Mr. MARSHALL. I decline to yield further for the discussion of this matter. There will be ample time, I imagine, for the chair man of the committee, the sittin member, and all others, to discuss these si e bar matter! oorhees was before the vote is taken. I will now proceed to discuss as briefly as I can the question now deinanding the examination of the House. It is contended on the part of the sitting member that there is no evidence properly before the House except that which is furnished by the legal returns. The depositions which have been submitted to this House were taken before the mayor of the city ofTerre Hautc, outside of the city and county in which he resided, and it is contended that he has no authority to administer oaths anywhere except within the limits of the city over which he presided as may or I insist that in this respect the law is with the sitting member, and if such is the case there is not a particle of evidence before the committee or before the House that will sustain for a moment the report of the majority of the committee. Now, what is the law upon this subject? It is admitted that, by the law of Indiana, the mayor of Terre Haute had no authority to administer an oath outside of the city in which he resided. The section of the statute of Indiana upon this subject is embodied in the report of the minority. But the chairman of the committee, admitting this, insists that, by virtue of the law of Congress, the mayor of the city of Terre Haute had authority to administer oaths and to take depositions an where in that congressional district. Sir, I eny that. I do not propose to go into a discussion of the various ccisions of courts bearing upon a question of this kind, or even to dwell upon the important oase. U.S. vs. Bailey, in 9 eters, which, as I claim, settles the question in favor of the view of the sitting member. But the remarks which I will submitwill be simply upon the necessary construction of the section of the Federal statute embodied in the report of the majority. Now, sir, I admit that Congress has the power to delegate this authority to the mayor of Terre Haute to go anywhere in the State of Indiana. to swear and examine witnesses and take depositions. There is no doubt about the power of Congress in this respect; but I deny that congress has ever exercised this power. The federal statute imposes just as complete a limitation upon the power of the mayor of Terre Hante as does the statute of Indiana. In providing for taking depositions in contested elections, the Federal statute declares that “ any judge of nny court of the U.S., or any chancellor, judge, or justice of a court of record of the U.S." may take evidence in these cases. The act also contemplates that there may be cases in cities in which evidence may be taken before the mayor of a city. But it was mani festly never the purpose of the framers of that statute to authorize the mayor of a city to go outside of and beyond his jurisdiction to exercise authority not delgated to him by the stat ute of the State—placing him in power. Now, sir, I admit that under the Federal statute ajudge of any court of the U.S., or any chancellor, judge, or justice of any court of record of the State may go into any county of the State, if he resides in the congressional district and take the deposition of any witness therein in regard to the matter in dispute. But, sir, this very statute and I call the attention of the chairman of the committee to the remark which I shall now make—fixes a limitation u n the power of the mayor as to the place in which he may take the de positions of witnesses. There is one portion of this statute to which I think the honorable chairman has not given his attention. The statute, after declaring that any contestant or returned member may call upon “any judge of any court of the U.S., or any chancellor, judge, or justice of a court of record of any State,” adds these words: “01 up?“ {mymayor.recorder or intondant of any town or city in which said officershall reside. to take depositions," lire. Now, what is the meaning and purpose of the words, “in which said Officer shall reside?” They apply only to the mayor, recorder, or iatendant of a town or city, and do not apply to any other officer. In construing statutes it is our duty to construe them in such amanner as to give force and effect to every word of the statute; we have no right to disregard any word, and say that it was used by the framers of the statute withoutapurpose. N ow, I maintain that this statute, embo ied in the report of the majority, does fix alimitation upon the place wherein the mayor of the city may act; and I call upon legal gentlemen on this floor to look into this clause and construe it for themselves before casting their votes upon the case. admitting, what is not the fact, that the statute of Indiana authorized the mayor to extend his jurisdiction beyond his city, the Federal stat ute authorizing him to take depositions in cases of contested elections confines his authority to the city in which he resides. This is all I have to say in regard to thislegal question. I submit it with all deference to the superior judgment of the gentlemen who shall be called upon to decide this case. Now, sir, I wish to call the attention of the House to a further fact, which will not be dis— puted by the chairnmn or any member of the committee. Mr. Voorhees had, as shown by the official returns, a majority of 534 votes. this charged in the specifications of the contestant that a large number of those votes were cast for Mr. oorhees by illegal voters, by persons who had no authority to vote within the town and precinct in which they voted. Now, I assert here that there is not a particle of evidence that of all the votes cast for Mr. Voorhees in his entire district there was one single vote cast by a person not entitled to vote within the township and precinct in which his vote was cast. If Fmisstate this matter, I call upon the chairman or any member of the committee to correct me. Again, it is charged that a large number of ballots with the name of the sitting member 11 on them were by some persons, with fraud u out intent, put into the ballot box, those bal lots not having been cast by voters; and that these ballots were counted and returned for him. Now, I assert here, in the presence of the House and before the country, that there is not a shadow of testimony that any single ballot which had not been properly cast was put into the ballot box and counted and re turned by a single judge or by any person in any precinct in that congressional district. There is not a shadow of evidence sustaining the charges and specifications of the contestant in this matter. am ready to give wa for the purpose of being corrected in regar to any statement which I may make. Upon what ground, then, is this House to turn out of his seat a member returned here by all the forms of law, with so large a majority, and give the seat to a gentleman who there is no irctense for sa in received a majority of the legal votes of the district. I do not think that he himself will rise on this floor and say that he thinks he received a majority of the legal votes of the district. If he does say so he is not governed by the evidence submitted to the House. I do not believe that the chair man or any member of the committee will do— clare before this Househis belief that the result set forth in the majority report, giving the contestant a majority of over 200 votes, shows the true result of the election in that district. The evidence will not warrant any such conclusion. I know. Mr. Speaker, we are living in extraordinary and revolutionary times; but we oughtto be careful how we yield in a matter of this great importance to the mere clamor that may be raised inst the sitting member, who happens for the time to be in the minority, turn him out, and give his seat to a gentleman who cannot with an plausible pretext assert that he was returue here by a majority of thelegal voters of his district. Upon what evidence, then, is Mr. Voorhees to be turnedout of his seat here at this time? Colonel Washburn has introduced evidence in regard to 4 townships in his district, Riley township, in Vigo county, Hamilton and Jefferson townships, in Sullivan county, and Cla verdale townshi, in Putnam county; and I will detain the Hhuse for a short time for the purpose of drawing its attention to the character of the evidence in regard to those 4 townships. There is no evidence in regard to any other. In Hamilton township, in Sullivan county. Mr. Voorhees had 498 votes and Colonel Washburn had 143 votes, as shown by the returns from that township. Now, what is to be done in considering these 498 votes. legally cast by legal voters in that township? We are told that they are to be thrown out; that those 498 voters are to be disfranchised; that they are to have no hearing 11 on this floor; that they are not to be counts at all. Have they committed any wron? No. Were they illegal voters? Is it charge 1 Yes, sir, it is charged; but is there any shadow of proof to show that one of them was an illegal voter? Not at all. These 498 voters are to be disfranchised, turned out of the House without a hearin. Colonel Washburn presents proof that instead of 143 votes for him in that district, there were 160; the majority of the committee say 170; but I will refer in a moment to that disparity between the calculation of the honorable chairman and myself. That gives him 17 more than was returned by the return Officers of the district and what is the character of the evidence by which these 17additional votes are shown? For the purpose of arriving at this result we have to count 20 men who state that they voted for Washburn, but who cannot write their names, and who must depend upon hearsay to know for whom they voted. negror 2 on being examined testified they could read, although they could not write. The great body of them must have arrived at the conclusion to which they testified from others who gave them their ballots and explained to them their character and hearing. There were 20 of these; and set aside these 20 and you do not have as many for Colonel Washburn as were returned by the returning officers of the district. Not only these 20 votes have to be taken, thus sworn to as given by men who cannot write their names, but we have to take 2 others who were not produced or sworn but whose votes have been testified to by others. This is in effect hearsay evidence, for unless a man votes with an open ballot you cannot tell how he votes, except from the confidence reposed in him as a man. You may hand a man a ballot 3 feet from the polls and if so disposed he can deposit unobserved another ballot. Observation has taught me that such things are often done by those who wish to make both sides believe that they are their friends. It is no} very creditable to mankind that men will dis grace their manhood in this way, but such is the fact and known to be the fact. On evidence of this kind you are asked to overturn this election and turn out the man who has been elected and returned by so large a.majority. The honorable chairman and myself disagree in regrd to the count. He says Colonel Wash burn polled 170votes, and I say 160. I have the record of the evidence in the case; I have marked and numbered every voter; I have allowed and disallowed; and I am willing for any gentleman upon this floor to look at it. Where they will show I am wrong on the evidence I will make the correction. I will show the character of this evidence and then leave it to the House to determine. I read from page 13. D. W. Stratton, after testifying that he voted for Washburn, is interrogated and answers in regard to another voter as follows: “ Question. Do you know where Robert Stratton voted and how “Answer. He voted at the same 011.in Hamilton township ),and told me that he voted khc Union ticket, for Was burn for Be resontative. (Objected to by counsel for Voorhccs. He is now at Nashville: know that in his polities he is a Republican.” Now, I did not think that this was evidence at all—what a voter said to awitness as to how he voted—and I did notallow it.andI do not suppose there is agentleman on this tloorwho woulid iesitate a moment in determining that I acted correctl in regard to that matter. It has not a particIe of the character of legal evidence. Again, the next one that I disallowed was Hamilton G. Boles. Pleasant Boles, (page 24,) a Witness. testified that he voted for Colonel washbnrn. He signs his name with a cross, but I do not object to that. I count his vote. He is asked further, as follows: " Question. State whetheror not Hamilton G. Boles, your son. voted at said election; and if so. at what precinct and for whom did he vote for Representa 2 In Congress for tho scventh fiODgIOflSIODBldlflllcl. Of the State of Indiana, and whereis he at thls time? (Objected to by counselfor D. W. Voorhees.) “Answer. He voted at said eleetion in Hamllton township.Sullivancounty, Indiana. forColonel Wash huru for Representativein Congress—atleast he said so. He was a Union Democrat and ropesedto support Washburu. Hebelougs to the party 3rd Indiana volunteers, and is at presentat Indianapolis." Now, I will not go further with this; but this is the character of the testimony of some8 or 10 voters in regard to whom an attempt was made to prove that they voted for Colonel Washburn. This testimony has none of the character of evidence at all, and I did not count their votes in the calculation I made. If you take testimony of this kind, there is not a member that can hold his seat here for 3 months. Now, I have in this document, as I have said, numbered and marked every voter whose vote I allowed and every one that I disallowed, and any gentleman who wishes to verify the computation can look at it for himself; and if he can find a sin 10 one that ought to be allowed, I will admit that I am very much mistaken in regard to the principlesof evidence. [but is one township. Now as to Clover dale township. There were cast for Mr. Voor bees 226 votes, and for Mr. Washburne 58. The contestant has endeavored to show that he received at that poll 89 votes. The testimony is of the same character that I have alluded to. The chairman says 91. There is a difference of2 in making up the count, but the difference is the result of the mode of making the estimate and is of the same character that I have referred to. I will not go over it. The voters care all numbered, and any gentleman can examine the computation for himself. There is an excess of 31 votes more than were returned for the contestant, assuming that he received 89 votes. But to arrive at this result we mustcount the vote of ten persons who swear that they voted for Colonel Washburn, but who cannot write their names. I have already commented on the character of this testimony. However honest these men may be, they may be easily deceived in regard to the character of the ballot which they de livered to the judges to be deposited in the bal lot box and they are often deceived; they are Very often imposed upon by others. That, of course, is a wrong and an outrage, but I only refer toi for the purpose of showing that when their testimony is analyzed it amounts to nothing but hearsay testimony at best. We rave also, to arrive at this result, to count the votesof 12 others who are not themselves produced, or sworn, as to how they voted; but their votes are attempted to be proved by others standing around the poll. vs all know how easy it 13for men to be mistaken as t to how others vote, unless the voting is by open ballot. It is not easy while standing even directly by the side of a voter to know the character of the ballot he deposits. In Jefferson township Mr. Voorhees had 231 votes and Mr. Washburn 24. Colonel Wash burn endeavors to show by the same class of testimony to which I have referred that he ought to have had 82. The chairman says 36. I have examined the testimony in the same way as in Hamilton township. I have the votes all marked in the record, and I am willing that any gentleman shall examine it for himself. I insist at I have counted, to get these 32 votes, every one of which there is a shadow of evidence of legalit. This gives him an excess of 8 votes morct anwere returned. To arriveatthis result we have to take the votes of Bmen who swear that they voted for Mr. Washburn who cannot write, and of 8 others who are not reduced or sworn, but whose votes are prove by others. Now, can any member of this House be satistied with this evidence? Perhaps it may be thought that there is some evidence showing that a few votes might have been cast for colonel Washburn that were not counted and properly returned, as often happens, without any fraud or improper intention existing on the part of the return officers. But Isay you cannot feel certain that Colonel Washburn at that poll received a single vote that was not counted and returned for him by the return jud cs. In Rile township Voorhees ha 173 votes, and Was burn 88 votes, as returned by the return jud 5. By the character of evidence already re erred to it is shown that Washburn received 107 votes, being 19 more than were returned for him. But to get this result we have to take the votes of 16 men who cannot write their names, and of 12 others who are not examined, but whose votes are proved by other witnesses. I insist that the evidence of men of this character, men who cannot write their names, although the may be as sensible as educated men in regar to these matters, is not entitled to any weight at all in overturning the decision of the return officers,I and I say that the testimony of no man in regard to the vote of another isworth of credit, however honest he may be, unless O followed the voter to the polls and saw him put in his ballot; otherwise his evidence is not entitled to weight and would not be so considered in any court of justice on earth. I am asked if these persons who could not write could read. Some 3 or perhaps a half a dozen out of those who were sworn in all the townships testify they could read although they could not write. Takin these 4 townships, then, with evidence sue as I have commented upon, the contestant re ceived 75 votes more than were eounted for him by the return judges. But to arrive at that result, to make up this excess, we have to count 82 votes of persons who either cannot write their names or whose votes are proved by others. Can any man, from this c aracter of testimony, feel certain that there was in fact a single vote cast, for Washburn more than were re turned for him? and even if there were certainly sonie that should vitiate and destroy the entire election at those precincts? Indeed, mistakes are liable to occur at any poll, however honest or intelligent the board of judges may be, and these have never been held to taint the poll with fraud and disfranchise the voters of the precinct. Now, I have said all I desiretosay in regard to this class of testimony, and I leave it to the consideration and decision of the House. But there is another class of testimony. The contestant contends that there was fraud practiced by the officers of election in each one of these townships sufficient to destroy the election and make it null and void, and consequently to throw out the entire vote of the precincts. I will examine very briefly the evidence in regard to these charges; and 1st, as to Hamilton township. The only evidence in regard to fraud is this, that at supper time the board of election adjourned as they were authorized to do by the statute of Indiana for one hour; the ballot box was locked and left in the room where the votes were received; whether that room was locked or not, I do not know. If it was not, if the ballot box was exposed, the burden of proofis with the contestant. however, before they went to supper, they strung tickets about 15 in number—one witness says about 17. These tickets that had been counted and strung were laid in the box, on the top of the uncounted ballots, and the ell books were at on to of them, and the allot box was then close up. When they returned from supper, the officers found some difficulty in findin this bunch of tickets which had been counts and strung. They looked aroundawhile, and finally found them at the bottom of the ballot box, or under a portion of the uncounted tickets, and notin the precise condition in which the officers supposed they had left them. I am stating this evidence correctly I know, and the condition in which this bunch of strung tickets was found is the only evidence relied upon to show that there was fraud on the part of the officers of elections in this township; and upon that evidence this House is asked to throw out these 498 votes cast for Mr. Voor bees, and not. count one of them except some 4 votes which happened to be proven by the evidence of the witnesses called by the contestant himself. Is there a case in the whole history of contested elections where a poll was thrown out and the election declared void upon such flimsy and trifling evidence as this? and when the honorable chairman of the Committee of Elm."tions [Mr. Dawns] the other day was dwellin upon this evidence with such seriousness an earnestness and excitin the mirth of many of his friends, it reminde me very much of the able and solemn manner in which the eminent counsel, Sergeant Bazfuz, handledthe evidence in the celebrated case of Bardwell vs. Pickwick, reported by that veracious historian, Charles Dickens. V It was argued there with great force and successfully that a note written by the unlucky defendant to his landlady, the prosecutrix, or dering mutton chops for dinner, was a declaration of love, and consequently that he should be held guilty of abreach of marriage promise and he was convicted on that testimony and that evidence was about of a character with the evidence brought forward in this case, and I am inclined to think will prove equally successful., A little bunch of 15 tickets was not found in the ballot box in the precise place where the Officers supposed they had left it when they went to so )per.Now, it was the easiest thing in the worl,when the string of tickets was placed in the box, to have pushed it down below some of the uncounted tickets, and that thing not have been noticed, or not have been recollected when they returned from supper. Or, if that was not done, some person might have had the ballot box in his hands, during the absence of these officers of election at supper, and without opening it all, to have shaken it so as to have got this bunch of strung tickets in a position different from that in which it was supposed to have been left. The fact might excitea little suspicion of tampering with the ballot box, but is far from furnishing any evidence sufficient to be relied upon by any man who is anxious only to reach the truth in this case. But were any of those officers guilty of fraud? The contestant has examined each and every one of them. It is held by the chairman of the committee [Mr. Dawns] that the judges of election themselves admit that there was fraud in this precinct, and that the ballot box was tampered with. The honorable gentleman is mistaken in regard to that; they said no such thin. They did say, in a card which they published, and which is given in evidence, that they think the charges that there had been tampering with the ballot box were not without foundation; and they give their reasons why they think there might be some possibility of truth in the charge; and to show that, the state that the bunch of strung tickets referre to was not found in the exact position in which they thought they had left it when they went to supper. It is suggested by a friend near me that it is very possible that some of these gentlemen might have been a little boozy at the time, and may have pushed this string of tickets down further than they may have thought at the time or have remembered afterward. Sir, this is the weal restand flimsiest evidence ever relied upon in any legislative body for the purpose of establishing fraud, and thereby disfranchisin a whole township of some 6 or 700 voters.