The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 279
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:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE*
S?9
mittee of Elections know that fact. Some members
had arrived since the report of that committee had
been made, and he had no reason to suppose that
their credentials had been submitted to the commit-
tee. The committee did not know whether he him-
self had been duly elected. The committee notified
him to produce his credentials; he did produce them
to the chairman of the committee, who returned them
unopened, saying that the committee did not require
them. If the committee did not require the creden-
tials of members to be produced, on what informa-
tion did they decide that all the members were duly
elected? Mr. Adams then withdrew his motion to
be excused from voting, remarking that he would
not vote upon the question for the reasons he had
Mated.
Mr. ELMER. Will the House allow me to ex-
plain?
[Cries of "No, no, no!" "Not necessary."]
Mr. CAMPBELL asked to be excused from
voting. And in addition to many of the reasons as-
signed by other gentlemen, he would state that if the
first resolution were decided affirmatively, it would,
in effect, cut off all contests which might otherwise
hereafter be instituted, if it were discovered that any
member had obtained his seat by fraud, or hi any
manner contrary to law.
Mr. DOUGLASS rose to a point of order. He de-
sired to know whether the gentleman could go into
a discussion of the subject under the pretext of be-
ing excused from voting, and deprive others of the
power of answering them, because they would not
resort to the same pretext.
The SPEAKER remarked that gentlem<ji had an
undoubted right to assign reasons for being excused
from voting, but he hoped they would confine them-
selves to a brief statement of those reasons.
Mr. CLINGMAN desired to get a division of
the House as to whether he should be excused
from voting; and by that decision he would be gov-
erned.
The call of the yeas and nays having been com-
menced, however, the Chair decided that the motion
was not now in order.
Mr. VINTON gave notice that, being one of
those persons prohibited from voting by the rules of
the House, he would not vote.
Mr. McCLELLAN desired to know whether a
division of the question could now be made.
The SPEAKER observed that the call having
commenced, no division could now be made.
The roll having been called through, and before
the result was announced,
Mr. SCHENCK rose to a point of order. Some
gentlemen, he said, had answered to their names in
the votejust taken, who had no right to vote.
The CHAIR decided that the gentleman could
not make this point of order before the vote was an-
nounced.
Mr. SCHENCK appealed from the decision of
the Chair.
The SPEAKER said that the Chair had entei--
tained no motion from which an appeal could be
made.
Mr. SCHENCK said that he appealed from that
decision.
The SPEAKER called the gentleman to order,
and directed him to take his seat.
Mr. SCHENCK again rose to a point of order.
Cries of "Order, order."
Mr. PAYNE raised the question of order, [amidst
ma%- cries to order,] whether the gentleman from
Ohio could again rise to order after having been
directed by the Chair to take his seat.
Mr. SCHENCK saidhe rose to another point of
order. He rose to ask a question of the Chair. He
understood the Chair to say that he could not enter-
tain his point of order, because it was disorderly.
If he understood the Chair correctly, he took an ap-
peal from that decision.
The CHAIR said that the gentleman must be aware
that the House and the country are often led into
difficulties by extraneous questions that could not
be entertained. He had no objection to answering
the gentleman's question. The Chair thought that
no question could be entertained till the pending
vote was announced.
The result of the vote was then announced to be
—yeas 128, nays 2, as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Atkinson, Beardsley, Benton,
Bidlack, Edward J. Black, James Black, James A. Black,
Blackwell, Bossier, Bower, Bowlin, Boyd, Jacob Brinker-
hoft, Brodhead, Aaron V. Brown, William J. Brown, Burke,
Burt, Caldwell, Cary, Catlin, Reuben Chapman, Agustus
A. Chapman, Chappell, Clinton, Cobb, Coles, Cross, Cul-
lorn, Dana, Daniel, J. W. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Dil-
lingham, Douglass, J>romgoole, Duncan, Dunlap, Ellis,
Elmer, Farlfie, KickUn. Foster, French, Byram Green, Hale,
_ Hamlin, Hammett, Haralson, Hays, Henley, Hoge, Hop-
kins, Houston, Hubard, Hubbell, Hughes, Hungerford,
James B.Hunt, Charles J. Ingersoll, Jameson, Cave John-
son, Andrew Johnson, George W. Jones, Kennedy, Preston
King, Kirkpatnck, Labranche, Leonard, Lucas, Lumpkin,
Lyon, McCauslen, Maclay, McClernand, McConnell/ Mc-
Dowell, McKay, Mathews, Moore, J. Morris, Murphy,
Norris, Owen, Parmenter, Payne, Emery D. Potter, Pratt,
Purdy, Rathbun, David S. Reid, Reding, Relfe, Rhett,
Ritter, Robinson, Russell, St. John, Saunders, Thomas H.
Seymour, David L. Seymour, Simons, Simpson, Slidell,
John T. Smith, Thomas Smith, Robert Smith, Steenrod,
Stetson, John Stewart, Stiles, Stone, Strong, Sykes, Tay-
lor, Thompson, Tibbatts, Tucker, Weller, Wentworth,
Wheaton, Williams, Wilkins, Joseph A. Wright, and Yost—
128.
NAYS—Messrs. Richard D. Davis, and Joseph R. Inger*
soli—2.
The question recurring on agreeing to the second
resolution,
Mr. SCHENCK raised the point of order, that
no member could vote on it who was interested—i. e.
whose right to a seat was involved in the decision
of the question.
The CHAIR thought they could not vote.
Mr. SCHENCK moved that the members from
New Hampshir^ke excluded from voting on the
second resolution^on the ground that the 40th rule
excluded members who were interested In any
question from voting on it.
Mr. DROMGOOLE asked for a division of the
question, so as to take the vote first on the right of
Edmund Burke to a seat.
Some conversation followed; when
The SPEAKER decided that the motion of the
gentleman from Virginia brought the House to a
direct vote on the right of Mr. Burke, of New
Hampshire, to a seat.
Mr. BEARDSLEY hoped the honorable gentle-
men would not call for a division of the question in
this way, but agree to take the vote by States. The
House was full, and there was no reason why they
should consume so much time as would be necessa-
ry to take the vote on the case of each member sep-
arately-
Mr" DROMGOOLE said that, as the gentlemen
on the other side had called for a division of the
question by States, and had raised the question of
the right of the members from each State to vote as
their State was called, he was compelled to move for
a further division, so as to take the vote on each
member separately.
Mr. WINTHR.OP raised the point of order
whether the question was susceptible of a division.
The rule, he said, required that no question could
be divided unless each divison contained a substan-
tive proposition.
The SPEAKER overruled the point of order,
saying that the question as to the right of Mr.
Bcrke to his seat was a substantive proposition, and
so on with the remaining members from the State.
Mr. SCHENCK said that the proposition to di-
vide the question had been made by the gentleman
from Illinois; but the Chair decided it to be out of
order.
The SPEAKER replied that the motion alluded
to by the gentleman was made when the House was
dividing, and was not, therefore, then in order.
The question was then taken, Is Edmund Bcrke
entitled to his seat as a representative from the State
of New Hampshire? and decided in the affirmative
—yeas 128, nays 68, as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Atkinson, Beardsley, Benton,
Bidlack, Edward J. Black, James Black, James A. Black,
Blackwell, Bossier, Bower, Bowlin, Boyd, Jacob Brink-
erhofl', Brodhead, Aaron V. Brown, William J. Brown,
Burt, Caldwell, Cary, Catlin, Reuben Chapman, Augustus
A, Chapman, Chappell, Clinton, Cobb, Coles, Cross, Cul-
lum, Dana, Daniel, Richard D Davis. John W. Davis, Daw-
son, Dean, Dillingham, Douglass, Dromgoole, Duncan,
Dunlap, Ellis, Elmer, Farlee, Ficklin, Foster, French, By-
ram Ureen, Hale, Hamlin, Hammett, Haralson, Hays, Her-
rick, Hoge, Hopkins, Houston, Hubard. Hubbell, Hughes,
Hungerford, James B. Hunt, Chas. J. Ingersoll, Jameson,
Cave Johnson, Andrew Johnson, George W.Jones, Ken-
nedy, Preston king, Labranche, Leonard, Lucas, Lumpkuj,
Lyon, McCauslen, Maclay, McClelland, McClernand, Mc-
Connell, McDowell, McKay, Mathews, Moore, Joseph
Morris, Murphy, Narris, Owen, Parmenter, Payne, Emery
D. Potter. Pratt! Purdy, Rathbun. David S. Reid, Reding,
Relfe, Rhett, Ritter, Robinson, Russell, St. John, Saun-
ders, Thomas H. Seymour, David L. Seymour, Simons,
Simpson, Slidell, John T. Smith, Thomas Smith, Robert
Smith, Steenrod, stetson, John Stewart, Stiles, Stone,
Strong, Sykes, Taylor, Thompson, Tibbatts, Tucker, Wel-
ler, Wentworth, Wheaton, Williams, Wilkins, Woodward,
Jos. A. Wright, and Yost—133.
NAYS—Messrs. Adams, Ashe, Baker, Barringer, Barnard,
Belser Milton Brown, Jeremiah Brown, Buftington,
Campbell, Carroll, Chilton, Clingman, Collapier, Cranston,
Garrett Davis, Deberry, Dellet, Dickey, Dickinson, sfi,
Florence, Foot, Frick, Giddings, Willis Green, GnnnelJ,
Under, Hardin, Harper, Holmes, Hudson, W. Hunt, Joseph
R. Ingersoll, Jenks, P. B, Johnson, Daniel P. King, Kirk
Patrick, IVJcIlvaine, Marsh, Edward J. Morris, Morse, Mo e-
ley, Nes, Newton, Patterson, Peyton, Elisha R. Potter,
Ramsey, Rayner, Charles M. Reed, Rockwell, Rogers,
Sample. Sclienck, Senter, Severance, Albert Smith, Caleb
B. Smith, Summers, Thomasson, Tilden, Tyler, Vance, Van-
meter, Vinton, White, and Winthrop—68.
The SPEAKER then announced that Mr. Bcrke
was declared by the House to have been duly elect-
ed as a member of the House from the State of New
Hampshire, and was entitled to his seat.
Mr. CAMPBELL, regarding the question as set-
tled by the vote just taken, thought it could hardly
be necessary to take up so much time as to call the
yeas and nays in each case. He hoped the House
would, by unanimous consent, agree to take the
question on the remaining resolutions by a single
vote.
The SPEAKER said that the yeas and nays hav-
ing been ordered, and the question divided, this
could only be done by general consent.
Objections being made by several,
The SPEAKER put the question: Is John R.
Reding entitled to his seat as a representative from
the State of New Hampshire?
On which the yeas were taken, and resulted as
follows: yeas 120, nays 66. So Mr. Reding was
declared entitled to his seat.
An ineffectual attempt was again made to dis-
pense with the yeas and nays on the individual
cases, that they might be taken by States, as the
principle was established by tlie votes already taken.
The yeas and nays were then called on the right of
Mr. Norris of New Hampshire to his seat, and
resulted as follows: yeas 117, nays 63.
The question was then taken upon the right of
John P. Hale, and decided affirmatively: yeas
108, nays 67.
Mr. SAUNDERS inquired whether the division
of the question, so as to vote upon each individually,
extended beyond the resolution relating to the State
of New Hampshire.
Mr. DROMGOOLE observed that the division ■
was intended to permit all the members to vote upon
the question, except the one upon whose right the
vote was taken.
Mr. VINTON moved that the House adjourn:
rejected—ayes 71, noes 78.
The question recurred, is Edward J. Black en-
titled to his seat as a representative from the State
of Georiga; and the vote being taken, resulted iti
yeas 109, nays 55.
Mr. HUDSON moved that the House adjourn:
rejected—ayes 55, noes 70.
Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL appealed to his friends
to withdraw the call for the yeas and nays, and let
the remaking questions be taken together. There
could be no use in persisting in the present course,
and unnecessarily wasting the time of the House.
We have (said lie) sufficiently shown our strength
and our weakness; and we may as well cease fur-
ther contention.
The SPEAKER said that the yeas and nays could
only be withdrawn by general consent; but there
being many objections,
The SPEAKER proceeded to put the question,
whether A. H. Stephens was entitled to his seat as
a representative from the State of Georgia; and, the
roll being called, the question was decided in the
affirmative—yeas 92, nays 43.
The SPEAKER ststed that the next question was
on the right of Mr. Haralson of Georgia to his
seat.
Mr. McCONNELL moved an adjournment.
Mr. RATHBUN called for the yeas and na^s;
but they were not ordered. *
Mr. McCONNELL withdrew his motion.
Mr. PATTERSON renewed it; and tellers were
called for and ordered. Messrs. Jenks and Burke
were appointed tellers; and they reported 70 in the
affirmative, and 73 in the negative. So the House
refused to adjourn.
The vote by yeas and nays was then taken on the
right of Mr. Haralson, and it resulted as follows:
yeas 109, nays 46. So Mr. Haralson was declared
entitled to his seat.
Mr. ROGERS moved that the House adjourn;
and, upon this motion, the yeas and nays were or-
dered, and being taken, resulted as follows: yeas
65, nays 88. So the House refused to adjourn.
The vote was taken upon the right of Absalom
H. Chappell; and resulted as follows: yeas 105,
nays 48.
Then came up the right of Mr. Lumpkin to his
geat as a representative from the State of Georgia.
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/m1/303/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.