Mr. UPSON. The analogy is perfect; each company is equivalent to an election precinct, and is made so by the express language of this statute and now, in relation to this matter about judges of election, where it appears that there was only one judge appointed, and where there is no certificate of officers sworn, I refer to page 282, Bartlett s Contested Elections, in the case of Howard vs. Cooper, of Michigan. The report of the committee in that case was sustained by the House. The committee in that case say: “Your committee have rejected thovote of the township of Van Buren. The law reires that the board oi inspectors shall be constitulet of 3personsinnuiuber. The proofis clear that therewere but 2 and as there was no board of inspectors known to the law. your committee sec no way by which any legal effect can begiven tolthe returned votc. They have. therefore. deducted it, although it can in no way affect the decision of this case, whether it be deducted or retained.” and I refer to page 314, Contested Elections, in the case of Blair cs. Barrett, in relation to the fact where it is exiressly required that the officers of election shall be sworn, &c.” The committee are aware that it is sometimes held that public officersare presumedto be qualified and to have taken such oaths of Office astho law roquires and must be taken and deemedto liaioflohq so in the absenceof proof to the contrary; but in this case the law of Missouri expressly repired that a ccrtificate of their qualification shall c returned with the return of the votes. It was expressly charged. as a ground of contest. that they had not beensworn. It would have been a matter of the greatestc aseto have proved Llic fact. if it had been a fact, by summoning anyone of those officer sas a Witness; yct thesitting member. though he called mr nyother witnesses to other points. at no time examined either of the 15 men officiating at those precincts or any other person. as to this fact.” Now, it should be borne in mind here that the law of Pennsylvania expressly requires that this oath should be administered, that it should he signed, that it should be certified by the person administering it, and the certificate appended. It is necessary that it should appear on the face of the return that this party has been sworn and has assumed the obligations of an election officer. Now, on page 315 the committee further say: “In the caseof Joseph Draperas. Charles C. Jehn ston, in the 22nd congress. (ContestedElection Cases. p. 701.) the ComElections state he law, as your committee believe correctly. as. fol o“ws: The neglect by the sheriff or other officer conducting the election to take the oath required by law viti ates the poll for the particular precinct or county and the whole votesof such precinct or count are to be rejected. The legal presumption is thatt o oath required has beentaken. every cllicer bein presumed to have done his duty, and that the omnist own upon the party taking the objection to show the neglector omission; but as the law of Virginia requires that the oath shall be duly returned by the may istrate before whom it is taken and filed in the clerk s office. a cer tificatefrom the clerk that no such oath is filed will be sufficient rimafacie (notice of the objections being previousliy served upon the opposite party) to growtthe burden of proof upon the party claiming “evo e. In this case the law of Missourirequires that the certificateof the qualification of the jud esofelection shall be returned with the return of the votes. An inspection of the record shows no such return at the precincts new under consideration.” This is exactly the case before us. Here are a number of returns, on the face of which there is not the least evidence that this oath was administered, unless you draw such an inference from the recitals in the headings given in the forms in regard to other matters but not intended for that part of the law relating to the certifing and authenticating the oath. In some cases t mm is no evidence whatever of the administering of the oath to any officer whatever. “The report continues: It was distinctly alleged. as a ground of contest. that these judges had not taken the oath and the com, mittee ha come to the conclusion that the burden was upon the sitting member. claiming thesevotes, to show that these officers had actually taken the required oath or to have shown affirmatively that the voteshe asked to have counted for him at these precincts. if the oficers were not qualified. werp actually giveio by bonafizlevoters; an he; not having shown either this qualification of the officers or the fairness of the vote. but the contrary appearing. the votes at these precincts. nam ally. Gravois coal mines. G. Sappingtons house and arlom House, are rejected. Now, sir, in a case as to the primafacic right, are we to a ply a different rule ffom that whiich was applie by this House in the case to which} have just referred, in which case the committee cite various other decisions to the same effect? I will now call the attention of the House to page 18 of the report, where the minority of the cominittee present a tabular summing up of the votes, giving a majority to Mr. Koontz. I shall endeavor to point out where, as I consider, the return is p ainly defective. The 1st summing up by the minority gives Mr. Koontz a majority of 32, while the 2nd gives him a majority of only 14. Now, sir, when, by their own rule, you deduct from the 1st summing llfl the votes credited from Mower hospital, eClellan hospital, and Cuyler hospital, in reference to which there is no evidence of any oath haying been taken, and no return outside of the pollbook and tallylist, and when you deduct also, by the same rule the votes credited to Barracks No. l, where thereis no return appended, the entire majority is destroyed. aking the 2nd summing up, making the same deductions, and also deducting the vote creditedto company Q, 202nd regiment, which in the minority report, page 15, is admitted to be void, (there being at one judge of election) but which is here counted, the result is a large majority for Mr. Coffroth. But in addition to that, these other objections have noticed in passing lie to every single return except one, that one being, I believe, the return of company K, 184thregiment. Hence, I consider that even if we should go behind the certificate of the return judges, which I hold we are not authorized to o in a primafacile case, still there are not, on the face of the returns, enough votes that can be counted in l favor of Mr. Koontz to authorize a different conclusion from that to which the majority of the committee have arrived, that Mr. Coffroth has a majority of the votes cast, on the face of the papers, and the primafacic right to the seat in question.