Mr. UPSON. I shall be thankful to the gentleman to make any correction of what I may accidentally or incidentally omit to state; but the gentleman will find that he has said in that report that there is no authentication whatever of these returns. That is whyI incidentally alluded to it. I hope the gentleman will not understand me as Wishing to misstate the int I referred to. I was merely alluding to this to show how the returns from this district, of the majority of the board or of the entire board, came before this House. I consider it unnecessary even to make that reference, from the fact that as the authentication in all instances is only for the purpose of identification or of ascertaining the genuineness of the paper, and as both the parties in this case admit t ie iden tity of the peror return, there need be no further authentication; and its leal effect is to be determined from the paperitself. The Governors proclamation, then, not making out aprima facts case, we come next to the return made by the district judges of that district, the 16th congressional district of Pennsylvania. Here, perhaps, it is properthat I should state in brief the manner in which the elections are conducted in the State of Pennsylvania, so far as regards certifying the returns. At the elections in the various election precincts in that State, there are one judge of election and 2 inspectors, and 2 clerks apointed by the judge and inspectors. When tie canvass has been made in each election. recinct and cer tified, the judge of the election takes the cer tificate to the board of judges of the county, so that the judges fromtheseveralelection precincts meet after the election at the time specified by law, compare the returns, and addp them up, making the county canvass. When an election district. for member of Congress is composed of more counties than one, then one of the judges designated by the county board is selected to take the returns for that county to the board of district judges for that representative district, which board in this case met at Chambersburg, in the county of Franklin. This district is com. posed of 5 counties, Fulton, Adams, Somer set, Bedford, and Franklin; so that, in a full heard, there would be 5 district judges. But, on examining the papers, it will be seen that there are apparently 2 returns of district judges; it appears on the face of the papers that there were 2 boards and 2 different returns, one in favor of Mr. Koontz and the other in favor of Mr. Cotfroth. The committee, therefore, were met in the 1st instance by this a parent ambiguity, and it was necessary in the irst place to determine which was the genuine return, who were the genuine judges. But before proceeding to this investigation in relation to the judges, I will refer to the rule laid down by the ComElections in the last Congress in relation to cases of this kind, in which the primafacie right is to be deter mined. In the case of William Jayne vs. J. B. S. Todd, the ComElections laid down the following rule, which I read from page 2 of volume one of the Reports of Committees of th"e 1st session of the last Congress: In considering the preliminary question. which of these gentlemen is entitled tooccu y theseatasDele gatefrom Dakota. Pending thosett cment of the main question. which of them was duly electedthereto. the committeehave refrained altogether from anyinvestigation of the merits ot the lntter, and confinedthemselves entirely to the credentials each has offeredas the primafricic evidenceof his election, entitlin him, according to law and usage, to be received as the sit tingDeleuate until investigation ot the number of legal votes actually cast shall disclose a better right of another thereto.” In that very case of Jayne vs. Todd, each party hada certificate makingit in that respect similar to the one now under consideration. The committee, therefore, considering that rule adopted by a former House as pertinent and properin this case, applied themselves to an examination of the papers which were referred to them in order to determine the prime facic right. hVhen these 2 district returns were presented, the committee were led in the 1st place to inquire which was the enuine return. y these returns it appeared that there were 2 claimantsto the seat, one Mr. Coliroth, the other Mr. Koontz. Both these gentlemen appeared before the committee, and submitted arguments in support of their respective claims. Each claimant produced the opinion of the attygen of Pennsylvania, upon this very same question, which was submitted to the Governor of Pennsylvania before he issued his proclamation. The opinion of the attorney gpneral will he found on page 69 of the report. ach of the claimants admitted that this opinion should be regarded as evidence so far as concerns the statement of facts it gives in relation to the genuineness of the 2 papers before the committee. In the opinion of the AttyGen of Pennsylvania, to be found on page 71 of the report, I find the following statement of his conclusion after having recited the facts: “The result is that of the 5 personswho have signed the papers stating Mr. Koontz to be elected, 3 had no legal authority to wet in the capacity which they assumed and I am therefore of opinion that the Governor ought not to base his proclamation on that paperas a return.” In other words, he decided that the facts show the pay r purorting to be a certificate in behalf o Mr. oontz was not a legal and valid paperbecause the persons signing it were not legal and valid judges and had no right to sign it, and the paperwas therefore illegal and worthless. Now hear what he states in regard to the other paper. He says that “ It is signed by 4 persons who appear to hai probeen legal y designated by the Judges of election in their respective counties.” But he claims their action was illegal for this reason. He says that “ Theiudge from Somerset. though he had notice, neglectedor refused to attend the meeting, or at any ratefailed to attend it. The dut of the 4 judge. who did attend is clearly point out by law. ltwnl to castuptheseveralcountyreturnsand innke duplicnte returns of all the votesRiven for the office u the distric and of the nameot the person clocted. In stead o doing this. they omitted to count the voteof Somerset, apparently by reason of the non-attend anceof theiudse from that county. It hnsbeensuggestedthat as they had not those returns they could not count them, which is very true. But duplicate originals were accessible in the officeof themothers otary of Somerset county and it was their duty, if necessary. to refer to them. They could not. of course, have obtainedthem on thesameday; but thoughthe law fixes the day of their meeting. it was perfectly legal for them to adjourn, if the businesscould not becompletedin one day, and I think it wasundoubt edly their duty to do so.” Although he holds that they were a legal board and legally met on the day and at the place fixed by law for determining the result of the election, yet, omitting to count the vote of Somerset county, their return, he sa 5, is not sufficient upon which to base the reclamation of the GOvernor of Pennsylvania eclaring that Mr. Coffroth was elected. I will now refer to that return, to be found on page 2215c, ommencing at the bottom of the page. It is as follows: Election return of the 16th congressionaldishid o Pennsylvania compoud of the counting Adam, oil/0rd, Franklin, 1 ulton, and Somerset. The undersigned. a majority of the return Judges electedby the several boards of the return in gesof the abovenamedeounties to meet, examine said r9 turns and count the votesof the several counties in said district, do hereby certify that, in pursuance of law. we met in the courthouse in the borough of Cliumbersburg. on Friday, the 4th day of November, and proceeded to examine and count the votescastfor Congressln said district atageneralelection held in the said counties on the 2ndTuesday of October, it bein. the 11th dayof the month; that Alexander 1:1. Coffrothhad. in the county ofAdams, 2. 707; In the county of Bedford, 2. 504;in the county of Franklin. 3. 451; in the county of Fulton, 807; making atotal of. 475 For the same o ce iiilliamjI. Koontz had vote! in the county of Adams. 2366 in the county of Bed ford, 2. 058;in the county of Franklin. 3. 5; in the county of Fulton, 535; making a total of 8, 402:Ill jority for Coflroth, 1, 013. Hon. Alexander ll. Cotlroth, having received a majority of all the votes east. ascounted before the board isdeclared duly and legally elected"anieinber of the HoRep of the U.S. ” and a certificate of election has accordingly been forwarded to him. Now comes the point in which the difficulty is claimed to arise by the AttyGen of Pennsylvania: The county of Somersetwas not represeptodby a Judge, or otherwise, at said meeting. Notice of the time and place of meetingof said board was given the return judge elected from Somerset, who was in the boroug ot Churnbersburglon the day of meeting. In testimony where of we have hereunto set o hands and sealsthis 4th dayof November, A. b. 1864. IL. 5.] W. FINDLAY hlAhN, Jiulprlfrom nrcl county. [L. B.] JOHN I. LAhh. udgcfrom1"Irinllmcounty. [L. 5.] NATHAN WINTER. Jullpefrom 1"ulloncounty. IL. 8.] F. DH. 1"L [fr(urnJudge. Attest: JUHIN lt. ORR, Clerk. Now let me read further what the AttyGen says on that point: "The act oflSIlQprovidesthat the judges shall make returns of all the votesgiven for such (imttin said district, and of the name of the person or persons elected and further provides that itsliull bot e duty of the Governor, on the receipt of the returns of the election, asaforesaid, todeclareby proclamation the names of the personsso returned as elected in the respective districts: that is tosay. Returned as elected ignivaerneftourrnthwehoictlhicaolsine pthuerpdoisrttsritcot. return all the vote. “The paper in question does not purport to return all the votes given for the office in the district. It showson its face that the vote of one county in the district was notoonnted, and thereforethat the jndzel had not before them the meansof knowing who was elected and, indeed. the return substantiallyls, that Mr. Cofiroth had a mitiority of all the votes cast ll counted beforethe board. (that is to say. of thovotu in 4 out of 5 counties which composed the dis1866. GLoBE. 889 trict.) and therefore is duly elected. This return is so essentiallydefective that I conceive it to be no return atal and am of opinion that the Governor ought not to basehis proclamationon itas areturn.” It was on that opinion or conclusion thus given bfy the AttyGen that the Governor o Pennsylvania acted when he came to the conclusion that he ought not to include any rson in his proclamation as elected from that strict. I wish now to refer to the position taken by the committee in the report, and to show that the opinion of the AttyGen on this point is not supported by the statute nor the decisions of the courts of that State. 1 But itisclaimed on the part of Mr. Koontz that the and return showson its facethat the county ufSom ersetwas not included by the said return Judges in the count, and, therefore. that return is void, t it alsoappearsin the return, and cash also in the opinion of the AttyGen. above referred to, that the return judgeof Somersetcounfywaspresentat Chambersburgon the day of the meeting, and was notified thereof, but neglectedor refusedto attend. “Tbe attoru cy general, in his said opinion, also takes this position, and elaims that the districtjudges ought to have adjourned over, and referred to dupli cate OHHDILIS of the returns for Somerset county, which hesayswereaccessiblein the Office of the protho"notary of said county of Somerset. To this it may he replied, that the statute makes no provision for any such adionrnment or proceeding, an it does not appear by the said statute that in case where a congressional district is composed of sqeuvireerdaltocobuenties. any such duplicate original is refiledin each of the counties of the disteroieutn. tbyufot r 3 opnregs ineunltsattaivtceuient of votes given in each in Congresscertified by the judges and attestedby the clerks is directed (section 63““) be taken chargeof by one of said Judges, who shall produce the sameat a meeting of one Judge from each county at such place in said district as is or may be appointed by law for that purpose: and when the district return Judzes have met and costup said returns and made duplicate returns of all the votesgiven for such office in such district it is then, and not till then, required (section 64)that one of said duplicate returns so made bysaid district return Judges shall befiled in the office of the prothonotar oft c court of commonpleas of the county in which they shall meet.” I would say, as has already been stated in the report, that there is no provision in the statute o Pennsylvania authorizing the board to adjourn from day today to obtain election returns after the time fixed by law for the board to meet and act, and that, in amatter of this kind, arising under a similar provision in 21 soldiers voting law, previous to the present law, in a case decided in 4 Philadelphia Reports, the court adjudicated this point, and decided directly the reverse of the opinion of the AttyGen. I refer to the case of Lawrence 1s. Knight, 4 Philadelphia Reports, 355, in which the duty of return judges in regard to soldiers votes is explained, and alSo some directions given to the prothonotary by Judge Ludlow. On page 861, he says: “Having thusindicated what, in my opinion, is the simple duty of the prothonotary, it is necessaryfor me to say what is the duty of the return judges: and this advice is now given so that hereafter the court may not be applied to for that purpose. These gentlemen must meetand perform their duties on o vomber 11!1, 861b. being the 2ndTuesdayin Novem be“r. MyThoepyine iounght not toadjourn to another day. upon that question has. on an examination of the subject, undergone a change: at 1st it was presumed the bodym fit adjourn to another day; but this cannot be the aw, for if this right be admitted, they may adjourn fora periodof 6 months or a year and thus defeat the expressedwill of the pe“e e. heduties of these gentlemen are simply, under the present law. ministerial; they can only inquire if the certified copies of company returns alone before thoin have been delivered to them by the pro, thonotary of the common pleas. I might at length state my reasonsfor this opinion, hut it may be unnecessary.” On examination of the statute of Pennsylvania, which is now similar in its language so far as regards the proceedings of the board in relation to this matter of adjournment, I think there can be but little doubt that the construction given here by Judge Ludlow to the statute is correct, and that to allow any other construction would lead to very eat irregularities, and be subject to the objections stated by that Judge. This decision was predicated, as I have just said, on the previous soldiers voting law. he phraseology of the present law in relation to the action of the board is very similar, and the cohstructmn in relation tiothepowers and duties of the board and as to adjournments it seems to me must be the same; although in one respect there seems to be this qualification: the present law is more strict in its requirements as to oilbooks, tallylists, oaths and certificatestian the old law and these papers, I insist, are a part of the returns, as It ink I shall be able to show before I conclude this argument. We then come to this conclusion, following out the decision of the court in Philadelphia, upon the principle involved in this case: 1. The opinion of the AttyGenn on the facts conclusively shows that the boar of return judges, or what purported to be such, and certified in favor of Mr. Koontz, was not a legal board, and therefore all its acts are void and of no effect in this investigation. I think there was no difference in the committee on this point, that there was no legal board certifying to Mr. Koontzs election. 2. The facts admitted and stated in the attygen’s opinion show that the persons signing the Koontz returns were not return judges, and therefore they are illegal. If we should come downto common parlance we should call them bogus returns. We find the AttyGen sustaining the legality, on the facts which are admitted, of the other board, so far as their appointment is concerned, being regularly apointed judges for that district from the severa counties, and only lacking one judge from Somerset county. It is claimed by some that it required all to sign. In relation to that I will also quote the opinion of the AttyGen, on page 70 of the report: It is well established that (unless otherwise exrcssly provided) an authority of apublic nature, conerred on 3 or more persons jointly. may be executed by a majority at a meeting lawfully ield, and ofwhich all havehad legalnotice, and that tbe meeting and proceedings of such a body are resumedto be regular in the absenceof proof to the contrary. But a minority of such a body cannot, by withdrawing (for whateverreasonflrom the minority and proneeding to act independently, vest in themselves the authority which the law has conferred up the whole. Aniloplepmits to be exercised by a msJority as above stat Having then found that the constituted a majority of the legal board an having, in addition to that, found, from the face of the return itself, that the other judge from Somerset was notified and refused or neglected to attend, I submit that the action of that one ljudge cannot nullify or destroy the action of the majority; that when they acted, they did all the law authorized them to do, and all that they could do under the law. To say that the onejud o could, by his own volunta absence, nullify the action of the others, would certainly be rather a sin gular exhibition of the oneman power it reverses the principle that the majority shall rule; and although injustice may sometimes be done where a majority is reek ess, I submit to the gentleman raising this objection that far eater injustice would be done yallowing a minority to override the will of the majority and prevent all action. In such a case we must have sufficient confidence in the action of the majority not to allow them to be overridden by the action of one man, for whatever reason and in this case it is seen that this judge had full notice and declined to attend and if we go on still further, and go beyond, not behind the return of this board, to the return of Somerset county, which was not included in that district return, we shall find that the vote of the county of Somerset, if brought in and added to the district return, Would; not change the result. I refer the House to the 3rd page of the report, where they will find the vote, as so returned, of all the counties, Adams, Bed ford, Franklin, Fulton, and Somerset. In Somerset the official return wasfor Cotfroth 1,592, for Koontz 2, 512; if you add that to the other returns, it gives for Coffroth 11, 067, for Koontz 10, 974; leaving Coffroth a majority of 93 on the face of the official returns from all the counties of the district.,