which he could not bring his mind to consent to? Mr. JACKSON made a variety of other observations, which continued until an adjournment was called for. Next day Mr. JACKSON proceeded in his observations, and remarked to the House, that some members had been solicitous to see a law of Georgia where a qualification was rendered necessary, previous to a magistrate's entering on the duties of his office; that he had been uncertain yesterday whether he had the law present with him or not; that he now felt himself happy in being able to satisfy those members on that point. [He here produced the law, and which appeared positively to require the magistrates taking and subscribing the oath therein prescribed, previous to their entering on any official duty.] Mr. JACKSON then observed that he would, as he was on the Effingham business, beg leave to produce the Constitution of Georgia, to ground what he had advanced yesterday respecting the right of Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Putnam, and Mr. Moore's voting at Effingham. From the 1st section, 4th article of the Constitution of Georgia, it required six months' residence in the county; this he read in his place, and said he considered the grounds of his charges respecting the Effingham return and election so well established, that he would take up no more time of the House on that business. He observed to the House that the next charge was that of the suppression of the Glynn return; but as the House had been pleased to indulge him in the mode of conducting the prosecution, he would beg the permission to pass over the second, and come to the third charge, that for the county [MARCH, 1792. charges, and he begged leave to assure the House that he would conform as much as possible, in the mode of producing the evidence, to the wishes of some gentlemen yesterday; and the first testimony he would read would be that of Daniel Miller, who was one of the clerks of the check of the poll of Camden, and a necessary officer under the law of Georgia, which he produced, and whereby it appeared that the superintending officers at elections are empowered to appoint three clerks to attend, and to keep three rolls or checks, setting down the names of the voters therein, with the names of the candidates, &c. He observed that it would appear by Miller's testimony that he was one of these clerks; that the check was preserved, and sent on annexed to the testimony; that the whole number of votes at the legal poll was but twenty-five, fifteen for General WAYNE, and ten for himself; that poll was closed agreeably to law, on or about sunset; that he had scarcely daylight to complete the return by which it was made out by him, and signed by the presiding magistrates outside the door; that a person by the name of Allen Thomas was spoken to, to carry the said express to the Governor; that the return was then lodged in his hands for safe keeping until the next day. This testimony Mr. JACKSON read, which further proved that Mr. Osborne had taken the return from Miller, with a promise of returning it in the morning, Miller having been sent for by Osborne in the night; that Mr. Wright, one of the magistrates at the first poll, advised with Mr. Miller, with a proposal of Osborne's of adding the legal and the night election together, and to which Wright, at that time, seemed adverse, but afterwards consented, telling Miller that Osborne had And here he came, he said, to a scene of iniqui- not returned the first or legal return, having made ty indeed, a scene which had improved upon Bri- out another more to his mind, having found fault tish corruption, and had left ancient and modern with some of the words of the former, adding that story all behind; we read, it is true, of a Roman Mr. Osborne was a very good patcher, and that, if consul who stole the votes from the forum, to pre- it was a measure insupportable, he would not have vent an election of the people, and we have heard done it, and that he had given up, as Miller beof British sheriffs falsifying returns in favor of lieved, his opinion to the better one of Judge Ostheir friends; but here was a Judge of the land, the borne; Miller's testimony likewise proved that the great check upon the Executive Department, (and legal return was suppressed or destroyed. To agreeably to the principles of free Government, corroborate the testimony of Miller, Mr. JACKSON they ought to be separate and distinct,) acting as observed, that he would produce the testimony of the Executive officer, the sacred guardian of the Samuel Smith, the sheriff of Camden county, whose laws, the liberties, and privileges of his fellow-presence at the election was made necessary by citizens, violating them all, and trampling them beneath his feet; who not only set down more votes than the county had, but added to the polls names which were never known. Here the sacred office of a judge became subservient to the views of party, and the possessor of it the tool of faction; but he forbore, he said, to animadvert on his notorious conduct; he had been tried, impartially tried; he had been convicted, and been punished; and by That an express was engaged to carry the return that punishment the character of his country had to the Governor, and that the number of votes at been restored. Yes, said he, Georgia, thou hast set the said election did not exceed thirty; that the an example worthy of thy elder sisters! thou hast business of the day being concluded, and it being hung out a warning to tyranny and its supporters! then dark, he returned to his lodgings, two miles thou hast set an example which must be respected, distant from the place of election; that some time and I trust will be followed, in similar circum-after he got there, he received a message from stances, in the United States, to the end of time. of Camden. He would proceed to offer the evidence on the law. Mr. Smith proved that he attended the election, performing the duty required of him. Mr. Smith proved that the poll was continued till after sunset; that after the poll was closed, he saw the return made out by one of the clerks appointed to keep the checks; that he saw it signed by the presiding magistrates, viz: Henry Wright, Langley Byan, and Hugh Brown. Osborne, requesting his return with the people there with him: that he observed to those about him that he supposed the business of that day at end, and that he should not return until next morning. That, when he returned in the morning, he was told that a second poll had been held the evening before, a certified return of which he had seen, containing eighty-nine votes, and that he did not believe that, at that time, there were above seventy persons entitled to vote in the county. That he was well acquainted with Miller, who acted as one of the clerks of the check, and that he was a man of veracity, and well respected. Mr. JACKSON next produced the testimony of Dr. John M. Scott, one of the surgeons of the first regiment of the United States; a gentleman, he said, who had been as delicate in coming forward as his opposers could wish. It had been with difficulty he had procured his evidence, but Dr. Scott, when he did come forward, had given his testimony to prove that a second or illegal poll had been held. The doctor's evidence set forth that he was in Camden, at the station on St. Mary's, in the month of January, 1791; that he went to the election with some gentlemen in a boat; that on the passage they fell in with Osborne. [H. of R. and illegality of the Camden election, and he begged them to observe the chain of evidence; you find, says he, Miller, a public officer, doing his duty at the election, who swears that the legal poll consisted but of twenty-five votes, that fifteen were for Mr. WAYNE, and ten for himself; you find the poll was closed at sundown, agreeably to law; you find that Miller had scarcely daylight to complete the return by; you find that presiding magistrates, on that account, signed the return outside the door; you find the return delivered to Miller for safe keeping, and you find an express applied to; you find the number from Smith's testimony, who was the sheriff of the county, and a necessary officer at the poll, corroborating the testimony of Miller, that the number of votes did not exceed thirty; an express was absolutely engaged to carry the return to the Governor, and that after the law had been complied with, the electors had generally dispersed; you next find, by the testimony of Dr. Scott and Gray, the arrival of Mr. Osborne after dark, that a torch was brought to show them the landing; you find him sending again for the people, and here you observe the answer of the sheriff, that the business of that day was at an end, and he should not return: notwithstanding this caution, you view, from their evidence, Osborne proceeding to a second election, and setting down absentees' names, who were not present at the first poll, and among them James Seagrove and Philip Goodbread. You find here the question of Dr. Scott, Is this the mode of conducting business at elections in Georgia? Why that question, said he, but that the honest dictates of a virtuous heart spurned at such abominable villany. Mark the answer of this iniquitous judge, "You never mind." Evasion, dark, designing evasion, which carried guilt in its countenance; he dared not explain; the deed would not bear the light. Shall we rest here a moment, said he, and search whence this right of proxy? Is it found in the laws or the Constitution of the Continent? Is it expressed in the laws or the Constitution of Georgia? Is it to be met with in any of the laws or Constitutions of the respective States? In France it is exploded; in England it is only admitted to the Lords, whose right is hereditary; in no free country on earth, said he, is this right established. Shall the United States then be the first to sanction this pernicious principle? Shall she who has lighted up the flame of liberty in other nations, who has astonished the universe, and loosened the trammels on the rights of men, be the first to nourish this tyrannic vulture in her bosom? View how far it Mr. JACKSON next brought forward the testi- leads, see how far it extends, and there is not a mony of Abner Williams, to which objections were freeman who hears me, but must fire with indiglikewise made by Mr. Lewis, that it did not appear nation at the attempt. If admitted to one, shall to be written in the magistrate's presence: many we stop there? Shall we stop at ten, at twenty, nice and refined distinctions and reasonings were at one hundred, or one hundred thousand? Shall given, and the testimony was ultimately rejected. we stop at a township, a county, a district, or a Mr. JACKSON observed that he had other testi-State? Sir, the glory of our Constitution is that mony of the same nature from Camden, which, as the House had decided against the testimony of Williams, he should not produce. That they arrived at Gray's about dark, and that Osborne examined Gray respecting the election, and begged him to come on board and pilot him to the place of election; that Gray showed them the landing, and that a torch was brought them to show them where to land; that, on going up to the house where the election was held, the judge inquired what time the people went away; that it was answered the poll was closed at sundown; that Osborne sent for several of the electors to return, and that the poll was again opened; that the whole number did not exceed twenty; that Mr. Seagrove's name was put down as a voter, but who was not present; that Osborne inquired of Gray the names of those who were not present at the first election, and that their names were likewise set down as voters; that he did not see a ticket or ballot given in; that he asked the judge if this was the common mode of doing business at elections in Georgia, to which Osborne replied to him, Never to mind. Mr. JACKSON now produced the affidavit of Gray, to which some objections were made by Mr. LEWIS, on behalf of the sitting member, and on which an argument, and reading the statement of the magistrate, was admitted. Gray corroborated the evidence of Dr. Scott in a full manner, and proved the absentees' names being set down to the poll, particularly Seagrove's and Goodbread's. From the testimony Mr. JACKSON had produced, he thought he had fully established the iniquity our rights are equal; and if one citizen may be permitted to vote by proxy, the whole rights of the community may be in like manner delegated, and the consequence might be, that a Dionysius or a Nero might be palmed upon us by authority. He did not like to be severe; he would repress what he felt, out of respect to the House; but with what view did this wicked judge come to that election? He was not actuated by a love of country, for his attempts, if successful, would have damned its liberty; not acting as a magistrate, because, as a magistrate, he was bound by the law, but here he was barefacedly breaking it; but, void of principle, and, from his character, he believed he never possessed any; regardless of oaths, and worked on by prejudice and party, he came there at all events, and by any means, however base or abominable, to prevent his being elected. [MARCH, 1792. Mr. J. then proceeded, by observing that he should now close his evidence and observations on the Camden election; he thought he had perfectly established his charges on this head, as well as on the Effingham election; he had proved that the legal return had been suppressed, and that the second election had been illegal altogether. He would now proceed to the last article of charge, the Glynn return, and here he should offer the testimony of Colonel Samuel Hammond, a gentleman of the greatest veracity, who would prove-[Here Mr. JACKSON was called on by Mr. LEWIS to produce the evidence, and was desired not to inform the House of the contents of the testimony.] Mr. LEWIS objected to Colonel Hammond's evidence, on the grounds he had formerly made to the testimony of Williams, and, on argument, it was finally rejected. Mr. JACKSON here observed that it was not for him to do otherwise than suppose that the decision of the House was proper, however hard it might bear on him, which, he must be permitted to say, it did; that, however, by the failure of the receipt of this testimony, his charge must fall to the ground, as the evidence of Hammond was the principal ground on which he rested his charge, and that he must, therefore, decline bringing forward the other testimonies relating to this business before the House. Let it be remembered, sir, if this can obtain in Georgia, it can in other States, and the corruption will be general. But, supposing there is right of proxy admitted, he would produce the census of Georgia, under the official signature of the Secretary of State, taken by the marshal of the district of Georgia, whereby it would appear that the whole number of male inhabitants consisted of but eighty-one persons; here were eight more votes than the whole contained, and sixty-four more than the legal poll; but admit, said he, that there are as many voters as the return mentions, Is it not extraordinary that, whilst other counties have polled but one-half, and some not one-fourth of its citizens, this county should have every elector attending? But let us take the two elections, said he, and add them together, and how will they then stand, as appears by the testimony He said he felt himself now bound in duty to before the House? Dr. Scott swears there were produce to the House the decision of the State of not more than twenty persons at the second elec- Georgia on the impeachment of Judge Osborne, tion. Twenty, therefore, at the second election, and he did not produce it without an expectation and twenty-five at the first election, are but forty-of its being objected to; but he begged leave to five, so that forty-four votes are still wanting, at offer some reasons why it should be received. the utmost extent; but, take Gray's testimony, Baron Gilbert, in his excellent treatise on eviand this deficiency is much greater. [Mr. GILES dence, had quoted Mr. Locke, to prove that the here asked the question, whether the eighty-one degrees of evidence were various, and that they male persons, returned by the census, were the extended from perfect certainty and demonstrapersons above the age of 16 or 21?] Mr. JACK- tion, quite down to improbability and unlikeliness, SON, after thanking the honorable gentleman for even to the confines of impossibility. Perfect the question, as it had escaped him in observation, certainty was defined to be a clear and distinct said that the eighty-one were the free males above perception with one's own senses; probabilities, 16, so that one-fifth of those, which was the near- on which, in a greater or lesser degree, all other est proportion, ought to be deducted for those be-evidence rested, consisted of obscure views, or tween 16 and 21, and which would bring it to sixty-five, which number was corroborated by the testimony of Smith, the sheriff, who had sworn that the whole number of voters did not exceed, at that time, the amount of seventy. He observed that the testimony of Smith must be of weight, for he was the sheriff of the county, who knew, or must be supposed to know, all the residents, who summoned all jurors, and served all judicial processes. Mr. JACKSON here begged leave to offer a statement he had made out, not as testimony, but to assist the minds of the House of those particular elections, and in the particular views in which they might be received. what was seen or heard by the report of others. The first kind of evidence was not in the power of the House, because none of the facts alleged were within their views; but they were compelled to, and did, by their resolutions, depend on the second kind of evidence, or what was heard by the report of others in Georgia. The House, in receiving the testimony offered, would receive evidence taken at least on as careful grounds as that taken under the resolutions; the facts were the same; the point at issue was the same, whether corruption had or had not taken place at this election; the person accused was present, with his attorneys, to cross-examine; two of the attor[Here follows a statement of the polls in the neys of the sitting member were employed as different counties. Mr. BARNWELL here inter-counsel, on that occasion, for Mr. Osborne, and rupted Mr. JACKSON, as did also Mr. BENSON, by opposing the reading of any calculation; but Mr. MADISON insisted that the petitioner had a right to state the numbers at the different polls.] one of them actually cross-examined the evidence; it must therefore be supposed that, from the exalted station of that gentleman, every industry would be used, every exertion be made by them, MARCH, 1792.] Georgia Contested Election. [H. OF R. Here, again, he would ask for their law, their as well to clear the character of their client in Georgia as to establish the right of the sitting member here. It was, he said, a decision of the highest court of the State of Georgia, founded on an express article of the Constitution- -a court having competent jurisdiction to decide, and an authority which the members of that State here were not only called on to acknowledge, but to respect. A decision of faction, he said, it could not be supposed, for whoever heard of a unanimous faction? Faction signified a party in a State; here was a political phenomenon, which did not happen in a political age-a whole people of one way of thinking-a House of Representatives unanimously convicting. How, he asked, should the voice of the people be known? Here were but two ways: by petition from the people at large, or by the declared sense of the Legislature. If he had taken the former, would not the gentleman have come forward to object to it? Would not there have been room to charge him with undue influence in procuring it? The voice of the people, therefore, would be best known by the Legislature of the State; for, notwithstanding the nice-spun sophistry of the day, he could not distinguish between the people and the State. Who was the State, but the society which compose it? Who, then, were the people, but the State? Would Congress, then, not receive the sense of the State of Georgia? Would they hush that voice which says we are not represented? Would not the world perceive how short-lived Republican virtues were, and the British King behold acts for which they had denominated him a tyrant? The Government was founded on the basis of the States and people; and, at least, a decent respect should be so far paid them as to receive their complaints. If it be said that Congress have the sole power of judging of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its own members, without denying this position, he would beg leave to observe, there were powers delegated Here Mr. Lewis objected to the admission of by the Constitution which were not exclusive; these papers, and was astonished that they should that a power was given to the States to prescribe be offered to the House. He argued that the imthe times, manner, and place, for holding the elec-peachment of Judge Osborne was unconnected tions, but Congress might alter those regulations. with the business in question; that it was altoHere, then, was a right in Congress which was gether ex parte, and therefore hoped the House not exercised; the States were in the exercise of would reject it, and not suffer the proceedings of this power; every member in the House had been the State of Georgia, dignified as it was, to influelected under State laws; the State officers exe-ence Congress in a matter which was entirely cuted the laws; and who had the cognizance of their malfeasance but the States under whom those officers held their appointments? Besides, who, he asked, could so well detect corruption as the States, who were so much interested to do it? Could Congress detect this corruption? Would individuals hazard their lives and fortunes, at the end of every election, to attend Congress to inform them of it? Would Congress establish inquisitions in the respective States to find it out? Would the people of America submit to inquisitions? Had Congress the power to compel evidence to attend? Where was their law-where their compulsory process? He had seen neither. But, suppose all this got over, and corruption detected, can Congress punish the authors of it? within their own jurisdiction. The House refused to receive them. Whereupon the farther hearing on the said trial was adjourned until to-morrow. WEDNESDAY, March 14. that the Senate insist on their amendments to the A message from the Senate informed the House bill entitled "An act to ascertain and regulate the have made a farther amendment to the said bill; claims to half-pay and to invalid pensions," and to which they desire the concurrence of this House. GEORGIA CONTESTED ELECTION. The House resumed the hearing on the contested election in the case of JAMES JACKSON, COM plaining of an undue election and return of ANTHONY WAYNE, one of the members returned to serve in this House for the State of Georgia; and application in writing having been made by the petitioner as follows: [MARCH, 1792. returned to serve in this House for the State of A motion was then made and seconded, other papers, transmitted agreeably to their resolution, "That the decision of the Senate of the State of Georgia, on the impeachment of Judge Osborne, so far as respects the Camden return for a member to representatives of the State of Georgia, accompanied with sent the State of Georgia, on the 3d day of January, 1791, be received as evidence in the present trial of that election, to establish the corruption of Judge Osborne." As well the petitioner as the sitting member, by his Counsel, were fully heard on the subject of the said application; and the question being taken, that the House do agree to the same, it was passed in the negative-yeas 20, nays 41, as follows: YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Elias Boudinot, Abraham Clark, Elbridge Gerry, William B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Nathaniel Macon, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, John Steele, Thomas Sumpter, George Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, and Francis Willis. NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, John Brown, William Findley, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Samuel Griffin, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Josiah Parker, Theodore Sedgwick, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Peter Sylvester, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, Alexander White, and Hugh Williamson. The petitioner then proceeded to conclude with the exhibits and proofs in support of the remaining charges of his petition, after which, the sitting member, by his Counsel, entered into the defence, and produced sundry exhibits and proofs in opposition to the said charges; and having made some progress therein, an adjournment was called for. Whereupon, Ordered, That the farther hearing on the said trial be postponed until to-morrow. THURSDAY, March 15. received." On which motion, the previous question being called for by five members, to wit: "Shall the main question to agree to the said motion be now put?" it passed in the negative, and so the said motion was lost. An adjournment was then called for and carried. FRIDAY, March 16. tested election in the case of the petition of JAMES The House proceeded to a decision on the conJACKSON, complaining of an undue election and return of ANTHONY WAYNE, one of the members returned to serve in this House for the State of Georgia; and, after debate thereon, a motion being made and seconded that the House do agree to the following resolution: "Resolved, That ANTHONY WAYNE was not duly elected a Member of this House:" by yeas and nays, every member present voting It was unanimously resolved in the affirmative, in the affirmative. Another motion was then made and seconded, "That the SPEAKER do transmit a copy of the said vote to the Executive of the State of Georgia ;" and, debate arising thereon, Ordered, That all farther decision on the said contested election be postponed until Monday next. Mr. BOURNE, of Rhode Island, from the committee to whom was referred the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the petitions of the Commissioners of Loans for the States of New Hampshire and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, made a report; which was read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill entitled "An The House proceeded to consider the amendact declaring the consent of Congress to a certainments of the Senate, disagreed to by this House, act of the State of Maryland, and to continue for a longer time an act declaring the assent of Congress to certain acts of the States of Maryland, Georgia, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," so far as the same respects the States of Georgia and Rhode Island and Providence Planta tions. and insisted on by the Senate, to the bill entitled "An act to ascertain and regulate the claims to half-pay and to invalid pensions." Whereupon, Resolved, That this House doth recede from their disagreement to the said amendments, and doth agree to all the amendments of the Senate to the said bill. Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate therewith. GEORGIA CONTESTED ELECTION. The House resumed the hearing on the con- Ordered, That the Report of the Secretary of tested election, in the case of the petition of JAMES the Treasury, relative to the act entitled "An act JACKSON, complaining of an undue election and re- repealing, after the last day of June next, the duturn of ANTHONY WAYNE, one of the members | ties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported |