Mr. PAINE. Mr. Speaker, I move to amend the resolutions submitted by the majority of the committee, by striking out all after the word “resolved, ” and inserting in lieu thereof the following: That William H. Koontz has the primafacie right to a seat in this House. as a representative of the 16th congressional district of the State of Pennsylvania. 2. Resolved, That Alexander H. Coffroth. desiringto contest the right of William H. Koontz to aseat. as Representative of the 16th congressionaldistrict. be required to serve upon the said Koontz, within 15 days after the adoption of this resolution. a particular statement of the grounds of said contest; and that the said Koontz be required to serveupon thesaid Coffrothhis answer thereto within 15 days thereafter; and that both parties beal lowed 60 days. next after the service of said answer. to take testimony in support of their several allegations and denials: noticesof proposed examinations ofwituesses to be given at least 5 days before such examinations: no such examination to be commencedat one placebeforethe expiration of 5 days from the coneusion of the last examination at another place; such examinations to beregulated in all other respectsby the provisions of the act of Feb ruary 19. 185. Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate the attention of this House has been called, by an interrogator addressed to the Gentfrom Michigan [Illa Ursox] by his colleague [ML DiiiGes] to the fact that the report of the majority of the ComElections in this case is in favor of Mr. Coffroth. While such is the fact, I feel it incumbent upon me to say that, in my view, the particular circumstances of this case entitle it to be considered by the House as an exception to the general rule which induces the House to follow the report of the committee. In a case of this kind, where the committee are so nearly divided, it seems to be the duty of the House to consider with more than usual care the reasons which ought to in fluence them in making up their verdict. Now, while it is true that 5 out of 9 of the committee believe that Mr. Coffrothis entitled to the seat, it is equally true that 4 out of the 9 have, after the most patient and laborious investigation, come to the conclusion that Mr. Koontz is entitled to the seat. On their behalf, as well as on behalf of what I believe to be the cause of truth itself, I ask the House to give this case more than their usual consideration. God knows I do not desire that the contestant in whose favor the minority has reported should have his seat here if the law and the facts of the case do not entitle him to it; but it is my duty as it is the duty of each one of the minority to show what these facts and legal principles are, and to ask the House to act upont em carefully and deliberately. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, at the outset, that there is before this House, in this case, not one single legal instrument of evidence, not one single item of evidence upon which either party could act withoutthe consent of the other, except the proclamation of the Governor of Pennsylvania, and possibly the soldiers returns. No, sir, not one single item of proof, legal in its character, except the proclamation of the Governor of Pennsylvania, and, perhaps, the returns of the soldiers votes. All the lawyers in this House, of course, are familiar with the statute of the U.S. which provides for the authentication of the rec ords of the several States; and most of them who are not lawyers are familiar with that law. I will, therefore, not referto its provisions; but I will call the attention of this House to the statutory provisions of the State of Pennsylvania respecting the authentication of such in struments as have been used before this committee. On page 425 of Purdons Digest of the law" s of that State appears the following: Whenever provision has beenor shall hereaftor be made by law for recording in the proper office any paper or papers. the record and records thereof made and exemplifications of the same lawfully cer " has sai titled shall be legal evidence in all cases in which the same would be competent testimony.” On page 379 it is provided, as follows: eveIrty schoaulnl tayltsoo recorded lul tythoefe the prothonotrheotnuorntasry in of a book to be procured for that purpose and to lay the returns of the election of county commissioners and county auditors, and of all township officers. before th“eIctourt of uarter sessionsof such county shall a so he the duty of every prothonotary to give a certified copy of the list of voters and other papers depositedin his office by the judges of an election to any crsenapplying for thesamc, on payment of the usua feesas in other cases. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, thntin deciding upon the competency of evidence offered before this committee or this House, we should be at. liberty to follow either the law of the U.S or the law of the State of Pennsylvania. The proclamation of the Governor of Pennsylvania manifestly complies with the law of the U.S., because it comes before this House with the great seal of that State and the attestation of the secretary of that Commonwealth. But the district board returns which are presented here, as well those in favor of Mr. Coffroth as those in favor of Mr. Koontz, do not come before this House or this committee properly authenticated, either under the law of the U.S or the law of the State of Pennsyl vaiiia. They hear the seal of no prothonotary. They hear the seal of no officer. It is true as the Gentfrom Michigan [Mr. Ursouj 5, they are transmitted by the Governor of the State of Pennsylvaniato this House. But it so happens that they do not come authenti cated or accredited by an certificate or statement or credential of the GOvPrnor of the State. They come accompanied by his reclamation, in which he declares to us that 10 finds them both to be nullities as returns. If you go be yond them to look at the returns of the county boards, which come next, passing down from the Governors reclamation toward the ballot box, you find they cannot, by any possibility, have any official character as evidence before this committee or this House. They cannot by any possibility come before us as evidence unless they come by the admission of the parties, because, as the Gentfrom Michigan has claimed before this House, there is no provision under the law of Pennsylvania or any other law for depositing these county board returns in any depositary known to the law of Pennsylvania or any 01; er law. There is no authority to be found in the statute of Pennsylvania for depositing these returns in the office of the prothonotary of the count or of the secretary of the Commonwealt, or in any other office, in a case like this where a congressional district is composed of 2 or more counties. If there were but one county in the congressional district, then the case would be different, then a copy would be deposited in the office of the prothonotary and another sent to the secretary of the Commonwealth. But in this case the law makes no provision for a depositary of the county court; therefore, it can come from no official deposi tary hither. No official depositary can send or bring such count board returns to this House. No officer of Pennsylvania is authorized to certify such returns. It is true that in a regular contest before this House, where it is proier to fake depositions, these returns might be brought as part and parcel of the depositions offered to this House, and it is true that they could he used as they have been in this case before the committee by the consent of the parties. But if they are received by the consent of the parties it must be with the conditions accompanying that consent. They must be received with the conditions which the parties see fit respectively to impose. p But the case is different with the returns of military elections. There are depositaries for them. They are placed in the office of the prothonotaiy of the county, and they are sent to the office of the secretary of the Commonwealth, and hence they can be certified and can come before us as they have come before us as evidence of undoubted competency independent of the admissions of parties.