New Jersey to stand aside, as in such cases has always been done in the House of Commons in England, till the questions are decided in which they are particularly concerned.

Mr. HOFFMAN said he had not risen to make a speech, but simply for the purpose of recalling the attention of the House to the question presented, and which, if he understood it, was in the following shape:

A gentleman was asked by one of the tellers appointed by the CHAIRMAN to take the vote, who were authorized to be counted? The CHAIRMAN decided that the members holding the legal certificates were entitled to vote; and, from this decision, an appeal was taken. The question was not, therefore, whether these gentlemen would or would not exercise that right. The only question was, is the decision of the CHAIR Correct? Had the CHAIRMAN a right to decide who were entitled to vote? How, then, was this question presented? Upon the one side (continued Mr. H.) you are to determine that the sovereign State of New Jersey shall be disfranchised, and no one shall vote; or, on the other, if she was entitled to a vote of six Representatives, who shall give that vote-those holding the certificates drawn up with all the regular forms according to the law of that State and the Constitution of the United States, or those who presented a certificate signed by an officer without power and authority to give it, and which, as yet, is unbacked by testimony? That was the question presented to you. Could you, or any other man, have decided between these two questions otherwise than as you did decide? And the question now is, was that decision correct?

The gentleman from Virginia has said that this question should be postponed until we had heard the testimony-that it is enough that the seat is contested, to deprive the State of New Jersey of her Representatives. I answer, that if the mere fact of a seat being contested is to deprive New Jersey of five of her Representatives, then that contest has, before it is decided, all the power and omnipotence of a judgment, and you do as much wrong to the Representatives of a free State, or to the free State itself, by depriving them of their seat for one instant, as if you deprive them of it for a whole year. Yet, says the gentleman, wait till we have the testimony, and then we can judge; and the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS,] in the very next breath, says you cannot determine that question until affidavits were taken, and the poll-books and the witnesses examined. Before whom? Before this House? Are we in a situation to read, digest, and properly to note the discordant testimony which may be given? Are we in a situation to examine witnesses at this bar? If that is true, then forever banish your Committee of Elections, for such a committee must for all future time be unnecessary. The House, at the

commencement of every session, must sit here month after month, or at least until every disputed question of election can be settled, before it can be organized. It is fair and honest, says the gentleman from Maryland, that this should be done. I feel myself unable to compete with that gentleman in force of argument or power of language, but he will permit me to reply in language so much stronger and better than I could use, that it must carry conviction to my mind, at least, and probably to the minds of all the members of this House. I read, therefore, as part of my remarks, the following words, inserting only the words "New Jersey" instead of "Mississippi:"

"One of the members elect from Mississippi has already told you he will repair to the table to be sworn. And in this he is right. Who shall infringe the principles for which he contends? He is one of the chosen Representatives of the people of Mississippi. He has with him a certificate of election signed by the Governor of that State. He appears here, with his colleague, with the same power to take his seat that we each have. And they have as much authority to question our right to be sworn as we have to dispute theirs."

Is not this conclusive? (continued Mr. H.) If the language itself is not so, I will give the name of the gentleman who uttered it. It is the language of the honorable member from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS,] who has just addressed the House. He it is who thus put his foot down, and stood upon the certificate issued by the Governor, and fearlessly and triumphantly demanded who dared infringe that right. I take the extract of the report of a speech made by that gentleman in the case of Claiborne and Gholson, as published in the Globe, and I take it therefore to be correct.

Mr. THOMAS asked leave to explain. And Mr. HOFFMAN having yielded the floor for that purpose,

Mr. T. said that the gentleman from New York [Mr. HOFFMAN] certainly did injustice to himself in adopting his speech as an argument. He was sure Mr. H. could make a much abler argument than any he could find in his (Mr. T's) speeches.

The character of the remarks referred to was that of enumeration; he was enumerating the causes why those gentlemen were entitled to their seats, and the most paramount of them all was, that they were the chosen Representatives of the people of Mississippi. They came here with commissions from the Governor of that State, and then there were no claimants. Such was not the fact here. The remarks which had been read had been delivered at the special session.

[Some conversation followed, not heard by the reporter.]

Mr. HOFFMAN continued. I have alluded to this speech in no spirit of unkindness. I did so because I was well aware that any language which that gentleman used would have weight with one portion of the House, at least, for its orthodoxy, and that it would have weight with another portion of the House for the apparent candor and sincerity which mark all he says. But even with the explanation which he has given, I understand that the one reason he assigned was, (and here, he says, lies the difference between that case and the present,) that these men for whom he contended were the chosen Representatives of the people. That was the foundation of his speech. But what evidence had he that they were so? Did it not come back to the very evidence offered by him that the gentlemen claiming to be sworn "had the certificate of election signed by the Governor of the State?" They were chosen Representatives-they had the certificate, which was evidence that they were chosen; and, having proved by that certificate that they were so, he asks, "Who are you who dare dispute this right? How dare you question my certificate, given under authority as great and solemn as your own?" Does the gentleman remember that the very foundation of his argument proved to have been laid in the sand? for that very House determined that they were not the chosen Representatives of the people, and sent them home to pass again through all the forms of election.

[It was here suggested to Mr. HoFFMAN that

[blocks in formation]

The argument is strong enough without stating any thing that is incorrect. My recollection is, that Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson presented themselves at the bar by virtue of a special electionthat, after that, a new election was held, and that, at the second election, treating the first one as void, Messrs. Prentiss and Word were elected. When the latter gentlemen presented themselves here to claim their seats, Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson contended that their election for the extra term was good for the whole term. The question came before the House. The House determined that Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson were not elected, and finally sent them home for re-election. I believe that to be the fact. The House deter. mined that they were not the chosen Representatives of the people, and sent them home. But, be that as it may, does not the whole argument of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. F. THOMAS] go upon the ground that the certificate of the Governor showed that they were the chosen Representatives of the people of Mississippi, and that they had a right to ask the boldest of their opponents-what right have you, holding a certificate no greater than mine, to dispute my seat? Are you a member? So am I. Have you a certificate? So have I. Is yours a sovereign and an independent State? So is mine. Has your State spoken through the channels which she herself has pointed out? So has mine. And what right have you to send me home, who come here under the authority of a State of equal sovereignty-a State as independent, as proud, and as gallant as your own? This, sir, is the argument of the gentleman from Maryland; and whatever may have been the subsequent termination of the matter, it cannot take away one iota from the power and the conclusiveness with which it was then urged. But does not the gentleman from Virginia see that this question is to be never ending: that witnesses are to be examined: that months and months may be consumed, if we depart from established precedents for a moment, and refuse to stand by the certificate? That must be our rule of conduct, and by that alone we must abide.

This case I liken to the case of the judment of a State court, as conclusive and binding until that judgment be reversed or repealed by a court having appellate jurisdiction. Every act under that judgment, until it is reversed, is binding. Execution issued to a sheriff must be served-and execution at his peril. Is there an appellate court here? There is. That appellate court is the Congress of the United States; and when we are organizedwhen the chief justice has taken his seat-when the case is called, and the testimony and arguments shall have been heard, the judgment of the State court may be affirmed or reversed; but until then it is binding and conclusive.

Without going further into this matter, let me allude to an expression which fell from my colleague, [Mr. VANDERPOEL.] I allude to it more in sorrow than in anger; and I could not but regret, sir, when you had taken that seat by the unanimous voice, alinost, of this House-when you had been called, in the midst of our confusion, from the weight of your character, and the sanctity of your years, to produce order out of riot-I say I could not but regret that the decision of such a man should have been pronounced, by one so much younger, so much less entitled to respect from all that influence which the fruits of experience can give, a monstrous assumption, a monstrous usurpation. Let me say to the gentleman, sir, that your character is one of a purity and integrity so spotless, that it has passed even through the fiery ordeal of party conflict and party bitterness without

[graphic]

a stain. The offices you have held have added no lustre to your character, which your character has not reflected back upon them; and when I find my colleague assailing a man to whom history at least will do justice-a man whose character and virtues have illumined some of its brightest pageswhen I find such a man, living before my colleague was a boy, and mixing up with the great affairs of a young and infant nation before he drew breath, thus assailed, I cannot but regret that such expres. sions should fall from a friend and colleague of mine; and I will only say, that when the sender strikes a ball against such a man and such a character, he ought to be sure that there will not be a rebound that will strike the sender.

[ocr errors]

Mr. VANDERPOEL said, he had tried to get the floor immediately after his colleague [Mr. GRANGER] had closed, but other gentlemen of more agility than he possessed, anticipated him. He did not know why his two colleagues Messrs. GRANGER and HOFFMAN] had made him so prominent a subject in the discourses with which they had just edified us. He had, to be sure, had the temerity to appeal from the decision, and as he conceived it, the most extraordinary decision of the CHAIR, and he also had the further temerity to say, that it was founded in usurpation; and this had furnished his colleague [Mr. HOFFMAN] an occasion for treating us with one of those sweet, pretty, and touching eulogisms upon the CHAIRMAN, for which his friend and colleague was eminently qualified. He (Mr. V.) would, upon the present occasion, neither assent to, or dissent from, this most encomiastic picture, drawn in the presence and hearing of the CHAIRMAN himself, nor would he here stop to inquire whether the gentleman had or had not violated the laws of good taste in lavishing such high-wrought praise in the presence and hearing of the subject of it; but he would at once reiterate what he had before said, that the CHIARMAN, under pretence of deciding a question of order, had decided a most momentous question of right; and he would not be deterred by any false or mistaken delicacy-any affected reverence for gray hairs-from characterizing the act as he thought it deserved. He had not impeached-he did not intend to impeach-the molives of the CHAIRMAN; but he would again pronounce the decision, in effect, a most decided usurpation. It was so, because he had assumed jurisdiction that did not belong to him, and which the mover of the resolution that had given the CHAIRMAN that place, never supposed to belong to him when he moved that he should preside over our deliberations. It was so, because the simple ipse dixit of the CHAIR, if not reversed, would give five members a seat upon this floor whose right to seats had formed the subject of coflict here for the last five days. We were not dealing with trifles. When the rights of the people of a sovereign State were involved, and attempted to be trodden under foot, he would speak of it boldly and freely as he thought it deserved. If the CHAIR had transcended his jurisdiction, and thus prostrated the expressed will of a majority of the people of a sovereign State, he would not ransack his lexicon for very mild terms in order to give a mitigated aspect to an act pregnant with such serious and mischievous consequences.

He would now pay his passing respects to that colleague [Mr. GRANGER] who had done him the honor of making him the subject of so great a portion of his remarks. For all the purposes of the question immediately under discussion, his colleague might as well have read a chapter from Don Quixote; for that would have been quite as relevant to the point under debate as were most of his remarks. His colleague was disposed to make merry with what he evidently deemed his (Mr. V's) pretended love for the people; with his professed respect for the sovereignty and majesty of the people. Mr. V. said, humble as he was, he and his doings had been most conspicuously, if not unkindly, forced into this debate, and he could therefore, averse as he generally was to such course, speak of himself without exposing himself to the imputation of egotism. He would, therefore, by way of repelling the inference that his advocacy of popular rights was insincere, tell the

House that the kindness he had so repeatedly received at the hands of the people, gave him abundant cause to love them. Five times had they chosen him to honorable and responsible stations, and never yet had they rejected him. He could, however, imagine a case, where frequent disappointment, frequent frustration of fond hopes and bright visions, might possibly inspire any thing but affection for popular rights. If a gentleman of high ambition, and with aspirations at least as lofty as his legitimate pretensions, should happen to be twice presented to the people of his State for the highest trust and honor in their gift, and they should reject him, as they would the unclean thing; if he should hazard another struggle for the second office in this great Conf. deracy of free States, and a similar fate should attend his third ambitious effort, he would not wonder if, with such a one, affection for the people and regard for popular rights should become subjects of derision and merriment. This would accord with the dictates of poor, frail, unforgiving human nature. The poet understood this sentiment, and expresses it most pithily when he asks,

"What rogue e'er felt the halter draw

With good opinion of the law?"

He surely did not consider the two first words of the couplet as at all applicable to his colleague. Those who knew their friendly personal relations, would never draw such an inference. But his colleague had also referred us to the case from New York, which occurred some twenty-six years ago, (he meant the case of Peter Allen,) and had undertaken to give us not only a minute account of that case, but volunteered to us the information, that the year next succeeding the ejection of Mr. Allen from the New York Legislature, he was elected by a decided majority of the county of Ontario, and that my colleague, then acting with the Democratic party, had aided in producing this result. Mr. V. said he knew nothing of that case, except as matter of history, for when it occurred, he had scarcely entered his teens, and he therefore spoke with much deference to the recollection of his venerable colleague, who had told us that he was one of the adult and efficient actors of the scenes of that early day. He was sorry, situated as his colleague was, that he had furnished him with an occasion to denominate him so "venerable" in the presence, and hearing of that gallery, (pointing to the ladies' gallery,) for whose special edification most of the observations of the gentleman were so evidently designed. He would tell the gentleman and the House, that in that case, there was no question arising upon the returns. Mr. Fellows came in there by petition, and the House decided that they would not entertain the petition till the Speaker was chosen, and the House was organized. Besides, sir, in New York the members are sworn by the Chancellor, or Secretary of State, before the Speaker is chosen. Mr. Allen had the certificate-he was sworn as a member before the House could act upon the case, and, as such, voted for the council of appointment before he was ejected. But does the gentleman recollect how loudly and how unsparingly that act of the House of Assembly was denounced by the party with which he is now associated? Sir, look at the leading New York Federal journals of that day, and you will see that they were actually, in token of their abhorrence of this deed, dated from the reign of Peter Allen. Thus, for example: "THE THIRD, FOURTH, OR FIFTH MONTH OF THE REIGN OF PETER ALLEN." It had been stated by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] that Mr. Van Buren was then Attorney General of New York, and had given an official opinion in favor of this procedure.

[Mr. WISE here explained, and said that Mr. V. had misunderstood him; that he had said that Mr. Van Buren had approved of it; but he did not say that he had done so in his official capacity.]

If that case was sanctioned by one party, it was condemned by the other party, with which his colleague now acted. The argument resulting from this case was, therefore, neutralized; and he would therefore dismiss it, with the old maxim, that "two wrongs could not make one right."

He had said that the CHAIRMAN had exceeded

his power in deciding that the five gentlemen from New Jersey who had the Governor's certificate had the right to vote upon the present occasion. This Blouse had organized in this anprecedented manner, as he understood, for the very purpose of determining this point, and now the CHAIR Very kindly interfered, and relieved it of its appropriate functions. It was that the House might be placed in a position to act and decide this very question, that we departed from the usage that has always obtained in organizing this body; and now, forsooth, we are told that the House cannot act upon this matter, but that it legitimately belongs to the CHAIR to decide who are, and who are not, members of this House. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] had urged that there could be no usurpation whenever the law of necessity called for the exercise of a power. He denied that the CHAIR could derive any justification from the law of necessity. It was not now necessary that the CHAIR should arrogate to itself this high power. Our situation had changed. Our paralysis was now cured, and the House was competent to act. The CLERK decided, when we were under his auspices, that there being no quorum called, he could not put a question; but now we were relieved from that difficulty. Questions could now be put, and there was now a court convened with competent power to try the question that had been so long agitated. It was not necessary, nay, it was monstrous, that the mere judge of order, which this body had created, should draw within the vortex of order such high and momentous questions of right. He repeated that the CHAIR, in the name of order, had decided a great question of rightthe right to a seat upon this floor; one of the higest objects of laudable ambition. He had decided it too, as Mr. V. considered, in the very teeth of one of the standing rules of this House, which we had adopted to govern our deliberations. He meant the rule which had already been referred to, and which provided that "no member shall Vole upon any question, in the event of which he is immediately and particularly interested. The CHAIR decided that the Governor's members from New Jersey were not interested in the question within the contemplation of the rule; that the interest was that of the constituent, and not of the Representative. He denied the proposition, that the gentlemen whom the CHAIR had adjudged competent to vote, had no interest in the question upon which the vote was to be taken. Their interest was immediate and most palpable. What was the motion upon which they were to vote? It was to lay upon the table a resolution that they should be called and recognised as members of this House; upon this question it was, that the CHAIR had decided that these gentlemen could vote. The moment they voted in pursuance of the decision, what were they? They were to all intents and purposes members of the House. And what benefits did they derive from that character? They were clearly entitled to their mileage and per diem, amounting to some two or three hundred dollars each. They had a right to go to the Speaker, the moment he was chosen, and ask his warrant for their pay, and he would not and could not refuse to grant it to them. This they could not do, if ordered to stand back, as others proposed they should be. Here there was a direct pecuniary interest in the question; and was there a mind here, unclouded by prejudice, that did not see it? But this was not all. They would derive from the decision of the CHAIR other great privileges and immunities. That clause of the Constitution which provides "that Representatives in Congress shall, during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to or returning from the same, be privileged from arrest," surely conferred a high privilege upon the members of this House. If the Governor's members (he used this designation in contradistinction to those chosen by the people) should be permitted to vote, and thus be recognised as members, was it not most clear that it would be competent for them to avail themselves of this clause of the Constitution? So long as they were not recognised by this House, but kept in suspense, their creditors, who might see fit to arrest them, could reply

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »