THE BEATTY-PEELLE CONTEST.
Mr. WILDMAN called up the special order, viz: the majority and minority reports from the Committee on elections in the Beatty-Peelle contest for Representative from Laporte and Starke.
Mr. COFFROTH, being entitled to the floor, plead for the adoption of the minority report for unseating Mr. Peelle, and a new election. He had hoped the question before the House would be settled without regard to party feeling or party prejudice. He however, had been apprised of a caucus by the majority with special reference to the matter in hand, and he had no doubt the result was thatevery Republican had come into the House to-day, under the rule of the caucus, to present a united front in favor of the contestor. He regretted that such action had been taken, and severly reprobated the application of the party lash to secure success in a matter which should appeal to the calm, unbiased judgments of men, without regard to their political preferences.
He referred to the fact that the contestee, Mr. Peelle, had occupied a seat here thus far in the ression, feeling that upon strict construction perhaps, the temporary occupany of the office of Justice of the Peace rendered him ineligible, but as he came backed by a majority of the voters in his District, he believed himself justified by precedents of this House, in remaining here in the capacity of Representative. He here referred to two cases in which members disqualified by some temporary connection with other positions, had been permitted to hold their seats until the expiration of their terms, notwithstanding such disqualification. In this case, then, as the choice of his District, and confident that the other causes of contest filed by his opponent would be found insufficient for his removal, he has remain upon the floor of the House. He said, too, that the contestee certainly had good reason to hope, that a party, so many members of which had consented to accept high offices to which they were by the intent and spirit of the Constitution clearly ineligible, (referring to Governors accepting positions of United States Senator, and others in high office in the State displaying the same willingness) would not after permitting their party friends to hold positions on this floor, who were known to be ineligible, consent to dispossess him of his seat because of a like disqualification. He said that as this constitutional provision was evidently placed there to guard against fraud and corruption, and as it is evident in this case, since the incumbent, Mr. Peelle, did not, nor did the contestor know of his (Mr. Peelle's) ineligibility until two months alter his election, there was no fraudulent intentions, he believed all would conscientiously permit him to retain his seat here as a Representative of the district of which he is the undoubted choice.
He then proceeded to discuss the question, "Is the contest regularly before the House?" The election was held, he said, on the 13th day of October, and the notice of contest was filed to the 23d. The law requires that within ten days after the election the contestor shall file his notice of contest; specifying grounds. He here referred to the early decisions of the Supreme Court of the State, made to be sure in the days of its infancy, but perhaps as some claim in its palmier days, according to which the notice here filed would not be declared filed within the time prescribed. However, he believed that late decisions had overruled these, and not desiring to be capious, he would waive all objection that might be urged on that score.
The ground of contest given, with the notice filed was irregularity of election. This irregularity which consisted partly in the judges adjourning from the voting place, where there was no fire, to a point a mile distant, the gentleman next proceeded to show was as page: 276[View Page 276] he claimed, too frivolous to be effective. This and other trivial irregularities, he claimed--the proper grounds of contest--the majority of the committee do not pretend to decide upon at all, but report advising the dispossessing of the incumbent of his seat, and the placing therein of his competitor who was fairly beaten at the polls, wholly upon other grounds, viz: the ineligibility of the contestee, which was not stated with the notice of contest as required by law, and was not filed until the 11th of December, almost two months after the election. He here read the tenth section of article three of the Constitution declaring the House to be the exclusive judge of the qualifications of its own members, alluded to by the opposition; but proceeded to argue that the House must be governed in such cases as courts are governed by the law and evidence.
If there is no valid contest, while from the ineligibility of the holding member his seat may be declared vacant, he denied the right of the House to admit the contestor to the vacancy. He again took up the law requiring the filing of the causes of contest within ten days after election, laying great stress on the words of the law, ''shall file," &c., and going on to show that the cause which disseats the holding member, was not filed within the prescribed time.
Mr. OSBORN asked if the minority report did not admit all that the gentleman was endeavoring to defeat the force of; as a cause of contest, viz: the ineligibility of the holding member?
Mr. COFFROTH. Yes; but, while it unseats the holding member, it does not seek to fill the vacancy with the contestor, who rests his claims for the seat wholly upon this ineligibility.
He claimed that a cause of contest entirely distinct in form and independent of any previously filed, setting forth subject matter in no way connected with the causes before filed, could in no sense be an amendment, any more than the buying of a new coat would be the mending of an old one, and therefore the argument of the opposition, that the practice of the courts under the civil code as to the amending of a complaint after action shall have been begun, does not apply to the case in hand.
Mr. BUSKIRK asked, whether in case a suit had been entered under the civil code upon a contract, the complaint might not be amended so radically as to introduce instead, a half dozen promissory notes?
Mr. COFFROTH said that it might, but he he could not see how that benefitted the gentleman's case, and went on to show its inapplicability in a neat an ingeniuous argument. He next proceeded to an investigation of the decisions of Judge Perkins, of the Supreme Court, in the case of Gulick vs. New, which he claimed, was to the effect that the ineligibility of a candidate was not destructive of the votes cast for him, to the extent of declaring the candidate receiving the next highest number of legal votes elected to the office. He claimed that by this decision the effect of a constitutional inelligibility on the part of a candidate receiving a majority of the votes at an election would be simply to declare such an election void, and return the matter again to the people. In support of this position he adduced several decision in other States, and the practice in Congress, the highest deliberative body in the nation.
He closed with an appeal to the Repulicans to act fairly and impartially, and warned them that if they would disregard the law, the evidence, and the courts, and follow the behests of party, that the retribution might follow quickly upon those successes of the party, now in minority, which the signs of the times indicate to be not far off.
When he had concluded--
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, took the floor and moved an adjournment.
And accordingly--
The House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
