Mr. VOORHEES. Yes, sir; but the error which crept into the gentlemans report wasin assuming that there was no law prior to that giving to mayors authority to administer oaths. but permit to say that it makes no difference as to the point under discussion whether such is the fact or not, because certainly the gentleman is too good a lawyer to contend that a man can lawfully administer an oath before he has authority to do so conferred upon him. Within the limits of the power conferred, the offioei administers the oath. If it be true that up to 1861 no mayor in Indiana could administer oaths, yet when that power has been given, even if it be for the 1st time, it must be exercised in accordance with the terms of the not conferring it. Answer me, then, with this law in your presence, where Albert Lsnge obtained his authority to administer oaths outside of the city of Terre Haute. Dr:s the act of Congress give it? By not one word contained therein. It says that a mayor may take their depositions. Is Albert Lange a mayor in the county of Sulli van, likewise in the county of Putnam? Has he any official existence outside of the city of which he is the presiding magistrate, with de fined and limited powers and duties? What lawyer with ability sufficient to file the general issue in an action of debt will hazard his reputation by answering these questions in the affirmative? Lord (Joke says: "Nor can any oath be administered by any that have not allowancoby common law timq out of mind or by an act olParliament." Can Albert Lnnge administer itanywhere save where an act of the Legislature of Indiana has given him the allowance? No more than I can administer it to the 1st inanI meet on the high way after I leave this House. The act of congress might have constituted him a commissioner,and byspecialciinctment empowered him to administer oaths, but it has not done so. It calls upon the official character of a mayor, a character which has no existence whatever out. side of the liniits giventoit bylaw. Yet we find Mr. Lange in the various counties of the 7th congressional district certifyingthatas mayor of the city of Term Haute he took the depositions in this case, and signing himself“Albert Lange, mayor of the city of Terre Haute.” Sir,l have heard of roving diplomats and roving commissioners. Here is a roving mayoralty—a mayor at large—a mayor everywhere. “ No pent—upUtica contractshis powers." He starts out upon his ourneyings with his office upon his back and the corporate seal of the cit in his hand, and wherever he stops long enong to screw it on a document, there he is mayor of Terre Haute for the time being. It is true he may sujourn and take depositions in a town where there is already one mayor, but he will make room for two. Is he not a universal mayor, and has not the ComElections so decided? it is true that I have submitted this point to anumberof the ablest lawyers in the U.S., who differ, too, from me in political sentiment, and I have never etfoun one who did notpronounce it so plai y in my fayor l that it would not bear an argument; but then they had not learned the secret of wisdomwhich resides in a committee room. Sir, I will dwell no more on this feature of the case. I would not give my assent to so monstrous a violation of law and of common sense as it involves for all the offices the people have to bestow, and certainly not to remain for life in this seat. If the House can be brought to render its sanction, be it so. I proceed now to consider the other branch of the case. If these depositions are evidence, which they are not, what do they prove? In the notice of contest served upon me by Mr. washburn he alleges that “ 899 persons not legally entitled to vote were improperly and illegally allowed to vote at said election and did cast their votes for” me. I presume but for a matter of conscience the odd one would have been added, and we would have been called to figure upon even 900. We must be thankful, however, for small favors in this wonderful era. Now, sir, in re rd to this particular and seemingly well calcu ated statement of illegal votes given for me, I have this to say in the hearing of this House and in the hearing of the country: If an member of the committee or anybody else W1lpoint out even the attempt to prove that I received one illegal vote I wi I close my mouth and abandon my place as a member. Not one vote, not one, is shown to have gone into the ballot box for me which was not legal and valid. My majority, on which I received my commission, was 634. Failing to impeach a single vote of that majority. although the sweeping allegation justmentioned was made at the outset, resort was had to another method. With no hope or pretense of showing that. I had not re— ceived a majority of the legal votes of the dis trict, an e ort was next made to disffanchise various voting precincts. At Hamilton township, in the county of Sullivan, I received 498 votes, and Mr. Washburn received 143. This was an excellent point at which to commence the disfranchisement. There was a good amount of material to operate on. To throw out and get clear of 498 votes at one blow, not one of which by a word of the evidence is shown to have been fraudulent, was anobject worthy the ambition of a man who could not receive sufficieut votes in any other way, and who never expected to be as near an election to Congress again. It is likewise worthy the skill of the committee, and justifies, perhaps, 2 or 3 attempts on their part to reach the desired result. In fact, their tenacity of purpose in this regard is almost equal in sub imity to that of Robert Bruce, who learned his lesson of success from the repeated efforts and untiring constancy of the spider. They failed at 1st to find the key to success in driving me from my place on this floor, but then how nobly they proceeded to the 2nd trial, and how well their honest zeal was rewarded! Let as follow them in their pathway of light, always bearing in mind that my political sentiments cannot possibly have the slightest effect on the committee, and especial y on the loud professing fairness of the chairman, [Mr. Dawns] In addition to the 143 votes returned for Mr. Washburn at Hamilton townshi, he calls up according to my count 17 men who swear they voted for him. This is all. It is true that at this precinct an attempt was made to show that some one had disturbed the ballot box in the absence of the judges at supper. They had adj ourned and left the box, as they had a right by law to do, in what they conceived to be a sale place. When they returned it occurred to them that the tickets in the box had been disturbed in their position. It is said the judges were all my political friends. That is true, as it is equally true that at more than 20 other precincts in the district the judges were all the political friends of the contestant. Law has been cited that if the judges act corruptly the entire poll shall be rejected. What is the evidence here on that point? The moment that even the appearance ofan interference was discovered these judges, whom you are asked to believe were cor rupt partisans of mine, made the fact public, and even polished at once a statement in the ress, althou li afterward the inspector testifed, as Mr. IVsshburns own witness, that he himself most likely made all the disturbance in the position of the tickets which gave rise to the suspicion when he 1st opened the box after supper. But what could the fraud be, if any was committed? The number of votes counted out was exactly equal to the number of names on the poll book. it is said, however, that votes belonging to Mr. Washburn were taken out of the box, and an equal number for me put in. Of this grave charge there is not even the slightest attempt at proof. There is not a word upon the subject from the lips of a single witness. But says the contestant, and upon the 2nd trial also so says the committee, we must infer that such is the case because a small number more men were brought before the mayor of Terre Haute, in the town and county of Sullivan, than the number of votes counted for Washburn who stated that they voted for him. Therefore the committee, having found daylight at las resolutely, and in the discharge of a high an conscientious duty, which at 1st they did not see, threw out the 498 votes which were cast for me, every one of themlegal, and retain for him not only the 143 to which he is entitled, but also generously add thereto the additional number claimed to be proven, 27, as stated by the committee. This ind of an arithmetic makes an election to Congress easy to one who is blessed with a committee whichtakes some interest in such matters. It is true that of the witnesses who disfranchise nearly 600 honest and unquestionable electors, 2 1 of them sign their name with a mark. Here is the roof on every age that they cannot write, and J it is reasonable to conclude that they may be somewhat deficient in the part of reading. But few of them could know with the least certainty who they voted for, yet they set aside solemnly sworn returns and a Governors commission as if the elective franchise, at least so far as white men are concerned, was a matter of not the slightest moment. I presume it is not necessary for me to say that there never was a law book in the world in whose ages such tremendous folly, and worse than to ly found a legal sanction. As to the action of congress heretofore, we search in vain for anything in its history which resembles a recedent. This Government is nearly 0.hun red years old, yet such a principle as the committee asserts in this instance is wholly un— known to its records. But this in an era, I suppose, in which old things are to pass away and all things are to become new. Old laws and constitutions, full of the wisdom of a es, and made sacred by the glory and honor which they have conferre in tunes past upon the people, are pushed aside to give place to the distempered fancies of the present, which seem to per vade the very atmosphere, like the chaotic visions of a sick mans dream. I may be pushed aside with them, and if so I will at east have the consolation of a pure and hallowed companionship. In rega to the vote in the 3 other townships, whose validity is called in question, I will content myself by quoting from the able and conclusive minority report: "In Clovordale township, Putnam county. there were cast for Mr. Voorhecs 226votes and for Mr. Washburn 58 votes. The contestant has produced evidencetendingto provethat utsaid poll hereceived 89votes,being 31more than were returned for him by the inspector and judges. But to make up this numberwe have to count the votesoften persons.to with geor o W. Dicks, Francis Mullinix, Job Alice, William iconard, Abraham H. Suodirrass.Andrew Finley, Elisha I. Baldwin. William Mine t. William my and C. w.I)icks. who testify that they votedfor Mr. lVashburn. butwho cannotthenisclveswrite their names; and of 12others, to with Elm Thompson, David Thompson. Payton Alhin larrison Youn, John A. Cross,James H. McCoy. ohnG. Dyer, Hui Thompson William B. For son,David. Dunkin Israel Jonltins, and John icks, jr., who were no producedor sworn. but whose voteswere testified to vother persons; this being clearly 2ndary evidence of a very weak and unsatisfactory character. Jcfiersontownship. Sullivan county, Mr. Voor hoesreceived231votes and Mr. Washburn M votes. asreturned by the inspector and judges of election. Evidence is offeredtending to show that Mr. Washburn. in fact received at said poll 3 votes.being 8 more than were returned for him. l at to make up this number wt haveto count the votes of 8 persons, to wit. Lewis B. Mathes.JninesH. Beck. Lacy Wood. Ileasant Pose. Abraham Briant. Andrew Gearine r, Jacob W. Bee and James Jowett,)who testify that theyvoted for Mr. Washburn. but.who cannot themselves write their names; and of 3 others,(to wit, Lewis Solomon,Philip Solomon and Frederick Hin kle.) whowerenot producedorsworn. but whosevotes were testified to by others, "In Itile township. VIKO county. Mr. Voorhees received 17 votes; and Mr. Washburn88 votes. as returned by the inspector and Judges. The contest out has evidencetending to show that he in fact.re ceived 107votesat said poll. being 19votesmorethan were returned for him. But to may O up this addi—tional 19votes we have to count the votes of It} persons. (to wit. Lcv iCrouch. Solomon Brown. William air. James H. Gilcreaso, John Hancy, John Taylor. Ezra M. Lowe. George.Brown. Al exaude Green. William Salomon. Wilham Henry. John. Crecch. Hase Lynn. J. W. Smith Isaac Lowe and Abraham Latte.) who swearthat theyvotedfor Mr. Washburn but who cannot theme lves write their names; an of 12others.(to Wit, 1u h Maynard, David Joslin. Jaineshranklin. George obo. Robert Leak, Timothy Higgins Alonzo Ash John Bowers Dllld Ward Henry cc. James Pearce and Amos HICRSUUJ who were not sworn or examined. but whose votes we"rIet testifiedto by others. an cars.then. from this analysis of the evndence that in t ic 4 townships named there were returnc forMr.Washburn 313votes and that taking everything that has the semblanceof legal evidenceon the part of the contestant. it tendsto prove that ip those 4 townships he received 3 8votes.being Tomore than whntwere returned for him. But that to make up this additional 75 voteswe have to count the votesof 54 men who. while they swear that they voted tor the contestant.show.bymaking their marks to their sige natures. that they cannot write their names: and others who are not rodnced or sworn, but. whose votes are testifiedto y others." But it is urged thata fraud was committed at Riley township, which rests upon the evidence of one Mary Lowe, a servant girl, as she is termed in the report of the committee. She, too, however, is one of that large number of witnesses called in this case who cannot write her name, but atiixcs to her depositiOn that sign vof the cross in which I suppose the victory is to be won. I again quote taminority report: “ But we have also the testimony of Mary Lowe a servant girl. who cannot write her name and who testifies that on the next morning after the election she found some Republican tickets under the can pet behind the door in Dr. Hicksons room. How many tickets were there? We dont know. How did she know that they were Republican tickets? Could she read them I We are not informed. Whose nameswereon them? Was Mr. Wnshburns? Were theyticketspreparedfor that or for scrapformer election I for that or some other State or district? Had they ever beta in a ballotjbox anywhere or in the hands of a voter of the district or ct any electorany where? We are not informed. No Witnessunder takes or attempts to give us such information. [fa clamor had not been raised could we conscientiously saythat this evidence raises even a shadow of suspicion againstany one? and upon such evidencewe are asked by the mereforce of numbers to vote Mr. Voorhecs out and Mr. Wasliburn into Congress.con tlarallryy, aswe confidently assert.to the clearly and lo expressedwill of the electorsof the district.” Something has been said about the fact that I took no testimony. I have an answer to that. at one time I intended to have done so, but circumstances over which I had no control, and of a private nature, prevented me. If, however, there is no case made out against me, I presume my commission, signed y the Governor, will be all the evidence I want. Sir, I have thus discussed the action of the committee in detail. I have shown how trifling is the evidence on which it is based. But for the sake of argument suppose we admit all that Mr. Washburn claims. Suppose we admit he has proven that he ought to have received 100 more votes than he did. Does it follow that therefore the votes which were cast for me and concerning which there is no question of illegality raised, shall be totally rejected? Will you disfrauchise 1,000legal voters on such grounds? What is the object 111.0011i85iingan election? Is it not to ascertain who has the most legal votes by a recount upon all the evidence that can be furnished? Who doubts in this case as to where the legal majority rests? The contestant himself makes no pretense that he received more votes than I did, nor as many, according to his own estimate, by near 400; but you are asked to enforcean arbitrary and tech— nical rule, founded neither in law or justice, in order to reduce my majority by taking away votes as pure and legal as any which ever up held an election. The true rule of law is as it is found in the statutes of Indiana and I am defending my rights here according to her laws as well as the laws of the States and Federal Government generall. I quote from 1 Gaving & Hord, Statutes of ndiana, page 318: "No irregularity or malconduct of any memberor officerof a board of judges or canvassers shall set aside the election of any personunless such irregularity or malconduct was such as to cause the contestee to be declared c ccted when he had not re eeived the highost num or of legal votes; nor shall any election be set aside for illegal votes.unless the number thereof given to the contestee. if taken from him, would reducethe number of his legal votes be low the number of legal votes given to someother personfor the sameoflicc." Sir, where is the evidence of irregularity or maleonduct on the part of any Officer cennce ted with this election which caused me to be de clared elected when I had not. in fact received the highest number of legal votes? There is not a syllable of such roof. Whereis the evidence that I received il egal votes which, if taken from me, would reduce my majority of 534 to a minority? Nowhere. Allow me the votes whose legality no one questions, and allow the contestant all he claims to have received, and I am content. But if it is determined, upon the doubtful evidence of 68 persons, 50 9 of whom can neither read or write. to dis franchise legal voters by the thousand, do not, I pray, pretend that. you are sustained by law or reason. Place it, then, on the ground which the country at large will assign for the basis of your action, that I am to be exelled simplybecause you have the power to o it. either indorse the 1st action of the committee or avow the reasons which im elled them to make the 2nd. But as you a vance to the accomplishment of our object reconcile one thing more. Mr. Washburn contends, and so does the committee now, though not so at 1st, that. he was extensively robbed of his votes, yet this mllCll injured gentleman received 137 more votes than did Abraham Lincoln 3 weeks afterward. He outrun Abraham Lincoln 137votes, and yet a vast number of votes were stolen from him. Marvelous man! What he could have done if he had only had a fair chance is beyond the see c of the boldest imagination to conceive. He eat Abraham Lincoln on the 1st trial very decidedly. What he could do in an open field 6 ht with George Washington remains some wIiat in doubt. When this point was suggested by me before the committee, the gentleman, with that rare modesty which so well becomes young and rising greatness, asserted,with great spright linessof manner, and, I have no doubt, With the utmost sincerity of belief, that it was true that he was stronger before the people of that district than the late POTUS, over whose slow—moving hearse the tears of millions so recently fell like rain from the sky. Sir, there are things occasionally which startle even the philosophy of stoicism. I have for years endeavored to cultivate that faculty which is surprised at nothing, which looks with indifferent coolness on every phase of human life and character, content to do right within the range of my vision, and firmly believing that a wise and a merciful Providence is overall; but I do protest, with no unkindness toward the gentleman that makes this gigantic assumption in his own behalf, that he gave me a keen sen sation of genuine astonishment. I knew Mr. Lincoln well. Iknew him intimately and kindly many years before he was called to that perilous eminence from which he fell so sadly on the 14th of last A pril. In the exercise of my convictions of dnt I differed, and differed widel, from him after e became President. pardo me for saying at this time that honors and profits, as the world esteems such things, might have been mine in gratifying abundance, if I had been able in the light of m conscience to choose that broad higchway and that open gate wherein so many patriots have entered on the wealthy walks of official life during the last 5 years. I followed my line of conviction, however, and all is well with myself. But he who denies to Mr. Lincoln:1 power over the hearts and minds ofat least that portion of his countrymen to which the contestant in this case belongs, sn perior to the puny pigmies of the hour, will Lostle him from that pedestal of fame on which O stands with a just and legitimate claim. Mr. Washburn, however, contests with him this supremacy. He has stronger ties with the people of the 7th congressional district than the chieftain of his party who sleeps his last sleep at Springfield. Well, perhaps he has. Per aps he can sustain a heavy robbery nd fraud, and still. by the immense weight ofahis character, receive a much cater number of votes than could Abraham Lincoln. I will leave this point to my Republican colleagues from Indiana, who particularly know the overshad owing influence which the contestant exercises in the political affairs of that great and power ful State. I will especially submit it to my col— league from the LaFayette district, [Ii. Onrn.] I am sure he can easily explain how my friends stole a vast number of votes from Mr. Wash burn, and yet that in 3 weeks afterward in the same district Mr. Lincoln fell behind him in a very marked degree, and that there was at the same time only 17 votes ofadifference between General McClellan and me. All things are easy to the elect. Mr. Speaker, I have but little more to say and but one favor to ask. You know, and I know, and this House and the country know, that I have the legal majority of votes; but if the report of the committee is to be sustained, let it be done on its true ground. I have been your fair foe. I have met you in open, honorable warfare, and I am entitled at least to candid hostility at your hands. I have neither skulked nor dodged on this floor, and ifa sac rifice is required to appease the political Mo loch which has so long presided here, you have selected the proper victim. He will not shrink from the blow. God being my helper, this political gibbet shall not be matter of re roach to me or mine. If you wish to “purge arliament " and reduce this already fractional Congress to a still greater uniformity of opinion, vou hold the ax, and I defy its edge as well as the malice of the executioners. Strike; but you cannot kill. Banish me. sir; my heart is not here. it is in my beautiful western home. I am thinking of that people who have so often covered me with their affection as with a shield in the hour of storm and danger. To them I will gladly o. I owe them more for their confidence than can ever pay; but at least one merit they will alwa concede to me—I have never shrank from the vindication of their rights; and may the light of heaven be denied to my eyes when, for the sake of position or place, I prove recreant to their principles. Sir, now ct the House proceed. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Srnvmvs,] 2 days ago, in connection with the election contest then under consideration, said: “This questionmay seem to some gentlemen to be a small matter. but in view of thick coming eventl one vote may prove to be of great value here." This, is the most brazen and audacious announcement ever heard in a deliberative assembly in the history of the world, and it sprung from the same fanatical and prescriptive spirit which filled the breast of Colonel Pride when he drove the obnoxious members of the Rump parliament of England from their seats. The “thick coming events” are the vetoes which the Executive has commenced placing on your unconstitutional and extrava gant legislation. It may soon be difficult to obtain even here a majority of 2/3rds to pass laws over his objections; hence, “ one vote may prove of great value here.” It may, indeed; and while that “one vote” is wielded by me it will be given to AndrewJohnson and the great and wise measures of his policy. I am for him, politically and personally. Let there be no doubt about this. The 1st speech made for him in either branch of this Congress I made, and if this is my last I cannot better close it than by a prayer for the success and glory of his administration. 11