The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 54
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:
54
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
turn was concerned, that right was consummated;
and the motion he was about to make would not in-
terfere with that right in the slightest degree. He
moved to lay the memorial on the table, leaving it
in the power of the House, at some future period,
to take it up if it were thought necessary. He re-
capitulated the various decisions of this case, and
the more especially referred to the re-election of the
Delegate from Florida by the people of that Terri-
tory, as an affirmation of the Delegate's right to his
seat there. No new facts were set forth that were
not before the last Congress; nor was any irregulari-
ty in the last election complained of. It was the
same old question of citizenship, on which testimony
was furnished to the late Congress of the United
States; and he thought another reference of this ques-
tion,to the Committee of Elections was unnecessa-
ry. He desired now, by his motion, to lay the whole
subject on the table of the House; and if any new
facts should be discovered, the House could act
upon them hereafter.
Mr. G. DAVIS requested the gentleman to with-
draw his motion for a moment, in order to allow
him to make a few observations.
The notion that the Committee of Elections had
nothing to do with judicial questions connected with
election contests seemed to him a novel doctrine.
There never was a case of contested election that
did not involve a judicial question; and there had
never been one decided in that House in which the
committee had not exercised judicial functions. He
denied the position altogether that the business of
committee consisted only in collecting facts: it be-
longed to them, as a part of their duty, to decide
upon the law of the case; and the committee, in all
cases, should be selected with a view to the per-
formance of this duty. In the present case, he be-
lieved they had been so selected; for he believed
every member of that committee was by profession
a lawyer. He believed they were gentlemen of
great legal ability, and fully qualified to determine
upon all cases which might be brought before them.
During the last Congress, the seat of his excellent
friend from Florida had been contested, and the
question had been left undetermined. And the peti-
tion now before the House prayed that the case
might be again taken up, and a judgment rendered.
He affirmed that it was not competent for the House
now to take up the question and decide upon it.
Time had decided it. The gentleman now came
here under a new authority. He had occupied the
scat which was then contested, for the full term al-
lotted to him; and he now came to this House under
a different and distinct authority. The petition, as
he understood it, referred to the former election, and
not the present one. It seemed to him, therefore,
that, if the petition should be now referred to the
Committee of Elections, that committee would have
to report upon a matter which was coram nonjudice.
In his opinion, the question could not again come
up.
Mr. HOUSTON desiied to say a single word
upon the subject, inasmuch as he had been a mem-
ber of the Committee of Elections in the last Con-
gress. A memorial similar to the one now present-
ed was referred to the Committee of Elections at
the called session,he believed—at which time he was
not a member of the committee—and after some in-
vestigation of the question submitted to their con-
sideration, further time was asked by the gentleman
from Florida, and at the next session additional tes-
timony was brought m and laid before the commit-
tee. That committee, if he recollected aright, was
composed of nine members, six of whom were op-
pesed, politically, to the gentleman from Florida,
and three were his political friends.
He desired to say a word, also, with regard to one
or two allegations set forth 111 the memorial. In the
first place, it stated that a large mass of testimony
had been taken, and laid before the House in the
report of the committee, for the purpose of mystify-
ing the case, which would otherwise have been per-
fectly clear. He would not undertake to say what
the object of the Delegate was in producing that tes-
timony; but he would say, as far as the committee
were concerned, the allegation of the memorial was
altogether incorrect and untrue. He would not pre-
tend to say whether it was the object of the memo-
rialists to impeach the action of the committee: he
only knew the fact that the committee consisted of
six members opposed to the gentleman from Florida,
and three who were of the same politics.
And now, a word upon the subject of the report
that was made by that committee. The memorial
went on to say that there were contrary reports. It
was quite certain that the majority reported in fa-
vor of .the Delegate retaining his seat; and the very
fact that that report laid over without any action of
the House being had upon it, certainly went a
great length towards confirming it, and' confirming
the title of the member to his seat. There was one
other allegation in the memorial to which he desired
to call the attention of the House; it was one which
was not couched, he thought, in such language as
should be addressed to that House. It had been
properly remarked by the gentleman from Kentuc-
ky, that it was the duty of the committee to decide
all questions of law arising out of the facts disclosed
in the testimony before them, in the same manner
as the Committee on the Judiciary, or any
other committee, would do. The committee, as
lie conceived, had proceeded according to law;
but here he found charged against them that
they received ex parte testimany, and that, without
notice to the opposing parties of the fact; and that
they adjudicated and determined upon such cx parte
testimony, and submitted to the House their report
founded thereon. He did not recollect precisely
what the facts were in reference to that allegation, but
he recollected distinctly this much, as far as regarded
himself and the majority of the committee—and in
fact he believed almost every member of the com-
mittee: their object was to carry out the principles
of law and justice, not only in the report they made,
but in all parts of the investigation. So far, then, as
the allegation to which he had referred was con-
cerned, it was totally without foundation. But what
was proposed by the memorial which was now pre-
sented? Was it that the matter should be taken up
and readjudicated? The memorialists state that
"they cannot doubt that the testimony taken in the
case, if divested of irrelevant matter, will sustain the
prayer of the petition." They of course have a
perfect right to differ with him, and with the
committee of last Congress, in opinion; but what
was to be attained by a reinvestigation of
the matter? What was to be the course of proceed-
ing? Would they have to travel over the same road
travelled by the committee before? Would they
have to go over all the evidence? And he would
ask, to what other conclusion could they come than the
former committee had come to, upon the same testi-
mony? And if they decided to reject a portion of
the testimony, would they decide upon the remain-
der, without giving the Delegate an opportunity of
justifying himself? If the case were taken up at
all, it must be taken up as if it had never been be-
fore a committee at all. There were other objec-
tions to the memorial; but he did not think that it
required any refutation on the part of the commit-
tee: on the contrary, he thought the course pursued
by the gentleman from Tennessee was the proper
one, in moving to lay the subject on the table. No
good could possibly result from the investigation of
a case which had been already disposed of. If the
gentleman from Tennessee desired it, he would re-
new the motion to lay the subject upon the table.
Mr. J. R. INGrERSOLL said the gentleman from
Alabama seemed to consider the memorial disre-
spectful to the House. He would be good enough
to rccollcct that it referred to a former House. He
would be responsible for the language of the memo-
rial, that it should be perfectly decorous and respect-
ful to the House. It seemed to him, then, that the
memorial should be disposed of in no other than the
ordinary way. All that he desired was, that the
House should treat the case in the ordinary way,
and not forestall the action of the committee, or form
a hasty judgment upon the bare suggestion of an
individual member.
Mr. HOUSTON simply desired to say that, as to
forestalling the action of the House, he did not think
it could be called forestalling the action of the
House to dispose of the application of the memo-
rialists by laying it upon the table. As the report
of the committee of the last Congress was in favor
of the Delegate,and as it had been passed over with-
out any additional action on the part of the House,
it was in some degree confirming the report that
the Delegate was entitled to his seat. This fact,
together with the fact that the present petition prays
nothing new or different, (only that the Delegate
shoul# be ousted,) served to convince him that the
proper couise would be to lay the memorial upon
the table. He then renewed the motion; and the
question being put, and carried m the affirmative,
Mr. LEVY then asked the House to receive and
adopt the following resolution; but the House re-
fused to consider it:
Resolved, That the Committee oil the Judiciary be direct-
ed inquire and report fto this House upon the validity
of the proceedings under u hich tlie claim of David Levy to
citizenship of tiie United States accrued.
Mr. WENTWORTH gave notice that he would,
on to-morrow, ask leave to bring in a bill to estab-
lish a port of entry at Chicago, State of Illinois.
Mr. WENTWORTH introduced the following
resolution:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be re-
quested to communicate to this House, if, in his opinion,
consistent with the public interest, all the coriespondence
between this Government or any other power in relation to
the discovery, possession, title, and boundary of the Oregon
Territory.
Mr. G.DAVIS inquired what was the business
now before the House.
The CHAIR replied that the business next in
order would be the consideration of the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. G.
Davis.] The resolution was read by the Clerk as
follows:
Resolved, That'thc Committee of Elections do inquire and
report whether or not Messrs. Edmund Burke, John R.
Reding, Moses Norris, jr , and John P. Hale, members of this
House from the State of New Hampshire; Hugh A.Haral-
son, Absalom Cliappell, John H. Lumpkin, Howell Cobb,
William H. Stiles, Alexander H. Stephens, and Edward J.
Black, members of this House from the State of Georgia;
John Jameson, Gustavus M. Bower, James B. Bowlin, James
H. Relfe, and James M. Hughes, members of this House
from the State of Missouri; and Jacob Thompson, a mem-
ber of this House from the State of Mississippi, have been,
elected in conformity to the Constitution ond the law, and
whether they are entitled to retain their seats as members
of this House for the 26th Congress.
Mr. G. DAVIS demanded the previous question
upon the resolution, and he hoped the House would
act upon it without further debate or delay.
Some discussion here arose as to the disposition
which had been made of the amendments wnicli had
been proposed to that resolution.
The CHAIR announced that there were no amend
ments pending.
Mr. KENNEDY said he could not conceive how
the original mover could so modify his resolution as
to cut off the amendment which he had offered. If
it were so, however, he now gave notice that he
would move his amendment as a distinct proposition.
Mr. G. DAVIS replied that that was not a mat-
ter for him to determine. His opinion was, that
the resolution did confer a greater power on the
Committee of Elections than it already possesed
under the rules.
Mr. CAVE JOHNSON then moved to lay the
resolution on the table, so as to let the Committee
of Elections take cognizancc of the subject under
the rules.
Mr. G. DAVIS asked for the yeas and nays on
the question.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi called for the
reading of the resolution; and it was read accord-
ingly.
Mr. JOSEPH R. INGERSOLL here submitted
the following amendment, which he wished to be
received as^ a substitute for the one before the
House:
Resolved, That all elections for Representatives in the
29th Congress, except those which have been held by dis-
tricts composed of contiguous territory, equal in number to
the number of Representatives to which each State respec-
tively is entitled, are hereby declared to be inoperative
and void
Resolved, That the consideration of the above resolution
be postponed until Tuesday, the second day of January,
1844j and that it be made the special order for that day.
Mr. C. JOHNSON wished to inquire of the
Chair, before the question was put, whether the
credentials of all the members were not, under the
rules, referred to the Committee of Elections, and
whether it was not the duty of said committee to
take them all under their consideration? He desired
the rule on this subject to be read.
The Clerk then read the rule, as follows:
uTt shall be the duty of the Committee of Elections to ex-
amine and report upon the certificates of elections, and oth
er credentials, of all the members returned to this House;
ond to take into their consideration such petitions and me-
morials contesting the seats of members, as may be referred
to them by the House."
Mr. C. JOHNSON then, at the request of sev-
eral members, withdrew his motion to lay the reso-
lution on the table.
The motion for the previous question coming up,
Mr. ELMER requested Mr. G. Davis to with-
draw it, to allow him an opportunity of making an
explanation.
Mr. G. DAVIS refusing to withdraw the call—■
The question was taken on seconding the previ-
ous question, and carried—ayes 61, noes 57.
There being a second—
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/m1/78/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.