Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

CONGRESS.
WEDNESDAY—DECEMBER 6.
Mr. Dent presented a memorial from
sundry inhabitants of St. Mary's county.
in the state of Maryland, stating that by the
late regulations made in the establishment of
Post Roads, they were deprived of the op-
portunity of receiving news-papers as usual,
which as they have a direct tendency to pro-
mote an increase of knowledge, they consi-
der as being deprived of a blessing, and pray
for an extension of the road, that the evil
they complain of may be remedied.—Refer-
red to a select committee.
Mr. Reed presented the petition of Si-
meon Dunbar, stating that he possesses con-
tinental Securities; that he never heard of
the act of limitation, before the limit was
expired, and prays that they may notwithstanding be funded.
A motion to refer this petition to the
committee of claims, occasioned some de-
bate upon the propriety of reference of a
petition, which acknowledged the claim to
be barred by law. It was, however, at length
agreed to; when
Mr. WILLIAMS said, he believed there
were many just claims undischarged, owing
entirely to the ignorance of the persons
holding the securities, with respect to the
law of limitation; for persons living on the
frontier of the country, who were probably
the best entitled to compensation, had no
means of becoming acquainted with the laws.
He therefore proposed the following resolu-
tion:
"Resolved, that a committee be appoint-
ed to enquire into the expediency or inex-
pediency of designating certain claims to be
excepted from the operation of the act of li-
mitation, and that they report by bill or o-
therwise."
Mr. DWIGHT FOSTER said, that a mo-
tion of this kind had been made in the last
winter session, and the committee of claims
on the 24th of February, had made a lengthy
report thereupon, which for want of time
had not been acted upon, and which was
mentioned in the report of unfinished busi-
ness. He supposed, if the gentleman mov-
ed this report to be committed to a commit-
tee of the whole, his object would be at-
tained.
After a number of desultory observations,
this motion was put and carried, and made
the order of the day for Friday.
Mr. GORDON presented a petition from
sundry inhabitants of New-Hampshire, com-
plaining that there was no direct post from
Exeter to Concord, and praying that such
a post may be established.—Referred to a se-
lect committee.
Mr. D. FOSTER said, he was instructed
by the committee of claims, to ask leave of
the house to be discharged from the farther
consideration of the petition of Mr. Maury,
consul of the United States at Liverpool,
in order that it might be referred to the
committee appointed to take into considera-
tion that part of the President's speech
which related to the consuls of the United
States.—Agreed; and the petition referred
in the way proposed.
Mr. HARPER then called for the order of
the day on certain resolutions which he had
offered to the consideration of the house on
the subject of taking evidence in cases of
contested elections.
The motion was agreed to, and the house
accordingly resolved itself into a committee
of the whole on that subject, Mr. Dent in
the chair. The resolutions were as follow:
"Resolved, that the method of taking evidence
to be adduced, in the trial of contested elections,
for this house, shall, hereafter, be as follows:
"1st. The party intending to contest an election
shall give notice of such intention to the person re-
turned. If it be an election in the usual course, their no-
tice shall be given at least
three weeks before the
time when the said person is to take his seat; if not in the
usual course, but to fill a vacancy, then the notice shall be
given within
two
days after the persons ap-
pointed to hold the election shall have made known
publicly the state of the poll. The notice shall be
delivered in writing. at the usual residence of the
person returned; and if he be absent, shall be left
there open.
"2dly. That the party intending to take exami-
nation, shall then apply to some justice or judge of
the courts of the United States, or some chancellor,
justice or judge of a supreme, superior or county
court, or court of common pleas, of any state—or
some mayor or chief magistrate of a town or city,
and shall obtain a notification, under his hand and
seal, directed to the opposite party, and requiring
him to attend before him, or his attorney duly au-
thorised, and cross-examine the witnesses. This
notification shall state the time and place of exami-
nation, and the names of the witnesses; and it
shall be served on the opposite party, or his attor-
ney duly authorised, as either may be nearest to
such place; provided either is within one hundred
miles of it. For attendance—after receiving the
notification, one day, exclusive of Sundays, shall
be allowed for every twenty miles.
"3dly. In all cases where either party shall give
notice to the other, of his having appointed an at-
torney, for the purpose aforesaid, it shall be neces-
sary to serve the above-mentioned notification on
the attorney
"4thly. Every person deposing, shall make oath
or affirmation to testify the whole truth, and shall
subscribe the testimony by him or her given; which
shall be reduced to writing only by the magistrate
taking the deposition, or by the deponent, in his
presence. The deposition, so taken together with
a certificate of the notices, and proof of the ser-
vice of them, shall be sealed up by the magistrate
who took it, and transmitted to the speaker of the
house.
"Resolved, that the examination of witnesses, ta-
ken in this manner, and no other, shall hereafter
be admitted on trial of contested elections.
"Resolved, that copies of any papers recorded in
any office of record, provided those copies be au-
tested under the hand and seal of the recording of-
ficer, shall be admitted at all such trials, in the
same manner as the originals would be, if pro-
duced. In like manner, copies of any other papers of
a public nature, and remaining in the possession of
a public officer, shall be admitted, when attested
under the hand and seal of that officer.
"Resolved, that
copies of these resolutions
shall be forwarded forthwith to the executive of
every state, with a request that they will cause the
managers of every election in their respective states
to be furnished with at least one copy."
Mr. HOSMER moved to amend the first
resolution, by adding after the word "elec-
tion," in the eighth line, "or to canvass
the votes."—Agreed.
Mr. Sitgreaves did not understand the object which the mover of these resolutions had in view. He knew not whether he meant to confine the operation of his rules in the present House of Representatives only, or to all future houses. From the language of the first resolution, he judged the latter was his intention. As it was his opinion, therefore, that any attempt of theirs to bind future houses would be perfectly nugatory, he should move to strike out the words from, "If it be." to "given" (printed above in italic.) This resolution will then confine the operation of the rule to the elections which may take place during the fifth congress. By the constitution, every house was to judge of the elections and returns of its own members. It was not in the power of any house to prescribe rules for a succeeding one, or this reason, the rules which governed a preceding house, were always revised by the succeeding one. If they were to prescribe rules which were to be binding on future houses, it could only be done by an act of the whole legislature, which would certainly be exceptionable, as it would give to the President and Senate a power over the rules for governing their proceedings, which, by the constitution, they were alone the judges of. He thought his ideas on this subject correct; if they were, he doubted not the motion which he had made would be agreed to.

Mr. Harper said, if the idea of the gentleman last up was correct, his motion, would doubtless be acceded to; though he did not go far enough, because in that case, he should have moved to have struck out the whole clause; because, if the rules proposed were not to have a permanent effect, they would be perfectly nugatory. But he apprehended his friend had not attended to a distinction, which he thought a plain one. It was this, the power to establish rules for the taking of evidence, and that of judging the evidence after it was taken, This house could not say it would admit members under such and such disqualifications, but an agreement to the mode of taking evidence, was very different from the qualifications themselves. It was essentially necessary that legislative and judicial powers should be kept distinct, yet it was not thought an interference with the judicial authority, for the legislature to direct the mode of taking evidence in certain cases. Nothing could be more clear than this distinction. It could not be said, therefore, that because the whole legislature directed the mode of taking evidence in cases of contested election, that the President and Senate interfered with the constitutional direction that every house should be the judge of its own rules. He was of opinion that a law was necessary, and a law of a permanent nature, to which he could see no reasonable objection. He allowed that it would be unconstitutional for the President or Senate to interfere with their rules or elections; but when they came to make a law which was to operate upon the whole community, their interference was necessary and proper. If these ideas were founded, and he thought they were, the proposed amendment would be rejected.

Mr. N. Smith said the motion now before them, was founded upon an idea that permanent rules could not be made for taking evidence at contested elections. He had frequently heard it said that rules could not be made to be binding any longer than while the house existed which formed them. For himself he never conceived this opinion to be correct. That it was highly important that permanent regulations should be made on the subject in question, every one must admit; it became of importance therefore, to know whether they had the power of making them. When he spoke of permanent rules he would not be understood to mean that any rules should be longer permanent than until the time came when the house of representatives should wish to rescind them.

The idea which led to the conclusion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, was this, that every new Congress occasioned a new House of Representatives; that whenever the members were newly elected, there was a new House of Representatives. He did not believe this doctrine to be correct. The House of Representatives, he said was a totally distinct thing from its members. The House of Representatives, in his opinion, always existed; and there was no period at which it could be said there was not a House of Representatives in being. He never believed it was broken in pieces once in two years; for when the time of one set of members expired, that of another set commenced; so that it was of the nature of a Corporation, which always existed. He did not think there had been four Houses of Representatives since the commencement of the present Government, but that the whole had been one uninterrupted House. He thought this was the view which the Constitution gave of the subject; as it spoke of it always as a permanent body. In the same way, the President and Senate were permanent; if this were not the case, and every election made a new House, there was a time when the Senate was only two thirds of a Senate (when one-third went out of office). This idea therefore, could not be right. There was no difficulty, therefore, in forming permanent rules, since they were made to govern the House, and not the individual members. With respect to those things which each branch of government had the power of doing for itself; each could establish its own rules; but, what related to the whole government, must be the act of the whole. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had said, that each House had the power of judging of its own elections. This, he apprehended, did not refer to different Houses of Representatives, but to the House of Representatives, and the Senate, as each House was always considered by the Constitution as a permanent body. He was therefore opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas believed this was a subject in which they should never advance far enough to come to a decision. Very long very plausible arguments might be adduced on both sides of the question, which would produce different effects on those who heard them; but he thought the subject before them might be acted upon, without coming to a question on that point. He supposed if any case of contested election came before the House, and the evidence was taken in such a way as to ascertain the truth, they should be at liberty to proceed to the examination of the case; and therefore, all that was wanting was, to call in the power of the General Legislature to authorize the attendance of witnesses to deliver their testimony. Let that testimony be taken upon established and acknowledged rules, which satisfy every man's mind, and it will carry conviction with it that it is proper. The necessity of adopting some mode of this kind was evident, as it was a great grievance that persons disputing elections had to come there, to learn the mode of doing it, before they could proceed to take evidence. Indeed, it was putting the power of seating members to that house in the hands of Returning Officers. He had no doubt that the Constitution gave them power to make a law on the subject; if necessary the necessity of the case would show the reasonableness of it; but he did not know that a law was requisite; he thought a rule of the House to the effect he had mentioned, would cure the evil complained of.

Mr. Sewall believed, that the great difficulty on the subject, arose from in the form which it presented itself, which had introduced the question, whether that house was a perpetual body or not. He must confess, that he differed in opinion altogether from the gentleman from Connecticut, (N. Smith) that this house was a perpetual body. He thought the constitution had shown, that though there was always a House of Representatives, yet that every house had only two years duration; but he believed, in determining the real object of this motion, there was no necessity for coming to a decision on this point. Mr. S. objected to the first resolution, on account of the notice required to be given, which in some cases, would prevent an undue election from being disputed, because the business was not taken up agreeably to the direction of this rule, as to time; so that whether the proposed regulation was to be effected by a rule or a law, he thought the first resolution ought to be rejected. With respect to the other parts of the resolutions, some regulation was certainly necessary, both as to elections, and as to all other matters of controversy which may come before the house; because, if some mode were adopted for taking evidence, facts might be brought before the house, which could never otherwise come. As it respected elections, they knew it had happened in one instance, and might happen in many, that a person had held a seat in that house for a whole session, who was not entitled to it. He saw no difficulty in passing an act prescribing the mode of taking affidavits to be laid before the two houses of Congress. He should venture to move that the committee rise. with the intention of discharging it from a farther consideration of the subject, and to propose that a committee be appointed to enquire into the expediency or inexpediency of prescribing a mode for taking evidence generally, for the purpose of laying it before Congress.

Mr. Harper said, if the gentleman just at down had no other reason than that which he had assigned, for making his motion, he thought, on consideration, he would not himself think it necessary. His whole objection to the resolutions seemed to be, to the notice required to be given. Here was no intention, he said, of precluding evidence after the time specified. The sole object was that testimony taken in this way, and no other, should be admitted. Persons wishing to have the time extended. might still take the evidence in this way. If there were a doubt on the subject, an additional clause might be introduced to this effect. Whether the mode he had proposed, was the best which could be adopted, he could not say. If gentlemen knew a better, he wished them to propose it. and let it be considered; but surely, because gentlemen think some better mode may be devised, this was not a sufficient reason for discharging the committee of the whole from a farther consideration of the subject.

Mr. Gordon was in favour of the committee's rising, because he did not think the resolution would have any effect, if carried. He was of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sitgreaves) that they could not pass a rule to bind a future house, though he thought a law might be passed to do away the inconvenience complained of. These inconveniences arose from there being no law obliging witnesses to give their depositions in the cases mentioned. If such a law were passed, all that was complained of would be done away.

Mr. Harper said, if the House could pass no law upon the subject to have effect, then it was idle to talk about it. One word upon the committee's rising. Was it proper, he asked, after the present subject had been printed before the House two years, merely because gentlemen had not given themselves the trouble to look into it, and not because the thing is improper, but because they have not prepared their objections or amendments, to have it sent to a new committee? He thought not. If gentlemen wished a day or two to consider the subject, he had no objection to give it, but he hoped the committee of the whole would not be discharged.

Mr. Sitgreaves supposed, that the question being for the committee to rise, it would be improper to go into the merits of the subject. He rose only to give an additional reason why the Committee ought to rise. If the House passed any thing either in the form of a law, or a resolution, the provisions necessary must embrace such a variety of detail as could not be settled in a committee of the whole, as they should be entered into with great caution and deliberation. Indeed, the mode of procedure adopted on this occasion, inverted the usual order of things. The detail of business was always settled in select committees, and not in committees of the whole.

The motion for the committee's rising was put and carried; and upon leave being asked to it again, it was refused.

Two motions were then made; one by Mr. Nicholas, for referring the resolutions to a select Committee another by Mr. Sewall, for appointing a Committee to enquire into the expediency of passing a law regulating the taking of evidence generally.

The former was withdrawn to make way for the latter, but renewed by Mr. Rutledge, and in order to do away some objections which were urged against the mode of proceeding, Mr. Harper proposed to amend the motion adding this direction to the committee, viz. to take the subject matter itself under consideration, and report their opinion generally to the House. Agreed and a committee of five members appointed.
Mr. D. Foster, from the committee of claims, made an unfavourable report on the petition of Robert Hornor, which was concurred in.

Mr. Rutledge presented the petition of Robert Simmons, praying compensation for Military Service. Referred to the committee of claims.

Mr. Harper from the committee to whom was referred the memorial of Thomas Carpenter, praying for the support of the House to his American Senator, reported it as the opinion of the committee that no encouragement could with propriety be given to the said work, and that the Memorialist have leave to withdraw his memorial.

Mr. H. moved that this report be referred to a committee of the whole; but on the motion being objected to, as unnecessary, it was withdrawn, and the report was concurred in by the House.

Mr. Cochran proposed a resolution to the following effect;

"Resolved that a committee be appointed to enquire whether, any and what amendments are necessary in the law establishing Post offices and Post Roads."

Some objections were made to this motion by Mr. Thatcher, on the ground of the law having so lately passed, that it could scarcely be told what would be its operation; but, upon Mr. Cochran's representing that he did not wish to go into a revision of the Act generally, but merely to propose the opening of some new roads in a populous part of his state, the motion was agreed to, 47 votes being in its favour.

Adjourned.