網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors][merged small]

justice to me, this body will be under the necessity of
Considering every question decided by the committee, as
well upon single votes, as general principles. Sheuld I
lose any portion of the majority assigned me by the com-
mittee, upon a revision by the House of the principles on
which they have decided, I should unquestionably gain
upon a revision of their decisions upon single cases.
But surely the House will not undertake to take sepa-
rate votes on every decision of the committee. If they
act upon one point separately, they must, to do justice,
act upon all. Nor would they, in that event, be certain
to express, in the end, the real opinion of the House upon
the final question; that can be done only 'by leaving
each member to vote on the general result. All have the
whole case before them—the reports of the majority and
minority—the abstracts of evidence—the evidence itself-
every argument and memorandum made by the parties
and the committee. I cannot, however, pass from the
report of the minority, without adverting to some cases of
error and inconsistency in the opinions expressed by them
upon certain votes in Anderson and Jessamine counties."
A palpable error, as I think, was committed by the
committée, in taking from me the vote of Henry Long, of
Anderson county. The committee had unanimously
adopted the following resolution, viz:
“That all declarations or statements made by voters
after the election, relative to the right of suffrage, be re-
jected.”
The only proof of Henry Long's minority is his own
declaration to G. B. Taylor, page 74, after the election.
In reply to a question, Taylor says:
“I do know a young man by the name of Henry Long,
and he told me since the August election, 1833, that he
was not twenty-one years of age.”
The occasion on which this declaration was made, and
the circumstances which followed, are not at all calcu-
lated to give it weight. Taylor says:
“I purchased a note executed by said Long to Mr.
Watts; and when I presented the note, he observed that
he was under age, and would plead infancy; and this was
the only conversation I ever had with him on the subject.
I handed the note to an officer—he was warranted—and
then he came forward and settled the amount before it
ever came to a trial.”
Put his declaration and his act together, and what is
the natural inference? Why, that he said he was a minor
only to avoid being pressed for his note; but when he
could no longer escape, admitted that he was of age by
settling it. The whole taken together, is rather evidence
that he was of age, than that he was not.
Nor was there any evidence that he gave the vote
standing in that name on the poll-book, other than the
declaration of the witness that he knew no other man of
that name in the county.
This vote was taken from me, therefore, in opposition
to a principle settled unanimously by the committee, and
upon evidence much weaker than that which I produced
against the votes of George Elliott, Jr., John Shipman,
Moses Bryant, Shelton Harris, Garret Voris, and many
others. Yet the minority did not discover this error,
which I request the House to correct.
The following will illustrate some of the inconsistencies
and errors into which the minority have fallen in Jessa-
mine county:
George Catlett voted for Mr. Letcher. John Catlett,
page 111, testifies positively that his brother George
was under age, and that he told him he voted for Mr.
Letcher at the last election. This vote was permitted to
stand as good, and the minority find no error in that
decision.
John Murphy voted for Mr. Letcher. His vote was
struck off by the majority; but the minority say it ought
to be restored. Now let us look at the evidence

T. Dunbar, page 89, testifies that John Murphy was a journeyman shoemaker in his employment; told him, both before and after the time of the election, that he was not twenty-one years of age, but said he had voted for Mr. Letcher, and would whip any man that had his vote erased, and has now left the county. There are two John Murphy's on the poll-book, and witness knows no other in the county. Mordecai Howard, page 87, testifies that Murphy told him and 1) unbar that he had voted for Letcher, and “would not be twenty-one years of age until some time next year.” W. S. Scott, page 110, testifies that there is one John Murphy only on the commissioner's books, and two on the original poll-book: witness knows but one in the county. W. P. Daniels, page 111, same. John Livingston, page 113, same. Thomas Harris voted for Mr. Letcher, and his vote was struck off upon the following evidence: James H. Lowry, page 89, testifies that Thomas Harris told him he was not of age, and he heard him vote for Mr. Letcher. Samuel Mays, page 114, testifies that he was shown “the original family record of births,” in which it is recorded that Thomas Harris was born on “7th August, 1813,” and that the father, mother, and voter, all confirmed the record; and the latter said he “would not laye voted if the judges had asked him a question about it.” J. P. Lowry, page 111, testifies that Harris told him he was under age at the time of the election, and he is not listed as a tithe on the book for 1833, but is for State tax. Yet the minority say this vote ought not to have been taken from Mr. Letcher! John Scofield voted for Mr. Letcher, and his vote was struck off upon the following evidence: Jeremiah King, page 103, testifies that he knows John Scofield was born in May or June, 1813; that Scofield told him, before the election, that he intended to vote for Mr. Letcher if he could; that he has understood he did, and sees his name on the poll-book; and that he knows no other John Scofield in the county. James Carrol, page 103, testifies that John Scofield is his nephew, and was born in June, 1813; heard him say he voted for Letcher, sees his name on the poll-book, and knows no other John Scofield in the county. Even the erasure of this vote is declared by the mi. nority to be erroneous, and they propose to the House to restore it ! But the inconsistency of the minority appears still more glaringly in other cases. Richard Curd voted for Mr. Letcher, and his vote was stricken off upon the following evidence, viz: W. S. Scott, page 109, testifies that Curd's name is not on the commissioner's book, and he knows of no such man in the county. W. P. Daniel, 112, same. Samuel Mays, 114, same. J. P. Lowry, page 153, testifies that “he knows Richard Curd; that he (said Curd) has been living down in the Green river country for two or three years last past; and at the time he voted, was here on a visit.” But the minority say this evidence was not sufficient, and that this vote ought to be restored to Mr. Letcher. Levi Nunnery voted for Mr. Letcher, and his vote was struck off on the following evidence: | | |

W. S. Scott, 110, testifies that Nunnery's name is not

on the commissioner's book, and he knows no such man in the county.

oW. P. Daniel, 112, same. Joseph Lowry, page 89, testifies that he is not on his tax-book, and he does not know him.

May 31, 1834.]

J. P. Lowry, 91, same. T. T. Coger, 98, does not know him. John Livingston, 112, same. John Smith, 117, testifies that “he lives near Mrs. Foley's, in Fayette county, and knew a certain Levi Nunnery, whose name he sees on the poll-book of the late congressional election at Nicholasville, given for R. P. Letcher for Congress; he states that, to his own knowledge, said Nunnery was working at said Mrs. Foley's, in Fayette county, four or five weeks before said election, where he also boarded, and also worked on and boarded there, without interruption, as far as he knows and believes, for two or three weeks after the election.” Yet the minority say it was an error to strike off the vote upon this evidence, and asked the House to restore it. Now, let us look at the other side. William Rew voted for me, and his vote was assailed by the following testimony, viz: J. P. Lowry, page 152, testifies that Rew's name is not on the commissioner's books, and he does not know such a voter in the county. Thomas Reynolds, Jun., 144, testifies that Rew was residing at Henry Reynolds's, in Garrard county, on the 11th of July last; that he saw him at Nicholasville on the first day, of the election, and having agreed with Moses Reynolds to try and prevent him from voting as a resident of Garrard, asked him if he had voted, and he said he had not; that Rew was afterwards, about the 11th of August, married in Jessamine; that he might, or might not, have changed his residence from Garrard to Jessamine between the 11th of July and the election; witness had seen him in Jassamine often, and remembers two places where he saw him. Although every presumption arising from this testimony is, that Rew had become a resident of the county before the election, and there is not a particle of evidence to the contrary, the minority say this vote ought to have been taken from me by the majority. They propose to take from me three others in Jessamine, one of whom, William Sutton, voted for Mr. Letcher, and has already been taken from him as a bad vote; and, as to another, J. Dixon, I do not find that any such vote was contested in the county. While I am gratified that the minority find one vote given to Mr. Letcher "to be illegal, I cannot consent that they shall change it to me on that account, nor that they shall take from Ine votes never given in the county to any one. There are three votes for Mr. Letcher, in Jessamine, as clearly proved to have been given by citizens of Woodforts, as it is possible to prove any thing; and yet the committce have ornitted to strike them off. The voters’ names are, John McMurtry, Thomas Champion, and Henry Kirby. Thomas Steele testifies that he has lived at his present place of residence since 1795; that John McMurtry is his son-in-law, and lives on his farm; that he has generally voted in Jessamine, but his house is within the limits of Woodford; that Thomas Champion also lives on his farm, still further within the limits of Woodford; and that Henry Kirby also lives in Woodford, although he has long voted in Jessamine. I am at a loss to perceive why these votes were not struck from Mr. Letcher's poll. It is not possible by more direct and positive testimony to prove that they lived out of Jessamine county, and even out of the 5th congressional district, Their right to vote was clearly in another county and district, and to vote in Jessamine was not only a violation of law, but of the constitution. Their names are on the poll-book, and the fact that they usually voted in Jessamine is quite conclusive that they gave the votes, The only ground on which a show of

[merged small][ocr errors]

voted in Jessamine, and that repeated violations of the
constitution and laws make it lawful to violate them.
Most certainly these three votes ought to be taken
from Mr. Letcher; and it is marvellous that the vigilant
minority did not discover the error of deciding them to

be good votes in Jessamine county.

Among the light matters which my competitor has introduced into his address to this House is the case of old Billy Stean, a worthy old foreigner, but not naturalized, whose vote my agent in Garrard proved to be illegal by his own deposition, with which he attempted to contrast that of John Findley, a British pensioner, who was permitted to vote in Mercer county. He was as pathetic in favor of the old soldier, as if he had some experience of the hardships and privations of the tented field. I have so much respect for brave old soldiers myself, that I would not have called in question Mr. Stean's vote, had I been acting in Garrard county in person, although it was notoriously in law a bad vote. But my agent and friends in Garrard, in the honest and faithful discharge of the services they had undertaken for me, procured evidence in relation to every vote reported to be bad, and included Stean's among the rest. The evidence was sent here not subject to my control, and it became the duty of the committee to decide on Stean's vote. It was not my fault that, by the constitution and laws of the country, and the decision of the highest judicial tribunal in it, they were obliged to decide that he had no legal right to vote. My competitor's complaints should be levelled against the constitution and laws, and the decisions of the supreme court, which permit no foreigner to exercise the right of a citizen, until he chooses to pass through the process of naturalization. . As to Mr. Findley, he is a scholar and a gentleman, against whose right to vote—a right he had exercised for many years, there was no proof. The most attempted was to show that he received money from the British Government as a pensioner--a pretty conclusive evidence that he was considered a man of merit in his native country. But my competitor's love for old soldiers seems to be confined to those only who voted for him. In Mercer county he assailed the vote of John George, another old soldier, who had lived in Mercer county upwards of thirty years, and the minority insist to the last that he ought to be struck off. This old man served during the whole of the revolutionary war, for which he is now receiving a pension, and he beat the first drum ever heard by me and probably by my competitor, as he also resided in Mercer county. I wonder that the recollection of that drum had not awakened the soldier in his heart, and induced him to spare the vote of old Mr. George. But George voted for me. That is not the kind of a soldier which excites his sympathies. Those are due only to the old soldier who, after all his other battles, is ready to go the death for Mr. Letcher. There are many other points in the address and in the voluminous case before the House, which merit remark; but I fear I shall weary your patience, and therefore leave all the rest to your reflection and judgment. Whatever may be the decision of the House, I cannot but express my gratification that this contest is approaching its close. To have been so long in a state of doubt and restraint, with my character assailed, my person assaulted, and my life threatened, has been inexpressibly painful to me. Your tables have borne witness to the rancor and malevolence with which I have been pursued. The vilest of fabrications have been gotten up, printed, and laid before you, with the evident object of poisoning your minds against me, and influencing the decision of this contest. I do not advert to these facts to enlist the sympathy of the House, No. 1 invoke stern justice. More I do not desire, and less I have no right to expect.

defence can be set up for them is, that they had before

But I may, I hope, be allowed to say, that I owe infi

[blocks in formation]

mite obligations to both the majority and minority of the committee, who have so minutely examined the testimony, for a complete acquittal of all charges of improper conduct on my part, said or insinuated. Although neither the friends nor enemies who know me needed this testimonial to satisfy them of the injustice with which I have been pursued; yet it is most gratifying to be spontaneously furnished with an evidence so conclusive, to disabuse the minds of others of my countrymen, who have had less opportunity to observe the passing scenes in the 5th congressional district of Kentucky. Those who have labored to deprive me of my honor, as well as of my rights, are already defeated; and as the entire committee have vindicated the one, I trust with perfect confidence to this House to vindicate the other. After Mr. Moon E had concluded his argument-Mr. LEAVITT moved for the previous question; but the House refused to second the call: Ayes 88, noes 102. Mr. HARDIN then rose, and went into an argumentative speech of considerable length and much animation, in opposition to the report of the Committee of Elections, and in support of Mr. Letch En’s right to a seat. Mr. McKINLEY was unwilling to vote without giving his reasons for his vote; but, conscious that the House must be weary, he would either proceed now, or defer his remarks, as the wishes of the House might seem to indicate. Mr. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, moved that the House adjourn. The yeas and nays being demanded, were thereupon taken, and resulted as follows: Yeas 81, nays 121. So the House refused to adjourn. Mr. McKINLEY then took the floor, and argued the case as a naked question of law, which he contended it to be. Mr. CHILTON ALLAN next obtained the floor, and had commenced his remarks, when he gave way for a motion to adjourn, which was made by Mr. WILLIAMS; but the yeas and nays being ordered, Mr. W. withdrew his motion. Mr. ALLAN then resumed, and appealing to the magnanimity of the House not to compel a speech at so late an hour, renewed the motion for an adjournment. The yeas and nays were demanded, and, being taken, stood as follows: Yeas 92, nays 106. So the House refused to adjourn. Mr. ALLAN said that, after this decision, he should forbear to throw himself upon the House, but would pro-pose that there be a call of the House; and that then the question should be taken in succession on the several propositions reported by the committee. The question being put on a call of the House, it was decided in the affirmative: Ayes 96, noes 58. The House was thereupon called, and 210 members answered to their names. The doors were then closed. Mr. HANNEGAN moved to suspend the call. On this question, Mr. WHITTLESEY demanded the yeas and nays; whereupon The motion to suspend was withdrawn. The absentees were then called in part, and excuses were received in their behalf; when Mr. GAMBLE moved to suspend the call. Mr. MERCER demanded the yeas and nays; when the motion was withdrawn. Mr. DICKSON renewed the motion. Mr. MERCER demanded the yeas and nays; and they were ordered. Mr. DICKSON said he would withdraw his motion until the remaining absentees should be called; which having been done, Mr. WARD moved to suspend further proceedings in the call; which was agreed to. Mr. BURD moved an adjournment; but it was negatived.

Mr. williams suggested that the absentees had

not all appeared, and moved that their names be again called. The CHAIR decided it to be out of order. The question was then put on Mr. BAN ks's first amendment. Mr. MARSHALL moved to amend it by adding the words “theological students at Danville;” which was agreed to. Mr. BEARDSLEY conceiving that votes on the several amendments proposed would have no effect on the final result, because they would not change the opinion of those who dissented from them, moved the previous question; but the House refused to second the call: Ayes 89, noes 108. Mr. S. McD. MOORE suggested to Mr. BANKs to modify his amendment, so as to move it only as an addition to the first resolution reported by the Committee of Elections, and leave the name of Mr. Moon E to be stricken out, or retained, upon the final vote. Mr. BANKS assented to this, and accepted the modification. After some conversation as to the best form of putting the question, the CHAIR stated it to be as follows: The first resolution reported by the Committee of Elections is in the words following: * Resolved, That Thomas P. Moon E be declared entitled to his seat as representative for the 5th congressional district of Kentucky. The amendment moved by Mr. BANKs, was to add the words following: “Resolved, That all the votes given by qualified voters, which were received in Lancaster, Garrard county, whilst Moses Grant, Esq. acted as one of the judges on the first morning of the election in August last, and those of a like character given on the second day of the election in the absence of the sheriff, ought to be estimated in ascertaining the result of the election. “That the votes of David McKee, Alfred W. Buford, Elijah Mount, Clayton Fitzpatrick, William R. Preston, R. L. Berry, Blackburne Leffler, Robert McKeown, Giles M. Ormond, and Lewis L. Mason, given in Mercer county, be counted; the first nine for R. P. Letcher, and the last one for T. P. Moore. “That the votes of Job M. Hall, Reuben Young, Vincent Inge, Jacob Coffman, William Jenkins, and the Rev. . David Robertson, be taken from the number of votes allowed by the majority of the committee to Moore, in Mercer county, and added to those counted for Letcher. “That the votes of Eli Williams and W. Dawson, of Anderson county, and those of William Conner, Charles Welsh, Thomas Harris, Montgomery Vanlandingham, Joseph Murrian, Levi Nunnery, Richard Curd, Anderson Hulet, Hickman Evans, Henry Wood, Richard White, of Jessamine county, be counted for Robert P. Letcher.” The question upon this amendment, at the request of Mr. Jones (of the Committee of Elections) having been divided— The question was first put on agreeing to the first clause of this amendment, viz.: “That all the votes given by qualified voters, which were received in Lancaster, Garrard county, whilst Moses Grant, Esq., acted as one of the judges on the first morning of the election in August last, ought to be estimated in ascertaining the result of the election.” And decided by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS.–Messrs. John Q. Adams, Heman Allen, John J. Allen, Chilton Allan, Anthony, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Baylies, Beaty, James M. Bell, Briggs, Bull, Burd, Burges, Cage, Campbell, Carmichael, Casey, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crockett, Darlington, Warren R. Davis, Amos Davis, Daven

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

port, Deberry, Deming, Denny, Dickson, Duncan, Ellsworth, Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Ewing, Felder, Foster, Philo C. Fuller, Gamble, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Gordon, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine, Heath, Henderson, Hiester, Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, William Cost Johnson, King, Kinnard, Laporte, Lay, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Martindale, Marshall, McComas, McKay, McKennan, McKinley, Mercer, Miller, Moore, Patton, Pinckney, Potts, Ramsay, lèencher, Selden, William B. Shepard, Augustine II. Shepperd, William Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Stewart, Stoddert, William P. Taylor, Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Turner, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, Wayne, Edward D. White, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Williams, Wilson—112. NAYS.–Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, John Bell, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Cambrel. eng, Carr, Chaney, Samuel Clark, Clay, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, Day, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Joseph Hall, Halsey, Hamer, Hannegan, Joseph M. Harper, Här. rison, Hathaway, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, Noadiah Johnson, Cave Johnson, Seaborn Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Lane, Lansing, Luke Lea, Thomas Lee, Leavitt, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, Joel K. Mann, Mardis, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKim, McLene, McVean, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, Dutee J. Pearce, Peyton, Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Pope, Schenck, Schley, Shinn, Charles Slade, Smith, Speight, Standefer, Sutherland, William Taylor, Francis Thomas, Thomson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Whallon, Campbell P. White, Wise—102. So the first clause of the amendment was agreed to. The question was then put on the second member of said amendment, viz: to add to the first resolution of the Committee of Elections, the following, viz.: “And those of a like character given on the second day of the election, in the absence of the sheriff, ought to be estimated in ascertaining the result of the election.” And decided as follows, in the affirmative: YEAS.–Messrs. John Q. Adams, Heman Allen, John J. Ailen, Chilton Allan, Anthony, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Baylies, Beaty, James M. Bell, Bouldin, Briggs, Bull, Burd, Burges, Cage, Campbell, Carmichael, Carr, Casey, Chambers, Chaney, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Clay, Clayton, Clowney, Coffee, Connor, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crockett, Darlington, Warren R. Davis, Amos Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Denning, Denny, Dickson, Duncan, Ellsworth, Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Ewing, Felder, Foster, Philo C. Fuller, Fulton, Gamble, Garland, Gholson, Gordon, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Harrison, Hazeltine, Heath, Henderson, Hiester, Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, William Cost Johnson, Richard M. Johnson, Benjamin Jones, King, Kinnard, Lane, Laporte, Lay, Luke Lea, Leavitt, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Martindale, Marshall, Mardis, McCarty, McComas, McKay, McKenran, Mercer, Miller, Moore, Patton, Dutee J. Pearce, Pinckney, Pope, Potts, Ramsay, Rencher, Selden, Wil. Ham B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, William Slade, Charles Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Stewart, William P. Taylor, Francis Thomas, Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Turner, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Wagener, Watmough, Wayne, Webster, Edward D. White, Elisha Whittlesey, Wille, Williams, Wilson, Wise—131. NAYS--Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Bean, Beardsley, 1}eaumont, John Bell, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Boon, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Cambreleng, Samuel Clark, Cramer, Day, P. Dickerson, David W. Dick.

inson, Dunlap, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Gilmer, Joseph Hall, Halsey, Hamer, Hannegan, J. M. Harper, Hathaway, Howell, Hubbard, Jarvis, Noadiah Johnson, Cave Johnson, Seaborn Jones, Kavanagh, Lansing, Thomas Lee, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, A. Mann, J. K. Mann, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKim, McKinley, McLene, McVean, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, Peyton, Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Schenck, Schley, Shinn, Smith, Speight, Standefer, Stod. dert, Sutherland, William Taylor, John Thomson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Ward, Wardwell, Whallon, Campbell P. White--84. So the said second clause of the amendment was agreed to. The question was then stated, that the House do agree to the third member of the said amendment, viz: to add to the first resolution reported by the Committee of Elections, the following, viz: “That the votes of David McKee, Alfred W. Buford, Elijah Mount, Clayton Fitzpatrick, William R. Preston, R. L. Berry, Blackburne Leffler, Robert McKeown, Giles M. Ormond, and Lewis L. Mason, given in Mercer county, be counted, the first nine for lt. P. Letcher, and the last one for T. P. Moore.” A further division of the question on this member was called for, so as to except therefrom the names of Blackburne Leffler and Giles M. Ormond. And, on the question that the House do agree to the same, with the exception of the names of Blackburne Leffler and Giles M. Ormond, was decided as follows: YEAS–Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Alien, Jahn J. Allen, Chilton Allan, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Baylies, Beaty, John Bell, J. M. Bell, Briggs, Bull, Burd, Burges, Cage, Cambreleng, Campbell, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, S. Clark, W. Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crockett, Darlington, Warren it. Davis, Amos Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Deming, Denny, Dickson, Duncan, Ellsworth, Evans, Edward Everett, Hor. Everett, Ewing, Felder, Foster, Philo C. Fuller, Fulton, Gamble, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Gordon, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine, Heath, Henderson, Hiester, Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, Wm. C. Johnson, King, Kinnard, Laporte, Lay, Lea, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Loyall, Martindale, Marshall, McCarty, McComas, McKennan, McKim, McKinley, Mc. Vean, Mercer, Moore, Patton, Pinckney, Potts, Ramsay, Rencher, Schenck, Schley, Seldon, Wm. B. Shepard, Aug. H. ShepperJ, Wm. Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Stewart, W. P. Taylor, Philemon Thomas, Thomson, Tomp. kins, Turner, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, Wayne, Webster, E. D. White, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Williams, Wilson--119. NAYS--Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Boon, Bouldin, Brown, 13unch, Burns, Bynum, Carnichael, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Clay, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, Day, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Joseph Hall, Halsey, Hamer, Hannegan, Joseph M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Jarvis, Richard Ml. Johnson, N. Johnson, Cave Johnson, S. Jones, B. Jones, Kayanagh, Lane, Lansing, Lee, Leavitt, Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, A. Mann, Joel K. Mann, Mardis, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKay, McLene, Miller, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, Peyton, Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Pope, Shinn, Charles Slade, Smith, Speight, Standefer, Stoddert, Sutherland, William 'I'aylor, Francis Thomas, Turrill, Vanderpocl, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Whallon, C. P. White, Wise—96. So, as excepted, the third clause was agreed to.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The question was then put on so much of the said third member as relates to the names of the said Blackburne Leffler and Giles M. Ormond, and passed in the af. firmative, as follows: YEAS——Messrs. John Q. Adams, Heman Allen, John J. Allen, C. Allan, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Baylies, Beaty, Jas. M. Bell, Briggs, Bull, Burd, Burges, Cambreleng, Campbell, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crockett, Darlington, Warren R. Davis, Amos Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Deming, Denny, Dickson, Duncan, Ellsworth, Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Ewing, Felder, Foster, P. C. Fuller, Fulton, Gamble, Garland, Gholson, Gordon, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine, Heath, Henderson, Hiester, Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, W. C. Johnson, King, Kinnard, Laporte, Lay, Lea, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Loyall, Martindale, Marshall, McCarty, McComas, McKennan, McKinley, McVean, Mercer, Moore, Patton, Pinckney, Potts, Rencher, Schley, Selden, W. B. Shepard, Aug. H. Shepperd, William Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Stewart, William P. Taylor, P. Thomas, Thomson, Tomkins, Turner, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Wardwell, Watmough, Wayne, E. D. White, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Williams, Wilson——112. NAYS--Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, I}ean, Beardsley, Beaumont, John Bell, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Cage, Carmichael, Carr, Casey, Chaney, S. Clark, Clay, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, 1)ay, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Gilmer, Joseph Hall, Halsey, Hamer, Hannegan, J. M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Jarvis, Itichard M. Johnson, N. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Seaborn Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Lane, Lansing, Lee, Leavitt, Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, J. K. Mann, Mardis, Moses Mason, McKay, McKim, McLene, Miller, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, Dutee J. Pearce, Peyton, F. Pierce, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Pope, Ramsay, Schenck, Shinn, Charles Slade, Smith, Speight, Standefer, Stoddert, Sutherland, William Taylor, Francis Thomas, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Webster, Whallon, C. P. White, Wise—103. So the excepted part of the third clause was also agreed to. The question then recurred on the fourth member of the said amendment; when Mr. BANKs modified the said fourth member, by striking out the name of “Jacob Coffman,” and, after the name of David Robertson, inserting the following: “being the persons whose votes were erased from the list of votes given to Robert P. Letcher, and transferred to the list of those given to Thomas P. Moore,” so as to make the fourth member read as follows, viz.: “That the votes of Job M. Hall, Reuben Young, Vincent Inge, William Jenkins, and the Rev. David Robertson, being the persons whose votes were erased from the list of votes given to Letcher, and transferred to the list of those given to Moore, be taken from the number of votes allowed by the majority of the committee to Moore in Mercer county, and added to those counted for Letcher.” And the question, that the House do agree to the said fourth member of the amendment, as modified, was decided as follows: YEAS--Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, John J. Allen, C. Allan, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Baylies, Beaty, James M. Bell, I}riggs, Bull, Burd, Burges, Cage, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carmichael, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Crane, Crockett, Dar

lington, W. R. Davis, Amos Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Deming, Denny, Dickson, Duncan, Ellsworth, Evans, Edward Everett, H. Everett, Ewing, Felder, Foster, P. C. Fuller, Fulton, Gamble, Garlard, Gholson, Gilmer, Gordon, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Hiland Hall, Hannegan, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazletine, Heath, Hiester, Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, William Cost Johnson, King, Kinnard, Lane, Laporte, Lay, Lea, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Loyall, Martindale, Marshall, Mardis, McCarty, McComas, McKay, McKennan, McKim, Mercer, Moore, Murphy, Parker, Patton, Dutee J. Pearce, Pinckney, Potts, Ramsay, Rencher, Selden, William B. Shepard, Aug. H. Shepperd, Wm. Slade, Jonathan Slade, Sloane, Spangler, Stewart, Stod. dert, William P. Taylor, Francis Thomas, Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Turner, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, Wayne, Ed. D. White, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Williams, Wilson, Wise-–119. NAYS-Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, John Bell, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Samuel Clark, Clay, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, Day, Philemon Dickerson, David W. Dickinson, I) unlap, Forester, Fowler, W. K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Jos. Hall, Halsey, Hamer, J. M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, Noadial, Johnson, Cavc Johnson, Seaborn Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Lansing, Thomas Lee, Leavitt, Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, A. Mann, J. K. Mann, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKinley, McLene, McVean, Miller, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Osgood, Page, Parks, Patterson, Peyton, Franklin |Pierce, Pieron, Plummer, Polk, Pope, Schenck, Schley, Shinn, Charles Slade, Smith, Speight, Standefer, Sutherland, William Taylor, Thomson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Whallon, Campbell P. White--95. So the sourth clause, as amended, was agreed to. The question then recurred on the fifth and last member of the amendment proposed by Mr. Basks to the report of the Committee of Elections, as above stated. Mr. GHOLSON put an inquiry as to the date of the testimony, which was replied to by Mr. JONES, of the the Committee of Elections. Mr. CIIILTON ALLAN replied and explained, referring to circumstances of law and custom in Kentucky. Mr. ELLSWORTH addressed further inquiries to Mr. Jon Es, who replied and explained. The discussion was further continued by Messrs. Porf, HARD IN, and BAN Ks; when o Mr. MUHLENBERG moved to adjourn. Tellers were appointed, and the vote stood as follows: Ayes 104, noes 48. So the House adjourned at half past eight o'clock.

Mox DAY, JUNE 2.

As soon as the journal was read-The SPEAKER rose and addressed the House as follows:

of this House, with which I have been honored for the last seven years, and of announcing to you the fact, that I have this day communicated to the Executive of Virginia my resignation as one of the representatives from that State in the present Congress. The dissolution, perhaps forever, of the intimate associations that have existed so long between us, is calculated to excite sentiments of a jo character. I feel it myself deeply and unasfectedly; and, in quitting a station in itself so honorable, one so repeatedly conferred, and in a manner so flatter

ing; a station cmd.eared to me by so many considerations

Gentlemen: I have attended in person to-day for the purpose of resigning, as I now do, the office of Speaker .

« 上一頁繼續 »