Newspaper Page Text
And the yeas and nays being called, the
amendment was adopted, by yeas 34, nays 26—so the interest clause was striken oat. Mr. HUNT moved to amend the bill by making the certificates draw interest, and the vote being taken, was lost, by yeas 29, nays 34. The bill was then rejected on final pass* age, by yeas 38, nays 31—a constitutional majority not voting for it. appropriation bill. The Senate bill providing an appropria tion of 325,000 as a Legislative fund, for the payment of certificates of mileage, and with authority to the Auditor to issue State Warrants in lien of the certificates, was taken up iu the Committee of the Whole, and recommended final passage, which was agreed to, and the bill finally passed by yeas 41, nays 17. House adjourned. SENATE. Thursday, Jan. 5. The Senate was called to order by the President. Prayer by Rev. J. D. Pope The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. petitions. By Mr. FROST : From the citizens of Northfield, for the sale of school section in that town. Referred to Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. CLARK : For a State road from Portland, Lake Superior, via Oneota, to the Mississippi river. Referred to Com mittee on Roads and Bridges. A communication was received from the City Council of Hastings, against any amendments to their city charter, without their knowledge. Referred to delegation from Dakota. BILLS INTRODUCED. By Mr. EVANS : To provide for the destruction of blackbirds and other vermin. By Mr. HODGES : To authorize the formation of companies for mutual insurance against loss from cattle-stealing, &c., and for the detection of the thieves. By Mr. WATSON : To ascertain by proper proof who have the right to vote and to punish fraudulent voting. [This is a registry law.] By Mr. AVERILL : A bill for an act to amend an act entitled “ an act to establish the terms of the District Courts in the State of Minnesota,” passed August 12,1858. TOWN AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS Considerable discussion arose on the reso- by Mr. Bishop, to instruct the Committee on Towns and Counties to bring in a bill providing for a town government, and lor five county commissioners, instead of the present Board of Supervisors. The evils of the present system were universally acknowledged, and the object of the resolu tion was to take the sense of the Senate upon one of the maiD features of a bill hereafter to be introduced by the committee. The whole matter was disposed of by the adoption of the following resolution : Resolved.— That the Standing Committee on Towns aud Counties be instructed to confer with the Standing Committee on Towns and Couuties in the House, and report a bill pro viding for a Board of County Commissioners to consist of (blank) members to be elected in Districts in the Counties. The Senate then adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, Jan. 5, 1860. The House met at the usual hour, and opened with prayer by the Rev. J. F. Chaf fee. THE GOVERNOR’S MESSAGE Mr. GARRARD offered a resolution providing for the House Committee on Printing to confer with the Senate Printing Committee, in order to have 2000 copies of Gov. Ramsey’s message printed in English, and 500 each in the German, 500 in the Norwegian, aud 500 in the French langua ges. Mr. ROBERTSON moved to amend by printing 500 copies of Gov. Sibley’s mes sage, which was lost by yeas 19, nays 53. After ineffectual attempts to amend, the original resolution it was adopted, by yeas GO, nays 13. A GAG Mr. SHREWSBURY" offered a resolu tion denouncing Democratic members for the introduction ot resolutions concerning Har per’s Ferry, and upon the nigger question generally, and resolving that no resolutions of that kind should be introduced except by consent of a majority of the House. Mr. ROBER TSON said the Republicans had a majority and knew how to use it. He repelled the charge that the nigger question had been introduced into the House by Democrats. The gentleman from Ramsey, Mr. Acker, had introduced his Irrepressible Conflict resolutions first—he was not sur prised that the Republican party was ap palled at the visious before them, for all the history of the country, did not advocate sentiments more odious than lie at the root of the Republican party. As a party they did not dare to meet the issue, either in debate or without debate. They knew the principles of the party were obnoxious to the American people. The Democrats have not attempted to delay the business of the House, and he charged that the resolutions under consideration were false in this respect. He charged that their niggerism, their John Brown treason, their underground railroad, their trampling of the constitution under foot, had been the arguments brought before the people, to elect them to their present position ; but now they wanted to ignore their own principles. The machina tions of leading men in this party had al most brought this Union to a dissolution ; and their principles were such that fidelity to the country was treason to the Republi can party. Upon motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the resolutions were indefinitely postponed. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. McDONOUGH moved an amend ment to the Session Laws of 1858, vacating certain State Roads in Le Sueur county. Mr. PFAENDER introduced a memi orial to the President concerning the Indian Reservation of the Sioux, and asking relief for settlers upon lands in said reservation. Various bills were read a second time, and referred or ordered engrossed for third reading. Mr. SECOMBE submitted a bill to amend the Notary Law, so that bankers and brokers may be appointed Notaries Public. Mr. KINKEAD introduced .a. bill to tax civil actions in aid of the Judicial fund, which was read a first time. Mr. SECOMBE moved to amend Rule 8, to confine a speaker to five minutes, unless by consent of the House. Mr. ROBERTSON moved to amend, so that no member should be allowed to speak more than fifteen minutes on any subject, which was rejected, yeas 28j cays 38. The amendment to the Rule was then agreed to. Mr. STOEK offered a resolution that the House elect a Captain at a per diem of $1.50. Mr. ROBERTSON moved to amend that no John Brown Republican preacher be elected Chaplain. Mr. SECOMBE moved to lay the whole matter on the table, which was not agreed to, yeas 30, nays 37. The amendment of Mr. ROBERTSON was rejected. Mr. OLDS moved to strike out the per diem. Mr. SHREWSBURY hoped the resolu. tion would pass. The Republican members had become a stench and a by-word for their picayune conduct about a chaplain. He had always urged that the Republican party embraced the morality party, and he did not want to change his opinion. Mr. SWEET moved to amend, so that those voting for Chaplain should pay his per diem, which was accepted by Mr. Olds. The amendment was lost, and the resolu tion adopted, by yeas 42. nays 24. Revs. John Mattocks, W. S, King, J. F. Chaffee, and A.S. Fisk, were nominated for Chaplain. The House proceeded to an election, and on the eighth ballot, elected Rev. John Mattocks. The result of the ballots was as follows : BALLOTS. Ist 2d !3(l.|4th|stb 610 ;th Bth J. S. Chaffee 20 22! 29 27 20 17 23 14 A.S. risk 17 25i 27 24 21 18 23 13 John Mattocks 18 14 7 12 12 27 15 34 Scattering 4 l| I 111 The House then adjourned. SENATE. Friday, January 6. The Senate was called to order by the President. Prayer by Rev. John D. Pope. The journal of yesterday was read and approved. THE RULES OP THE SENATE. The resolution of Mr. McKusick came up, that the report of the Committee on Standing Rules (heretofore adopted) be referred to a select committee of three, con sisting of Messrs. Stannard, Robinson, and Baldwin of Sherburne, with instructions to report at as early a day as possible, such a code of rules as they may deem best for the Standing Rules of the Senate. Mr. ANDREWS rose to a point of order, that the resolution was out of order, the matter having been previously deter mined by the Senate—a reconsideration having been moved and lost. The President decided that the Senate had the right at any time to correct the journal—that the office of President remain ed notwithstanding the change of person— that the opinion of the former President can be revised by the present—that an ap peal can be taken in any and all cases from the decision of the President—and that the reconsideration of the vote by which the ruk-s were adopted did not require a two thirds vote, thus reversing the decision of President Holcombe, and that the resolution was in order. The question was called for, and the yeas and nays being called for and ordered, there were yeas 21, nays 12, as follows : Yeas— Messrs. Averill, F. E. Baldwin, J. F. Baldwin, Bartholomew, Bishop, Cook, Evans, Frost, Galloway, Gluck, Heaton, Hodges, Ken nedy, King, McKusick, McLaren, Rogers, Stan nard, Stewart, Watson, and Winn,—2l. Nays— Messrs. Adams, Andrews, Clarke, Cowan, Cruttenden, Hall, Nelson, Norris, Pet tit, Robinson, Stevens, and Taylor.—l 2. So the resolution was adopted. On motion of Mr. HEATON, the decis ions of the President of the Senate, revising the decisions of President Holcombe, were ordered to be spread upon the journal. The resolution empowering the Railroad Committee to send for persons and papers, was adopted. By Mr. ADAMS : That the State Audi tor report to the Senate the indebtedness of the several counties to the State. Adopted. Mr. Heaton and Mr. Cowan were ready to report, but Mr. Baldwin of Scott, of the same committee, asked to be excused, which was granted, and Mr. Averill of Wabashaw, was appointed in his place. llt is understood that the reason of Mr. Baldwin’s resignation was, that having agreed to Mr. Cowan’s report, he did not like to “ face the music ” from his Republi can friends, and accordingly resigned.] Mr. Averill was excused from further service on the committee, on account of sickness in his family. Dr. Winn was appointed in the place of Mr. Averill. Mr. WATSON moved that the commit tee on the Fillmore county case be instruct ed to report at three o’clock, and that it be made the special order of the day at that time. On motion of Mr. BISHOP, the Senate took a recess till three o’clock. The Senate was called to order by the President. Mr. HEATON presented the report of the majority of the special committee appointed to inquire who had the proper certificates of membership of the Senate from Fillmore county. The report denied ■■ I ANOTHER GAO. CHAPLAIN. RESOLUTIONS. THE FILLMORE CONTESTED CASE. AFTERNOON SESSION. THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT. the authority of the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus in the case, and de nounced the action of President Holcombe in recognizing the same. The report con eluded with a resolution that the certificates issued to Messrs. Holly and Wells were prima facie evidence of their membership, and that they be allowed to take their seats. Mr. CO WAN presented the following mi nority ,report. The minority of the committee appointed under the following resolution, to wit: Retoloed , That a committee of three be ap pointed by the President of the Senate, to ex amine the certificates whereby Messrs. H. W. Holly and Renben Wells, O. B. Bryant and I. F. O'Farrell, of Fillmore county, respectively, claim seats in this body, and to report as soon as practicable, who are, by said certificates, entitled to members. Have attended to the duty assigned them, and beg leave to submit the following report: The facts, as far as they appear from an examination of the certificates, and the authority by which they were issued, are those: That on the 12th day of October, A. D. 1858, an election was held in the County of Fillmore, for the purpose, among others, of electing two Senators to represent that county in this body. That on the 25th day of October, A. D. 1858, C. M. Colby, at that time County Auditor, aDd the officer authorized by law to .canvass the votes of that county, and to issue certificates of election to the persons having the highest number of votes, did issue certificates of election to the office of State Senators to Reuben Wells and H. W. Holly. That on the 4th day of January, 1859, on the application of I.F. O’Farrell and 0. B. Bryant, who were, at the election aforesaid, competitors of Reuben Wells and H. W. Holly, for the office of State Senators, from Fillmore county, the Supreme Court of the State issued writs of mandamus, directed to H. D. Bristol, the successor in office of C. M. Colby, commanding him to cause to be issued and delivered to I. F. O’Farrell and 0. B. Bryant, certificates of election to the office of Senator of the State of Minnesota, in and for the districts embraced within the County of Fillmore. That, in obedience to said writ, said Bris tol, on the Bth day of February, 1859, issued certificates of election to I. F. O’Farrell and 0. B. Bryant. Your committee have had some difficulty in deciding upon the proper scope and limits of their inquiry, under the resolution prescribing their duty, whether they are to examine the certificates themselves, rejecting all other evidence, or whether they are to take into consideration facts of general notoriety, and inquire into the manner of issuing the certificates, ano the authori ty by which they were issued. The result of the examination may turn upon the deci sion of this question, it as strangers to all the admitted facts, your committee should confine its examination to the certificates alone, its report in the matter must be very meagre and unsatisfatory, and could scarcely afford the Senate any information which it does not now possess : for instance the cer tificates afford us no information as to the number of Senators to which Fillmore couuty is entitled, yet in making th'B report it would be ridiculous to ignore that in formation. It seems, therefore, that such an examination of the certificates as the resolution contemplates, involves the recog nition of the undisputed facts in the case, and an inquiry into the manner of issuing the certificates and the authority by which they were issued. The certificates of Holly and Wells are identical in form, excepting the names of the parties, each is as follows : Office of Clerk of the Board of ) County Supervisor, Oct. 25, 1858. \ I hereby certify that was duly elected State Senator at the general election held in Fillmore County, Minnesota, on the 12th day of October, 1858. C. M. COLBY, Clerk. [Seal of the Board of Supervisors of Fillmore County.] These certificates, while they are some what informal, are nevertheless apparently signed and sealed by the proper officer, and while uncontradicted are prirna facie evi dence of rights to seats in the Senate ; they carry with them the presumption that the officer who issued them did so in accordance with law. They carry with them the pre sumption that the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors received all the returns from the election precincts in his county, that he canvassed all the votes, and that he issued these certificates to Holly and Wells as the persons who, by such returns, had the high est number of votes ; the presumptions in favor of the validity of these certificates remains until the contrary is shown. It remains then to inquire in what way the contrary may be shown to the Senate by O’Farrell aDd Bryant, whether it must be by appeal to the Senate in the first in stance, or whether there is another legal mode of rebutting these presumptions, and of bringing the Senate to a knowledge of the fact that these presumptions are over come. The certificates of O’Farrell and Bryant are identical, excepting the names of the parties to whom issued. Each is as follows: State of Minnesota, | Fillmore County. J In pursuance of an order issued out of the Supreme Court of 9aid State, and commanding me to issue a certificate of election to to the office of State Senator for said county, I hereby certify that at the general election, held on the 12th day of October, A. D. 1858, in and for said county, ■ , having received the highest number of votes, was duly elected State Senator for said county. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my office this Bth day of February, A. D. 1859.' [SEAL.] H. D. BRISTOL, County Auditor. Au examination of these certificates of O’Farrell and Bryant for the purpose of determining their validity, involves an in quiry into the right of the Supreme Coprt to compel the auditor to issue certificates of election in this case; and this inquiry in volves an examination into the manner of bringing the question of right to a certifi cate before the Supreme Court, and in short, into the above nistory of the case be fore the court, so far as it appears from the records. Let us first examine briefly the representations in the application of the writ. They are mainly as follows, to wit: That at an election held on the 12th day of October, 1858, I. F. O’Farrell, O. B. Bry ant, H. W. Holly,, and R. Wells, were severally candidates for the office of State Senator from Fillmore connty; that two Senators were to be elected from said coun ty; that at said election said O’Farrell received 1106 votes; that said Bryant re ceived 1092 votes; that said Holly received 1076 votes, and that said Wells received 1079 votes; and that O’Farrell and Bryant were therefore duly elected; that C. M. Colby was the officer authorized and requir ed by law to canvass the votes of Fillmore county, and to issue certificates of election to the persons having the highest number of votes; that before} twenty days after said election Baid Colby had received the election returns from all the precincts in the county, and that the poll books returned from the several precincts showed the number of votes cast for the several candidates as above stated; that O’Farrell and Bryant demanded certificates of election, but that said Colby refused to deliver them; that Colby in making an abstract of the votes of the county, neglected or refused to include in his abstract the votes returned from Chat field precinct. Upon these representations the applicants O’Farrell and Bryant pray the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Colby to issue certificates of election to the per sons entitled thereto. Let us now examine in what way, and to what extent the affidavit of Colby, in an swer to the application, controverts the representations therein, and what reason or excuse it sets up for not performing duties obligatory upon the Auditor to perform, and which the application charges that he did not perform. The points, in his affidavit, are these: That he was, at the time stated in the ap plication, the canvassing officer in Fillmore county; that he did receive all the election returns of Fillmore county; that, within twenty days after the election, he called to his aid two justices of the peace, and that the three, as a board of canvassers, did, on the 25th day of October, make out an ab stract of the legal votes contained in the returns ; that, thereupon, he issued certifi cates of election to Holly aud Wells, they being the persons who bad the highest num ber of votes, as appears by said abstract; that he denies that O’Farrell and Bryant were duly and legally elected. Now what allegations in the application does his affidavit deny ? Does it deny that O’Farrell had 1106 votes? Does it deny that Bryant had 1092 ? Does it claim more than 1076 for Holly ? Or more than 1079 for Wells? Does it allege that any votes cast in Fillmore county were illegal ? or does it attempt to show in what the illegal ity consisted ? Nothing of the kind, it claims that an abstract of the legal votes was made and that by the abstract Holly and Wells appeared to be entitled to certifi cates. Such allegations in legal papers amount to nothing ; they raise no issue on the allegations in the application; they con trovert rothing contained therein, they admit all the essential allegations in the application by failing to deny them; then the final denial that o’Farrell and Bryant were duly and legally elected without accom panying the denial with a statement of facts showing that they were not so elected is a mere conclusion of law, and is worse than useless in a legal paper, or even admitting that such an allegation in the affidavit was of any effect, does the Auditor assume to decide who are and who are not legally elected to the Senate ? The Senate has the sole power of making such decision, the Auditor seems by the insinuations (for they aie nothing else) in his affidavit to have mistaken the duties of his office. His duty is to count votes and issue certificates to the person or persons who, by the returns made to him from the several precincts “ appear to have the greatest number of votes.” It is the prerogative of the Senate to decide what votes properly returned to him from the several precincts are legal and what illegal. In section 31, chapter 6, Revised Statutes, we find the following : On the 20th day after the close of any election, or sooner if all the returns be received, the Clerk of the Board of County Commission ers (now County Auditor) taking to his assistance two Justices of the Peace of the county, shall proceed to open said returns and make abstracts of the votes in the fol lowing manner.” He is to open the returns and make abstracts of the votes, not the “ legal votes.” Section 41, in the same Chapter, says: “No election returns shall be refused by any clerk of the Board of County Commis sioners, for the reason that the same may be returned or delivered to him in any other than the manner directed in this Chapter; nor shall he refuse to include any returns in his esti nate of votes for any informality in holding any election, or making returns thereof; but all returns shall be received, and the votes canvassed by such clerks, and a certificate given to the person or persons who may, by such returns have the greatest number of votes. Here is the duty of the canvassers “ spe cially enjoined.” It is charged in the appli cation that he has not issued certificates of election to the persons who by the returns had the greatest number of votes. He does not deny the charge but evades by alleging that he has issued certificates to the persons who appear by his abstract to have the great est number. We are of opinion, then, after examining the application and the affidavit of Colby, in answer thereto, that it was admitted and plainly apparent to the court, that the audi tor had neglected or refused to perform two separate acts, which the law especially en joins as duties resulting from his office, namely, to canvass the Chatfield returns and to issue certificates to the persons who, by the returns from all the precincts of Fill more county, had the greatest number of votes. This being the case, could the Supreme Court grant O’Farrell and BryaLt the relief prayed for in their application, viz : a writ of mandamus compelling the auditor to issue their withheld certificates ? Sec. 4, Chap. 73, R. S. concerning the writ of mandamus, says : “ It may be issued to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from au office, trust or station.” It would .be an insult to the common sense of any intelligent man to undertake to prove to him, that canvassing the votes of a county, and issuing certificates of elec tion to the person or persons who, by the returns have the greater number of votes, are duties which the law specially enjoins upon the auditor, as resulting from bis of fice. The proposition is too plain to be susceptible of other proof than the state ment of the proposition itself. If the Auditor had refused to issue any certificate, no one will deny that a mandamus was the proper process to compel him to perform that duty; but if the Auditor has performed an act without authority of law, or contrary to law, can it be contended that he is thereby relieved from performing an act especially enjoined by law ? If the Auditor without law issues certificates to the persons who by the returns have the lowest number of votes, does that act relieve him of the duty enjoined by law of issuing a certificate to a person who by the returns has the highest number of votes? Yet this is the case before us. The Auditor does not deny, it stands admitted, that O’Farrall and Bryant were the persons who by the returns had the highest number of votes. Your Committee are of opinion that the court lawfully and rightfully granted the writ, and that it was the only remedy whereby O’Farrall and Bryant could obtain the certificates to which it is admitted that by the returns they were entitled. It may be urged that O’Farrall and Bryant had a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy” by direct appeal to the Senate, aud that therefore the “writ ought not to have been issued,” but the object of the writ was to secure the certificates to which they were entitled. The Senate does Dot issue certifi cates of election to its members; neither can it compel the canvassing officer to issue them. If the foregoing reasoning is correct, your Committee cannot avoid the conclusion that by the certificates submitted to their exam ination, I. F. O’Farrell and O. B. Bryant are entitled to seats in this body as Senators rom the County of Fillmore. THOMAS COWAN, Minority of Committee. Mr. HALL moved that the two reports lie on the table, and be printed, because the members had no opportunity to examine them. Mr. HEATON opposed the motion of Mr. HALL, and wished the matter decided at once. Mr. COWAN wanted the question divi d.d—he was in favor of printing but wauted to consider the question. The motion to lie on the table was lost. Mr. HALL thought it useless to print after the report was adopted. The motion to print was adopted. Mr. HEATON moved the adoption of the repor*. Mr. HALL wished to address members who would, in a case like this arise above party feelings. He maintained that the powers of the County Auditor were purely ministerial, and that he had no discretion in the matter, but must give the certificate of election to those who had the highest num ber of votes, and that the County Auditor in giving certificates to Messrs. Holly and Wells had violated his oath, and arrogated to himself the rights and powers of the Senate. He quoted the opinions of Judge Wilson upon the cases of other county officers, which completely covered the pres ent case. The whole power of the Auditor was limited to the canvass of the votes re turned to him, and that he had no right to take notice of rumors of fiaud, but must give the certificates to those who had the highest number of votes, according to the returns. He cited many authorities in sup port of the position that the duties of the Auditor were purely ministerial, and would have convinced any one, unless,as one Sena tor stated in the morning session, that the members of the Senate had already made up their minds upon the question, even before the reports had been received or arguments made upon them. He refuted the idea advanced in the report of the majority, that the Supreme Court had attempted to inter fere with the powers of the Senate to judge of the election of its own members. He took the ground that the President was the only judge of the prima facie evidence of mem bership,—and that the Senate had no right to take that power from him, and the reso lution was not a proper one to be considered, —that the Senate could not go back of the decision of the late President. Mr. M’LAREN did not desire to do in justice to Messrs. Bryant and O’Ferrall, but thought it was not in the province of the Senate to go back and decide who were actually elected, but that the Senate had a right to say who presented prima facie evi dence of membership. He denied the reality of the mandamus on the ground that it was not issued to the Auditor in office at the time of the election, but to his succes sor. Mr. COWAN said the Senate was not legislating but passing judgment—adjudi cating upon election rights. He thought it improper for the legislative branch to at tack the judicial branch of the Government, when it had made no attempt to interfere with the rights of the Senate to judge of the election of its own members. He thought that the writ of mandamus properly issued when an officer refused or neglected to per form the duties of his office. He argued that the Auditor should not be the judge of any fraud at elections—that was the pro vince of the inspectors—but he was only authorised to canvass the returns as they were presented to him. He refuted com pletely the position of Mr. M’Laren, that the mandamus could not be issued to the suc cessor of the Auditor at the time of the election. He cited authorities, proving be yond question, that the office of toe Auditor was merely ministerial, and that he had no discretion, further than to give the certifi cates to those who appeared to have the highest number of votes —that even allow ing that he had discretion, as the majority contended, be had no right to throw out 250 votes, a large majority of which were allowed to be genuine. He reviewed the whole proceedings of the Auditor, in a clear and striking manner, and showed up the Auditor Colly as a violator, not only of his oath as Auditor, but as inspector of election at Obatfield, where the frauds were alleged to have been committed. His points were listened to with attention, and if the whole matter had not been pre-determined would have convinced the whole Senate of their truth. Mr. HALL gave notice that he should offer a substitute to the resolutions of the majority. He raised a point of order that the predecessor of the President in receiving the certificates of Messrs. Bryant and O’Fer rail, acted in occerdance with law, and that therefore the resolution of the majority report was out of order. The President decided the point of order not well taken—and here as usual, there occurred a long debate on parliamentary law, in which several members participa ted. Mr. HALL then offered his resolutions. Mr. GALLOWAY said that he should be obliged to vote against his political friends. That a question of right must rise above all political associations. He would not oust the sitting members without trial. Undisputed possession constituted the high est prima facie evidence of right to seats. The sitting members had introduced bills on leave, and no objection had been made, and that they bad sat in the Senate in un disputed possession of their seats. No objections to these men had ever been made. The Lieutenant Governor in deciding upon that O’Ferrall and Bryant had rights to seats, he was not amenable to the Senate, because there was no Senate then. One month having elapsed without objection, gave them strong prima facie evidence of rights. Mr. ANDREWS said it was admitted that the returns gave Messrs. O’Ferrall and Bryant their seats. The report of the ma jority was based on the presumption of fraud, but there had been no proof of fraud. He hoped Senators would not act on mere presumption of fraud. The charges should be proved before action was taken. Why have not steps been taken to prove fraud ? This was indirect way of doiDg that which they could not do directly. Judge Wilson said that there was no fraud proved, and his ability and integrity had not been ques tioned. There was an endeavor in the ma jority repor to throw discredit on the cer tificates of Bryant and O’Ferrall, merely because the Supreme Court had something to do with it. The Auditor had no right to throw out the vote of Chatfield. He appealed to the candor of Senators to de cide this matter upon its merits, aud in justice. The question was then called on Mr. Hall’s substitute, which was that Messrs. O’Ferrall and Bryant bad prima fac>e evi dence of seats in the Senate. The resolu tion was lost. Mr. COWAN moved a call of the Senate. Mr. HODGES moved that further pro ceedings under the call be suspended. Lost. Mr. M’LAREN moved the previous question. Mr. COWAN moved to refer to the Committee on the Judiciary. Lost. The main question being ordered, which was on the passage of the resolution of the majority report, and the yeas and nays being called for and ordered, there were yeas 18, nays 12, as follows : Yea3— Averill, F. E. Baldwin, Bartholomew, Bishop, Cook, Evans, Frost, Heaton, Hodges, Kennedy, King, McKusick, McClaren, Rogers, Stannard, Stewart, Watson, Winn—lß. Nays— Adams, Andrews, Clarke, Cowan, Cruttenden, Galloway, Hall, Nelson, Norris, Pettit, Stevens, Taylor—l 2. So the resolution was adopted. Mr. HEATON moved that Messrs. Holly and Wells be now sworn in. The Chair said the motion was unneces sary. Messrs. Holly and Wells were then sworn in by the President. Mr. COWAN moved that a committee of five be appointed by the chair to in quire into and report who are the actual members elect from Fillmore county, and to report within one week if practicable. Adopted. The Senate then adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, Jan. 6 The House met at ten o’clock and opened with prayer by the chaplain, Rev. John Mattocks. Mr. TROW introduced a bill providing for the certificates heretofore issued by thi3 Legislature to be received for taxes by the Collectors and Treasurers. Mr. SAWYER offered a substitute for H. F. No. 27, being a memorial for addi tional mail service on routes 13,578 and 13,504, making it a joint resolution, instead of a memorial, which was adopted. Mr. MANN, from the committed on Corporations, reported against the incorpo ration of the St. Paul Commercial College, on constitutional ground, and the bill was thereupon rejected. Also, against granting of charters for cer tain ferries on the Mississippi river, on con stitutional ground, and such was the decis ion of the House. The same committee reported on a bill allowing an amendment to the charter of the Red River Bridge Company, for pas sage. The bill was referred to the Com mittee of the Whole. SENATE BILLS PASSED. Senate File, No. 9, a memorial for the extension of the reciprocity treaty, was read a third time and passed, by yeas, 68. Senate file No. 19*, a bill attaching Ma nomin to Anoka county for judicial pur poses, was passed by yeas 67. Manomin county was previously attached to Saint Louis county for judicial purposes, and the law was about equal to a prohibition of the collection of debts in the former county. ELECTION LAWB. House file No. 8. a bill to punish frauds and crimes committed at elections within this State, was considered in committee un til the time ror recess. At the afternoon session, the same bill was considered, and recommended for pas sage. The House then adjourned.