00000082 |
Previous | 82 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT 57
to give any decision on the legality of a contested election; and to exclude
members returned by the constitutional authority would be a course of proceeding altogether novel. On the other side the democrats through Messrs.
John T. Mason, of Washington County, Thomas B. Dorsey, of Ann Arundel,
and Tobias E. Stansbury, of Baltimore County, argued that as neither of the
returns appeared correct, it would be better for the House to proceed in its
organization, and have the question come before them at another time. Mr.
Mason said as there was no case parallel to the one then under consideration,
they must be governed by what seemed most expedient. Mr. Stansbury seemed
greatly alarmed for the dignity of the House, lest disorder should ensue
before they were in a situation to meet it, or a speaker had been appointed. As
two returns had been made from Alleghany, and one appeared equally correct
with the other, he wished to know who was to decide which of the persons
returned should be allowed to qualify, and take their seats as members.
Messrs. John C. Herbert (speaker), from Prince George's, Ephraim K.
Wilson, of Worcester, and J. Hanson Thomas, of Frederick County,
said that these imaginary difficulties might be easily obviated, for they
were bound to pay attention to the returns made by a majority of the judges
until it should be made to appear that they had been illegally made. In the
course of the proceedings, several attempts were made by the democratic members to organize the House before admitting the Alleghany members ; but the
grounds they took were regarded as untenable, and they were overruled by
the majority. Upon a reference of the whole subject to the committee on
elections, they, oji the 11th of December, made a report in favor of the
federalists that had the minority of votes, but the certificates of election, and
the House, by a strict party vote adopted it. Thus deciding that " it would
be setting a dangerous precedent to admit collateral testimony to set aside
the returns of the judges of election." The Monday following was the
constitutional day for electing the governor.
The question whether the Senate (who were all democrats) should secede,
and refuse to go into the election of a governor and council, unless the House
of Delegates would consent to be controlled by their wishes and decide not to
admit the Alleghany delegates, which gave the controlling power to the
federalists, was fully discussed in caucus, not only by members of their
own body, but by some of the most distinguished democrats in the State,
who were invited to attend. At the same time the democrats of the House
of Delegates exhorted the Senate with great warmth not to go into an
election of the executive for the ensuing year. In fact, they threatened
to resort to arms to maintain their opinion, and to compel the federalists to
yield.
On the appointed day it was thought that the Senate would not meet the
House in joint convention; but, at a late hour the principle that each House
should be judge of its own elections, prevailed over what the Senate unanimously believed was a sacrifice of the rights of the people to a form; and
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000082 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT 57 to give any decision on the legality of a contested election; and to exclude members returned by the constitutional authority would be a course of proceeding altogether novel. On the other side the democrats through Messrs. John T. Mason, of Washington County, Thomas B. Dorsey, of Ann Arundel, and Tobias E. Stansbury, of Baltimore County, argued that as neither of the returns appeared correct, it would be better for the House to proceed in its organization, and have the question come before them at another time. Mr. Mason said as there was no case parallel to the one then under consideration, they must be governed by what seemed most expedient. Mr. Stansbury seemed greatly alarmed for the dignity of the House, lest disorder should ensue before they were in a situation to meet it, or a speaker had been appointed. As two returns had been made from Alleghany, and one appeared equally correct with the other, he wished to know who was to decide which of the persons returned should be allowed to qualify, and take their seats as members. Messrs. John C. Herbert (speaker), from Prince George's, Ephraim K. Wilson, of Worcester, and J. Hanson Thomas, of Frederick County, said that these imaginary difficulties might be easily obviated, for they were bound to pay attention to the returns made by a majority of the judges until it should be made to appear that they had been illegally made. In the course of the proceedings, several attempts were made by the democratic members to organize the House before admitting the Alleghany members ; but the grounds they took were regarded as untenable, and they were overruled by the majority. Upon a reference of the whole subject to the committee on elections, they, oji the 11th of December, made a report in favor of the federalists that had the minority of votes, but the certificates of election, and the House, by a strict party vote adopted it. Thus deciding that " it would be setting a dangerous precedent to admit collateral testimony to set aside the returns of the judges of election." The Monday following was the constitutional day for electing the governor. The question whether the Senate (who were all democrats) should secede, and refuse to go into the election of a governor and council, unless the House of Delegates would consent to be controlled by their wishes and decide not to admit the Alleghany delegates, which gave the controlling power to the federalists, was fully discussed in caucus, not only by members of their own body, but by some of the most distinguished democrats in the State, who were invited to attend. At the same time the democrats of the House of Delegates exhorted the Senate with great warmth not to go into an election of the executive for the ensuing year. In fact, they threatened to resort to arms to maintain their opinion, and to compel the federalists to yield. On the appointed day it was thought that the Senate would not meet the House in joint convention; but, at a late hour the principle that each House should be judge of its own elections, prevailed over what the Senate unanimously believed was a sacrifice of the rights of the people to a form; and |
