Mr. SHELLABARGER. In order that there maybe no mistake about this matter, I will new state precisely what votes were cast, what votes are proved to be legal votes by the returns made to the committee, and what recinets and counties they are from, and what papers in this case prove each vote. Here the entire vote received by the minority of the committee is: Recapitulahon. Cqfroflt. Koontz. Franklin county, entire vote. 3, 457 3, 508 Fulton county, entire vote. 807 535 Somersetcounty, entire vote. 1,592 2, 512 Making. 5, 856 Bedford county, home vote, as perNo. 2, 410 1. 740, page. Bedford county, part of soldiers votc, as perNo. 9, page31. 318 Adams county. Including home and partof soldiers vote, No. 11, page 2, 2, 707 2366 Making entire undisputed vote. 11, (Xi7 10, 979 Votes iclecled by majority judges, but ltfreived by the minority01the cominittcc of lections: Adauis counly, company K of 184. as or No. 30, page60(1911) 21 38 A rimscounty, companies B and G of 138, as perNo. 26, page 5. 1 32 Adams county, company Iof 210a, spe No. 27. page57. 9 19 Adams county. companyB, 21qav as or No. 28, page61(2MIR) 4 34 Bed 0rd county, company H of perNo. 19. page. an No. 18. 18 18 Bedfonl county Barracks No. l, asperNo. 20. pngc, and No. 31, page 68 (2of fofK). 1!) Adams county, 11. 149 11. 176 Mower, Cuylcr and McClellan hospitals, pages50to 63, o, 5 11, 149 11, 181 Koontzs majority. 32 and a part of the soldiers vote for Bedford countywhich was counted by the majority of the committee, shows 94 votes for Coffroth and 318 for Koontz. In Adams county, including the home vote and the part of the soldiers vote not included, there were 2, 707 votes for Coffroth, and 2, 366 votes for Koontz. This is the undisputed vote, and it ag regates 11, 067 for Coffroth, and 10, 979 for oontz. That is undisputed, thus far, by both the majority and the minority of the committee; they all agree that that is right. Now, I have shown the voteswhich I say elected Mr. Koontz. I have named every paperfrom every precinct that produces that result, and I ask my colleagues in this casenot now, but when they come to replyto answer the exhibit of figuresI have now made of the votes rejected by the majority. In Adams county, of company K. 184thregiment of Pennsylvania volunteers, there were 21 votes for Colffoth and 38 for Koontz. Why were those votes rejected? Because one man from Franklin county had voted along with these men from Adams county; and that was reason enough for rejecting the whole vote; and that is the way that Mr. Cotfroth is to get his sent, if he does get it. One man from Franklin county voted with the soldiers from Adams county. The returns had. been rightly made, even to the highest degree of technical correctness; and yet those judges rejected the whole concern an deprive Mr. Koontz of the benefit of the difference between 21 votes for his antagonist and 38 votes for himself and that is the way the whole thing is manipulated all through. Then companies B and G gave 1 vote for Coffroth and 32 for Koontz and why, pray, was that rejected? Because soldiers from different companies voted at one election, a thing that, as has been shown by my friend on the committee, it was perfectly competent to do under the law. There is no law to prevent soldiers from 1,000 companies from voting at one election, provided there is only one organized company at the place. There is nothing here on the face of the papers to show that there were 2 organized companies there. Yet, sir, running up to the most extreme and exquisite style of technicalities in order to do injustice to the American soldiers, these men at home had declared that they would throw out that soldiers vote in order to elect the man against whom that vote was cost. There was nothing under heaven, I assert, to authorize the throwing out of that vote. That vote was rejected. I count it, sir. Here, again, is company I, of the 210th regiment, proved by paper27, on age 57 of the report, giving 9 votes for Mr. Co roth, and 19 for is antagonist, Mr. Koontz. Thus Mr. Koontz is deprived of 10 votes. Then, a sin, here is the vote of company B, 21st cavalry proved by paper28, on page 61 of the report. Throwing out, as the minority do, 2 of the votes for Mr. Koontz, you have 4 for Mr. Colfroth, and 34 for Mr. Koontz. All these votes are thrown out for reasons which are indicated in the report, and which are well understood by gentlemen who gave attention to the able remarks of my colleague, [Mr. Parse], Now, sir, these votes which I have enumer ated elect Mr. Koontz by precisely 32 majority and if ybu reject all tevotes from edford county which were rejected by the judges, Koontz is still elected by 5 majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, let this House simplydo what the returns in the case enable an bind Congress to do, to wit, simplycount the legal votes presented, and Mr. Incontz is elected. Unless gentlemen can deny the papers in the case, they cannot deny that these votes elect Mr. Koontz by 32 majority. Kee now in mind the 3 rules of the law that I have already named: “1st, no mere informality in the manner of ear ryin out orence uting any of the roviswns of this act shall invalidate any election hed under the same orjiuthorize the return thereof to be reiectedor set aside. “2nd, the district board so constituted shall castup the several county returns, and make dupli catereturns of all the votes given for such office in the district and the name of the person or persons elected. ud "3rd, that revision prohibiting any return from being r ected that is intelligible, and evenwhen not intelligi le, requiring it to be returned to the body which tries a contest.” Also remember that we have before us in this House the identical papers, in reference to which those judges had no other duty than merely to add up the votes they showed. remembering these, the members of this House are to decide whether they are goingto permit a false adding up by these men, who in law are incapable of any over not than to add and return figures, to deprive the American people of their voice and their representative of his seat and give it to another, when it is shown by the legal returns before the House that this false estimate has been attained by illegally, and without any jnrisdiction over the matter, rejecting the votes of the soldiers. The returns must be counted if capable of being deciphered, and if not, must still be returned. Here, then, we have it provided by the laws of Pennsylvania that even those returns which are so defective that they cannot be codnted by the return judges must be sent to Congress to be ecunted. Vhy send them here or to the other courts trying contests, if these county judge as may pass upon and reject them forever? ow. the mnjority of the committee have reported that Congress is impotent to count; that those men who disregarded the law and threw out soldiers votes have concluded Congress; that, although we have returns here which may be technically accurate, and although they show Mr. Koontz was elected, yet by this false return of the district board, or false returns of these county boards, Congress shall be concluded on the primafacie case, so that we shall not give the seat to the man who was elected by the votes which were duly and regularly returned to be counted under the law. That 18all there is of this case, and here I leave it. I have merely sought to discharge my duties (m a member of the committee. I leave it where I began by saying that the whole case turns upon the question whether this House is to be permitted to count votes which are legally returned to it; whether it is to be precluded from attaining the truth as shown by all the legal returns, and are to give conclusive validity to a papershown to be illegal by its own face. Here the hammer fell.]