Mr. DAWES. I am very anxious to close this debate, as I stated this morninc, probably before the gentleman entered the lfal. I have stated 2 or 3 times today, as I stated when the report of the committee was submit ted, the reason why it was very desirable, if possible, to close the debate at an early time. suggested, at the commencement of the debate this morning, that I was willing to have this case post d until Friday. provided I could have that ay u110wedfor its consideration. But objections were made all around the House to postponing the consideration of this do be yon today. Of course this matter is entirely in the control of the House, and Isuppose that according to usage the House will permit me to call the previous question. Any other member can call it, an the House can order it when they please; but if the matter is left to me, so long as this case is properly debatedl do not inten to cut off anybody from speaking so far as that can be done and close this case today. I intend to confine the debate, so far as may be able, to the case, so as to make the discussion as brief as possible, in view of the urgency of the public business. Now, Mr. Speaker I was commenting 1st upon that portion 01 the evidence submitted by the contestant toncbin Hamilton township, spoken of on page G of the report. The 1st piece of evidence, as I stated, isa discrepancy between 140vutesrcturned for him and 170 proved by the voters themselves to have been cast for him. It is true, as I have remarked, that that may result from one oftwo causes: it may have been either an honest mistake or a fraudulent miscount. If there was a fraudulent miscount it would so taint the return itself that it could not be used at all as evidence. If there was an honest mistake, and if that was the entire extent of the mistake, it would be the duty of the committee to take 23 votes and give them to the contestant. It would then, as l was remark ing, be altogether uncertain whether the mistake arose simply from omitting to count 23 votes, or from counting those 23 votes for the sitting member. lt would make a difference of46 whether the mistake arose from one cause or the other. But, notwithstanding that uncer tainty and possible injustice to the parties, the committee did not feel at liberty to say, as a matter of course, that they had a right to take those 23 votes from the sitting member. But this is only a part of the testimony touching this township. The contestant goes further. He produces the evidence of witnesses who testify to an important circumstance in connection with the fact to which I have already referred, that the law of Indiana fails to guard the ballot box at a particular time when it is highly important that it should be arded. If there is any danger of fraudulent interference with the ballot box at any time, it is after the closing of the oll and before the final count and return of the Officers. Then there is every temptation; then there is every reason for guarding the ballot box with special vigilance. In Emil township, according to the tea " requires that if he keeps the box he should timony in the report, the judges of the election proceeded, after the closin of the polls, in the room where the election ha been held, to count the votes. They had counted only about 15 or 20 votes, placing them upon a string as they counted them, as the law of Indiana requi when they concluded they would adjourn alter supper, and take their leisure in the evening to finish the count. Leaving some 300 or 400 votes in the ballot box uncounted, they, as the law requires in such a case, put this string of 16 or 20 votes on to of the uncounted votes in the ballot box and then put the tally papers and poll books on top of them. Ilhe locked the box, gave ak to one oftlw of the election, and took the box himself? other 2 judges of the election departed to got their supper; he left the box in the room where the electron had been held and went to his suffer. When they came back, the he which inspector had given to the judge who went off for his super would not unlock the box. tried not er, and that would not unlock 1h box. Then this inspector, although thB the kc of itto one of the judge, out of is pocket and unlocked to box. the box had been opened, this string of which had been placed on top of the unwanted tickets was not found. A search was made, and this string of tickets was at last found at the bottom 01 the box, under the unconnte tickets which had been originally left there 1 this string of tickets on the to. When it came to appear that at least 170 personshad voted for the contestant, while only 140 votes had been counted for him, there was excitement in the town, and some accusations were made against the judges of the election. When the transaction which have recited came to be discussed, the judges of the election and the inspector were forced, precisely 8 days after the election, to come out in apubliccard, in which, in order to relieve themselves of the accusation of bavi tampered with the ballot box, they confesse a conviction on their part that the ballot box had been tampered with, but called that it had been done in their absence. eglbe 3 officers of election, as well as the clerk, signed this statement, in which the as the box was without doubt tampered wit, although they say it was in their absence and without their knowledge. Therefore, we have a discrepancy in the vote. We also have the evidence, that cannot be and is not controverted touching this township, that there was an actual invasion of this ballot box at the close of the polls; but to what extent, Mr. Speaker, of course nobody knows. Therefore, nobody knows how to correct this oll. It is certain the actual return itself is also. It is also certain there is no testimony by which we can make it certain. The conclusion is inevitable, then, we must lay it aside. Then what is the duty of the committee? What is the duty of all parties? It is to produce such testimony as IS in their power of how many votes were actually cast at that poll, and to give to either party such votes as are rovod to have been cast for him. That m c has been followed by the ComElection, and the result is stated in the report. I beg gentlemen to read the card upon page! 6 and 7, as it contains the kernel of the whole case. The next is that of Cloverdale. The official returns from this township gave Mr. Voorheea 27 votes, and Mr. Wasiburn 68 votes. It was proved by the contestant, in precisely the same manner as in the other case, there were actually cast for him, instead of 58, the number of 91 votes, making the difference between 68 and 91 in the count of so small a number as that return. While the committee could hardly make themselves believe this was an honest mistake in so small an account as that, yet, for the reason stated in the report, although there was other evidence to which I beg to call the attention of the House touching this well, they did not set aside the whole poll. era was other evidence iboa idea the Mt that a come forward and testified that in this lmll township they had cast their votes for the contestant. although only 58 were returned for him. In this precinct the count was not made until next day. The judges and clerk of the election became weary and were unable to complete the canvass that night. They therefore ocked up the ballot box. according to the law I have cited, and gave it to the inspector. In the mean time the inspector took the box and carried it away out of town, from half to 3/4ths of a mile from Cloverdale, to the house of a friend, a warm supporter of the sitting member, where he spent the night with it. It became evident at the close of the poll, and before the return, dint the vote for the county was exceedingly close. There is no direct testimony that anything was done with the box during the night. But it is in evidence that the vote in the whole county was very close, there being. as returned, only 26 majority for the member, less than the discrepancy (33) sfiottuinng at this poll. The county ticket was therefore in danger. A strong supporter of the sitting member, by the name of Scott, (page 69,) came from the county seat that night, a distance of ten miles, to the house where the ballot box was kept, about 3 4ths of a mile from the town, after the owner of the house had gone to bed and had fallen asleep, and spent the night there. The owner of the house testified that he did not know at what time he came, what he came for, and what he did and his purpose and business, as well as the success which at tended it, only appear from the testimony of a witness who overheard him afterward relate it. But this was hearsay evidence. which the committee rejected, otherwise there would have been no doubt on this question. The case against this ballot box, therefore, rests upon the out discrepancy between the return (58) and? be number (91 ) proved to have voted for Mr. Wash burn. the temptation in the close vote in the county, the opportunity for tampering with the ballot box during the night, an the suspicious visitation of Scott from the county seat during the night, to other with such inferences as it is fair to draw from the fact that no witness is contradicted, no testimony is controverted, no suspicious circumstance explained, so easy of exlanation by the calling ofbeottor the inspector, if the truth permitted it. But as the result to which the committee arrived upon the whole case, as hereafter stated, would not in any as pect be changed, whether this returnbe rejected or corrected, they did not determine to reject it entirely, however much confidence in it must be shaken in every fair mind by the evidence here adduced. They, instead, gave the contestant the benefit of the discrepancy proved, namely, 33 votes. The next is the township of Jefferson. There was only testimony of the discrepancy of 12 votes. They therefore did not reject, but corrected, this return,giving to the contestant the benefit of the 12 votes here proved and not counted. n the next is Riley township. The official re turn from this township was, (p e 7,) for Mr. Voorhees, 173 votes; for Mr. ashburn, 88 votes. The testimony is similar in character to that already commented upon in connection with other townships. r, This testimony shows that there were 108 persons, at least, who voted at this reeinct for the contestant, while 88 votes on y were re turned for him. There was testimony, also, of 6 or 8 others in reference to 5 of these, as to their political opinions, strong and openly avowed, and their associations, and the fact that "they voted. How they voted the contestantwas mble to show. I. h. That was the 1st item of testimony in relation to that township. There the rule would have been the same, in the Opinion of the committee. as applied to the last 2 townships. But the testimony of the contestant went further and showed this: at noon they adjourned for dinner, which is kindly previded for by the gaffes of election under the law of Indiana. y were all“ to the hand the in spector to dine. He took the ballot box with him and put it in his bedroom adjoining,the dining room while they dined—whether locked or not there is no testimon; [presume it was. After dinner the judges O election interested themselves in examining some outline may s thatwere hungup in the dining room, whilet e inspector took himself to the bedroom, where the ballot box was, shut to the door, and was absent 15 minutes. Nobody saw what he did, so far as we are informed. He returned afier a quarter of an hour from the bedroom, and they took the ballot box to the oils. Upon counting the ballots at the c ose of the olls and comparing the whole number of bal ots in the box with the poll list, they found a discrepancy of 5 or 6. They had not bal lots enough by 5 or 6. How were they to make up the number, was the question. So they concluded to take from their table 5 or 6 ballots. put them in, and count them. Where the ballots came from the witness did not know. He only knew that they did not come from the ballot box. Then there are these items of testimony: 1st, the transaction that I have related teaching the ballot box at the dining room. The next morning, in connection with that matter, it appears that as the servant rl undertook to go into the bedroom, she could notget the door clear open, and on looking to ascertain what the dilhculty was, she found that somebody, in that bedroom where the ballot box was depos ited the day before, had taken up a tack out of the carpet, and had tucked under the carpet a quantity of Republican votes. [Laughter] of then we have in reference to this ballot box this phenomenon, as I might call it, if it were not so frequent an occurrence in the experience of the committee. We have 1st the fact that there was some trouble about the count—some difficulty in counting up the votes so as to make 88 and come within 20 of right and we have next the fact that when they found that they had not ballots enough in the ballot box to conform with the telly, which showed how many had voted. they took up votes wherever they could find them, put them in, and counted them and 3rdly, we have the suspicious circumstance of the proximity of this inspector to the ballot box alone in his bedroom while his associates were busy at the dining room table, and the finding of those ballots afterward under the carpet. N ow, this is not positive evidence that anything was done in the bedroom with this bal lot box. I do not mean to assert that it is. The question may be put, and with some force, what of all that? Does that prove that the in otor did open the ballot box? Certainly it ifbeesnot; bntI submit that it is a suspicious circumstance and that sns icion, in my mind, is considerably strengthene by the fact that it the inspector did not do anything to the ballot box it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the sitting member to summon him and have him sworn. But he did not do so. The sitting member reduced no testimony on that matter at all. e left the testimony that we had with the full weight that it was entitled to as presented by the contestant, without the slightest impngniu vofit from any uarter, when it was the easiest ting in the world for him to have called the inspector. I know the answer to it might have been that of course the inspector wonl swear that he did not tamper with the ballot box. Of course he would, but, Mr. Speaker, there is something in the a pearance of the thing, and rather than have eit it just so, I would, ifI had been in his place, at least have tried my hand at swearing the inspector. The committee felt as if it was a fair and proper inference from this testimony, from the act that all 3 of these judges knew, if it were not true that they took these votes from the table, and from the fact that this inspector knew, if it were true that he did not touch the ballot box in that bedroom, that all of them mcould have mvenwsomme expmlanataion mof this dis the whole return of this last township 8, that they could have presented some the ory of some sort, rational or plausible, and met this testimony in that way. But not meeting it at all the committee felt as if strength was added to it fairly and properly, and they therefore came to the conclusion that this ballot box, like that of Hamilton, confessed by the judges of election to have been tampered with, was also tampered with, but to what extent, of course, it was impossible for the committee to show. To what extent, therefore, they were called upon to correct this return it was impossible for them to say, and therefore it was that they were compelled to say that this return on its face was fitlse. If false, it cannot be taken as true; if not true, then it must be set aside, and whoever it shall be shown has voted for the sittin member and the contestant on this poll should be counted in the general result. With this evidence touching these townships, we have the conclusion of the whole matter as stated upon the 4th page of this report; and laying aside the returns of these 2 townships and adding to the vote of the sitting member and of the contestant such votes as were proved by the one and by the other, and correcting the vote of the other 2 townships in the manner I have stated, that makes the majority of the contestant 225. If any gentleman shall have doubts touching the propriety of setting aside that I have been commenting on, and shall a mit the confession touching the Hamilton precinct, the conclusion must be the same, and the result is stated on the last page of the report to be a majority for the contestant of 52.