Mr. PAIN E. I entirely understood the rea long why the Gentfrom Ohio was not present to have been that which he has just stated, and I will add, that after the vote was taken in the committee I called upon the gentleman and requested that he would record his vote upon this case on one side or the other. He informed me that not having been present, having been comelled by his duties on another committee to e absent, he did not feel that he was entitled without further examination to vote upon the case, and was unwilling to do so. It appears, therefore, that 7 members of the committee did vote upon the case. 2 did not vote, of whom one was present and one absent. 2 were absent, of whom one did and one did not finally record his vote. And one, although present, did not vote. I refer to Mr. Ursox. As I have already stated, I do not know why his vote was not recorded. The chairman of the committee now suggests to me that he had been detained by sicknessfrom some of the sessions of the committee. I have made this explanation for the purpose of repellin the unkind attack made on the committee in respect to this vote. It seems to me that when 7 out of 9 members ofa. committee vote upon a case and the absence of one other vote, as ’of Mr. SHEILABARGER’S is fully explained, it can hardly be said that the report of the committee is repudiated by all of the committee excepting the chairman and myself. I insist that we have in good faith and fairly decided this case. If we have made mistakes, let them be shown. But let it not be said to this House that this report which we have presented here.is not the report of the committee. It is the report of the committee, just as much so, and in precisely the same sense, as any report that was ever presented to this House in an election case, where there was no contradictory minority report, was the report of the committee. This is not only the report of the committee, but it is the only re' port emanating from the committee in this case. So much for that. Now, Smith Fuller, contestant, in his “short review of the report of the ComElections, ” makes several statements which I deem it my duty to correct. He says, “The ComElections, after examining the returns of votes cast in the district, (the 21st congressional district,) find the allegations of the conte nt in this particular (that the contestant received a majority of the votes cast) to be' true.” Smith Fuller, contestant, has therein ‘made a great mistake. The committee found that the sitting member, John L. Dawson, reccived a majority of the votes cast at that election, as they have stated in this report, parts of which I have caused to be read. ‘hey found that, on the ruling of the ma'ority of the ComElections and of the house itself in the case of Koontz vs. Cotfroth, the majority of Mr. Dawson was 21; and upon the theory of the minorit in that case he had a majority of 4 votes. the contestant further states that “They find, upon a computation of all the votes polled for this district, that I, the contestant, have a majority of 16 votes.” On the contrary, we find that the sitting member has a majority of 21 votes.