Mr. HOTCHKISS. Mr. Speaker, before casting my vote on this question I desire to explain my views as the case strikes me. I have examined the reports of the majority and mine irty of the ComElections in this case and in my opinion, allowing full force and etTctt to every paperpresented on the side of Mr. Koontz, embracing every soldiers vote certified to by papers, regular, irregular, and delbetive, the report of the minority fails to show the election of Mr. Koontz. I desire to meet the question upon that ground, and if I am mistaken about it it will be an easy matter to correct me, for I do not wish the soldiers vote to be cast aside in this or in any other case if there is any paperwhich has any validity showing such a vote has been cast., and now, if the House will hear me for a few moments. I will call their attention to page 18 of the report, where the minority of the committee give a table or statement of the vote cer tilled to. This table states the number of votes cast at Barracks No. 1 for Bedford county to be 29 for Colfroth and 56 for Koontz, making 83. The votes cast at those barracks gave Mr. Koontz the entire excess of 87 votes, whereas in truth those papers show only 46 votes were cast at those barracks for Bedford county. I am asked about Fulton county. I understand about that, and will show how the minority propose to transfer this excess over to Fulton county. They say the whole subject was examined and the excess should be returned for Ful ton instend of Redford, but that has no foundation in the papers. There is not a shadow of proof before the House to show that the fact exists. Iwill show what I mean, and Iwill make my statement so clear that it cannot be answered. The committee will observe, on page 18, that the votes in one table or one statement give Mr. Koontz 32 majority, and in the other 14 majority. The minority, on page 18, speaking of this statement of votes, say: “In our judgmenl Ibrn, the certificate and other paper: which were referrcl to the –committee end were competent anIvflllflllr, n"no I following to have bren the whole muber Ive legally returned for the respective llnfln.al I have said, this table gives 29 votes fer Coffroth and 56 for Koontz. If that statement is incorrect, then the mmorityreport falls to the ground. But I now refer to page 43, in which they certif in their statements only 46 votes were cast or Bedford county. They state in the tallylist that of these 46 Mr. Koontz had 58 and Mr. Coffroth 29! That tallylist does not override the statement. It goes on to state the votes cast for the other officers voted for, and it says that only 46 votes all told were cast for any officer at arracks No.1. But on page 16the minority undertake to explain (his, or rather they get up a theory to account for the 37 or 89 votes in excess stated in the tallylist. They say, in substance, that it should be carried to the credit of Fulton county. They say: “The return of Barracks No. 1 wasrejectedfor the alleged reason that the pollbook contains thenames ofonly 48electors, and yet 87voteswerccast for Representative in Congress. Passing from that return. which exhibits no such discrepancy” how can the minority say that it exhibits no such discrepancy when it gives the name of every voter and there are but 46 all told? It gives the number of votes that were cast on the Union side for the State odicers and the number cast on the Democratic side for the same, making just 46 and then there is this statement showing that 85 votes were cast for Representative in Congress after giving the name of every voter, leaving 39 votes unac counted for. Sir, that paperon its face is a very great blunder or a very stupid fraud, and I do not think we can dispose of this question upon the basis of either a blunder or a fraud and give either party the benefit ofit. Reject the by under an Mr. Coffroth is elected, according to the report of the minorit. Give Mr. Koontz the benefit of that blunder and it is a mere statement without any basis. Now, the theory of the minority directly contradicts the returns from Fulton county, signed by all the judges and clerks of that countv, where they say these votes should have been sent. But suppose you go behind the returns of the judges o Fulton county, which are unan imous an uncontradicted, and go to the soldiers camp to search for these 37 or 39 votes. Then you have to turn to page 68, where the judges of election at the soldiers barracks make their returns. They say that for Fulton county 87 votes were cast, all told. Now, those 37 votes the minority of the committee say were these 37 that were attempted to be incorporated in the returns for Bedfbrd county; they say that they were all cast, and they give Mr. Koontz the bonefit of all of them. Now, how were those 87 votes divided politically? Why this same return which they refer to shows that 17 of them were Democratic votes and 10 were Union votes.