[Eleventh Congress-First session.]

STANLEY GRISWOLD,

Senator from Ohio from June 2 to December 11, 1809.

Stanley Griswold had resided in Ohio from September, 1808, till May 18, 1809, when he was ap pointed by the governor of that State to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate. It was deter mined that the term of residence or other qualifications necessary to entitle a person to become an inhabitant of the State not being defined either by the constitution or laws of the State, the certificate of the governor that a person was a citizen thereof was sufficient for the Senate to proceed upon, he being otherwise entitled thereto.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Annals of Congress, 11th Cong., 1st and 2d sess., vol. 1, 1809-'10, within pages 23-37; together with the report of the committee in the case, copied from the original on file in the office of the Secretary of the Senate.

FRIDAY, June 2, 1809.

Stanley Griswold, appointed a Senator by the executive of the State of Ohio to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Edward Tiffin, was qualified and took his seat.

Resolved, That a committee of elections be appointed.

FRIDAY, June 9, 1809.

Ordered, That Messrs. Hillhouse, Giles, Crawford, Franklin, and Robinson be the committee.

On motion by Mr. Hillhouse,

Ordered, That the credentials of Stanley Griswold, appointed a Senator by the executive of the State of Ohio, be referred to this committee.

THURSDAY, June 15, 1809.

Mr. Hillhouse, from the Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the credentials of Stanley Griswold, esq., appointed a Senator of the United States by the executive of the State of Ohio, made report.

Whereupon,

Resolved, That Stanley Griswold, appointed by the governor of the State of Ohio as a Senator of the United States, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Edward Tiffin, is entitled to his seat.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

Mr. Hillhouse, from the Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the credentials of an appointment by the governor of the State of Ohio of Stanley Griswold as a Senator of the United States, having had the same under consideration, reported:

That Edward Tiffin, a Senator for the State of Ohio, resigned his seat since the last session of the legislature of said State, and during their recess. That on the 18th day of May last, and during said recess of said legislature, said Stanley Griswold was appointed by the governor of said State to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation aforesaid. That said Stanley Griswold, being a citizen of the United States, removed into the said State of Ohio and has there resided since September last, but the term of residence or other qualifications necessary to entitle a person to become an inhabitant of said State are not, so far as the committee have been able to discover, defined either by the constitution or laws of said State; but the executive who made the appointment having certified that said Stanley Griswold is a citizen of said State, the committee submit the following resolution.

[Resolution given above.]

[Thirteenth Congress-Third session.]

JESSE BLEDSOE,

Senator from Kentucky from March 4, 1813, to December 24, 1814.

January 20, 1815, Mr. Bledsoe addressed a letter to the President of the Senate setting forth these facts: That previous to the 24th of the December preceding he had forwarded his resignation to the governor of the State to take place on that day, to be by the governor communicated to the legislature; that he had been advised by letter that the governor had received the resignation and would hold it up in the hope of hearing from him of a change in his determination on the subject, until about the last of that month, when he (the governor) would communicate it to the legislature; that newspaper information stated that the governor had done so, and that his successor had been appointed, which latter fact he had been informed was also stated in a letter to a gentleman of the House of Representatives; that he had received no more information. Mr. Bledsoe desired to know whether, under these circumstances, he was to be considered still a member of the Senate. It was determined that the facts stated in the letter to the President of the Senate vacated Mr. Bledsoe's seat, the grounds on which the Senate proceeded not being given. It appears from the Journals of the Senate that Isham Talbot produced credentials of election to fill Mr. Bledsoe's unexpired term February 2, 1815, and took his seat on the same day.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 1814-'15, vol. 3, pages 175, 176.

FRIDAY, January 20, 1815. The President laid before the Senate a letter from the Hon. Mr. Bledsoe, as follows:

WASHINGTON, January 20, 1815.

SIR: Doubts having arisen whether I have a right still to fill my seat in the Senate of the United States, with a view to have the question settled and a precedent established, and to save my own feelings on a point of duty, I beg leave, through you, to submit the following case for the decision of that honorable body:

Previous to the 24th December last I forwarded by mail my resignation to the governor of the State of Kentucky, to take place on that day, to be by him communicated to the legislature of that State then and, so far as I am informed, still in session. I was by a letter from the governor of that State advised that he had received my resignation and would hold it up, in the hope of hearing from me and of a change in my determination on that subject, until about the last of that month, when he would communicate it to the legislature. Newspaper information states that he did so, and that my successor has been appointed, which latter fact is also stated in a letter to a gentleman of the House of Representatives, as I have been informed. This is all the information I have received. Whether, under these circumstances, I am to be considered as still a member will be for the honorable Senate to decide. Wishing it to be understood I have no other solicitude as to the result than to be informed of my duty, which is concerned in continuing in my place if I have a right to do so,

I am, with high respect, your most obedient servant,

The Hon. JOHN GAILLARD,

President of the Senate.

And the letter was read.

Whereupon

Mr. Roberts submitted the following motion:

J. BLEDSOE.

"Resolved, That the facts stated in the letter of the Hon. Jesse Bledsoe addressed to the President of the Senate do not vacate his seat in the Senate."

A motion was made by Mr. King to amend the resolution by striking out therefrom the word "not;" and it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 25, nays 8; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Barbour, Brown, Chace, Daggett, Fromentin, Gaillard, German, Giles, Goldsborough, Gore, Horsey, Howell, Hunter, Kerr, King, Lambert, Mason, Morrow, Robinson, Tait, Taylor, Thompson, Wells, and Wharton.

NAYS-Messrs. Bibb, Condit, Dana, Lacock, Roberts, Smith, Turner, and Varnum. On the question, Shall the resolution pass as amended? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 27, nays 6; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Barbour, Brown, Chace, Daggett, Fromentin, Gaillard, German, Giles, Goldsborough, Gore, Horsey, Howell, Hunter, Kerr, King, Lacock, Lambert, Mason, Morrow, Robinson, Tait, Taylor, Thompson, Turner, Wells, and Wharton. NAYS-Messrs. Bibb, Condit, Dana, Roberts, Smith, and Varnum.

So it was

Resolved, That the facts stated in the letter of the Hon. Jesse Bledsoe addressed to the President of the Senate do vacate his seat in the Senate.

[Twentieth Congress-First session.]

EPHRAIM BATEMAN,

Senator from New Jersey from December 7, 1826, till January 12, 1829, when he resigned.

Mr. Bateman's first term expired March 3, 1827. February 26, 1827, his credentials of election for the succeeding term were presented to the Senate. February 28, 1827, a remonstrance of a number of members of the general assembly of the State against the legality of the election was communicated to the Senate and ordered to lie on the table. December 3, 1827, Mr. Bateman took his seat. May 6, 1828, the remonstrance was referred to a select committee of five. It was to the effect that the election ought to be declared null and void for the reason that Mr. Bateman, being chairman of the joint meeting of the two houses of the legislature, had voted for himself. It stated that Theodore Frelinghuysen had 28 votes and Mr. Bateman 29, and claimed that Mr. Bateman was elected "by his own vote, without which he neither could nor would have been elected," and that it was "repugnant to the fundamental principles of our free institutions that the same man, at the same time, should be both candidate and elector." May 22, the committee reported the facts in regard to the election to be as stated in the remonstrance. On a preliminary point discussed, it reported that the Senate was "empowered by the Constitution to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members, and could not therefore be precluded by the commission emanating from the executive of a State from any inquiry which is necessary to the exercise of that judgment." On the chief point before the committee it reported that Mr. Bateman "was a member of the legislature of New Jersey, duly elected, and competent to the exercise of every legislative power not forbidden by its laws, among which the right to vote in the election of a Senator was one." The committee recommended the adoption of a resolution discharging the committee from the further consideration of the subject, which was agreed to.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Senate Journals, 2d sess. 19th Cong., 1826-27, and 1st sess. 20th Cong., 1827-28, with the report of the committee from Senate Documents, 1st sess. 20th Cong., vol. 5, Doc. No. 202, pages 1-3. The documents relating to the case which were printed are found in the volume of Senate Documents above referred to, Doc. No. 202, pages 4-21. It appears from Niles' Register, vol. 34, page 223, that some debate on the subject occurred, in which Messrs. Bateman, Van Buren, and Noble took part; but it is not there reported, nor is it found in the Congressional Debates.

MONDAY, February 26, 1827.

Mr. Dickerson communicated the credentials of the Hon. Ephraim Bateman, appointed a Senator by the legislature of the State of New Jersey for the term of six years, to commence on the 4th day of March next.

WEDNESDAY, February 28, 1827.

The Vice-President communicated a letter from Samuel J. Bayard, James S. Green, and John R. Thompson, inclosing the remonstrances of a number of the members of the legislative council and general assembly of New Jersey and of a number of citizens of that State against the legality of the election by the legislature of Ephraim Bateman to the Senate of the United States from the 3d of March next; and Ordered, That it lie on the table.

MONDAY, December 3, 1827.

The Hon. Ephraim Bateman, appointed a Senator by the legislature of the State of New Jersey for the term of six years commencing on the 4th day of March last, attended, and the oath prescribed by law was administered to him and he took his seat in the Senate.

On motion by Mr. Eaton,

TUESDAY, May 6, 1828.

Resolved, That the remonstrance presented to the Senate at the last session against the legality of the election by the legislature of New Jersey of Ephraim Bateman to the Senate of the United States be referred to a select committee, to consist of five members, to consider and report thereon.

Ordered, That Mr. Berrien, Mr. Tazewell, Mr. McLane, Mr. Seymore, and Mr. Sanford be the committee.

Mr. Bateman presented his answer to the remonstrance against his election; and Ordered, That it be referred to the last-mentioned committee.

Mr. Eaton laid on the table two papers relating to the subject of said remonstrance;

and

Ordered, That they be referred to the last-mentioned committee.

THURSDAY, May 22, 1828.

Mr. Berrien, from the select committee to whom was referred the memorial of sundry citizens of New Jersey touching the election of Ephraim Bateman, a Senator from that State, made a report, accompanied by a request to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject; and the committee was discharged accordingly.

On motion by Mr. Eaton,

Ordered, That the report and the documents connected with it be printed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 22, 1828.

Mr. Berrien made the following report:

The select committee to whom was referred the memorial of sundry citizens of New Jersey touching the election of Ephraim Bateman, a Senator from that State, report: That, by a reference to the proceedings of the legislature of New Jersey, assembled in joint meeting on the 9th November, 1826, of which a duly certified copy has been exhibited by the memorialists, it appears that an election for a Senator, to represent the said State of New Jersey in the Congress of the United States for six years from the 4th day of March then next ensuing, was on that day held; that Theodore Frelinghuysen, Ephraim Bateman, Thomas Chapman, and George K. Drake were put in nomination for the said appointment; that Ephraim Bateman was at that time a member of the said legislature of New Jersey, vice-president of the council and chairman of the joint meeting; that the names of Thomas Chapman and George K. Drake were with leave respectively withdrawn; that the said Ephraim Bateman thereafter withdrew from the chair of the joint meeting, and at his instance William B. Ewing, esq., was called to the same; and, on motion, the same was confirmed by the joint meeting; that, after some discussion as to the manner of proceeding, the said Ephraim Bateman returned to the assembly room and resumed the chair; that the secretary was thereupon directed to call the joint meeting, which being done, the members voting viva voce, it appeared that there were for Theodore Frelinghuysen 28 votes and for Ephraim Bateman 29 votes, and that the said Ephraim Bateman voted for himself, and was accordingly declared to be duly appointed.

It moreover appears to the committee that in virtue of such election, and the commission of the governor of New Jersey founded thereon, the said Ephraim Bateman now holds his seat in the Senate of the United States.

The memorialists object to the validity of this election, because the said Ephraim Bateman, being a member of the legislative council, vice-president of the State, and chairman of the joint meeting of the two houses of the legislature, permitted himself to be nominated as a candidate for the office of Senator in Congress of the United States; that he presided as chairman of the joint meeting during the said election; that, before the vote was taken, he made a motion that he should be excused from voting, because he was a candidate, and therefore interested; and, on the question being put on his said motion, voted that he should not be excused, the other members of the joint meeting being equally divided on the same; and that, on the vote for Senator for six years, the joint meeting, without the vote of the said Ephraim Bateman, being again equally divided, he, the said Ephraim Bateman, voted for himself.

The transcript of the proceedings of the legislature of New Jersey, which has been exhibited to the committee, does not show what motions were made and decided before the joint meeting proceeded to the election of a Senator; but it does show that on procceding to that election, the votes of the joint meeting were for Theodore Frelinghuysen 23 and for Ephraim Bateman 29, and that Ephraim Bateman voted for himself. The question, therefore, which is presented to the consideration of the committee is whether this act invalidates the election.

On the preliminary point which is discussed in the argument forwarded in behalf of the memorialists, as well as in that submitted by the respondent, and which relates to the right of the Senate to look behind the commission granted by the governor, the committee cannot permit themselves to entertain a doubt.

The Senate is empowered by the Constitution to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members, and cannot therefore be precluded by the commission emanating from the executive of a State from any inquiry which is necessary to the exercise of that judgment. If this were not so, the governor of a State, by an abuse of his trust, either from misapprehension or design, might assume to himself the appointing power in exclusion of the legislature.

The question whether the election of the respondent is invalidated by the fact that he voted for himself, and that without such vote he had not a majority of the votes of the

joint meeting by which he was declared to be elected, is then forced upon the attention of the committee.

The following clauses of the Constitution of the United States relate to the manner of election:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, who shall be chosen by the legislature thereof."

"The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

The legislature of New Jersey has enacted the following provision:

"Senators of the United States on the part of this State shall be appointed by the council and general assembly, in joint meeting assembled, at the place where the legislature shall then sit."

It is manifest from the aforegoing clauses that Congress may prescribe the mode of electing Senators, and that in the absence of any provision by them it is competent to the legislatures of the several States to do so. It seems equally clear that each State must possess the power of defining by its organic law the constituents of its own legislative department, of prescribing the qualifications of its members, and the limitations under which the trust confided to them shall be exercised; and that the interest of a member in any subject of legislative action may be declared to constitute, as to that subject, a ground of disqualification to the exercise of his legislative functions by such interested member. But no such provision exists. For aught that appears to the committee the respondent was a member of the legislature of New Jersey duly elected and competent to the exercise of every legislative power not forbidden by its laws, among which the right to vote in the election of a Senator was one. The committee have not considered the question of the propriety or delicacy of the act complained of by the memorialists as coming within the scope of the reference made to them by the Senate. Nor have they felt themselves at liberty to apply to this question any abstract principles of right or of that system of jurisprudence which, however its principles may have become intermingled with our statutory regulations or its rules of proceeding may be seen to operate in the forms which are in use in our judicial tribunals, has no intrinsic validity in those tribunals or in any other forum in the United States.

Contenting themselves with this brief view of the subject, it appears to the committee that the facts set forth in the memorial referred to them are not sufficient to invalidate the election of Ephraim Bateman as a Senator of the State of New Jersey in the Congress of the United States, under the election had in the joint meeting of the assembly of that State on the 9th day of November, 1826. They therefore recommend the following resolution:

Resolved, That the select committee raised on the remonstrance and petition of sundry citizens of the State of New Jersey be discharged from the further consideration of the

same.