H. OF R.

ner.

Georgia Contested Election.

States do not wish to enrich their treasury in this manOur revenue is derived from the foreign articles consumed in the country, and not from exports. Under all the circumstances in which this subject can be placed, the Committee are of opinion that a general, and not a particular bill should be passed, calculated to relieve all the applicants, where no intention of fraud shall appear, and to provide for the extension of the time in taking the oath, and giving bond, in cases of goods intended to be exported for benefit of drawback. The committee, therefore, submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the petition of Isaac Clason is reasonable and ought to be granted.

The report was read, and ordered to be committed to the Committee of the Whole House, to whom was committed on the twentieth instant, the bill to extend the time for taking the oath, and giving bond in cases of drawback, and for other

purposes.

GEORGIA CONTESTED ELECTION.

The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of the Committee of Elections, on the contested election of COWLES MEAD; when a debate followed of between two and three hours length.

DECEMBER, 1805.

where one ceases the other begins, and vice versa. Where, then, is to be found the power in Congress of prescribing the time, place, and manner of making returns? That such a power existed somewhere could not be denied, as without it an election would be nugatory. Will it be contended that this power is vested in the General Government, when it is not recognised by a single word of the Constitution? It is clear, then, that as the Constitution is perfectly silent as to be stowing such a power in the General Government, it does not belong to that Government; neither was it necessary to carry into effect any power specifically given to the General Government. If, then, the power does not belong to Congress, and it must reside somewhere, it follows from the theory of our Government that it must belong to the States, and that the only pow er in this House on the subject is to judge of the returns; not to decide the time, place, and manner in which they shall be made, much less to dispense with the regulations which the States may make relative to them. But it may perhaps be asked, how the judicial power of this House can be exercised without uniting with it the power contended for on this occasion? To this inIn the course of the discussion, the facts as quiry the answer is easy. The right to judge, stated in the report were either considered as per- and the rule of decision are distinct things, and fectly correct, or as partaking so little of error as while the right to judge may be in one body, the not to invalidate the conclusions drawn from prescription of the rule may be in another. The them. Some small diversity of opinion existed rule in such cases as these must be a State regubetween the Committee of Elections and the sit-lation, when it relates to points on which the ting member, which was, however, reconciled on States have exclusive legislation. If this case explanation. relates to a business in which Georgia has the exclusive right to legislate, there can be no other rule than her legislation. In order to illustrate this case, suppose goed votes should be offered after the expiration of the time within which the election was directed to be held by State laws, will it be contended that this House would have a The opponents of the report represented it as right to direct them to be received? Or that the embracing a great Constitutional principle, rela- Constitutional rights of the House would be imtive to State sovereignty and the powers of the paired by being obliged to respect the regulations House. This question arose out of the judicial of a State as to the time, place, and manner of powers vested by the Constitution in each branch holding elections? Just so as to returns. The of the Legislature, as to judging of the election Constitutional right of the House to judge of of its members. In the first article, fifth section them is not impaired because a rule of judging is of the Constitution, it is declared, that "each prescribed by another authority. Nothing is more House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, common than this; it is, indeed, a leading feaand qualifications of its own members." This ture in all the political institutions of the United section embraces three distinct objects, on which States. The power to judge being vested in one the judicial powers of each House might be ex- body, and the prescription of the rule in another. ercised; the qualification of persons returned as All of our political writers have considered this members, their election as members, and the re- as one of the most important features in our inturns of the person selected. With regard to the stitutions. If we can dispense in this instance point of qualification, that could have no bearing with the time fixed for receiving returns, we may on the present question. As to the election of dispense with State regulations in other cases. If persons returned to serve as members, the Con- we can dispense with one rule, we can dispense stitution has given to the several States the power with all; and while the States are constitutionalto regulate the time, place, and manner, subjectly fixing rules, we may be dispensing with themto the interposition of the laws of Congress. As a conclusion at which common sense revolts. to the returns of members, there is no limitation With regard to the prevalence of the will exto the power of Congress to judge of them. pressed by a majority of the good votes given, it What power, then, is given by this section? A was observed, that that could be only ascertained judicial power alone. It is worthy of remark that by some legal provision, and that the only way of an election and a return are entirely distinct acts; guarding it from abuse was to preserve the laws

The debate began in Committee of the Whole, and was afterwards prosecuted in the House. Messrs. J. CLAY, FINDLEY, BIDWELL, G. W. CAMPBELL, and ELMER advocated; and Messrs. MEAD, EARLY, SLOAN, ELLIS, N. WILLIAMS, BROOM, and QUINCY, opposed the report.

309

DECEMBER, 1805.

HISTORY OF CONGRESS.

Georgia Contested Election.

of the State in violate; and that although in some few instances a rigid adherence to them might be productive of some hardship, yet in its general effects it would be productive of much greater good; and, it was added, that that species of reasoning was as novel as unsound, which went to protect the rights of the citizens of a State by prostrating the laws made to secure them.

To show that the law of Georgia, limiting the time within which votes should be received, was obligatory upon the House, an elaborate argument was gone into to prove, by a minute dissection of the Constitution, that inasmuch as all powers not expressly given to the General Government were reserved to the people of the States, and inasmuch as the only power specifically given related to the time, place, and manner of holding elections, and not to the time, place, and manner of making returns, no such power resided in Congress.

From all this reasoning it was contended, that though the House had a right to judge of the returns of its members, that right must be exercised in obedience to the rules fixed by the State of Georgia, which constitutionally possessed the power of prescribing them, and that they must be considered as conclusive, unless revoked or modified by Congress.

H. OF R.

gan of information to this House, which is the
only tribunal to which the returns can ultimately
be made. So considering the subject, there was
no reason for the remark, that the principle con-
tained in the report went to set aside the law of
Georgia. Should the power of the House in this
case be denied, it would prevent us from investi-
gating any case, however characterized by fraud,
and would prostrate at the feet of an Executive
officer, the power so guardedly bestowed on each
House. It is inquired whether we will set aside
the law of Georgia by the decision we are about
to make; but it does not follow that the adoption
of the report will have this effect. The law of
Georgia says that the Governor shall count the
votes received at a certain day; but it does not
say that the House shall not count those received
afterwards. We, in fact, then, carry into effect
the law of Georgia as far as it goes, and only in
case of a failure, supply the deficiency. Could
there be a doubt of the principle assumed in the
report, it would be removed by a denial of it giv-
ing the power to any petty officer of the State,
by suppressing the votes, to deprive the member,
legally elected, of his seat. Would this be a just
principle? Is it not our principle that a majority
shall govern? And is it not strange to say that a
State shall have the right of violating such a
principle?

The friends of the report remarked that the With regard to a return, it might imply two power of the House on this subject was vested by that part of the Constitution which declares things; the original certificate of the presiding that "each House shall be the judge of the elec- officer in each election district, and the general tions, returns, and qualifications of its own mem-certificate of the whole election, the several parts bers;" and that this power was distinct from that which gave ultimately to the Legislature, in case they saw fit to exercise it, the power of determining the time, place, and manner of holding elections. The words "judging of returns," were comprehensive, unrestricted, and inclusive of every step incidental to making returns. The power could not be confined to the mere judging of the authenticity of the certificate of the returning officer, as that would be nugatory. It must likewise include the manner in which the votes were counted in districts; the manner in which they were transmitted; the place appointed for receiving them, and the ascertaining of their aggregate number. It had been truly said, that where the business of election ceases, that of the returns begin; which, therefore, must be considered as embracing everything after the votes were given. As soon as an election terminates, the candidate is elected, the only thing remaining is to ascertain the result, and this is done by the returns made. What, then, is the right of this House to judge? According to gentlemen, they have not a right to judge of the certificate of the officers of Georgia; they have not a right to judge how the votes are transmitted; but of all this the Governor is to judge, under a law of Georgia. But such a law would be a mere nullity, as it would be in direct opposition to the words of the Constitution, which gives to this House the entire right of judging of the returns of its members. The fact was that the law of Georgia could only be considered as constituting the Governor the or

of which were held in different places. It was
necessary that these several certificates should be
examined by some general authority. As a mat-
ter, therefore, of necessity, some authority must
reside in the States to count up the whole num-
ber of votes, and to certify the persons elected.
This power was vested in different ways in the
several States. Whoever exercised it could be
only considered as the certifying officer, whose
certificate was not a decision, but simply a re-
turn, subject to the control of this House, which
is made by the Constitution the judge of it. The
Constitution says the House are to judge of the
returns. Can these returns, therefore, be conclu-
sive and binding upon the House? If so, the
power of judging is altogether nugatory. If we
cannot go out of the returns, and judge of any-
thing not in them, we cannot be said to possess
any power over them. But the words of the
Constitution are precise; giving the unrestricted
power to judge. The House then may receive
other evidence to satisfy them than that found on
the face of the returns, and on such evidence may
either allow that which is not in them, or disal-
low that which is. A case has been put of votes
received in contravention of a State law, after
the time fixed for receiving them, and it has been
said that these votes ought not to be received.
Why? Because the time of holding elections
being expressly vested in the State Legislature,
in the first instance, and Congress not having
changed the prescribed time, the State regulation
must prevail. But let the case be pursued fur-

1

"And that Thomas Spalding is entitled to a seat in this House, as a Representative of the State of Georgia:" And resolved in the affirmative-yeas 66, nays 52, as follows:

YEAS-Isaac Anderson, John Archer, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Basset, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, Martin Chittenden, John Claiborne, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, John Dawson, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, James Holland, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Nehemiah Knight, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jun., Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, John Smilie, O'Brien Smith, Samuel Smith, Joseph Stanton, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, Robert Whitehill, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander Wilson, and Joseph Winston.

H. OF R.

adelphia, were discharged from the consideration thereof; and the petitioners had leave to withdraw their petition.

GENERAL EATON.

the Whole, on the report of the select committee The House resolved itself into a Committee of to whom had been recommitted the resolution respecting William Eaton, Esq.

The original resolution is in the following words:

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to present a sword, in the name of Congress, to William Eaton, Esquire, as a testimony of the high sense entertained of his gallantry and good conduct in leading a small band of our countrymen, and others, through the desert of Lybia, on an expedition against Tripoli, in conjunction with the ex-Bashaw of that Regency; defeating the Tripolitan army at Derne, with the assistance of a small part of the Naval force of the United States, and contributing thereby to a successful termination of the war, and the restoration of our captive fellow-citizens to liberty and their country.

city of."

NAYS-Willis Alston, jun., James M. Broom, John The select committee recommended amending Boyle, Levi Casey, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jun., it by substituting "a gold medal with suitable deOrchard Cook, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dav-vices," in lieu of "sword." and striking out the enport, jun., Elias Earle, Peter Early, Caleb Ellis, Wil-word "at," and inserting in its room, "taking the liam Ely, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, William Helms, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Michael Leib, Henry W. Livingston, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, David Meriwether, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Rhea of Tennessee, John Russel, Peter Sailly, James Sloan, John Cotton Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin, Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Daniel C. Verplanck, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, David R Williams, Nathan Williams, and Thomas Wynns.

Whereupon, the said THOMAS SPALDING took his seat in the House, as a Representative for the State of Georgia; the oath to support the Constitution of the United States being first administered to him by Mr. Speaker, according to law.

THURSDAY, December 26.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of Edward Toppan, George Jenkins, and William Currier.

The bill was reported without amendment and ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time

to-morrow.

Mr. FINDLEY, from the Committee of Elections, to whom it was referred to examine the certificates and other credentials of the members returned to serve in this House, made a report, in part, thereupon; which was read and ordered to lie on the table.

The Committee of the Whole House to whom was committed, on the seventeenth instant, the report of the Committee of Claims on a petition of the crew of the late United States' frigate Phil

On agreeing to the first amendment: Mr. J. CLAY said he was far from wishing to derogate from the merits of Mr. Eaton. On the contrary, no man was more ready to bestow the reward his gallant and good conduct merited. But when he consulted the Journals of Congress, and found that only three medals had been conferred during the whole period of the Revolutionary war, in which our liberties and independence had been achieved, and considered the occasions on which they had been given, he could not consider the present case as entitled to the same expression of national gratitude. He could not, for instance, consider the taking of Derne as equal in importance to the capture of Cornwallis. In the more recent case of Captain Decatur, Congress had only given a sword, though that officer had carried, captured, and burnt the frigate Philadelphia, and was afterward the first man who took a gunboat from the enemy; which exploits were accompanied by exertions such as have scarcely been precedented in similar circumstances. For all this, Congress conferred a sword only. Mr. C. said, he believed that there had, in this instance, been as much gallantry and good conduct displayed as in the case now before the Committee. He, therefore, thought, the reward bestowed in the one case would be adequate to the other. For these reasons, he should be obliged to vote against the amendment.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH rose to express his coincidence of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. That rewards should be proportioned, not only to the exertions of those claiming them, but to the dignity and importance of the achievement which drew them forth, was not less true than that merit

should be encouraged wherever it might appear. I believe, sir, said Mr. R., that the gentleman who is the object of this resolution would infinitely prefer-I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance-I judge of his feelings by my own-I am persuaded that he would set a far greater value upon any testimony, however small, of the unanimous approbation of this House, than on the highest token of applause which a bare majority could give him. For this reason, I regret that the mover of the resolution has changed a course in which all seemed disposed to follow him, for one which so many were likely to disapprove. It has been stated that but three or four medals had been struck during the Revolutionary war; one, I believe, for Saratoga, another for the capitulation of York; a third, perhaps, upon that occasion, more august, when the Commander-in-Chief of our Armies came to resign into the hands of the civil authority that military power with which he had been intrusted for the salvation of his country. I have always understood that medals were struck, not so much in compliment to an individual, as to commemorate some great national event, and we are now called upon to commemorate the great national event-of what, sir? A skirmish between a few of our countrymen and a handful of undisciplined, half-armed barbarians. As this question is rather a subject of taste and feeling than of argument, I shall not trouble the Committee upon it, further than to suggest that there is a true and false sublime in politics as well as in poetry, and that, by attempting to soar too high, we shall only plunge into bathos.

DECEMBER, 1805.

With the gentlemen who have preceded me, I agree that unanimity would add highly to the gratification of the gentleman who is the object of this resolution, and it would be certainly highly gratifying to me as friendly to it. I am, therefore, sorry that an unanimous vote is not likely to obtain. I merely rose to state the reasons which induced me to vary the motion from its original shape.

At the request of Mr. STANTON, the resolution conferring a gold medal on Captain Truxtun was read:

When the question was taken on striking out "sword," and inserting a "medal of gold with suitable devices," and passed in the affirmativeayes 56, nays 54.

The Committee rose, and reported their agreement to the report of the select committee, which the House immediately took into consideration. On the question to concur with the Committee of the Whole, in the amendment,

Mr. J. CLAY rose to express a hope that the gentlemen in the majority would agree to conferring a sword instead of a medal. He declared himself as anxious as any gentleman could be, to bestow in this case a proper tribute of respect; but he could not, in conscience or duty, agree to awarding a medal, and he felt himself under the necessity of calling for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JACKSON.-Inasmuch as I took the liberty of expressing my approbation of the amendment now under consideration, when this subject was previously before the House, and am now of the opinion that it ought not to be adopted, I think it proper briefly to assign my reasons for the vote I shall give.

Mr. BIDWELL. I agree, generally, in the principle assumed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Virginia, with regard On a former occasion, I was governed by a sentito the apportionment of rewards to the degree of ment of feeling, having, at the same time a regard merit, and the importance of the act performed. to precedents, without taking into view the case When the subject now under consideration first of Captain Decatur. Without derogating from occupied our attention, it appeared to me that a the merits of others, I consider his merits to be sword was the proper symbol by which to express as great as those of any other man. I am of the national gratitude; but, on more mature re- opinion if others of not greater merit have receivflection, I have formed a contrary conclusion. ed higher testimonials of respect; if we have The presentation of a sword would appear to be made a distinction between men of equal merit, more appropriate to services merely military, and assigned to subordinate merit the same rewhile a medal is more characteristic of services ward as to those who have achieved the liberty of a mixed nature, performed with some great ob- of their country, it is time to stop. It is extremely ject in view. The achievement, which is the delicate to compare the merits of particular men, object of the present resolution, is not merely mil- where all have deserved well of their country, and itary, but parily military and partly diplomatic. deserve its respect and gratitude. As the highest A sword would not, in rank, be adequate to the meed is due to those who have rendered the greatenterprise or equal to the service performed. This est services to their country, we ought not to asservice was, in a great measure, voluntary. An sociate such cases with those of a lower grade, expedition was undertaken, in connexion with the because, we thereby impair the testimony of gratex-Bashaw of Tripoli, and with the tacit consentitude and respect so justly due to those who of our Government. Mr. Eaton commanded the achieved our liberty and independence. army of the ex-Bashaw. For these reasons, it appears to me, that a medal is more appropriate as emblematic of the gratitude of the country, than a sword would be. In point of examples that may have been set, I shall not go back to the Revolution, to inquire into the distinctions which may have been then made in rewarding different degrees of merit. On a late occasion, we have seen a medal bestowed on Commodore Preble.

Mr. VARNUM.-I agree that every expression of national gratitude ought to be in proportion to the services rendered; but I do not agree that it ought to be in proportion to the rank of those who performed them. This circumstance ought to make no difference in the return of gratitude; or, if it did make a difference, it ought to dignify rather than derogate from the degree of merit. There should be no difference, whether the object of our