Mr. Dawns] is discussing, I would like to ask im, as a lawyer, whether the point as to the insufficiency of this notice has not been overruled by the committee in compelling the respondent to answer, thereby pretermitting all these merely formal matters., Mr. DAWES. In entire frankness I will say to the gentleman that for the purpose of hearing this case we did require the respondent to' answer under these circumstances. And I was about to ask the House to hear what the sitting member was compelled to meet, specifying the ground upon which this contestwas based. It was this, and this only: “11. For that in the counties of Fayette, West morcland, and Indiana, which comprisesand forms the 20 firsetongressionaldistrict of the Statenf Pennsylvania, of the votes cast for Congressin and for the said counticsof said district on the 11thday boefrO, ctober.1861b. being the 2ndTuesday of Octo ' 1864Smith Fuller had for Congress11,068votes: John L. Dawson had for Congress10, 848votes." The whole statement may be summed up in 7 words: “I had more votes than Mr. Dawson.” Now, is that a conformity with the statute which requires that the party contesting shall state specifically the ground upon which he relies? He does not say whether in this county or that county he had more votes than the sittin member. He does not say whether the majority in this county or that is different from what the board of canvassers made it to be. He does not say whether they counted votes that ought not to have been counted, or whether they omitted to count votes that shoufd have been counted. Let me ask the House, what notice is that to the sit ting member that he can meet? And under that notice what could not the contestant prove, and therefore what could the sitting member have notice that he was going to prove? There is no allegation known to the law of elections to which this notice would not apply just as well as to any other. But the contestant claimed under this notice the right to recount all the votes in this district, and to show that by a recount he would have had a majority and the sitting member a minority. The committee gave him permission to show, ifhe could, that counting all the votes that were cast in this congressional district he had received more than the sitting member. Now, I ask again, Mr. Speaker, can you conceive of a case in which a contestant can oust a sitting member by a recount of all the votes, yet not take a single deposition? Is there any way I put it to my learned friendfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Taurus] who does me the honor to listen to inc is there any way i in which a contestant can show what votes were counted and what votes were not counted without taking somebody‘s deposition? Can anyone, without taking depositionsfgive his certificate that certain votes were counted and certain other votes were not counted? If that cannot be done, then there is an end of this case; for there is not a particle of testimony in the whole proceeding to show what votes were counted and what votes were not counted. Here is the sitting member occupying the seat under the proclamation of the Governor or the certificate of the board of canvassers; and the contestant comes here my distinguished colleague on the committee [Mr. SCOFIELD] will correct me if this is not the fact askin to recount all the votes and bringin in what he calls evidence of votes, yet total y abstainin from showing what votes were counted an what votes were not. Ordinarily the presumption is that the man holding the certificate 18 elected; and he who seeks to reverse the decision of the board of canvassers, made in accordance with the law of the State, and maintains that another man has the majority, should at least undertake to prove it.