votes.* I have shown that an election was held in the State of New Jersey for the election of Representativos to the Twenty-Sixth Congress; that it was held at the proper time is not denied; that it was held in the proper manner, as prescribed by the Constitution and the laws of New Jersey, is not denied; that the officers of election for the several townships were legally and properly qualified to officiate as such is not denied; that the polls were opened and closed at the legal hour is not denied; that the election, so far as the reception and record of votes by the election officers of the several townships, was fairly conducted, is not denied; that voters who voted were qualified and entitled to the elective franchise is not denied; (except for the mere purposes of quibble,) and that the returns by the township clerks to the county clerks, and from the county clerks to the Governor, has been made in conformity with the meaning and spirit of the Constitution and laws of New Jersey. And by these returns I have shown that Messrs. Dickerson, Vroom, Cooper, Kille, and Ryall, have a majority of all the votes given at the election. And why are they not now occupying their seats, and taking a part in the discharge of their duty as Representatives from the State of New Jersey? Sir, I will go on to expose the reasons, and I undertake to say that the development will unfold more fraud, foul iniquity, and barefaced villany than has been practiced, or attempted to be practiced, in any place or at any time since the formation of this Government, to pros trate the right of suffrage, and violate the purity of the elective franchise; and this in open violation of law, which the actors had taken a solemn oath to *No notice is taken in this estimate of the votes of Mr. Force, the Democratic candidate, or Mr. Randolph, the Federal candidate. It is given up that Mr. R. was elected by a small majority over Force. sustain, and which it was their official, political, I read from the Democratic Review, a faithful "The South Amboy return was made up in due form, except that it was not signed by the clerk of the election, and that no certificate of the election of James M. Warne, as one of the inspectors, he having been duly elected to that office on the morning of the first day of election, was sent with the return. The return was delivered to the clerk of the county on the 12th of October, by Mr. Wood, the clerk of election. He states, under oath, that he delivered it on that day to Mr. Booraem, and asked the said Nicholas Booraem, if it was correct, so that if it was not, it might be made correct, to which the said Nicholas Booraein replied, as this deponent believes, that it was all right, and proceeded to take down the votes for members of Congress from off the said certificate, along with the returns of other townships, before deponent left the office.' And the fact is that he did, in the first official list prepared by him, include the South Amboy return, for Mr. Steele has deposed that Booraem showed him the official list, with all the townships in it, on the fifteenth, in the clerk's office. The first return from Millville was informal in two or three particulars; but the only objection to the second was, that it was received six hours after the appointed time, though four days before the county clerk actually made up his return for the county. For the second return for Millville was delivered to the clerk at eleven p. m., on Saturday, the 13th of October, and his return to the Governor is dated the 17th. "The grounds, therefore, upon which these returns were 1. For want of the signature of the clerk of election. 3. Because received six hours after time in the Millville These are good grounds for refusing to count the votes of Millville and South Amboy! But you dive to the depths of research, and you can find no other reason to justify the reason why they constitute good ground for refusing to count thein than that they return a Democratic majority; and so say virtually the Governor and Council. "For upon examination of the official returns from all certificate was ever filed with the clerk of the election of The Federal majorities were as follows: Dover..... Chester....... 63 ..246 17 65 9 52 34 18 .207 .849 "Thus, while the township returns of South Amboy, giving a Democratic majority of two hundred and fifty-two, were rejected for want of the signature of the clerk, and the certificate of the election of an inspector, and the returns of ten Federal townships, giving a Federal majority of eight hundred and forty-nine votes, though all wanting one or both the requisites adjudged vital in the Amboy case, or some other equally important, were received and counted." Here, sir, you have fraud in its naked deformity, unsophisticated and unburnished; political corruption and robbery perpetrated in open day, while the sun is at meridian, and in the wakeful face and staring countenance of all living. Yes, sir, open-handed, unblushing, and unconcealed treason, of the most alarming and dangerous character, and which would justly hang its per Ho. OF REPS. petra, in any other time than when the political petrators by the neck until they were dead, dead, atmosphere is distempered and poisoned with party ambition, an indomitable love of power, and moral depravity. My language is strong, and, perhaps, offensive; but the crime I am exposing is stronger, and more offensive. It is no less than a bold, depraved, and open attempt to prostrate the elective franchise, and thereby subvert the Constitution and overthrow the Government. Can any language be too strong to denounce such a desperate, daring, damning attempt? "But the returns were not made in time." Why were they not made in time? The law which I have read specifies no time when the Governor and Council shall proceed to count up the votes, &c., other than that they shall proceed, &c., within five days after receiving the lists, &c. The Legislature of New Jersey, with reason, contemplated the possibility that the clerks might not send up the returns within the times specified by law. They therefore wisely defined no time when the Governor and Council should proceed to cast up the votes, &c., other than the time, viz: "within five days" after the time when all the lists should be returned. But the Legis lature further contemplated the possibility tha not only the lists might not be returned withir the time defined by the law, but also that the clerks might fail to make the returns at all. The law, therefore, provides that if the clerks shall fail to make returns within the times specified, it shall be the duty of the Governor to send forthwith, at the expense of the State, for the returns so neglected to be made; and yet, it is urged as a reason that the votes of South Amboy and Millville should not have been counted, because the returns were not made in time, when the very reason that they were not made in time, has its foundation in the failure of the Governor to do what the law commanded him to do, and what his office and oath bound him to do, and in refusing to do which he violated both. Sir, there is no means left for the Governor or his partisans to get him out of the difficulty him, except ignorance of his duty or the law, and disgrace in which his conduct has involved which he was bound to know. Ignorance or dangles, make the best you can of it: both inexfraud is the horn of the dilemma on which he cusable and unpardonable in a political, legal, and civil sense. And this he virtually admits himself, in the following communication, which I now ask leave to read, and to which I shall have occasion to refer hereafter. In the Governor's opinion to his Privy Council, he says: "What does the law direct the Governor to lay before the Privy Council? The said lists, referring manifestly to the lists transmitted by the county clerks, which has been mentioned immediately before. What are the Governor and Privy Council to do with the lists thus laid before them? They are to cast up the votes. When this is done, what are they to determine? Who are entitled, under all the circumstances, to the seats in Congress? No, but they are to determine the six persons who have the greatest num ber of votes." No language can be plainer. Was it ever intended by our laws to make the Governor and his Privy Council the arbiters of an election? There is no power conferred on us to examine a single witness, to send for persons or papers, or to take one step towards a judicial investigation. If we may go behind the returns of the county clerks to those of the township officers, why should we stop there? We may, by the sanie authority, and with equal reason, undertake to examine the proceedings of those township officers at the polls. Who has ever dreamed of a Governor and Privy Council of New Jersey setting themselves up to decide on any of these matters? They always have been, and from the very words of this act must be, confined to the clerks' returns, and to the duty of casting up the votes. "But it will be asked, with force and propriety, is a candidate to lose his seat in Congres because a county clerk does not make a return of the votes? Certainly not. If, through inadvertence or by design, any votes have not been returned by the clerks, it is in the power of the House of Representatives, in their discretion, to allow those votes and give the seat to the person who, with those votes, may be elected. All representative assemblies possess and continually exercise the right of deciding who is entitled to a seat in them. We give the certificates to the persons who may appear, by casting up the clerks' returns, to have the greatest number of votes; we are, by law, obliged so to do, tire whether any votes have not been returned her but the House of Representatives may go further, and counted, and if such be the case, may allow them in thete discretion. Our laws evidently contemplate such a state of things, for they require the township officers to make out a duplicate certificate of such election, and to file the same with the town clerk, to be used as occasion may require.' It would be to me a most painful reflection, were I to believe that the restraints under which we are placed by the law. of not going beyond the certificates of the county clerk, would deprive any candidate of his ultimate rights. Í declare here my earnest wish, that before the proper and constitutional tribunal for deciding the matter each 'candidate may have the full benefit of every legal vote he may have received at the election." 'most numerous branch of the State Legisla- Let it be remembered when the above exposé was made, and the admission therein submitted, it was more to allay public indignation, which was howling round him like a tempest. In the first paragraph of this exposé, which is devoted to defining the duties of the Governor and Privy Council, it will be perceived, in relation to elections, that one of the most important duties that devolves on the Governor, viz: that of sending for the polls when the clerks fail to send them up within the time specified by law, is not hinted at, which he failed to discharge in this case, and which, if he had performed, would have saved all the trouble of this hypocritical and metaphysical I repeat, that no question but that of the redefinition of duty, and Messrs. Dickerson, Vroom, turns is involved; none other claims our considCooper, Kille, and Ryall, would now be in their eration for a moment. The fifth section of the seats, representing the "sovereign State of New first article of the Constitution here read, provides Jersey, în conformity with the voice of her free-that each House shall be the judge of the election, men, as expressed through her ballot-boxes on the second Tuesday and the day following of October, 1838." I say it is the withholding of this duty in the above definition; and whether it was the fault of stupid ignorance or corrupt design, perhaps his friends can answer. | || Ho. OF REPS. But we are asked how we can look behind the Governor's certificate and the broad seal? Are we going to blot out the State of New Jersey from the Federal Union? Are we going to pluck out one of the stars from the political firmament of this Government? Are you going to annihilate one of the old thirteen States of this Union, who poured out her blood like water in the Revolution? which you will do if you disregard her broad seal, which is the evidence of her sovereignty! Sir, this is all flummery and fog. The sovereignty of New Jersey does not consist in Governor Pennington, his broad seal, or his certificate; nor is either of them, or all put together, in this case, evidence of her sovereignty. The certificate is a fraud and a falsehood, and the broad seal is but the evidence of the official character of him who perpetrates the one and asserts the other. Our effort is to maintain the sovereignty of New Jersey and her elective institutions, and the voice of her freemen, by preventing all from being sacrificed at the shrine of Federal corruption and the love of power. When, from absolute necessity, General Jackson declared martial law in the city of New Orleans, and suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and thereby saved the city from pillage, plunder, slaughter, and destruction, the Federal yelp was raised, loud and long, that it would have been better that New Orleans had fallen into the hands of the enemy, and Louisiana sunk, than that marshal law should have been declared. It was a stroke of military despotism more dangerous and fatal in its character to the free institutions of this country and this people than to have sunk New Orleans and Louisiana with her! What is the attempt we now see by the same party? No less than to overthrow the suffrage of sixty thousand freemen, to the end that credence may be given to a broad seal, evimanufacturer of a false certificate! But we are told that the Governor's certificate, with his broad seal, is "prima facie evidence" that those who have it are truly elected, and we are bound to returns, and qualifications of its own members. But, sir, the returns were before the Governor and Privy Council, and were acted upon by them; but were set aside, not because they were not made in time, merely, but because they were not made formal in time! All this objection for want of time and formality in the returns of Millville and South Amboy would have been regarded as a quibble worthy of a contemptible pettifogger, if, when opened, they had displayed the glorious intelligence of a Whig victory. Yes, sir, all such objections would have been scouted and snuk into nothingness; but as they unfolded the astounding, and prostrating intelligence that a Democratic victory had been gained; that Federalism was overthrown and routed, horse, foot, and dragoons, the objections were insurmountable in the eyes of the conscientious Governor and his partisan Privy Council, and of this we have proofs in the reception of the informal returns in the Federal townships, to which I have referred. Sir, I am done with the history and facts of this case, only as I may have to refer to them incidentally. I have stated no fact in its exposition, in which I have not been sustained by proof indisputable and incontrovertible, and there is no reason why Mr. Dickerson and his associates should not now take their seats; no substantial reason exists why they should not have taken their seats at the commencement of the session. The Constitution of the United States, the laws of New Jersey, and the policy of this Government, which secure the election to the man or set of men who have the greatest number of votes in an election, shall be the member or members returned, shall be entitled to be sworn, and take his or their seat or seats. Mr. Dickerson and his associates are these men. Sir, much complication has been thrown around, and much perplexity interwoven in this question, whereas there is but one simple, plain proposition involved, and that is the question of return. Who has the State of New Jersey returned to the Twenty-Sixth Congress of the United States? Is it Mr. Dickerson and his associates, who have received a majority of all the votes in the State," and who have now on our Clerk's table indisputa-justice, it is the height of my ambition. I will ble evidence of the fact, and who were the favorite candidates of the people, or is it Mr. Aycrigg and his associates, who have received a minority of all the votes in the State, as the proof on our Clerk's table shows conclusively, and who are but the favorite candidates of a corrupt Governor and a Federal partisan Privy Council, who claim seats here merely by virtue of a Governor's certificate and a broad seal? The question I say is a question of return merely, and involves no other principle. The Constitution of the United States, art. I, sec. 2, declares that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several 'States, and the electors in each State shall have 'the qualifications requisite for electors of the || never tax my brain with the investigation of proven. What do we care about prima facie evidence when we are in possession of the evidence itself? We have had read to us, and now have in our possession, the best evidence-evidence that proves conclusively that those who possess the prima facie evidence of their election were not elected. Of what value would be a certified copy of a record as evidence in a court of law, if the court were in possession of the original record itself? It would be the first and highest evidence; and such is the evidence we possess to support and prove the fact that Mr. DICKERSON and his associates are members of this Congress. But in the face of all this, the prima facie evidence is urged upon us. The reasoning of gentlemen of the Opposition reminds me of a small book I saw and read when I was a boy; it contained a system of logic. I never studied logic; I am ignorant of it as a science, and thought but little of this book at the time I read it; but the whole course of reasoning of the learned party, comes precisely up to the standard of the logic of that little book; and, indeed, there has been no other illustration of logical principles in this discussion on the part of the certificate broad seal and Pennington men, than was illustrated by the work in question; and if the author's logic was not good and sound, it has, at least, the advantage of being popular. The author reasoned thus: "Gentlemen wear boots. Mr. A B wears boots, therefore Mr. A B is a gentleman." "Ladies wear corsets. Miss A wears corsets, therefore Miss A is a lady." Now, sir, gentlemen of the learned party here reasoned thus in this contest: members of Congress have a Governor's certificate with a broad seal. Messrs. Aycrigg and company have certificates with the broad seal; therefore, Messrs. Aycrigg and company are members of Congress. Now, sir, I deny the soundness of the logic. The reasoning is unsound, and the conclusions are false. I know men who wear boots who are not gentlemen; and so very common is it for every description and character of men to wear boots, that boots no longer afford even prima facie evidence of a gentleman. I know girls and women who wear corsets that are not ladies, and, indeed, 26TH CONG....1ST SESS. it is so common for women to wear corsets that corsets are no longer prima facie evidence of a lady; and, sir, I have even known ladies to be without corsets. I know men who have a certificate with the broad seal who are not members of Congress; and, indeed, so common is it becoming, that a certificate with the broad seal is no longer prima facie evidence that he who bears it is a member of Congress. New Jersey Contested Election-Mr. Duncan. the effect of the loss of the broad seal was about as fallacious as the reasoning of gentlemen here in relation to the effect upon the sovereignty and institutions of New Jersey, by a violation of her broad seal. The English Government was not submerged either by throwing the broad seal into the Thames or the abdication of King James. All the civil institutions in the Government continued their operations. The judicial functions were continued, civil magistrates and ministerial officers continued to discharge their duties. Little or no change was effected, or violence perpetrated; some few Roman Catholic institutions were prostrated, and Feversham disbanded the troops in the immediate neighborhood, without either paying them or disarming them; and these were about the consequences. The bishops and peers, who were then in town, being the highest remaining authority in the State, (for the Privy Council, composed of the King's minions and his creatures, was totally disregarded and held in contempt,) assembled; they chose the Marquis of Halifax their Speaker. They gave directions to the judicial, civil, and ministerial departments to continue in the discharge of their several duties. They reunited the army, and issued orders, which were obeyed, to the fleet, the army, and all the garrisons, and, at the same time, placed the Prince of Orange, the next of the blood royal, on the throne, and the Government went on as before. And this is all the effect that both the loss of the broad seal and the abdication of the throne had on the Government of England. What disastrous consequences have we to fear, then, to the sovereignty of New Jersey, when our course is to secure justice to her citizens, and stability and freedom to her institutions? But we have been told more than a thousand times this is a broad seal-" the broad seal of New Jersey." This seal is not the track of a calf's foot; no, sir, it is the track of an ox's foot; when it is slapped down it makes a splash like the elephant's foot in a wet day. Sir, it must be as broad as the foot of Milton's devil when he was cast out of heaven, which covered ten acres of ground; yes, broader, for Governor Pennington's certificate and broad seal covered the whole townships of South Amboy and Millville, and rallified the entire vote of both, the surface of which I take to be equal to that of the original surveyed townships of the West, which I believe are each six miles square, which would be a surface of seventy-two square miles. This is going the whole in nullification. But, sir, we are implored to the support and defense of the broad seal because it had its origin in ancient times, and has in its character the solemnity of antiquity? Sir, in my estimation, its power and character diminish by its antiquity. I believe the kind of seal in our use can be traced no further back than the close of the Norman conquest; and if that is the time of its beginning, its antiquity is but a poor recommendation in its behalf. It had its invention and origin in the days of darkness, ignorance, and barbarity, when human ingenuity was concentrated upon the invention of arms, and when the most valuable human requisitions consisted in the skillful and dexterous use of those arms, and the most skillful and successful mode of carrying on a barbarous warfare; when letters were unknown, and science and philosophy were held in contempt. This was the origin of the broad seal. It was used to signify the intent to confirm a contract, and convey real estate in fee-simple, for a time, or in trust; and the seal itself consisted in making a scrawl on parchment, which was not unlike the mark on paper which a spider would make in its escape from the contents of an inkstand. So much for the antiquity and invention of the broad seal, upon the solemnity and sacred preservation of which depends the preservation of the sovereignty of New Jersey, and without which her government must be overthrown, and she blotted out of the Federal Union! But, sir, I am unwilling that the broad seal shall enjoy the benefit of the character for antiquity which the learned party here are disposed to attach to it. I think the antiquity of the broad seal will have to commence with the reign of the Prince of Orange, who assumed the administration of England on the abdication of the throne by King James. Soon after James II. came to the throne he manifested a disposition to patronize and support, by his royal influence and revenue, the cause of the Roman Catholic, to the prejudice and the exclusion of that of the Protestant religion; and to such an extent did he carry his measures that the nation became alarmed, and commenced operations with a view to put a stop to those innovations upon their civil and religious liberties; and such was the general feeling and indignation manifested that King James, fearing a civil revolution and the loss of his head as well as his throne, in turn became alarmed, and gave his Government and throne leg bail" for security; and it seems that he attached the same kind of consequence to the broad seal gentlemen here do, for he took it with him in his flight to France, and cast it into the river Thames, thinking thereby to submerge the English Government, and with it all her political, civil, and religious institutions; so that if it is intended that the broad seal shall enjoy the benefit of antiquity from the close of the Norman conquest, gentlemen will have to devise some means to procure it from the bottom of the Thames, otherwise they will have to commence its antiquity with the abdication of King James. But the reasoning of King James in relation to || 66 Such fanatical and superstitious attachment to the broad seal is worthy the slavish land of precedents, aristocratic customs and despotic dogmas. When in the reign of George III the broad seal of England was stolen from the High Chancellor, a question was entertained and discussed whether the thief who stole the broad seal was not the King de facto of England, and George III merely King de jure; nor is the broad seal of New Jersey entitled to the solemnity which gentlemen here attach to it, from antiquity. If I mistake not, history authorizes me to say that the Governor of the Colony of New Jersey was a Tory in the Revolution, fled his country, and bore the broad seal with him; so gentlemen must limit the antiquity of this broad seal to the State organization of New Jersey. This is not the first time the broad seal has been used for the base purposes of fraud. The Earl of Essex, in the reign of Elizabeth, counterfeited the broad seal of England, and thereby seized many large estates, which he enjoyed for some years before the fraud was discovered. Sir, during a part of my remarks on the broad seal of New Jersey, and the fanatic attachment of the learned of this House to it, a gentleman, who sat in the gallery, made notes of what I said; he turned a portion of those remarks into rhyme, and presented it to me-here it is. To the end, that some future use might be made of it, I was desirous to prefix a tune to which it might be sung. Finding my own poetical and musical abilities insufficient (for I have no poetical talent, nor have I any turn for music, save that I sometimes draw the horse's tail across the catgut, and squeak out a little music for my own amusement, not for any other person's) I applied to my little son Thomas, (a boy ten years old,) who is a musician, and I fear has a talent for poetry, (I fear so, for I have seldom known a native musician and poet that was good for anything else,) to assist me. He took hold of the paper, and counting the syllables of the first two lines of the verse, instantly applied the AIR-" Jim Brown." When England's Third George madly ruled o'er the land, Ho. OF REPS. That Liberty nestled in lumps of red wax, True, Essex the Earl, in Elizabeth's time, The seal of New Jersey, tho' good in its way, But finding, at last, revolution was brewing, Illustrious seal! thou art bigger, by half, Yes! spite of thy mighty defenders-Oh! brass CEDENT. Sir, we have been hammered with precedent! precedent! until we are all beaten into stupidity. Sir, I hold in my hand the Constitution and its amendments, and the whole put together is not larger than a child's primer, and its easy comprehension resembles the contents of the book it in size represents. Its brevity depends upon the simplicity and clearness of its provisions and propositions, and the whole most happily displays the powerful minds and clear comprehensions of those who framed it. Every sentence in it shows that its authors meant what they said, and said what they meant, and no more. Hence it is that the Democracy of this country, entertaining this view of the Constitution, deny to the Federal Government the right to exercise any power not expressly authorized by the Constitution. And yet, simple and plain as it is, adapted, as it is and as it was intended to be, to the most common unlettered understanding, not a question can come up here that has any connection, mediate or immediate, with the Constitution, but we are led into the labyrinths and mazes of antiquity for precedents to illustrate it. We have our uncomplexed Constitution; we have, what we suppose to be, our plain, simple, and well-understood maxims, customs, and institutions, that all are supposed to understand, and all of which have an analogy to our republican Government, by which we live and by which we hope to die. But, I repeat, that a question can hardly be raised 26TH CONG....1sr Sess. here but what we are driven, for its illustration, into the dark, damp, winding labyrinths of antiquity for precedents, which, when found, only serve to involve us in the fog and the mazes of metaphysical jargon. Sir, I, as an American citizen, hold myself bound by none of them, only as they illustrate truth and maintain justice. Ourgallant ancestors, by a bravery and patriotism which shall ever be the subject of shout and song, threw off their allegiance to the throne and Government of Great Britain. They broke the chains and burst the shackles that bound us to an order of despotic dogmas and a set of aristocratic maxims; and I hold that all obligations have been canceled, and we are now free. But gentlemen say, "No; we are bound by precedents." Sir, we might as well be under the mandates of her Britannic Majesty as to have all our own free and simple institutions overthrown by the aristocratic precedents common to England. To little effect did our ancestors battle for independence, and to as little effect did they ply their patriotism and skill to rear a Government of free institutions, if the divine right of king precedent is to dictate laws, and enforce his despotic usages upon us, to the exclusion of our own Constitution and laws, and in the teeth of common sense, and the plain principles of justice. Why, sir, one would be led to believe, from the vast consequence attached by gentlemen in this discussion to precedent, that it is the prerogative of precedent to not only control the civil action of the living, but to judge the dead. Sir, such dogmas may suit such as occasionally amuse and delight themselves in pronouncing eulogies, such as did the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. THOMPSON,] the other day, on the Government and institutions of England. We always have had a party in this country who have been a little more attached to the political institutions of England than those of their own country. For my part, sir, I have no love for the concern. I look upon their Government and all their political institutions as a rotten, corrupt, and despotic establishment, at war with every true native principle of human liberty; and most of their maxims and precedents incompatible with the simple institutions of our country. Their corrupt policy has bankrupted the nation, fastened shackles of slavery on the people that will never be broken, and filled their continent with hungry, pinching, and naked beggars. Yes, sir, tombs of despotism and antiquity have been torn open, and the rotten and half-decayed volumes of other ages and other centuries paraded forth to prove to the American people that the apostolic reverence due the worm-eaten carcass and giay locks of precedent demand that Governor Pennington's certificate and the broad seal of New Jersey, in the face of justice and truth staring us in the teeth, and in the violation of the voice of a majority of sixty thousand freemen, entitles Messrs. Aycrigg and company to seats in this Hall. As I have before said, the great question seems to rest in this simple inquiry, whether Governor Pennington's certificate and his broad seal shall secure to Messrs. Aycrigg and his associates seats in this Congress, or whether evidence, indisputable and now in our possession, of the fact that Messrs. Dickerson and his associates have had a majority of all the votes in New Jersey, shall entitle them to scats. The Opposition go for and sustain the certificate members, and we (the Democracy) believe in and support the force and power of the poll-books; that is, we go for and support the claims of the members elected by the people. The Opposition rely upon precedent to sustain their position, as I have before said. Now, sir, although no advocate for precedent further than it will support justice and confirm right, I will, for the benefit of some gentlemen here, recite a few cases of precedent, which, I think, from the character of their authority, will have a becoming weight, at least with those who are the authors of some of them. Je go, I say, for the polls, and we were opposed to either of the contesting members participating in the organization of the House until we were in possession of the proper amount of evidence to decide upon their claims. And now for the precedents, (modern, not ancient.) The first case of precedent I will present in favor of our position is the case of Moore vs. Letcher of Ken New Jersey Contested Election-Mr. Duncan. tucky, which occurred in 1834—a case involving precisely the same question and principles that this does, only that Moore, the certificate member, was a Democrat. Mr. Aycrigg and his associates in this case are Whigs; and in that case neither of the parties were permitted to participate in the organization of the House. So far we are sustained in our refusal to permit Messrs. Aycrigg and his associates to participate in the organization of the House. But here comes the Whig opinions in that contest. Mr. D..read: Ho. OF REPS. first resolutions, given above, had passed, assumed the highest ground, and we think the true ground,after the House had rejected the Governor's certificate as not corresponding with the polls. He said, 'THE MAJORITY OF VOTES DOES 'ENTITLE THE PERSON TO WHOM THEY ARE GIVEN TO HIS 'SEAT. MR. LETCHER SHOULD, THEN, IN OUR OPINION, BE 'CONSIDERED IN THIS TRIAL AND DISCUSSION AS IN POSSES'SION OF HIS SEAT.'" "Mr. CHILTON, of Kentucky, said the sole question in the case was, whether the certificate which had been produced, was or was not of a legal character. The duty of the sheriff's was plainly pointed out by the law, and all to be decided was, whether they had complied with it or not. He then reviewed the certificate, and insisted that it was palpable that they had not. Nor could he admit, as had been Mr. ALLAN, it will be seen, opened the question concluded, that though the evidence furnished by such a by objecting "TO THE RECEPTION OF THE RETURNS TRANSMITTED BY THE GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, AS BEING ILLEGAL AND NULL;" and the ground upon which he declared the certificate illegal and null, was one which did not appear on the face of the certificate itself, nor in any official document of the Governor of Kentucky, but which does appear in an official communication of the Governor of New Jersey in regard to the certificates given by him to the minority candidates there. It is "THAT THEY (the returning officers) HAD NOT COUNTED Mr. CHILTON, of Kentucky, another Whig member, said that "THE SOLE QUESTION WAS, WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE WHICH HAD BEEN PRODUCED WAS OR WAS NOT OF A LEGAL CHARACTER?" He insisted it was not, because the law had not been "COMPLIED WITH." "" Mr. MARSHALL contended that the certificate was void, "BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONTAIN EVI DENCE OF THE MAIN FACT-WHAT WAS THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE OF. THE DISTRICT? THIS WAS WHAT THE HOUSE WANTED, AND THIS COULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE LEGAL RECORD-THE POLLBOOKS CERTIFIED COPIES OF WHICH ARE NOW ON Mr. D. remarked that the doses that he now was administering were bitter doses. They nauseated the stomachs and sickened the bowels of gentlemen to whom they were administered. They were technically called drastic doses, by knights of the lancet; but sickening as they were, he hoped gentlemen would take them in confidence and good faith, as they, perhaps, would have the effect to cure that most dangerous and malignant disease with which they are affected-he meant the disease of inconsistency-a disease most calculated of all others to subvert the moral faculties, destroy every pretension to truth and justice, and overthrow a reputation for candor and sincerity. This disease has both its remote and proximate cause in a dropsical overflow of the foul waters of Federalism, and these were the best doses for such a malady. Moreover, the prescription is made by a regular-built physician, not one who boasts of his professional skill at all, but one who has the prima facie evidence of his profession; that is, he has the parchment with the appropriate certificate, and that, too, in classic language, with all the diplomatic flourishes; the blue riband, and, what is of vastly more importance, the broad seal of a regularly and legally authorized and established medical college, of the good old orthodox order; none of your new-fashioned root, vegetable, botanical, electromagnetic, Thompsonian, No. 6 institutions. Then, sir, according to the doctrines advanced here, and the omnipotent consequence attached to certificates and broad seals, gentlemen must take in good faith the prescriptions of any one who has the prima facie evidence of the medical profession, though he be the greatest empiric that ever disgraced the order of the Lancet. With this explanation, sir, I proceed to prescribe, and with the best hope of success: "Mr. BINNEY (another Federalist and lawyer of eminence) laid it down as a principle, 'THERE IS SOME WEIGHT IN THE POLLS, AND UNLESS IT WAS COUNTERACTED BY EVIDENCE, THE POLLS MUST STAND.""" "Mr. LINCOLN maintained the same principle. But the speech of Mr. BANKS, (one of the most honest, enlightened, and respected Federal members,) which was made upon a motion of his own to give Mr. Letcher the seat, after the paper might be incomplete, yet it was the next best that could be obtained in the case, and therefore ought to be received. Would it be admitted in a court of justice, in a case where there were two witnesses to a fact, one of them competent, credible, and disinterested, and the other of an opposite character, that, if the first could not be obtained, the testimony of the interested witness must be admitted, because it was the next best? Surely not. Mr. C. dwelt upon the dangerous consequences that must grow out of the re ception of such a paper to the purity of elections, and the safety of the elective franchise." "Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, went into an examination of the certificate on which Mr. MOORE claimed, and insisted that no court of justice in the couny would receive it as evidence under the law of Kentucky. The paper did not contain evidence of the main fact in the case, viz: what was the choice of the people of the district in question? This was what the House wanted, and this could be obtained from the legal record, the poll-books, certified copies of all which were now on the Clerk's table. The certificate was only a substitute for these, admitted out of convenience; but if it was defective, then resort must be had to the records themselves, which were the very best possible evidence in the case." "Mr. ELLSWORTH presumed that if either of the claimants could satisfy the House what had been the actual state of the ballot-box, the House would be governed by that fact, and decide accordingly. This was not one of those cases where a majority of sheriffs could aet for the whole. Had they certified that A B had been elected, according to the votes of one county, could that be deemed sufficient' Surely not. Suppose they had certified the same according to two counties, would that be adnutted? Or of three? Why, then, of four, when five counties had toted? Would a certificate be admitted that a certain paper was the record of a court, except one page? This was just such a certifi cate." In the House of Representatives, Wednesday, June 11, 1834, the case of the contested election of Messrs. Moore and Letcher being under consideration "Mr. ADAMS said: There was no difficulty in the question, or, if there was, the House had already surmounted it, by deciding on all the questions of principle involved. What remained was easy; and if the House would only proceed as it had been occupied, they would arrive without difficulty at a just result. And he, for one, was prepared difficulty had arisen in a fraud.” to sit and vote till the difficulty should be settled. The Mr. BINNEY, of Pennsylvania, remarked: Were the votes illegally received or illegally rejected? That was the first question. There was some weight in the polls; and stand. If evidence was brought to counteract them, that unless it was counteracted by evidence, the polls must evidence must be judged of as it was elsewhere; as it was daily judged of in the courts of justice; and when it had been weighed on both sides, the scale preponderating must be allowed to preponderate." "Mr. LINCOLN repudiated the idea of the decision being impracticable, or even difficult. All that was to be done was to lay down a just principle, and then try the items of evidence by it. A great outrage had been committed on the people and laws of Kentucky, and it was the duty of the House to vindicate those rights. Would the Honse consummate the very object in view of that sheriff wito had fraudulently withheld the poll-book? Would they become instruments to effect his purpose which was to defeat the election of Mr. Letcher? The House was bound to teach a lesson on that subject, which should prevent the repetition of such an outrage."" Extracts from the remarks of Mr. BANKS, in the House of Representatives, May 20, 1834, on the contested election of Messrs. MOORE and LETCHER, of Kentucky. "In my judgment, the majority of the votes entitled Mr. Letcher to the certificate of election. The certificate, which was given for Mr. Moore, and forwarded to the Secretary of State, was not only irregular, but absolutely void. It was not signed by all the sheriffs; it appeared, on the face of it, that all the votes given in the district were not compared and added up. It was proved that the Lincoln poll was withheld from the computation, in fraud of the law, in fraud of the rights of the electors of the district, and in fraud of the rights of Mr. Letcher. The certificate was signed but by three out of the five sheriff's in the district. It is a principle of law that we should presume that officers had done their duty, in absence of proof to the contrary. But this presumption cannot be made in favor of what is irregular on its face; much less can it be made in favor of that which is found to have been done in open violation of law and public duty. Nor, in my opinion, does this certificate derive any additional force from the fact that it was sent by the sheriff to the Secretary of the State, and that it has been forwarded here. This does not cure the defects; this gives it no additional authenticity. It was, in the first instance, void, and, in my judgment, is still void. I do not think that it entitled Mr. Moore to his seat, and I believe a large majority of the members of this House entertain the same opinion. "The production of a legal certificate entitles the person 26TH CONG....1ST SESS. in whose favor it is, to his seat, in the first instance. In the absence of this certificate, the polls are as high, if not the highest, evidence of the person elected in the first instance, subject, however, to be impeached. The majority of votes actually given entitles the person to a certificate. If no certificate is given, then the majority of votes does entitle the person to whom they are given to his seat. Mr. Letcher should, then, in my opinion, be considered, in this trial and discussion, as in possession of his seat, and Mr. Moore should be held to prove that the majority of legal votes was given to him, and not to Mr. Letcher. This he should do, by clear and satisfactory evidence. "This appears to be the obvious course which should be pursued. This puts the parties in the position in which the electors of the district have placed them." Here are Whig precedents and Whig opinions for you! Here, sir, are precedents and opinions from the learned heads and honest hearts of the Whigs in 1834-in a contest, I repeat it, involving precisely the same question, and no other than this does. Then the polls were all powerful and omnipotent, and the Governor's certificate and the broad seal of the sovereign State of old Kentuck nothing. But now the tables are turned; now Whigs hold the certificates, and the broad seal is all powerful, and the polls nothing. Yes, sir; the saddle is on the other horse. So, it seems, precedent works two ways; or, like the juggler's card, it has two faces. The jack of clubs is presented, and at the order, "presto change," instantly the beautiful queen of hearts appears. So we go in these times of moral depravity and political corruption. But, sir, as precedents are in such high mand, we will exhibit a few more. It has been iterated and reiterated, over and over again, that the whole table of precedents, ancient and modern, is in favor of receiving the certified members in this case. Sir, I am not going to risk my carcass and health, by going into the damp, unwholesome vapors of the tombs of antiquity, fit only for a toad or a snake to inhale, and mingle with the spirits of the dead, to hunt up precedents; but I will exhibit what I have found above ground, and those of modern times. I hold in my hand a book containing all the cases of contested elections since the organization of this Government, worth recording. It is a large book; it contains one thousand and twenty-five pages. I have turned over every page of this big book. It is full of contested elections. I have examined the points upon which every case it contains turns, and the principle upon which each case has been decided; and I now assert, that there is not a decision between its lids that will warrant the reception of the certificate members to their seats, and I challenge successful contradiction. It is full of precedents that either expressly or impliedly sustain the claims of those members with the certified poll-books, showing that they have a majority of the votes. I will read one or two. The first to which I will ask your attention is the case of Spalding against Meade, p. 157. The point upon which this case turned is: "Congress is, by the Constitution, the exclusive judge of the elections and returns, as well as the qualifications of its members, and the returns from the State authorities are prima facie evidence only of an election, and are not conclusive on the House." I will ask your attention to another. It is the case of Mallory against Merrell, p. 328. The point upon which the decision turned in this case 18: "Votes fairly given to a party may be counted in his favor, though they have never been returned to the proper State authorities; the default of a return not being chargeable upon such party." One more case, sir, if you can have patience, and I will trouble you no more with precedents. It is the case of Biddle and Richard against Wing, p. 504. In this case it was decided that: "The officers of the different election districts must certify the result to the commissioners, and they must certify to the Governor. They are all ministerial officers, and error committed by any of them, either through mistake or design, is to be corrected by the House." One more, sir, strikes my mind that is in point: Messrs. Dickerson and his associates present you the certificate of the Secretary of State, showing that they have a majority of all the votes polled at the election of which they claim to be elected: but this is contended not to be sufficient evidence. Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson, members from Mississippi for the Twenty-Fifth Congress, appeared at the commencement of the extra session of that Congress, and claimed their seats. It was objected that the evidence of their election was not New Jersey Contested Election-Mr. Duncan. sufficient. (I think they had the certificate of the Mr. MERCER, of Virginia, offered the follow- "Resolved, That sufficient evidence has not been afforded to this House that John F. Claiborne and Samuel J. Gholson are lawfully entitled to seats therein."-Journal Extra Session, p. 4. The resolution was debated. The question was laid on the table by an overwhelming majority, and Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson took their seats. So, sir, here is an admission of members on the certificate of the Secretary of State, and here ends the chapter, with me, on precedents. HO. OF REPS. rest in security upon success and victory. I repeat, I thought and reasoned as did Philip, when I heard of the Whig victory of New Jersey. But, sir, there was no Whig victory. Sir, I deny the position, in fact and in principle. I deny that the fact that the Federalists have a majority in the present Legislature is any evidence that a majority of the people of New Jersey are in favor of the certificate members, and I deny that a majority of the voters of New Jersey have placed a Federal majority in the Legislature. I acknowledge that there is a Federal majority in the Legislature, and I will account for it. Members of Congress in New Jersey are elected by general ticket. Members of the Legislature and of the Council are elected by counties and districts. The Federalists have had the ascendency in the State Legislature for two years, and it is a well known fact that no small part of their time and ingenuity have been devoted to districting the State so as to favor their party, and always secure a Federal majority in the Legislature; and so well have they succeeded that a Federal Legislature may be, and has been, elected by the present district system, while there is a large majority of Democratic voters in the State. Sir, as I have not taken a position, nor asserted a fact, but what I have or can maintain, so I proceed to maintain this, viz: that so far from the Governor being sustained in his corrupt course, an overwhelming majority of the people of New Jersey have expressed their disapprobation and indignation at it. Sir, the increased Democratic majority, of the recent elections, over the Democratic majority of 1838, is near two thousand votes. Here is the proof; here are the facts and figures; read for yourself. Here is a table which shows the Democratic majorities and Whig majorities in the several counties, in 1838 and 1839. Here they are; you can run and read: Bergen Somerset.... 1839. 1838. Dem. maj. Whig maj. Dem. maj. Whig maj, 351 225 But, sir, we have been told, in tones of triumph, that New Jersey has confirmed the fact that Messrs. Aycrigg and company were elected at the October election in 1838, by electing a Whig majority to both branches of the State Legislature in 1839; and this fact is paramount evidence that Messrs. Aycrigg and company are entitled to their seats in this Congress. Yes, this is the highest evidence that can be demanded that Mr. Dickerson and his associates are not the choice of a majority of the people of New Jersey. Sir, when I received the news of the Federal victory in New Jersey last fall, I rejoiced at it. Such was the overflowing tide of Democratic success over every part and portion of the Union, that I feared the consequences. I dreaded that apathy which never fails to seize the unsuspecting Democracy upon universal victory. I was afraid that they would be overtaken and overthrown by an enemy that never sleeps, before they could be awakened to a sense of their danger. Knowing, as I did, that the whole power of Federalism, with all its means, will be brought to bear upon the contest now commenced, I felt rejoiced that we had met with a temporary defeat, which could do no serious injury to our cause, but which would serve to keep, at least, our sentinels from sleeping at their post. I thought and reasoned as did Philip of Macedon, when he heard, in the space of one hour, of his success in the chariot races in the Olympic games, the victory of his troops in a great battle, and of the birth of his son Alexander. The Pagan raised his eyes and his hands towards heaven and prayed-"Oh, ye gods! send me some slight misfortune, that I may not be overcome with this overflowing torrent of good 'news, and lest some great misfortune overtake 'me." These were my feelings and my reflections when I heard of the Whig victory of New Jersey. But, sir, we have seen the fatal effects of political apathy by successive victory in our own time and country. History furnishes us with many fatal disasters, both of a political and military character, from the same cause. The immortal Hannibal was successful in his long and arduous march from New Carthage to the Rhone. He was successful in its perilous passage, and in conquering those who were prepared to contend against him. He was successful in ascending the Alps, whose snow-covered tops seemed to reach the skies, and in routing the Gauls who defended their passes. His cavalry successfully fought and routed the Roman horse on the Ticenus. The fields of Trebea yielded him vcitory; the Roman There may be some errors in the published troops of Thrasymine fell before him or fled like returns, from which these abstracts are taken, the timid hind. Cannæ proclaimed him victor, but none to vary the estimated majority mateand the plains of Italy were his. The walls of rially. But further, sir, in many of the counties Rome shook, and her citadel trembled at his having large minorities of Democratic voters no name. But now the fatal effects of unchecked suctest was made; the Whig candidates were not cess and unmixed victory seized him. "Now," opposed, and, of course, the Democratic votes said Maharbal, " is our time to take Rome; her "I will think of that," said not polled. It is justly presumed, that if there gates will open to us. had been opposing candidates in every instance, Hannibal." Lulled by a mistaken security, which the popular Democratic majority would have been sometimes besets the most vigilant in successful over four thousand. What has become of your career, he took his winter quarters in Capua, vaunted assertion, now, sir," that the people of where his troops rioted in the fashionable indul-New Jersey, in their recent elections, have sustained gences of that opulent city, on the rich spoils of the conquered enemy. But when the spring campaign opened, they were no longer the hardy soldiers of Hannibal; their bravery and invincible courage, and their capacity for toil and fatigue, were exchanged for softness and effeminacy, the offspring of idleness and luxury, and their love of order and subordination for contemptuous mutiny, supineness, and irregularity; and, with all these, sunk the power of ever taking Rome-the glory of Hannibal tarnished, and his name made less immortal. Such, sir, is the fate of those who , ' '5' ' 106 254 1,015 1,561 Morris................. 154 224 Sussex......... 1,033 1,639 Warren........ 2,375 955 Hunterdon..... 2,226 325 525 273 505 230 162 the Governor and his Council?" These tables show. Sir, the Governor in his so-called opinion to the Privy Council-though it better deserves the cognomen of a paltry, whining, pining, hypocritical apology to the community for the fraud he has practiced upon them-I say, in that opinion, he submits and answers the following proposition: "But it will be asked with force and propriety, is a candidate to lose his seat in Congress because a county clerk does not make a return ' of the votes? Certainly not. If, through inad |