Virginia 1803 U.S. House of Representatives, District 5

Office:
U.S. House of Representatives (Federal)
Title:
U.S. Congressman
Jurisdiction:
Federal
Label:
Virginia 1803 U.S. House of Representatives, District 5
Date:
1803
State:
Virginia
Type:
General
Iteration:
First Ballot
Office/Role:
U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Congressman
Candidates:
Andrew Moore, Thomas Lewis, John Woodward
Candidates: Andrew Moore[1]Thomas LewisJohn Woodward
Affiliation:RepublicanFederalistFederalist
Final Result: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]708649423
District of Five708649423
Botetourt County[17]27713212
Greenbrier County713379
Kenawha County17196
Monroe County5848303
Rockbridge County[18]301613

Notes:

[1]Elected.
[2]Thomas Lewis "presented credentials as a Federalist Representative-elect to the Eighth Congress (March 4, 1803-March 5, 1804); succeeded by Andrew Moore, who contested his election; by formal action of the House of Representatives counsel for the claimants in this case were heard at the bar of the House." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: 1774 - Present.
[3]Andrew Moore elected, after successfully contesting the election of Thomas Lewis to the Eighth Congress. Andrew Moore "served from March 5 to August 11, 1804, when he was appointed as a Democratic Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy in the term beginning March 4, 1799, caused by the resignation of Wilson C. Nicholas." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: 1774 - Present.
[4]"MONDAY, November 14. A petition of Andrew Moore, of the State of Virginia, was presented to the House and read, complaining of an undue election and return of Thomas Lewis, to serve as a member in this House, for the district composed of the counties of Greenbrier, Kenawha, Monroe, Botetourt, and Rockbridge, in the said State. Ordered, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of Elections." ABRIDGEMENT of the DEBATES OF CONGRESS, From 1789 to 1856. FROM GALES AND BEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 78.
[5]"FRIDAY, February 24. Contested Election. Mr. FINDLAY, from the Committee of Elections, to whom was referred a memorial of Andrew Moore, of Virginia, respecting the election of THOMAS LEWIS, a sitting member, made a report, which, after stating the bad votes given for each of the candidates, concludes with the opinion that THOMAS LEWIS is not, and that ANDREW MOORE is entitled to a seat in the House. The report is as follows: "
[6]"That, at an election held on three several days, in the month of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and three, directed by the law of the State of Virginia, for a member of the House of Representatives of the United States for the district composed of the counties of Botetourt, Rockbridge, Kenawha, Greenbriar, and Monroe, in the western district of Virginia, it appears—
[7]"That, of the polls taken in the county of Botetourt, Thomas Lewis had one hundred and fifty-five votes, and Andrew Moore had three hundred and five votes; that, out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis, twenty-three were unqualified to vote ; and that out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore, twenty-eight were unqualified to vote.
[8]"That, of the polls taken in Rockbridge, Thomas Lewis had sixty-five votes, and Andrew Moore had three hundred and twenty-one votes; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis, there were four persons unqualified to vote; and out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore, there were twenty persons unqualified to vote.
[9]"That, of the polls taken in Kenawha county, Thomas Lewis had one hundred and sixty-one votes, and Andrew Moore had one vote; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis there were ninety persons unqualified to vote.
[10]"That, of the polls taken in Greenbriar, Thomas Lewis had five hundred and thirty-nine votes, and Andrew Moore had one hundred and three votes; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis two hundred and two were unqualified to vote; and out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore thirty-two were unqualified to vote.
[11]"That, of the polls taken in Monroe county, Thomas Lewis had eighty-four votes, and Andrew Moore had one hundred and two votes; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis thirty-six were unqualified to vote; and out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore, forty-four were unqualified to vote. Hence it appears —
[12]"That all the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis in the several counties aforesaid, which compose the western district of the State of Virginia, were one thousand and four and that all the persons who voted for Andrew Moore in the said counties were eight hundred and thirty-two.
[13]"It further appears, on a deliberate scrutiny, that, of the above votes, three hundred and fifty-five persons voted for Thomas Lewis who were unqualified to vote, and that one hundred and twenty-four voted for Andrew Moore who were unqualified to vote and that, by deducting the unqualified votes from the votes given for each of the parties at the elections, Thomas Lewis has six hundred and forty-nine good votes, and Andrew Moore has seven hundred and eight good votes, being fifty-nine more than Thomas Lewis.
[14]"Whereupon, Your committee are of opinion that Thomas Lewis, not being duly elected, is not entitled to a seat in this House; and they are further of opinion that Andrew Moore, who has the highest number of votes, after deducting the before-mentioned unqualified votes from the respective polls, is duly elected and entitled to a seat in this House." ABRIDGEMENT of the DEBATES OF CONGRESS, From 1789 to 1856. FROM GALES AND BEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 143.
[15]"Although Major Lewis, the federalist, has a majority of 172 votes in this district, we have reason to believe from the information we have received from several gentlemen of veracity, that he is not legally elected." The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). May 7, 1803; National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser (Washington, DC), May 18, 1803; and, American Citizen (New York, NY), May 23, 1803.
[16]The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA) May 7, 1803, continues the above "he is not legally elected. --- In one, perhaps two counties, no doubt, but Col. Moore had (as the saying is) 'foul play' showed him. However, if he contests the election, as we understand he will; we trust the matter will be properly adjusted."
[17]"By a Gentleman of this town, who left Botetourt on Wednesday last, we are informed, that at the close of the polls on the evening of Tuesday, the day previous to his leaving Botetourt, the votes stood thus: For Congress: Moore 305, Lewis 155, Woodward 12. In our last [referring to the returns from Rockbridge County] Moore 321, Lewis 65, Woodward 3. Total, Moore 626, Lewis 220, Woodward 15." The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). April 16, 1803.
[18]"On Tuesday last, being the Court day of this month, on which it was appointed by the last Legislature of this state for holding the election, the principal part of the freeholders, of this county, came forward and gave in their votes for a candidate to represent them in the next Congress; on examing the votes, at the close of the polls." The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). April 9, 1803.x

References:

"Contested Elections" collection. 128-129. National Archives, Washington, DC.
The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). April 9, 1803.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 20, 1803.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 27, 1803.
The Norfolk Herald (Norfolk, VA). April 30, 1803.
National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser (Washington, DC). May 2, 1803.
The Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser (Richmond, VA). May 4, 1803.
The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). May 7, 1803.
Washington Federalist (Georgetown, DC). May 16, 1803.
National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser (Washington, DC). May 18, 1803.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). May 18, 1803.
The Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser (Richmond, VA). May 18, 1803.
American Citizen (New York, NY). May 23, 1803.
Rives, John C. Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856. New York: D. Appleton and, 1857. 346, 348.

Page Images

handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).

These election records were released on 11 January 2012. Versions numbers are assigned by state. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are complete and are in Version 1.0. All other states are in a Beta version. For more information go to the about page.