SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE CONTESTED ELECTION OF HON. JOHN P.
STOCKTON, OF NEW JERSEY, MARCH 23, 1866.
The seat of Hon. John P. Stockton, as Senator from New Jersey,
was contested at this session of the Senate, on the ground of
irregularity in the election. The Judiciary Committee, by their
Chairman, Mr. Trumbull, reported that he “was duly elected, and
is entitled to his seat,” and in their report stated the case:--
“The only question involved in the decision of Mr.
Stockton’s right to a seat is, whether an election by a
plurality of votes of the members of the Legislature of
New Jersey, in joint meeting assembled, in pursuance of
a rule adopted by the joint meeting itself, is valid.
The protestants insist that it is not; and they deny Mr.
Stockton’s right to a seat, because, as they say, he was
not appointed by a majority of the votes of the joint
meeting of the Legislature.”
The debate on this question showed earnestness and feeling. Mr.
Fessenden, of Maine, used strong language: “I was exceedingly
surprised--more so, I will say, than I ever was before, at a
judicial decision, in my life--at the opinion to which the
Committee on the Judiciary arrived in relation to this matter.”
Mr. Trumbull defended the report. Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,--When the Senator from Illinois rose to speak, I had
made up my mind to say nothing in this debate; but topics have been
introduced by him which I am unwilling should pass without notice.
The Senator did not disguise that the case is without a precedent
in the history of the Senate. Never before has a Senator appeared in
this Chamber with the credentials of a minority. And I venture to say
further, that the rule of a majority has the constant consecration
of history in the proceedings of parliamentary or electoral bodies.
It is the rule of the House of Commons in the choice of Speaker; and
this is the most important precedent for us, for our Parliamentary
Law is derived from England. But it antedates the English Parliament.
The oldest electoral body in the world is the Conclave of Cardinals;
but who has heard that a Pope was ever elected by a minority? I ask
your attention to this example, that you may see how the rule of
the minority is constantly rejected, notwithstanding temptation,
inducement, and pressure to adopt it. There have been many contested
elections, during which the Cardinals, separated from the world, each
in a small apartment or cell of the Vatican or the Palace of the
Quirinal, have been imprisoned like a jury, sometimes for months,
waiting for the requisite majority. They did not undertake to change
the rule, and set up the will of a minority. There was Lambertini,
who shone as Pope Benedict the Fourteenth, conspicuous as statesman
and patron of letters, who was not chosen until after six months’
ineffectual efforts. Such instances stand like so many pillars, and I
refer to them now as proper to guide your conduct.
The question before us is of law, and nothing else. It is not a
question of politics or of sentiment, except so far as these enter into
the determination of law. It is a question for reason alone.
It lies in a nutshell. A brief text of the National Constitution, and
another brief text of a local statute, are all that need be considered.