| Show THE DEBATE Continuation of the Cannon Campbell Contest in the Mouse Representative Thompsons Argument Continued from Saturdays Daily I Ifr Thompson of Iowa In the time I have had the honor to occupy a seat in this body I have usually contented myself my-self with casting my vote either for or against such measures as were under consideration con-sideration 1 certainly have had ambition am-bition at any time or under any circumstances circum-stances to persistently and continually seek a place coon the records of the debates de-bates of this House As I before said I have always contented myself and I expect ex-pect in the future RS a general thing to content myself with simply casting my vote for of against such measures as maybe may-be under consideration If I believe they are right I shall vote to sustain them On the other hand if I am convinced con-vinced they are wrong I shall vote against them And I assure you Mr Speakertbatat the present time I should not say a single word were it not for the fact that I find myself in about as lonely a condition as any member of the committee com-mittee on elections ever appeared in before the House having made a report in which I believe no other member of the committee coincides with me in the position I have taken I had hoped and trusted that this election case would be decided simply aed purely upon its merits as the evidence or admissions in the case presented it and that it could under no circumstances assume a partisan parti-san aspect I am sorry to observe however how-ever that it has assumed such an aspect While as a legislator I am sorry for this as a politician and looking only to the success of the republican party I might be glad of it I had hoped that there would be no political controversy in this matter when it was admitted as I supposed sup-posed until a few minutes ago that Mr Cannon who was claiming a seat here had never for a single moment either through himself or his friends made a denial of the fact that he had continually lived that he was today living and that at the time of this investigation he was living in open violation of laws that had been passed by the Congress in one body of which he sought a seat Now I wish to call attention particularly to the fact that such a statement has never been denied de-nied And when the question was asked my colleague on the committee where we received this testimony and how it came into the possession of the committee during dur-ing this investigation I thought I would i when 1 got the opportunity itate once for all the exact facts I think my friend I from Pennsylvania Mr Beltzhoover has plated them exactly as they occurred but I believe he did not have the evidence before him at that time During the investigation in June 1881 and after the time had expired for taking testimony these parties came in and made an agreement that suh testimony as each mLht desire to take cn the question ques-tion at issue might be taken irrespective of the fact that the time for taking testimony testi-mony had expired The consequence was that a portion of the testimony was then taken and among others there was called as a witness on the part of the con tsstant Angus M Cannon In his ex aminatim be was asked as to the peculiar belief of Mr Cannon and the number of wives that he then had and became of the seeming ignorance of this witness on that point other witneses were about tt I be examine Now I will state what I took place in the pre ence of Mr Cannon I and his attorney and in the presence of Mr Campbell and his attorney It was admitted by each and every one ot them and the facts are stated in the record which is in print today and in the possession posses-sion of the Housethat on the 1st of June 1881 when subpoenas were about to be issued is-sued for the purpose of proving Mr Cannons Can-nons polygamous habits he came before be-fore the officer taking the evidence and filed that written statement It has never been denied from that day until I heard it i questioned a few moments ago in this Home It is his own solemn admission made in open court by which he plead guilty to tne indictment in the preence of the witnesses and the court That admission ad-mission was entered solemnly of record and by it he is bound The taking of any further testimony upon that point being thus obviated tho committee proceeded upon that admission and we did right in doing so But I am not here for the purpose pur-pose of arguing that branch of the case at all I do not suppose it is going to be seriously contended that Mr Cannon is entitled to a seat here I have always been in acccrd with the committee on that question as I am now But I go further and insist that while Mr Cannon is i not entitled to a seat in this House Mr Campbell is entitled to the seat and to this branch of the case I propose to address ad-dress myself for a very brief period It will not be denied that on the 20th ot January 1881 Mr Ca non gave notice of contest to Mr Campbell that afterward after-ward and within the time prescribed by the statute Mr Campbell responded to that notice of contest and filed his answer in which be places in issue every material allegation and charge contained in the notice of contest This House seems to have forgotten the fact that Mr Cannon all the waythrough has been the contestant that Mr Campbell stanus here and always has Btoodjsince the commencement com-mencement of the contest as contestea From the time this question was first discussed dis-cussed at all I have heard repeated allusions allu-sions to the number of votes cast for the two candidates at the election held in Utah on the 2d of November 1880 I want to ask those who are in favor of seating Mr Cannon where under heaven they get any evidence of that vote I ask this in good faith I ask gentlemen on the committee whoara to follow me ic opposi Ilion I-lion to the position I am taking whereat where-at any time and under what circumstances circum-stances have you found any evidence that Mr Campbell received only s cer I tairrnumber of votes and Mr Cannon received 18000 I take it that the committee com-mittee on elections notwitnstanding its mighty powers notwithstanding the powers it may be willing to arrogate to itself is as much the creature of statute sta-tute in the taking of testimony as any justice of the peace in this broad land that outside of the statute the committee cannot live or move or haTe its being Now Iturn to section lOB of the Revised Statutes of 1878 and I read SEC 108 The putty desiring to take a depoitiin undtr the provisions of this chapter hli give the opposite party notice I I no-tice in 1fJ ifli c of the UHK and place wh sd whr the same WIll be taken of the ui J of the witnesses to be examined exam-ined and their places residence and of the name of an officer before whom the same will be taken The notice shall be personally eerved upon the opposite party or upon any agent or attorney authorized by him to take testimony or crossexamine witnesses in the matter of such contest if by the use of reasonable diligence Iuch personal service can be made but if by the use of such diligence personal service cannot be made the service ser-vice may be made by leaving a duplicate of the notice at the usual place of abode i of the opposite party The notice shall be served so as to allow the opposite I party sufficient time by the usual route of travel to attend and one day for preparation prepar-ation exclusive of Sundays and the day serving Testimony in rebuttal may be taken on five days notice Now I ask my friends who controvert my position on this question is there a line or letter of that statute which is directory di-rectory Is it not in every line and letter let-ter mandatory Are you not compelled to act within its scope Can you do outside out-side of it any legal act I take it tbt the House has already answered this question at the present session in the case of the gentleman who contested the seat of my friend from South Carolina ilr Aikei In that case the testimony was sufficient to convince any man that fraud and wrong had been done and if that testimony stood in proper form uncon tradicted before this House today the gentleman from South Carolina would be ousted But for the simple reason that tho evidence in that case had been iakon before an officer not designated in the statute the evidence was not considered consid-ered and the contest was dismissed 1 big was done by a unanimous vote not only of the committee but of this House Not that fraud was not proven not that the conteatant had not made out a fair case upon the evidence but for the simple sim-ple and single reason that the testimony had been taken before an officer not named in the statute flow if the testimony testi-mony in this case was taken in any I other way than that prescribed in the I statute can the committee consider it I I undertake to say and I mean just what I say that from the day tha notice of contest was served upon Mr Campbell up to the present time Mr Cannon has never issued a subpoena has I never taken a word or letter of testimony from any source I make the assertion without fear of contradiction con-tradiction that at no time I was a subpcena ever issued on behalf of Mr Cannon to tike one word of testimony before any officer But I am informed that there which was a certain tabulated statement some one in the Territory certified to this House and the committee that it was certified cer-tified under the hand and seal of the secretary of that territory I deny it I say this is absolutely not the case I say this That the evidence itself establishes the fact that long after this contest had been commenced after a portion of the testimony had been taken as to whether he was a polygamist or not and as to vbether he had been naturalized or not I Mr Cannon then on his own motion and without the knowledge or consent of the contestee Mr Campbell received what purported to be a tabulated statement state-ment of the votes cast at that election certified to by the secretary of the Territory Terri-tory 1 and brought here not to the committee com-mittee on elections for I assert here and now that paper never was in the possession posses-sion of this House never was among the papers referred to the committee on elections never found its way into the committeeroom until the Gh day of February 1 > 2 more than two months after this Housa had been organized and was sitting here and hearing this case I say that it was never taken as testimony to be used before the committee on eec tions It was brought here by Mr Cannon Can-non for a vary different purpose and I wish to say now to my democratic friends you know and the country knows it was brought here for a very different purpose and that it served that purpose well It was submitted to a democratic clerk of this House and in opposition to the law and in violation of the oath which he bad taken and against every statute on the statutebook which ought to have controlled con-trolled his action in the matter he judicially judi-cially decided this matter and placed the name of Mr Cannon as a delegate from the Territory of Utah on the roll of the House Representatives Ha judicially judi-cially determined that this man Cannon was entitled to the seat as a delegate from the Territory of Utah upon this floor He assumed the functions of Congress He assumed the functions of a court In violation of his eath and in violation of the law he placed the name of Mr Cannon Can-non upon the roll and gave him that position which enabled him to claim both his seat and his pay until after the organization of this House when he was kept out by the tnsjoriy upon this floor That Mr Speaker was the purpose of having that tabulated statement and that was the purpose for which it was used It was never among the papers referred by the House ItO the committee and never found its way into the hands of the committee com-mittee until the 6th day of February 1882 when it again appeared as evidence on the part of the contestant and when it had been suggested that no evidence had been taken and the contest was abandoned aban-doned It was never taken as evidence under the statute and you cannot consider it for any purpose whatever as a part of the history of this case It is said that you have this very undoubted un-doubted authority that you have here the fact that the vote cast for Mr Cannon Can-non wa some 18000 and the vote cast for Mr Campbell was some 200 You have this upon the same undoubted authority that you have the other fact that Mr Cannon is a nolygamut You have both those facts Mr Speaker let ma say to the gentleman gentle-man who urged this argument upon the authority the undoubted authority of Madam Rumor but upon the authority of cobody else these as facts come to of Madam ua on the simple authority Rumor It is no evidence Mr Speaker in this case The contestee had a right to the notice required by law he had a right to be present and crossexamine the witness he had a right to say that the statement evidence and demand wa3 not the best ence that investigation be made into the legality legal-ity u of every ballot cast aa well T as the qualifications of eacn elector abe uauuui a-be used as evidence because it was not taken as the statute prescribes Every argument made in favor of the accep ance of that statement is the merest begging beg-ging of the question The contestee had the right to demand an investigation investi-gation into the legality of every ballot castas well as the qualifications of each elector and especially so when we find in evidence this strange law upon the statutebook of Utah then and now in force which is not only in violation of i the laws of Congress but in violation of I the Constitution of the United States attempting as it does to enlarge the natunlizatipn laws and to confer not only the right of citizenship but the right of suffrage upon those wham the laws Congress andlhe Constitution of the United States say shall not be ad I mitted either to suffrage or citizenship Let me read tht law It 13 tho act of February 12 1870 ection 43 chapter 2 I and reads as follows That every woman of the age of twentyone years who has resided in the Territory six montns next preceding any general election born or naturalized natural-ized in the United States or who is a wife or daughter of a nativeborn or naturalized citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote at any electi > n in this Territory II Now under this law twothirds it is admitted and the evidence clearly show it of the votes cast at that time were cat by persons who had been made electors under and by virtue of the territorial w of Utah and that alone It is a territorial terri-torial law as I have already said in violation vio-lation of the laws of Congress and of the Constituton c f the United States It attempts at-tempts to establish a basis in the territory of Utah as to the rights of citizenship It con fern the right of suffrage not only upon a class not entitled to the ruht of suffrage under the laws of the United States but it attempts to establish in the Ter tory of Utah that they shall take their naturalization by inoculation and not by the action of courts as prescribed pre-scribed m the law3 1 insist that whenever when-ever you come to this whea you have taken the matter out of the hands of tho courts and put it into the hands of everyman every-man who has more wives than one to determine de-termine and the more wives he can take and the more naturalized citizans he can thereby bring to the polls the more democratic dem-ocratic votes you are sure to get in the Territory of Utah That is the very way to get them You have taken the power to naturalize citizens from the courts and have put it into the hands of this luatfu set of men who have more than one wife the majority of them and who would not be satisfied if they had fifty just about the day of election These fraudulent votes claim to control the election The contestee has been denied the right of proving their illegality Now sir this is the question I ay that is presented here in this case of Mr Campbell He challenged investigation of the question and I say that he has had no opportupity of preseting the fact the true facts in his case because you have positively denied him the right to do EO How many votes his opponent received that were unlawful and illegal there has been no opportunity showing It could only be determined by an investigation investiga-tion int the facts and you have avoided it and have prevented pre-vented Mr Campbell from securing an investigation to establish the facts And it stands today exactly in this position that Mr Campbell asserts one thing which is denied upon the other hand Will it be denied that Mr Campbell was in a position where he could take no evidence until he was notified by the other p rty to proceed with it It was his j ight it was his duty to wait until Mr Cannon had gone on and taken his testimony tes-timony and notified him so that he could bo present to hear it and cross examine the witnesses and I repeat that from that time to the present there has been mi scintilla of evidence taken to establih the right of Mr Campbell and no opportunity give him to present that evidence before this Congreus that would substantiate his claim and I defy any man on this floor or elsewhere to show that there has been Agaii sir I take it that we will go upon the supposition in this case at all events the presumption ifthat the officers ot the Territory did their duty and that presumption will be taken as true until the contrary appears When I find the law showing that this certificate shalL be signed by the governor of tho Territory and under the broad seal of the Territory and when I find the certificate comes here complying with all of these conditions then I claim that the party holding that certificate presents here a right which must be set aside by such an investigation I a will otablish its unlawfulness before you can say he shall not have his seat Mr Campbell holds the following certificate and I trust this House will remember that when this question was first discussed in the organization of the present House ot Representatives the only objection made to tne certificate was the fact that it exceeded the power of the governor to issue ilj and that he had zone on and certified to the facts which were not in his province to certify in other words that the certificate contained sur plusage This certificate Mr Speakers Speaker-s in the following words UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Territory of Utah Executive Oflicess I Eli H Murray governor of the territory ter-ritory of Utah do declare and certify that at the regular election for delegate to the Portyseventh Congress held in said territory on the first Tuesday after the firs Monday in November A D 1880 to wit the Ld day of November 1880 the returns whereof were opened in my presence by the secretary of the territory Allen G Campbell was the person being a citizen of the United States over the age of twentyone years having the greatest number of votes and was therefore there-fore duly elected as said delegate to the said Congress and I therefore do give this certificate accordingly In testimony whereof have herQunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the territory to be affixed terrtory Done at Salt Lake City this 8th day of January A D 1881 ELI fl MURRAY Governor By the governor ARTHUR L THOMAS Secretary of Utah Territory Now certainly there is nothing in that certificate to indicate the number of votes which were received by Mr Campbell nor is there any law which elates that they shall be set forth in the certificatebut the certificate goes on to say that Mr Campbell having received the largest number of votes and he being a citizen of the United States and whether it was necessary to insert that qualification in She certificate or not b not the question here but having received the largest number of voles and being over the age of twentyone years i i hereby declared that he was duly elected 0 Now he comes here with that certificate and claims his right to a scat upon this floor This certificate bears the great seal of the rr inw nf TTfoVi n J 11 tSSfl f lP JLL O 4 u IiAO U its governor It is tha evidence that entitles the man to his seat and there has never been anything said against it except ex-cept as I have already shownthat Campbell Camp-bell was a minority candidate Nobody questions the certificate The very thing that Campbell himself demanded was an irrvestig tion of the votes caet in that election under this territorial law allowing allow-ing women to exercise the right of suffrage I suff-rage and on a principle of war with our very civilization and if he proved to be a minority candidate he would not ask for a seat but he was denied that showing I show-ing You failed t allow him to establish es-tablish the falsity of the charge which you allege against him election by preventinghim from establishing estab-lishing the fraudulent character of the votes against him He was prevented I from doing what woud hive shown his right to the seat if his right alone rested i upon that charge But the question baa been raiaed as to tho fact that this certificate certifi-cate contained more than the law required re-quired Now admitting that ther is more in it than the law l requires I propose pro-pose to shoe that that does not vitiate it or invalidate itj and upon that point let me call your attention for a moment to decisions which will cover this very point which have always bean law and are law today I read section lOt of McCrary on Elec tions The law is well settled that statute certifying officers cn only make their certificate evidence of tru facts which the statute requires them to certify and when they undertake to go beyond this and earthy other facts they ae unofficial and no more evidenca than the statement of any unofficial perron Switzler vs Anderson 2 Bartlett 374 This rule of course applies to election freturns and to I all certificates which are by law required to be made by officers of election or of registration or by returning officers Tney can only certify to such facts as the law requires them to certify to The car ti fie ate of such an officer is not however vitiated by the fact that it contains the certification of facts outside of those which the officer has a right to certify I i in fact cert fiea the proper facts it is good and the remainder of the certificate te is to be rejected as surplusage certifcat6 The remainder of the certificate is to be rejected asj surplu age Can there be any mistake as to the exact and technical tech-nical meaning of that language But Mr Speaker there is not a man here today who will tAke up that certificate certifi-cate and after striking from it every objectionable feature would not admit that Mr Campbell upon its face presented an unqualifiedly good certificate sustain ing his claim to the seat and a certificate such as the law requires I there is surplusage there more than the law requires re-quires you strike it out and the certificate must stand as a warrant entitling him to the scat Now in this view of the case why I say is Mr Campbell not entitled prima facie to his seat Nothing has ever been shown that would substantiate the claim that the certificate had been ob talned by fraud bat it stands there unchallenged un-challenged as the honest legal act of the only officer in this nation who could give that certificate under the lawJ And what is there to oppose i Mr Speaker from the moment that Mr Cannon succeeded in securing the placing of his name upon the rolls of this House by the action of its democratic clerk illegally and in violation of the law I have no doubt that he considered the contest at an end and that he would be permitted to hold the seat which he and hia coreligionists have disgraced for nearly twenty years But it did not happen to be the law and I say further that tbis pretended certificate this tabulated statement which they claim is evidence was never attempted to be used by him and if offered it could not have been legally passed upon by the committee on eections for the reason that it was not taken as evidence in the case submitted to them To be continued |
