網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors]

the eastern and western divisions of Michigan, that it was with much gratification I learned that a bill, which would necessarily involve a decision on this question, had been referred to a committee, neither of whom were from States directly interested in the result, and from all of whom a just regard to the rights and interests of a feeble frontier Territory may be confidently anticipated.” This letter was in answer to one from the chairman of the committee to the gentleman from Michigan, requesting him to submit to the committee his views on the subject of the boundary prescribed in the bill. The gentleman did so submit his views; and, in addition to this source of light, the committee had before them the ample report of the Territorial Committee of this House on the subject, accompanied as it was by the volume of printed arguments, acts, and documents, legislative and executive, to which I have before alluded, as also the maps of the country. Thus, sir, in full view of the entire subject, with the strongest light reflected from all sides upon the point in question, this committee, composed as it is of some of the ablest lawyers and most experienced statesmen of the Union, made to the Senate a report which, being brief, I will ask the privilege to read: “The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill to settle and establish the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio, unanimously report: “That they have carefully examined all the arguments of the Delegate from the Territory of Michigan, and of the Legislative Council of said Territory, which have been laid before them, as well as the arguments submitted in behalf of the State of Ohio. The committee annex those arguments to their report, marked A, B, C, D. The committee have no doubt of the authority of Congress to settle and establish the northern boundary of the State of Ohio, according to the proposition contained in the constitution of the State; and they deem it expedient so to settle and establish it. They therefore report the bill referred to them without amendment.” Such, sir, is the report, upon which the bill, aster hav. ing undergone in the Senate the customary discussion, (for that body wants not the talent or the inclination to debate, ) passed by a vote of thirty to nine. And if the Territory was not represented on the floor of the Senate, that misfortune was fully countervailed by the opposition to the bill arising from the sympathy which the misfortune itself excited, as well as by the additional argument of the gentleman from Michigan, forwarded, in the form of a printed circular, to each member of the Senate, during the pendency of the discussion. And now, sir, after this subject has made the round of both Houses; passed through the crucible of two committees; received the sanction of the Senate as a law; and come again to this House, accompanied by the mass of printed reports, arguments, documents, and maps, of which I have before spoken, the gentleman moves a ref. erence of the subject again to a committee, for the ostensible purpose of having another report, preparatory to the final action of this body. And in support of his motion the gentleman has urged— 1st. That the reference is necessary, not so much as it would seem for the purpose of placing the subject in a more distinct point of view before the House, as because that is, in his opinion, the more regular parliamentary course. 2dly. That the question presented by the bill is judicial in its character, belongs to the Supreme Court, and therefore without the power of Congress; and, 3dly. That the State of Ohio is already great and powerful enough, and that the Territory of Michigan is comparatively small and feeble. It would require but little effort to show, that each one of these three arguments possesses in itself the important

[blocks in formation]

attribute of being a triumphant answer to both of the others; and that, taken collectively, they oppose a direct negation to the ostensible motive assigned by the gentleman for his motion. To the first of the arguments I have already given an answer, even if it were not sufficiently answered by the other two. To the second, which puts this question of boundary beyond the power of Congress, and into the Supreme Court, I will respond, and ask the gentleman why, if this be a judicial question, did he, in his letter to the chairman of the Senatorial committee, congratulate himself upon the pendency of the bill in the Senate, and the prospect of the final adjustment of the question? Why did he acquiesce in the legislative action which that body were then exerting over the subject? Why did he, in his printed argument addressed to the Senators, urge upon them the justice and expediency of their fixing the contested boundary "...of to the claims of the Territory, is he believed they had no right or power to fix the boundary at all? And why does the gentleman now, instead of moving to reject or lay the bill upon the table, seek its reference to a committee, when, in so doing, he again evidently recognises legislative jurisdiction of the subject. But, sir, to suppose this to be a judicial question is to suppose a case that can never be adjudged. It is to suppose the possibility of a litigation, without parties litigant. The Territory can neither litigate as an individual or a State, for the plain reason that she is neither the one nor the other. She possesses not an attribute by which she can, according to the constitution of the United States, be recognised as a party upon the calendar of the court. As a Territory she enjoys but a transitory existence, and stands to the General Government in the relation of a community, of temporary and imperfect organization, dependent upon a superior, from which it derived its being. Sir, the truth is, that this bill does not present an issue between the State and the Territory. If an issue it could be called, it would be an issue between the State of Ohio and the United States. The only connexion which Michigan has with the subject, is the prospective interest she may, as a matter of policy, have in the adjustment of the question by Congress, anterior to her admission into the Union as a State. This view of the subject does not break, but increases the force of the argument I have urged against the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the question. The question arises upon the previous acts of Congress, in reference to a subject-matter over which Congress yet possesses illimitable control. And because the subject is still within legislative control, it is for that very reason that the judiciary cannot be called in to supersede Congress. Whether Congress should, in the act authorizing the people to form a constitution for Ohio, fix the northern boundary at the line for which we contend, or elsewhere, was exclusively a question of expediency and discretion with Congress alone. Whether the boundary were fixed by the one or the other of the contested lines, no other State or power could complain, since no State or power, whose rights or interests could be in anywise affected, then existed there. If, therefore, there be in the act authorizing the formation of the State Government of Ohio, or in the constitution of the State with which Congress admitted her into the Union, any ambiguity as to the line intended as her boundary, has not Congress the power to remove that ambiguity, at the instance of the State, by an act declaratory of what was the original intention of Congress? I shall insist, not only on the affirmation of this question, but also that it is the duty of Congress so to do—a duty with which it has no power to dispense. The constitution of the United States, in distributing the powers and duties of Government among the severai departments, has authorized neither one to transfer, either

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

directly or indirectly, any portion of these powers or duties to either of the others. Such an authority would speedily remove the barrier which separates the departments; throw all power into one miscellaneous mass, and the country itself into hopeless anarchy. I must, therefore, be permitted to maintain that the settlement of this question of boundary being now within the competency and among the duties of the legislative power, Congress has no right to withhold its action, and, by postponing the question until, by a future act of legislation, Michigan shall be admitted into the Union, indirectly transfer the subject for adjustment to the Supreme Court. The question may be evaded now, by the reference of this bill, but it must recur again whenever a bill shall be reported here for the admission of Michigan. Such a bill must necessarily define the boundaries of the intended State. The question will then arise, can Congress bound the new State by the northern boundary line of Ohio, whilst the very existence of that line is disputed and unknown, and whilst Congress alone can know, but still refuses to say, where it is or where it should be? If, then, the question must necessarily arise, does it not seem the policy of both Congress and the Territory, that it should be settled now, in a separate bill? Or does the gentleman from Michigan suppose that he will quicken the advance of his Territory, from the humility of a dependent condition to the dignity of a State, by imposing upon her the weight of this ligation? Sir, the question presented by this bill is one of a peculiar character and peculiar delicacy--such a question as never can arise under any other political system than our own. It is a compound question of expediency and right —of cxpediency on the part of the General Government, arising from considerations of general policy; and of right on the part of the State of Ohio, so far as she may be said to hold that by right which she has derived from Congress, and of which Congress cannot, without injustice, divest her. But let it be supposed that Congress has the power to dispense with the adjustment of this controversy until Michigan shall have been admitted into the Union, and, in so doing, to transfer it, in the form of a law suit, to the Supreme Court. Will it be expedient, with prudential regard to the general good, so to do? Will it be wise and circumspect, with reference to the delicate structure of our political fabric, not only to admit a State into the Union while she is carrying on an imbittered contest with another, but to create that contest by the very act of ad. mission; as if, because the judiciary may be the common arbiter between the States, Congress had determined to become the common source of their litigation? Sir, the perpetuity of the Union depends upon the harmony of its parts; and we should seek to preserve rather than disturb that harmony. The decision by Congress of this, and, indeed, of all other questions partaking of a political character, and affecting the interests of communities, will be acquiesced in more willingly by the parties, than if such decision were rendered by the Supreme Court; and that upon a principle founded in the nature of man, and which is powerfully developed and strengthened by the action of our political system. The tone of the age is, that responsibility shall accompany power. Questions of boundary between States are the last to which Congress should give rise, as they are ever contested with the most immitigable violence and invincible obstimacy. They are so, because they always involve the extent of territory, and, therefore, the resources, power, and pride of a country. Such questions ever have, in all ages and countries, been the pregnant source of the most interminable strife and lasting calamity. Rights of boundary are those which, above all others, States and nations most vigilantly guard and reluctantly surrender-—a truth beautifully illustrated by the metaphorical genius of the

[merged small][ocr errors]

Roman mythology, which ascribed to Terminus the stubborn virtue of being the last of the gods to abandon his charge, even at the bidding of Jupiter himself. I have said that the question presented by this bill is a question of right on the part of Ohio, so far as she may be said to hold that by right which she derived from Congress, and of which she cannot be justly bereft. Although I am aware that the motion now before the House precludes the discussion of this question upon its merits, yet I trust that I may be indulged in alluding incidentally, but briefly, to some of the facts and circumstances connected with the subject, in order to show the injustice the State must suffer, so long as Congress shall refuse or omit to act upon it. The Maumee river, one of the largest, and, indeed, the only valuable stream in that region of the country, finds its source at a point near the dividing line of Ohio and Indiana, and, after stretching its almost entire length through the northwestern portion of the former, terminates in the western extremity of Lake Erie, where its mouth assumes the name of the Maumee bay. The enterprise of our State has contemplated, and in part executed, the important project of connecting, through the Maumee, the waters of the lake with those of the Ohio, by a canal extending north, from the latter, until it intersects the former of these rivers. Upon this object Ohio has exhausted near a million of her resources, in the hope that Congress would, before this, have yielded to her repeated petitions, and, by the passage of a bill like that before the House, removed the only obstruction to the ultimate accomplishment of the work. The State had a right to expect it, because she had a moral, and, as I believe, a legal right to demand it; and because, also, Congress had, by a contribution of public domain to the execution of the canal, become interested in its completion, and recognised the right of the State to the enjoyment of the river—a right which she can never enjoy unmolested whilst the mouth of the river itself, the only entrance to the lake, remains in another or a doubtful jurisdiction: for the House will observe that the line for which the Territory contends is protracted due east from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, and intersects the Maumee river at a point but a few miles above its mouth. Thus, whilst the entire body of the stream is within the limits of Ohio, its necessary termination, the outlet to Lake Erie, is, by this line, taken into the jurisdiction of what is soon to become another State. The consequences of this state of facts cannot be unforeseen. Ohio will hesitate in her work whilst she sees the possibility of having to depend, for the enjoyment of its fruits, upon the justice, generosity, or caprice of another State. * This unnatural condition of things, realizes an instance of the very evil of which Virginia, in ceding the country to Congress, and Congress in accepting the cession, anticipated the possible existence, and against the occurrence of which both sought to provide a precautionary guard. And it is the very evil itself, against which Ohio, too, thought she had sufficiently guarded, by an express proviso in her constitution. Throughout all the legislation of Virginia and of Congress, upon the subject of the Northwestern Territory, one great and leading idea constantly predominates—and that is, that, in defining the limits of the intended States, reference should be had alone to the general good of each and of all; and that nature should, therefore, be consulted, and her own boundaries duly respected. So intent was Congress upon this object, that, even after the deed of cession had been solemnly executed, a resolution was passed, appealing to Virginia so to alter the deed as to enable Congress to apportion the ceded territory out into States, in accordance with that object. The preamble and the resolution are in these words:

[blocks in formation]

“Whereas, it appears, from the knowledge already obtained of the tract of country lying to the northwest of the river Ohio, that the laying it out and forming it into States of the extent mentioned in the resolution of Congress of the 10th of October, 1780, and in one of the conditions contained in the cession of Virginia, will be productive of many and great inconveniences; that, by such a division of the country, some of the new States will be deprived of the advantages of navigation; some will be improperly intersected by lakes, rivers, and mountains; and some will contain too great a portion of barren, unimproveable land; and of consequence will not, for many years, if ever, have a sufficient number of inhabitants to form a respectable government, and entitle them to a seat and voice in the federal council: And whereas, in fixing the limits and dimensions of the new States, due attention ought to be paid to natural boundaries, and a variety of circumstances which will be pointed out by a more perfect knowledge of the country, so as to provide for the future growth and prosperity of each State, as well as for the accommodation and security of the first adventurers. In order, therefore, that the ends of Government may be attained, and that the States which shall be formed may become a speedy and sure accession of strength to the confederacy: “Resolved, That it be, and it hereby is, recommended to the Legislature of Virginia to take into consideration

But, sir, if we are thus absurdly to suppose such was the intention of Congress, we must also suppose that, in receiving Ohio into the Union with the constitution she presented, Congress intended an act of deliberate perfidy towards the State. At the time the constitution of the State was formed, the exact position of Lake Michigan, and the natural features of the country above it, were unknown. All was a wide, wild, unmeasured waste of woods and waters. The white population had not advanced so far to the west. Nature was there—nature unchanged. The sombre forest was still the unviolated habitation of its native sons, whose sullen valor had yet to encounter the victorious genius of civilization. It was impossible, therefore, to foresee whether the line drawn due east from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, would or would not strike Lake Erie north of the Maumee bay, so as to include it within the limits of Ohio, or even whether that line would strike Lake Erie at all; and if it did, whether high enough north to intersect, in the centre of that lake, the territorial line between Canada and the United States; that line being made, by all the legislation on the subject, the northern boundary of Ohio.

To meet the contingency that might arise from the doubtful position of Lake Michigan, the convention of Ohio, after, in the sixth section of the seventh article of the constitution, bounding the State, in the words of the

act by which the formation of the State Government was au

their act of cession, and revive the same, so far as to thorized, proceeded to insert the proviso which I will read: empower the United States, in Congress assembled, to “Provided always, and it is hereby fully understood make such a division of the territory of the United States, and declared by this convention, that if the southerly lying northerly and westerly of the river Ohio, into dis. bend or extreme of Lake Michigan should extend so far tinct and republican States, not more than five nor less south that a line drawn due east from it should not interthan three, as the situation of that country and future sect Lake Erie, or if it should intersect the said Lake Erie circumstances may require—which States shall hereafter east of the mouth of the Miami river of the Lake, then,

become members of the federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the original States, in conformity with the resolution of congress of the 10th October, 1780.” Congress anticipated the assent of Virginia to this proposition, and passed the ordinance of 1787, by the fifth article of which the ceded territory is apportioned into states. During the succeeding year Virginia formally acquiesced in the resolution of Congress, and, for so doing, gave the reasons given in the preamble. Is it then possible that it ever could have been the in

and in that case, with the assent of the Congress of the United States, the northern boundary of this State shall be established by, and extended to, a direct line running from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami bay, after intersecting the due north line from the mouth of the Great Miami river as aforesaid; thence, northeast, to the territorial line, and, by the said territorial line, to the Pennsylvania line.”

It is necessary to remark that the territorial line named in the proviso is that between the United States and Canada, and which passes through the centre of Lake

tention, or can now be the policy of Congress, to hold Erie; and that the river there styled the Miami of the

Ohio to a line which cuts off the mouth of one of her most valuable rivers; and, in so doing, clearly defeats the great and cardinal object that Congress had in view in asking Virginia to alter her act of cession? It cannot be.

Virginia, who had gone first into the war of the Revolution, and come last away, bleeding, from the field, presented herself to Congress, the common representative of the States, and there, with a generosity, magnanimity, and patriotism, unequalled in the history of mankind, ceded, for the common good, a country whose ample limits encircled an empire of territory. She ceded it with no other material conditions than those which Congress itself had suggested, and the principal one of which was that, in the formation of States, “due attention ought to be paid to natural boundaries,” that they should not “be deprived of the advantages of navigation,” or “be improperly intersected by lakes, rivers, and mountains.” And yet it is pretended that Congress has violated, and must continue to violate, this condition; violate nature, and disregard the plainest dictates of justice and expediency, by throwing the whole body of a river into one State, and its mouth into another; and this, sir, for what reason or purpose? The interests of the Union, of which the General Government is the representative, are the interests of all its parts. Why, then, should Congress have sought to do one State an injury,

without even the excuse of intending benefit to another?

Lake is the same of which I have spoken by the title of the Maumee. It is known by either name; and when spoken of as the Miami, is called the Miami of the Lake, to distinguish it from another river of the same name, which is commonly known as the Great Miami, or the Miami of the Ohio, to which it is tributary. Congress being equally uncertain as to the position of Lake Michigan, and having in the original odinance reserved to itself the power of attaching to Ohio all of the country north of an east line drawn from the southern extremity of that lake, admitted the State into the Union with this proviso on her constitution. Did Congress, then, make any mental reservation on this subject? Was it intended, at a future day, when the contingency against which this proviso was introduced as a guard should actually happen, to revoke the proviso, and say to the State: We were sporting with your credulity; we regret that your youth and inexperience mistook the rule of our faith and honor. The constitution, with the proviso, was sanctioned by Congress, as an instrument entire. The reason for the proviso was known. Its necessity was recognised. The State was put in possession of the bay and the disputed territory. Congress extended the laws of the Union over them, as being within the judicial district of Ohio—and are we yet to be told that this meant nothing?, Congress could have had no interests conflicting with, or

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

hostile to, those of the State. The interests of one were those of the other. There were then no neighboring States in that quarter of the Union which could acquire or lose territory, or any thing else, by fixing the northern boundary of Ohio. What motive or reason was there, then, for premeditated injustice to the State? And yet we must find a motive, or abandon the absurdity of supposing Congress to have intended such a course towards Ohio. There is but one consideration more to which I will ask the attention of the House. The Delegate from Michigan contends that a due east line from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan, as the position of that lake is now known to be, is, by the original ordinance and other legislation of Congress, made the fixed and inviolable boundary of Ohio; but still, the gentleman admits that the Canadian line passing through the centre of Lake Erie is also made, by the same authority, the boundary of the State. Now, sir, the physical relation of the two lakes renders it absolutely imposible for both of these propositions to be true. A line, to be due east, must be duly straight, otherwise words mean nothing. In the preamble and resolution requesting Virginia to alter her deed of cession, and which I have before read, Congress states the geography of the country to be imperfectly known. The maps of that period had fixed the southern termination of Lake Michigan at a point higher north than that to which Lake Erie actually extends, and at which the Maumee bay is formed. Congress being governed exclusively by these maps, in framing the ordinance, prescribed a line drawn due east

[merged small][ocr errors]

difficulty of not intersecting the Canadian line; and when this line once loses its due east course, it may take any other, and be made to accomodate itself to the object of including the Maumee bay within the limits of Ohio, as well as to that of intersecting the Canadian line. Such is the result of insisting upon the inflexibility of this east line, which Congress itself has disregarded and violated, in prescribing the boundaries of Illinois and Indiana. But, sir, it has been said that Ohio is already great and powerful enough. Such an argument would seem to be addressed to the envy, jealousy, and apprehensions of the other States; and, if so, becomes not this place. It presupposes the Union dissolved, and the States in the relation of hostility to each other. True, sir, Ohio is truly great. Great in the exhaustless fertility of her soil; great in the freedom and liberali. ty of her institutions; great in the number and character of her people, great in their moral elevation, their spirit of enterprise, and their servent patriotism. But is this a reason why she should receive injustice at the hands of Congress? If, in the innocence of infancy, she enjoys the benefits and exerts the vigor of maturity; if, upon the beauty of youth, she has ingrafted the rigorous virtues of age, shall she for these reasons be the less welcome at the family board of her sister States? Sir, Ohio is the last of the new States towards whom the old thirteen should look with displeasure. Within her limits, thousands of their sons have found hospitable homes. Within her valleys, upon her hills and her plains, they now repose in peace, in plenty, in freedom, and happiness. Nor is her hospitality yet exhausted—she

from a point then supposed to be the southern extremity still bares her teeming bosom to the honest emigrant Kentucky Election.

of Lake Michigan, and also the Canadian line in Lake Erie, as the northern boundary of Ohio. Because a due

east line, from the point supposed, would intersect the

Canadian line in the lake, and that, too, far north of the Maumee bay. The east and the Canadian lines were

therefore consistent with each other, and, together, con

stituted a perfect boundary for the State. Unfortunately, however, Lake Michigan is found, by subsequent examination, to extend some ten or fifteen miles further to the south than was supposed. The consequence is, that a line drawn due east from its southern extremity, instead of intersecting the Canadian line in the centre of Lake Erie, and there, together with that line, forming the northern boundary of Ohio, according to the ordinance and other legislation on the subject, does not intersect it at any point whatever; but, after crossing the Maumee near its mouth, cuts the indented shore of the lake, passes through the northeastern corner of our State, and there intersects the Pennsylvania line, which is her eastern boundary; and thus, sir, leaves the northeastern corner of Ohio so cut off, and the wide interval between the line itself and the centre of Lake Erie, out of the limits and jurisdiction of any State or Territory whatever. So that Ohio does not only lose the mouth of the Maumee, and a part of three of her largest counties in the northeastern section of the State, but is also deprived of the Canadian line as a boundary, and of almost the entire coast of Lake Erie; and that, too, in direct contravention of the express provisions of all the legislation of Con. gress. But it may be said, that it is not contended that the line is to be extended due east, further than it is necessary to intersect the Canadian line. To this I answer, that no due east line at all will ever intersect it; and that, if this line is to swerve from its due east course, in order to accommodate itself to the Canadian line, it is no longer a due east line, and the whole argument on the other side is therefore given up; for the very point in question is, whether this shall be an inflexible due east line or not. The gentleman must bend his line, in order to avoid the

from every State, clime, and country. As a State, her greatness is, in part, the greatness,

strength, and glory of the republic. Whilst that stands,

she stands ready to defend it; and whether you give her

a boundary or not, she will never permit invasion to cross

yours. In peace and in battle she will prove among the brightest stars upon your flag, and among the last to sink down obscured in the gloom of despotisin. After Mr. ALLEN had concluded, Mr. LY ON obtained the floor to reply, but was prevented by the expiration of the hour allotted to morning business. The House then again proceeded to the consideration of THE KENTUCKY CONTESTED ELECTION. The question being on the amendment moved by Mr. Pope to the resolution reported from the committee— Mr. McKINLEY said it was out of the question that the whole of this session should be given up to this subject, however important it might be to the State and individuals concerned. We must take up the subject with a determination to get through with it, in order to attend to some other business. If it was not finishcd to-day, he should move the postponement of its further consideration to Wednesday next. Mr. HARDIN moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Pope, by striking off certain names from the poll of Mr. Moore, and inserting the names previous to those in Mr. Port.’s amendinent. The CHAIR decided that the proposition was not in order, as it was not in effect so much an amendment to the pending amendment, as a motion to exclude the balance of the amendment from consideration. After some remarks from Mr. FOSTFIR, Mr. HARDIN withdrew his motion. The question being on striking from Mr. Letchet's poll the name of Gerrit Voorhis, it was taken, and deter. mined in the affirmative. The question was taken on striking off the name of L. P. Haave, and decided in the negative,

The question was taken on striking off the name of William Woolsey, and decided in the negative. The question being on striking off the name of James Moornor, it was decided in the negative. The next name, being that of Robert Tigg, was stricken off. The question being on striking off the last name (William Morely) in the first resolution of Mr. Pope's amendment— Mr. MARSHALL moved to amend the amendment by striking off several names from the poll of Mr. Moore, they being, as he contended, proved to be minors. The question being then taken on striking off the name of William Morely, it was agreed to. Mr. Gl LLET, with a view, he said, to save time and bring the subject to a close, moved a substitute for the resolution and amendments, striking out the resolution and amendments, and inserting, that , of the 5th Congressional district of Kentucky, is elected to a seat in this House. The CHAIR decided that the motion was not in order. Mr. GILLET appealed from the decision of the Chair. Mr. SPEIGHT supported the decision of the Chair. Mr. Gli.U.ET withdrew the appeal, intimitating that, when the amendments under consideration were disposed of, he should renew his motion. The question then being on striking from the poll of Mr. Moore certain names embraced in the amendment of Mr. MAnshall, the following names were severally stricken off. Richmond West, Archibald Gordon, Anthony Long, and Joseph Henley. The question was taken upon striking out the name of David B. Hughes, after considerable discussion, and was determined in the negative: Yeas 72, nays 105. Mr. WISE had taken no part in the contest, and had become sick of the delay which it had occasioned. For the purpose of putting an end to the difficulty in which the House was involved, he offered a resolution declaring the election for the 5th Congressional district of Kentucky to be void, for irregularity and uncertainty, and directing a new election to be held. The CHAIR (occupied temporarily by Mr. SPEight) decided the resolution to be not in order. Mr. MILLER inquired whether it would be in order to postpone the resolution and amendments now before the iIouse, and take up this resolution? The CHAIR decided it would not be in order. Mr. Wis E inquired whether a motion to lay the resolution and amendments on the table would be in order? The CHAIR replied in the affirmative. Mr. WISE made that motion. Mr. MARSHALL moved a call of the House. Mr. WISE then withdrew his motion. The question was then taken on striking off the name of H. Horine; which was carried: Yeas 114, nays 39. Of Joshua Grimes; which was negatived without a division. Of H. H. Thurmur; which, after a long discussion, was negatived—62 to 67. ‘ihe question then recurred upon the second branch of Mr. Pope's amendment, striking off the names of certain voters from the poll of Mr. Letcher, on account of non-residence. ` The first name, that of William Quin, after the reading of the testimony, the House refused to strike off. The House also refused to strike out the name of John McCoy. -- The question was then taken on striking off the name of Greenbury Peyton; which was agreed to—and of William Welsh; which was negatived. Mr. MARSHALL then moved to amend the above part of Mr. Pope's amendment, by adding certain names, to be

facie majority of forty-nine.

[June 11, 1834.

Mr. McKAY rose and said, it was evident that it was now time to bring this subject to a close, as we had spent a long time upon it, and there still seemed to be no prospect of arriving at a result. For several days past we had been engaged in the examination of individual votes. Were members bound by these votes? He thought not. He voted against the admission of the students; the House voted otherwise. Must he be bound to vote for Letcher because the House had made that decision? Certainly not. Each member was bound to decide upon the case according to his view of the whole. He moved to commit the report of the committee, with all the amendments, to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to report a resolution declaring that the election of Representative to Congress, in the 5th Congressional district of Kentucky, in August, 1833, is void, from uncertainty and irregularity, and that neither of the claimants is entitled to a seat. Mr. E. EVERETT made some objections to the reception of the motion, on a point of order. The CHAIR decided that the motion was in order. Mr. HARDIN wished the question on the motion to be taken in a full House, and he therefore moved a call of the House; which was ordered. After the call had been proceeded in for some time, The Sergeant-at-arms was directed to notify the abSentees. Mr. DAVENPORT moved to suspend all further proceeding in the call, in order to admit the absentees at the door; which was agreed to. Mr. WILDE moved that all further proceeding in the call be suspended; which was agreed to. The question recurring upon the motion of Mr. McKAY, it was modified by the mover so as to commit the subject to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to report a resolution requiring a new election to be held in the 5th Congressional district of Kentucky, it being impossible for the House to determine who was elected at the election held in August last. or. Mr. GILM ER opposed the motion. He did not conceive that there was any difficulty in ascertaining which of the claimants received a majority of qualified votes. He was at a loss to discover the uncertainty, in this case, which was talked of. Mr. Letcher came here with fortynine more votes than Mr. Moore, and there could be no uncertainty until forty-nine votes were stricken from Mr. Letcher's poll. There was informality, no doubt, in the manner in which some of the votes were taken, but not such informality as justified us in excluding the votes. According to his calculation, Mr. Letcher had a majority of thirty votes, after excluding the nineteen votes taken on the second day in Garrard county, and two students who were not citizens of Kentucky. Mr. WISE said he should vote for the proposition. The irregularity and informality of the proceedings, during the election, could only be equalled by the irregularity and informality of the course which had been adoptedl by the House. We were now precisely where the case had originally started, excepting that the House had decided that a few votes should, and a few others should not, be counted for the respective candidates. One of the candidates alleges that there are no poll-books before ulne House, and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. GILM Eri Y alleges that, by the poll-books, Mr. Letcher has a pr: o, ø, Has the House been willing to receive the prima facie evidence on either side? T1, G case has been sent to a committee of the House, who tuatl reported the result of a most laborious examination. The House have neither ratified nor confirmed that result. lf the principles adopted by the committee were carried out. with all deductions which seemed to be reasonable, Mlr1 Moore has a majority of twelve or thirteen votes. On the

stricken from Mr. Moore's poll for non-residence,

other hand, taking the copics of the books produced lxy

« 上一頁繼續 »