never understood, nor do I believe, that any number of illegal votes will make an election void. There are circumstances that will undoubtedly avoid an election. If an armed force, of soldiers, or others, were to surround the polls, and by violence, or the menace of violence, prevent the electors from voting, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of their franchise, the election ought to be held void. But the mere circumstance of illegal votes being received, is of no importance, unless the election is contested. And what is then the rule? The chairman of the committee of elections will answer that question. Where the election is by ballot, the illegal votes are all deducted from the majority. Suppose there is still a majority, is the election void? No: The highest on the return is the person elected. Suppose there was no opposing candidate, is the election questionable? I believe we have never heard of such a thing. Again, sir-Suppose the election not to be contested: the returned member takes his seat, and holds it till his term of service has expired. Is his right afterwards questionable, or the validity of the acts he has done? I have never so understood it. These are the ordinary rules applicable to such cases. How do they apply here? Illegal votes, it is said, were received. Was there any opposition, or were all the votes, legal and illegal, given for the same ticket? Was the election contested? Has not the time for contesting it gone by? Supposing it still open to contest, can any one inform us how many legal and how many illegal votes were given; or what would be the state of the poll if the illegal votes were deducted from the majority? These are matters necessary to be ascertained in the first instance, and until they are ascertained, at all events the election is good, and the acts done under it valid. Even where an election is contested, the returned candidate takes his seat, and holds it, with all its rights, voting and acting, with others, until the contest is decided. But, again-Was it ever heard that the mere fact of receiving illegal votes at the election of corporation officers, was a forfeiture of the charter? Every cor poration in the United States might tremble if that were the law. No; you may invalidate the election before the proper tribunal-you may set it aside. The judiciary may inquire into it-may expel those who have been introduced by illegal means-may introduce those who have been by illegal means kept out. These are the appropriate and allsufficient remedies, which we have frequently seen employed, and employed with effect. They apply directly to the evil where it is found; correct that evil, but leave the innocent corporation, and the innocent corporators, in the enjoyment of their rights, which these remedies are intended to preserve, and not to destroy. I had intended to have noticed the propositions brought forward by the chairman of the committee. It would be unpardonable to consume more of the time of the house. A single remark upon them, and I have done. Among those propositions there are several that would be highly advantageous to the bank. If they were offered to its free acceptance, perhaps they would be accepted. But, under the threat of a scire facias, they ought not to receive a moment's consideration. (A.) Statement of Public Deposites, from January, 1817, to A Statement of the annual gain or loss, by Exchange, in relation to the payment of the Dutch Loans. (B.) GAIN ON REMITTANCES. Years. From the Treasury. To the Treasury. It will be perceived, by comparing Treasury Department. Register's Office, Jan. 26, 1819. JOSEPH NOURSE. A Statement of the annual gain or loss, by Exchange, under the operations of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. Years. Gain on Exchange. Loss on Exchange. (C.) REMARKS. 1802 11,200 00 See Report Commissioners Sinking Fund, 3d February, 1804 1803 Do. 1804 45,049 25 1805 117,137 52 Do. 1806 D. 1806 35,697 77 1807 9,427 58 1808 1809 1810 1811 56,726 14 1812 91,532 88 Do. 4th 66 1814 1813 92,249 86 Do. 6th 1815 66 1814 19,827 61 1815 $54,193 72 1816 75,446,94 1817 3,512 59 SPEECH, ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 8TH AND 9TH OF FEBRUARY, 1820. This speech was delivered while the House of Representatives was in committee of the whole, on the bill for the admission of Missouri into the union. The debate in committee commenced on the 26th January, 1820, on the following amendment, proposed by Mr. Taylor of New York, to the bill: “And shall ordain and establish that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said state, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labour or service is lawfully claimed in any other state, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labour or service as aforesaid. And provided also, that the said provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or civil rights of any person now held to service or labour in the said territory." MR. CHAIRMAN, THE important question now before the committee, has already engaged the best talents, and commanded the deepest attention of the nation. What the people strongly feel, it is natural that they should freely express; and whether this is done by pamphlets and essays, by the resolutions of meetings of citizens, or by the votes of state legislatures, it is equally legitimate, and entitled to respect, as the voice of the public, upon a great and interesting public measure. The free expression of opinion, is one of the rights guaranteed by the constitution, and in a government like ours, it is an invaluable right. It has not, therefore, been without some surprize and concern, that I have heard it complained of, and even censured in this debate. |