Mr. UPSON. I thank the House for this privilege. I will now proceed to the investigation of the matters which have been called out by the interrogatories proounded to me by various gentlemen on this oor. I have referred to the decision made in the courts of Pennsylvania, supposing that my friends from Pennsylvania would certainly be willing to abide by the decision of their own court, and supposing also that the opinion of the attorneygeneral, where it coincide with the views of the majority, would not be quarreled with, and that the rule adopted by this House in the previous contestedelection case would be abi edby. Now, if we are going to call everything that is on a piece of papera vote, we may have any amount of such papers referred to a committee, and may elect anybody. But we are only to investigate papers that come from the proper certifying officers, thatare legal on their face and are pertinent to the issue. Now, let us refer to the law of Pennsylvania in relation to soldiers votes, and then see what are called soldiera votes in this case, for Heaven knows I desire to count every vote of every soldier. But in the investigation of the primafacie case, we are confined to papers that are primafacie regular, and where they are not regular and legal on their face we cannot ive any weight to them in this investigation. whon we find that the signature to a certain paper is not the signature of the otheer that it purports to he, that moment that paper is out of the case; but the moment we determine that any paperon the same subject is certified by the proper officer. that moment it is a paper proper for our consideration, and is legal and valid. A few words now in relation to the soldiers vote and here I wish to call the attention of the House to some decisions in relation to the very returns which it is claimed in the report are not properly before us in this investigation and could only be properly considered in an investigation of the merits. Irefer now to the law of Pennsylvania allowing soldiers to vote. Section 2 provides that “A poll shall beopened in each compnn. composed in whole or in part of Pennsvlvania soldiers. at the quarters of the captain or other officer thereof; and all electorsbelonizingto such compan, who shall be within one mile of such quarters on the day of election and npt preventedbyordersof their command ers or prelimityof the enemy. from returning totheir companyquarters shall vote at such poll and at no other place.” Now, I wish the House to notice this one fact, the law expressly makes each company an election recinct, and this House would not hesitate in the case of a home vote where 2 election precincts came and voted in one place together to reject the vote. Now, it appears from the report that 2 companies of one regiment voted at one precinct and returned their vote as the vote of 2 companies, and no reason whatever is given for it; it is signed by officers purporting to be officers of both companies, and consequently was a merging of 2 election precincts into one without any legal authority whatever. The previous military voting law of Pennsylvania not only provided for company returns, but also provide for returns from those companies as election precincts to the headquarters of the regiment, and a regimental return to the secretary of the Commonwealth. In the case of Lawrence vs. Knight, the court, in iving instructions to the prothonotary under that law, in speaking of those regimental returns, says: “In myjudgment. yon cannot certify asinglercgimental return; no provision whatever is made or so doing. If you should discover in any clue that no company returns have been received but only I regimental return it is notyonr fault. You have no more right to ccrtif to the return judfips than you have to sendin to em a copy of myo or paperon file in your olice.” This shows that where there was a regimental return, but no company return, the regimental return could not be counted under the old law any more than 2 election precincts could vote ip one precinct on the home vote. 2 election precincts cannot vote together without nul lifying the vote; and much loss can 2 companies vote t ether, as the law exressly says that polls shal be opened in one company, and separate returns of the votes kept and returned for each