« 上一頁繼續 »
ordering an election in a case like this from the constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land, and of course paramount to all State laws, he can fix upon whatever time he chooses for the election to be held; and therefore, in every State where members of Congress have not been chosen upon the 4th of March, whether an extra session may be called or not, he can disregard the day which the statute may have designated, and thus overrule the laws. I state the objection as it has occurred to my mind, without recollecting whether I give it the exact shape which he did. I feel and acknowledge its force, and admit that it is difficult to escape from the conclusion; for, if this power is held by the Governor under the constitution of the United States, no State legislation can take it away. But there are two reflections which disarm this argument of much, if not all, of its force. The first is, that the conclusion will not be found, upon examination, to be as unpleasant as it appears to be upon a cursory view; for it is not to be supposed that the chief agent of a State Government will, without any cause or motive, overthrow the laws of the people over whom he presides. Such an evil is not, in the natural order of things, to be seared; and, besides, these very laws have, in all the States except Mississippi, confided to this very officer the duty of selecting a day for the election in case of necessity. If the constitution reposes this discretion in him, too, the mere anticipation of a flagrant abuse of the power cannot be received as an insurmountable objection to the fair construction of that instrument. The second reflection is, that the constitution intended to provide, in all cases where it was possible to do so, for its own perpetuation. The federal Government was meant to be kept up, and so far as it springs from the people instead of the States, power was given to it to preserve its own existence. This House, as a vital part of that Government, was not intended to become lapsed from a want of power to secure its continuance. I find in the constitution, therefore, that, although the States are permitted to regulate the elections for members of this body, at their own will and pleasure, yet provision is instantly made for a defective execution of this power in the legislative branches, by throwing upon the Governors the clear and high responsibility of seeing that the members of this House are duly chosen, in the very clause which is the subject of all this debate; and, lastly, by way of meeting every conceivable emergency, if the legislative and executive branches of a State should both fail to discharge their duty, an ultimate power is reserved to Congress to regulate for itself the elections to this House. Taking these different parts, and deducing the spirit which emanates from them all conjointly, I am led to believe that no vacancy in this body was intended to be long tolerated. In the physical world there is no vacuum. Nature is said to abhor it. Just so in our political system; those who created this artificial state of being equally abhorred a vacancy in this House, and they therefore imposed a pressure upon every point where that pressure could tend to fill it up. This consideration leads us to the very structure of the Federal Government, whether it was meant to be a loose and disjointed fabric, or one firmly knit together, so as to be lasting. This House is bound to the people of the United States by an indissoluble tie. If any one State chooses to loosen the knot, Congress can fasten it again. This is the way in which I read the constitution, and I shall not be deterred from coming to a conclusion corresponding with this interpretation, by a misplaced fear that Governors of States will rush madly from their spheres for no other purpose than to introduce confusion and disorder. I shall, therefore, vote to sustain the report of the majority of the Committee of Elections.
Mr. CUSHMAN now moved the previous question and a call of the House, [which was very thin, owing, as was supposed, to an interesting debate in another part of the Capitol;] but his motion not seeming to meet the wishes of his friends, he withdrew it.
Mr. LINCOLN next took the floor, and made an argumentative speech in opposition to the report of the comInittee. Mr. HASTINGS followed in opposition to the report of the committee. Mr. PARMENTER rose merely to respond to an appeal by his colleague, [Mr. LIN colN,] on the matter of fact stated by him, that it had been the usage of the Legislature of Massachusetts to reject votes for any incorrectness of form. It is true, that, formerly, it had been the custon to reject votes for informalities of almost every description; but, more recently, the decisions had been different. Several instances of informal returns and other variations from the provisions of law had occurred within a year or two in Massachusetts; but after a very full discussion, notwithstanding the incorrectness of form, the members, whose seats were contested, were allowed to retain them. The decisions were the more striking, as the question had an important bearing on the relative strength of parties, and political feelings were to some extent enlisted, yet the candidates of the minority were sustained. In the instance quoted by my colleague, that returns of votes were never counted unless received within the time prescribed by law, he is correct. But there were several variations from the statutes, which were considered matters of form, and, although important, were not sufficiently so to destroy the substantial part of the proceedings of the towns in voting. The principle sustained was this: that when the will of the people was clearly shown, the irregularities should be very great to affect their expressed wishes. Mr. LOOMIS, of New York, addressed the Speaker, and said that, viewing this question as involving directly an important construction of the constitution, no apology was necessary by one who was called to sit in judgment upon it, for assigning briefly the reasons of his opinions. In his estimation, the conclusion to which the House should arrive on this question, however important to the individuals concerned, and to their State and constituents, was still more so as a solemn adjudication upon the very important feature of the constitution involved in it, and it was matter of deep and abiding interest that this the first decision upon it should be correct in principle. The constitution of these United States was doubtless intended, by those who formed and adopted it, to embrace within itself all the elements of an original Government, and of security against dissolution from external causes. One of the provisions of that constitution is, that there shall be a House of Representatives with certain prescribed powers. To secure the existence of this chief repository of legislative powers, under all circumstances, and under every contingency, was one of the wise designs of that instrument, The constitution provides that “the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year.” The time of commencement of the term, or its termination, is no otherwise fixed in that instrument. The first term of service of the Representatives, and that of the Executive and other officers under it, commenced necessarily on the day of the organization of the Government which was founded by it, and which was on the fourth day of March; and from that day to this, the fourth of March, in every second year, has been justly considered as the commencement of the term of subsequent Representatives. All parties here, I understand, concur in this construction ; all also agree that the Representatives in the 24th Congress from Mississippi went out of office on the third day of March last. From that day the office of Representative must be considered vacant, unless it had been filled by a previous election, of which there is no pretence, until an election should be held under the constitution to fill it. By a law of the State of Mississippi, the election of Re
presentatives in Congress is to be held “once in every two years, to be computed from the first Monday in November, 1833.” The Legislature of that State had not the power to change the constitutional term of representation in Congress, nor is there any good reason to suppose it had any such design. States not to have their Representatives elected until after the expiration of the last session of each Congress. There are many good reasons for this mode, as well as some against it. It is often very desirable to exhibit to the people the entire political course through a whole Congress of a member who is a candidate for re-election. The regular sessions of Congress have commenced on the day named in the constitution, no law naming a different day having been adopted since the first organization of the Government, and this affords ample time for canvassing the merits of the candidates between the expiration of their terms on the 3d of March, and the election in November. The instances in which extraordinary sessions of Congress have been called by the President have been rare, not exceeding two or three since the adoption of the constitution; and no such instance has, before this ses. sion, occurred since the admission of Mississippi into the Union as a State. The time appointed by the President for the meeting of this extraordinary session was before the November election provided for by the law of that State; and, unless a special election could be held, that State would not be represented at a session of Congress called for an extraordinary occasion, and to which public attention was turned with unusual interest and anxiety. The Governor of the State of Mississippi, under these circumstances, issued his writ of election, reciting the call of the special session, and that a vacancy had occurred by the expiration of the term of the late members, and requiring a special election to be held in July, “to fill said vacancy,” “until superseded by the members to be elected at the next regular session” in November. At this special election the now sitting members were elected; the question is now, at their request, presented to the House to determine what is their situation—are they lawfully members of this House? If they are, do their terms expire with this session or at the general election in November, or are they members of the entire twenty-fifth Congress There are two sections of the constitution having a bearing upon this matter. Section 4 reads thus: “The times, places, and mannner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” Some of those who oppose the resolution reported by the committee insist that the Legislature of the State of Mississippi has exercised this power by appointing the election to be held in November, and that to permit the present election to be held valid would be to give to the Governor of a State the power to repeal and set at naught a valid act of the State Legislature. It is provided in the second section of the constitution, that “when vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the Executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.” It is also said by some of the opponents of the resolution that the vacancy in question was not such a one as is mentioned in this clause of the constitution; that it did not “happen:” that the word “happen” implies some death, accident, or casualty, and does not cover the case of an omission by the Legislature to provide by law for an occasion like the present. Mr. Speaker, I differ from those honorable gentlemen on both these positions. The Governor's power and that of the Legislature were alike derived directly from the constitution of the United States. Neither was paramount to the other; neither could control the other, or in any manner exercise its functions, except
It is a part of the policy of many of the
in the case defined for each in the constitution. That instrument declared that Representatives should be elected ; it authorized the Legislature to fix the time and place of the election; it also authorized the Governor to act, to cause an election to be held in case a vacancy happened. It is a sound and well-established rule, that every law and every instrument must be so construed, if practicable, as to make all its parts effectual and operative. It would render that part of the constitution which gives power to the Governor inefficient and inoperative, if he could not order an election, in case of a vacancy, at another time than the -general election provided by law; no special election could even be held by his order if that construction were to prevail; if a vacancy by death should happen, it could not be filled, if this view be right, until the time prescribed by the State law should arrive, because the Legislature alone is authorized to fix the time and place. It will be perceived at once that this construction cannot be sustained; it would render absolutely nugatory the part which gives power to the Governor to cause a vacancy to be filled. That clause is equally valid with the other, and both must be construed so as to give effect to each. It is said this construction gives to the Governor of that State the right to order an election immediately after the expiration of the term on 3d of March in every case, whether it be made necessary by a call of a special session of Con. gress or not. Be it so. I admit, nay, I maintain, that the Governor might do this as a matter of abstract constitutional right; but, at the same time, I say it would be very indiscreet, and even an abuse of power in him, to put the people of the State to the trouble and expense of a special election, which was wholly unnecessary. Doubtless there are many unwise things which a State Executive might constitutionally do; but there is no danger of such palpable and useless abuses; the people and the Legislature, in appointing the time for election to be held in November, chose, for the good reasons I have before mentioned, to entrust to the Executive the duty to appoint the time and place of special elections when rendered necessary, and they justly concluded that no individual of sufficient character to attain that station would ever be guilty of the folly, though he might have the power to order a special election, when the general election appointed by law would arrive before the officers to be elected could act. A new position was taken by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. SLADE.] He conceded that, by the fair construction of the language, a vacancy had happened, but that it was a limited vacancy, which expired at the time appointed by law for holding the election. That the vacancy being so limited, the election was to fill the vacancy only, and, consequently, that members of that State were properly entitled to seats until November, and then their office expired. This would directly violate the constitution; it would be limiting the term of members on this floor to a shorter period than that prescribed by the constitution; it would give us two sets of members for the twenty-fifth Congress. If it was competent for the State authorities, either unitedly or separately, to cause two sets of Representatives to hold seats successively in the twentyfifth Congress, there was nothing to prevent them from making the office annual, or having a new set at each session. The only reasonable inference is, that the Legislature of that State designed to have members of Congress elected under the Governor's writ of election, instead of at their general election, whenever the exigency demanded such a course. But, sir, the strong ground relied on by most of those who oppose this resolution is involved in the use of the word “happen” in this clause of the constitution. I deny that this word is limited to the sense to which those gentlemen would confine it. Sir, the word “happen" is used
upon the concurrence of two events—whether those events are casual, or caused each by volition, or by natural laws. , Thus: this special session happened to be called between the time of the expiration of the last Congress and the time appointed by law for a new election, and hence a vacancy happened. But I will not go into the matter of the philological meaning of this expression, for the reason that it has been very fully and ably discussed. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. How ARD) has referred the House to the proceedings of the convention at which the constitution was formed; it was there used precisely as if it had been when there shall be a vacancy. As this clause was originally adopted, it was in a form somewhat more diffuse, and the words “in which such vacancy shall happen” were used at the last end of the sentence, to express the idea conveyed in the first part of the same sentence by the word “vacancy,” without the conjunction of the word “happen.” After the constitution had been adopted in detail, a committee was appointed to revise the language and arrangement of it, and report it, to convey the same ideas as intended by the draught. That committee abridged this clause by changing the phraseology so as to use the word vacancy but once in it; and, in that way, the word happen came by transposition from the last part of the sentence, and was placed by the side of the word vacancy, in the first part, evidently without intending to change the sense. Is not this conclusive as to the fair construction of those words 1 But, sir, we have, in addition to this, the testimony of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. An Axis, ) showing what has always been the construction given to this word in similar cases by the executive branch of the Government. It is, that whenever a vacancy exists, a vacancy happens. Mr. Speaker, all party views on this question should be entirely discarded. It should rest exclusively on its own merits; and in that spirit I have endeavored to view it. In my mind there remains not a doubt upon the subject; and to me it appears most clearly that those gentlemen are duly elected members of the 25th Congress, and that their term, as such members, cannot expire before the constitutional limit. I cannot but anticipate that I am on this subject with a large majority of this House of both political parties. [The hour of recess arriving, the House separated until 4 P. M. without taking any question.]
Ev ENING SEssion.
MISSISSIPPI ELECTION. The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Elections. Mr. LOOMIS resumed and concluded his remarks, as given entire above. Mr. ADAMS then rose and addressed the Chair substantially as follows: Mr. Speaker : Differing essentially in opinion as I do from that of the gentleman who has just taken his seat, and from the report of the majority of the Committee of Elections, with regard to the limitation in the writ of election, I am constrained again, though very unwillingly, to address the House on this question. Not on the question whether a vacancy had happened in the representation of the people of Mississippi in this House, because upon that point you have understood, from the observations which I submitted to the House this morning, my opinions concur with those contained in the report of the committee. But the question affecting the right of the members from Mississippi to seats on this floor, is not whether a vacancy in the representation of the State had happened, but what the vacancy was, and how that vacancy was to be filled. Now the vacancy was of two seats in this House of inembers from the State of Mississippi for the twenty-fifth Congress of the United States, which twenty-fifth Congress
commenced on the 4th of March last, and is to continue till the 4th of March, 1839. That is the 25th Congress of the United States, and that was the vacancy in the representation of the people of the State of Mississippi; and so it is understood by the majority of the Committee of Elections who have reported the resolution, that Messrs. CLAI bonNE and Gholson have been duly elected members of the 25th Congress. But have they been so elected 1 The constitution of the United States provides that “the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.” The term for which they are chosen is two years. The constitution further provides, that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. And the constitution further provides, that when vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the Executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. The Legislature of the State of Mississippi had, by an act of the 2d of March, 1833, (so much of which as relates to the subject before the House is inserted in the report of the Committee of Elections,) prescribed that the elections for members of Congress, as well as of the Governor, members of the Legislature, and others, should be held biennially, and particularly that the Representatives to Congress from that State should be elected once in every two years, to be computed from the first Monday in November, in the year 1833. Such is the standing law of the State, and in enacting it the Legislature appear not to have been aware that it left the State wholly without represcntation in this Hall, from the commencement of every Congress on the 4th of March, till late in November of every first Congressional year; and the consequence is, and must be, that whenever Congress shall meet, whether by virtue of a law of the United States, or by special call from the President of the United States, in the interval
between the 4th of March, the day when the Congress
commences, and the first Monday in December thereafter, the State of Mississippi cannot lawfully be represented in the House of Representatives of the United States. The vacancy is created, not as the writ of election issued by Governor Lynch avers, by the expiration of the term of service of the members of a former Congress, but by the law of the State deferring the elections of members to a Congress commencing on the 4th of March till the subsequent November. The vacancy thus created by the law of the State is a vacancy which the Executive of a State cannot supply. It is not within the purview of the authority given him to supply vacancies, for the following reasons: First, because it is inconsistent with the law of the State itself, which prescribes that the election shall be held once in every two years, in November, and consequently prohibiting its being held more than once in that term. Secondly, because it is inconsistent with the provision of the constitution of the United States that the members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen by the people every second year. And, thirdly, because it would change the tenure of the term of office, prescribed by the constitution to be for two years, into a tenure of two sets of members from the same State; one for a single session or part of a session, and the other for the remainder of the term of two years. But if the Governor of the State cannot supply the vacancy, thus created by the law of the State, for the interval of time between the 4th of March and the first Monday in November, still less can he, directly in the face of the
law of the State, supply a vacancy for a whole term of two “
Oct. 3, 1837.]
years. The gentleman from New York thinks he could, and that his writ of election, instead of authorizing it to be held for a choice of members to sit until superseded by members to be chosen at the regular election in November, should have directed it to be held for members of the twenty-fifth Congress. The report of the Committee of Elections avows the opinion that the Governor, by introducing into his writ of election the restriction upon the terms of service of the members to be chosen, transcended his powers. The report says that the opinion of the committee was almost unanimous that the writ was perfect in itself without the restricting clause; that its being there does not invalidate the election held under it, but that it may fairly be rejected as surplusage. They, accordingly, reject it as surplusage, and present to the House a resolution that Messrs. Claib on NE and Gholsos have been duly elected members of the twenty-fifth Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have never been a tenacious adherent to the disorganizing doctrine of State rights. But conversant as I have been with the constitution of the United States from its origin; familiar as I have been with all the controversies which attended its progress from the 17th of September, 1787, when it was presented by the convention at Philadelphia to the people of the Union, till its final adoption by the people of the whole thirteen primitive States of the Confederacy—equally familiar with all the subsequent controversies and collisions of power between the General and State Governments, as well as between the several departments of this Government—sworn as I have repeatedly been to support both the constitution of the United States and that of my native Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and profoundly responsible as I hold, and ever have held, myself to a tribunal far beyond this visible diurnal sphere, for the faithful observance of those oaths, I have invariably considered the Government of this our common country as consisting of two distinct, separate, independent, but interwoven authorities, both limited— each sovereign within its appropriate sphere—each lawfully powerless to encroach upon the appropriate functions of the other; and of all the errors which half a century of national existence has brought forth to kindle the torch of discord in our country, the doctrine of nullification is, in my judgment, the greatest and the most pernicious. And next to that is the doctrine of nullification, by the Executive, of the acts of the legislative power—I do not mean by the veto, before a legislative act becomes a law—I do not mean by the constitutional control given to Congress over certain acts of State legislation—but I mean the annulment, by a State law, of an act of Congress, or the annulment of a State law by an Executive proclamation, or by any department of the General Government, except as authorized by the constitution. Now, sir, it appears to me that both these errors are involved in the opinion expressed by the gentleman near me from New York, [Mr. Loostis, ) in the report of the Committee of Elections, and in the resolution with which it closes, that Messrs. CLAIbon NE and Gholson have been duly elected members of the 25th Congress. The gentleman from New York thinks the Governor of the State of Mississippi reprehensible for limiting in his writ the election of the members to a term to be superseded by members to be chosen at the general election in November, prescribed by the law of the State. The report of the Committee of Elections considers the Governor as having, by
inserting the restriction, transcended his powers. They reject the restriction as surplusage' Sir, it was the standing law of the State. The law of
the State surplusage . The Governor of the State, by conforming his writ to the law of the State, transcended his powers : Why, what would he have done if he had omitted the restriction from his writ He would have annulled the law of the State by proclamation. That would
have been a transcending of his powers with a vengeance! Sir, there has been a time, in the land of our fathers, when the pretension of power in a kingly crowned head to annul the laws of the land by proclamation conducted the royal nullifier to the block. As a democrat, as a republican, I should hardly expect that the gentleman from New York would be ready to invest the Governor of a State with a dispensing power to annul the laws of the State by proclamation. As devoted and ardent supporters of State rights, I should hardly have expected from the majority of the Committee of Elections a charge against the Governor of the State of Mississippi, of transcending his powers by strict conformity to the law of the State; and still less can I think that this House will adopt a resolution equivalent to the appointment by this House of members to represent the people of the State of Mississippi from the close of the present session to the end of the 25th Congress. For this, and nothing less than this, will be the effect of adopting the resolution reported by the majority of the Committee of Elections. Upon the face of the credentials of these gentlemen, as stated by themselves, they were elected to represent the people of the State of Mississippi in this House, until superseded by members to be chosen at the regular State election in November. Yet the resolution, reported by the committee, declares that they shall represent the people of that State during the whole of the 25th Congress. The people of the State elected them to serve for one session. The resolution of the House is to constitute them Representatives of the people of Mississippi from the close of this session till the 4th of March, 1839. Sir, it is my very deliberate opinion that the election of the two members from the State of Mississippi, for a term, to be superseded by others to be elected next November, was unconstitutional ; that no such election could be held, because it is in direct collision with that provision of the constitution of the United States which prescribes that the members of this House shall be chosen every other year. But the time, place, and manner of holding the election, being entrusted by the constitution to the State Legislature, and the Legislature having provided only for an election to be held once in two years, and that in the month of November, after the commencement of the term of the Congress for which they are elected, there was no authority in the State competent to ordain an election for a single session of Congress, or for a term short of two years, from the 4th of March, 1837. The election was, therefore, null and void. It was not an election for a single session, or until November, because the constitution of the United States admits of no such election. It was not an election for the whole Congress, because the law of the State required that another election for that purpose should be held in November, and the writ of election issued by the Governor, in exact conformity to the law of the State, expressly restricted the term of service to the interval till the regular election in November. If he had no power to insert the restriction in the writ, he had none to issue the writ itself. If the election was to be held for the whole Congress, the law of the State had prescribed that it should be held in November, and it could be held at no other time. The error of all this was in the law of the State, fixing the time for the election of the State's members in this House nine months after the commencement of the Congress itself. The power of the Governor was not competent either to repeal this law or to supply its defect. He assumed authority to supply its defect; and the report of the Committee of Elections, while charging him with trans
If the House should adopt the resolution reported by the Committee of Elections, we are yet to see how it will be taken by the people of the State of Mississippi. Their law requires that the election of members to represent them in this House for the present Congress should be held next November. That law this House cannot set aside. The election must and will be held, and it is to be presumed that the same members will be again returned. Although I hold that the election by which they now occupy their seats was irregular, null, and void, I have been content that they should hold the seats, and wish they may continue to hold
them till the close of the session; because, however irregu
lar the election may have been, they were actually chosen by large majorities of the people, and there is no comparison in point of magnitude between the mere inconvenience of an informal election, and the great evil of depriving the people of a whole State of their representation in this House, when they have actually signified their pleasure by whom they choose to be represented. I would, therefore, postpone to the last hour of the session the decision of the question; but I should then vote for the resolution as proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee. The regular election would then be held according to the law of the State of Mississippi; and as there is no reason for expecting that the people of the State of Mississippi have, since last August, transferred their preferences to other persons, there can be no doubt that the same members will be chosen again. But it is devoutly to be wished that the Legislature of the State of Mississippi will, by a suitable modification of their election law, provide against the recurrence of this defect in their representation in this House, which must otherwise return whenever a session intervenes between the fourth of March and the first Monday in December of every alternate year. Other States are in the same situation. Eight or ten have been obliged to hold their elections since the special call for the present session by the President of the United States. The constitution no doubt authorizes Congress by law to alter the time of holding the election, as regulated by the law of the State; but there never yet has arisen a necessity for exercising this power by Congress; nor should it, without necessity, be exercised. It is a still more exceptionable remedy for the evil which is now proposed; an assumption of illegal power by the Governor of a State, and the nullification of a State law by a resolution of this House. Mr. CAMBRELENG asked that there might be a call of the House. This was agreed to, and the roll was called; when 105 members answered to their names. Mr. CAMBREL ENG moved that all further proceedings in the call be dispensed with ; and, with a view of affording the absent members time to resume their seats, asked for the yeas and nays on his motion; which being ordered, resulted : Yeas 137, nays 61. So all further proceedings in the call were dispensed with. Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, said that, as there was a doubt as to whether the gentlemen from Mississippi had been elected for the present session only, or the whole Congress, he thought it would be the better plan to lay the whole subject on the table, and thus afford time for them to return and be re-elected. With that view, he moved that the report of the Committee of Elections, with the amendment thereto, be laid on the table, and, on that question he asked for the yeas and nays. Mr. WHITTLESEY withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. FILLMORE, who hoped the subject would not be thus disposed of, as it would leave the people of Mississippi in doubt. Mr. WHITTLESEY then renewed his motion, and the yeas and nays being ordered, resulted : Yeas 70, nays 145, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Adams, Alexander, John W. Allen,
Aycrigg, Bell, Bond, John Calhoon, Wm. B. Campbell, Wm. B. Carter, Chambers, Cheatham, Childs, Corwin, Cranston, Crockett, Curtis, Darlington, Dawson, Davies, Deberry, Dennis, Dunn, Elmore, Evans, Everett, Ewing, Goode, Wm. Graham, Graves, Grennell, Hall, Halsted, Harlan, Harper, Hastings, Hawes, Henry, Herod, Henry Johnson, Lawler, Lewis, Lyon, Mallory, Samson Mason, Maury, Maxwell, McKennan, Milligan, Calvary Morris, Ogle, Pope, Potts, Rariden, Randolph, Reed, Rencher, Ridgway, Russell, Sawyer, Sergeant, Slade, Southgate, Stanly, Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Elisha Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Wise, Yorke–70. NAYs—Messrs. H. Allen, Anderson, Andrews, Atherton, Beatty, Beirne, Bicknell, Birdsall, Boon, Borden, Bouldin, Briggs, Brodhead, Bronson, Bruyn, Buchanan, Bynum, Wm. B. Calhoun, Cambreleng, John Campbell, T. J. Carter, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, Cilley, Clark, Cleveland, Clowney, Coles, Connor, Crary, Cushman, Davee, DeGraff, Dromgoole, Duncan, Edwards, Farrington, Fairfield, R. Fletcher, I. Fletcher, Foster, Fry, Gallup, Rice Garland, Glascock, J. Graham, Grant, Gray, Griffin, Haley, Hanmond, Hamer, Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Holsey, Holt, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Robert M. T. Hunter, Ingham, T. B. Jackson, Jabez Jackson, Joseph Johnson, N. Jones, J. W. Jones, Kilgore, Klingensmith, Leadbetter, Lincoln, Logan, Arphaxed Loomis, Andrew W. Loomis, Marvin, J. M. Mason, Martin, May, McKay, R. McClellan, A. McClellan, McClure, McKim, Menefee, Mercer, Miller, Montgomery, Morgan, S. W. Morris, Muhlenberg, Murray, Noyes, Palmer, Parker, Parinenter, Patterson, Patton, Paynter, Pearce, Peck, Pennybacker, Petrikin, Phelps, Phillips, Plumer, Potter, Pratt, Prentiss, Reily, Rhett, Richardson, Rives, Robertson, Rumsey, Sheffer, Charles Shepard, Shields, Sheplor, Smith, Snyder, Spencer, Stewart, Stratton, Taliaferro, Taylor, Thomas, Titus, Toucey, Towns, Turney, Underwood, Wail, Wanderveer, Wagener, Weeks, A. S. White, John White, Thomas T. Whittlesey, S. Williams, J. W. Williams, J. L. Williams, C. H. Williams, Worthington, Yell–145. So the motion to lay on the table was decided in the negative. Mr. HAYNES then moved the previous question, which was seconded : Yeas 105, nays 81; and the main question was ordered without a division. Mr. BRIGGS called for the yeas and nays on the main question, which was the adoption of the resolution reported by the Committee of Elections, that Messrs. Claiborne and Gholson were entitled to their seats; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 118, nays 101, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Anderson, Andrews, Atherton, Beatty, Bierne, Bicknell, Birdsall, Boon, Bouldin, Brodhead, Bronson, Bruyn, Buchanan, Bynum, Cambreleng, John Campbell, T. J. Carter, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, Cilley, Clark, Cleveland, Coles, Connor, Crary, Cushman, Davee, DeGraff, Dromgoole, Duncan, Edwards, Elmore, Farrington, Fairfield, Isaac Fletcher, Foster, Fry, Gallup, Glascock, William Graham, Grant, Gray, Haley, Hammond, Hamer, Harrison, Hawkins, Haynes, Herod, Holsey, Holt, Howard, Hubley, Ingham, T. B. Jackson, J. Jackson, Joseph Johnson, N. Jones, J. W. Jones, Kemble, Kilgore, Klingensmith, Legare, Leadbetter, Lewis, Logan, Arphaxed Loomis, J. M. Mason, Martin, May, R. McClellan, A. McClellan, McClure, McKim, Miller, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, S. W. Morris, Muhlenberg, Murray, Noble, Palmer, Parker, Parmenter, Paynter, Pennybacker, Petrikin, Phelps, Plumer, Potter, Pratt, Prentiss, Reily, Rhett, Richardson, Rives, Sheffer, Sheplor, Smith, Snyder, Spencer, Stewart, Taylor, Thomas, Titus, Toucey, Turney, Wail, Wanderveer, Wagener, Webster, Weeks, A. S. White, T. T. Whittlesey, Jared W. Williams, Worthington—118.