Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, myi colleague [Mr. Urson] has not stated the matter with precise accuracy in saying that I desire to address the House. I really desired very much to avoid speakin on the question, as I ain confident that the cuse now feels weary of the subject. Gentlemen, however, whose interests are closcl involved, are particularly desirous that I sha l say something on the question, and I yield to them. I shall attempt to condense my remarks into the smallest possible compass consistently with the proper presentation of the points which strike me as important. and, Mr. Speaker, I think that this case, like almost every other case turns upon 2 or 3 points. It is true that other matters connect themselves with these points, and will have to be looked at. This is a case in which 5counties compose the congressional district, the 16th district of Pennsylvania. In relation to 3 of those 5 counties there is no dispute or difference among the members of the committee. In order to get at the truth, then, we need only look at 2 of those counties, Adams and Bedford. Here, Mr. Speaker, let me attract, ifI can, the attention of members to that which appears to my mind a Controlling idea in this case: that, if you count all the votes that are returned to this House by officiul, and, as I deem, legal papers, there is no controversy in the case, and Mr. Koontz is entitled to the seat, because he received more votes than his antagonist, as in dicated by the legal papers in the case. The whole question is, whether this House is in such a predicament that it dare not look at the papers in the case, whether, in other words, there has been got here by some process of technics such a state of things that the HoRep cannot get beyond a certain iaperblock ade and find out the truth upon o cial papers in the case? Now, how does that happen? In just this way: it is said that there is here a certain return, made by what is called the district board of this 16th district, which return concludes conrcss and prevents us from looking at those other papers which show that Mr. Koontz is elected. Now, sir, that is a proposition which to my mind is utterly untenable and wrong, wrong in fact and wron in that there is no legal principle upon which i it can be rested. Let us look at that a moment. The resolution referring this matter to us directs us to find who has the prinmfacte title. What does that mean? I will state it in a sentence. It means, not that this House shall drift along and lodge upon the 1st paperwhich comes up, to Wit, the return of, the district board; but it means this House shall look at all the legal papers before it and find out who has received the largest number of votes: Now, sir, there is under the Pennsylvania laws, as disclosed inthis case, but one judicial tribunal to determine who shall not vote; and that judicial tribunal are the judges who, under the law of Pennsylvania, decide when a man is entitled to vote or when he is hot. Sir, when that board has acted on the matter, and it has been received, then the vote has accomplished its high prerogative it is then the determination an voice of the meriean constituent, and this Congress in finding out the question who has the primafacts title has nothing else to do than to cast 11 from the papers which show these votes adrmtted by this card of judges the whole number of em, and give the seat to him who has the most votes as shown by all the papers in the case, which are papers provided by law to show the number of these votes. To make that count is to find the primafacie title. Mr. Speaker, under the act of Congress there is no primafacic case proved by any paper. That act of Congress reads thus: “Before the 1st meetingof the next Congress and of every subsequent Congress, the Clerk of the next preceding HoRep shall make aroll of the Representativeswlect and place thereon the namesof all persons and all such personsonly. whose credentials show that they were regularly electedin accordancewith the laws of theirStuuesrespectively, or the laws of the U.S. ” Now, sir, no such credential as that is in this case. The Governors proclamation announcing the election of members from the State of Pennsylvania would be such acredential. The Governor found there was no such return made to him as would permit him to issue that proclamation. Now, there is only one other possiblecredential which is known to the laws of Pennsylvania which could be such a creden tial as that contemplated by the act of congress, and that is the paperwhich the district card is required to son to the person elected, or decided to be elected by that district board. such a paperis said to be in this case. It is paperIo. 16. Let me say to the House that the paperin this case, even if we were bound to stop upon it, even if I were mistaken in the proposition I announced a month ago, to wit, that Congress can look at all the papers before it, even though the certificate of the distriot board were in form perfect, and that there is no legal order in which we must take up the papers; even if I were wrong in that, and though we cannot past a return legal in form, and count, as I insrst we may, the returns from the election precincts; if we must on the contrary stop at the return of this district board, were it in due form, then still there is nothing in this case to prevent Congress from goin back to those elementary returns, because this credential, which I say is the only other possible creden tial in the meaning of the act of Congress, the return made by the district board, is amenable to the following fixtal objections: 1st, that it is confronted by another return, to wit, paper15, on page 36 of the report, shows that of froths certificate was on a count which did not include all the counties of the district, but in fact excluded Somerset. 2ndly, it is on its own face not in compliance with the law. On that return held by Mr. Coffroth it is not indicated, as indeed the fact was not, that they had counted all the counties of the district, and on the face of that paperthey professed to count only such as were before them. So that paperdoes not profess to comply with the law and that is notnll, nor the worst ofit. Another paperin the case shows that they actually did reject or omit to count one county of the district. N ow, I ask gentlemen, before saing theyare bound by that return, to pause and ooh at the consequences a little.