Richmond Palladium

Correspondence of the Richmond Palladium.

INDIANAPOLIS, DEC. 13, 1842.

Mr. D. P. Holloway:—Yesterday was perpetrated in the House of Representatives, an act which for political turpitude and high-handed despotism has no parallel in the history even of party legislation. Justice was outraged and the law trampled under foot by the law-making power.—The case was the contested election, in the district composed of the counties of Steuben and DeKalb. Enos Beall, (whig) and Madison Marsh, (loco) each received an equal number of votes, and according to law, in such cases provided, the Sheriff proceeded to decide it by lot: when Beall happened to be the fortunate man, and received his certificate of election.

But after the political complexion of the House was known, Marsh proceeded to contest the seat of Beall, on the ground that there was one vote discarded by the judges as an illegal vote, and thrown out (which no doubt was a correct decision.) as the vote was composed of three or four small pieces of paper and folded in a larger piece, and put in the box—upon one small piece was the name of Madison Marsh, without designating the office he was voted for as the law requires.

To establish the fact that this vote was given to Marsh for Representative, they allege that it was given by a Mr. Shoemaker, who swears he voted for Marsh and that the ticket he voted had over the name of Marsh—"For Representative," and the Judges all swore that the ticket rejected had not the words, For Representative on it. Beall sets forth in his affirmation, that he can prove two illegal votes cast for Marsh: one of the persons, so voting, is now under indictment by the grand jury for the act. The whole subject was referred to the committee on elections, composed of four locos and three whigs; that committee, by a party vote, refused to let Beall appear before it to defend himself, or hear his witnesses in the case; and before the reading of the papers, referred to the committee, was completed, the chairman drew up a resolution declaring that said Beall is not entitled to his seat, and that said Marsh is entitled to it; which was adopted and so reported to the House. In the House, one of the minority of the committee offered a preamble and resolutions setting forth the facts in the case, and asking the privilege for Messrs. Beall, and Marsh, to appear before the committee with their testimony, that it might determine which of said claimants is legally entitled to the seat; which was voted down by a strict party vote. The same member then offered a resolution, requesting both persons to resign their respective claims to the seat, and let the whole subject be referred back to the people of said district to be decided by a new election; which was cut off by a call for the previous question, which was sustained by a strict party vote, and Mr. Beall was hurled from his seat and Mr. Marsh ensnated with it, without law, precedent, or justice.

The great Bolt Constructor of Democracy, in the House, as he is aptly denominated, in his defence of this course of procedure took the bold ground, that the members of the Legislature were only sworn to support the Constitution, and not the laws of the State, leaving the unavoidable inference (though he did not make it himself) that as members of the Legislature, they might disregard all law upon the subject, in a case of such emergency, to manufacture a vote for our Howard' for United States Senator, and upon that man's vote thus obtained, without law, reason, or justice, may depend the political character, and destiny of this whole nation for six years to come. If this is the kind of justice that is to be meted out—if this is the liberty that is to be extended to the legal Representatives of the free people, by the Loco's of the land, Heaven save the country from their power,

Yours Respectfully,