1862. THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. commissions to county officers. It was on that ground that the committee, at the last session of Congress, reported that this was an unorganized county, and the House, by adopting the report of the committee, declared that it was right in its decision on that point The sitting member challenges 20 votes in the Rulo precinct, for the reason, mainly, that they were non-residents of the precinct. I have already recited the law which requires that the voters should be residents of the precinct at the time. It appears from the evidence of Dundy, an attorney, and afterwards a member of the Legislature, which position seems to sanctify everything, that he was a resident of Rulo precinct, and that 24 non-residents of Rulo precinct, and 5 halfbreed Indians voted at that precinct. He gives the names of 29 non-residents of the precinct who voted on that occasion. Five are half-breed Indians, and not entitled to vote at all. That left 24 testified by him to be non-residents, and he gives their names and the places where they resided. In answer to this, as in support of the vote cast in L'eau-quicourt county, nothing is brought to show that they were residents of the precinct. When they came up to the polls they took the oath prescribed that they were entitled to vote and by the statute, that they were residents of the district, but they were permitted by the judges to insert a proviso to the effect that if the place where they resided was within the precinct, &c. They interpolated that into the oath to save the consciences of these men; so that they swore that they were entitled to vote and were residents of that precinct, provided the Pawnee reservation was within that precinct. Now, the statute shows that the Pawnee reservation was not in that precinct; and if it was, another statute shows that it was outside of the Territory. I say that 29 of them voted. It is not certain how all of them voted; but as Mr. Daily got but 9 votes at that precinct, it is certain that 20 of them must have voted for Morton. Thus Morton getting n large vote there, and Daily getting but 9, it is certain 20 of them were counted for Morton, and therefore the committee rejected 20 votes. In answer to those votes there was not the evidence of a solitary man of all those who knew best; but they made an attack upon Dundy, and some twenty witnesses were introduced to impeach his character. Seven, my friend near me suggests I should have said. Í beg pardon for the mistake. Seven witnesses were introduced to impeach the character of Dundy. I understand Dundy is from the district of one of the members of the committee, and I trust the gentleman is not prejudiced in his favor for that rea son. But where did these witnesses come from? Not one of them from the town where Dundy resided; but all from an adjoining town, which had a bitter feud with this town in which Dundy resided. And in support of Dundy's character twenty neighbors of his-there is where I got my idea of twenty witnesses before-testified that his character for truth and veracity was good, the seven from the adjoining town swearing to the contrary. If it had been so very bad, and the witnesses had sworn to a lie, the committee were of opinion that it would have been an easy thing to show by the neighbors of this man, for profound peace reigned in Nebraska, and it would have been the most natural thing to have brought at least one of those witnesses from his own town where he was best known to have sworn to that fact. But no such witness was produced, and the committee believed that the testimony of this man Dundy was entitled to credit, unless something more should be brought against it than I have stated. are not his neighbors; whether men in a town near me. The charge was made that bribes had been offered, and Mr. Dundy, among others, proposed to raise a committee to inquire into that charge; and he said at the time that he himself had been offered a watch. When the committee was raised, it called upon him to testify who offered him the watch, and he refused to give the testimony, and the Council reprimanded him for not giving the testimony. That is the true state of the case. Let me say, further, that Mr. Dundy testifies that the proceedings of that Legislative Council are in Mr. RICHARDSON. I understand the gentle-accurate; that they have been altered so that they man to make the point that no witnesses were produced to charge that this man Dundy swore falsely. Mr. DAWES. Oh, no. Mr. RICHARDSOŃ. I was paying particular attention to the gentleman. Mr. DAWES. Then it is my fault, not yours. Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman must have expressed himself blindly. Mr. DAWES. No doubt it is my fault. I said they impeached Dundy's character for truth and veracity. There are Štates where they put the question directly to the witness whether they would believe the man under oath. I do not live under that sunshine, but I believe in Nebraska they do put that question to the witness, and seven men of a town at war with that in which Dundy lived, swore that they would not believe him. They called his town an abolition hole, a place filled with abolitionists and negro thieves. The other town, I believe, by way of offset, was called a loco-foco hole. Mr. RICHARDSON. Those men, of whom I do not propose to give any testimony here-I had the misfortune to be Governor of Nebraska once Mr. DAWES. Your loss was their gain. Mr. RICHARDSON. A very poor one though, I have no doubt. You will find that in the legislative proceedings of that Territory the President of the Council read this Mr. Dundy a lecture for accepting a bribe. Mr. DAWES. I am not going to forget that; and I want my friend from Illinois, before I come to it, to read that matter over again, for it has been so long since he read it that he has forgotten a part of it, and the real fact, too.. I was saying that it was the easiest of all things, by positive and good testimony, to prove the residence of these voters; yet this contestant did not think it worth while to produce a single witness, but contented himself with bringing up seven men from a distance to swear that they would not believe Dundy under oath, and I guess they told the truth, for they probably would not have believed him if they knew he told the truth. And against that testimony were brought forward twenty of his neighbors, who swore that they would believe him under oath. Inasmuch as no witness was brought who should have been brought to prove that these men did reside in that precinct-for where a man resides he cannot hide under a bushel-that inasmuch as the contestant contented himself with going off to another place and getting those seven men who swore as to their opinions, and twenty men were brought to swear exactly the opposite, the committee thought the evidence itself was fair and ought to be allowed. It is complained, in reference to the testimony of these. twenty men, that their testimony was taken after the sixty days had expired, as prescribed under the statute. But it will be recollected that the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. RICHARDSON,] was intended to provide for just such a case, and that the committee should hear the testimony in regard to that limitation, because without that the whole of the testimony of the contestant was out of the case. It was not the testimony of affidavits like that which the contestant desired to introduce, but the depositions of witnesses taken after due notice, Mr. RICHARDSON. In the impeachment of which the House directed that the committee should hear without regard to the limitation of a witness I do not understand that you enter into time. The committee would have violated their specific acts. The inquiry is as to general character. If a witness were to attempt, in impeach-instructions, as well as have violated all justice, ing another in court, to descend to specific acts, the court would arrest him at once, as I understand the law. Mr. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts permit me to make one suggestion in reference to that point? Mr. DAWES. Certainly. Mr. DAWES. So I understand it, too. Mr. RICHARDSON. So I thought. Mr. DAWES. I am always glad to agree with my friend, but the only question is, whether man's neighbors know him better than those who if they had not admitted it. Mr. DAILY. As the statement of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RICHARDSON] will go out with this case and be read by the people, I desire to correct a statement which he made. The gentleman is mistaken when he says that the President of the Council read a lecture to this man Dandy. do not show what actually occurred, and that Mr. Morton was then the secretary of the Council and had charge of the proceedings. Mr. RICHARDSON. I have a distinct, vivid recollection of that whole transaction. No time will be able to obliterate it from my memory. I found these men seeking by bribery to pass through the Legislature a bill to charter a bank founded upon public lands. I caused the district attorney to commence proceedings against them, intending to pursue them. This man Dundy agreed that he would go and testify to everything that had occurred. He said that he had been offered the bribe of a gold watch. He refused to disclose who had offered it. The gentleman may be technically correct in reference to the fact that it was because he refused to testify to the whole truth that the lecture was read to him. Mr. DAWES. This whole matter was before the Committee of Elections, and the committee supposed that what occurred in the Nebraska Legislature, when neither of these parties were present, could not be testimony to be used in this case. The gentleman from Illinois has given his version of it. The record itself is down in the committeeroom. I state it from recollection, but I think this is the true state of the facts: that Mr. Dundy was him the bribe. He undertook to conceal the name brought before the bar of the Council for contempt for refusing to answer the question who offered of the party, and that was very wrong of him. He ought to have been confined in jail until he did disclose it. He would have been so confined if I had had to deal with him. Mr. RICHARDSON. I want to make one single point upon the gentleman. The man that I was satisfied offered the bribe left the Territory while Mr. Dundy was before the Council, so that process would not reach him, or I would have had the whole matter investigated; but he was on his winding way long before process could reach him. Mr. DAWES. I do not know of any testimony that Dundy received the bribe. Nobody pretends that he did; but after the bribe was offered him, and the Council instituted the proceeding, in which he took part, to bring the party to justice, he then refused to disclose the name of the party. That was the statement. There were other votes cast for the contestant which the sitting member challenged; but the committee were not of the opinion that they ought to be rejected, and I shall take up no time in going over that ground. The contestant alleges, in answer to all this, first, in reference to L'eau-qui-court county-I have already given his answer upon that point. It is an attempt to impeach three out of the four witnesses. He does nothing beyond that. He then claims that in Falls City, where this Dundy resides, there were illegal votes cast for the sitting Delegate. He produces a witness, whose name is James Buchanan; his testimony is contradicted by that of his own brother, who was one of the judges of election, by the clerk of the board of election, and by his own statement, made the night after the election, and then by at least twenty wit nesses, who swear that he is not to be believed under oath, which is the way they impeach a witness in that Territory. The committee were of the opinion that upon that testimony the votes cast at Falls City ought not to be rejected. The can A technical objection was made by the contestant to the returns from several counties, and that was that they were not "abstracts" of the votes. The law requires that the returning officers of the several counties shall send abstracts of the votes to the board of territorial canvassers. vassers of several counties sent the entire votes, the aggregate, and the contestant says that that was not a compliance with the statute, that they should have sent an abstract of the votes. Now, without stopping to inquire whether that is a proper and legal distinction, the question arose in the committee, what was their duty? Supposing the returning officers had failed properly to return the votes, it was the duty of the Committee of Elections to find out what the vote was. It is not pretended that the returns made are not in point of fact true, or that they did not give the actual votes cast in the counties; but it is claimed by the contestant that they did not give abstracts, but gave the whole votes in aggregate. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled an act (S. No. 225) for the relief of the owners, officers, and crew of the Spanish bark Providencia; when the Speaker signed the same. NEBRASKA CONTESTED ELECTION-AGAIN. Mr. DAWES. It was our duty to go behind the returns and find what the vote was, there being no evidence that there was any fraud about the votes of these counties; and we had the testimony to enable us to come to a correct conclusion, and dispose of the whole case. with the knowledge of anybody but himself, set- Now, sir, I have gone over the whole case. It Mr. VOORHEES. I regret, Mr. Speaker, to have at any time to make an attempt to gain the attention of this House; and I certainly regret it at this late hour, for I know that members do not like to be delayed with keen appetites and empty stomachs. I have often thought that there was no stronger example of human selfishness than is presented by this House during the hearing of a contested-election case. A person once snugly ensconced in his own seat here seems to regard with great indifference the attempts of other per- || sons to enforce their rights to seats in the same body. But however little we may consider this question, and with whatever small degree of in- || formation we may vote upon it, it is to the parties in the contest a question of most vital importance and interest a question which may for all time to come affect the future prospects, hopes, and destinies of one or other of these men; and it seems to me that as reasoning, reflecting, and conscientious men, we should give to matters of this kind our most earnest attention. Mr. Speaker, I have always listened with great pleasure to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAWES,] and it is tolerably well known that I am somewhat a believer in him, if not one of his admirers. But I must say, that to-day I have listened to him with a degree of pain, and lamented the tenacity with which he clings to the system of errors on which his argument is founded. If it were not a matter in which deep personal interests were involved, it would perhaps have been an amusement to me; as it is, however, the matter is too serious for such a feeling. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to revert to the starting point in this case; and if I do not prove to the House that this is one of the most extraordinary cases that was ever submitted to an American Congress, I will agree that my judgment may go for naught. On the 5th day of July, or perhaps, more correctly speaking, on the 4th of July last, these two men presented their claims to be mem There is another point to which I wish to refer. I stated in the outset that the matter of the two certificates one given to the contestant by the Governor of the Territory, and the other given subsequently by the same Governor to the sitting Delegate-came before the House at the extra session, and the House passed upon them and gave the sitting Delegate the right to hold the seat during the contest. The contestant then memorialized the House for a rehearing. The committee reported upon his memorial, and the House again decided that the sitting Delegate should continue to hold the seat. They thus passed upon the matter of the certificates. The contestant has, however, insisted before the committee in the hearing upon the merits, on going into the matter of the validity of the two certificates. The committee were of opinion that the question having been passed upon by the House, it was no longer before them, and their business was to inquire into the merits of the case without regard to the certificates. But the contestant offered to prove to the committee that the certificate upon which the sitting Delegate was admitted to the seat was a forgery upon the part of the then Governor of the Territory-not, however, implicating the sitting Delegate; that the then Governor of the Territory had got into a personal quarrel or difficulty ||bers of this body. What was their attitude before with the contestant, and to avenge himself upon him had gone and made out a new certificate and given it to the sitting Delegate; that he did it after he had ceased to be Governor, and that the seal upon the certificate of the sitting Delegate was a seal borrowed from something else and put upon it. This was his offer. It was an offer made at the last moment of the hearing. The sitting Delegate, while denying that allegation, consented that the witness by whom the contestant proposed to prove it might be examined, provided he should have an opportunity to produce witnesses to rebut the evidence, and also to prove that the certificate held by the contestant was obtained by bribery. This the contestant declined to agree to, because he said it would protract the hearing so long as to amount to a denial of justice to him. He asked that he might be permitted to introduce one witness to prove that the sitting Delegate's certificate was a forgery. The sitting Delegate was willing to consent to that, provided that he might introduce rebutting testimony, and might be permitted to attack the certificate of the contestant. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. CRISFIELD. I move that the House do now adjourn. Mr. DAWES. Allow me five minutes to complete my statement of the case. Mr. CRISFIELD. I withdraw my motion. the House, and how came they here? 1 ask mem- Mr. DAWES. The committee was of opinion-contesting his seat here. How that name got on that the certificate had been, whether rightly or wrongly, passed upon by the House at the last session, and that the committee had nothing to do with that certificate, but must inquire into the merits of the case. We therefore declined to hear testimony on either side. The contestant, however, produced an affidavit, not taken on notice or was called. By an unjust, certainly by an unreflecting, vote of the House, Mr. Daily was allowed to take his seat as sitting member; and the man who came here with his certificate-as good as yours or mine, or that of any man on this floor -was turned from the bar of the House and compelled to contest his way back to this Hall, or abandon his clear and legal right to a seat. Now, starting with a proposition of this kind, I generally find, in my transactions with men, that nothing fair follows such a beginning. That is my experience. I now wish, Mr. Speaker, to call attention to the nature and character of the certificate of the sitting member, [Mr. DAILY.] I think it the beginning of fraud, a fountain of uncleanness-especially on the part of the sitting member-a fountain of impurity, from which nothing has flowed entitled to the consideration or respect of this House. I hold in my hand the two original certificates. There is the certificate presented by Mr. Morton, declaring him duly elected under the forms of law, with all the guarantees of law. He came here and presented it, and found here a man presenting this thing, [holding up Mr. Daily's pretended certificate,] dated when? This election took place in October, 1860. Mr. Morton got his certificate November 2, 1860-the gentleman who now stands in the anomalous position of a contestant for this seat. Here is the certificate presented by the sitting Delegate, dated the 29th of April, 1861, nearly two months after Mr. Morton's term of office had commenced, nearly two months after the 4th of March, when he was entitled to all the privileges and immunities of a member of Congress, and from which time he was entitled to date the beginning of his pay as such. Another man, the sitting Delegate, presented a certificate here, bearing date, as I have stated, the 29th of April, 1861. Now, what kind of a question does this present? Let us look at it for a moment. There are some reasons injected into the body of this certificate why the second certificate was given. But that question was all argued here at the extra session, and argued on my side of it by the gentleman from Massachusetts himself. He argued the Governor had no right, for any reason whatever, to give his second certificate. In order to satisfy the House on that point I have turned back to the debates of that period, in which I find the gentleman from Massachusetts holding the following language Mr. DAWES. I will save the gentleman that trouble. I agree to it now. Mr. VOORHEES. I know you admit it, but I would rather prove it. Mr. DAWES. You never heard me say anything to the contrary. Mr. VOORHEES. Very well. That is a good starting point. The admission is that this certificate on which the gentleman from Nebraska has been holding his seat here for nearly a year is an illegal document which gives him no right here. The gentleman from Massachusetts admits it, and if that be anything to strengthen the case before fair-minded men for the sitting Delegate, he is welcome to it. The certificate is now admitted to be worthless and cannot do him any good. I certainly had a right to suppose that that was the position of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and commend the candor of his admission. Very well, we have now the confession of the the chairman of the Committee of Elections that the sitting Delegate has taken and held his seat on an invalid certificate, we have the confession that he obtained the possession of a seat upon this floor upon a paper now admitted by the chairman of the Committee of Elections to have been invalid and illegal. Now, I shall prove that besides being invalid and illegal, it was fraudulent. Mr. DAWES. The gentleman will please state me correctly. I said in the House last July what I have stated in the committee-room, and what I am willing to state any where, that after the Governor of Nebraska had given one certificate to the now contestant, he had no authority to give another. That is a question, however, outside the case now presented to the House. The House then determ determined wrong, it does not arise in considering the case now upon its merits. the roll I do not know, you do not know, no man Mr. VOORHEES. Yes, sir; and I say to the gentleman that up to this day I have had much more complaint to make against the action of the 1862. THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. House than against the conduct.of the gentleman from Massachusetts. But let me say that in his remarks to-day, as the advocate or apologist of the action of the House in this respect, he has done Mr. Morton great injustice. Mr. DAWES. I hope the gentleman will allow me to say that I have never advocated that position assumed by the House in my life, on any occasion. I have stated, in support of the conclusions of the committee, that the matter referred to them by the House to inquire, upon the merits of the contest, which of these parties had the greatest number of legal votes cast for him, had nothing to do with the point which the gentleman presents. The committee were instructed to go to the polls and to the returns to inquire which party received the greatest number of legal votes, and they addressed themselves to that duty. I knew very well all along what was to come, namely, that the there would be an attempt to argue more upon invalidity of the certificate of the sitting Delegate than there would be to reach the merits of the contest by showing that a majority of votes were cast for the contestant. Mr. VOORHEES. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some old lawyers sitting round me, who have practiced long in courts of justice in the country where they live; I submit to them and to every man here, whatever his profession may be, that when a party comes into a court of justice, the basis of his action being a deed, a note, or bond, which is found to be illegal, fraudulent, and invalid, it taints and corrupts his whole case, it vitiates it and covers it over with suspicion from beginning to end. And that this is the case of the sitting Delegate now does not rest upon my own mere naked assertion. It is a maxim of law with which the gentleman from Massachusetts is of course familiar, and I have no doubt he has anticipated the reply I would make upon this point, that everything is to be construed against a party under these circumstances, that he who vitiates titles, destroys papers, or manufactures them, he who corrupts or changes them, should have every thing construed against him from that point on. That is the point I make, and the reason I make it is, that it is in accordance with the logical propriety of things, that when the sitting Delegate from Nebraska commences this proceeding himself in fraud, there is the place to commence the discussion and make an exposure of the fraudulent credentials with which he, by some means procured his name to be inserted on the rolls of this House, and by virtue of which the gentleman from Massachusetts himself declared his title to his seat illegal and invalid. Sir, I go with the gentleman from Massachusetts that far, and stand here to-day to assert not only its illegality and invalidity, but to add to its beauty by proving that it is fraudulent. Why do I make that statement? I hold in my hand the certificate brought here by the sitting Delegate. It was before he committee. I would submit it to any sworn jury of twelve men whether it does not bear upon its face the evidence of forgery. I will submit it to any fair-minded man in the House whether it is not a forgery, not in the name, but a forgery in the seal. I do not ask you to take my assertion, for I have here the evidence. The paper bears upon itself the evidence that the great seal of the Territory of Nebraska has been forged and stuck on with the finger, not by the legal stamp. The paper has not the mark of the iron upon it, which constitutes the seal. Now, in connection with this matter, I wish to read an affidavit. The gentleman from Massachusetts says, touching that point, and he is certainly one of the most combative and tenacious men I ever knew, to come from his cool section of country, and I somewhat admire him for ithe says that the evidence I am going to read must not be evidence before this House, because it was taken without notice, and he is going to visit upon Mr. Morton the penalty of a failure to give the notice. The SPEAKER. The Chair must remind the Mr. VOORHEES. I beg the pardon of the The SPEAKER. The Chair did not intend to Mr. DAWES. It certainly cannot be out of Mr. VOORHEES. Well, sir, I propose now "Mr. RICHARDSON. I offer the following resolution: Mr. DAWES. I beg the gentleman's pardon; Mr. VOORHEES. I am. That was the resolution which was passed by this House; and why was it introduced? It was because Mr. Morton had been driven out in a surreptitious manner from the enjoyment of a right to which no other person could properly set up a claim. Mr. DAWES. Does the gentleman read that resolution from the Journals of the House? Mr. VOORHEES. I read from the Globe. Mr. DAWES. I have here the resolution containing the instructions to the Committee of Elections in this case. Mr. VOORHEES. In what? Mr. DAWES. In the report of the committee. Mr. DAWES. Furnished, as I supposed, from Mr. VOORHEES. I will ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RICHARDSON] who is right? Mr. RICHARDSON. It was my intention that the resolution should be drawn in that form, and it is my belief that the resolution was offered and adopted just as the gentleman from Indiana has read it. Mr. DAWES. The gentleman from Indiana reads the resolution as having the words in it, "without regard to notice of any kind." The copy I have furnished, I have had furnished to me and to the committee, reads simply without regard to the notice. That is all the difference there is. I want to ask my friend from Indiana now, while I am upon the floor, whether he supposes that that referred to the notice in regard to taking testimony or the notice specified in the statute relative to contesting the seat of the sitting member. Mr. VOORHEES. Most undoubtedly in regard to taking testimony, because that was deemed of essential importance. The changed relations of the parties demanded-imperatively demanded -some such saving resolution in favor of the contestant's rights, or he would have had none at all. It refers to giving notice looking to the presentation of evidence, so that the parties would have an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, looking to the object in view of a decision between the parties in this contest. The papers contesting the seat of the Delegate from Nebraska were referred to the Committee of Elections. Why was that done? It was that they should be authorized to investigate upon all the evidence that should be submitted to them in this case, not to Let us settle the question as we go along; and Resolved, That the papers in the case of the contested seat for Delegate from the Territory of Nebraska be referred to the Committee of Elections, and that they be authorized to investigate and report on the same, without regard to notice; and that all other cases of contests for seats in this House be also referred to that committee for investigation and report. Mr. DAWES. That is the resolution word for word, as I have quoted it. Mr. VOORHEES. Did the gentleman's resolution have in it the words "without regard to notice?" Mr. DAWES. In the resolution, as I read it, the words were included "without regard to "without regard to notice;" but it did not say notice of any kind." The gentleman read the resolution as including the words “without regard to notice" or anything of that kind. Mr. VOORHEES. That is the Globe report, and this is the same. The Globe says that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RICHARDSON] introduced his resolution as I have read it, and that then the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] moved to amend the resolution so that it would include the papers in all the contested-election cases upon the Speaker's table at that time. Taking that amendment, with the resolution as it was offered by the gentleman from Illinois, we have the resolution as it now reads upon the Journal. Mr. DAWES. That is exactly what I have read. Mr. VOORHEES. Then I have got the gentleman to agree with me again, that it was shown to be "without regard to notice," and that strikes down the whole of his argument here. Mr. DAWES. Will my friend tell the House whether he only meant a notice of contest? Mr. VOORHEES. I have answered that question once already, and I have given the reasons why my answer is reasonable and sensible, and why none other can be. Mr. DAWES. What does the resolution require us to investigate except the testimony referred to us? Mr. VOORHEES. Most undoubtedly it rebefore you, whether then taken or taken afterquires us to investigate the testimony furnished wards, and that term "notice" would have no What else could it meaning if it were not so. refer to? Mr. DAWES. I know that I am taking up the gentleman's time, and I hope that he will pardon me if I occupy the floor for a single moment further, by referring to the statute of 1851, that it is required that the notice of contest should be filed within a certain time, and if this resolution had not been adopted, the contestant in this case, at this time, would have been deprived of any opportunity to contest the right of the sitting member to hold a seat upon this floor. That is the notice to which I refer. Now, did the gentleman from Indiana suppose that the resolution authorized these parties to go out and gather up all sorts of ex parte testimony outside of the hearing and the sight of each other? Mr. WICKLIFFE. As it is very late, if the I will move that the gentleman will permit me, House adjourn. Mr. VOORHEES. I cannot yield for that purpose at this time; and I will say, in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that I yield with pleasure to his interruption. I have answered twice the gentleman's inquiry in regard to what this notice refers to; and I will dwell on it, to see whether it is not reasonable. sinning in the light of day and in the face of knowledge. tion, not mine, went to the city of Omaha-Governor Black's residence was at Nebraska City, fifty miles from Omaha-and there, at the seat of government, Governor Black made out this certificate to me, which I took to my attorney, Judge Conk Again, before I leave this question of the certificate; talk to me about evidence! talk to me about challenging inquiry! I appeal to each member of the committee to know if I have stated incorrectlyling, and asked him whether I should accept it or any one point. Governor Black, it is well known, has been in this capital during the entire winter, and if investigation was desired, Mr. Morton was Here comes a man before the House who, by the The gentleman complains of the contestant that he did not furnish any testimony; that he furnished none in regard to the L'eau-qui-court precinct and other points; and with considerable power of ingenuity, he came to the conclusion that he had none to offer, or he would have offered it. On the point presented by this certificate let us see what testimony the contestant brought here. I hold in my hand the affidavit of Mr. Pentland, which will show the character of this case in its legitimate colors. It is as follows: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, City of Washington, ss: I, Andrew W. Pentland, formerly resident of the Territory of Nebraska, but more recently connected with the army of the Potomac, upon my oath depose and say: I am a relative of Samuel W. Black, formerly the Governor of Nebraska; that I was at his house in Nebraska City one day in May last, after he (Black) had been removed from the governorship of Nebraska, and Alvin Saunders had been appointed and had arrived in Nebraska, and had gone to Omaha That was after Governor Black's term of office had expired, after he had ceased to be Governor of Nebraska and that at the private residence of the said Samuel W. Black, at Nebraska City, in the month of May, 1861, in the presence of Samuel G. Daily and Samuel W. Black, I copied for the said Black and Daily a certificate of election to Congress which he (Black) then and there, in my presence and in Daily's presence, did sign and give to Mr. Daily, first, however, sticking upon the said certificate a green wafer, which had been under the great seal of the Territory I would not vote for any man, I care not what else he would present in the case, who would bedaub and defile his title deed by a transaction of this kind and the said certificate was made by date to appear to have been issued some time previous, and by Black in his executive capacity of Governor of Nebraska. Furthermore this deponent is willing to go before the Committee of Elections for the House of Representatives of the Thirty-Seventh Congress and be examined and crossexamined upon all the above subject-matter. A. W. PENTLAND. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 4th day of March, A. D. 1862. F. I. MURPHY, J. P. [L. 6.] Ah, this is not evidence, say the committee. Why not? Under the resolution I have quoted from the extra session, it is clear, legitimate, and proper evidence. But further. If that would not do, Mr. Morton offered to bring the witness himself before the committee in proper person. That was refused, and it is to be abserved here that it was not for the want of proper notice. Now, Mr. Speaker, thus having disposed of the claim which the sitting member from Nebraska has to a seat upon this floor, I am going to depart from that branch of the case by asking the members of this House, by their votes, to consider well whether they are willing to dignify this kind of title into an equality with their own, and I ask the members of this House if they have any further doubt as to the fraudulent and forged churacter of this certificate, issued six or eight months after the legal canvass and award of the certificate to Mr. Morton, two months after his term of service as Delegate had commenced, and after Governor Black had retired from the gubernatorial chair of the Territory of Nebraska. If they have any further doubt, with all these circumstances of fraud clinging about it, let them look at the seal and impression and say whether they can find it in their consciences and hearts to indorse and sanction such a fraud and such an imposition upon the confidence and credulity of this House. It was done once-last July. It is enough that it was done once; let it not be done twice. An old Chinese proverb says, "deceive me once, it is my misfortune; deceive me twice, it is my fault." This House has been deceived once, and it was our misfortune. If we are deceived again in a transaction of this kind, it is our fault, and we become a party to this fraud with our eyes open, and willing to have Mr. Daily bring Black before it also; and I know that it is no fault of the contestant that they did not appear, and yet investigation before the committee upon that point was smothered. I wish to advert to another point of a similar character in regard to that testimony. Did the gentleman ap Mr. WORCESTER. peal to the committee? Mr. VOORHEES. Yes, sir; and I will hear any statement the gentleman has to make. Mr. WORCESTER. I would inquire of the gentleman whether it was not proposed by the sitting member to call Mr. Black before the committee to take his testimony? Mr. VOORHEES. I ask the gentleman if Mr. Daily's proposition was not to open wide the doors once more, and to go back and hunt up testimony de novo? That was the sitting member's proposition. I aver that the contestant proposed to introduce Pentland, and cheerfully and willingly to accord to the contestee the right to call Black. Mr. MOORHEAD. Will the gentleman permit me to say a word about this man Pentland? Mr. VOORHEES. Yes, sir. Mr. MOORHEAD. I know this man Pentland very well. I have known him from boyhood. He was the clerk of Governor Black. He came to my room and stated to me that this paper which the gentleman refers to, and which was discovered to be in his handwriting, was copied from the original paper which had been signed and executed when Black was Governor; that the original paper had become mutilated and soiled, and that it became necessary to make a copy. Mr. RICHARDSON. Allow me one remark just here. Is the gentleman willing to allow Mr. Pentland to come forward himself and testify about the facts of that transaction? He is in town. Mr. MOORHEAD. I have no objection. I should be very glad to have it done, because I know that he will testify to what I have stated here. Mr. VOORHEES. Docs the gentleman from Pennsylvania know when the term of office of Governor Black expired? Mr. MOORHEAD. No, sir. Mr. VOORHEES. I suppose not, or the gentleman would not have made the remark he did. Mr THOMAS, of Massachusetts. I would like to hear from the sitting Delegate whether the statement in that affidavit is correct or not. Mr. DAILY. I will answer the gentleman. I did not know, though the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES] asserts it with such positiveness, that there was an affidavit made by Pentland, which the contestant offered to introduce. It escaped me, though I was before the committee all the time, and I did not know that fact until after the decision and report of the committee were made, when I heard of it from the chairman of the committee. I understood the contestant to offer to introduce Mr. Pentland, to prove thus and so by him, to which I replied that I was willing that he should be introduced and examined, provided I was permitted to bring other evidence to contradict anything which he should say that I did not like. And I referred to the evidence; I referred to Judge Conkling, my attorney, and I said that I could prove by him that I took this certificate from Governor Black. I asked Judge Conkling whether he would advise me to accept the certificate. He said he thought I had a perfect case, and he would not accept anything at his hands. It was made before Governor Black's term of office expired. Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. This paper? Mr. DAILY. This identical paper was made before his term of office expired. Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. Are the facts stated in relation to the mode in which that paper was obtained, true or not? Mr. DAILY. I will state how the paper was prepared. Governor Black and I, at his solicita not. He advised me not to accept it. I then went to my other attorney, Mr. Lapp, and asked him. He advised me to accept it, saying that it could do no harm and perhaps it might do good. He said it was good and right in law. I therefore told Governor Black that I would accept the certificate. Governor Black took the certificate and put it into his pocket and started for home. For some reason, he got off the boat before he got home. In a day or two he came home. I went then to him and asked him for the certificate. He delivered it to me, but said it was so rumpled and such a poor handwrite (being his own hand) that it should be copied, and he gave it to Pentland, his clerk, to copy it. Pentland copied it, gave it to Black, and Black took from his desk a blank seal which had been stamped, and which he had in his house at Nebraska City, and attached it to the certificate, and then gave the certificate to me. He was then still acting Governor of Nebraska Territory. Mr. MORTON, (the contestant.) I would ask the gentleman whether Governor Black or any other party ever gave me notice that any such certificate was in existence? Mr. DAILY. No, sir; except this: Governor Black requested me not to. He said he was hounded by this man Morton, who had a debt against him upon which he would stop his property and prevent him from going away, and he desired that nothing should be said about it until after he got away. So I did not mention it. But for fear that this would be charged as a trick, when I came on here and considered that question, I caused a telegram to be sent to the papers, more than a week before the commencement of the session of Congress, stating that I had such a certificate, and yet Morton comes forward and says he did not know it until the 4th of July. For fear that very charge might be made, I heralded it upon the wings of the telegraph that I had the certificate. Mr. VOORHEES. Now, Mr. Speaker, just let us sum up these facts as we go along and have a distinct understanding. Mr. DAILY. One thing I forgot, if the gentleman from Indiana will allow me to add it. Mr. VOORHEES. I shall have to decline, unless my time is to be extended. [Cries of "Agreed!" Then I yield to the gentleman. Mr. DAILY. I desire to say here to the House and the country, that this Governor Black was not my Governor, nor the Governor of my party, nor did I go to Governor Black. Governor Black came to me, and offered to give me this certificate, stating at the time that he had been convinced that I was elected from the evidence that had been taken for it will be remembered that at that time the evidence had been taken in regard to this outrageous fraud in L'eau-qui-court county. He said that the vote in that county was not only fraudulent, but that it was an absolute fraud, and that he felt it to be his duty, as a man and as a Governor, to do me justice, and to give me a certificate revoking the former certificate, and giving the reasons why he revoked it. It is well known in Nebraska that this vote in L'eau-qui-court county was an absolute fraud. Mr. VOORHEES claimed the floor. Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman let me move to adjourn? Mr. VOORHEES. I wish to close what few remarks I have to make this evening. Mr. DAWES. The gentleman can close them better in the morning. Mr. VOORHEES. I hope the gentleman will have some sympathy for a young and inexperienced member, and let me get through. [Laughter.] The conduct of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. DAILY] reminds me that it is not the first time I have seen a confederate in a dishonorable transaction turn round and repudiate the person who helped him in time of need, It is the unkindest thing of all towards Colonel Black, that after all he did for the gentleman-and I think he did far more than any honorable man ought to do-to be kicked and spurned by the recipient of his bounty. It is a spectacle to be deplored. Mr. DAILY. Let me say one word. 1862. THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. Mr. VOORHEES. The gentleman can say it when I get through. The certificate upon which the sitting Delegate relies bears date the 29th day of April, 1861. Now, why was it, if he relied upon having a certificate of equal validity with the rest of us, that as late as the 28th day of May, a month after that certificate was issued, he was serving notices as contestant to take evidence to secure his seat here? Nobody knew better than he did the fraudulent character of that certificate. Nobody knew better than he did that he could not rest before the House and the country upon it, and hence he went on, with that limping, halting gait that the consciousness of wrong always gives to a man, partially leaning upon the certificate and partially upon the contest, doubling himself to the gaze of my friend, the contestant, and appearing in different attitudes and characters as he went along. Mr. Speaker, I have only time to reply to those points in the argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts which seemed to tell with most effect upon the House. I lay down the proposition, and from that I argue the case, that this claim of the sitting Delegate, being conceived and born in fraud and wrong, and coming here based upon an invalid title, at every subsequent stage of this proceeding it is tinctured with suspicion and with odium. In order that this may not rest upon my unsupported statement, let me call the attention of the House-if they will only hear me goodnaturedly for a moment-to some other testimony upon this point. My friend, the contestant, could not give notice to take testimony, as the law pre scribes for contested elections. The time for that had gone by. He had been stunned and overwhelmed by the edict of banishment from this Hall, and all the right that he had to contest his way back was under the saving clause put in for him by his friend from Illinois, [Mr. RICHARDSON.] Now, having stated that this was a fraudulent concern to begin with, let me show to this House what practices have been resorted to at its future stages to carry it out. The gentleman from Massachusetts challenges the whole vote of L'eauqui-court county, and the sitting Delegate from Nebraska says with stormy emphasis that it is well known in Nebraska that the whole vote was a fraud. Mr. DAILY. In the northern precinct, I mean. I, Hermann Westerman, of lawful age, late of L'eau-qui- and the said Heck fifty dollars for said service rendered as Sworn and subscribed to before me this 29th day of July, Justice of the Peace in and for the county of this proceeding. For, sir, when seven men living But I will not dwell on this L'eau-qui-court pre- Territory of Dakota, which accounts entirely for And this, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of case on Mr. Speaker, I have spoken strongly and plainly Mr. CRISFIELD. I move that the House do The motion was agreed to. IN SENATE. WEDNESDAY, May 7, 1862. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Dr. SUNDERLAND. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented two petitions of merchants, traders, and citizens of the city and State of New York, praying for the passage of a general uniform bankrupt law; which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. KENNEDY presented the petition of Thomas Blagden and others, praying compensation for a topographical map of the District of Columbia, seized by the War Department for the He also presented the petition of John W. Jen- mittee on the District of Columbia. He also presented the petition of W. Veirs Bowie, of Maryland, praying for the return of, or compensation for a slave alleged to have absconded and placed himself in a camp of Federal soldiers, and by them carried outside the limits of the State of Maryland; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. HARLAN presented three petitions from citizens of Iowa, praying for the construction of a ship canal between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi river; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia. JOHN SKIRVING. Mr. CLARK. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. C. C. No. 108) for the relief of John Skirving, have had the same under consideration, and directed me to report it back with a recommendation that it pass. I will ask that it be considered now, if there be no objection, and I will state the reason. The Senate have passed a bill precisely like this bill from the House of Representatives, which has gone to the House. The House, instead of passing our bill, sent back another; and we desire simply to pass the House bill, so that the matter may be disposed of now. There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to John Skirving the sum of $1,142, in full for his services in making designs, drawings, working drawings, and measurements, in and about the public buildings in the city of Washington, and other expenses attending the same, under the direction of the Commissioner of Public Buildings, from the year 1842 to the year 1852, inclusive. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. Mr. TEN EYCK, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 183) to provide for the settlement of the accounts of John A. Smith, clerk of the circuit court and criminal court of the District of Columbia, reported it without amendment. Mr. TRUMBULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 279) providing for the selection of jurors to serve in the several courts in the District of Columbia, reported it with amendments. Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom the subject was referred, reported a bill (S. No. 304) to authorize the appointment of medical storekeepers; which was read, and passed to a second reading. Mr. FESSENDEN. I am directed by the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 388) making appropriation to reimburse the contingent fund of the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, including compensation of additional clerks who may be employed according to the exigencies of the public service, and for temporary clerks for the current fiscal year and for the year ending June 30, 1863, to report the same back with an amendment. the I am also directed by the same committee to whom were referred the bill (H. R. No. 404) to pay of the two and three years volunteers, and provide for the deficiency in the appropriation for the officers and men actually employed in the western department, and the bill (H. R. No. 444) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved mendation that they do pass. August 5, 1861, to report them back with a recom These are very important bills, easily understood, and have been delayed for some time on |