Show CONTESTED ELECTION elections TEnni TonY or OF utan uran geo R maxwell TS geo Q cannou cannon argument or of ribert albert ll E T baine raine e conniel for sitting member bebe bono B the tte co on elections rf f tre the he of if of the united states Mu hington DC D C mr chairman and gentlemen Gentle mca of the Comm committee itice the power or of the house of representatives senta tives to determine who shall or who shall not hold seats in that body embraces two branches wholly distinct both in character and origin gln gin the first is conferred by that clause or of the constitution which provides that each house shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its members the exercise of the power conferred by this provision of the constitution requires only a majority vote and ha has 4 developed into one of the most mont important sections of the or business of the house of representatives pre presenta tives its necessity which was foreseen by the framers or of the constitution was in fact exper experienced leric feric at the first meeting of the first firs t congress that assembled under our present form of government the very first standing committee of the first house of representatives was constituted to assist the tiie house in the execution of this power it was the committee of elections and was chosen by ballot an the till day of april 1789 the severity of the labors which have devolved upon that committee for 11 many any years shows how indispensable bl an element has been contributed to the constitution of the house by this provision of the tile organic law this power to judge of the election returns and qualifications of its members has been exercised by the house of representatives presenta tives in hundreds of cases since the meeting of the fint first congress it has been exercised in more than eighty cases during the last ten years indeed in ten I 1 years sears rs t there ere have hava ave not been thirty days a s of exemption from the actual jurisdiction of contested election cases es in the house of representatives I 1 but the house hoube possesses another power to decide who shall and wh who Q shall not hold seats in that body it is altogether distinct in origin and character from that to which I 1 have hav just ejust referred ren erred it is the pow 1 er of expulsion which requires require s or ar two thirds vote for its exercise it 1 is s conferred by the following clause of the constitution s each house may determine the rules of its proceedings punish its members for disorderly havior behavior De and with the concurrence of two thirds expel a member upon a careful examination of the journals of the house from the organization of the government to the present time I 1 find no cases of expulsion except those or of J j B R clarke J VV V reid beld and H a bur nett who joined the confederate army were expelled in 1861 there may have been other cases of actu actual alex aiex expulsion W sion slon which escaped my notice the expulsion puo of 0 B J matteson from the and or of B F whittemore from the alst congress was prevented by their resignation at the last moment before the vote was taken obviously a power so rarely used does not require the agency of a regular standing committee the cases involving its exer exercise diso dise have usually been referred to select committees mit tees the difre difference renco rence in character between tiie power to judge of the election returns and qualifications of members of the house power of expulsion is broad and marked in the former case the house is absolutely sol toi restricted to three clearly defined points of inquiry first Is the clai cial claimant mant of the tile seat duly returned second Is he duly elected third boesho does ho possess all ali th the equall quail fixations fleat ficat ions lons for membership which are prescribed by or may be prescribed under the constitution of the united states and the Jurl juri jurisdiction or of this committee over the pending controversy is limited to these three inquiries but tho the power of expulsion is wholly dif dlf different it touches no question of election returns or constitutional qualifications the regularity or of the return returns the validity of the election and the constitutional qualifications of tile the representatives senta renta tives ves aro are alike I 1 impotent impotent defenses against the re resolution of expulsion the question questions then which you 11 have ave to decide gentlemen of the committee are I 1 think these and these only which of the claimants if fr either lias ilas been duly elected which of the claimants has bas been duly returned does or does not the claimant who has been duly elected and returned possess all the qualifications prescribed or warranted by the constitution your decision of these questions will exhaust all the jurisdiction conferred upon you by the th eHouse house in this case if under the other constitutional provision the house shall at any time entertain a pro proposition to expel the sitting me member er 1 that proposition will pro probably a y b be e referred in accordance with it the precedents to a select committee but if it shall be referred to you then and not till the then ri will the power and duty be yours transcending the narrow narrow limits of df the inquiry into the election return returns and constitutional qualifications of the party concerned to enter u upon 0 n abnot another f ier ler and very obrent different niel fiel nield field 0 of r exam examination anat on an ilu examination atlon of the constitutional grounds for lils his ex expulsion lii iki in the pending casa case it is no part of my object or of my duty to consider what are or arc are not valid constitutional grounds for the expel expulsion of a member of the house of representatives whatever allusion I 1 may make to that subject will bo be strictly incidental to my argument upon the question fuestion or of the election return returns st aal and qualifications of the r respective claimants to the seat in controversy I 1 propose at the 0 outset to eliminate minate from this controversy thu tho claim of the contestant himself him elf eif to 16 the seat in dispute he was neither returned nor elected he HC received only votes whereat the sitting member rec received ived votes the contest contestant zint received considerably less than one tine tenth of the number or of votes which were cast for the sitting member whatever may be th the 0 rights or r the fate of mr cannau general maxwell has no semblance of a claim to the contested seat although nominally a contestant his attitude in this case casse is in truth not essentially different from that which would be assumed by any other resident of th the e Terri territory toky of utah who should see 11 ifor his own purposes to question the right of mr cannon to the seat which he lle now holds the contestants contestant lawful I 1 qualifications for the office ot of delegate from utah are therefore not at al all material to the pending controversy tro versy but ut the counsel for the tile contest isor isoe ant being evidently in earnest earmest insists that if mr cannon cannou was ineligible to congress and the elector electors of utah were werey at the time of thet the election advised of his ineligibility then mr maxwell although he be received only a minority of the votes is entitled to the seat and the counsel cou nse use referring dg to certain english parliamentary doci decisions ci as also aiso to certain Amp american rican nican judicial authorities relies mainly on the case of wallace v Simp gimp simpson gou gon reported 1 on page of bartless Bart leUs second volume of contested election cases overlooking well nigh a score of other cases decided by the house he produces one the only one which which gives even a semblance of support to his position but gentlemen this is not anipen an open question either in the house or in the senate if any questions have passed from the unstable realm of argument into the nixed fixed domain of authority this is one of those questions the case of wallace v simpson with all its peculiarities Is very far indeed from being an authority for the contestant in the pending I 1 n g co controversy n t ro v on Y the tho th e com committee in I 1 t tee teo of elections was at that time bub arb divided into subcommittees sub committees of three members each and anali subcommittee reported directly to the houte house the subcommittee sub bub committee who had bad charge of the case of wallace v simpson consisted of mr cessna of pennsylvania mr nir nale male of 0 maine and mr Ran ral kandall dallof of pennsylvania all members pf af tile tho present house th Thre report nort was drawn and submitted byun by mr cessna and the doctrine and argument of the report so far as this point is concerned beret opposed by hale and randalla Ran Ba dally daliy the tile other members of the subcommittee sub committee on this point the report stated the individual 0 pinion opinion of mr cessna an opinion in which he stood alone ou friday may blay which was private avato lill bill day mr castma a few minutes after the reading of the journal had been completed called up the report and without a word of debate secured the immediate adoption or the resolutions resolution awarding the seat to mr wallace and moved and carried the meion lon to reconsider and lay on the tile table the attention of the house houpe was not attracted to the proceeding until mr wallace presented himself to receive the of oath it tn then commenced ar scene of very great confusion mr randall indignantly repudiated that portion of the report upon which the counsel for the contestant relies in the case now before the committee mr dawes also repudiated lt it so did mr me brooks vir mr sir burr durr and others other no representative defended it except mr cessna himself who frankly stated the attitude of his colleagues on the committee these were mr cesenas Cess nas exact words to be found on page ot of volume 79 of the congressional globe there is one thing tiling which pil perhaps I 1 should have stated to the house and which I 1 state now the report in thi case ease is based upon three propositions tile tive first is this that when one of two candidates is ineligible the votes for him lre are or of no effect and the other candidate i elected I 1 desire desiro to state to the ho house use ure that bothof both of my colleagues agues on the committee mr 1 r hale haie 11 a 10 and mr randall dis sent from the first proposition contained in the report and that so far as anybody is 0 to o be bound by that first proposition there i no ohe one one to bo 14 bound by jt it but myself 5 mr hale halo of maine blaine was nus abs absent e ri from the tipe houie when this care caso was called up his relation tosho to tho re PO port rt can headily readi he be ascer ascertained a i smarting under a ense sense t I of iphus tice many representatives were casting about for some pard ameni amen i tary device by which the house might not notwithstanding the motion to reconsider had been laid on the table tabie a fair vote voto ote oto on the jhb question or of the admission of mr wallace with what success the following literal extract niom from thil the globe will show the SPEAKER the chait chair has been appealed to conversationally by several gentet gentlemen m u to indicate some sume method by which a record can be made in this case cae the chair would suggest I 1 that the them fim sim im 1 hiest mode would be to allow the gentleman from pennsylvania lir mr randall to move to i reconsider the th e vote by which the resolution or of the committee ee or of elections was adap led and then thel the other gentleman from Penti pennsylvania sylv i ania mr cogna Cess coss nax could jlove to lay that motion to reconsider on the tabe table mr aff indall JN nALL dall then illi I wili will make that motion the SPEAKER it ift requires require tin un consent la Is there objection 6 i cufr mr CESSNA I 1 object mr BROOKS of nevy yd york ai there is N no ho lio ilo possible abi abl 10 thing to be done but hut to td have hav I 1 this man W sworn D ril rii in I 1 the rile SPEAKER when the house in has declared by a vote whether alith I 1 viva roce rocc by tellers br or by yeas and nays bays that a person is en entitled ditled to alseat a seat kere here here and abd the mation tal to reconsider has been laid on the i table it is then as much the tile right of bf the member thus declared efi en 1 titled to his bis seat to be swon in as it is the right of the gent gentleman leinan from new york hin xin mr brooks to rnea speak sneak k upon any question before tho the house rele mr tip tir BROOKS of new york byoir if he bd shall be sworn in will ivill it be as a in south caro llna lina lindor br a member elected b bythia ibm house f i the SPEAKER the tid m member embel from fr om south houth carolina w wall BI h hoy eoy ov p present resent himself to ber bei sworn in mr ALEXANDER S g weila wallace wailace cd then presented himself and took the oath of office prescribed by the act net of congress of july I 1 respectfully ask the c 0 m in attee to read the debate in hi thi this s caso cato it will be found lound on pages G gor of volume 79 of the congressional globe globes congress having thus shown that this case of wallace v simpson does not sustain lee iee ine lne or of the counsel I 1 will proceed ap cite without discussion the thi amerlean american Ameil amell can ean authorities byvirl by which ilch lich that is not only overthrown butac ly annihilated the case caso of smith v bi howth bartlet Is the leading emo eme 1122 in the hou rou houfe 0 o of re IV wa war 4 reported from froin of elections by tilo tile chairman mr nir dawes on tilo esth or of january i 1883 1863 his exhaustive d discussion IC mon won of the subject will be found on pages loa ioa or of the ule second volume of bar ear coil coll tested sted election cases he refers to the cae of bamsey ramsey v smith mark clark dark hall 23 argued by mr madison at the firse first session of the Co congress tigress and to the cases of albert gallatin goliath in iti the senate in 1793 3 philip barton barion key in the house bouse in 1807 johl Johi joh bally baily in the house in 1824 james jame shields in the senate in 1849 and john young brown in the house howse in 1859 he also reviews the tho british authorities and aud the opinion expressed in cushing gushing ings treatise and he closes the discussion by declaring that tho rhe the uhe law of the tho british parliament in ili this parth particular has never been adopted in thi country and is wholly inapplicable to the system of government under which we live I 1 aa ask ash the tho committee io tio read so much of the report in this case as relates to the point now under udder consideration it willbe will be found on pages 5 of the second volume of bartletts bartletta Bart letts contested election cases in thet the case v rice blee 2 bartlett which is laer than wallace mam mae acee acet v biln peon the committee decided this precise point I 1 will vill give their iop ion don dnn in ill their own words to be lle found on the page of vol voi volume u me 2 0 of f bartlet bartiet ts con tested E election cases 11 rhu s it will by be seen that according to the contesters cont estees own statement lie he had entered into an agreed agreement ent to recruit for the rebel army was on ins lis its way to carry out fully his undertaking when he was captured and claimed protection asa as a rebel officer when captured the committee are well satisfied the acts of neste conestee co were well understood tood by the voters of said district at the tho time con eon was voted for but do not ngi agree with cont con stant taa chat 1 as cin agn mas was ineligible eU the candidate mho mao was eligible is entitled to for the scat x and they thuy recommended a resolution un |