Page images

MARCH, 1822.

Maryland Contested Election.

H. OF R.

the official seal of said county, that, during several all the testimony on both sides, intended to be proyears past, there has been a difference in some of the duced, or which will now be received, has been subdistricts in said county, between the number of names mitted to the committee, it seems proper that I should on the poll-books of election and the ballots counted offer a few remarks upon the subject. This would out.

have been earlier done, but for the impression that a The law of Maryland, in relation to this subject, is, partial discussion would rather retard than expedite that "every voter shall deliver to the judge or judges the ultimate determination. In replying to the petiof the election, in which he offers to vote, a ballot, on tion or memorial of General Reed, I must beg perwhich shall be written, or printed, the name or names mission to invert the order adopted by him. He claims of the person or persons voted for, and the purpose a seat in the House of Representatives upon the ground for which the vote is given plainly designated.” This that he had a legal majority of votes ; and if such were law further provides, that after the poll is closed, and the fact, his claim would not be resisted; but I will whilst the ballots are opening and counting, that “if examine this fully, as the second branch of the presupon opening any of the said ballots there be found ent inquiry. In the latter part of the memorial the any more names written or printed on any of them petitioner labors to show that the law of Maryland, than there ought to be, or if any two or more of such under which the sitting member has been returned, is ballots or papers be deceitfully folded together, or if repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, the purpose for which the vote is given is not plainly and therefore void. This law was passed in 1790, and designated as within directed, such ballots shall be not in 1791, as stated in the petition, about two years rejected and not counted.”

after the formation of the Constitution of the United In support of the allegation of the sitting member, States, and by some of those very men who just before that sundry illegal votes had been given to the me- had sat in the Convention which agreed to adopt that morialist which ought to be deducted from his poll, Constitution. It, moreover, was passed for the ex. he produced the depositions of Edward Brown, George press, avowed purpose, of carrying that Constitution Copper, James Coleman, Josiah Massey, and the offi- into effect, and giving it full operation in Maryland. cial certificate of James Sewall, clerk of Cecil county. This is declared to be the object of the law, (see the On the propriety of entering into an investigation of act itself, 1790, chap. 16.) It must then appear strange this kind, when elections are by ballot, the committee indeed, if, under these circumstances, the law shall be entertain serious doubts. True it is that the decisions found to be at war with the Constitution, in one of of the House in the case of Kelly and Harris, and its most important provisions! I rather presume the Easton and Scott, may be considered as establishing Constitution was quite as well understood by the frathe principle ; yet, it is believed that when the circum- mers of this law as it is now, and I beg leave to add, stances attending those decisions are examined, it that I further presume that there then existed quite as may be doubted whether they ought to be viewed as little disposition to violate the Constitution, or the establishing a precedent which shall govern all future rights of the people, as at this time. Upon turning to decisions. But as no desire is entertained to agitate the law, the following provision will be found in the this question at the present time, the testimony has first section thereof: “Whereas it is declared by the been received, and attentively examined, but decided Constitution of the United States that the House of to be insufficient to establish any of the facts con- Representatives, in the Congress of the United States, tended for

shall be composed of members chosen every second From a full, attentive, and deliberate examination year by the people of the several States ; that the of the case, in all its points and bearings, the commit- electors in each State shall have the requisite qualitee are impelled to the conclusion that the sitting fications of electors of the most numerous branch of member cannot, consistent with the Constitution of the State Legislatures, &c. In order, therefore, to the United States, be allowed to retain a seat in this carry the said Constitution into effect, be it enacted,” Houst, under the proceedings of the Governor and &c. It is presumed that this section will hardly be Council of Maryland. That the testimony in relation to contended to be at variance with the Constitution. the two votes rejected in district No. 1, of Kent county, And similar sentiments and language are to be found proves that these tickets were not fraudulent, and that in the third and eighth sections of this same law. Yet, they ought to have been counted to the poll of the in the thirteenth section, it is provided “ that in case memorialist, for whom they were given; and that the two or more persons shall have an equal number of vole allowed to him in district No. 2, in Cecil county, votes, the Governor and Council shall determine by ought to be deducted from his poll, as being clearly an lot, from the candidates, who shall be the Representillegal vote. Therefore, by adding to the poll of Phi- ative.”. Are these several provisions inconsistent with lip Reed, the memorialist, two votes improperly re- each other? Can they not well stand together, and jected in Kent county, and deducting one therefrom, form parts of the same system of elections ? The most for that improperly allowed in Cecil county, he will rigid critic must admit that they may. Then they have a majority of one vote over the sitting member. may as easily be reconciled to the Constitution of the

The paper marked A, is the answer of the sitting United States. And when it is asked, What are the member to the prayer and arguments of the memo- rights of individual voters ? and what are the powers rialist.

of State Legislatures in relation to elections ? this very The following resolutions are submitted :

law furnishes a strong and clear illustration. Every “ Resolved, That Jeremiah Causden is not entitled person entitled to vote for Delegates to a State Legisto a seat in this House.

sature is also entitled to vote for a Representative to * Resolved, That Philip Reed is entitled to a seat Congress; and he has as high a security for the one in this House."

right as the other. But upon the presumption that all

the voters of a given district have exercised this right, A-Letter of the sitting member.

(and such is the presumption of law,) and a tie beSir: In the contested election between General tween two or more candidates is the consequence, then Philip Reed and myself, as it may be presumed that the State Legislature, under the power to regulate

H. OF R.

Maryland Contested Election.

MARCH, 1822.

the manner of holding elections for Representatives duced and laid before the committee, remarking that to Congress, may, if they think proper, provide by law in this as in all other cases of claim the onus probandi for the determination of the tie, by lot, or otherwise. lies upon the claimant. But the sitting member will But in such a case the petitioner would object that go further: he will endeavor to show by proof that the choice would not be by the people. Mr. Chair- there was a legal majority of votes given in his favor man, if we consult the phraseology of the Constitu- and that the majority is decidedly against the petition, we shall perceive that the idea of representation tioner. pervades every part of it; that the Constitution itself,

The petitioner rests his claim solely upon two tickthough it literally, and in express terms, is declared ets, rejected by the judges as a double ticket, He to be ordained by the people, is their act only upon states that these tickets were single, and not double, this principle. It commences by saying, “We, the and that they contained his name for Congress. Mr. people of the United States," as if the people were Chairman, both these positions are denied positively, personally assembled, and about to act together. It and the evidence is appealed to with perfect confidence will be found, sir, that all acts done in the name of the to settle the question. The petitioner produces sevpeople, or in virtue of authority derived from them, eral affidavits, mentioned in his petition, to prove that are truly an properly the acts of the people. The in the first or lower district of Kent county, at the President of the United States, for the purposes of his time of counting out the ballots, one of the judges appointment, is as truly and as literally a Represent- (Mr. John C. Hynson, the junior judge) drew from the ative of the people as a member of Congress. His ballot-box a ticket which at the time he declared to be election is not so immediately the act of the people, a double ticket from its size. He passed it (say these but still he is elected by them.

deponents) to John Bradshaw, the presiding judge, But, sir, the petitioner objects further, and asserts, unopened. Mr. Bradshaw they say opened the ticket respecting the first clause of the second article of the and found it to be double, upon which it was rejected, Constitution, (already quoted,) that the command but that each of those tickets contained the petitionhere is peremptory," &c. Now, with submission, Ier's name for Congress. The deponents further state must insist that here is no command at all, either per- that they were under the impression that these tickets emptory or not. The clause contains a general de were single, and not double, as supposed by the judges ; claratory description of the House of Representatives; and that their impressions were confirmed, when, upon but more general it could not well be, and, without finally comparing the number of tickets with the forcing its manifest meaning, it cannot be regarded l number of the names of the voters upon the poll-book, as an authority for any particular mode of election by there was a difference of two. the people. And we have seen that it is perfectly This is the amount of all the testimony produced consistent with the law of Maryland, of which it is by the petitioner which is in his favor. His witnesses made a substantial part. Upon the principles of this contradict each other, and are contradicted by those law, no popular right is violated, no voter has any produced by the sitting member, in so strong a manground for complaint, nor have the Legislature of the

ner and to such extent that only a few facts are left štate transcended their powers in its passage. For I undisputed between them. It is however certain that cannot subscribe to the doctrine of the petitioner, when Judge Hynson drew a ticket from the ballot-box of he lays it down, “that the Constitution never intended such unusual size as to induce him to remark at the that there should be any interference on the part of a time, that from its size, he supposed it must be dou. State, as to the election of Representatives to Con- ble; that it was only from the size of the ticket, and gress, further than is expressly declared.” Sir, the not from any other visible appearance, that he was very reverse of this doctrine is the true one.

induced to make this remark. The ticket was so folded The States may interfere in any and every case together that no one present—not even the acute Dr. where they are not expressly or by necessary implica- Beckington Scott, who observed it when it was first tion forbidden. The Constitution is no grant of power drawn from the box-could determine whether it was to the States or to the people ; it is a grant by them; single or double until it was opened. To this point and all powers not expressly or by necessary implica- the evidence is uncontradicted. There is no witness tion granted are retained by them. Surely it cannot who denies this to be the character and description of be necessary to press this subject further. But if this the ticket. When the ticket was opened it proved to view of the subject should not meet the approbation of be double, and was very properly rejected by the the committee and the House, and they should think judges. All the witnesses concur in stating the rejecthe law unconstitutional and void, still the right of tion of this ticket as the joint act of the judges. There the petitioner to a seat is not established. He sets up was no dispute, no doubt, about it; no dissenting a claim to a seat; and if in point of fact there was a voice; not even a whisper among the warmest friends tie, and the law of Maryland is void, then the petitioner of the petitioner. Thus far the evidence may be has no more right to a seat than any other person in safely trusted, because it all agrees. The question the community; and if there was a tie, and the Mary- then is, was this properly a double ticket, or did two land law is a valid one, then too is there an end of separate tickets thus enfold themselves by chance ? If the question. The claim of the petitioner rests wholly the committee and the House believe this was a douupon the fact of his having a majority of legal votes; ble ticket, then there is an end of the petitioner's claim, and unless he can prove this fact to the satisfaction of whatever names may have been written upon the tickthe committee and the House, he inust fail; andets. If tickets be loosely folded when deposited in the whatever opinion the committee and House may en- ballot-box, by pressing them together with a stick or tertain of the law of Maryland, if it shall appear by quill, or by shaking the ballot-box itself, they may beproof that the sitting member had a legal majority of come portially enfolded in each other: but in such a the votes, his seat will be confirined as a matter of case there can never be any difficulty in deciding, by course. I will therefore proceed, Mr. Chairman, to sober judges, who possess common eyesight. But if an examination of the testimony which has been pro- a ticket so folded as to answer the description of the

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ticket in question be deposited in the ballot-box, none evidence. Whether Hynson, for example, opened the of these means or any instrument of chance will be ticket in question, or whether it was passed to Brad. sufficient to produce an enclosure of one ticket in an- shaw, and opened by him, is asserted and denied most other. The thing is, ordinarily speaking, impossible. positively by different witnesses. But all the testiIt will be recollected that the judges acted upon oath mony is calculated to demonstrate that the ticket was in this case, and that, as to this matter, they fully and truly a double one. It then only remains to explain explicitly agreed. They signed a joint return in the disagreement between the poll-book and the tally, conformity to this determination, which has become a which, it is presumed, has been satisfactorily done. public record. If either of them had felt the smallest

The deposition of Judge Bradshaw is entitled to doubt, or had been under the slightest impression that entire confidence-a gentleman of high, respectable the ticket was improperly rejected, he was bound to character, in every view of it, and a witness who has communicate it to the other judges, and to rectify the acted with the most perfect propriety throughout. mistake before the return was made. But in point of When called upon, on the 2d of January last, to give fact (for the proof of this is also uncontradicted) Judge testimony in presence of the petitioner and sitting Hynson declared, after all the votes were counted out, member, he attended, and coolly and deliberately and after the deficiency was discovered, “that he was stated the facts, before them, in so clear and circertain that it was a double ticket, and could not be cumstantial a manner, as to leave no doubt of his counted.” This Judge Hynson also remarked, at the veracity. same time, “that he had acted as judge several years, and that the tickets counted out often disagreed with similar

remarks as to Mr. Hynson; but this gentleman,

It would give me pleasure to be able to indulge in the book of polls." And I would refer to the certifi, though called upon in the same manner, and requested cate of the clerk of Kent county, which has been laid to attend at the same time, and give his evidence in before the committee, for numerous instances in differ- the presence of the parties, refused, or neglected to do ent years. By this document it will appear that the

so. This is proved by the deposition of Morgan tickets counted out oftener disagreed with the book of Brown, junior, who had requested the attendance of polls than accorded with it. Sometimes there was a Mr. Hynson. difference of one, at other times two and three, &c.

A letter was then sent to Mr. Hynson by the sitting This has been attempted to be explained by the member, requesting him to state in writing his knowldeposition of Mr. Beck, produced by the petitioner, in edge and recollection upon the subject. Mr. Hynson, a manner not a little singular, and to which I must it is confidently believed, received this letter, but took request the attention of the committee. Mr. Beck

no notice of it. Afterwards, in the absence of the sitStates that it was the practice to throw away scatter- ting member, on the 10th of January, it seems he ing votes, and not to count them; but that, in 1820, gave a deposition to the petitioner, which the latter columns were raised for all scattering votes, &c. Mr.

states he lost on his way to this city. Subsequent to John C. Hynson is made to speak to the same effect; this, on the 12th of February last, Mr. Hynson, it I say is made to speak. I shall have occasion to notice this more fully hereafter. Mr. Chairman, what guard against casualties, swore to two depositions,

seems, made oath again for the petitioner, and, to proposition is this? What is its character? Has it signing one, and not signing the other; the latter is been the practice for the judges to violate their oath ? endorsed “a duplicate," and is produced; the former, When votes are counting out, how is it possible to which was ed by as stated by the petitioner, tell, when a ticket is produced in favor of an indi- is not produced. All this operation of making deposividual, how many more he will obtain ? And how tions and duplicate depositions, on the part of this can a judge know who is a candidate, except by the witness, was in the absence of the sitting member. tickets as they appear?

This witness had refused to attend, he had refused to But, sir, these gentlemen will admit that it was the put pen to paper, he had refused to utter a word when practice to keep a column of numbers, if none was the sitting member could be present, but in his absence kept for scattering votes, and in this numerical column he voluntarily furnishes depositions and duplicates to the number of the tickets was kept, independent of the petitioner, to his full satisfaction. And, in the any or all the candidates. The object of keeping this duplicate produced, Mr. Hynson is made to say that numerical column was to ascertain, as far as possible, “ the two votes or ballots were thrown away, and not the correctness of the whole proceeding. But it is a counted to the polls of General Philip Reed, as the fact that mistakes have frequently occurred in the deponent was satisfied they should have been.” And burry of an election. Names have been placed on the was this deponent really satisfied that two tickets were poll-book who did not vote, and others have been thrown away which ought to have been counted to the omitted who did vote. We have a very recent in- poll of the petitioner? What! and he a judge, and say stance of a zealous and distinguished politician who not one word about it, but declare publicly that the ticket voted, but his name, though as well known as any in was double, and could not be counted! And all this, the country, was not entered on the book. This is even, after the whole of the tickets were counted out! the true and natural solution of all the difficulty. Then to sign a return, under oath, which he knew was

Only suppose, in the case before us, that one single incorrect! Has Judge Bradshaw acted in this manname was entered upon the books by mistake, (a thing ner? I appeal to every bosom in which there may chat happens every day, and in all bodies or assem- yet remain one solitary spark, one lingering trace of blies of men,) and then we have additional proof that honorable feeling! From Judge Bradshaw's deposi. the ticket was double. And permit me to inquire tion, it appears that there must have been a mistake whether this is not a much more probable supposition as to the names upon these tickets. He swears, posithan that the judges should be deceived as to a fact of tively, that he saw no name upon them; he only saw so plain, so palpable, and so simple a character. Even an eagle at the top on the inside. Now, as this was a slight attention to the different depositions is suffi- a mark of that ticket upon which the petitioner genecient to show that no claim can be raised upon such rally run at that election, it may be that the bystand

H. OF R.

Maryland Contested Election.

March, 1822.

ers who saw it might have inferred that the peti- dore Burr. This man had no residence in Kent county tioner's name was upon it; for it must be remembered at all, except merely going there and undertaking to that the name of the petitioner was printed at the bot- build a bridge, and being actually in the county part tom of the tickets upon whi it was printed at all, of his time, on at account. below the names of the county delegates, though, in His residence, if he had any in Maryland, was in some instances, it was stricken out, and the name of Cecil county, and not in Kent, where he voted. He the sitting member inserted.

had been sued in Cecil, as his proper county, (and, by The deponents named in the memorial, or rather the law of Maryland, a person must be sued in his some of them, say that the double ticket had upon it proper county,) and prosecuted to judgment, and an “ General Philip Reed, for Congress.”. I feel no dis- execution had been issued and served upon his body, position, Mr. Chairman, to cavil, or raise frivolous ob- returnable, and was returned, to the April court of jections, but I hope to be pardoned for remarking that that county in 1820. At that court, Mr. Burr was here is a striking proof of the incorrectness of the rece committed to jail, where he remained until late in ollection of these deponents. There were no printed June, or early in July. After this he went to Kent, tickets used at that election containing this inscrip- land, on the first Monday of October in that year, voted tion! And, to prove the fact, sir, I submit to the in- for the petitioner. The certificate of the clerk of Cespection of the committee the whole of the tickets of cil county, already laid before the committee, the law one entire district in that county, as they were taken of Maryland referred to, and the deposition of James from the ballot box. The tickets are either stamped Coleman, fully prove this statement. This man had with an eagle at the top, or without one; but upon no nothing in Kent county deserving the name of resione printed ticket can this superscription, inscription, dence at the October election; but, whatever he had, or whatever you may please to call it, be found; yet it was not of six months' previous continuance as rethese deponents use the same words, and in the same quired by law to entitle to a vote. order precisely, and their words are carefully marked. I will also ask the attention of the committee to the What is the inference? These deponents saw what vote of Thomas Glanvill, given in Kent, for the petinever existed! So much for these ex parte depo- tioner. Glanvill bad no residence. That he had no sitions !

residence, is fully proved by George Cooper, and that I am much mistaken, Mr. Chairman, if these views he voted for the petitioner, is proved by Morgan Brown, of the subject do not satisfy the committee that the the present sheriff of Kent county." I refer to their petitioner has wholly failed to establish his claim to i depositions before the committee. the benefit of these tickets.

I will ask permission, Mr. Chairman, to present But, sir, be this as it may, I will now proceed to another case to the view of the committee. show that there was a decided majority against him. Gideon Lusby voted for the petitioner, and was un. I have hitherto called the attention of the committee der age at the time. I refer to the deposition of Joto the pretensions of the petitioner, and the allegations seph Massey to prove this. Here then are four votes and proofs offered by him. Now, I must claim the to be deducted from the poll of the petitioner, which indulgence of the committee, while I present a brief will establish a decided majority against him. And it and condensed view of the pretensions, allegations, should not be forgotten that the depositions in these and proofs, of the sitting member. First, it is in full cases were not ex parte, but were taken in the preproof that the petitioner was allowed by the judges of sence of the petitioner, who cross-examined the witthe Elkton district, in Cecil county, the benefit of a

I am aware, however, Mr. Chairman, that ticket containing five names, all for Congress. The objections may be made to this kind of testimony, and ticket was carefully deposited with the clerk of Cecil am prepared to support it, both upon principle and county, by the judges, and a true copy, under his offi- precedent. But no objection can properly now be cial seal, has been submitted to the committee, with made by the petitioner, because he entered into the the affidavits of the judges and clerk, stating that the evidence himself, by instituting a cross-examination, petitioner was allowed a vote on account of that and it is believed that no serious difficulty can be ticket.

raised by any one to this course of proceeding. It is The committee will observe that the judges, in this as common as it is easy to make off-hand superficial case, erred in a question of law, and not of fact, and objections to any thing. that, upon every principle of law, and, indeed, of good

What is the great difficulty in receiving this evisense, ibis ticket should bave been rejected. By the dence? Sir, I have often felt surprised to hear the election law of Maryland, it was an absolute nullity.

It is said, by giving a man's declarations in But, in the nature of things, it must be so, even if no evidence, you make him a witness against himself! positive statute existed upon the subject.

Surely, if a man of any understanding ever advanced What would be done in the case of a ballot for a this proposition, it must have been without consideracommittee of seven, if, upon counting out, a ticket tion. Is it not a principle of general law that you should be found with ten names upon it ? or if, in bal- can give a man's declarations or acknowledgments in loting for a Speaker, a ticket should be found with two evidence against him, both in civil and criminal cases ? or three names upon it? We all know that such You cannot give a man's declarations in evidence for tickets must, upon the principles of reason and justice, him, nor can you compel him to be a witness against be null and void. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully appre- himself; but if he, without compulsion, confess or dehend that it is altogether unnecessary to attempt fur- clare a matter which may operate against him, either ther to illustrate or enforce this part of the subject, and civilly or criminally, this may be properly given in feel the most entire confidence that the committee will | evidence against him. I said this was a principle of deduct this ticket from the poll of the petitioner, to general, but perhaps I might have said of universal which it ought never to have been added.

law. Such a confession, it is true, may affect a parI will next call the attention of the committee to a ticeps criminis to a certain extent, or it may have a vote given to the petitioner in Kent county, by Theo- qualified effect upon one having an interest in the



MARCH, 1822.

The Bankrupt Bill.

H. of R.

subject to which the confession or declaration relates ; The amendment was approved by Messrs. TRAand certainly it ought to have these effects. Innu- cy, Wright, Baldwin, and SERGEANT, on the merable instances might be put to illustrate this prin- ground that it was essentially similar to that prociple, but I fear I shall be tedious. In the State of posed by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Maryland, two years ago, after much consideration, Tracy,) and for various other reasons. it was solemnly determined that this kind of evidence should be received and acted upon. Nor is it any an. Carolina, Ross, and Nelson, of Virginia, and

It was opposed by Messrs. MITCHELL, of South swer to this case to call it a high-handed measure of party, &c. For such was not its character. And

negatived. only last winter the General Assembly of Maryland ted the following amendment, to be inserted in the

Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, then submitissued a commission to three persons in Cecil county, authorizing them to take testimony relative to illegal 47th line of the 1st section : votes. But, Mr. Chairman, the principle has been

“ And provided, also, that the discharge which may sanctioned again and again by Congress; and, in ad. be given to a bankrupt under this act, shall not operate dition to the cases heretofore named to the committee, so as to discharge the bankrupt from debts which may I will, on the present occasion, only notice one; it is be due to merchants, bankers, brokers, factors, undera case decided from Tennessec, in the thirteenth Con- writers, or marine insurers.” gress: Thomas and Kelly. The circumstances of The question was taken thereon, and the amendthis case will be found applicable to the case before ment was negatived. the committee. If I have been able to make myself understood by the committee, I presume there is a

Mr. Kent, of Maryland, then proposed the folfinal end of the petitioner's claim. It is less substan- lowing amendment: tial than the shadow of a shade.

“ That no certificate of discharge, under the proviPerbaps I owe an apology to the committee for the sions of this act, shall operate to discharge any banktrouble I have given them in this case; but I trust rupt from any debt or debts, except such as may be they will credit me when I assure them that my pre- due or owing to persons who may be liable to become vailing wish has been, from the beginning, to render bankrupts under the said act.” their investigation as easy and agreeable as possible. This amendment was also negatived. In the present communication I have deemed it ad Mr. Woodson then moved that the Committee visable, for the sake of brevity, to omit a number of rise and report, to the end that liberty to sit again circumstances which are of some importance to the be refused, and the subject finally disposed of: different views which might be taken of this case. for he considered that the valuable properties of JEREMIAH CAUSDEN.

the bill had been destroyed by the vote of the ComTo the Hon. Joan Sloan,

mittee refusing the amendment which he had Chairman of the Committee of Elections.


Mr. SERGEANT hoped the Committee would not

rise, and he suggested to the gentleman from KenThe House then resolved itself into a Commit- tucky, (Mr. Woodson,) that when the subject tee of the Whole on the bill to establish a uniform should come before the House he would have an system of bankruptcy throughout the United States. opportunity again to present for consideration that

The amendment moved by Mr. Tracy, on Sat- amendment, which he deemed so essential to the urday last, being under consideration,

value of the bill. Mr. NEALE, of Maryland, moved to strike out The motion to rise and report was then taken the part of the amendment which limits the privi- and lost. lege to others than merchants to take the benefit The second section having been read, Mr. of the act, to a period “within twelve months Walworth submitted the following amendment, from the time of passing this act."

to be inserted in the 26th line: This motion was assented to by Mr. Tracy, and supported by him and Mr. SERGEANT, Mr. NEALE, wise, that the person petitioned against shall have

“ And shall also prove, by his own affidavit or otherand Mr. Wright, and opposed by Mr. CUTHBERT, committed an act of bankruptcy as aforesaid.” Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, and Mr. Nelson, of Virginia ; when Mr. Woodson, after some prefa- and, after some further observations on the sub

This amendment was supported by the mover; tory remarks, in which he expressed his dissent to the proposition before the House, submitted the ject, by Messrs. SERGEANT, Colden, and Ross, following amendment, to be inserted next after the the question was taken thereon and lost, without

a division. words, “and provided also.”

The third and fourth sections were then suc“ That all classes of the community, other than the cessively read, without proposition of amenddescription of persons before mentioned, shall have the

ment. privilege, at their election, of becoming voluntary

The fifth section having been read, Mr. Rhea bankrupts, with the consent and approbation of a major part in value of all the creditors of such voluntary follows the word "and" in the tenth line, which

proposed to strike out all that part thereof which bankrupt, previously obtained and duly certified, and that such bankrupt shall be subjected to the same pro- authorizes the breaking of doors to take the body ceedings, and liable to the same penalties, fines, and of the bankrupt. forfeitures, and be entitled to all the privileges, benefits,

Mr. Rhea made the motion on the ground that and advantages, as are provided for, and made applica- it was a most extraordinary provision. The bankble to, all other bankrupts by the regulations of this rupt might perhaps be in the house without the bill."

knowledge of the owner, and he thought this part

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »