Newspapers / Raleigh Times (Raleigh, N.C.) / March 2, 1849, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of Raleigh Times (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
' , : 11 , tip A tt jsmrr 71 "f" . . . i A V A A h V r JJvL u.JLJL-lZJL-2 ViiV . ul - J- 4. 'J tv -J r -i.- v. mi nr TT . 1 PlinLIUKD WEEKLY RY-C1I. C. RAltOTEAU, EMTOR AVI) rttOPKIETOK.. . M !s--F.l--!iP Mil J ? 'i: U.J4 TERM: $2 GO I'l'lt ANNUM, 'IX ADVANCE, OR $3 00 IF FAYM EST W DELAY Ll SIX 3IO.TL'6. VOL II. IIALEFGH, FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 18i9. NO 13. TERMS. The Niihth-Oaholin Timks will be sent lo Pub tcrilwri Rt Two Dollar mill n half per annum, il paid 'n advance. - Three Dollars will to charged,- if l'-iy-ment is dc-laved tx months. These Terms will bo in variably adhered to. JOTEllTISETIEWS. For every Sixtct-ii liuor, or Um, Une Dollar for tin: first, Mid Twcntv-fivo Cuits for each subsequent ill-. 1 aertion. Court Ordeie, &.C. will bo charged 25 per oeel- hn'lic.r; but a reasonable deduction will be mado to those who advertise bv the year. OT Letters on business, uml all Communications nluiidcd for pifliheatioM, must bo addressed to the Kditdr, and foil paid. LEGISLATIVE. Speed) of filx. Pmitl) of fjcilforo, Delivered in tht Senate, Jan. 1849. The Contested Election from the District of Or an go being under consideration, Mr. Smith ad dressed the Senate as follows ; Mueli aa I regret, Mr. Speaker, to consume a riy portion of tlio tmio of the Senate, approaching as we arc the period fixed upon for tho termina tion of the present session, anil with a large a mount of unBnished business lying on yeur table, tho importance of the question before us, in the principles it involves and the precedent it may es tablish, will not permit ma to remain silent. It matters little who is permitted to occupy the seat during the two remaining days of the session, but it is, nevertheless, due to ourselves, and necessary for a correct disposition of the case, that the na litre of these conflicting claims should be properly understood, and the points in dispute accurately stated and defined. I cannot hope to add much to the information already in possession of the Sen ate, nor to present any new views, after the able : und eloquent discussion which the subject has al ready undergone j still it may be expected t!at tho results of the investigation which, as a member of the Committee of Elections, I have had the opportu nity and means of making, should bo eommunicat- tJ to the Senate, beforejfinal action is taken in the case, I submit , them, Mr, Speaker, with so un due confidence in their accuracy, but as the con clusion of my own mind after the best examina tion I could give to the evidence. When it is re- membered that the depositions read before the Committee, closely written and spread over about one hundred pages of foolscap, relate to the qun.li fications of nearly an equal number of voters, and give rise to numerous questions of title and dom- Ici), many of them full of doubt and difficulty, the Senate will be able to appreciate, in some degree, the labors of the Committee, and the uncertainly which must iuevitably attend any conclusions they may arrive at, If it bo so difficult on the part of your Commit tee to attain satisfactory results, after tho pa tient attention they have for weeks bestowed on the subject, how much more so is it for other Senators to preserve distinct in the mind, the muss of unconnected facts presented in the testimony, so as to give them their proper position and weight in the determination of the principal issue ? The elaborate argument ad J reused to ns, on behalf of the sitting member, exhibiting as it did a thorough knowledge of the testimony, illustrates at once tho extent and the nature of the difficulty to be en countered. While, therefore, tho task of laying before the Senate the impressions made upon my own mind, with tho facts which have produced them, is one of embarrassment, the duty of under taking it becomes the more decided and impera tive. Especially, sir, is this duty incumbent on ouu whose mind, with similar opportunities of in vestigation, has been led by the examination to results tho rcvereo of those which hav e been sub mitted by counsel to the Smate. In entering upoa the discharge of this duty, it affords me groat pleasure to say that many of tho views urged in the argument fur tho silting mem ber entirely accord with tuy own, while from others I am construing to express a reluctant but decided dissent. It will be my-purposo to confine the re marks I may make to the points of difference be tween us. The first Resolution in the series reported and recommended by one branch of the Committee, af- eight and Mr. Berry fourteen voles. This dis crepancy appears to have escaped the notice both of the inspectors and the Sheriff", and not to have been detected until some time afterwards. Upon summing up the votes given throughout the County, as stated in the inspectors, certificates there was a tic, ami the Sheriff", as in such event he is required to do, therefore gav the casting vote, and declared Mr. Waddell to be duly elec ted. It has linen urged here and elsewhere that there wis a palpable repugnancy in one of the returns, which tho Sheriff" had power and was under obli gations to correct then, or whenever iiftorwurds he discovered the error. 1 am Hot prepared to concur in this opinion, ei ther as to the Sheriff's power or duty in the prein-,' jseV The returns of the'. Inspectors, it seems to tiie, so f.r as tlio action of that officer is concern ed, import absolute verity. TUe facts stuttil in their certificate, if in. proper rorui, are to be accep ted as unconditionally true, and, as such arc lo enter into his computations. It Is the legal evi- iencc and the only evidence he can look into to ascertain the state of the polls throughout his dis trict. There were tallies or marks, it is true, kd- oii llie back of the certificate, corresponding with the number of tho.voters whose names were repor ted, and diminishing by five the number certilied for Mr. Waddell. These tallies, however, are, no part, nor can constitute part of the return re quired by law to be . made by the inspectors ; and in the present instance they were in no manner authenticated to the Sheriff. The law requires (Rev. St Ch. 52. Sec 8-9) the inspectors at each place of election to make out a correct statement of the " number of vaks given to each candidate" and the " names nf per verse erroneous dec lions which they may have made, vvhiie ui it. . I can sc. nothing, therefore, in the conduct of the Sheriff of Orange .to condemn, in regarding his control over the subject at an end, as soon as he had given his cabling vote, and declared the result. And if it were c tlu rwWe, the mistake is at least so plausible us. U vindieatj Us inUivcs frorii umvai' thy reproach or. suspicion. l!ut however incompetent the Sh have ' supposition of the validity of the act of resignation 1 which occasioned it. . ; At thii second (November) Election, a majority of the votes are given to Mr. Berry, and lie is re- tunic ' by th-; Sheriff as duly elected. At tlio ope ning ihs. present session, he appears '''in 'our und. '.vitM his erodentiulj in his in-nds, Ui r.'Ueh he is djiared duly elected a monibcr of ibis body, by t!;e special 'election h!J in ?wveinbcr.. With ti is evidence of his tills to a seat,' presented by been to look behind. ic inspectors' certilicate in j hiinsulf without pretest and without qualification, determining who was elected, there can be no ques- j and with no ether claim or evidence of claim, ex tion of the right of the Senate to do so, in aseer- j cept such as is furnished by that certificate, ho is taining the rights of its members j Nor is is there swqru into office, and becomes '.a member of the any, tliat, on making this inquiy, it wdl app.ar that Senate. It is not alone, therefore, that he volun a niajtrity b!" live votes were ii, fact cast for Mr! tarily beiiama a candidate n-gi in fur the popular Berry. "- ." ' '.; ' ; ', ! v.te; h:X tint he a fterv.-nvds accepted tho office A much more serious question however then j which the npecia! eleetion conferred ; that he re arises. ; Can the sitting member now claim his j ceivos and enjoys the .-benefits and emoluments tie seat by virtue of that election? Has there been no j rived miller it ; that he asserts no othe r title tiiah waiver, forfeiture or abaiiJonincnt by hkn Of his j tlio vote given at the special election, and does as righis under that election ? If there has been none, j sert that to his seat ; these are the acts which now then he is eclarly, upon the evidence before the Sen ate, entitled tojetain his seat. His counsel has argued with groat force that he has lost none "f his rights, derivable under the first election, in consequence of the secondhand in sup port of the position, lias cited the cases of Williams vj. Souiers, and of Dickens vs. the Justices of Moore, decided by our Supreme Court and repor ted at pKges til and 'lOG, in tho 1st VbI. of Dev. estop and debar him from falling back upon some otiier and incompatible title involving a denial of that under which he has hitherto acted, and whose it is more decidnlly adverse to the claims of the sitting member. That was a'.cae in which tho acts of one in ""', are considered in their bear ing upon the tenure of that office. An office is held to have been vacated by inconipa.tiblo.acts done by hii.i who fiilcd it. It is a case of abaii Jeninvi:'. or iinpHcd abdicntiori. The case bsforc the Senate is not , f that chars c fer; -The sitting member was never in tiiice, by virtue of the. August election.. -Before tha meot iirg of this b&'y, he had, at best, jmly a nVS'tcrer. ter into olTice. lie had a tilk to, but was not in reslvd with the oflice. .In this condition of things, acts of less import determine one's rights. . . Before 'possession, less is required to prove an abandon ment of claim, than is, afterwards, to prove a di vesting of the office. The. l atter requires greater solemnities, more '-unequivocal evidence, than the former. : Facts which might , not '-amount to the one, would yet be deemed conclusive of the other. I am unable, therefore, to see any tiling in the ca ses to which our attention has been called, thai countenances this part of the argument put forth in defence of ti'.o sitting member. But it may be said, that the view winch has validity he has recognised. 'These are the acts j been taken of. this case, entirely overlooks the which are deemed utterly irroconcileablc with the supposition of his holding on to any rights which he might otherwise have had under tho first elec tion. . What has been done is a recognition ample and complete of tho legality of tho special election, and Bat. Reports. I have examined these cases j and, of consequence, of the vacancy which must appealed to as authorities for the ground taken, j precede to authorize.it. This admission is involv- but I can find nothing in them tending lo strength en the argument. .- The cases so fur as they are precedents for us seem to me to lean in precisely the contrary direc tion.,. As these cases are 'substantially nimilur, I sons voting and to dchver .it properly certified on will trouble the Senate with but one of them. 1 lie the day after the election to the Sheriffat the Court J case of Williams vs. Seniors, was briefly this: Houso ; at which time that officer is directed to - Tho plaintiff, Williams, held tho office of Se.pe-. add tho yotei fjr the County or District, and upon rior Court Clerk, in the County of Surry, under an ascertaining who has received the greater number appointment fur life, previous to the year 1832, of votes to declare him iuly elected ; and it is fur-1 when the General Assembly passed an act chung thor provided, in flic event tf a tic, that ho shall ing the mode of electing clerks an! limiting the give his casting vote. '' - term of their office. Under '.his now law, an elcc- It is evident from this that the important part of the inspectors, return, tho partjlo Bcrve as an ele- ement in estimating the general result, is that which contains the number of votes given to the candidates. Tho namciofthe voters, tho' required lo be returned, are ef no further consequence, than as tending to prevont frauds, ant! to provide the means for their detection. If there be a dis crepancy, as there was in this case, iu what man ner is tho Sheriff to proceed to determine where the error lies ? How can he know whether it con sists in an omission to register the names of all who voted .' or if in the number certified for the different candidates, in which number the excess is included, and how it is to be apportioned among them? By what authority does he depart frviijtlic plain directions of the law requiring him ta' liiako up the result from (he ttu'inJer returned to him by the inspectors, where he undertakes to correct lliosc returns by tvideuce extrinsic to them ? There seems indeed to be no intermediate ground for that officer to take', between accepting tho re turns, whan in due form, precisely as they are mado to him, and rejecting them altogrther. Be tween the alternatives thus presented the Sheriff did notand could not hesitate to male choice, lib duty in such a cise was a plain one, and not less so, thec'ivinc a casting vote, its consequent. - This too is required to bo clone, as was done, on the day of comparing tho polls, .1ie result of the election was then to be ascertained and announced. After this day the huvlias given to your Sheriffs no other power, has enjoined no other duty, than to communicate, in proper form, the result. He is then by his returns, to isake known, not to change, what has been done. His agency thereafter is lim ited to furnishing the evidence, thro' his certificate, of what cu that day was ascertained and declared. This claim set up for your Sheriffs to reconsider and reverse their decisions, to recal even tho vcte which they may have given, is one too important to concede. It would be a dangerous' precedent to arm your Sheriffs with so much jiolitical power, to substitute their uncontrolled discretion for tlui clear and unequivocal directions of tho law. It would be dispensing with the supervision exercis ed by the presence of inspectors, a surrender of some of the most essential safe-guards of popular i rights. It would be to confer upon your officers tion was held in August following, at which both Williams and Corners were candidates, and Somen was elected. At the next Superior Court after the election, Soincrs gave bonds, took the necessary oaths and was inducted into the office, Williams ed in the fact, of his acceptance of the rights and privileges which that election conferred and ne cessarily implies an abandonment. of claims that are not consistent with it. The very statement of ihe fads of the case, seems to mo to carry with it a reputation of the argument of counsel. Strange indeed would. 'it be, if the sitting member can hold his seat and 'vote as a member of the Senate, solo ly upon a title derived from tho November elccien, and yet when that title fails him, can disown the very authority under which ho acts, and assert one altogether incompatible with it. Surely be tween two inconsistent titles, thf re must be, and there has. been an election. Surely, after what has trunxpiaeij, the member bus chosen lo rest his rights upon the validity of one of them ; he must abide the consequences of that choice. The case of Williams and Somers, though not being present and making no objection, and Wii- directly in point, affords, nevertheless, I think, ma liams afterwards surrendered up all the books and records belonging to the oflice. ; About a year af ter this tho present proceedings were instituted by Williams to recover the office, upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the law under which he had been dispossessed. , Tho Court held that the private arrangements between the parties, extending even lothe canvass ing before the people, would not divest tlio incum bent of his office, nor despoil him of his rights, but they held also, that his acquiescence in the actual assumption of iheoflieejby Somers, without remons trance or protest, followed by his delivery over of tho records and o'.her papers, were unequivocal acts of abandonment on his p.nt, and a distinct re cognition of the right of Sinners to take and keep the office. It is true, as was contended in argu ment, lh.it tho - opinion of the Court in this ease does establish, that the act of becoming a candidate terials from which a principle may be extracted, that will assist us in determining that before the Sonato. The case establishes, that wher. one en titled lo and actually in office, submits to its being assumed by another with an apparent legal right, and then recognises that other as actually in the office, it is an abandonment or waiver of nil claim on his part to it. Suppose the former, incumbent, Williams, in stead of being defeated, had keen the successful candidate, and had been regularly admitted into the office under the new law, would he not neces- . sarily by that act, have diverted himself of his for j ' aio'r rights ? At the expiration of the term for f which he was elected, could ho have held on to the office by virtue of his antecedent title for life ? What would have been the answer to such a claim ? rights of the constituency, and that in this respect the two offices will not admit of comparison... It is certainly true that ono is a political, the oth er a ministerial offico. In the first, discretionary powers are exercised, in the latter, definite and prescribed duties are performed. . The one is held by a representative of "the people, the other by a mcro a guilt,' executing the laws. But in respec. to the ..manner" in which these offices are filled, there is no difference between fhciu. They are connected with the same appointing power. The popular vote in each case designates the person to fill thcin. The same relation is sustained by each, to the popular right of election, and there is no reason why the popular will properly expressed can be disregarded in tho one case any sooner than in tho other. .. . But if vhere woro any force in the objection, it appears to me to be fully met in the fact, that the constituency concurred, by voting in the special election. They assume and exorcise the jurisJic- tion (hat is offered. The Senatorial vote seems to have been a full ono at each election, I cannot sec in what way you abridge the popular rights by confining the contesting parties to the simple en quiry into the last expression of the popular wilL It appears rather to be enlarging than abridging the rights of the people. To leave the selection of a Senator to the people, as-was done in the special election, may be yiolding that to which they have no claim, may have been conceding too much, but can hardly be construed into an invasion of their rights You surely do not subtract from tbeir pri vileges, by extending their powers. To appeal to their authority is very unlike denying it. So far, then, from disregarding the rights of tho constitu ency of these gentlemen, the second election is an acknowledgment and vindication of them and this Senate shows its respect for those rights, when it refuses to look behind tho last exercise of them I have thus, Mr. Sieaker, endeavoured to show that wp are not at liberty to entortain the question as to the August election ; that the sole inquiry for the Senate now, is, who was elected at the November election ? The parlies themselves have gene into no inves Yon have held the office for the full term for befofte&e people is not sufficient to deprive one of i which von were elected. Your nrevions tenure of an otliceof which he is in the rightful possession, j it was surrendered up, when you entered according ! tigations of the qualifications of voters at any o- aud perhaps, it would not be extending the princi-1 la the provisions of the new law. You have en- titer.' pKSTloo far, to declare, that it would not take away ; joyed the emoluments, you must submit to the Umi- . To this point alone was iho attention of the com his right to enter into an office, to which he was ' unions, attached to il by law. Undoubtedly this mittee addressed, and upon the decision made in clearlyentitltd but of which he had not the posses' would have been dcemej a satisfactory answer to j regard to it, depends, in my opinion, tho right of sion. If this were the only point (if resemblance j such a claim. The reasoning of the Court in the either party to the seat in contest. I shall, tborc between the cases, the uuthoiily relied on would be j decision of the case that was presented, would be j fore, Bubmit to the Senate the results to which my a very strong one for the purposes for w liieh it is i stronger in conducting to the same conclusion had ' mind has teen brought upon consideration of (lie .:tv.,l T 1 :r t - . ...i ' : .i . t- .. . i . i f i .-!-.. . eviuence. cited. Let us see, however, if there are riot other, : tiio facts been us now supposed. It would be so, more important and striking analogies between the ! because llie posilivo act of accepting and holding cates that have been over-looked. It has already been stated that the Slier iff of Orange had awarded the certificate of election to Mr. Waddell, tho possession of which, or rather tlu returns made in conformity to the certificate, secur ed to him a jivimu facie right to the scat. Upon. this evidence lie was entitled to take and occupy his seal as a member of ts body, in like manner as'docs his opponent, and as do all of us, until re gularly ousted therefrom by the judgment of Ihe firms that Mr. Berry w duly elected at the An- some cf the most important functions belonging to gust election, aud the second declares liuneiiUleu j ilas body, lam unwilling, in order to obviate a to bis teat by virtue of that election. Similar ; temporary and remediable evil (o invest mere niin grounds have been taken and enforced iu the ar- J Uteri. il agents with so large a share of authority gument, in the course of which some ammadver- tnJ discretion. Far better is it, to leave the cor- sions have been made upon the conduct of the Sheriff of Orange, for his refusal to recal the cer tificate of election which lie had awarded to Mr, WadJell. The evidence offered befsre the Committee dscs indeed establish the exV.cnce of an error in one of the certificates returned by the inspectors to the Sheriff, in conseqaenc. of which five more votes than were given were added lo the list for Wad dell. Had this error, (for error it unquestionably reiition of wrongs and errors committed by t!icin,to this body the rights and privileges of whose mem bers are concerned. Far safer to place your offi cers under the distinct and definite mandates of the law, to exercise only the iowcrs and fulfil the duties which i( confers and prescribes. 1 ran re cognise in your Sheriff., no power to revise their proceeding in relation to elections, at any other place or time than that designated by your laws. I cannot admit his right to disregard the sworn evi the offico with the new conditions annexed to it, weuld bo more significant and decisive upon iho former rights of the incumbent, than the mere ne gative act of submitting ta its usurpation by a ttranger. The case of the clerk holding the office for life, and yot entering by virtue of an election under the new law which limits it, as far as the analogy extends, is in fact the caso before the Senate. It Since tho labors of the committee were closed and the reports from it made, we have been favor ed w ith the opinion of the Judges on certain ques tions submitted to them, which greatly relioves the subject of difficulties that presented themsolves to the committee. The construction given to the free hold qualification, prescribed in the constitution fi r senatorial voters, very much limits the range of uur inquiries, and, by confining us to tho discussion of ship of land, of sufficient quantity, WWSont inquir ing into abstruse anil difficult questions of legal learuiiitT. 2. All peisms in actual posM;sinn of Lnds, claiming the title in themselves and exercising un- : disputed acts of ownership, are jiresi m d to have the freehold, without other evidenc e, and until the ewitetry' appear.' '. 3. An 'apparent legal title, in proper form, a c coninanid by '- uncontrolled dvminion over ; tho lanJ, is sufficiint evidence of title . 4. Mere f wrong-doers, acquiring possession, or ... tenants holding under o'herp, cannot vote. . 5. Those "having' the title lo land.in the adverse',' . outstanding possession of another, cannot vote.. 6, The presumption is that one who votes, has a right to vote, until repelled by contradictory evi dence. " -'. 7. The principle which should have regulated' .. the action of the inspectors, must now govern the Senate.-. - With these general propositions in view, I will now proceed, to inquire, bow stands the vote, pro perly corrected, as cast at the November election? I will first call the attention of the Senate to tho votn for the sitting member. By referring to both reports from the committee, it will be seen, that they concur in the statement, that ten illegal votes were given for Mr. Berry The reports also agree, that eight bargainors in .. trust, two owners of mere equitable estates, and two naked trustees, in all twelve, voted for Mr, Ber ry, who, according to the opinion of the Supremo Court, had no riht to vote. Here arc twenty-two illegal votes, admitted on both sides, to bavo. been given to Mr. Berry. The reports . likewise concur in saying that three legal votes were offered for Mr. Berry, and refus ed by the poll-keepers, the report of the Chairman however claiming a fourth vote as legal, which was tendered for Mr. Berry and rejected. How stands the case with Mr. Waddell ? Ac cording to a list which 1 hold in my hand, (I will not trouble the Senate with too many names) in which are some cases of a doubtful kind, tho' I t link the weight of the evidence assigns them a : position in the list, there were fifteen illegal votes, including three bargainors in trust, four equitable O'.vners, one trustee, and one lunatic, which were given to Mr. Waddell. And the reports agree that two vi'es were offered for him and refused, which ought to have been received. -Let me now consider briefly the cases, about which there is a difference of opinion, and ascer tain how the result is to be affected by them. And first as to the case of the sitting member. 1. Daniel Thomas. The facts proved in rcla lion to him, are as follows: He is one of several tenants, in common to whom descended paternal lands, sufficient to allow an allotment of sixty a- , cres to each. To this land, their mother's right of dower attached. It appears to have been agreed i amjug the parties by parol, that the dower lands should be allotted off' by cortain commissioners, ap peinted by their,, and partition made among the tenants. The conunisssoiiers accordingly made the division among the tenants, and an assignment of dower, by actual surveys and metes and bounds, and reported the samo in writing. Sixty acres were given to the vter,jf his several share, of which twenty are covered by dower. Uuder this allotment to tho widow ,oach went iuto possession of his and her separate part, and has possessed and enjoyed the same in severalty, continually, for the last eleven years, since the period of assignment and division. Upon the principles already laid down, this voto is clearly illegal. S: !1. W. II. Horner. The proof is, that the voter has a deed for forty acres of laud, and is one of eleven children of ono Thomas Horner, who died . in'ctits, having conveyed hi lands by deed of trust. 1 he voter, having a leal estate hi an in sufficient quantity of land, clearly had no right to. Vote. - -",' .: . . : ;. 3. J. Hughes The proof is, that he conveyed his 1 aids to his Aunt. J ust before the election she returned the deed lo him, it never liave been proved : or registered, to have the litle mado lo his child ren, she regarding this as pulling an end to thn Senate. Such was the condition of thiinn, whan i the special election. It is an active direct narlici the error in reference to one of the returns is thus ; patiou in it an unequivocal acceptance of the of- not a mcie acquiescence in what is done under ! to a satisfactory result. And hero I may be per mitted to notice, what I consider a serious error was,) not been committed, instead of a tie between j dance contained in the inspectors, certificate and to the" candidates, Mr. Bjrry would have had a ma- look elsewhere for that which is to govern his ac- jority of that number of the votes in the district. The returns from tho precinct where this error oc vurr.il, ruiiUiacd tho names of filly-seven voters. (Lough i. CHliOedtlai M;- Waddeil t.veivrj f Hon. To place tee rights of members of the Sen ate thus Indefinitely under the control and caprice of a Sheriff, ivmild he scarcely less wise than to "urtv- j allow vour judges after leaving thcbeu.h, to re- discovered or ratlier is alleged to havo been disco vered, upon learning which and to obviate the n ceesity of a probable prolracted contest, tbc present contestant, tho' possessing the advantages secured by tho Sheriffs reliirns.promplly yields his priority, resigns bis preliminary right to the seat, and de termines to submit again to tho popular vote, the decision of the question, who shall represent the district. The contestant insisted then as he in sists now, that he was elected by a mnjuity of the legal voters, even bad the cirur been corrected, and in making the surrender of what ho regarded bis rights under that election, he professed to be gov crned solely by the wish to ascertain, that he might be guided by, the popular will. Upon this resig nation, the Governor, whoso official knowlcdgo can recognize no one as member elect, except the onu bo returned by the Sheriff, proceeds at once (o fill tho vacancy by issuing a new writ of election. With ample knowledge of tho facta, both parties again become candidates to supply a vacancy in the office which 'dec lict cxLt except upon the fico wilh'its incidents, thereby conferred. Again, Sir, let us suppose that the special elec tion ordered by the Go vers.. r, like appointments made by hiui and his council, filled Ihe office only until the end of tho next session of the General Assembly will il be contended, that under such circumstances, tho rights of the silting member would be oxtended beyond those limits ? Will any one Concedo to him the power, when he hjs luke-n hia scat under an authority which limits and defines it, to annul his own acts and repudiate that authority ? i ...... . , Difficulties equally great attend every utterapWo clothe him with rights, of which lie voluntarily di vested himself when he took hit seat npon this floor. We shall be acting no lees inconsistently, if we now permit him to disown the very title under which he sits and votes, in order to claim another more favorable to his present views. I have already intimated, sir, that the case re- lerred to, is not precisely similar lo this before the bargain. 'Che legality of this vole depends in one purely logat principlis, is tho moro likely to load 1 vie of the rasa upon the answer ta the, question. J where did the legal iiue vest intermediately, bo 1 tween the first delivery of llie deed, end its return j to tho possession of the bargainor ? If iho title ' j never w as diuslcd out of the bargainor, he has tho ! right to vole; if it was iu, the .bargainee during l..t..r..l ...l..,fl . I'.-, 1..tlt.Ar. ....'- fU to notice, into which the counsel for the sitting member lias fallen. He seems to have proccede d on the ground that the same evidence of legal title is required In the voter and in the trial of an action at law. He regarJsthC inspectors of election too much in the light of a Court, trying the validity of lilies to land. I think in this the argument is founded upon a mis conception of their functions' and moles of actio:'. To expect of poll-keepers to impure into and decide conflicting lilies and to determine- nice and per plexing questions of law, is to suppose them of far title or not, he could not vate. The .view I enter Uin of liic cubc is, that the delivery cf the deed,, -; ii Slautly divested the liile oul of the bargainor and j. vested il in Ihe burg-aiuco, it being liable lioirever to revstjii tlio bargainor, unUita proved and rc- vr istered within ihti.tlnie limited, and allowed by law, If this m cijrretjl Ihe vote was illegal. , If the - more learning than they ordinarily- possess, and j title however was tieyqr divested, the ruffai inore than is necessary for llie performance of their i ble title wo by the unregistered deed, aud thp case , duties. To require it of them, would bo, in ho tnnll degrco to obstruct the exercise of popular lights. They are placed at the ballot box to e cure and extend the elective franchise, not to die troy or abridge it. I shall therefore lay down a few general prcpositioii, appropriate to llie subject bef r us, and by which, I think, we should be gui ded in our inquiries into the qualifications of voters. J. The inspectors superintending an election arc Scnat', and that to the extent of the disagreement, i lo leek only.to the visible, and avowed proprietor- is. prei-cuU4 of a trustee. Dot in potMCstiou, and therefore not ceiapetent to vote, j i ; , ; It is iu evidence that these three persona voted .v for Mr. Berry and Ibey increase bi uuuiber f ,., illegal voto to twenty-live. ; . , , . .., Uis alleged however, tbat , Ihe vnte of Elijah. Yt:y, refused by tfie iiisjjei'torn w legal and' ought to hi'Ve been received for Mr. Berry. The' ; . facts iu thi case are ; that he iw one of nine rhiU I drcu to whom as tenant iu cwui,i,ou, (wo hun-'
Raleigh Times (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 2, 1849, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75