Mr. Voorhees, and count those returned for Mr. Washburn and I su pass proceeding in this way it we not tbheat difficult to get any man elected to a seat inthis House. Now, sir, this is the whole evidence in regard to fraud in the Hamilton township. I am not misstating the evidence; or if I am doing so in any way, l am ready for any gentleman on the ComElections to correct me and i yet 11 on this evidence you are asked to throw, out tiis entire township and disfranchise all these voters. The next township is Cloverdale. The report of the majority of the committee does not propose to throw outthe return from that towns ip; but it is argued by some, and the whole question is before the House, that it ought to be thrown out. There is just as much evidence to warrant the throwing out of Cloverdale and all the others as Hamilton; and I think you might as well throw out the vote of every recinct in that districtfif we are to receive such evidence as this to disfranchise the voters of the country. As to Cloverdale township it is testified that Arabiam Davis, the sworn inspector, staid all night at the house of one Solomon Akers, about 3 quarters of a mile from the place of voting, taking the ballot box with him. The board had adjourned the count until the next = morning, as they were authorized todo by the laws of the State. Mr. Davis was the proper custodian of the ballot box. It is further testified that that night one James A. Scott came to the house of Mr. Akers and staid there all night. It is testified by one A. B. Baird that this man Scott was at Greencastle some time after and these stated that he and another member had “ arranged” the ballot box. This is the evidence in regard to Cloverdale recinct. These mere hearsay statements of 1. Scott, repeated by Mr. Baird, who says that Mr. Scott is “a Democrat or butternut,” is to be taken here as evidence for the purpose of disfranchising the people of that entire township. The committee, I admit, do not propose to throw out the vote of that precint. but the evidence is of the same character as with reference to the preciuts which they do throw out. I of course charge no unfairness upon the committee, but I am afraid that it is too much the nature of all of us to arrive easily at re sults which we happen to desire. [will not say that if it had been necessary the vote of Cloverdale would also have been thrown out, but I do say that I think the evidence is just as strong in that case as it is with reference to the township of Hamilton, and in fact that there is no sufficient evidence of fraud in either case. It is also asserted that in Jefferson township there was fraud in the election. What is the evidence with reference to this township? It is proved by one witness that the board of election, by general reputation, were Democrats, and that is all the evidence of fraud in regard to Jefferson township. It may be that that is sufficient evidence to warrant this House in throwing out the vote of a township and dis franehismg that township. If we have come to that, let us take ageneral sweeping vote here and vote out everybody that does not happen to agree in his views with the majority upon this floor. But, sir, there is no law for disregarding a return from this precinct on this account, and I will do the committee the justice to say that the do not pretend to say that there is any evience upon which the vote of Jefferson township should be excluded. The next township is Riley; and the committee report that the vote of that township should be excluded. In that township Dr. ickson was the inspector of elections. t appears that at dinner time he invited the other members of the board to his house to take dinnerwith him. As required by the law of the State, he took charge of the ballot box, taking it to his house during the adjournment. He placed it in a private room—his bedroom. During the time these gentlemen were at his house he absented himself from their presence for some ten or 15 minutes and during that time wasin his edroorn—whother to change his clothing, to read or write a letter, or do anything else, we do not know, for there is not a particle of evi l l for Colonel Washburn or for some other deuce on the point. Now, sir, I aflirm that he was the legal custodian of that ballot box: it was his duty to take the ballot box with him as he did. What ound of suspicion arises from the fact that he was for 15 minutesin the room where the box was? He was the sworn otheer of the law, the legal custodian of the ballot box, and if these other Officers had not gone home with him to dinner he would have had the box in his sole possession during the entire hour, as the law required. Now, i Dr. Hickson had not invited these men home to dinner he would have had it there himself, and would this have even been a ground for sus. i cion of fraud? Then what force is there int is charge of fraud? None at all. If he had intended fraud would he have invited these men home with him? Is there, in fact, the slightest improprietv even proved against him? This is the who O testimony, except that of Mary Low, who was living at the house of Dr. Hickson. She signs her name with a cross; she cannot read or write. Mary Low testifies that next morning she found behind the door in Dr. Hicksons room someRepublican tickets under the carpet, some tacks having been loos ened. How many tickets there were the im maculate Mary does not tell us. Could she read I She does not inform us. Were they Republican tickets for that election or some for mer election? She does not tell us in that examination. Were they for that or some other precinct or congressional district, or some other State? We are not informed. Were there 2 tickets there? We do not know. Were they for that election 7 Were they person? There is no information in regard tot at. So much for that. I say when We are asked to set aside and reverse a return of legal officers the burden of proof is upon the contestant, and he is bound to prove these facts before we can rightfully adopt his conclusions. This is all the evidence, every particle in this whole record, tending to show fraud against any single member of the board of clectibns in any an every one of these townships. If I have misstated any part of the testimony, I ask some member of the committee or of the House to correct me at this time. There is no evidence to exclude a single vote, much less to throw out these 634 votes and give this seat to a man who has never been chosen by the people to a seat in this House. No man upon this floor can say from the evidence he Otained a majority of votes. There was a little more evidence in regard to Riley township which I was about to overlook. One witness says in counting there were 4 or 5 votes less than were upon the tally list; that the judges looked and found them upon the table and counted them. He says they were not taken out of the ballot box at that time. When you look at this evidence, I insist he evidently does not intend to say that they did not come out of the ballot box at any time. He said they might have come from the string of votes. He only says in substance that they were nottaken from the ballot box at thattime. The return of the officers is to be taken in good faith until the contrary is proved by satisfactory evidence. It is a principle of law which cannot be safely departed from at any time. For whom were these 4 or 5 votes cast? Were they for Mr. Voorhees? The witness does not pretend anything of the kind. Were they for Colonel Washburn? I do not know. There is no evidence of fraud on the part of these men. The judges actdd on the presumtion that the votes had come from the ballotox. Even if they were mistaken, why should we disfranchise the people of a congressional district, and give the seat to a man who was defeated by the popular vote Mr. Speaker, I have already occupied more time than I intended. The lSPEAKER. The gentlemans hour has exire.