Mr. PAINE. I will come to that question directly. I say that of these 2 district board returns, the one in favor of Mr. Cotlroth was upon its face an absolute nullity and I ask the attention of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, ltMr. STEVENS, who desires to understand this case, to what I now have to say. The district board return in favor of Mr. Cof froth was upon its face an absolute nullity as a return. that is the opinion of the AttyGen, who gave that advice to the Governor when the Governor consulted him as to its validity as the basis of his roclamation. On the other hand, the t district board return in favor of Mr. Koontz is upon its face absolutel perfect. The Coffrot return is a nul lity, because it put orts to be the return of only 4 counties oft at district, and not ofal the counties. It shows upon its face that the vote of Somerset county was excluded. It does not purport upon its face to be the legal return of that district. On the other hand, if you look at the Keents return you will find that On its face it does purport to be the return of all the votes of all the counties of the district, and that it is signed by 5 judges, by a full board of district judges. how, these 2 reports were placed in the hands of the Governor; and the question is, why did he not, on the strength of the Koontz return, give Mr. Koontz a certificate? He himself pronounced the Coffroth return a nullity. Why, then, with that return in one hand, a nullity as he declares it to have been, and with the Koontz return in the other hand, perfect on its face, and signed by 5 judges, why did not the Governor give the certificate of election to the man who, upon the face of the papers, was entitled to it? Mr. Speaker, if it be true, as the gentleman claims, and as I am willin to admit, that we are to take the papers on their face, I maintain that, beyond the possibility of controversy, Mr. Koontz was entitled to a certificate from the Governor, because his return was perfect, was signed by 5 judges, and was not impeached by any return which, as a return, had any validity. On the contrary, the only paperwhich attacked it was a paperwhich the governor himself tells on was, as a return, a nullity. Why, then, did be, out of regard forthat nullity, refrain from maki his reclamation as he onght to have made it, in avor of Mr. Koontz? Alger it has been declared, in the opinion of the AttyGen, that that return was a nullit, the Governor turns round and inquires intot e legality of those 2 boards. Vhut right had he to do that? Mr. Speaker, if he had a right to do that, we have the same right. But I believe that the Governor of Pennsylvania, looking only at the face of those papers, ought to have made his proclamation in avor of Mr. Koontz. But it was represented to the Governor that the men who signed these papers were not all lawfully chosenjudges; sud he went into an examinationan examination nowhere provided for in the laws of Pennsylvania or the laws of the U.S. in which he took testimony for the purpose of determining who were and who were not lawful members of these respective boards. By the consent of the parties he took the testimony of witnesses, and he found that the 4 men who composed the Coffroth board were lawfully chosen to that board. He found that only 2 of the Koontz board were law fully chosen membersof that board. We have also examined all the evidence law fully before us bearing upon these questions and we find that only 2 of the Coffroth board had any shadow of a right to be members of that board. There were 4 judges who signed the Coffroth district board return. The judge from Franklin county, Mr. Winter, went 1st to the Koontz district board and signed the Koontz district board return on the same da on which he signed the Coffroth district boar return. Now, Mr. Speaker. whether he had any right to a)pear 111that 2nd board or not, whether he had any right to sign the return in favor of Mr. Coffrot or not, depends on whether the 1st board which he attended was or was not a lawful board. If it was a lawful board, then, when he had attended it and deposited his county return there, he was func lus officio, and he had no right to attend the Coffroth board. The member who represented the county of F, ulton in the Coffroth board was Mr. Laker. I will read from the AttyGens opinibn the agreed statement of facts, to show how Mr. Laker was chosen a “ member: Mr. Wilhelm. of Franklin. wasselectedasdistrict return judge by the return judges of that county at their 1st mcctinc, and of cours, beforethemhliers vote had been counted. Mr. Lukcr. of the same county. wassclect dbythe returnjudzcs of the county at theirlast luectin and after the soldiers volehad beencounted. Atfhut meeting. upon the suggestion ofoue of the clerks. Mr. Wilhelm. who waspresitient of the board, stated that ho had been informed that the selectionofa district return judge. beforeall the votes had been coured. was illegul. upon which a motion wasmade ano carried to proceed to a 101cction. The votewas taken and Mr. Lnker had ama jority and the returns were accordingly placed in his charge. Mr. Wilhelm wasnominated. buthad nota orlv. Ho neverrcsi ned the appointmentwhich alreadybeenmade. utmo doubt. under theim I pression that such appointment was illegal, be put l the question on proceeding to a new selection. unnounced the result and as president sizned a cer tificatc, under seal, of Mr. Lakers selection asdistrict return judge. "I can sec no ground for the assumptionthat ajudge cannot bedesignatedfor these purposesjust as law fully before the certificate has been made out and signed as afterward: and therefore I conceive that the selection of Mr. Wilhelm was entircl legal. But that sclrction did not constitutehim the ol crofun office. He wasrather a committee of one to perform certain duties. But. whether he bestyled an officer or a committee, in my opinion the subsequent selection of Mr. Lakcr and tile actual placing of the cer tificate in his charge, completely discharged Mr. will helm and ovorrodehis appointment.” Now. Mr. Speaker, it is to be observed that Mr. Wilhelm was chosen unanimously by the boa. d at its 1st meeting, when that boar had a right to choose the man to take the return to the district board. Mr. Laker was chosen at the 2nd meeting of the board, not unanimously, but by a majority, in the face of the opposition of the minority, after it had been discovered that it would be necessary to manip ulate the soldiers returns in the district board, in order satisfactorily to decide this case. I will say. Mr. Speaker, that I have found it very difficult, indeed, to recognize this selection of Mr. Laker by abare majority against the opposition of a minority as overriing the unanimous selection of the board made under those circumstances. Nevertheless the minority of the committee have decided, not without grave doubts, to recognize Mr. Lakerasa lenal member of the Coffroth board. If, then, he had a right to be there, and being present made the board legally complete as to numbers, and if Mr. Wilhelm had no lawful place in the Koontz board, then Mr. Winter, from Franklin county, had also a right to be a member of the Coffroth board. Now I come to the question whether the 2 judges who represented Adams and Bed ford counties in that Coffroth board were law ful judges. In my judgment, the countyjudge, who takes the county board returns to the district board, has no place in that district board, unless he has with him the returns for his county. Those returns are his credentials. Without them he has no right to be there, because the only provision of the law of Pennsylvania, respecting the selection of the men who shall carry these county returns to the district board, is a provision that these returns shall be taken in charge by one of the county judges, and by him presented to the district board. There is no statutory provision there for the election of one of the county judges to act as district judge. of course the county board has a right to designate, otherwise every member of the county board might claim to be the district judge. Onl a valid return, then, can constitute the credentials of the judge who bears the county board return to the district board. I say the judge who represented Adams county did not have with him lawful credentials. He did not bear with him to the district board a valid return. Why? The return was invalid for the same reason for which the Coffroth district board return was declared by the AttyGen to be a nullit. It did not embrace all th e soldiers returns or Adams county. It rejcited certain soldiers votes which ought to have been included, as I will now proceed to show. I come now to determine this proposition: If it was the intention of the legislature of Pennsylvania to augment the difficulties which must always attend the exercise of the elective franchise by soldiers in the field, by hampering, them with more stringent and minute formal ities than incumber the elective franchise within the State. the intention was certainly not well, expressed in the military election act of IBM, which contains the following swceing clause, not found in nnyother general law of that State: "No moreinformality in the manner of carrying outor executing anyof the provisionsof this actshull invalidate any election held under the same or authorize the return thereof tobe rejectedorset aside.” By the law applicable to the home elections a clear distinction is made between the return of the precinct judges, strictly socalled, and the pollbook, tallylist, and certificates ofoaths. One duplicate of the pollbook, fallylist, and certificates of oaths is scaled up it. one or more of the ballotboxes and deposited with the nearest justice, ” to answer the call of any persons or tribunal authorized to try the merits of such election.” The other duplicate is sent under seal to the office of the prothonotary of the county. But an entirely different dispositionis made of the return. That, and that only, goes to the county board. To that only do the judges of the county board look to as certain the vote of the precinct. The errors, defects, and informalities of the pollbooks, tallylists, and certificates of oaths are imma terial. If the returns are not so defective as to be unintelligible, the judges must count them, and leave to other tribunals the rectification of whatever wrongs may ensue. The count board must meet on the 1st Friday after the election, and may meet on the morning of that day. But the law does not compel the deposit of the pollbooks, tallylists and certificates before the evening of that day. Hence, during the whole of the day on which the board meets they maybe inaccessible, even though the judges should desire to inspect them. In the military elections the same distinction exists between the return and the pollbook, tallylist, and certificate. The military return is in substance the same as the home return. It is true that the military return is sent to the office of the prothonotary, where also the tickets, pollbook, tallylist, and certificates of oaths are sent, all being written in the same book or series of papers. But the reason of this is to be found in the obvious propriety of sending the return to some known public office to await the call of the county board and no Office can be more appropriate than that of the prothouotary. This circumstance, therefore, oes not affect the legal character of the return. The law requires the prothonotary to certify to the board copies of the returns, not of the poll books or other papers. If the originals are used, it is only at the original returns that the judges are required to look. But all of the ten rejected returns of Adams and Bedford counties, (using the word inits restricted and propersense) except those of compauy B, 21st regiment, Adams county, and company H, 208th rement, Bedford county, are free from such e fects as would render them unintelligible or incapable of computation; those of companies l3 and G, 138th regiment, and company I, 210th regiment. are absolutely perfect; and those of the 3 hespitals and of arracksNoJelosely approximate to perfection. ow, the home electors have no such sweeping provision in aid ofinformalities as has been enacted for the soldiers. If, then, the county board cannot inquire into the regularity of the pollbooks, tally. ists, or certificates of oaths of ome electors who come with returns which are not so defective as to be unintelligible or incapable of computation, why should they inquire iuto the regularity of these papers when soldiers come with intelligible returns? If, notwi. hstandin the evident intention of the legislature to lighten the burden of formal ities, a ways so oppressive to electors in the field, and to intrust to courts and other tribu nuls the remedy of inevitable evils, we are to scrutinize the soldiers pollbooks, tallyists, and certificates of oaths, as well as his returns, while the home elector is merely required to bring intelligible returns, still the soldier will bear even this scrutinyin the present case. For such a scrutiny shows the illegality of the rejection of 8 of these returns. 1. The return of company K, 184thregiment, was rejected “be cause it embraced one voter from Franklin county.” For want of properproof that this vote was not counted also in Franklin count, which is within this congressional district, Mr. Koonti, 1866. 897 who insists on his return, should lose one vote and the residue sl puld be counted: for Mr. Colirotli, 21; and for Mr. Koontz, 38. 2. The returns of company C, 202nd reiment, was rejected for the alleged reason that the election was held and the return made by only one jud c. All 3 of the judges sign this return, which is not only intelligible, but almost orfect in form and yet the accompanying poll book and certificates do not show that more than one judge was sworn. We have therefore concluded, not without grave doubts, to reject this return, which would, if received, give Mr. Codroth 15 and Mr. Koontz 27 votes. 8. The 3 returns for the Mower, Cuylei, and McClellan hospitals were rejected because the certificates of the oaths of the election officers were wanting. This was no lawful ground for their rejection, for it appears from the whole papers that the judges and clerks were actually sworn, and the returns, though defective in form, are perfectly intelligible, and clearly within the provisions of the statute applicable to mere informalitics. They give Mr. Koontz 6 votes, Mr. Coifroth none. 4. The return of companies B and G, 138th reviment, wasrejected because 2 companies voted at one poll, before one set of election officers. It does not, however, appear from the return, or from any other proof before the committee, that 2 companies voted at one poll or betbre one set of election Officers. It does appear that electors of 2 companies sovoted., utunder the act of 1864 electors of200 companies may so vote. In order to invalidate this return, it must be shown that these 33 voters constituted 2 organized companies, and not detachments absent from their compa nies. This does not appear. On the contrary, the language of the return and of the ellbook is precisely such as would be properift ey voted as detachments. There could be no excuse for such rigor toward electors in the military service as would be involved in the rejection of this return, even if the liberal statutory provisions respecting defects and informalities were entirely wanting. This return gives Mr. Cotiroth 1 and Mr. Koontz 32votes. 5. The return of company I, 210th reiment, was rejected because the certificates of the oaths of the election officers were wanting. The pollbook recites that these officers were, sworn. Their oath is annexed to the ellbook, duly signed by all the officers. The clerkscer vtiticate is there. The return is substantially correct and duly signed. These papers clearly shew that the election officers were duly sworn, and, in our judgment, are undoubtedly on the safe side of the line which separates essential defects from more informalities. 6. The return of company B, 201st regiment cavalry, was rejecte for 3 a leged reasons: (1.) No copy of the return was certified by the prothonotary to the return judges. It has already been shown that the judges might use the original which they had as Well as a copy and if there could possibly be any doubt as to their right to do that, there can be no doubt as to our right to use the certified copy which is before us. (2.) It is alleged that the election of officers appears to have been nflirmed by Catain James ickley, who was not an officer of the election. This, however, does not appear from the return, or from any of the papers connected withit or from any other proofs before the committee. (3.) The number of votes cast for Representative is alleged to have been greater than the number of idams county electors present. The polbbook does show that 2 votes were cast by electors of Franklin county, which is in the same congressional district. There being no roof that these 2 votes were not also counted Lin Franklin, they should be deducted from the vote of Mr. Koontz, and the rest countedfor Mr. COfffOfl]. 4, lllld for Mr. Koontz 84. The majority return from the Adams county board then, was invalid for the same reason for which the return of the Coffroth district board was invalid. It did not embrace all the valid military recinct returns. It was claimed that it was a so invalid because it was not signed by all the precinct judges present at the meeting of the board; that while it might not have been invalidated by the mere absence of a minority, yet the non-concurrencez and (Zforti art the actual opposition of the minority beiii present, did destro its validity. The considerations in favor of this position are not without weight. The pliraseolog of the law is peculiar and eremptory.” he clerks shall thereupon, int 1opresence of the judges, make out returns in the manner hereinafter directed, which shall be signed by all the judges present, and attested by said clerks.” and if it would be a hardship to suffer a minority, by its opposition, to destroy a return, and so temporarily deprive a dul elected member of his sea it would certainly be no less a hardship to under a majority, by a false return, to give the seat, despite the protest of the minority, to a claimant who was not in fact elected. Indeed, the injury in the former case would not be so great as in the latter. In the former case the right ful claimant would be subjected to a temporary delay in assuming his officc, and the country to atemporary loss of his services; whereas, in the latter, an intruder with no rights, would be thrust by individuals into the national Legislat great its organization, to remain until evicted a r a contest. The right of a district to be always represented is nowise vindicated, but rather assailed, by the admission ofan interloperto its place on this, fioor. The hazard of empowering a dishonest minority of county return judges to temporaril deprive a rightful claimant ofhis seat, and the country of his services, is as nothing compared with the hazardvof empowering a dishonest majority to send hither men not chosen by the people to legislate for the country until driven from the House. It is true that this power must always reside some where, in Governors or other officers, authorized to furnish credentials to representatives in congress. But only urgent reasons would war rant the extension of this power from responsible public Officers to private individuals. If it were necessary to decide this question, we should find great ditheulty in uholding the return of the majority against tcobjection that the minority opposed it. The unlawful rejection, Mr. Speaker, of these soldiErs returns rendered the return of the adams county board a nullit, and the man who bore that return to the district board had no legal character as judge in that board. For precisely the same reasons the return of the soldiers vote, by the majority of the Bedford county board, was a nullity. Neither this return nor the judge who bore it had any place in the Coffrot district board. From the copy of militar returns certified to the Bedford county boar by the prothono tary, it appears that the returns rejected by the majority were those of company H, 28th reiment, and Barracks No. 1, Washington, that are board had actual notice of the presence of the originals, in the prothon otarys office, and of his reasons for refusing to certify them. The return of company H, 208th regiment, wrs rejected for the alleged, reason that the pollbook gives the names of only 36 Bedford county electors, while 52 votes areretuined for members of Congress. This is true. But 16 votes are shown, by the ellbook, to have been cast by electors of Tranklin and Fulton counties, of the same congressional district. They were sent to one county, instead of bein distributed. Inas much as it has notheeris own before the committee that these 16votes were not also counted in the)IOPEl counties, they should be deducted mm the vote of Mr. Koontz, who insists upon the return, and the rest countedfor Mr. Coffroth l8, and for Mr. Koontz 18. The return of Barracks No. 1 was rejected for in this case, as in t the alleged reason that the pollbook contains the names of only 48 electors, and yet 87 votes were cast or Representative in Congress, Passing from the return, which exhibit! no such discrepancy, and is very far from bein so defective as to he unintelligible, to the polbooks, which present the apparent contradiction, we find in the goofs before us a satisfactory explanation. y the law the election Officers are reguired to keep at each of the polls as many po lbooksas there are counties represented by electors. At the polls for Barracks No.1 there were two for the 16th congressional district, which were reduced before the committee. There may have been others. Of these 2, one was the return in question, and the other was for Fulton countv. he latter return, coupled with paper29, shows that 37 Fulton votes were cast at that election, and yet none were counted inthat county for Representative in Congress. It apears that the votes were he last, sent through the mistake of the officers to one county instead of being distributed. This will not, in our judgment, warrant us in rejecting any of these votes except the 2 which are nnex lained, and should be deducted from the vote of Mr. Koontz. Mr. Coffroth is entitled to 29, and Mr. Koontz to 56. In our judgment, then, the Adams and Bedford judges were not legal members of that district board which made the return in favor of Mr. Coffroth. But the gentleman insists, and the majority of the committee seem to be of the opinion that we must slop at the coung board returns, that even if we go behind the district board returns, we cannot go down nearer to the ballotbox than the returns of the count Y boards. Mr. Speaker, the purpose being to ascertain who were and who were not the lawful members of these district boards, I would like to know by what rule we are limited to any articular ind of evidence for the purpose o ar priving at a result. 1 would like especially to know how it ha)pens that we are restricted to the evidence winch the Governor used, which has no legal character, which was not provided for either by the law of Pennsylvania, or the U.S., or by any other aw. It was insisted, Trepeat, that if we should go behind the return of the district board, we ought to stop at the county board returns as conclusive, includin the majority returns of Adams and Redford counties. We cannot assent to this reposition. A scrutiny of the law will show that when 2 or more counties are embraced in one congressional district, as in the case before us, the county returns differ. in material points, both from the soldiers clementary returns and from the district return, The law provides olficial depositories of the returns of pthe military election judges, and of the district board, namely, the Offices of the secretary of the Commonwealth and of the prothonotary of the bounty. But for the return of the county board, when 2 or more counties are embraced in one district, no official deposi toryis provided. It has but one office, namely, to transmit to the district board in an aggre gate form the official declarations, made by the recinct judges, of the result of theilections by them held, and when that othee is performed its mission is so completely ended that the law, provides no place where it may be afteiward reserved. 0th the return of the district board and the soldiers elementary returns are preserved in public offices, and coming from official depositories duly certified are of themselves lawful evidence before us. But the return of the county board, as an official paperhas no existence alter the board has met an acted, and can come before us in no legal form of roof, except by the admission of the parties, alt ough it might also in a regular contest he received as part of a deposition. The Adams and Bedford prcturns are before the committee by admission of the parties, but that admission is mutual, and embraces the papers of both or of neither. It will be a strange proceeding if Mr. Coffroth, after getting his majority returns before the committee by such conditional assent of his competitor, shall be permitted to turn round and repudiate the conditions, and convert his papers, which are here only by sudernnce, into conclusive returns: Mr. Koontz could, of course, with no greater injus tice. make the same preposterous demand. But, in addition to this, the majority return of Adams county is confronted byla Eaperof equal authority before us, signed yt e same judges at the same time and place, which must e taken as a parl: of the instrument itself. From the 2 papers it appears that certain votes were not counted for reasons which the precinct returns show to have been unlawful and the return isa nullity. It is also confronte by the minority return, which shows that the majority return was made in the face of the actual opposition of the minority, and is therefore of at least doubtful validity. With reference to these 2 certificates which have been commented upon by the Gentfrom Michigan, I have to say that the law of Pennsylvania. evidently does not contemplate that they shall be used as credentials before this House. The law makes no provision for their transmittal either by the Governor or any other officer of the State of Pennsylvania to this House. It makes no revision for depos iting them in any office of the State of Pennsylvania and if they do come before this House, presented by the gentlemen themselves, they. come flatly contradicted by the proclamation of the Governor, who declared, having all these papers before him, as is shown by the documentary proofs before this House, that there had been no election.