1st SESSION. and perhaps eventually every man in the district, to the 1796. amount of three or four thousand; that the failure of 4th CONGRESS, getting evidence of the facts stated, was a presumptive proof that none was to be got; that several elections had On the proof to already been contested, and it would be extremely wrong be required. to give birth to a new contest on grounds so slight; that Mr. Brown had not been able to get facts, and wished the House to enable him to hunt them up; that it was impossible to prove the facts stated, as it was not in the power of the town clerk, or any other person, to make out a list of persons entitled to vote at the last election, as their right depended on their being worth £60, or £3 a year, in any property whatever; that the town clerk of Dracut opened the books to Mr. Brown, but would not himself copy any thing, and that this universal respect for Mr. Varnum, in the place where he lived, seemed to contradict the old proverb, that "a prophet has no honor in his own country." In the course of the debate several amendments were offered, and again withdrawn. A pointed call being made on Mr. Varnum to come forward, he rose, and said that he did not think it necessary for him to speak on this subject. It was not very pleasant for him to sit there, and hear gentlemen from the same State treat him with all the personalities possible; but he would patiently submit. He asked whether Mr. Brown had not said that he came forward in this business, from political motives, and whether a man had not declared that he had been paid to swear falsely. These charges were denied by every person who supported the resolution. Mr. SEDGWICK's resolution did not pass. [See Philadelphia Gazette of 8th April, 1796.] No further progress appears to have been made in this case, until the succeeding session of Congress, when the committee made the following report: JANUARY 19, 1797. "That none of the petitioners, or their agents, have Report of the appeared at the present session to prosecute, nor have they Committee of transmitted any evidence to support their allegations. "That the sitting member has produced evidence to show that the election in the town of Dracut, where the irregularities were suggested to have been committed, was conducted with the utmost fairness and propriety, especially as it relates to his conduct; that, though some little irregularity was practised, it was in other towns in favor of another candidate, and chiefly by those persons who have since been the active agents of the petitioners. "Your committee are, therefore, of opinion that Joseph Bradley Varnum was duly elected, and that the attempt Elections. 1796. to deprive him of his seat was rather the effect of malevo4th CONGRESS, lence, than a desire to promote the public good." 1st SESSION. Sitting his seat. mem When this report was before the House for consideration, a motion was made, and carried, to strike out the words in italics, and in lieu thereof to insert the following: "And that the charges contained in the said petitions ber entitled to against the sitting member are wholly unfounded; and that the conduct of the sitting member appears to have been fair and unexceptionable throughout the whole transaction." And the report, so amended, was agreed to by the House, 26th January, 1797. Report of Com tions. CASE XV. DAVID BARD, of Pennsylvania. [The election law of Pennsylvania directs that the judges should meet on a certain day in October, and, in certain cases, in November; estimate the votes given, and make due return of the person having the highest number of votes. In this case, the return was omitted at the times prescribed, and subsequently made in the month of May. Held that this irregularity did not vitiate the election or return. Where the final return is informal, it seems that the committee may call for the county or primary returns, and from them make an estimate of the votes, as the judges themselves might have done.] The report which discloses the facts of this case, appears to be the result of an ex officio investigation of the credentials of David Bard, a member from Pennsylvania, by the Standing Committee of Elections, and is as follows: MARCH 18, 1796. "That the elections appear to have been regularly held mittee of Elec- in the several counties composing the district, and that the judges of the several districts in the respective counties made up a return for each of the said counties, in the manner and at the time prescribed by law. "That the general election law directs that one of the judges of each of the counties composing the district should meet at a place called the Burnt Cabins, in the county of Bedford, on the third Tuesday in October ensuing the election, to estimate the votes given in the several counties, and to return the person having the highest number of votes in the entire district, as their Representative; except there should be, at the time of holding the said elections, any of the militia of any of the said counties in the service of the United States; and, in that case, that the judges should meet the 15th of November ensuing the election. "That, at the time of holding the elections, Bedford and Huntington, two of the counties in the said district, had no part of their militia in the service of the United States; and the judges of those two counties met at the Burnt Cabins on the third Tuesday in October, in order to make their district return. "That the county of Franklin had a part of their militia in the service of the United States at that time, and the judge from that county did not meet the other judges, in consequence of which no return was made on that day. "That, on the 15th of November, the judges of Bedford and Franklin met for the purpose of making a return; but the judge of Huntington, as it is suggested, not being informed of the alteration of the law in that respect, failed to attend, by which they were again prevented from making a return that, on the 1st day of May last, all the judges met at the Burnt Cabins, and returned David Bard as having the highest number of votes. "That, in consequence of the informality of the said return, it being the 1st of May, instead of the 15th of November, the committee have called for and obtained the several county returns, on which the district return was founded, and have made an estimate of the votes, as they appear from those returns; which estimate is as follows: "David Bard, eighteen hundred and eight. 1796. 4th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION. Whereupon, your committee are of opinion that David Declared en Bard is entitled to his seat in this House." And, on the question, Will the House agree to this report? it passed in the affirmative. titled to his seat. FIFTH CONGRESS-FIRST SESSION. COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS. Testimony to [The petitioner made general allegations that illegal votes had been received in favor of the sitting member, and that bribery and corruption had been resorted to; but the facts not being supported by sufficient proof, the sitting member was declared entitled to his seat.] On the petition of Robert Rutherford against Daniel Morgan, of Virginia, being referred to the Committee of Elections, they prescribed the manner in which the evidence should be taken, being similar in all respects to that pointed out in the case of John Patton. (See page 70, with the addition of the two following clauses, to wit:) "That notice shall be given by the petitioner to the sitting member at least ten days before the taking of any testimony, of the names of the several persons against the legality of whose votes he means to object; and in like manner notice shall be given by the sitting member, if he means to take evidence against the legality of any of the votes given for the petitioner. "The testimony to be taken by the petitioner is to be conbe confined to fined to the facts stated in the specification by him handed the specifica- to the committee." tion. Allegations of The allegations contained in the memorial were, 1st. That the petitioner. illegal and improper votes were given in favor of Gen. Mor gan, in Frederick county, by persons not resident therein, viz. by "William Palmer," and others, inhabitants of Loudoun. 2d. That the votes thus given were more in number than the majority by which he was returned to Congress. 3d. That money was given, or promised, by Gen. Morgan or his friends, for meat, drink, wagon-hire, and other acts of bribery and corruption. 4th. That the friends of the petitioner, who came to the election with an intention to vote for him, did, nevertheless, return without giving their suffrages, being discouraged by the great number of unlawful votes in favor of Gen. Morgan, and reluctant to enter into a crowd of men heated by feastings and carousals. 5th. That in one of the counties of the district, where order and regularity were observed, the suffrages were decidedly in favor of Robert 1st SESSION. Rutherford. 6th. That the election law of Virginia was vi- 1797. olated by treats, &c.; and the petitioner prayed that the com- 5th CONGRESS, mittee might not narrow or circumscribe the powers of the commissioners, so as to prevent an investigation of facts in support of justice and truth. On the 7th December, 1797, the committee made a report, which was committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and on the 17th December, Mr. DENT, from the Committee of the Whole House, reported their agreement to said report, which was concurred in by the House, and is as follows: "That they had examined the proofs adduced by the peti- Report. tioner, and were of opinion that they were wholly insufficient to support the allegations contained in the said memorial." In Committee of the Whole, on motion to concur with the Committee of Elections, Mr. MACON said he did not know whether the petitioner was present or not. It was usual, he said, to place a chair for petitioners in such cases, to give them an opportunity of being heard in support of their memorials. If Mr. Rutherford were present, he hoped the usual course would be taken. Mr. Corr had no objection to the proposed formality, though he believed the petitioner was not present. The committee rose, and the House concurred in the report. [Philadelphia Gazette of 8th December, 1797.] Decision in favor of sitting member. |