The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 192
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
in
congressional globe.
Mr. Evans on the tariff policy,) but could riot con-
sent to a more distant day.
. The subject was then postponed to Tuesday next.
Mr. ARCHER asked the Senate to go into execu-
tive session a short time, as there was business of
some moment to transact there. *
Mr. EVANS said he rose for the purpose, before
that question was put, of moving that, when the
Senate adjourn, it adjourn till Monday next. He
did this, not to delay business, but for the purpose of
forwarding it; for he declared that he had not time
to discharge his public duties on the committee, so
much had his time been occupied there. He did not
think there was anything of a pressing nature before
the Senate; for if there was, he would not ask the
Senate to adjourn over.
The question was put on the motion; and it was
agreed to.
On motion of Mr. ARCHER, the Senate then pro-
ceeded to the consideration of executive business;
and after a short time spent therein,
Adjourned.
HOUSE OF .REPRESENTATIVES.
ThursBay, January 25,1844.
CONTESTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. ELMER, from the Committee of Elections,
to which had been referred the memorial of William
L. Goggin, contesting the seat of Thomas W. Gil-
mer, one of the members of the House, from the
State of Virginia, made a report thereon. [The report
sustains the right of Mr. Gilmer to his seat.]
Mr. E. stated, in justice to the committee, that
this report had been ready for presentation to
the House a fortnight ago, but was withheld at
the request of the minority, who wished to present
a counter report which they had not yet been
able to get ready in consequence of the indispo-
sition of one of their members. He moved that the
report be referred to the Committee of the Whole
House, and printed. He was also instructed to
move that the arguments and statements made by
Mr. Goggin and Mr. Gilmer before the committee
be also printed and referred.
Mr. NEWTON called a division of the question
so as to take the questions on printing the report
and printing the arguments separately: agreed to.
The question being taken on printing the report,
and referring it to the Committee of the Whole
Hoese, was decided in the affirmative.
The question then recurred in printing the argu-
ments of the claimant and of the sitting member.
Mr. ELMER stated that the memorial of Mr.
Goggin, which was referred to the committee, was
printed, and at that time no argument on the sub-
ject was made by the sitting member. When the
parties came before the committee, Mr. Goggin
prepared a written argument, embracing some points
not embraced in his memorial; and Mr. Gilmer, on
time being given, made his written answer; and
these were the documents that he moved to have
printed, so that the House might have the whole
subject before them.
Tlip SPEAKER here called Mr. Beardsley to
the chair.
Mr. NEWTON deemed it his duty, as a mem-
ber of the Committee of Elections, and as being the
one who presented the memorial of Mr. Goggin to
the House, to oppose the motion to print the argu-
ment of that gentleman, submitted more than a month
ago.
This argument was prepared Mr. Goggin upon
a state of facts, which he supposed at the time to
exist, but which he now found did not exist; and
therefore a large portion of it did not apply to the
case before the House. ITnder such circumstances,
it would be an idle wast of public money to piinf
these documents, as no good could be produced by
it. He supposed that the object was not to en-
lighten the House, as the report of the committee
would perform that service; and if it did not, the ar-
guments of the sitting member's friends would. In
addition, he considered it would be discourteous to
Mr. Goggin, who was detained at home by indispo-
sition, to print his argument winch was now inap-
propriate to the matter before the House; and as a
friend of that gentleman, and as an impartial judge,
h^ deenjed it his duty to protest against the printing
it,'\vithout his consent.
1 Mr. DOUGLASS, as a member of tlie committee,
dissented from the views of the gentleman from
Virginia, [Mr. Newton.] He did not regard these
gfatemei)ts presented to the committee on the part of
Mr. Goggin, and of the sitting member, strictly as
mere arguments; they were more than that.
Aft«r the memorial of Mr. Goggin was presented
to the House, and, with the evidence, was referred
to the committee, the two claimants appeared and
made their statements of facts, containing their con-
struction of law governing the case and the argu-
ments enforcing them, which they submitted to the
committee in writing. In these statements the gen-
tlemen made many admissions of facts which they
would not now controvert. For instance: the sitting
member stated that he would not controvert certain
facts stated by the memorialist; and that he would
controvert other facts stated by him; while, on the
other hand, the memorialist stated that he would ad-
mit certain facts giated by the sitting member, and
that he would controvert others. These statements,
prepared by the parties with deliberation, and sub-
mitted to the committee, constituted the pleadings of
the case. Again: they were evidence in tJhe case; for
if the defendant in any suit comes forward and ad-
mits that he will not contest certain facts alleged
against him, it becomes a part of the evidence, and
the court holds him to it. He therefore believed
that, in holding the sitting member, and also the
contesting claimant, strictly to the admissions they
have made, they would be acting in conformity with
the practice of all judicial tribunals, as well as with
the principles of justice. He considered, too, that
they were important to the case, as containing the
best of evidence. As to any injustice to the absent
claimant, in printing his argument, he, on his part,
thought it would be the grossest injustice to him to
suppress it. The claimant was not here in person,
and it was a strange inference that it would be un-
courteous to him to permit the argument that he
himself had presented to be published. He thought
both these arguments should be printed, because
they were necessary to a full understanding of the
subject; and the cost, he understood, would be very
triflmg.
* Mr. SCHENCK said that, as to the brevity of
the arguments, and the trifling cost of printing them,
he thought the question would be best answered if
the Clerk would hold up to the House the large roll
of documents in which they were comprised. The
truth was, this motion called for the printing of a
large mass of matter—a great deal of which was
entirely irrelevant, and not necessary to an under-
standing of the subject. He believed nothing else
was embraced in the motion but to print the argu-
ments presented on both sides to the committee; and
nothing was said about printing the testimony taken
in the case. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Douglass] adduced, as an argument for printing
the statements of the conflicting parties, that there
\yere admissions made in both of them which were
good evidence. Now, if this was a good argument
for printing the statements, would it not also apply
to the printing of the testimony, which was equally
necessary for a thorough understanding of the sub-
ject' So far, however, from this being the case, he
could say that the report of the majority of the
committee, just presented, and the report of the
minority, which he was authorized to say would be
presented to-morrow, agreed essentially in facts,
and did not contradict each other in any important
particular. So there was no use in printing these
statements on account of the evidence they con-
tained.
Mr. HAMLIN observed that he had antici-
pated that this debate would arise on the motion of
the chairman of the Committee of Elections, and
that these objections would be made to the printing
of these statements; for when the committee came
to the conclusion to ask tor their printing, they were
informed that such a motion would be opposed. He
was not. therefore, surprised at the opposition these
gentlemen had seen fit to make to the. printing of
these two written statements. He was not in°the
House when the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr.
Douglass,] gave his reasons for supporting the mo-
tion; and he trusted, therefore, that lie should be ex-
cused, if, in assigning his reasons for coming to the.
same conclusion, he should make use of some of the
arguments advanced by tluit gentleman. He would,
m the first place, call the attention of the House to
the state of facts as presented. Mr. Goggin came
into the House, and presented a written memorial,
signed by him, making up his case against the sitting
member, Mr. Gii.siek, in his own, and presenting
the issue, on his part, in the form that best suited
him. He was bound by no limit, and bound by no
principle, save what he deemed most conducive to
his own rights, and his own interests. That memo-
rial was printed, and referred to the committee;
and then, when the parties went before it, each made
up a written statement of hi case, which was also
suubmitted and considered.
The written statements of the parties, though not
strictly evidence in the case, contained admissions
that were material to a right understanding of the
ease. And what was there to fear in the publication
of these statements? He went on at some length to
argue in favor of the printing of the documents.
Mr. GILMER also spoke in favor of the printing
of the statement of his competitor for the seat which
he occupied; and if the argument in favor of econo-
my in the expenditures for printing was deemed of
much weight, he would pay the expense himself.
Mr. DROMGOOLE thought it would be more re-
spectful to the House, and more complimentary to
the intelligence of its members, if this matter were
allowed to be printed, so that each member could
judge for himself what bearing these statements fead
on the question in issue.
Surely the House might be trusted to decide how
far the printed statement should be allowed to have
a bearing upon their decision of the question, and
how far it ceased to be a practice on account of any
subsequent evidence which had been taken. He
did not know that any great importance could be
attached to the document; but, from the very great
anxiety which had been exhibited, he was almost
led to believe that there wa3 some secret design to
produce a particular effect by the printing or refus-
ing to print it. It was sufficient for him to know,
however, from the statement of the committee,
that the statement of the two contesting parties had
been prepared and submitted for the purpose of
simplifying the proceedings, and of abridging the
labors of the committee; that they were a part of
the res gestce; that they formed, in fact, a portion of
the proceedings of the committee, and should not,
therefore, be suppressed. He would, therefore, af-
ter having expressed the astonishment which had
been excited in his breast, by this effort to suppress
the [publication of the papers m question, vote for the
printing; as he should always do in reference to
anything which a committee, through its chairman,
might desire to print.
They had been told of a minority report. And
he would now set the gentleman from Ohio right.
A minority report was not known m parliamentary
law. The custom of receiving minority reports had
grown up by the courtesy of the House; but it was,
in reality, an abuse. The sitting members, in cases
of contested elections, had been permitted to bring in
written statements; and against this courtesy he had
no objection, because it had become an established
usage of this House. But a committee alone could
make a report; and there was a much stronger reason
why a minority should not be permitted to make a
report against the deliberate report of a majority,
than there was against publishing explanatory state-
ments of two contesting members. He could see
no good reason why the documents should not be
printed; and he would, therefoie, give his vote for
the printing.
Mr. G. DAVIS said he thought the matter had
received a degree of importance which it did not de-
serve. He felt totally indifferent whether this argu-
ment should be printed or not. His principal mo-
tive in rising was to notice the intimation thrown
out by the gentleman from Virginia, that there was
an attempt to suppress a part of the record, on the
part of a portion of the committee. What was that
record? The memorials and statements of the parties
constituted the issue upon which the record was
made up. And he appealed to the gentleman from
Virginia, whether it was not as necessary that. the.
statements made orally should be printed, as those
made in writing; for it was an established' principle
of law, that the decision of a case should tie based
upon all die evidence given in the case. But it mat-
tered little about the arguments made m the case
for the House would make its own decision irrespect-
ive of the force or the fallacy of the arguments em-
ployed. It was of little conscquencc, then, whether
they were printed or not. But in regard to minori-
ty reports, were minorities to have no voice' Were
their opinions to be suppressed? Was this what the
gentleman meant?
Mr. DROMGOOLE, I said expressly (and i re-
ly upon my Knowledge of parliamentary law to sus-
tain r.ie in the opinion) that a minority cannot make
a report. And 1 will add that, in place of makin®-
a report, their course is to come before the House
and resist the report of the majority one by one.
Mr. DAVIS admitted that, by the parliamentary
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/216/: accessed May 14, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.