Mr. DAWES. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely |, regi et to be compelled again to fore myself upon the House in the discussion of these unin viting and tiresome questions arising in contested elections. I had humbly hoped thatI had earned a discharge from labor so unwel come. And nothing could now induce me to undertake again a task of this kind but the fact that the case before us is from necessity 5 read over so much ground that it is impossible for the learned gentleman [Mr. Pawn] who has made this report to present to the House all the circumstnnces an questionsinvolvedwithin the time which one member may occupy in the discussion. Hence I am induced to beg the attention of the House for a few moments to one particular part of this case, in order that I may thereby relieve the Gentfrom Wisconsin from a labor which i, although I am conseious it could have been better performed h him, mightpossibly, in the limited time allowe, go unperformed unless I should attempt, however inadequately, to perform it. I am compelled further to ask the indulgence of the House because in undertakin to speak today I am laboring under an in isposuion which really unfits me for presenting to the House any ideas worthy of its consideration. I never attempt to present any views from this committee without feeling that it becomes it more than any other committee to be faithful to the House; for the subject mattersintrusted to it are always of such a character that the and also moved that the motion to reconsider investiation of their merits must to a great extent e performed in the committee ro m; and while the committee can ask nobody to accept their views as final, yct as the questions cannot be examined in the House in the inau ner in which they can be in the committee, and in the manner in which their character may demand, there rests upon the committee the stronger obligation to be faithful to the House in the discharge of their duty. Sir, the 3 learned gentlemen from Pennsylvania, while I admit their ability to examine this case with as much acumen as any other gentlemen, certainly as any other member of the co mittee, have failed altogether to touch the me ts of the case. The question presented here is not, as those 3 gentlemen sought to have the House understand, a question of disfranchising soldiers. Unless I am altogether mistaken in the view whichl take of this case, members will, when the facts are understood, be relieved from all anxiety lest they may, by following the report of the committee, uuwit tingly disfran'cliise soldiers who voted at the election here contested. Unless I mistake altogether this case, it is simply a question of fact how many soldiers voted for the sitting member and how many for the contestant. At the election which is now in dispute the sitting member had by the home vote 648 majority; and the whole question, the pnly question presented in the case, is whether the contestant had, on the soldiers’ vote a sufficient majority to overcome the sitting member‘s majority of 684 on the home vote. The question presented by the contestant to the committee and the House is simply this: shall this House say that more soldiers voted for the contestant than for the sitting member merely because the contestant says so?