DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter XXI. the HOUSE the JUDGE of CONTESTED ELECTIONS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter XXI. THE HOUSE THE JUDGE OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 1. Provision of the Constitution. Section 634.1 2. Functions of Elections Committee. Sections 635, 636. 3. House not bound by returns of State authorities. Sections 637, 638. 4. Relations of House to acts of canvassing officers. Sections 639–645.2 5. House ascertains intent of voter when ballot is ambiguous. Sections 646–650. 6. Discretion of House in investigating elections. Sections 651–653.3 7. Practice in making decisions. Sections 654–656.4 8. Privileges of contestant and returned Member in debate. Sections 657–672.5 9. General practice. Sections 673–677.6 634. The House is the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members.—‘‘Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications, of its own Members.’’ 7 1 House may not delegate this constitutional function. (Sec. 608 of this volume.) Elections of Dele- gates as well as those of Members investigated. (Sec. 772 of this volume.) 2 House respects the State laws. (Sec. 822 of this volume, and secs. 967 and 1011 of Vol. II.) As to duty of House to respect the construction of State laws made by State officers and courts. (Secs. 346, 352, 423, 521, 525, 574, 608, 630, 731 of this volume, and secs. 856, 909, 959, 996, 1002, 1041, 1048, 1056, 1069, 1071, 1105, 1121 of Vol. II.) 3 House may set aside procedure prescribed by law for conducting contests and prescribe new proce- dure in whole or in part. (Secs. 330, 339, 559, 597, 598 of this volume, and secs. 965, 1042, and 1070 of Vol. 11.) But the House does not unnecessarily set aside the recommendations of the law. (Sec. 719 of this volume and 852 of Vol. II.) See also the cases of Letcher v. Moore (sec. 53) and Blakely v. Golladay (sec. 322). 4 Senate decisions that an election case once decided is res adjudicata, and not to be reopened. (Secs. 344, 357, 546, 629, 825, 833.) House reopens the Mississippi case in 1837. (Sec. 518.) Effect of laying on the table a resolution relating to the right of a Member to his seat. (Secs. 461, 467, 618.) Effect of negative votes on affirmative declarations as to Member’s right to his seat. (Sec. 2588 of Vol. III.) 5 Instance wherein the privileges of the floor were denied to a claimant to a seat. (Sec. 315.) Senate declines to admit contestant to the floor (sec. 546); and also declines to hear contestant in debate (sec. 392). 6 A contest was maintained although the returned Member had resigned. (Sec. 985 of Vol. II.) A proposition relating to the right of a Member to his seat presents a question of privilege. (Secs. 2579–2596 of Vol. III.) 7 Constitution, Art. I, sec. 5. 847 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Feb 13, 2001 Jkt 063201 PO 00000 Frm 00847 Fmt 8687 Sfmt 8687 E:\HR\OC\G201V1.007 pfrm11 PsN: G201V1 848 PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. § 635 635. The House has declared that an election committee should act as a judicial body, according to the rules of law.—On January 24, 1870,1 Mr. Albert G. Burr, of Illinois, proposed the following resolution: Resolved, That from the nature of its duties the Committee of Elections of the House of Represent- atives is a judicial body, and in deciding contested cases referred to such committee the members thereof should act according to all the rules of law, without partiality or prejudice, as fully as though under special oath in each particular case so decided. A motion to lay this resolution on the table was decided in the negative, yeas 44, nays 129. The resolution was then agreed to, yeas 140, nays 23. At a later day in this session—February 9 2—this resolution was referred to in debate, several Members explaining their attitude. 636. Instance wherein a Member of the House was authorized to act as a member of the Elections Committee during the consideration of cer- tain cases.—On December 7, 1869, the House adopted a resolution authorizing Mr. Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, to act as a member of the Committee on Elections in the consideration of the pending election cases from the State of Louisiana.3 Mr. Kerr had been a member of the committee in the preceding Congress. 637. The Georgia election case of Spaulding v. Mead in the Ninth Con- gress. The certificate of the governor of a State as to the election of a Member is only prima facie evidence of the fact. The certificate of a State executive, issued in strict accordance with State law, does not prevent examination of the votes by the House, and a reversal of the return. Discussion of the House’s right to judge of the elections and returns of its Members, as related to State laws. The Elections Committee in 1805 declined to examine a contention sought to be established by ex parte testimony. On December 18, 1805,4 the Committee on Elections reported in the contested election case of Spaulding v. Mead, of Georgia. The committee found that the law of Georgia required the county magistrates presiding at the election to transmit their returns to the governor of the State within twenty days after closing the poll; and required the governor, within five days after the expiration of the said twenty days, to count the votes returned, and immediately thereafter to issue his proclama- tion declaring the result, and grant a certificate thereof under the great seal of the State. The votes of three counties were not returned within the twenty days, nor within the further term of five days thereafter. The governor, complying with the terms of the law, issued a certificate to Cowles Mead, who had a majority of the votes so far as received when the certificate was issued. When the returns from the three counties were received it appeared that they changed the result and gave the majority to Thomas Spaulding. It does 1 Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 190; Globe, pp. 709, 710. 2 Globe, pp. 1158–1160. 3 Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 28; Globe, p. 22. 4 First session Ninth Congress, Contested Elections in Congress from 1789 to 1834, p. 157. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Feb 13, 2001 Jkt 063201 PO 00000 Frm 00848 Fmt 8687 Sfmt 8687 E:\HR\OC\G201V1.007 pfrm11 PsN: G201V1 § 638 THE HOUSE THE JUDGE OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 849 not appear that irregularities sufficient to change this majority for Mr. Spaulding were alleged in the three counties. The committee declined to examine the conten- tion sought to be established by ex parte testimony, and disputed by contestee, that the delay in forwarding the late returns was caused by a hurricane which injured the roads. The committee found that, as the votes in the three counties in question were good and lawful, no action either by voters or candidate requiring their forfeiture, they should be counted by the House, the certificate of the governor although made in accordance with the State law being only prima facie evidence, and not conclusive on the House. Therefore the committee reported that Cowles Mead was not entitled to the seat, but that Thomas Spaulding was entitled to it. The report was debated at length on the constitutional point as to what extent the House was judge of the elections and returns of its own Members. It was con- tended on the one side that the House must exercise its right in accordance with the fixed rules of the State of Georgia, that State having the constitutional right to prescribe them, and they being conclusive until revoked by Congress. On the other hand, it was contended that the power of judging the returns was different from the State power of determining time, place, and manner of elections. The law of Georgia could only be considered as constituting the governor the organ of information to this House, the only tribunal to which the returns can ultimately be made. The fact that the governor had counted only a part of the votes could not prevent this House counting all of them. The power of the House to Judge could not be concluded by a State law or executive. The House decided, yeas 68, nays 53, that Cowles Mead was not entitled to the seat; and by a vote of yeas 68, nays 53, that Thomas Spaulding was entitled to a seat. 638. The New York election case of Colden v. Sharpe in the Seven- teenth Congress. Votes fairly and honestly given should not be set aside for the omission or error of the returning officer. Instance wherein the House decided an election contest against a returned Member who had not appeared to claim the seat. On December 12, 1821,1 the House concurred with the report of the Committee on Elections in the case of Colden v. Sharpe, from New York, seating Mr. Colden and declaring Mr. Sharpe not entitled to the seat. It appeared that the majority of votes were cast for ‘‘Mr. Cadwallader D. Colden,’’ but that by errors of returning officers 220 votes were returned as for ‘‘Cadwallader D. Colder’’ and 395 for ‘‘Cadwallader Colden,’’ although all these votes had really been cast for the contestant under his appropriate name, as was shown by testimony. The committee forbear to adduce arguments to show that votes fairly and hon- estly given should not be set aside for the omission or mistake of a returning officer.
Recommended publications
  • Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10

    Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10

    A CRANK ON THE COURT: THE PASSION OF JUSTICE WILLIAM R. DAY Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law The Baseball Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, Fall 2009, pp. 94-107 (BRJ is a publication of SABR, the Society for American Baseball Research) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 10-10 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1555017 **SABR_BRJ-38.2_final-v2:Layout 1 12/15/09 2:00 PM Page 94 BASEBALL AND LAW A Crank on the Court The Passion of Justice William R. Day Ross E. Davies here is an understandable tendency to date the Not surprisingly, there were plenty of other baseball Supreme Court’s involvement with baseball fans on the Court during, and even before, the period Tfrom 1922, when the Court decided Federal covered by McKenna’s (1898–1925), Day’s (1903–22), Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Pro- and Taft’s (1921–30) service. 13 Chief Justice Edward D. fessional Base Ball Clubs —the original baseball White (1894–1921) 14 and Justices John Marshall Har - antitrust-exemption case. 1 And there is a correspon - lan (1877–1911), 15 Horace H. Lurton (1910–14), 16 and ding tendency to dwell on William Howard Taft—he Mahlon Pitney (1912–22), 17 for example. And no doubt was chief justice when Federal Baseball was decided 2— a thorough search would turn up many more. 18 There is, when discussing early baseball fandom on the Court.
  • Union Calendar No. 502

    Union Calendar No. 502

    1 Union Calendar No. 502 107TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107–801 REPORT ON THE LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS DURING THE 107TH CONGRESS JANUARY 2, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 19–006 WASHINGTON : 2003 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado RON LEWIS, Kentucky MARK FOLEY, Florida KEVIN BRADY, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin (II) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC, January 2, 2003. Hon. JEFF TRANDAHL, Office of the Clerk, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. TRANDAHL: I am herewith transmitting, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 1(d), the report of the Committee on Ways and Means on its legislative and oversight activities during the 107th Congress.
  • CONGRESSIONAL Recoltd-HOUSE. DECEMBER 3

    CONGRESSIONAL Recoltd-HOUSE. DECEMBER 3

    . 2 CONGRESSIONAL RECOltD-HOUSE. DECEMBER 3, .Ma.ssa;chusetts-Henry L. Dawes and George F. Hoar. ARKANSAS. Clifton R. Breckinridge. John H. Rogers. JJ!ichigan-Omar D. Conger and Thomas W. Palmer. Poindexter Dunn. Samuel W. Peel. Minnesota-Samuel J. R. McMillan and Dwight 1\I. Sabin. James K. Jones. Mi.ssissippi=-James z. George and Lucius Q. C. Lamar. CALIFORNIA. Missouri-Francis M. Cockrell and George G. Vest. Charles A. Sumner. James H. Budd. John R. Glascock. Barclay Henley. Nebraska-Charles F. l\Ianderson and Charles H. VanWyck. WilliamS. Rosecrans. Pleasant B. Tully. Nevada-James G. Fair. New Hampshire-Henry W. Blair and Austin F. Pike. COLORADO. New Jersey-John R. McPherson and William J. Sewell. James B. Belford. New York-Elbridge G. Lapham and Warner Miller. CONNECTICUT. North Carolina-Matt. W. Ransom and Zebulon B. Vance. William W. Eaton. John T. Wait. Ohio-George H. Pendleton and John Sherman. Charles L. 1\fit.<Jhell. Edward W. Seymour. Oregon-Joseph N. Dolph and James H. Slater. DEL.AW .ARE. Pennsylvmtia-J ohn I. Mitchell. Charles B. Lore. Rhode Jslan~Nelson W. Aldrich. FLORIDA.. Sottth Camlina-M. C. Butler ~d Wade Hampton. Robert H. M. Davidson. Horatio Bisbee, jr. Tennessee-Isham G. Harris and Howell E. Jaekson. GEORGIA. Texas-Richard Coke and Sam. Bell Maxey. Thomas Hardeman. James H. Blount. Vermont-George F. Edmunds and Justin S. Morrill. John C. Nicholls. Judson C. Clements. Virginia-William .Mahone and Harrison H. Riddleberger. · Henry G. Turner. Seaborn Reese. N. Charles F. Crisp. Allen D. Candler. West Virginia-Johnson Camden and John E.
  • Xerox University Microfilms 3 0 0North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75 - 21,515

    Xerox University Microfilms 3 0 0North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75 - 21,515

    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
  • K:\Fm Andrew\41 to 50\49.Xml

    K:\Fm Andrew\41 to 50\49.Xml

    FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1885, TO MARCH 3, 1887 FIRST SESSION—December 7, 1885, to August 5, 1886 SECOND SESSION—December 6, 1886, to March 3, 1887 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1885, to April 2, 1885 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—THOMAS A. HENDRICKS, 1 of Indiana PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—JOHN SHERMAN, 2 of Ohio; JOHN J. INGALLS, 3 of Kansas SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—ANSON G. MCCOOK, of New York SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—WILLIAM P. CANADAY, of North Carolina SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JOHN G. CARLISLE, 4 of Kentucky CLERK OF THE HOUSE—JOHN B. CLARK, JR., 5 of Missouri SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOHN P. LEEDOM, of Ohio DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—SAMUEL DONALDSON, of Tennessee POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—LYCURGUS DALTON ALABAMA Samuel W. Peel, Bentonville Joseph R. Hawley, Hartford SENATORS CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVES John T. Morgan, Selma SENATORS John R. Buck, Hartford James L. Pugh, Eufaula John F. Miller, 9 San Francisco Charles L. Mitchell, New Haven REPRESENTATIVES George Hearst, 10 San Francisco John T. Wait, Norwich James T. Jones, Demopolis Abram P. Williams, 11 San Francisco Edward W. Seymour, Litchfield Hilary A. Herbert, Montgomery Leland Stanford, San Francisco William C. Oates, Abbeville REPRESENTATIVES DELAWARE Alexander C. Davidson, Uniontown Barclay Henley, Santa Rosa SENATORS Thomas W. Sadler, Prattville J. A. Louttit, Stockton Joseph McKenna, Suisun Thomas F. Bayard, 12 Wilmington John M. Martin, Tuscaloosa 13 William H. Forney, Jacksonville W. W. Morrow, San Francisco George Gray, New Castle Joseph Wheeler, Wheeler Charles N.
  • Supreme Court Justices

    Supreme Court Justices

    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
  • Stjpreme Cotjet of the United States

    Stjpreme Cotjet of the United States

    ; 1 STJPREME COTJET OF THE UNITED STATES. Monday, October 11, 1915. The court met pursuant to law. Present: The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice McKenna, Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Hughes, Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice Pitney, and Mr. Justice McReynolds, Adrian Riker, of Newark, N. J. ; Clarence C. Caldwell, of Howard, S. Dak. ; Alex. Simpson, of Jersey City, N. J. ; Robert Szold, of Chi- cago, 111. ; Leo F. Wormser, of Chicago, 111. ; William S. Haskell, of New York City, N. Y. ; Alfred D. Lind, of New York City ; Edward P. Holmes, of Lincoln, Nebr. George W. Berge, of Lincoln, Nebr.; ; Harold J. Adams, of Buffalo, N. Y. ; Morton S. Cressy, of Chicago, 111. Ralph D. Hurst, of Greensburg, Pa. ; James A. George, of Dead- ; wood, S. Dak.; Harry J. Dingeman, of Detroit, Mich.; Edwin P. Matthews, of Dayton, Ohio; James W. McCarter, of Washington, D. C. ; J. Sidney Condit, of Chicago, 111. ; Edw. W. Everett, of Chi- cago, 111. ; John C. Bane, of Pittsburg, Pa. ; Jeremiah F. Hoover, of Newark, N. J.; Colin S. Monteith, of Columbia, S. C; Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, S. C. ; Rush B. Johnson, of Chicago, 111.; of Alphonso C. Stewart, St. Louis, Mo. ; Wiley E. Jones, of Phoenix, Ariz.; Percy Sommer Benedict, of New Orleans, La.; John B. A. Wheltle, of Baltimore, Md. ; Burdette B. Webster, of Baltimore, Md. George W. Lindsay, of Baltimore, Md. George P. Decker, of ; Rochester, N. Y. ; Leslie C. Hardy, of Phoeniz, Ariz.; Martin A. Schenck, of New York City; and Charles K. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky., were admitted to practice.
  • SILAS WRIGHT AMD TEE ANTI-RENT WAR, 18¥F-18^6

    SILAS WRIGHT AMD TEE ANTI-RENT WAR, 18¥F-18^6

    SILAS WRIGHT AMD TEE ANTI-RENT WAR, 18¥f-18^6 APPROVED: Ail Mayor Professor Minor Professor "1 director of the Department of History ,7 -7 ~_i_ ^ / lean'of the Graduate School" SILAS WEIGHT AND THE ANT I-BENT WAR, 18HV-18^-6 THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Eldrldge PL Pendleton, B. A. Denton. Texas January, 1968 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ii Chapter I. THE NEW YORK LEASEHOLD SYSTEM AND THE ANTI-RENT REBELLION 1 II. SILAS WRIGHT - RELUCTANT CANDIDATE 28 III. "MAKE NO COMPROMISES WITH ANY ISMS." 59 IV. THE FALL OF KING SILAS ............ 89 APPENDIX ... 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Leasehold Counties in New York 18V+-18V6 132 ii CHAPTER I THE NEW YORK LEASEHOLD SYSTEM AND THE ANTI-RENT REBELLION Silas Wright was one of the most universally respected Democrats of the Jacksonian period. As United States Senator from 1833 to 18M+, he established a record for political integrity, honesty, and courage that made him a valuable leader of the Democratic Party and gained for him the respect of the Whig opposition. Wright's position in Washington as a presidential liaison in the Senate caused him to play an influential role in both the Jackson and Van Bur9:1 administrations. He maintained a highly developed sense of political Idealism throughout his career. Although Wright was aware of the snares of political corruption that continually beset national politicians, his record remained irreproachable and untainted.^ The conditions of political life during the Jacksonian era were an affront to Wright's sense of idealism- Gradually disillusioned by the political .
  • C:\Corruption\Bank Chartering Revision September 2004.Wpd

    C:\Corruption\Bank Chartering Revision September 2004.Wpd

    Bank Chartering and Political Corruption in Antebellum New York: Free Banking as Reform Howard Bodenhorn Lafayette College and NBER bodenhoh @ lafayette.edu Revised April 2004 Current revision September 2004 Abstract: One traditional and oft-repeated explanation of the political impetus behind free banking connects the rise of Jacksonian populism and a rejection of the privileges associated with corporate chartering. A second views free banking as an ill-informed inflationist, pro-business response to the financial panic of 1837. This essay argues that both explanations are lacking. Free banking was the progeny of the corruption associated with bank chartering and reflected social, political and economic backlashes against corruption dating to the late-1810s. Three strands of political thought -- Antimasonic egalitarianism, Jacksonian pragmatism, and pro-business American Whiggism -- converged in the 1830s and led to economic reform. Equality of treatment was the political watchword of the 1830s and free banking was but one manifestation of this broader impulse. Prepared for NBER Conference on Corruption and Reform. I thank Lee Alston, Michael Bordo, Andrew Economopoulos, Ed Glaeser, Stephen Quinn, Hugh Rockoff, Jay Shambaugh, John Wallis, Eugene White, Robert E. Wright, as well as seminar participants at Rutgers University, NYU and the NBER for many useful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. Special thanks go to Claudia Goldin who provided extensive and valuable comments. I thank Pam Bodenhorn for valuable research assistance. -1- “He saw in the system what he thought a most dangerous political engine, which might in the hands of bad men be used for bad purposes.”1 1. Introduction Government policies toward business can be categorized into three types: minimal, maximal, and decentralized (Frye and Shleifer 1997).
  • Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789 to 2014 1

    Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789 to 2014 1

    ø1970¿ 1970 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1789 TO 2014 1 Years 2 State whence ap- Date of com- Date service Name 3 of pointed mission terminated service CHIEF JUSTICES 1. John Jay ................................. New York .............. Sept. 26, 1789 June 29, 1795 5 2. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... July 1, 1795 Dec. 15, 1795 (4)(5) 3. Oliver Ellsworth .................... Connecticut ........... Mar. 4, 1796 Dec. 15, 1800 4 4. John Marshall ........................ Virginia ................. Jan. 31, 1801 July 6, 1835 34 5. Roger Brooke Taney .............. Maryland ............... Mar. 15, 1836 Oct. 12, 1864 28 6. Salmon Portland Chase ........ Ohio ....................... Dec. 6, 1864 May 7, 1873 8 7. Morrison Remick Waite ........ ....do ....................... Jan. 21, 1874 Mar. 23, 1888 14 8. Melville Weston Fuller .......... Illinois ................... July 20, 1888 July 4, 1910 21 9. Edward Douglas White ......... Louisiana .............. Dec. 12, 1910 May 19, 1921 5 10 10. William Howard Taft ............ Connecticut ........... June 30, 1921 Feb. 3, 1930 8 11. Charles Evans Hughes .......... New York .............. Feb. 13, 1930 June 30, 1941 5 11 12. Harlan Fiske Stone ............... ......do ..................... July 3, 1941 Apr. 22, 1946 5 4 13. Fred Moore Vinson ................ Kentucky ............... June 21, 1946 Sept. 8, 1953 7 14. Earl Warren ........................... California .............. Oct. 2, 1953 June 23, 1969 15 15. Warren E. Burger .................. Virginia ................. June 23, 1969 Sept. 26, 1986 17 16. William Hubbs Rehnquist .... Virginia ................. Sept. 25, 1986 Sept. 3, 2005 5 19 17. John G. Roberts, Jr ............... Maryland ............... Sept. 29, 2005 ........................ ............ ASSOCIATE JUSTICES 1. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... Sept. 26, 1789 Mar. 5, 1791 1 2. William Cushing .................... Massachusetts ...... Sept. 27, 1789 Sept.
  • H. Doc. 108-222

    H. Doc. 108-222

    FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1885, TO MARCH 3, 1887 FIRST SESSION—December 7, 1885, to August 5, 1886 SECOND SESSION—December 6, 1886, to March 3, 1887 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1885, to April 2, 1885 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—THOMAS A. HENDRICKS, 1 of Indiana PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—JOHN SHERMAN, 2 of Ohio; JOHN J. INGALLS, 3 of Kansas SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—ANSON G. MCCOOK, of New York SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—WILLIAM P. CANADAY, of North Carolina SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JOHN G. CARLISLE, 4 of Kentucky CLERK OF THE HOUSE—JOHN B. CLARK, JR., 5 of Missouri SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOHN P. LEEDOM, of Ohio DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—SAMUEL DONALDSON, of Tennessee POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—LYCURGUS DALTON ALABAMA Samuel W. Peel, Bentonville Joseph R. Hawley, Hartford SENATORS CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVES John T. Morgan, Selma SENATORS John R. Buck, Hartford James L. Pugh, Eufaula John F. Miller, 9 San Francisco Charles L. Mitchell, New Haven REPRESENTATIVES George Hearst, 10 San Francisco John T. Wait, Norwich James T. Jones, Demopolis Abram P. Williams, 11 San Francisco Edward W. Seymour, Litchfield Hilary A. Herbert, Montgomery Leland Stanford, San Francisco William C. Oates, Abbeville REPRESENTATIVES DELAWARE Alexander C. Davidson, Uniontown Barclay Henley, Santa Rosa SENATORS Thomas W. Sadler, Prattville J. A. Louttit, Stockton Joseph McKenna, Suisun Thomas F. Bayard, 12 Wilmington John M. Martin, Tuscaloosa 13 William H. Forney, Jacksonville W. W. Morrow, San Francisco George Gray, New Castle Joseph Wheeler, Wheeler Charles N.
  • Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

    Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School Fall 11-12-1992 Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Earman, Cynthia Diane, "Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830" (1992). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 8222. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/8222 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOARDINGHOUSES, PARTIES AND THE CREATION OF A POLITICAL SOCIETY: WASHINGTON CITY, 1800-1830 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of History by Cynthia Diane Earman A.B., Goucher College, 1989 December 1992 MANUSCRIPT THESES Unpublished theses submitted for the Master's and Doctor's Degrees and deposited in the Louisiana State University Libraries are available for inspection. Use of any thesis is limited by the rights of the author. Bibliographical references may be noted, but passages may not be copied unless the author has given permission. Credit must be given in subsequent written or published work. A library which borrows this thesis for use by its clientele is expected to make sure that the borrower is aware of the above restrictions.