Alexandria Gazette

THE FAIRFAX CONTESTED ELECTION.

In the Virginia House of Delegates on the 3d inst., Mr. May presented the following report from the Select Committee, to whom was referred the subject of the returns of members from the counties of Fairfax and Frederick:

That they have examined the returns from the county of Fairfax, and find that the Deputy Sheriff of that county, who conducted the election at the Court-house thereof, did, within the time prescribed by law, give to Edward Sangster, Esq., the Certificate of Election or return required by the statute in such case as provided; and that subsequently thereto, the high sheriff gave a certificate, not in the form required by law, stating that John B. Hunter, Esq., was duly elected, but that he, the high sheriff, did not conduct the said election at the Court house, and that the same was conducted by his deputy who had given the first mentioned return.

Resolved, therefore, That Edward Sangster, Esq., has obtained the proper return or certificate of his election as a member of this House from the county of Fairfax, and that he is at present entitled to take his seat.

Mr. Goode would ask whether the return by the High Sheriff contained the date of such return. If the report did not contain the specification of such date, he hoped that the Chairman of the committee would supply such deficiency. His only object was that the date appear on the face of the report.

Mr. May had not the returns, and could not therefore answer the question about the dates.

Mr. Dorman said that the committee had now made the report in the Fairfax case, but as there was a question to arise in another case, occupying, as he understood, precisely similar grounds with the one now under discussion, he would ask that, upon this question, the Ayes and Noes be taken.

Mr. Smith of Isle of Wight, said he had not had time since the meeting of the House to examine into this subject, at least so as to turn his attention to the consideration of the law upon the point, but if he recollected aright, there was a bill on the subject of returns by the Sheriff brought forward during the last Session, and upon that occasion he examined into the subject, and he would now beg leave to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee whether he was right in his impression as to how the returns were to be made. He was surprised, when he examined the law, to find it very imperfect upon the subject; but as far as he could judge, it stood that if the Deputy Sheriff who presided at the election, signed the return in favor of any candidate, and the High Sheriff should, after such return had been made, make a return of another candidate, the return signed in the first instance by the Deputy Sheriff, would be the correct one; but that if the Deputy Sheriff who had been presiding at an election, did not make a return until after the High Sheriff had acted in the matter, then in such case the return by the Deputy Sheriff would be null and void.

Mr. May (Chairman of the Select Committee) said that in the Fairfax case, the Deputy Sheriff conducted the election, and had given the return in the mode prescribed by law to Mr. Sangster. After the return was completed, and the acts connected therewith ended, the High Sheriff gave a different return, stating as a reason that he had rejected the poll at one of the precincts. In the Frederick case, the Deputy Sheriff who conducted the election, did not, at the close of the poll, proceed to give the return to the gentleman claiming the seat, and did not make the return in his favor until the High Sheriff had made a return in favor of Mr. Byrd. The latter case, however, the committee had not decided upon, having, at the request of Mr. Byrd, deferred the consideration of the matter until to-morrow; and that was the reason that they had not now reported in both cases. There was nothing in the report now before the House that could in any way forestal the judgment of the House in the other case.

Mr. Goode said that in order to bring this discussion to a close, he would move an amendment to the report which would obviate every difficulty, and which he doubted not would be adopted unanimously. His amendment would go to show that the whole transaction had been consummated by the deputy sheriff, and that the time had expired in which the principal had any right to act. His amendment was to insert after the word "Thereto," to wit: on the 7th day of May, 1840.

Mr. May said he had no objection to it, supposing that to be the day on which the high sheriff had made his return.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Tunstall both requested to know the reasons of the gentleman from Mecklenburg for pressing this amendment.

Mr. Goode said the only reason was in order that the fact might appear on the face of the report.

Mr. Robertson rose for the mere purpose of disclaiming the doctrine advanced by the gentleman from Isle of Wight, that he in whose favor the return was first made, was the person duly elected. He would observe—that the question of priority of date had no bearing in the case—the question was, who was the officer that had the right, the legal right to make the return.

The amendment having been made to the report, the question was put that it be adopted. Ayes 127, Noes 1.