Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

NOVEMBER, 1811.

Virginia Contested Election.

ulterior measures, which, in their opinion, ought to be pursued, would, at this time, earnestly recommend, in the words of the President, "that the United States be put into an armor and attitude demanded by the crisis, and corresponding with the national spirit and expectations." And, to this end, they beg leave to submit, for the adoption of the House, the following resolutions:

H. OF R.

persons who voted for the former, and 38 persons who voted for the latter gentleman, appear not to have been legally qualified voters.

That of the polls taken for the county of Lancaster, Mr. Taliaferro had 122 votes and Mr. Hungerford 96 votes; and that on such comparison as aforesaid, 20 persons who voted for the former gentleman, and 20 persons who voted for the latter, appear not to have been legally qualified voters.

1. Resolved, That the Military Establishment, as authorized by the existing laws, ought to be immedi- That of the polls taken for the county of Northumately completed by filling up the ranks, and prolong berland, Mr. Taliaferro had 228 votes and Mr. Hunging the enlistment of the troops; and that to encour-erford 75 votes; and that on such comparison as aforeage enlistment, a bounty in lands ought to be given in addition to the pay and bounty now allowed by law. 2. That an additional force of ten thousand regular troops ought to be immediately raised to serve for three years; and that a bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistments.

3. That it is expedient to authorize the President, under proper regulations, to accept the service of any number of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand; to be organized, trained, and held in readiness to act on such service as the exigencies of the Government may require.

4. That the President be authorized to order out, from time to time, detachments of the militia, as in his opinion the public service may require.

5. That all the vessels not now in service belonging to the Navy, and worthy of repair, be immediately fitted up and put in commission.

6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels, owned exclusively by resident citizens, and commanded and navigated solely by citizens, to arm, under proper regulations, to be prescribed by law, in self defence, against all unlawful proceedings towards them on the high seas.

CONTESTED ELECTION.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business, viz: the report of the committee on the petition of John Taliaferro, contesting the election of JOHN P. HUNGERFORD, which said report is as follows:

The Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the petition of John Taliaferro, contesting the election of John P. Hungerford, returned, as one of the Representatives for the State of Virginia, in the present Congress, and praying to be admitted in his stead, have had the said petition under consideration, and report, in part,

That, at the last General Election in Virginia for Representatives to Congress, the said John Taliaferro and John P. Hungerford were opposing candidates in the district composed of the counties of Westmoreland, Richmond, Lancaster, Northumberland, King George, and Stafford from the polls of the several counties, the sitting member appears to have obtained a majority of six votes in the district, and he was accordingly returned as elected.

That of the polls taken for the county of Westmoreland, John Taliaferro had 37 votes and John P. Hungerford 316 votes; and that, on comparing the poll with the land list of the year 1810, and taking the list as a test, it appears to the committee that 9 persons who voted for the former, and 162 persons who voted for the latter gentleman, were not qualified to vote.

That of the polls taken for the county of Richmond, Mr. Taliaferro had 103 votes, and Mr. Hungerford 130 votes; and that, on such comparison as aforesaid, 12

said, 35 persons who voted for the former gentleman, and 1 person who voted for the latter, appear not to have been legally qualified voters.

That of the polls taken for the county of King George, Mr. Taliaferro had 114 votes and Mr. Hungerford 125 votes; and that, on such comparison as aforesaid, 38 persons who had voted for the former gentleman, and 50 persons who voted for the latter, appear not to have been legally qualified voters.

That of the polls taken for the county of Stafford, Mr. Taliaferro had 159 votes and Mr. Hungerford 26 votes; and that, on such comparison as aforesaid, 29 persons who voted for the former gentleman, appear not to have been legally qualified voters.

The result of such examination and comparison is, that deducting from both polls the persons challenged, who do not appear to have been qualified to vote according to the land lists of 1810, Mr. Taliaferro has a majority over Mr. Hungerford of 121 votes.

The committee further report, that on the 7th day of May last, the petitioner gave notice to the sitting member of his intention to contest the election, on the ground that the former had a majority of the legal and qualified votes, and that such notice was accompanied by a list of the persons challenged by the petitioner, with his objections to them. On the 28th of May, the sitting member furnished the petitioner with a list of the persons challenged by him, setting forth his objections against such voters. These lists contain, as well the names of the persons who the committee find not to be on the land lists, as others who are challenged by the parties for the want of the freehold qualification, and for other causes.

That on the 27th day of September last, the petitioner gave notice in writing, subscribed by him, to the sitting member, that testimony would be taken in relation to the present controversy, and to be used in the decision of the same, at King George court-house on the 10th; at Westmoreland court-house on the 17th; and at Richmond court-house on the 22d of October; and that the petitioner, agreeable to such notice, has taken sundry depositions, which are now before the committee; but the sitting member did not attend such examination, for reasons stated by him in a protest which he caused to be delivered to the petitioner.

The committee further state, that they made the comparison of the polls with the land lists, at the particular request of the petitioner, and for the purpose of reducing the controversy before them as much as possible; and that they were induced to this course from adopting as a principle, that, according to the laws of Virginia, the land list of the year prior to the election is, in the first instance, to be received as evidence of all the freeholders in the county: but this evidence they conceive, and so it was admitted by the parties, is only conclusive in the, absence of all other evidence; and they accordingly are of opinion, that it is competent for

H. OF R.

Virginia Contested Election.

the parties to show, by other testimony, that persons appearing on the land list are not freeholders, and thus not entitled to vote; and on the other hand that persons not appearing on the land lists are freeholders and

voters.

NOVEMBER, 1811.

sheriffs and two of the deputy sheriffs who attended to compare the polls, that if an equality of votes had appeared, they would have voted for the petitioner, which certificate was transmitted by the magistrate, before whom it was attested, to the clerk of this House, at the request of Mr. Taliaferro, to be retained until called for by him.

The sitting member, before such examination was gone into, asked for time to take testimony, under the conviction that in a reasonable period, to be fixed This, the petitioner alleges, ought to be regarded as by the committee, he would be able, by evidence to be the commencement of his testimony, and contends that taken, to support his challenges and his poll, and heit not only advertised the sitting member that his seat still requests such time to be allowed to him: the petitioner, on the other hand, has at all times opposed such request, on the ground that the sitting member has had sufficient time, since he was apprized that the election would be contested, to procure his testimony.

The committee are aware that some inconvenience must arise to the petitioner, if this contest is laid over for any time; but they think the right of suffrage ought not to be hazarded or destroyed on account of any individual inconvenience. If there has not been gross neglect in the sitting member, the committee conceive that it is due to the electors of the district who polled for him, and to himself, not to hurry his case to a decision without affording them and him an opportunity to make good the election, if they can do it.

It has already been stated, that the petitioner gave notice of his intention to contest the election, to the sitting member, on the 7th of May; and this the former contends was sufficient to put the latter to the task of collecting and arranging his proof; your committee see, however, that this proceeding was modelled on the laws and usages of Virginia, and according to them it is regarded as a mere incipient step, calling for no proceeding from the other party. Such a notice on the heel of a contested election, is an index to the feelings of the person giving it, but not always the proof of a settled determination. As the period of the election recedes, and the difficulties attending a canvass become more apparent, the unsuccessful candidate sometimes abandons his notice and his scrutiny. It ought not, therefore, to be required of the person returned, for such cause alone, to wade through all the trouble, difficulty and expense of a tedious examination, while it remains doubtful whether his opponent will proceed: it is surely in season to begin to take defensive testimony when the opposing party has commenced the investigation.

The notice given by the petitioner on the 27th of September, for the examinations on the 10th, 17th, and 22d of October, the committee have accordingly regarded as the first efficient measure towards the scrutiny, and they are satisfied that in a district composed of six counties, and in a case where the votes challenged exceeded four hundred, it was not practicable for the sitting member to take his testimony in season for the commencement of this session. A notice given by him after the 29th of September, would not have been deemed reasonable for an earlier day than the 10th of October; nor would it have been allowed in him to call the petitioner from his own examinations, which were to continue until after the 22d of October: after the 22d of October, it is not possible to conceive that the sitting member could procure his evidence, allowing him time before the first day of the session to travel to the seat of government.

The committee, in addition to the facts already stated, report, that it appears to them that on the 29th day of April last, being the day of the canvass, the petitioner procured the certificates, under oath, of two of the

would be contested, but made it necessary for him forthwith, and without further notice or act on the part of the petitioner, to proceed to his examinations. The committee, however, have nothing before them which goes to show distinctly the object of the petitioner in procuring the certificate; nor can they, in any point of view, consider it as such a prelude to the scrutiny as to require from the sitting member that he should proceed to his canvass.

The committee, therefore, upon a view of all the circumstances of the case, are of opinion, that further time ought to be granted to the sitting member to procure testimony, and they accordingly submit the following resolution:

· Resolved, That a reasonable time be allowed to John

P. Hungerford, a member of this House, to procure testimony relative to his election, and that the Committee of Elections have power to examine witnesses, and to make order for such examinations in the case of the

I said election.

WESTMORELAND COUNTY, April 29, 1811.. SIR: The enclosed document was taken, signed, and sworn to, by the subscribing gentlemen, in the presence of John Taliaferro, Esq., General Hungerford, and myself, at a meeting of the sheriffs at Westmoreland court-house, for the purpose of comparing the Congressional poll for the counties of Stafford, King George, Westmoreland, Richmond, Lancaster, and Northumberland; and which paper I herewith transmit to you, at the request of Mr. Taliaferro, to be retained by you until called for by him. I am, sir, yours, &c.

THOMAS ROWAND.

PATRICK MAGRUDER, Esq.,

Clerk of the House of Reps., U. S. We, the undersigned sheriffs, who have assembled at Westmoreland court-house, on the 29th day of April, 1811, to count and compare the polls taken in our respective counties for a delegate to serve in the House of Representatives for the Congress of the United States, do certify that, if an equality of votes had appeared on the whole of the poll, we should have voted in the following manner;

Richard Claughton, deputy sheriff for Thomas Hurst, sheriff of Northumberland, should have voted for John Taliaferro. William S. Sterne, deputy sheriff for Enoch Mason, sheriff of Stafford, should have voted for John Taliaferro. J. Diggs Dishman, sheriff of King George, would have voted for John Taliaferro. Joseph Carter, jun., sheriff of Lancaster, would have voted for John Taliaferro.

STATE OF VIRGINIA, Westmoreland county, to wit:

This 29th day of April, 1811, the aforesaid Richard Claughton, William S. Sterne, James D. Dishman, and Joseph Carter, jun., made oath before me, a justice of the peace for said county, that they would have given their vote in the manner as above stated by them. Given under my hand the day and year above. THOMAS ROWAND.

[blocks in formation]

STATE OF VIRGINIA, Westmoreland county, sct :

I, Joseph Fox, clerk of the court of Westmoreland county, qualified according to law, do certify that Thomas Rowand, whose name is subscribed within, was, at the time of taking the affidavit to which his name is subscribed, and is now, an acting justice of the peace for said county, duly commissioned and qualified according to law, and that due faith and credit ought to be given to all his acts as such.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the public seal of my office, this thirteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven, and of the Commonwealth of Virginia the thirty-fifth.

H. OF R.

for a seat in the next Congress of the United States,
as the Representative of the district composed of the
counties of Stafford, King George, Westmoreland,
Richmond, Northumberland, and Lancaster; and that
I shall proceed, at each of the above places, at the
times above stated, to take evidence, and continue at
each place, from day to day, to take evidence until the
whole can be gone through with.
I am, sir, respectfully yours,

JOHN TALIAFERRO.
General JoHN P. HUNGERFORD.
STATE OF VIRGINIA, King George County, sct:

Meriwether Taliaferro made oath before me, an acting justice of the peace for the aforesaid county, that he did, on the 27th of last month, (September,) deliver to General John P. Hungerford a notice, in writing, of which the within is a true copy. Given under my hand this 8th day of October, 1811.

ALEX. S. HOOE. LEEDSTOWN, October 9, 1811. SIR: I protest against the notices you have recently given me, to take depositions in three of the counties of the district, for the following reasons:

JOSEPH FOX, C. W. C. KING GEORGE, May 4, 1811. SIR: Be pleased to take notice, that I shall, on the meeting of the next Congress of the United States, contest your election to represent the counties of Westmoreland, Richmond, Lancaster, Northumberland, King George, and Stafford, in that body, on the ground that you did not, at the last election, obtain a majority of the electors of the said district who were legally qualified to vote for a Representative to Con- 1st. There exists no law entitling you to give them, gress. And I shall further make it appear, if neces-empowering a magistrate to administer the oaths, or sary, that your election has been contrary to law, and, to take the depositions providing an authority to definally, that I shall claim the right to represent the cide incidental questions during an investigation, or said district, in virtue of my having obtained over you enabling me to obtain the attendance of witnesses. a majority of the votes of the electors thereof who 2dly. There does exist a law requiring my attendwere duly and legally authorized to vote in the elec-ance in Congress on the 4th of November next, as the tion. Below you will find a list of the names of the member returned for the district. persons from the several counties in the said district, whe voted for you, to whose votes I object as not being legal, and my particular objections to the legality of each person's vote are placed opposite to each of their

names.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, &c.
JOHN TALIAFERRO.
General JOHN P. HUNGERFORD.

[Here follows the list of 304 names.]
SIR: Below you will find a list of the names of the
persons from the several counties composing the Con-
gressional district for which I have been elected, who
voted for you to represent the said district in the Con-
gress of the United States, to whose votes I object as
being illegal; and opposite to the name of each voter
so objected to by me you will find my particular ob-
jection to the legality of the vote.
Yours, respectfully,

་་་

JOHN P. HUNGERFORD.

Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO,

[Here follows the list of 189 names.] WESTMORELAND COUNTY, to wit:

On this day Henry Hungerford personally appeared before me, James Miller, a justice of the peace in and for the aforesaid county, and made oath that, on the 24th day of May, he delivered to John Taliaferro, Esq., a true copy of the aforegoing writing. Certified this 30th day of October, 1811.

JAMES MILLER.
SEPTEMBER 25, 1811.,

SIR: Be pleased to take notice, that I shall, at King George court-house, on the 10th day of October next, and at Westmoreland court-house, on the 17th of the same month, and at Richmond court-house, on the 22d of the same month, proceed to take the evidence of sundry persons, to be used by me in the decision of the contest now depending between you and myself

3dly. It is impossible for me to obey the existing law, and conform also to the mode you have adopted, without law, for scrutinizing the election. It terminated on the 22d of April. On the 4th of May you notified me, according to the law of Virginia in relation to State elections, of your intention to dispute my election, and furnished me with lists of votes you objected to, in each of the six counties composing the district; and I furnished you with similar counter-lists, according to the same law. Recently you have given me notice of an intention to take depositions in three of those counties, on the 10th, 17th, and 22d of this month; reserving an equal power to exhaust the I month of November in the other three, in the same way, before I can be apprized of the nature of your exceptions, or the evidence necessary to meet them. This ingenious management for pushing the scrutiny beyond, or far into, the session of Congress, makes it impossible for me both to obey the law requiring my attendance during this period, and to obey your future notices; or to avail myself of a right of a personal attendance, without violating the right of my constitpreference between these evils may be, in a case of uents to representation; and, however imperative the necessity, I know not by what authority you can im

pose it.

4thly. Nor do the principles of reason and equity, in my view, militate less forcibly than those of law, against the mode of scrutiny you have attempted to prescribe. The notification, according to the State law, was also a notification of your intention to adopt its rules throughout. It enacts that scrutinies shall commence within two months of the election, and terminate thirty days before the ensuing session of Assembly. Your proposed commencement is near six months from the election, and the termination of the scrutiny, if I ought to be allowed as much time as you have exhausted and will exhaust, would

[blocks in formation]

probably go beyond, or deep into, the session of Congress. If, by your first notice, you can avail yourself of the letter or equity of the State law, your subsequent nonconformity to either was a notification to me of an abandonment of the scrutiny. If not, even your first notice was irrelative and void. But if its equity and justice is sustainable upon the moral authority of the law, the same authority is equally conclusive against the equity and justice of your lying by for near six months, and then attempting to compel the returned member to desert his constituents, or his defence. The object of the law you have adopted, and violated, was to prevent a mode of proceeding injurious to an individual or to the people; to the individual, from the decisive advantage his absence would give to an antagonist in the investigation of a multitude of distinct cases, as to which no agent could or would be sufficiently informed to do him justice; or to the people, from the loss of representation, or from receiving it rather from a scrutiny unequally conducted,

than from their own suffrages.

Whatever might have been a proper line of conduct for me, had you continued to conform to the principles of our State law, I discover no obligation for conforming to a mode of scrutiny, prescribed only by yourself, contrary to those principles; because it appears to me to be warranted as little by justice as by law, to correspond with no principle countenanced, or likely to be countenanced, by either, and to be at least as liable to be rejected on my part before I had adopted it, as the State mode can be on yours after you had done so. I cannot, therefore, in justice to the district, or to myself, perform any act from which could be inferred a submission to the unauthorized system you have adopted, nor allow any validity to the affidavits you may take in pursuance thereof.

I am, sir, respectfully, yours, &c. ́

JOHN P. HUNGERFORD.
OCTOBER 12, 1811.

This extraordinary paper, so full of truism and sophism, whether it be considered as a serious protest, or as an indirect mode of popular wheedling, was received by me on or about the 11th instant, (October.) I certainly never meant to act under either of the laws referred to in the paper; the State law, regulating its own proceedings on contested elections, had no application; and the law of Congress, on a like subject, had, long ago, expired. What might possibly be the "moral authority," mentioned in the paper, of a foreign, a repealed, or of an expired law, in the case, I cannot undertake to say. I considered that the House of Representatives, both from the nature of the case, and from the positive words of the Constitution, had full power to judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of their own members; that so general a grant of power necessarily implied a great range of discretion in respect to evidence; that, from the commencement of the Government to January, 1798, and from April, 1804, to the present day, no act of Congress had existed regulating contested élections; that, in those periods of time, elections had been contested and decided on almost every point that admits of contest. I therefore, without reference to any past law, endeavored to procure sufficient testimony on the general principles which are adopted in courts of law where affidavits are received in place of the oral testimony of witnesses present. I meant, at the earliest day, to submit the testimony I had, with deference, to the Committee of Elections, to solicit their earliest attention to its suffi

NOVEMBER, 1811.

ciency in point of form, and their instructions as to what other sort of testimony they might require, that I might, in the speediest way, perfect the one and procure the other. JOHN TALIAFERRO.

WASHINGTON, November 19, 1811.

The petitioner, in answer to the objections of Mr. evidence of the notice and affidavits produced by the Hungerford, the sitting member, to the admission in petitioner in support of the allegations in his petition, respectfully represents to the Committee of Elections, that, though no law of the United States, or of the State of Virginia, exists, prescribing the mode of taking evidence in contested elections like the present, yet it has been the settled practice of Congress, since the law of the United States on that subject expired, to receive the evidence of either party, taken conformably to the laws and general usage of the State to which be given to the adverse party of time and place, that they belong, requiring always that reasonable notice he may attend and cross-examine the witnesses, if he thinks proper. The petitioner, therefore, submits to the committee, whether the notices given by him, and the evidence taken, do not come within the established practice of Congress, so as to render them admissible on the present occasion. With regard to the suggestion of the sitting member, that he has not had time to collect and prepare the evidence in support of his return, the petitioner begs leave to state the following facts: 1st. That the election closed on the 29th day the sitting member his intention to contest the elecof April last, at which time the petitioner declared to tion; and did, in the presence of the sitting member, transmitted to the Clerk of the House of Representacause the affidavits of four persons to be taken and tives. to be used as evidence in the controversy. That, on the 7th day of May, he caused to be delivered to the sitting member a notice in writing, stating more fully the intention of the petitioner to contest the election; annexed to which notice was a list of the names of all the voters on the polls of the sitting member objected to by the petitioner, and a specification of the particular ground of objection to each voter. And, 3dly. That the petitioner did, on the 27th of September, give the sitting member notice of the times and places when and where the testimony of the witnesses proposed to be examined by the petitioner would be taken; during the whole of which time the sitting member made no effort either to controvert the evidence adduced by the petitioner, or to show that, according to the constitution or laws of Virginia, those voters to whom the petitioner had objected were entitled to the right of suffrage; nor has he alleged a single reason why he could not have availed himself of such testimony, if it existed, at the opening of the present session of Congress.

2d.

If there is a point which the sitting member can establish to change the aspect of the case, or if it be in his power to countervail the evidence before the committee so as to produce a result in his favor, the petitioner demands an exposition of that point, and a disclosure of the evidence upon which the sitting member will rely to effect that object. The question will then be fairly presented to the view of the committee, and they can determine whether the evidence, which the sitting member supposes to be material, might not have been obtained, with proper exertion, anterior to the meeting of Congress; whether due diligence has been used by him for that purpose, and, if not, from what

NOVEMBER, 1811.

Virginia Contested Election.

H. OF R.

cause the neglect has arisen; and finally, whether the that it is material to the support of his claim to a seat proof which the sitting member imagines to exist in the House of Representatives of the United States, would, if it were before the committee, be sufficient to and that he has made use of every reasonable diligence sustain the validity of his election. The petitioner to obtain the same in due time without effect, the pebegs leave to refer the committee to an attentive exam- titioner would not contest the propriety and fairness of ination of the Constitution and laws of Virginia estab- suspending, for a limited time, a final determination of lishing the right of suffrage. From these it will appear the present controversy. But, on the contrary, it is that every male citizen of the State, (other than free manifest to the committee, that all the means in the negroes and mulattoes,) aged twenty-one years, who is power of the petitioner to prosecute the inquiry, on his possessed of a freehold estate at the least, or who is part, were equally open to the sitting member to pretenant for life, in a quantity of land, if improved, equal pare for his defence; that, immediately after receiving to twenty-five acres, or fifty acres of unimproved land, the notification, as early as the 7th of May last, that or of a lot or part of a lot in any town established by his election would be contested, it was the incumbent law, and who shall have been so possessed six months, duty of the sitting member, without waiting for furunless the same shall be derived by marriage or by de- ther steps to he taken by the petitioner, to have met scent, and none others, shall be entitled to vote for Rep- the objections made by the petitioner to the voters speresentatives to the General Assembly. It is also pro- cifically named, and to show the basis on which their vided by a law of the State that one or more commis- right to vote rested. Such a course was due to himsioners of the revenue shall be annually appointed by self, if he believed the evidence for that purpose was the court of each county, whose especial duty it shall in existence; it was due also to the respect which be to register, in alphabetical order, in a book called the ought, on all occasions, to be evinced for the honorable land-book or list, the name of each and every land-body of which he was returned a member, and before holder in his county; and for the better execution of whom his case was to be heard. Regardless of these which, it is provided, by law, that each person shall an- considerations, and of the right of the petitioner to denually, on oath, give a true and exact account of all mand, in behalf of the electors of his district, a speedy lands and other property of which he is possessed, to be decision of a case involving their dearest interests, the entered on the book or the list of the said commissioner. sitting member has suffered six months to elapse withThis land list is, by express statute, made conclusive out even an attempt to obtain that evidence which he evidence for and against sheriffs in the collection of the now pretends to be so essential in his defence. He land tax. It is, by law, evidence for or against persons has appeared before the committee, not for the purpose who omit or refuse to vote at elections for Representa- of making his defence, but to be relieved from that tives to the State Legislature or to Congress. By law, unpleasant task; the committee are gravely asked to it is the test by which to try the competency of grand reward his negligence by granting a delay, which, in jurors, as none but freeholders are allowed to be grand all human probability, will amount to a virtual confirjurors. It has been the immemorial usage of the Leg- mation of his seat. The sacred right of representation islature of Virginia to resort to the land list as the most in the Legislature, at this critical and important consatisfactory proof in contested elections, and their de- juncture of our national concerns, ought not to be arcisions, in cases similar to the one before the committee, rested from a portion of the American people, upon have uniformly been in favor of the candidate having pretexts which are not supported by facts or circumon his poll a majority of votes supported by such list. stances, and which, if true in their fullest extent, would From this view of the laws and usages of Virginia, the fail of producing any material change in the result of committee will readily perceive that great credit is due the present investigation. To demonstrate the accurato the land list, as a list of the qualification of voters; cy of this proposition, the petitioner begs leave to refer and the petitioner feels confident that it will be re- the committee to the extraordinary augmentation of ceived by the committee as conclusive evidence in votes in the county of Westmoreland, by which it will the case under consideration, unless other testimony, appear that one hundred and sixty-two votes, not enequally respectable, should be adduced to support the rolled on the land list, were given to the sitting mempretensions of the sitting member. Apply this list to the ber in that county, being more by twenty-eight than poll of each party, and it is a fair inference, that, out are excluded from the entire poll of the petitioner, by of any given number of votes divided between them, the application of the land list as a test to his poll taken its operation would diminish the votes of each in equal for the six counties composing the district; in addition proportions. to which, the sitting member received a very large proportion of bad votes in the other counties.

The petitioner humbly conceives that the proposition of the sitting member for further time to collect his evidence, is supported neither by reason nor precedent. It would seem to be unnecessary, after the solemn decision of the House of Representatives in the case of Baylies and Turner, to enter into any general reasoning upon this subject. In the case referred to, an application for further time was refused, notwithstanding the sitting member declared it would be in his power to produce, on a subsequent day, material evidence, of which he had not previously known. But, without the aid of this adjudication, such an indulgence is manifestly inconsistent with the plainest dictates of justice, and the most familiar maxims in every judicial tribunal. If, indeed, the sitting member can show to the committee that the evidence he is in search of was not in his possession or power at any former period, 12th CoN. 1st SESS.-13

From these premises, which are supported by the strongest proofs in the possession of the committee, the conclusion is irresistible, that, admitting the sitting member to sustain every objection which he has made to the poll of the petitioner, he would fall very far short of raising his number to a legitimate majority of the district. The petitioner, therefore, with due deference to the opinion of the committee, can perceive no possible benefit to be derived from an enlargement of the time for taking testimony.

Such a course might, and most probably would, enable the petitioner to increase the majority of constitutional suffrages to which he is entitled, but it could not most assuredly lessen them into a minority. Deeply impressed by the foregoing considerations, and with the important rights of his fellow-citizens involved in

« FöregåendeFortsätt »