Mr. McCLURG, of Missouri. Inserted from Appendix, July 18, 1866. The Houso resumed the consideration of the following resolutions. Reported from the ComElections: Reloltt‘d.That Alexander H. Coffrothis not entitled to a seatin this HoRep from the 16th district of Pennsylvania in the 39th Congress. Resolved, That William H. Koontz is entitled to a seat in this House asa Representativefrom the 16th district of Pennsylvania in the 39th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I be e I will receive the attention of the House or a Very short time. I shall not presume too much upon the uniformly good temper of the House. I am compelled to make some remarks, as the sitting member deems it necessary for him to occupy his hour. But I shall he very brief, fora case that called for the labor and elo uence of the sitting member 9 hours he ore the committee, and of the contestant 4 and a half hours, and to read carefully the report of which will require one hour. Neither is this the place to dissect and discuss, in all its parts, the evidence contained in a volume of 272 pages. That must be done in the dissecting room, the committee room. I will, therefore, now present only the important features, the important points of the case. The case is that ofacontest for a seat in this House between William H. Koontz, contest ant, and Hon. Alexander H. Coffroth, the sit ting member, from the 16th congressional district of Pennsylvania. It will be remembered that in the early days of the present session there was a contest between the same parties on the prima aeie right to the seat, neither having receive a certificate of election. That contest was decided “upon the certificates and a ers, ” “ without prejudice to the right of William H. Koontz, claiming to have been duly elected.” In the present contest we are brought properly, in pursuance of the resolutions of this house, by due notice and pleadings, to the investigation on the merits of the case; and the important question is, Who received the rester number of legal votes? In determining this little else enters into the contest than the claim by the contestant that certain soldiers’ votes should be counted; and by the sitting member, not only that they should not be counted, but that other soldiers’ votes should be deducted, claimed to have been improper] and illegally counted for the contest ant. a other words, the contestant claims that be received of votes of legal voters whose votes were not included in the official count:1 sufficient number to overbalance the majority which appears for the sitting member on the official count, to wit, 88. The sitting member resists this claim, and would have deducted other votes, which he claims were illegally counted for contestant. The soldiers’ vote decides this case. But before proceeding to consider it, I will briefly notice a claim of each party outside of the soldiers’ vote. nurses. The contestant claimed that 33 votes of pan pers should be deducted from the count of sit ting member, 17 in Bedford county and 16 in Adams, contending that, under the Pennsylvania law, paupers had no right to vote. It will be seen, on pages 7 and 8 of the report of the committee, that as the laws of Pennsylvania do not expressly deprive pauers of the exercise of the elective franchise the committee would not undertake to do so until the authorities of Pennsylvania shall have decided for themselves the aw. The committee, therefore, make no deductions from count of sitting member on account of the pauper vote. On the other hand the sitting member claimed that 13votes should be deducted from contestant’s count because given by students at Gettysburg, claimed by him to be non-resi7 dents. As it was in proof that but one student voted for contestant who did not consider Get tysburg his place of residence, and as it is not in roof that the students’ vote was counted, on in proof that 3 only voted for Mr. Koontz, the committee make no deductions. We come, then, to the sotorsas’ v0". And, Mr. Speaker, I wish every member of the House to ear in mind thatnot one soldier vote claimed by or counted for the sitting member is attacke by the contestant. And further, not one soldier vote, is it claimed by sit tinglmember, should for any reason be added to is own count. By referrin to, the table on 8th page of the report of t ccommittee, it will be seen that but onevote in all has been deducted from count of the sitting member. That one is the vote of Hezekiah Hite, a mine r, acknowledged by sittiu member to have been such and to have vote for him. And it will be perceived that that one is deducted, not from his official count, but from 99 before uncounted votes given him from returns introduced by contestant and proven not to have been included in the official count. The contestant gathers up the returns of soldiers’ votes which ad either not been received by the boards of return judges who canvassed returns or had been re'ected, and offers, as it were, to restore the right of voting to the disfranchised soldiers; while, on the other hand, the policy of the sitting member, both in his allegations and his argument, is attack upon the soldiers‘ vote, persistent attack. He offers to disfranchise many who voted for himself, that in so doing he may disfranchise more who voted for the contestant. These are facts which no sophistry in debate can remove or should be permitted to mystify. It is acknowledged by the parties in this contest that the official count of votes gave the sit ting member a majority of 88 votes. On page ‘2 of the report of the committee is a table showing an numbering 11 companies camps, and hospitals, and it is alleged an claimed by the contestant that they cast for him, Mr. (own, 258 votes, and for Mr. Cof froth 99 votes, and that they were not included in the offieial count btereturn judges of the counties of Bedford, ulton, and Adams, and that they should now be counted. On pages 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the report these 11 companies, camps and hospitals are separately considered an the objectiousto the returns noticed. It is useless to consume time now in discussing these objections, as certainly neither the sitting member nor anyone for him will attempt to interfere with the count of the committee, as on page 8 of the report, except so far as I shall name. There can be nothing dwelt upon so as to reduce the count in that table that can affect the result in this case. There can be no doubt, except as to McClellan hospital No. 6, pages 4 and 6 of and No. relport, 7, 138th enn sylvania regiment, pages 5 and 6. One of' my colleagues on the committee, the Gentfrom Michigan, who would, if here, defend this report, if necessar, doubts, as likewise does the colleague from Vermont, the legality of the vote in the 138th Pennsylvania regiment, because 2 companies, by and G, voted together at the same poll, when the soldiers’ voting law, section two, on age 15 of report, requires that “a 011 shal be opened in each company.” They doubt whether the 27th section of law as to “in formalities” removes the difficulty. This vote was 32 for Mr. Koontz and I for Mr. Coffroth. Deduct the majority, 31, from his majority, as on page 14 of the report, and a majority still remains for Mr. Koontz of 40 votes; 71 with this vote, 40 without. s The colleague from Wisconsin expressed some doubt as to McClellan hospital, which gives 3 for Mr. Koontz, and he may, in his mind, give Mr. Koontz a majority of only 68. Ineed not therefore dwell here, neither need the sitting member in his remarks, because all doubts, as expressed by all members of the committee, (and all had up ortunity to ex"‘08! themselves except the co league from ela ware,) added together and deducted would leave Mr. Koontz’s majority 37 votes. This would be by deducting from the 11 companies, camps, and hospitals, age 2 of report, which the contestant proved by competent and legal testimony had been cast for him and not counted on the official countLall cases where there is a legal doubt, and after deducting also from Mr. Koontz, as appears in table on page 8 of report, 3 votes from the uncounted votes appearing on page 2. This majority of 71 or of 40, according to the views of members as to 2 companies of legal voters having voted at one poll and without an attempt to show fraud or unfairness, but mere ignorance of the letter of the law, the sitting member attempts to overcome by an effort to show that other votes should e deducted which he claims were counted upon defective and illegal returns from various other companies, camps, and hospitals. A like attempt is made in all the counties to disfranchise the soldiers to deduct from the official count of the contestant votes alleged by sitting member to have been counted which he claims should be deducted. It is clearly useless to inspect what he presents as returns, and claims to bg informal and insufficient, in any of these counties, because there is no satisfactor or legal evidence to show what returns were before the return judges who made the count. There is not one word of evidence that what are called co ies of returns are copies of what were before the return judges. I ask attention to Adams county. The foundation being removed, all will admit nothing can stand. The foundation for what sittiu member presents as insufficient returns, which he claims to have been counted for contestant, is this: “a tally list” ofaclerk, nothing more, nothing less. On page 212 of Miscellaneous Document No. 117, Henry G. Wolf, a clerk for return judges, testifies that “this paper now before me is my tally list of the votes received and counted by the judges, ” &C. That paper is not in evidence. It is not in any way in this book No. 117for us to inspect it. If it were it would still be an unauthorized paper. Section 63 of election law of Pennsylvania (see page 14 of the report in this case) reads: "The clerks l[in the plunfl] shall make out a fair statementof al the votes which shall have beengiven at such election within the county, &c. which shall besianed by said judges and attestedby the clerks." The judges shall sign it and one judge shall take c urge of it, the Here one clerk roduces what lie calls “my tally list.” T cu, from that unauthorized paper, read by'him or looked at, but not placed in evidence, he tes tifies that “among the votes counted” were certain votes, 1, 2, 6 and 1, at various camps named by him for Mr. Koontz. And as further proof this clerk refers to paper A, papers B, C, D, and aper E, which are not put in evidence. Still we find in this book what purport to be such papers, (but not the tally list.) They are not in evrdence. If they were the clerk does not swear they are copies of anything the judges had before them. We presume all the clerk swore to was true; that 1, 2, 6, and I votes were counted. But we also presume that they were not counted upon defective papers, and he does not swear ey were counte upon such as he had before him or such as we ‘nd in this book. We might, then, very properly reject all this. But to pursuc these votes with sitting member, whicii he claims were counted on illegal papers, we look at what we suppose he inteu ed to present as evidence and what he calls returns. We find them defective, one in this respect and another in that. And while I do not accuse anyone, and certainly not the honorable gentleman who has the seat, of presenting extracts from poll books, &c., it does seem to me that the decision of the majority on the primafacie case of Koontz vs. Coffroth, “that poll books, &c., were fatally defective without certificate of oath of officers, ” has caused only arts of papers to be made out and certifie. ook at the 1st, A; it seems to be carefully certified to be “true copies of the poll book, tally paper, and returns." It may be all it is certifito be, and yet a portion may not have been copied. No oath appears. No certificate appears, and no oath that all the papers were colpied; and bear in mind there is no proof that other and better papers were not before the return judges. Further remark here seems to me wholly nnnecessary to intelligent gentlemen. I might take up these returns one by one and showthat they may not be defective; but then I would come to this same oint, and could not say. for my life, whether these votes were counted or not; or, if counted. whether upon these papers. As clearly in point, I will read from the report of the committee in the late case of Fuler vs. Dawson, in which like papers were excluded to the advantage of the sitting member, ais follows: "The prothonotary certifies that the transcript given on p cs68and 69of the 2nd hook is a correct copy0 the poll book, tally list and certificate of thereturn of the election, but makes no allusion to the certificate of oathsin the case. If thesevotes were. in fact, canvassed, and the only evidence upon which the canvasswas madewassuch as is found in this transcript.it is clear that under therule ado ited the majority of the committee respecting the hospital returnsin thocase of Koontz vs. Coffroth.these votes ounht not to have beencounted, for the ccrtficates of oaths are entirul wanting. But it is not shown affirmatively that this was the only evidence, and the transcript raisesno such presumption be coilsethe rothonotary’s certificate does not exclude Subject at perfect certificatesmay have beenon lc in his office.” In this condition and on this foundation are all the papers on which we are asked to deduct soldiers’ votes in this (Adams) county. The attempt in each of the other counties is of a like c‘ haracter. nsnroiin comvrv. In Bedford county there is no evidence as to what papers were before the return judges. For a portion of them the prothouotary testifies that returns “from Nos. 44 to 53are certified copies of the returns sent to me by the secretary of the Commonwealth, as shown by my certificate to the return judges.” He 'produced a certified copy of his own certificate to the return judges, which certificate he made without authority of law. Certified copies of returns are required by 18th section of soldiers’ law, and he took upon himself to certify a tabular statement made out by himself. although it may be true the votes were counted, it cannot be presumed, without evidence, they were counted upon such papers. Certified copies of the returns before the judges should have been presented to the committee, and were not. this very certificate of the prothono tary was rejected by the committee on the prima gill e case, Koontz vs. Coffroth, and therefore e sitting member had notice, if he did not otherwise know, that such papers were not admissible as evidence. souniisirr COUNTY. For Somerset county it is the same argument over again. “A certified copy of a tally paper of clerks” is produced, and we are asked to reject returns alluded to in that unauthorized paper. A like paper was rejected by the committee in the case of Fullerrs. Dawson, as shown by the report in this case, pages 12 and 13. riuxirtis Aivni ‘nL'rox COUNTIES. In Franklin and Fulton counties there is the same want of evidence to show what returns Were before the judges and counted. The committee have therefore been led to recommend the resolutions which, if adopted, will give the seat to Mr. Koontz. But I should not close without asking gentlemen to read extracts from testimony of deserters, on pages 11 and 12 of the report. The sitting member asks attention to it in his brief. He claims that soldiers at the polls “deterred” some 20 or 30 “citizens” from voting. These “ citizens, ” or a number of them, are produced and testify for the sit ting member. Iearnestly unite with the sitting member in inviting attention to that testimony, pages 11 and 12 of report, or pages 184 to 190 of this book, Miscellaneous Document No. 117. I need not now refer to the law, but note from one witness to show the character of the “citizens” whose votes would be counted by the sitting member to exclude or neutralize soldiers’ votes. Peter G. Miller, commencing near foot of page 11 of re art, and on pages 188 and 189 of this book, (Kliscellaneous Doc ument No. 117,) swears: m“ouInwtaain, about 16 ftrhoemtotic and foot of the election: I did not no any nearerthe polls; I did not offermy vote. becauseI was afraid to go there: I was:1coiiscript gaunsdth. ad not reported: I wasdrafted in 1863i.n Au time;aInd hadmanagedto escapethe officersall that would have beenapt to have voted for Cof froth if Iliad gone, mostassuredly:Iain aDeniocrat in politics." With one remark more I shall have finished. Judging by the past, I presume the sitting member will talk about persons voting who had not been assessed, &c., say some 22 in Somerset county. I have not here spoken of that and some other talk we will probably hear, because it is all excluded unless we admit those unauthorized certificates and tally papers of clerks, &c., that I have alluded to. And, if they were admitted, the proper record evidence of assessments is not introduced, and it will be perceived that, in his brief, the sitting member ruled the contestant to ree ord testimony where it could be produced. And of the 9 voters for Bedford county which he would exclude on such papers, I may in addition state that, for a portion of them, it is not in proof for whom they voted. I may add, as to ‘ranklin county, in addition to what I said, that nothing shows what returns were counted, that the attempt to have 4 votes deducted because General Couch and staff voted and were “ Black Republicans, ” is in character with much of what is called evidence in this book. The sitting member, in his brief, claims these votes should be deducted, and says, “ See testimony of J. Newton Stelletto, page 237.” What is that testimony to which he invites attention in order to deduct votes? Witness swears: "Major John S. Schultz and Captain T. B. Swearingen voted; I do not know how they voted; both were members of GeneralCoach’sstaff, whosehead quarters wero at Chambersburg; General Conch also voted." Another witness, on same page, testified: “I know these military menwere Black Republic ans and intendedto vote that ticket; I neverheard themsay how they had voted."Mr. Speaker, I think it is unnecessary to say more.