Mr. DAWES. I do ifot desire to weary the patience of the House at this time, nor do I intend in any degree to go over the ground that has been so ably gone over by the gentlemen who made the majority and minority reports in this case. But, sir, I believe I understand very well where the trouble is. It is at the starting point. Both of the gentlemen have ably argued the case from the point of view at which they stand, and it is but or the House to determine what it was that they imposed n n this committee to do, and the whole thing is settled. Did they impose upon the committee the duty of inquiring into the merits of this case and ascertain who has received the greatest number of votes, or did they impose upon it the duty of ascertaining what the Governor of Pennsylvania was unable to do, who had the prima fulls case? Let me read the resolution instructing the committee. Upon that hangs the whole case: “Resolved That the certificatesandall other pnper! relating to the election in the 16th congressional district of Pennsylvania he referred to the Committee ofElect ons, whenappointed. with instructions to report etasearly a day as practicable which of the rival clatmants to the vacant scat from that district has the prom fnrir right thercto. reserving to the other party the privilege of contesting the ease upon the merits without prejudice from lapse of time or want of notice.” With that resolution of instruction before us, it seems to me we had something else to do than to investigate this case on the merits and I have only to call the attention of the House today to the able argument of my colleague on the committee, the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SnnnLmaaoss] in support of the mine r 1ty report, to answer the question, whether that minority have adhered to this rule or whether they have not, and whether the learned Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS] has not put it entirely upon the ground that it was our duty to ascertain who had the greatest number of votes, and if so, we were required to do that without any testimony, without any examination into the case but were to decide who had the greatest number of votes without stopping to inquire into the truth in reference to a single vote. I did not so understand my duty under this resolution. If I mistook it, then the majority on the committee have depprted from what the House required of them. I am right in this, that we were to leave the merits of the case until they could be examined in the light of the testimony taken on one side and the other then the majority of the committee are right. What is the rtmafacie case? What is the "ma acie title to a seat which the Gentfrom Pennsylvauia [Mr. Srsvsxs] and every other gentleman brings to this House? It is the proclamation of the Governor. Neither of these parties had this proclamation. Is it not then our dut to betake ourselves to the positionin which the Governor himself was and See if we can find the testimony properly and legally brought before him and in existence upon which to base a primafucie case? What does he base his primafacie case upon? He bases it in this instance upon the certificate of the return judges of 5 counties and I appeal to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania that until you o to the merits you cannot go behind that certi cate. Now, what was the difficulty with the return upon which the Governor was to base his cer tificate? Why, they did not embrace but 4 counties. It was a legal board of 4 out of 5 judges, but it did not embrace but 4 countics. Why not? Because one of those 5 judges chose not to go into that board chose to absent himself from it because he thought some of these other 4 had made a mistake in their calculation which he had nothing to do with in their own counties and here I will say in assing that it was the most natu ral thing in tie world that he should have gone to Attornery General Black to support him in this idea of seceding from the board and breaking it up by that operation and that is all I have to say about that opinion. Well, sir, there was a competent board with 4 full returns of the 4 counties before them. They could not return 5 because they had not got the 5th. The man who was in trusted with it had gone out with the return in his ocket. how, what did the majority of the committee do? They justsupplied that deficiency. They put in that return from the 5th county about which there is no dispute. Then they took what they had and put it with what the Governor and his AttyGen said was all that was necessary. For the AttyGen, in his printed opinion, says if they had not added Somerset county, that it would have been his (lot to have given the primafacie title to Mr. Co roth. So, as there was no dispute about it we put it along with the 4 and we then had just what the Governor and his attorne general said they must do to give the prima acie case to Mr. Cotlroth. Go behind these certificates and you get into a position that is presented here, of contesting and wrangling upon what this papermeans, which can be settle only by testimon becausesylvania [. on one side and on the other. It is agree with the Gentfrom Penn Mr. STEVENS] that we have no business to go behind these certificates on the primafacic casee that I say we did just what the Governor an the AttyGen say is all that was necessary. but Somerset with the other 4 counties, an there it is. Now, you go behind those certificates; you find something the matter with this return and something the matter with that return, and there is diversity of opinion, but all of it susce tible ofexplanation by testimony, none ofwhic was sent to the committee. Let me refer to an instance. This return of 78 votes for member of Congress, cast by 89 persons, is explained by the minority of the committee by the theory that the balance of these persons belonged in another county, and therefore ought to be counted. Now, to show you how unsafe it is to take that theory, let me state a single fact. That expla nation was never thought of before the committee. On the other hand, a very different theory was urged by Mr. Koontz and his counsel to explain that discre ancy. They suggested that it adgot to be a most night; that the congress vote was the only one cared for; and in their anxiety to get in the Congress vote they allowed the balance of them to vote without recording their names. That was the statement made by them before the committee; and it was only after my learned colleagues on the committee began to make up their minority report that they adopt this other theory that they must be charge to another county. Now, that may be right. I do not mean to say that it is not right. But I mean to saythnt it is the most unsafe thing in the world totake these theories in reference to these papers, when we are called upon, as the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Srevsss] well says, to stand by the certificates until we go into the merits of the case. My friends, in this primafacic case, have counted returns that never have been sworn to, although the law requires that they should be sworn to and they have counted those that have been sworn to before an officer contrary to the provisions of the law. Now, in going into the merits of the case that is all right; we should o behind those returns and examine them. put upon aprimafacie case we should not do so. the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Srsvnxs] has acted with me over and over again, and unsented men upon the merits of the case because of such returns. I can refer the gentleman to reports that have unseated men on the merits of the case, because the returns wore not sworn to and yet on this primafacic case we are called upon, going behind all these returns, to count all these votes. All I care for in the decision of this case is the precedent. Having had a root deal of experience on this Committee of Clections, for once I desire to leave a record behind me that shall be consistent with itself, if nothing else, and upon that record I am willing to bejudged as a awyer. I have called upon this House over and over again, and I have had the aid of every member from Pennsylvania then in this House, to sustain me upon the very points upon which this majority report has nowbeen made and they will be called upon within a week perhaps, to do the very same thing a sin. An unless, like my learned friendfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Srnvsxs, they can entirely disembar rass themselves to ay ofanything they said yesterday, they will come up and vote in the next case, or the next but one, orin some other case, precisely in accordance with the report of the majority of the committee in this case. This is all I desire to state. The details of this case have been gone over very abl by my friendfrom Michigan, Mr. UPsoNJy who represents the majority of the committee, and by my friendfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. FARM2] who represents the minority of the committee. I am not going into that maze of labyrinth. I mean to put this case simply upon the fact that we had what the Governor of pennsylyania and his AttyGen say was all that was lacking to enable him to give Mr. Cofiroth precisely the same prime fade title to a seat iere that is asked by the majority of the committee. When the time shall come to go into the merits of the case, upon the evidence, I doubt not my friends of the minority of the committee will find the majority, as the majority of the committee believe they will find the minority, earnestly desirous of reaching every vote honestly cast by soldier or civilian, here or anywhere else, and of giving it its full effect. Till then, when I am called upon to state what is the primafaciccase, excluding by the very terms of the resolution my entering into the merits of the case, I hold myself bound to do that only, and that is the reason why I join with the majority of the committee in this report.