Mr. UPSON. I did not expect an answer now. I merely called the gentlemans attention to it. But still further. I was alluding to these returns in another aspect. We have been told that it is our business, in determining a primafacie case, to go into the merits and count all th eIse votes. wish now to call attention to another section, to show that there are objections which may be made to these returns: “Ssc. fl. All said elections shall be subjectto contest. in the same manner as is iiow providedby law; pad ip, all casesof contested elections. all legal proums Making a distinction between returns and legal returns which shall have beenboaa idiforwarded by said udges. in the manner herein before prescribed shall o countedand estimated. although the same may not have arrived or been received by the proper officers to be counted and estimatedin the manner hereiiibelore directed before issuing the certificates of election to the persons appearing to have a majorit of the votesthen receivednrnd thesaid returns shal be subjectto all such objectionsasotherroturns are liable to. whenreceived in due time!I I wish gentlemen to mark that returns that are not received in time, the law says, shall be subject to all such objections as other returns are liable to, and that when received in due time they are open to objections. Those objections 1 will now endeavor briefly to point out. I will not quote the section so often referred to by gentlemen containing the words “ on mere informality, ” because I do not think it necessary now, and besides that, I do not see that it alters the course of reasoning in the least. I will now speak of the objections apparent on the face of the socalled returns, which, in my judgment, unless they are authenticated by evidence showin that the votes actually were cast, would not entitle them on the face of the papers to be received, but which it is possible may be helped by extraneous evidence showing that the election was held and properproceedings taken to authorize the soldiers to vote. Ircad from page 7 of the report: “One of thesesocnlledreturns for Dedtordeounty of an election claimed to have beenheld at Barracks No. 1 Sohliers Rest. Washin ton. DistCol. showson the pollbook the namesof only 40 oight electorsas voting. which list is certified b the clerks and judges as correct: and yet the same o crks and iudgesof election return an aggregate of ST votes as cast for Representative in Congress or 38 more votesthan electors voting. which isinanifcstly an ab surd and illegal return and should not and eould not have been countedby the county return judges. The return also gives no company or regiment (section 7) to which the soldiers be our, nor states on facts or circumstances to bring them within an oft o special provisions of sectiontwo of the act. which could authorize them to open a poll or hold an election there.” I may add, also, thatit was not certified to the county board, as appears from the papers referred to the committee, and therefore it could not be counted if it had been before them.” So also the pollbook in the other sooalledreturn for Bedford county. pnr orting to befor company H. 208th regiment. (paper1$l.)shows only 36 electorsfrom lleiliord county. while the return gives 5t} votes for Representativein congress. If it be claimed that the pollbook shows the names of electors from other counties. it is a conclusive reply that the law (section 7) expressly says that separate pollbooks shall be kept and separatere turns made. for the votersof each city or county: and weseeno authority given to the returnjudges of Bed ford countyto count votes cast for other counties and especially when. as in the case of this last return. someof the clcotoisresidein counties not within the congressional district.” and this return was also not certified to the county board, and could not be counted by them. “Of the cight allegedas rejected returns for Adams county. thet rec from the hospitals. namely. Mower. Cuyler and McClellan. are by all the comiiiittec admitted to be too defectivelyccrtilied and authenticated to be entitled to any consideration. The law in relation to the certifying. signing and returning with the pollbook the evidence of the administering the oath to the officersof the election. waswholly disregarded. So also in the case of company C. 202nd regiment, whore on y one Judie of election appears to have been appointed, or spam or acted, the committeewerealikc unnnimousin their opinion that the return wasinvalid. the law expresslyrequir in: 3. ” and I find the minority agree with me in their report and on page 15 they admit that this return is invalid, although it is counted in their 2nd tabular statement given on page 18 of their report. ". The returns of companyI. 210th regiment. (paper3n.) u not show that 2 of the judgesor the clcrksweresworn. ii. Certificate of which the law (sectionsQuad15) expressly requires. There turns for companies B and G. 138th reginicnt. (iaper39.)showthat thesetwo companiesvotedtogct er at onepoll and having thesame election officers. both Judges and clerks.” “ The returns for company B. 21st Pennsylvania cavalry. either show the judges and clerks of election to have been sworn beforeone James Mick ley. who wasnot an officerof the election and had no authority (section 5) to administer such oath or else that neither of the judges or clerks of election were sworn and in either case is in violation of the law. "