Mr. STEVENS. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this discussion has taken a range not fullyjustified by the question before us. We sent to the ComElections the question of the primafacie right to this seat, because the authorities at Harrisburg had said that no one had that primafacie right. It was the single. question of who had the greatest number of votes according to all the papers before them. If there is any objection in regard to any of the votes contained in those papers, that is a question to be considered and decided in the consideration of the claim of the contestant afterwards. All we sent to the committee was the question of the rima facic right to this seat upon the papers before them. Yet here we have had an investigation into frauds and false returns and erroneous returns. Now, a single word as to the law of Pennsylvania will show that all this is aside from the question and ought never to have been considered in this connection. By the law of Pennsylvania elections are held at the different polls by 2 inspectors and one judge of election. At night, when the poll is closed, these 2 ins ectors and onejudge add u the votes and may e out tallylists and return them. In order to aggregate all the votes, they are all to meet on a certain Friday followin at the county seat; and by the express pronsions of the law that county board can do nothing but add up the votes returned to them. They are not permitted to inquire into the regularity of the returns; they are not permitted to inquire into the fraudulent conduct or character of the otficers or votes. The law is express upon that point, and it has been so decided over and over again, and no Pennsylvania lawyer dares dispute that. When the county board meets it takes the precinct returns as they are, good bad, and indifferent, and adds them all up. upon that the county officers give their certificate and that is tested in the properbody upon the question of the frauduleiic or illegality of the votes upon a contest, an nowhere else. For State elections it is sent to Harris burg to the secretary of the pom monwenlth and contested in the Legislature and nowhere else on earth. Any man who undertakes to contest it anywhere else does not know his duty under the laws of Pennsylvania. Now, what have we here I We have the votes taken in the different precincts of this district, and we havejicin taken at Barracks No. l, in the DistCol. Under the soldiers voting law the votes of the soldiers are to be returned to the rothonotaries of the district in which the soldiers reside, duplicate returns being sent to the secretary of the Commonwealth and no man, in meeting in county board, dare inquire into the regularity of a single vote that was cast. His duties are in the law, and have been decided over and over again. The lawis as plain as the nose on a mans face, that all the board has to do is to add up these returns as they receive them, and make return of them to the HoRep or to Harrisburg, and whoever desires to contest the primafacile case of the right by a majority of the votes to a seat in this House must come here and do it, and nowhere else. Now, we have a discussion here as to the irregularity of these votes, and what was struck out by the county beards. It is admitted, or if not the facts show it to be true. that if all the votes returned from this district and from the different recincts in the counties in the congressional district had been counted and re, turned, Mr. Koontz would have had 68 majority., There is no doubt about that; here are the figures as lain as day, and whoever says to the contrary, as not examined, and does not know the facts in the case. It is said that. in Bedford county there was a mistake of 37 votes. Now, the gentleman who has just sat down [Mr. llorcuxiss] has been misled by his examination of this matter. It appears that elections for the counties of Bed ford and Fulton were held in this city at Bar racks No. l, and as the return was made out, the number of votes for Mr. Koontz was 58, and for Mr. Ceifroth was 29. They were all credited to Bedford county. If that is taken as true, then no man can deny that Mr. Koontz is entitled to his seat primafacie, whatever may be the case when we come to Eensider the question of fraudulent votes. But the gentleman who reported these resolutions says that those 58 votes and 29 votes are 37 more than the tallypapers show to have been cast for Bedford county. That is true; but if he had taken the tallypapers for Fulton county, they would have made precisely that sum