as his honorable friend friend from Virginia [Mr. WISE] had said, that his colleague [Mr. DROMGOOLE did not ask the opinion of the CHAIR, how could he [Mr. WISE] have risen in his seat, and repelled with such warmth and indignation the charge made by the honorable member from New York, [Mr. VANDERPOEL] that the CHAIRMAN had been guilty of an act of usurpation. Sir, it would have been usurpation-gross usurpation-and the gentleman from New York was correct in characterizing it as such. Mr. G. after some further remarks, withdrew his motion.

Mr. RHETT rose, and asked the consent of the House to make another correction of the journal. It was as to the power of the CHAIR in the place he occupied. This correction had now become important, to know what were the powers of the CHAIR.

Mr. R. here read his motion as follows, and hoped he would get the unanimous consent of the House to its adoption:

"Mr. RHETT moved a resolution that Mr. LEWIS WILLIAMS, being the oldest member of the House of Representatives, be appointed a Chairman of this House, to serve until the election of a Speaker. "Mr. WILLIAMS objecting to serve,

"Mr. RHETT moved the following resolution: "Resolved, That the Hon. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS be appointed Chairman of this House until the the House be organized by the election of a Speaker.

"Mr. RHETT then put the question to the members on the adoption of the resolution, and the same being carried, Mr. ADAMS was conducted to the Chair."

The motion being read, the question was put, and it was carried without a division.

seats here, and to the people. Unless something of this sort should be agreed to on all sides, he did not see when this House would be organized, and ready to transact the business for which they were sent here by the people. Mr. J. said he was not autho rized to submit such a proposition to the House, unless by the general consent of the House.

Mr. PROFFIT called for the previous question on the appeal.

Mr. PETRIKIN called the gentleman from Indiana to order.

The CHAIR stated that, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DUNCAN] was entitled to the floor, the call for the previous question was not in order.

Mr. PROFFIT said, then I bow to the decision of the CHAIR. But I ask if I may be allowed to answer the speech of the gentleman from Tennessee. (Cries of order.) He had no idea that a genleman, who was one of the principal causes of the difficulty in which the House was involved, and whose course, with that of his friends, had kept them the whole week consuming time in debate, instead of organizing for the despatch of the public business, should he be permitted to come forward with propositions to compromise

[Several voices were heard calling the gentleman from Indiana to order.]

Mr. DUNCAN. We have not kept the House from organizing, nor have we occasioned the debates that have occupied the time of the House for the past week. All the difficulty in which the House was involved, and all the debate that had ensued, had been caused by those who wished to force on the House as members, persons who, it was notorious, had not been elected by the people.

Mr. PROFFIT [taking his seat] said: I shall yet have an opportunity of taking hold of the gentleman and a few others.

Mr. CHINN said that he was perfectly aware that he was out of order in now rising, and there

gestion to the House, that might, and he hoped would, terminate the difficulties by which the House had been embarrassed the past week-that he did not propose to submit a proposition to take the place of the resolution now under consideration, and thereby deprive his friend from Ohio of the privilege of addressing the House upon that question, but to make a bare suggestion, that would meet the approbation of both sides of the House.

Mr. DUNCAN having yielded the floor,

Mr. JOHNSON proceeded to say that he had witnessed, with great regret, the course of proceedings since Monday last-that we had become so much involved in technicalities, and so much embarrassed by the rules and questions of order that had been made, that he did not see any probable end to the difficulty, unless by some kind of compromise that he was himself sincerely desirous of settling fairly and justly the rights of the several claimants to seats on this floor; and he was sure that the other members present had similar feelings and wishes. The American people expected this at our hands, and he did not know that either party had acquired any credit in the conflict which had been kept up since Monday morning. He said, whilst the CHAIRMAN was addressing the House, and making some suggestions as to the mode in which it might be done, and the manner in which the House disposed of the vote of Michigan, which was contested in the last Presidential election, it occurred to him there could be no difficulty, upon some similar principles, of adjusting the present controversy to the satisfaction of the House and the country. He therefore arose to suggest that if the House would appoint a committee of the prudent, discreet, cautious men, some six or ten men, an equal number from each side of the House, and adjourn over until Monday, he felt confident that in the mean time the subject might be fully examined, and some means suggested by which all our difficulties might be avoided. Let each party in the House select from among themselves three or five men having the confidence of their political friends, distinguished, as he hoped they would be, for their wisdom and moderation, and he had no question that some mode of action would be agreed on, by which the objects we all aim at may be accomplished, and justice done to the parties claiming

made a proposition that he thought would meet the views of a majority of the gentlemen present. Mr. C. then read the following:

Resolved, That the CLERK be instructed to proceed in the call of the members of this House, not omitting the five members from New Jersey who hold the Governor's certificate, and proceed thus until all the members are called, after which the House thus called shall proceed to the election of a Speaker, and if it should appear that any member has voted whose seat is contested, that then the House, still acting under the government of its CHAIRMAN, shall proceed to determine the question as to who shall have the right to the seats thus contested. It being expressly understood that such decision shall not be final, but only determine who are entitled to take their seats to assist in the organization of the House.

Mr. CHINN, on being called to order by several gentlemen, resumed his seat.

Mr. DICKERSON from New Jersey rose, and appealed to his friend from Ohio to yield the floor to him to enable him to make an explanation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland insisted on the rules of the House being preserved; and that if the gentleman from Ohio yielded his place again, he should not be permitted himself to decide who was to speak. These propositions, which were sprung on them on a sudden, gave rise to debate that might be endless.

Mr. DUNCAN observed that he held himself under no obligations to yield the floor to any gentleman, and certainly he was under no disposition to do it for the purpose that the gentleman from Maryland supposed-that propositions might be sprung upon them of a sudden. But, sir, (said Mr. D.) it has always been the custom in the House for gentlemen to yield the floor when it was asked for the purpose of making an explanation. He had never known that when a member yielded the floor for such a purpose that it occasioned the loss of it. He was always at liberty to go on; he lost nothing by this customary act of courtesy and good feeling, for it never had been the rule of the House to deprive him of the privilege of going on with his speech. Now, he was not in a hurry about making a speech; he had no desire of hearing himself talk, and he would agree never to

address the House again on that subject if a proposition for a compromise could be accepted. He would agree never to speak again on this subject, rather than that any gentleman who wished to make an important explanation, necessary to elucidate the subject, should be prevented from so doing. He therefore felt bound to yield the floor to the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. DICKERSON.]

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland rose to a point of order. The gentleman, he said, had not a right to yield the floor for the purpose of adjudging it to any other gentleman. If he gave it up, the CHAIR must designate who was to occupy it.

Mr. DICKERSON attempted to address the CHAIR, but was prevented from being heard by loud cries of order! order! from gentlemen of the Opposition party. Much confusion prevailed, and the noise was kept up so as to prevent Mr. D from proceeding.

Mr. GRAVES protested against the right of the gentleman from Ohio to yield the floor, and at the same designate the person who was to occupy it.

Several voices were heard, saying "he gentleman from Ohio is on the floor;" and cries of order continued.

Mr. WISE hoped the CHAIR would bring the gentleman to order. I hope, said he, the CHAIR will make us all take our seats, and not let us all talk at a time.

Mr. VANDERPOEL made a few observations, which were not heard, from the noise and confusion prevailing at the time.

Mr.CRAIG submitted to the CHAIR whether, when the gentleman from Ohio yielded the floor to the gentleman from New Jersey, he was not entitled to it; and he submitted to the gentlemen present, whether they would not, at least as a matter of courtesy, suffer the gentleman from New Jersey to

go on.

Mr. JOHNSON of Md. again denied the power of the gentleman from Ohio to yield the floor to any person he pleased. When the gentleman yields the floor, he repeated, it is for the CHAIR alone to decide who is to cccupy it.

Mr. DICKERSON again attempted to address the CHAIR, but was again interrupted by loud cries of "Order! order!" from the gentlemen of the Opposition, and prevented from proceeding.

Mr. JENIFER then rose and moved "that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. DICKERSON] have permission to address the House, not as a question of right, but of courtesy."

Mr. VANDERPOEL said he would like to know the ground on which objection was made to the gentleman's addressing the House?

Mr. GRANGER said he would answer his colleague. He objected to the gentleman's speaking, because he came here to contest the seats of gentlemen who had the certificates of the Governor of the State of New Jersey that they were duly elected the Representatives from that State.

Mr. GRAVES made some remarks, which were not heard.

Mr. JENIFER renewed his motion.

Mr. VANDERPOEL objected to the motion. He could not permit it to be said that the gentleman from New Jersey addressed the House as a matter of courtesy. The gentleman asked no favors, but demanded it as a right; and in fact he had as much right to address the House as any gentleman present.

Mr. DUNCAN also repelled the idea of the gentleman's addressing the House as a matter of courtesy. The gentleman, he said, must address the House as a matter of right, and not of courtesy, or net at all.

Mr. WISE observed that this, then, was the best form in which they could try the question involved. If, said he, Mr. DICKERSON attempts to address the House, I call for his credentials. As to Mr. DICKERSON, I will extend to him as a friend every courtesy; but I only know him here through the law. I ask him, therefore, to produce his credentials; and this will be as good a mode of deciding this question as any other.

Mr. JOHNSON rose to a question of order. The gentleman from Ohio, he said, must either take his seat, or progress in his remarks. He in

sisted that the CHAIR should order the gentleman either to take his seat or go on.

Mr. DUNCAN still continuing on the floor, Mr. PROFFIT rose and said a few words that were not heard.

Several gentlemen called Mr. PROFFIT to order; when

The CHAIR asked if the gentleman from Ohio yielded the floor.

Mr. DUNCAN replied in the negative; and several gentlemen requesting Mr. D. to proceed in his remarks, he commenced with a few remarks which were not heard. He knew, he said, the principles he was acting on, and knew that they were in accordance with those entertained by the people of the United States. He knew he was maintaining the principles here which depended for their preservation on the purity of the elective franchise, and he cared not whether this was assaulted by management or stratagem; he was equally bound to defend it. This question must, he said, be discussed, and it mattered not whether it was discussed now or hereafter; its merits must be gone into, and all the efforts of the Opposition to prevent it would be fruitless and unavailing. What was the history of this matter? It was well known to every gentleman here, and the knowledge of the fact was so general that it was almost useless to repeat it; but, as other gentlemen had done it, he would do it from the same motive; and that was, for home consumption.

Mr. D. then went on to detail the proceedings of the CLERK in calling the House to order, and calling over the roll until he was arrested by coming to the members from New Jersey, which he said was in conformity with usage, with law, and with the obligations imposed on him by the sanctity of an oath. He himself, Mr. D. said, had interrupted the CLERK when, in calling the roll, he came to the State of New Jersey, but perhaps in too low a voice to be heard; and he had determined beforehand not to let the gentlemen who came here without having a majority of the popular vote, be called. Whether the CLERK was solely interrupted by his objections, er from any other cause, he did not know; but this he did know, that the CLERK did not pursue the course because required of him by the Democratic party. Did the CLERK do right, or did he do wrong? If he was right, then all the censures for waste of the public time and the public money, must rest upon those who opposed his proceeding with the call of the roll, because he submitted the decision in the case of the New Jersey members to the House itself. If he was wrong, then let all these censures rest on those who have supported him in the course he has taken. Mr. D. said the CLERK was right. He was bound by the very nature of his duty, and by the oath he had taken, to act as he had done. What was his duty? He was bound by his duty to enrol the names of the members of the Twenty-sixth Congress. He had evidence, conclusive to his mind, that JOHN B. AYCRIGG, JOHN P. B. MAXWELL, WILLIAM HALSTED, CHARLES C. STRATTON, and THOMAS J. YORKE, were not elected members of the Twenty-sixth Congress. He had evidence of that fact in his possession, and what would be his situation, Mr. D. asked, had he enrolled their names, and called them as members of this Congress? Sir, (said Mr. D.) he would be looked upon by the moral intelligence of the country, as having violated the obligations of duty, and the sanctity of an oath. He had evidence that they were not members of the Twenty-sixth Congress, and he submitted the question involved to the House, suggesting a postponement of the case of the New Jersey members until the rest of the roll should be called over and a quorum ascertained. It had been contended strenuously that these five gentlemen possessed, as evidence of their election, the certificate of the Governor of New Jersey, with the "broad seal" of the State, and that this was the only evidence be was entitled to receive. The whole argument, from that time to this, puts him in mind of a little book he had read on logic, and from which he would cite a few examples: "Gentlemen wear boots; A B wears boots; therefore A B is a gentleman." "Ladies wear cersets; Miss

A

wears corsets; therefore Miss A is a lady." The fact, according to this logic, that A B wears boots, is prima facie evidence that he is a gentleman; and the fact that Miss A wears corsets, is prima facie evidence that she is a lady. And yet, said Mr. D. I have known many men to wear boots who are not gentlemen, and many women and girls to wear corsets who are not ladies. (Much laughter.) The wearing of boots and corsets is so general, that it no longer furnishes evidence of the wearers being gentlemen and ladies. So also with members of Congress. The certificate and "broad seal" is so common to members of Congress, that it is no longer prima facie evidence of membership. He knew pretended members of Congress who bear the certificates and broad seals, who are not members; and it was getting so common, that the fact of their having such was not prima facie evidence of their membership. We have heard much (said Mr. D.) about this "broad seal," and he did not know that it was worth while to say much about it; he had heard it mentioned at least one thousand times in the course of this debate. It seemed that it was a very broad seal indeed. One gentleman held that it was not the track of a calf's foot, but of an ox's foot. As he remarked last evening, it must be as broad as the foot of Milton's devil when he was cast out of Paradise, which covered ten acres. At least it was broad enough to cover two townships in New Jersey and neutralize the Democratic votes of a whole State. Now he wanted to know what there was in reality about this seal to give it so much importance. He supposed it derived its solemnity and consideration from its antiquity. If so, it must be remembered that it had its origin in the days of ignorance, when men conld neither read nor write. In England, it had been the fate of the broad seal, to which gentlemen attached so much importance, to be cast into the Thames, where it now lies. King James II threw it into the river, thinking that by the loss of the "great seal," he could get rid of some obligations imposed on him. According to the doctrines of gentlemen, therefore, if they want to hunt for the great seal of England, they must go to the bottom of the Thames for it.

Now he had stated that the CLERK had the most conclusive evidence in his possession, that the names he had read were not members of the Twenty-sixth Congress, and therefore, he was solemnly bound by his duty, not to enrol them as members of the Twenty-sixth Congress. asked, therefore, the reading of that evidence. The CLERK then read the following documents, which had been filed in his office:

He

The following is the certificate of the Secretary of State of New Jersey, showing the returns of election on record in his office:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, SS.

I, James D. Westcott, Secretary of State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that, upon a careful examination of all the returns made by the several clerks of the respective counties in said State, and filed in my office, and also of returns of votes given in the townships of South Amboy, in the county of Middlesex, and of Millville, in the county of Cumberland, verified by the affidavits of the several township officers of election in said townships respectively, which township returns were not included in the returns of the clerks of said counties of Middlesex and Cumberland, and which were directed to be filed by the Governor, and now remain on file in my office, of the election for members to represent this State in the House of Representatives of the Twenty-sixth Congress of the United States, held on the 9th and 10th days of October, 1838, it appears that

Philemon Dickerson had
Manning Force
Peter D. Vroom
Daniel B. Ryall
William R. Cooper
Joseph Kille
John B. Aycrigg
John P. B. Maxwell
Wm. Halsted
Joseph F. Randolph
Thomas Jones Yorke
Charles C. Stratton

28,453 votes. 28,314 28,492 28,441 28,455

And by which it appears that, at said election, Philemon Dickerson, Peter D. Vroom, Daniel B. Ryall, William R. Cooper, Joseph Kille, and Joseph F. Randolph, received a majority of the whole number of votes given in the State of New Jersey for Representatives of said State in the House of Representatives of the Twenty-sixth Congress of the United States.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office, at the city of Trenton, in said State, this

L.S.

25th day of October, in the year of
our Lord, 1839, and of the Indepen-
dence of the United States the sixty.
fourth.

JAMES D. WESTCOTT.
[Various other statements, and much testimony
legally taken, was read from the CLERK'S table,
going to show, beyond controversy, that the mem-
bers who hold the certificates of the Governor
were not elected, but that the Democratic claim-
ants received a legal majority of the votes of the
people of New Jersey.]

The following are copies of the results of the polls of the districts of Millville and Scuth Amboy, legally certified to by the judges and inspectors of election; and also certified by the clerks of Cumberland and Middlesex counties as being on record in their respective offices, and which, by the usurpation of power and violation of law by said clerks, were suppressed or withheld, and which the Governor and Privy Council of New Jersey failed: to count in the result upon which they granted certificates to the Federal members:

81

We, the judges and inspectors of the election of the township of South Amboy, in the county of Middlesex, do hereby certify that having proceeded to receive the votes of the voters of the said township, the following is a true list of all the candi-E dates voted for, of the offices proposed for them, and of the number of votes for each: For members of the Twenty-sixth Congress of the United States. Philemon Dickerson had Manning Force Peter D. Vroom Daniel B. Ryall William R. Cooper Joseph Kille John B. Aycrigg

296

For Councils for the State of New Jersey.

296 votes. 296" 296"

295" 296" 44

44

292

For Sheriff.

Francis W. Brindly James Dunham Merril Mundy Clarkson Brown Daniel B. Applegate George P. Malleson Lewis Galding Adam Lee

Ab'm W. Brown

Daniel S. Garrigues
George B. Stelle
Robert Carson
John S. Hoagland
Edmund Denham
William Hutchison -

The whole number of votes taken, three hundred and forly.

In testimony whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals, the tenth day of October, A. D. 1838.

NATHANIEL HILLYER, [L. S.]
JAMES M. WARN, [L. S.]
STEPHEN BEULEAD, [L. s.]

Judges of Election and Inspectors.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

MIDDLESEX COUNTY, S. S:

J. Nicholas Booraem, Clerk of the county of

We, the judge and inspectors of election in the township of Millville, in the county of Cumberland, do hereby certify, that having proceeded to receive the votes of the voters of the said township, the following is a list of all the candidates voted for, of the offices proposed for them, and the number of votes for each:

For Congress.
Joseph Kille, Salem

William R. Cooper, Gloucester
Daniel B. Ryall, Monmouth
Peter D. Vroom, Somerset -
Manning Force, Morris

Philemon Dickerson, Passaic
Thomas Jones Yorke, Salem
Charles C. Stratton, Gloucester
Joseph F. Randolph, Monmouth
William Halstead, Mercer -
John P. B. Maxwell, Warren
John B. Ayerigg, Bergen

206 votes.

- 206 "

206" 206 205

206

100

100

In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this tenth day of October, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

PRESTON STRATTON, Judge. [L. s.]
WM. CHARLESWORTH, Insp [LS]
ISAAC BUZBY, Inspt.
[L. S.]

LEWIS MEDFORD, Jr. Clerk.

"The words, "whole number of votes three hun. dred and six," were interlined before signing.

We, the subscribers, residents and freeholders in the township of Millville, do hereby certify that William Charlesworth was duly and legally elected one of the Inspectors of an election for members of Congress, members of Council, Assembly, Sheriff, and Coroners, held in the township of Miliville, in the county of Cumberland, on the ninth and tenth day of October, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, in the room and place of Nathaniel Foster, who, being a candidate, could

not serve.

WM. STRATTON,
[L. S.]
JAMES M. BROOKFIELD, IL.
JOHN OTTERSON,
[L S.]

State of New Jersey, Cumberland county, ss.
I, Josiah Fithian, Clerk of the Court of Common
Pleas in and for said county, do certify that the
foregoing are true copies of the original certificates
received by me at my house, by the hands of Wil-
liam Stratton, on Saturday, the thirteenth day of
October, A. D. 1838, between the hours of ten and
eleven o'clock in the afternoon of said day..

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed my seal of office, this eighteenth day of October, anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight. JOSIAH FITHIAN, Clk. While the CLERK was progressing with this testimony, he was interrupted by

Mr. HALSTED, who rose to a question of order, and inquired whether it was competent for the gentleman from Ohio to have read as part of his speech, evidence which was taken contrary to the laws of New Jersey. We have, said he, abundance of testimony taken in accordance with the law, which they also could produce.

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman can have his testimony read, if he pleases, at a proper time.

The CHAIR said that when the reading of papers was called for, and not objected to at the time, the reading must be suffered to go on.

Mr. WHITE rose to a question of order. He asked if these depositions were taken under legal notice, and in conformity with the laws of the State of New Jersey.

The CHAIR said that the documents were read as a part of the gentleman's speech.

Mr. WHITE said he objected to the reading of depositions taken without notice and in due form of law. He protested against the reading of such depositions when the rights of gentlemen were thereby infringed.

Mr. CRAIG observed that these depositions were not to bind any one, and gentlemen could form such opinions with regard to them as they thought proper. He understood, however, that the documents now being read formed part of the evidence that was before the Executive Council of New Jersey, and the legality was not then contested. He submitted to gentlemen whether it could be considered fair to suppress any of the testimony necessary for a correct understanding of the question.

Mr. WHITE renewed his appeal to the CHAIR on the point of order, and was proceeding to discuss it; when

Mr. TURNEY called him to order.

The CHAIR said, that when an objection was made to the reading of a document, the rule required that the question as to reading it must be determined by a vote of the House.

Mr. DUNCAN observed that the reason why he wanted the reading of the documents was, that he had stated that the five gentlemen whose names he mentioned had not the evidence of membership required by the laws of New Jersey. This he had repeatedly stated, both in public and in private, and he therefore desired the reading of these documents to support the truth of what he said. He had a right to have them read for his own security, for they would pro conclusively to every unpre judiced mind that the certificates and "broad seal" produced by these gentlemen were not in conformity with the laws of the State of New Jersey.

Mr. GARLAND of Louisiania inquired if the papers were private papers belonging to the gentleman from Ohio, or papers in the possession of the House.

The CHAIR said that they were papers lying on the CLERK's table.

Mr. GARLAND. Then it seemed that they were papers belonging to the CLERK's office, and if the gentleman from Ohio had a right to have them read, any gentleman here might call for the reading of all the documents in the CLERK's office. Now, what I understand from the rule is this: that papers may be read if they are private property, and not if they are public records.

Mr. TILLINGHAST gave it as his opinion that the papers could not be read without the assent of the House, and referred gentlemen to Jefferson's Manual in support of his opinion,

Mr. VANDERPOEL was informed that these papers were returned to the Governor of New Jer

*We learn, from the very best authority, that the law alluded to by Mr. HALSTED has been enacted subsequently to the taking of these depositions, and was passed for the purpose of attempting to invalidate them.

sey, and laid before the Privy Council, and were part of the evidence on which they acted: papers which Mr. DICKERSON, and those who claim with him, had no ag.ncy in procuring. I should be glad, said Mr. V. to have these papers before the House in some form. I say give us light.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I must correct the gentleman. These papers never were before the Privy Council.

Mr. VANDERPOEL. I am authorized to say by Mr. DICKERSON and Mr. VROOM that they were. Mr. RANDOLPH. The gentlemen are mistaken: they were not before the Privy Council.

Mr. VANDERPOEL. These papers are copies, but does the gentleman mean to deny that the original papers, of which these are copies, were be fore the Governor and Council of New Jersey? Mr. RANDOLPH. No, sir.

Mr. VANDERPOEL. Then I will submit it to the House, whether the denial of the honorable gentleman was not a quibble.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not deny that they were laid before the Council, and placed on file, but the question of their reception was argued, and ably argued, and one of the points decided was, that they should not be received.

Mr. WHITE referred to the Manual, to show thai no member could read papers without the leave of the House.

I

Mr. BYNUM. I hope that if this House means to preserve even the appearance of justice, that these documents may be permitted to be read. hope, for the credit of the House, that this investigation may be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and that no testimony may be suppressed which is necessary to a correct understanding of the question. Why, we have had gentlemen acting almost like attorneys here-feed attorneys, for aught I know-occupying almost the whole time of the House, with arguments and testimony on one side, while not one word of testimony has been permitted to be given on the other. Weak must be the argument, weak must be the cause, which requires such

support.

Mr WHITE. If the gentleman will state that this testimony was taken in conformity with the laws of New Jersey, I will withdraw my objections to it.

Mr. BYNUM. I have nothing to do with the laws of New Jersey. I am for the people of New Jersey, and their right to say who shall be their Representatives here. Statement after stalement, and certificate after certificate, has been read on one side, while not one particle of evidence has been suffered to come out on the part of the other. Now if gentlemen can succeed in preventing the people of New Jersey from being heard on this floor, we understand the game they are playing; but we want also to understand the game that the people of New Jersey are playing, and we want also to hear what evidence they adduce to justify the Representatives they have chosen in taking their seats here. If gentlemen have that candor and that fairness which all ought to possess, they would say at once to us: Bing forward your evidence, let it be read, and we will then bring forward evidence to counteract it. Mr. B. protested against the never ending quibbling manner in which gentlemen sought to suppress the evidence which operated against them. He hoped, if this kind of objections were persisted in, that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DUNCAN] would read that statement from the CHAIR, This he had a right to do, if gentlemen, in courtesy to him, would not permit it to be done by the CLERK. Gentlemen of the Opposition would therefore gain but little by preventing the CLERK from reading the testimony. It was the truth, they were attempting to stifle, which, sooner or later, must come before the world, when their object in endeavoring to suppress it, would be clearly understood.

Mr. DUNCAN, at the solicitation of Mr. CRAIG, gave way for a motion of adjournment. And the House adjourned.

IN SENATE,
MONDAY, December 9, 1839.

Mr. STRANGE appeared in his seat this morn

ing.

26TH CONG.......... 1ST SESS.

BY BLAIR & RIVES.

[Continued from No. 2]

returning officers; yes, cailed upon to do as a cauen to some future Governor Pennington, or some clerk Fithian, that they, mere returning officers, could not suppress the voice of the ballot boxes, and for a moment give seats to mere pretenders on the ground that the ballot boxes contained votes that ought never to have been given. Let it once go forth that partisan clerks and partisan Governors can for an instant defeat the voice of the people, and no gentleman, a candidate for the honor of a seat here, could have a complete guarantee that he would be permitted to take it at the opening of Congress, though elected by a majority never so large. We should do then what the Governor and Privy Council should have done-give the gentlemen the certificate or seats who, according to the returns and record and truth before them, ought to have had it; and then, if the minority candidates want to purge the polls, let them approach us by petition; or, at least, tell all the candidates to stand back until the House, by a complete organization, shall acquire facilities to look into the whole case. The course proposed by those who supported the pretensions of the Governor's members, would hold out most dangerous temptations to these mere ministerial officers to commit frauds. They could, under most frivolous pretexts, give to minority candidates certificates, enable them to aid us in the organization of the House, and, peradventure, to sit with us here, and exclude the true members for months; for those gentlemen who had had any experience of cases of contested elections, knew how slowly they generally progressed here. He would then place, at this stage of our proceedings, all the papers that went to show what was the popular voice, as expressed through the ballot boxes, and would not now consent to hear any affidavits that went beyond them. He had learned that the Governor's members, either to cover their retreat, or to supply themselves with the semblance of a pretext for claiming their. seats, had recently taken some testimony under a law lately passed by the Legislature of New Jersey; that they had sat very quietly for nearly a year, and then conceived this after thought. He would not, before organ zation, give them the benefit of this after thought, but would, for the safety of all future candidates, first purge the case of the fraud of the mere minisierial and returning officers. Duty and example required

this.

Much had been said about the character of the testimony on the CLERK's table, whether it was legal testimony. He had heard much here, not only of the common law, but of evidence taken according to the common law. The common law was first drawn into the service by his friend and colleague, [Mr. BARNARD,] who delivered so terse and so clear an argument last week as good an argument as could well be made on the wrong side. Mr. V. asked pardon for this digression. It was dictated by his heart. His colleague and he had been classmates in their boyhood, they had journeyed together through the delightful classic tale of Eneas and Anchises, and it gave him pride and pleasure to witness ef forts from him, here or elsewhere, that were creditable. Why was the evidence to prove the actual majority insufficient? Was it because it did not come up to the mark of strict sense, common law evidence? Was it not enough to satisfy our consciences? Did we ever exact more than this in the discharge of our legislative duties? Ask your Committees of Claims what evidence they act upon, what testimony it is, upon which millions of dollars have been voted away to satisfy claims on the Government? They will tell you that all that they require is to be convinced, and that this conviction is generally induced by affidavits taken ex parte, before magistrates, in an extra judicial form; and for the making of which, no indictment can be had for perjury. Do you still doubt where he truth and justice of the case, in reference to

the votes actually given, lies? Do you doubt the evidence on the CLERK's table? Do you doubt the answer of the member from New Jersey, [Mr. RANDOPH?]

Mr. EVERETT had no objection to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DUNCAN] having the documents read, which he had called upon the CLERK to read, if they were to be published as a part of his speech, but he contended that they could not be received as evidence before the House in the case now at issue. Let the matter be argued as it would, the question would come back in the end to the certificate of the Governor of New Jersey, and if that was in the form required by the laws, the House would be compelled to admit the members from New Jersey holding those certificates. With regard to the argument of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. VANDERPOEL,] he looked upon it as an argument to the people, and contended that the admissions of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. RANDOLPH] could have no weight upon the House in coming to a decision. The positions of the gentleman from New York with regard to the members claiming seats, having a majority of the votes of the people, were groundless.

Mr. VANDERPOEL stated that his position was that the county clerk and Governor were mere returned officers who had no right to go behind the certificates.

Mr. EVERETT held that the returning officer to this House, under the laws of New Jersey, was the Governor of the State, and his certificate was only to be set aside by the House after it was or ganized, and if gentlemen attempted to pursue the course indicated on this floor, they would overleap the barriers of the laws, and introduce a precedent which would lead to consequences which ought to be dreaded by all the friends of liberty throughout the country. Mr. E. pursued his argument at some length, but in so low a tone of voice that it was impossible for the Reporter to follow him.

Mr. W. C. JOHNSON of Maryland next ob. tained the floor, when

Mr. BLACK of Georgia rose, and stated that his colleague had been anxious to obtain the floor, and he thought it but right that he should now be heard in preference to gentlemen who had spoken three or four times.

Loud cries of "Order, order, order!" were heard in various parts of the hall.

Mr. W. C. JOHNSON stated that he had not spoken on the question before the CHAIR at present; and if the CHAIR decided that he was entitled to the floor, be certainly would not yield it.

The CHAIR decided that the gentleman from Maryland was entitled to the floor.

Mr. W. C. JOHNSON said he had predicted on the first day of the session, that the first step which would be taken contrary to the regular course of proceedings, would lead us into endless difficulties and confusion; and when we should be extricated from those difficulties, must be answered by those who had placed the House in this awkward position. He contended that the majority of the House had taken this course for sinister and party purposes, and they should be held responsible to the country for it. The CLERK of the House had been made a supple tool of party, and by his course he had arrested the whole business of the House, and with it the whole operations of the Government; and the people would hold the CLERK and his friends responsible for this course of conduct. He contended that it was a useless waste of the time of the House to have the CLERK reading certificates, which the House itself could not act upon; for he held that they had no authority and no power to act upon the case unt 1 the House was regularly organized, and the oath of office had been administered to the members of the House. With regard to the argument that the New Jersey members might vote on preliminary questions, and not upon the election of a Speaker, he considered it entirely groundless. They were either members or not members, because we could have no quasi

VOLUME 8...........No. 3.

PRICE $1 PER SESSION.

members in the House. If they have the proper credentials, and he contended they had, they were entitled to the same rights and privileges of any other members. He would stand by the uniform usages in cases of this kind; and, so far as he was concerned, he would never depart from them. He would never consent to any compromise of the question, because he believed the members from New Jersey to be entitled to their seats, upon the evidence which they had produced, and we had no right to go behind that evidence at the present time.

The

Mr. COLQUITT thought gentlemen had spent time enough there in debate to effect party purposes, and suggested that the better course for those gentlemen who yet desired to speak, would be to spread before the world their views through other channels. With regard to the settlement of the main question at issue, he thought the House entirely unfitted to settle it until after its organization, and contended that it would just be as competent for a judge who had been elected by the people to take evidence and decide upon a case before he had taken the oath of office, as it would be for this House to decide upon the New Jersey case before it had organized, and before the members had taken the oath of office. The House might go on, and hear evidence, and debate upon it, for a week or a month; but it all amounted to nothing, because it was not competent to decide upon the question at the present time. We might hear testimony, and make up our opinions with regard to it, but we had no more power to decide upon it than the judge would have to decide in the case which he had just referred to. We have no judicial power to decide questions, and can have none until we are regularly installed into office; and was useless for gentlemen to be presenting testimony to the House at the present time. He wished to pursue that course pointed out by the Constitution and the laws, and called upon gentlemen not to set precedents which might break down all the barriers of the Constitution. Constitution and the laws were the protection of the minority, and he begged of gentlemen in the majority, when they attempted to overstep their bounds, to reЯect that they themselves may one day be in the minority, and they will then look to them as their only protection. He looked upon those persons who held the certificates under the laws of New Jersey, as entitled to all the rights and privileges of members of this House, until their case was decided upon in a legal and constitutional manner. With regard to the testimony which had been 1ead from the Clerk's table, it seemed to be altogether ex parte; and if this House permitted a member to be deprived of any of his rights upon ex parte testimony, it will be in the power of persons who may desire to do so, to defeat the organization of the House at any of its sessions. It was an easy matter at any time to get up ex parte statements, and it seemed to him to be a most extraordinary proposition to attempt to deprive members of their rights upon such testimony as this. It had been contended by some gentlemen that the power to examine into this question at the present time was a power incident to organization; but he held that we had no power, previous to organization, to examine testimony and decide upon a case of this kind. That could only be done after the House was organized, and after the members had taken the official oath; then they would be competent to decide judicially, and not till then.

Mr. NISBET of Georgia addressed the House at some length, in opposition to the reading of the documents. Mr. N. defined his position as a State Rights man, and declared that as such he must go for those gentlemen taking their seats who hold certificates, in conformity with the laws of New Jersey, which he considered paramount here on the question involved. He considered that the House, in its present incomplete state of organization, had the power of comparing the evidence ad