Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Twenty-Third Congress Page: 4,349
This book is part of the collection entitled: Register of Debates and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
4349
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
4350
Mat 31, 1834.]
Kentucky Election.
[H. oi- K.
He was twenty-eight years old, and had been in business
in-Ohio and elsewhere, and* finally, had located himself
in Lexington, in the study of the law, returning' to his
father's occasionally. The facts are similar, and the prin-
ciples precisely the same as in the cases of C. A. Wiley
and the other Danville students.
That the minority have not proposed to take these two
votes from Mr. Letcher, at the same time they would re-
store to him those of the students who voted for him at
Danville, only proves that they did not advert to these
cases; for it is impossible to conceive that they intended
to affirm the right of students to vote for my competitor,
wherever they may be.
Independent of every other consideration, I do not
think it just in itself, nor that it will be very agreeable to
the people of my district, or any other in the United
States wherein colleges are situated, to see a parcel of
foreign young gentlemen, without an interest or feeling in
common with them, introduced into their elections to in-
fluence and control their right of suffrage. U is enough
that these strangers have the benefits of protection and
instruction, without setting tip to elect representatives
fur the farmers and other permanent residents, whose in-
terests are represented in Congress and the State Legis-
latures.
in relation to the changes which appear to have been
made in the Salvisa poll-book, I beg to refer the House to
the argument already presented by me. The sheriff and
judges of the election at Salvisa had no motive to change
five votes, and their high character is a sufficient guarantee
that the changes, it by them, were made honestly and
juatlyv and. in correction of errors. In my printed argu-
ment I have made copious extracts from a report pre-
sented by a distinguished lawyer, [Mr. B. Hardin,] as the
organ of the committee of the Senate of Kentucky, in a
contested election between Mason and Williams, in which
the point is decided, that no parol evidence can be admit-
ted to prove that a man voted otherwise than is shown by
the poll-book. Here Mr. M. read the following extracts
from the report of Mr. Hardin:
" Robert Rayburn intended to have voted for Williams,
but his name was set down for Mason. The committee
would not permit his vote to be changed. Andrew Arm-
strong did not vote for Mason, as proved by a person
who heard him vote, but the name was set down for
Mason, and the committee would not permit it to be
taken off.
" In the case of Robert Rayburn and Andrew Arm-
strong, the committee considered that it was a dangerous
precedent, to permit a vote that was given one way to be
changed by parol proof that it was given or intended to
be g'iven another way.
"John Moss voted for Williams: proved that he intend-
ed to vote for Mason. The vote was not changed, for
the same reason that Rayburn and Armstrong's votes were
refused to be changed."
The doctrine is, (and it is one which cannot be contest-
ed,) that, so far as relates to the giving of the votes for
one candidate or another, the evidence of the poll-book
must be taken as conclusive, and no parol proof can be
introduced to contradict it. It is considered much safer
to rely upon the integrity of sworn judges of high char-
acter, than to admit the evidence of individual voters to
convict them of error.
On many points injurious to my interests I cannot but
consider the decisions of a majority of the committee as
erroneous. It was proved that the votes of three deaf
and dumb persons were recorded for Mr. Letcher in Lin-
coln couniy. I have heretofore shown that the constitu-
tion requires all votes to be given in Kentucky viva voce,
or with an audible voice; and as this is impossible for deaf
and dumb persons, they are not constitutionally entitled
to vote. As before, I do not now deny that educated
deaf and dumb persons ought to possess the privilege of
suffrage, but that the change which has taken place in
their condition, since the constitution was formed, has not
altered the constitution.
In the case of John Brady, also, the committee have
done me manifest wrong, and affirmed a principle which
I consider in the highest degree dangerous to the purity
of elections. He voted for me on the first day of the
election, intentionally, " publicly and personally," viva
voce, and so his vote was recorded. After it was given,
he fell in company with some of the friends of my com-
petitor, who undertook to satisfy him that he had voted
wrong, and " coaxed" or persuaded him to go and re-
quest his vote to be taken off. It was done at his request,
and afterwards he voted for Mr. Letcher. Yet have the
committee decided that this vote ought not to be restored
to me!
Now, I maintain that, after a vote has been given,
" personally and publicly, viva voce," as diiected by the
constitution and laws, and correctly recorded, neither the
voter himself, nor the judges of the election, nor any
other power known to the laws, have any control over it.
The voter has as much right to come here and request a
change of his vote, as he has to make such a request of
the judges of the election ten minutes after his vote is
recorded, and this House has the same right to change it
now, as the judges would have then. The vote, when
once fairly given, is no longer his own, but belongs to the
public and the candidate for whom it was bona fide given.
This point is so clear as to need only to be stated to carry
conviction to every mind.
And what a scene shall we have in Kentucky, if men
are permitted to recall their votes, and vote for another
candidate, during the whole three days of election? It is
unnecessary to dwell upon it; for it will occur to the
imagination of all those who are acquainted with our sys-
tem of elections and the practice under it. The vote of
Brady I cannot doubt the House will restore to me and
take from Mr. Letcher.
In the decision of most general principles I most fully
concur with the majority of the committee; but in the
application of these principles they have certainly, as was
to be expected in so complicated a case, committed some
errors; and, unfortunately for me, they are chiefly in
favor of my competitor. As the House has undertaken
to revise their work, and correct their errors, I must beg
their attention to a few of these cases.
The vote of Levi Kid was struck from my poll as a
minor. The only evidence upon which this decision was
given is as follows, viz: (page 502.)
" The additional deposition of Robert McMillin, taken
at the same time and place, to be read in evidence in the
same case.
" Question by Letcher's counsel. Do you know Li Kid?
"Answer. I do.
" By same. Do you know his age?
" Answer. All that I know upon the subject is, that [
executed a warrant upon said Kid, returnable on the
fourth Saturday in November, upon a note executed some
twelve months previous, at which time he put in the plea
that he was not of age at the time of the execution of the
note; and that said Levi Kid had his mother summoned at
that time, and she swore that he was not of the age of
twenty-one years until some time in September, 1833—I
think the 14th.
" By same. Did Levi Kid vote at last election, and for
whom did he vote?
"Answer. On examination of the poll-book, I find his
name recorded for Moore.
" By same. Do you know of any other Levi Kid in this
county?
"Answer. I do not. And further this deponent saith
not. "R. McMlLLIN."
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Twenty-Third Congress, book, 1834; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30759/m1/89/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.