Mr. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I considerthis case one of very great importance, not only to our State but to the whole U.S. In 1790 a constitution was adopted by the State of Pennsylvania, and on the 29th of March, 1813, an act of Assembly was passed under that constitution giving to soldiers in the field the right to vote. No person ever questioned the constitutionalityoft atact, nobodyeverdoubted it. And that law remained undisturbed until 1838. In 1837 a convention was called in the State of Pennsylvania for the purpose of forming a new constitution, and in 1838 that new constitution was ado ted. In framing that constitution a few wor s were changed from what they were in that of 1790. On the 2d of July, 1839, a law was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Pennsylvaniaand approved by the Governor, by which citizens of that State who were soldiers in the Army of the U.S. were allowed to exeroila the right of the elective franchise notwithstanding they might at the time be outside of the State. That law remained undisturbed, no one doubting its constitutionality or making any objection to it until 1861. When the soldiers of the State were called out to defend the country and to put down the rebellion, under the provision of the statute of their State of the 2d ofJuly, 1839, though far from their homes and in the face of the enemy, they undertook to exercise the elective franchise in the same manner as they might have if done at their respective homes, but when those votes were returned the candidates againstwhom they were cast attacked them on the ground that they had not any right to vote, being out of the State and not within the district in which they claimed a right to vote when at home. It finally came before the supreme court of Pennsylvania in the case of Chase vs. Miller, (5 Wright, page 403,)and by‘a majority the court in that case, after argument by able counsel, decided that the 43rd section of the election law of Pennsylvania, passed July 2, 1839, allowing citizens in actua military service to vote outside of the boundaries of the State. conflicts with the amended clause of the 3rd article of the constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional, and consequently null and void; and therefore the soldiers' votes were thrown out and not allowed to be counted. Now, under the constitution of Pennsylvania, amendments can be proposed to the constitution in this way: they are 1st submitted to able islnture, and if approved b a majority of hot Houses by yeas&nays uly entered of record, are then to be published in the paperi for 3 months precedin the next general election for members of theiegislature. Then the amendments are submitted to the 2nd Legislature, and if passed in a similar manner by both Houses, they are submitted to a vote of the people upon a like notice given. And if they are ratified by a majority of the voters they become part and parcel of the constitution of the State. An amendment to the constitution was finally adopted in 1864, giving to soldiers in the service a right to vote, thus overruling the decision of the supreme court of our State. Under this amendment 5 law was passed on the 25th of August, 1864, fixing the mode and manner in which the soldiers in the field were allowed to exercise the right of voting. Then, in pursuance of that law, election papers were sent to the soldiers in the field, and they proceeded to vote, and the question now is as to who is legally entitled to a seat upon this flooras the Representative from the 20 1st congressional district of the State of Pennsylvania, whether Dr. Smith Fuller, the contestant, or Hon. John L. Dawson, the sitting member. Sir, Iwill undertake to show by the record that it is as clear as daylight that Dr. Smith Fuller has a majority of the legal votes cast and is rightfully entitled to a seat in this HoIuse. have nothing to say against the sitting member or about political parties. This is a question not of party, but of law and fact. It has been alle e by the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. AINE] that the returns were imperfect. By the law of Pennsylvania these directions are merely formal. In the 15th section of the act of 25th August, 1864, the language used as to forms is that the following sha 1 be substantially the form of the poll books, thus showing that no particular form of return, &c., is required and besides, the uniform decisions of the State courts in all these election matters are, that the intention of the law is to ascertain the truth as to the votes polled, so that the voice of the people, as expressed at the ballot box, shall be respected and allowed to have fuli force. I will 8 ow further, by the decisions of the highest courts of the country, that an oath is not necessary where there is other sufficient legal evidence. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine for afew moments the facts of this case. In the 1st place, we find that in company A, 155th regiment, 7 votes were cast for the contestant. hat objection is made to counting those votes? The objection urged by the honorable Gentfrom Wisconsin is, in the 1st place, that the poll hook was absent; and in the 2nd place, that the oaths are not certified. Now, sir, by reference to the books it is shown that everything is here that is required. On pages 50, 60, and 61 of Document No. 2, contoining the testimony in this case, I find the oaths all set out, and a certificate signed by the judges and the clerks, nd stating that they were sworn, and which read as follows: [No 56.] Relum of theElection. At an electionheld bytho electorsof Westmoreland county, in company. of the Signal corps, regiment of pennsylvaniit soldiers.at Martinsburti, Virginia, on the 2ndTuesdayof October, A. D. 1864t.here WerecostFor Representative in the HoRep in the Congressof the U.S.,; 0 which Smith Fuller had 2votes. For representativesin the HoRepof Pennsylvania, therewero cast; ofwhich GeorgeE. Smith had 2votes; James R. McAfec had 2 votes; James McIlroy had 2votes. A true return of the election hold us nforesaid, on the 2ndTuesday of October.A. D. 1864, ccrtified by us the day and year aforesaid. HORACE JACKSON, “7. B. C. MILLER. SAMJuUdEgLes T. llASLETT. of thesaid L'leclwn. Attest: THOMASB. Cor man, Rossnr A. PARK, Clerks. Weatmoreland County, n: I certify that the foregoing is the return as received by me, on 18thof October.1861.mnrkedNo. 56. L. s. GEORGE BENNETT. Prothonotaru. WratmorelnndCounty, as: I. John Zimmerman, prothonotary of the court of commonpleas of the county of Westmorcland.in the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania, do certify that the foregomgis a correct copy of the return of the election. marked No. 56, held by personsin the military service ntthe time and place stated in the caption, transmittedand receive as indicated by the original on file in my office. In witnesswhereof I have hereunto set.in hand and alfised the seal of said ccurt, at recns [L. 8.] burg. this 6thday ofApril, in the year of our 0rd, 1860 JOHN ZIMMERMAN, Prothonotary. [No. 57.] Return of theElection. At an electionheld by the electorsof Wostmorcland county, in companyA, 155th regimentPennsylvuniasoldiors. but the campofsaid regiment. near Poplnr Grove church, Dinwiddie county. Virginia. on the 2ndTuesday of Octo ber. 1864, there were castFnr Representative in the HoRep of the U.S.,; of which Smith Fuller had 7 votes. For representativesin the HoRepof Pennsylvania, James R. McAfec had 7votes; James McElroy had 7 votes; George E. Smith had 7 votes. For prothonotary, James Freemanhad 7 votes. For clerk of quarter sessions.oyer and terminer and orphans' court, C. Gamble had 7 votes. For poor house director, John J. Bovurd had 7 votes. For commissioner, H. H. Null had 7votes. For auditor, James Miller had 7votes. A true return of the election held as aforesaid.on the 2nd Tuesday of October, 1864, certified by us the day and year aforesaid. SAMUEL W. REYNOLDS. CompanyA, 155!!!Re imenlSoldiers, A. J. HARBA Gil. Compam/A. 155”:Regimen!Soldiers, CompWanIyLAL, IAM ll. JUSTICE“ 155MlfegimenJtuihd'pocfad.ieru, At(tieiis: to:iiosW. Fircu, HERMANMEYEBS We. Samuel W. Reynolds, Andrew J. Hnrbsugh, and William H. Justice. judges of this election and GeorgeW. Fitch. Herman Meyers, clerks thereof, do each severallyswear that we will duly perform the duties of Judges and clerks‘of the said c cctiou, severally acting. as set forth in the act of the General Assemblyof Pennsylvania, entitled "An act to reg ulate electionsbysoldiersin actual military service, " according tolaw and to the bestof our abilities and that WeWill studiousl endeavorto prevent fraud or abusein goodGUCUDtZc same. S. W. REYNOLDS, A. J. HARBAUG W. H. JUSTICE, pet. GEORGE W. FITCH. HERMAN MEYERS. Clerks. I herebycertify that the aforesaidAndrew J. Hnr bunch and William H. Justice, Judges, and George w.;Fiteli and Herman Meyers, clerks, were, before proceedingto take any votes at said election, 1st duly sworn as aforesaid by inc. Witness my hand this 11thday of October, A. D. 1864. S. W. REYNOLDS. Judge of mill Election. I certify that SamuelW. Reynolds.judge of election as aforesaid.wasalso duly sworn according to law by me. Witness my hand and the date above written. GEORGE W. FITCH, Clerkof and Election. WeatmorclandGrimm.u. byImceerotinfythtche18fothreogf Ooientgotboebr, e18th6e4ar.netdumrnarakserdeNceoi.v5e7d. [I“ 5'] GEORGE BPErNoNlhEoTnTo, tary. WestmorelnndCbuntu, u: I. John Zimmerman, prothonotary of the court of commonpleasof the countyof Westmoreland, in the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania. do hereby ccrtit‘ that the forcgoin is a correcteo y of the return of the election (mar 'ed No.57) hcl by personsin the military service at the time and place statedin the caption transmittedand recoiVedas indicated by the original of file in my offico. In witnesswhereof I have hereunto setmy hand and affixed the seal of snidcourt, at Greens [L. 5.] liurgi.1this6th dayof April, in the yenr of our or JOHN ZIMMERMAN. Prothonolum. Let me say here, that these technical objections which the Gentfrom Wisconsin seeks to raise have no bearing upon the case according to the law as enacted and construed in Pennsylvania. In that State we do not regard technicalities in a case of this sort. It is not expected that our citizens, when in the Army, will be able to comply strictly with all the legal formalities as may be done in an election at home, where we have experienced clerks. We have a clear statute regulating elections by the soldiers, and declaring that no informality shall defeat the expression of their will. Rut, Mr. Speaker, proceeding further, we have the return from McClellan hospital, embracing 3 votes for the contestant. On pages 6, 7, 380, and 381 we find the poll book of the election, and which reads thus: [No. 6.] Pollbookof the electionheld on the 2ndTues day of October, in the your 1864, by the uiilified electors of Westmoreland county, in the tale of Pennsylvania, in the actual military service, under the requisition of the POTUS, and being unable to attend any other proper place of election. this election being held at McClellan U.S. Army General hospital, which place the said electors being present avg select for o eninlr a poll, and cerli herein, William Cox, B, If). Walling, and John. Kc lcr. being then and there duly electedJudges of the said election, and Charles A. Stinn and A. F. Black being duly n pointed clerks of the same, and having been duty sworn or aflirined accordingIto law. OHN M.KEPLEB, WILLIAM COX. H. H. WALLINfI. 0.C.A. STINN. A. F. BLACK. Clerks. Numberand namuof the elector votingatmid election whoare residentsof Weatmorelancodunty.with(MT city, borough, tmmuhzp, ward, or precinct. 1, John Beardsley.“E " 11th infantry. Denny township; 2, Sheppard ialone. “B, ” 142nd infantry. Hempficld townshi: 3, J. Westly Thompson, " E, " clevanth infantry, ook township. Tally paper or lint of note;apd return: for rachper sonvoledforattheraid electton by the qualifiedvoter of Wecimareland county, For Representative in the HoRep in the Conness of the U.S. Smith FuFlloerrrohparedstchnretaet iv3c)vsiontes. the hoRep of penn. lvnnin, GeorgeE. Smith had 3 (3)votes; James 0 foo had 3 (3) votes; James W. McElroy had 3 (3)votes. Westmoreland County, on: I certify that the foregoing is thereturn as received byme on the 14thofOctober, 1864a.ndmarkedNo. 6. [L s1 GEORGE BENNETT. Prolhonolanl. We herebycertify that the aforesaidtally Eapers. list of voters and returns of the election old I'll aforesaid on the 2nd Tuesda of October, A. 1864, certified by us the day an your nforpsmd.is correct and a true return thereof; therehavin: been more than ten qualified votersof said State present at the election eld as aforesai. JWOIHLNLIAMM. KEPLER. COX H. H. witness. Attest: Judgesof soul Election. CHARLES.A. STINI. A. F. Baicic, Llerlu. Podlal yhook of the electionheld on the 2nd Tues of October.in the year 1864.by the qualified electorsof county. state of Pennsylvania.in the actual military or naval service under the rebqeuiinsigtion of the POTUS and unable to attend any company poll or other piroperplace of election: this election bein at cUlellan U.S. Army hospital. which place they. the said electors being present. have saenldeccetertdiffyohr corpeeinn;in.ag.o W"alfloinrgt.hheossapiidtaelsletecwtioanrd. U.S.Army. William Cox hospital steward U.S.Army and Private John M. Kepler. companyD. 148th Pennsylvania. being then and thereduly electedjudges of the said election. and charlesA. Stine. company M. 15th Pennsylvania volunteer caval and Private A. T. Black. companyF. 59th Pennsylvania volunteers being duly appointed clerks in said election being all severally sworn. accord to the certificates herewith returned. Oaths and affirmation of the judges and clerks. We. William [ I.Walling. hospital steward. U.S. Army. Wailnlidam Cox hospital steward. United John epler. company D. 14 oighthPennsylvania volunteers, udacsof this election and CharlesA. Stine and A. 1‘.Black. clerks ther of do each severally swear that we will duly perform the dutie of judges and clerks of said election.severally acting as set forth in the act of the General Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania soldiers einntiatelctdualm Ainlrtaacryt regulating acecleocrtdioinngsbtoy slaowl and to the bestof our abilities and that we will stu diously endeavor to prevent fraud. deceit or abuse in conducting the said election. WWIML.LHIA.MWALLING. COX JOHN M. Karma. Attest: Judges of the Election. CHARLESA. Swiss. A. '1‘.BLACK. Clerk: of the Election. M.I Khceprelebry.jcuedr: t:iefys.thaantd WCillhiaamrles HAW. aSltling and JAo.h'In‘ cBelaeedking clerks of the said election were before pros everally take any votesat said election.1st of all sworn as aforesaid by me. Judge of mid Election. HoIsphitearlebsytecweartridfy U.S.A. WudilglieamofCsoaxid. election. Was also duly sworn by me. Witness my hand and date abovewritten. CHARLES A. STINE. Clerkof said Election. We herebycertif that the aforesaidelectorspres ent. being more than ten. did select the aforesaid McClellan U.S. Army general hospital to be the place for openinga poll for the said election. “’itness our handsthe day and year aforesaid. JWO.HNl. W.ING M. KEPLE'R. Attest: Judgesof thesaidElcclion. Ca ARLBSA. $1182. A. '1‘.BLAon, Cler. Nuptberand namesof the electors voting at thesaid election. will their m‘ttlllll,0111b!o, rough.lownelu'p.ward or precinct of rendence. 24. H. B. McFea fers.I. 206th Pennsylvania. John eardsleyIn.diana count. Pine township; 45. E. 11th Pennsylvania cavalry tVestmoreland count.Derrytownship; 46.Shepherd v Maanloian.e.W Be.sotmneorheulanndreedouanntdy.foHretym seficeoldndto Pwennnshsyipl: 6‘ J. csley Thompson.company. 11 thPenn !I lvanltl.‘Westmoreland county.Cook township: 81. coiuranmty. herrier. company G. 67th. Indiana Montgomery townshi: 106.GeorgeMillard. F. l55th Pennsylvania. Indiana county. Brush va ey. It is herebycertified to by usthat the aforesaidlist of electorsvoting at the said election is correct and that the number of electors of the differenteounties of the State of Pennsylvania voting at the said election amountsto 106 (106.) Witness our hands the dag and yearaforesaid. JOV.HINI. WALING. Hospital Steward.U. S. 11. wILLIAMM. KEPljER. CompanyI). 148thP. V. COB. Hospital Stmerirtl.U. S. 11. Attost; Judgesof Election. A. T. BLACK.Private. company 175th Pennsylvania. CHARLESA. STINE.Private. companyIll. P. V. 0. Clarke of t/le Election. Tally pop" or list of vootesfor rr|rli person voted for at the soul election by the qualificrlvoters of the several counties 01 the State of Pennsylvania. For Representative in the HoRep of the U.S.Smith Fuller. estmore W itness my hand thiWs 1IL1LthIAdMo of October. A. D. cox. land county. had (3) 3 votes; Smith Fuller. Indiana county. had (3) 3 votes. Here we have the record, showing that contestant received 3 votes in McClellan hospital. We have the return set forth almost word for word in the terms prescribed by the statute, though. as I shall show, those forms are merely directory. Then we have the vote cast in Camp Parole. The return is given in full. showin 1 vote for the contestant, the record of which is in the hands of the committee, properly" certified, supported by the oaths; so that there can be no mistake about the ‘correctness of this vote. Thus far we have for the contestant 11 votes beyond all question. Then we come to the vote returned from camp in the field, 206th regiment. Here we find 2 votes cast for the contestant. On a e 6 of the 3rd book we find the return, which is as follows: [No 48.] Poll book of the clect on heldon the 2ndTuesday of October in the year 1864.by the qualitied voters of westmorcland county. State of Pennylvnnia. being in the actual military service undertherequisition of the POTUS.in the field and staff of the 206th regiment Pennsylvania volunteers.heldnt cziinpn the field. Virginia. Army of the James; llugh J. i‘ady. M. Laney and J. L. Crawford being duly elected judges of the election.a ndJohn Lowry and Milton Shieldsbein duly appointed clerksot'saidelection, tainfidcabteeisn arlesweivtherraeltyursnweodr.naccordingto the cer We, Hugh ]. Brady. '1‘. M. Laney and J. L. Craw fMoirldto.nJudgesof this election and we. John Lowry and Shields. clerks thereof. do each severally swearthat we will duly performthe duties of jndges and clerks of the said election, ssverally acting asset forth in the act of the GeneralAssemblyof Pennsyl vania. entitled "An act regulating electionsby soldiers in actual militar service." accordingto law daine dutsolythe bestof car a ilitics and that wewill stu endeavor to prevent fraud. deceit or abuse in conductingthe same. TJA.MME. SLANEY. L. CRAWFORD. HUGH J. BRADY. JJO. HN LOWRY. MILTON SHIELDS. (Jar/re. "(In I J. hereby certifythat the aforesaidT. M. Lanr vand L. Crawford. Judges and John Lowry and Milton Sahni yelds clerks.wereswornbeforeproceedingto take votesat said election “game my me this not day of October.A. D. Judge of said Election. I certifythat Hugh J. BradyJudge ofelection afore said. wasalsoduly so sworn according to law by me. Witness my hand the day above written. We herebycertify that the aforesaid electorspres ent. being more than ten. did selectthe aforesaidto be the place for opening a poll for the said election. Witness our hands the day and year aforesaid. TJA.MME. SLANEY. L. CRAWFORD. HUGH J. BRADY Attest: Jutlaea.i/ thc'Elect on. ] om: Lownv. J. MILTONSsisuis. erks. Thus in this case the requirement with ref erence to the oath is substantially complied with. Let me remark, however, in speaking of this part of the case, that it is not necessary that the election officers should sign an oath. lf it be stated in the body of the papers that they were sworn it is the same as ajurat. If the record shows that they were regularly sworn it is not material that the return should include the form of the oath with their signatures at tached. That may be required by the law of Wisconsin, but such is not the law of Pennsylvania. It never has been and never will be. Now, sir, taking the votes returned from camp in the field. 206th regiment, we have 13 votes substantially proved for the contestant. beyond all cavil. Then we come to battery H, 4th independent artil lery, where 4 votes were cast for the contest ant. If you look to page 28, of the 3rd book you will find that the return is regularly signed by all the olIicers of the election, and that in the caption it states that the officers holding the election were all duly sworn, which return is as follows: [No. 5.] PollBook. At anelectionheld at Sewardlight artillery barracks. Alexandria. Virginia. of the voters of Vestniore land county.state of pennsylvania. of butter “ ll." independent Pennsylvania artillery. on the 2nd' ‘uesdayof October.1864.Lieutenant William H. Askine and SergeantsJohn A. Floyd and John M. McGratty wereduly electedJud cs of said clect on and Corporal John J. Casean Private James L. Sutherland were appointed as clerks and all being severallysworn according to law previousto receiving any of the votes. The following are the names of the persons voting and number of the votescast: David Jenkins, North Huntingdon township; tTohpohmear s Fuuks. North lluntingdon township: Chris Gordon dlorth Huntingdon township; John Fiiyo.r NRoerthreHseunnttaiptigvdeolnnthtoewllonisishcip of Representat ives of the U.S. Smith Fuller had 4 votes. (4:11 whole number of votescast.four (4.) or rothonotary.James Fret manhad 4 votes. (43 whole number of votes cast.four. orrepresentativesinthe HoRep of the late of Pennsylvania. James McAfee had 3. (3:) whole number of otes cast. 3.(3.) James MeElroEv had 3 votes(3;) whole number of votes cast. t ree.(3.) George E. Smith had 3 votes.(3; the whole number of votescast. 3.(3.) For clerk of quarter sessions.oyer and termiiior and orphans'court. J. C. Gamblehadfour votes.(4;) wholenumber ofvotes cast.four (4. For commissioner wholenumber of votescast, (4;) H. H. Null had 4 votes.(4:) all the votescast. For auditor wholenumber of votescast.four. (4;) Joseph Miller had 4 votes or poor house director whole number of votes cast four. (4:)John J.Bovard had 4 votes.(4:) all the votescast. Wc.LicutenantWilliam H.Askinc.Jr and Sergeants John A. Floyd and John M. McGrntty.)udgesofsnid election and Corporal John J. Case and Private James L. Sutherland. clerks thereof. lion by crrufy that the foregoing is a just and correct poll of all the votescast. w. H. ASIxINE. Jr. 211Lieutenant, JJOOHHNN A. FLOYD. Sergeant. M. MeGRATTi. Attest: Seraerint. Joiis J. Judaeaofsoid Election. Cass. Corporal. Janus L. Surnsnuso. Private. er 'I Weslmorelafld County.u. Icertify that the foregoing is the return as received [ 1? ige on the 14th of October. 1864 and marked 0. [L' 5'] GEORGE BENNETT. Prothonotanl. W'rstmorelam Clounty:.0: I. John Zimmerman. Prothonotary of the court of common pleas of the county of estmorclnnd.in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. do certify that the foregoing is a full and conct copy of the poll book. 8:0. hold by personsin t ie military serviceat the time and placestatedin the caption of the origi nal as of tile in my office rejected by return Judges; and I further certifythat the reason assignedfor the rejection of said return was on account of the officers not being sworn. In witnesswhereof. I have hereunto set my hand [L s] and affixed the seal of said court. fli‘GfCEDB burg. this 12thday of May. A. D. 18o6. JOHN ZIMMERMAN. I 'rutlumotary. This makes 17 legal votes for the contestant, even taking the construction of the law laid down by the learned Gentfrom Wisconsin, Mr. PAXNE] Then taking the 15 votes put own by the majority of the committee for the sitting member, it still leaves a majority of 2 for Smith Fuller, the contestant. at we do not stop here. There is the Lincoln hospital, which gives 15 votes for Fuller. 8 of which are counted and the balance rejected. Why is this? The committee say they rejected them because the record from Harrisburg has been mislaid or lost. but do not dispute but that it had been before them. When it was discovered on the part of the contestant that the copy from the records at Harrisburg was missing. he sent to the governor offennsylvanin and received from the SecyState a duplicate of the return, which I have here, under the broad seal of that State in dueTorm. Would it be just that the contestant and his constituents shouldsuffer in consequence of the committee losmg some of his papers? The learned Gentfrom Wisconsin does not now seriously object to the certified copy under the broad seal of the State of Pennsylvania in due form. They say, however, that it was objected to on another ground, to wit. that these 7 votes would probably have been thrown out because they were returned to Westmoreland instead of the counties of Indiana and Fayette, where they belong. But that was no substantial reason for rejecting thcm. Wherever thesoldiers polled those votes they cohld have been returiied to the proper places. The statutes required that the votess ould be sent to the proper county, and also to the secretary of the Commonwealth, under the provisions of the 17th section of said act, which is as follows: f‘Ssc. 17.After canvassing the votes in manner aforesaid the judges shal. but in an envelope one of the poll books. with its tally list and return of each city or county. togetherwith the tickets and transmit the saine. properly sealed up and the nearestpost directed through office or by express.assoon aspossi blo thereui‘ter to the prothonotary of the court of common pleas of the cit or county in whlch such electors would have vote if not in the military serv100 aforesaid.(beingthe city or countyfor whichthe cpiotyll book waskept.) and the other poll book of said or county.inelosedin an envelope and sealedas aforesaid and properly directed.shit i be deliveredto cifan of the commissioners hereinafter provided for. such commissionercalls for the same in ten days abnyd itine t socalled for thesameshall be transmitted mail or by expressus soon as possiblethereafter to the secretary of the Commonwealth.who shall carefully preservethe sa me and on demandof the proper prothonotary deliver to said prothonotary. under his hand and official seaha certified copy of the return of votes so transmittedto and receivedby him. for said city or county.of which the domandant is prothoaotary." The return was sent to the secretary of the Commonwealth in pursuance of the statute showing that there were 7 votes in this county passed for Smith Fuller, on the certified copy of record in due form of law, which I hold in my hand, shows. I ask the gentleman who threw out in his count the 7 votes, under what. rule of law or justice he did so, and on what principle he deprived those soldiers of one of their dearest rights? But we do not stop here. suppose we take the say so of the Gentfrom Visconsinthat the sittingmem or had 21 votes. Take 21 from 24 and still Smith Fuller has 3 majority. We come now to the Saterlee hospital vote. 6 votes were cast for Smith Fuller and one for Dawson. Let us look at the record on ages 836, 337, 838, and 218 of 2nd book. I. shows the names of all those who voted, and according to the doctrine of the gentfrom Wisconsin, they ought to have been counted. Here is the record, and I ask all the members of this House whether these votes ought to have been thrown out. On page 338 we have clear proof that they ought to have been counted. It is objected by the gentleman that there is no return because it is signed by the clerks in stead of by others but that is substantial compliance with the fennsylvania statute. The pages 336, 337, 338, and 218 read as folloWs: Relurn of theElection. At an electionheld on the 2ndTuesday of Octo ber. A. 1). 1864.the qualified electorsof Fayette cmoiulintatyry. SstactrevprcfoPennsylvania. being in the actual any company aforesaid and unable to attend poll or their proper placeof election at Carvorhospital. being the placeselectedby the Sflld electorstor ODGIJHIKthe poll for this election. there werecastFor Representative in the HoRep of the U.S.votes; of which hail votes. (This)rcturn is composed entirely of blanks.rinter. A true return of the electionheld as aforesaid.on the 2ndTuesdayof October.1864.A. D. 1864.Cer tified by us the day and ficar aforesaid G ‘ORGE MINDS. IlonpzilnlSteward.U. S. A" JOHI W. WINDSOR. Privale High colrnpanyV. K. 0. “moral companijH. 143dPennsylvania. A" t Judaclq/ the cold Election. es: wlLLllnl C. STmlt.Clerk Girper Hospital. HERBERTS.GEB, Musi cian 52:]companyV. R. C'. Clerla [No. 2.] Poll book of 0 election held on the2ndTuesday of October, in the yenr1864, by the unfilled elect ors of the severalcounties.State of ennsylvnnin, 1n the actual military or naval serviceunder the re iiisition of the POTUS. mu. beiniirunable to attend any companypoll or other proper place of election.this election being at Sniterleehospital.in the county of Philadelphia. Pbeeninngs:ylvania. which place they. thesaid electors. present, havere cetedfor opening a ol lfor the Sflld‘GIBOlIOBJIDdcertify herein: Ezra. Liltle. James L. McLane. And JamcsR. Baron:I beingtheu and theredo; elected.iudges of the said election and Charles. Green and harlos S. Bailey. being ( $$$$fi$g ?5? ?$55 F55F F59PHFFPWPH duly appointed clerks ot'said election. being all severallysworn according to the certificateshere With returned. Oathsand uffi‘rmotioioinflhrjuclgesand clerlrn. We. Ezra S. Little. James R. Barons and James k E. McLane. judzos of this election and Charles S. Bailey and CharlesH. Green.clerks lhereof. (launch severally swear that we will perform the duties of judges and clerks ofsiiirl election.severallyactincas Ff‘l.lOflfl in the act of the General Assemblyof the State of Pennsylyania. entitled:' An act regulating elections by soldiersin actual militarysprvice." accwoerdwiiiilal stotuladiivoaunsldyto the bestof our abilities, and that endeavor to preventfrand.dooeit. in tpbitiscin conducting the and election. es: o I herebycertify thatJames R. Baron: andJames E. McLane.judges and Charles S. Bailey and Charles H. Green.clerks aforesaid.were. before proceeding to tako anyvotesat said election. 1st duly sworn as aforesaidby me. Witness my hand this 11th day of October.A. D. 186i. EZRA LITTLE. Judas of and Election. I certify that Ezra S. Little.judge of electionafore said. was also duly so sworn according to law before me. Witness my hand the date abovewritten. CHARLES H. GREEN. Clerkof mid Election. We herebycertify that the aforesaidelectorspres ent. bein more than ten. did select the aforesaid Satterlee U.S.s.Army generalhospitnl to be the place for o ening a poll for the said elcciion. Witness our andsthe day and year aforesaid. EZRA S. LIT LE. JJAAMMEESS It. IlAROllX. E. McLAh’E. Judau of soul Llectwn. Attest: CHARLESH. Gunny. CHARLESS. BAILEY. Uler Nuemlecbteior na, nadndnamesof the eleclorl ootsnfat the said flmr comilu.cilu. borough.tawmhip, ward or precinctof residence. Name. County. City.dte. Elbridize G. Maiso.U JacobBan 5. Mothers aughmllun enryA. Belknap.W enryMeCleary carrySheldon. B orthampton. 67.Win. E. BamardmSnsqueh' 68.William A. Kclch. e 69 Samuel J. M vi Washing 70. Edwin G. Owen radford 71.David ort. ancaste 72. HornceA.Rch as uch 73.Phili 1tockwcll. Jcllerson 74.Duvii Johnson. Liiwrence. 75.William Hollett. Alleghany. Alloghany City. istr' 76.CorneliusSullivanLawrenee. Union. Lewis Mechling. Westmore’ 78.John A. Robb. 79.Albert Dunn. lcKean. 80. Wm. M. Zeigler Baldwin. 81.James S.Starr..].Bradford. 1‘4. llnnnngdon. Lcwnburg. Green. Rome. Westfield...!l 83.Richard Dye..l 84.CharlesM. McCoy. 85.Alex. Spaulding. 86.James vchar. fi87.Daniel Chambers. 88.Lewis C. Pierce. Charles 11.Cole Allegheny. ry. Wilmot. G“ aotrathw.isss. Wysox. Gettysburz. 0il City. It is herebyccrtifiedby us t hat the above list of electors voting at the said election is correct. and that the number of electors of the severalcountiesin the State of PennsyLvauia.voting at the said election. amountsto 94 (94.) Witness our handsthe (lav andeyeiiraforesaid. JEAZMRAESa. LITTLE R. BAROUX. MES McLANE. ttest: Judges of Election. Cannes 8. Burn. CKABLESH. Guam. Clerksof theElection. 1hlly pay or list of votesand return for well person voted or at thesaid election I: the qualified votersof the several counties.Staleof mnrulvam a For Representative in the HoRep in the Congress of the U.S.Smith Fuller hadGvotes: John L. Dawson had 1 vote. For representatives in the HoRep of Pennsylvania George E. Smith ha 5 votes' James R. McAfce ha 5 votes; James McElr ha 5 votes; John llariznett had 1 vote; John W. iddle had 1 vote: John Mullen had 1 vote. we hereby certify that the aforesaid tally paper and list of votesis correct. Witness our hands the day and year aforesaid. CHARLES S. BAILEY CHARLES H.Glt1')EN' Clerfe. Orrics Sncizannv or rm: Cosmos warms. llsnnissoiio. April 16.1866. Pennsylvanian. I do herebycertify that the foregoingandannexed is a.correct eopy of the return of an election held on the 2ndTuesday of October in the year 1864. at Satterlee hospital. in the county of Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. so far as the same relatesto the vote for Congressin the countiesof Westmorcland.Indi alryiiaan. d Fayette. as the same remainson file in this 0 cc. In witnesswhereof. I have hereunto set my hand [L a Jatmhiis 1ca6uthsdeadythoef Aseparill.ofAt.hDo.slec8r6e4t.ary'soffice. Secretary ELI SLIFER. of the commonwealth. We next. come to Camp Hamilton and EL bert street hospital. Camp Hamilton returns 2 votes for Fuller and Filbert hospital l for Ful ler. The return here is Ullh‘lglle, but the whole poll book shows oath and bonafide vote. See pages 310, 331, and 312of Book 2, which reads as follows: (No. 46.] Podlla ybook of the election held on the 2ndTues of October.in the year 1864.by the qualified electorsof various counties of the Statq of Pennsylvanianbeing in actual military service, under the requisition of the POTUS.in company F of the 3rd Pennsylvania artillery. 152nd reviment of Pennsylvania.volunteers.held at CampIlnmil ton. near Fort Monroe. Virginia. Daniel Bailey. G. W. Kelts and William llarper. being du y electedjudges of the said election and Theodore H. Blake and Richard W. Jackson. bein duly appointed clerks of said election. being al soverally sworn accordingto the certificatesherewith returned. Oallmof the judge! and clerks. We, Daniel Bailey. G.W. Kclts and William Har er Judges of this election and T H. Blake and ichard W. Jackson. clcrks thereof. do each severally swearthat we in“ duly perform the duties of judges and clerks of the c cction.severally acting as set forth in the act the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, entitled "An act to regulate elections by soldiers in actual military service." accordingto law and to the bestof our abilities and that we will stndiously endeavortopreventfraud. deceit or abuse in conducting the some. DANIEL BAILEY. GW.ILfL. IKAEMLTS. HARPER. THEODORE H. BLAKE" n. w. “cases. Clerks. I hereby certifythat the aforesaidGeorgeW. Kelts ndiilliiiui Harper, judges and Theodore Blake and Richard W. Jac son.clerks. werc, before ooedingto take any votesat said election, 1st (purloy swornasaforesaidby me. Witness my hand this 11thday of October.A. D. 1864. DAJuNdIgEeL BAILEY. Qfflaltl Election. I certify that Daniel Bailey, judge ofelection afore said. was alsoduly so sworn accordingto law by me. Witucm myhand the date abovewritten. T. ll. BLAKE. Clerkof said Election. We herebycertif that the aforesaidelectorspres eCnatm. pbeHiiaigmmiltoonre, nteaanr Ftoernt.did sclect the aforesaid Monroe. Virgi.to be the flamefor o ioning a.poll for the said elcc on. itnessour andsthe dayi andIycarIa fory, csa‘id. G.. ' 1[PS WILLIAM HARPER. AtteTsitm: opoiii: udacaofwill Election. H. BLAKE, R. W. Jscrsou. Clea:. C Numberand namesof the electorsvotingat thesaid election, and theircounty.cilu, borough, township, ward, or precinctof residence. No. 85.Nicholas McCollah, (on ago.)Fayettecounty. Wharton township. It is herebycertified by us that the above list of electorsvoting at thesaidelectionis correct, and that thenuinber ofclect rsof county, Statoof Pennsylvania. voting at thesaid election, amountsto. Witness our handsthe day and year aforesaid. Attest: Jutlneaof theEleclion. Clerksbf theElection. Tullirpu er or list ofootes for each person voted for at thesai clecfion.b1/lhqcualifiedvolrrsof county. State of Pennsylvania. For representative in the HoRep of the U.S. hadvotes. We hereby certify that the aforesaid tally paper and list of votesis correct. Witness our handsthe day and year aforesaid. Clerlu. Return of the Election. At an electionheld by the electorsof couuty. in company, of the regiment of Pennsylvania soldiers, at, on the 2nd Tuesday of October. D. 1864, therewere cast Foi Re pesentativo in the HoRep in the Congressof the U.S., votes; of which Smith Fuller had 1vote. A true return of the election held as aforesaid, on the 2ndTuesday of Qctober, A. D. 1864, certified by us the day and year atoresaid. Attest: Judgesd themid Electiim. v Clair/ca. Oimcii Ssennriav or run Counouwniima, HAiisisauno. March 31, 1866. Pennsylvania, in: I do herebycertify that the foregoing is a correct Opyof the return of an election held on the 2nd uesdayof October.in theyear 1864 at CampHamil ton. near Fort Monroe, Virginia. as the some remains on filo in this officc, so far as relates to the Vote for Congress in the county of Hayette. In witnesswhereof, I have hqrcunto set my hand [L‘ a'] tahnids c3alsutsdeadythoefMseaarelnhf, snAi.dDo.ff1ic8e4to36b.eafixed. ELI SLIFER. Secretary of the commonwealth. We have now a majority of 17 votes for Smith Fuller, the contestant. The record, therefore, shows beyond all question that he is clearly elected. Now as to the formality. Let me refer to the law of 1864 to which I have already adverted, the 27th section of which is as follows: SEC.27.No merqinformalityin themannci ofcar rying out or executing any of the provisionsof this act shall invalidate any electionheldunder thesame or authorize the returnlthereof to be rejectedor set. aside; nor shall any failure on the part of the commissioners tor cach or visit anyregimentorcompuny or part of company or the failure of any companyor part ofcoinpiiiiyto vote, invalidate anyelectionwhich may be held under this act." This section was put in just to prevent those who want to stop or stifle the voice of the people. We expected there would be no caviling or trouble after the amendment of the comstitution was ado ted, but we were mistaken, and it was thong t by the passage of the act of August ‘25, 1864, with this sectionit would be a quietus to all those who were opposed to the so dicrs’ vote. I Then in regard to the other pay of the statute, proViding that it shall be so stantially a certain form, we fixed the form for them to follow, but. it was merely to guide the election officers in the field as to some form. Hence the law declared that it should be substantially this form. Nobody thought that that would be attempted to be set aside if the form and the act should not be followed. I Will now refer to a few cases in point. a contested election casein the cit of Phila del bin, (2 Phil. Rap. page 244,) the learned Judge who delivere the opinion says: “ It has been properly held that more irregularities, when there is no reason to infer that the election officers have acted in bad faith. will not invalidate the returns. (Boileau's case. 2 Parsons. 503.) Nor Will the mere neglect of directory requirements produce that effect. “ It is essential, however.that.evidence of so great importanceshould exhibit thosemarks of care in its reparation. Without which it mav be rendered lessment or entirely unreliable. tter disregard of the requirements of the law. in therecordingof votes or in the reparation of the returns amounting to strong evidence of bad faith upon the part of the officers ought to. and'will have the effect of destroying such returns as evidence." “Further on the court uses this language: We will not become parties to such a system and the only rule a can consentto adopt is the plain ope.already s ated that where honesty pnd integrity are apparentincre omissionswill bedisrcgarder but grOSsactsof negligence and apparent frauds will at any stageof a casebe regardedas the proper subjects of the closest investigation. If this be not determining a caseupon its merits, we havemistaken the meaningcl that term.” Now, in this case there is no allegation of fraud, but a mere objection on the ground of an alleged informal return, and that in consequence of such informality the terms of the statute were not complied with. If those voters had been at home they would have had a clear right to vote, and surely this flimsy objection might not to prevail to deprive them of that right when in the field in defense of their country. But I go further; I cite the case of the People vs. Cook, in the supreme court of NewYork, 14 Barber, 285,) in which the court says: “ It becomes important. in this case, to determine whether the obicctions which are taken to the in spectors of electionsin the several cases presented in this bill of exceptions are of that character which should be held to invalidate the canvass in these several lOBlllllleS. ThoseOb)60l.l008 lloffo a twofold chayacter. extendingto the regularity or legalit of their appointment, and of their omission to quaify, by taking the proper oath of office. Iwdl not stop to inquire whether these inspectors.in theseseveral cases.were inspectors dejure or not. that they‘cre inspectorsdefaclo.” On page 287, Judge Mason, of NewYork, sa“ys: The same rule was applied to the commissioners of highways. who had omitted to take the oath of officein the caseof the People vs.Covert.(l llillGTlz) and the same rule was s plied to a constable in the caseof the Peopleo0. opson.1.Dcnis570:)and in the matter of the election of irector sof the Mo awk and Hudson Railroad Cpmpany, (19Wont.135.) the doctrine was applied to inspectors of elections: where it. was expresslyheld that being officers faclo, their omissionto take the oath prescribed by the statutedid not.invalidate the election. This disposesof the question of the oath in regard to these inspectors.as well as the clerks of the board: and theonly andrcmammg guestion is, whethert heso in spectorsare to be rega odes officers defaclo, acting undercolor of legal authority.” In the same case, page 811, will be found the following: “I cannot.but think, however that to hold that the omissions of these officers, through negligence, mistakes, or other inadvertonce, to comply with all the todsisedt'irraencctihoinsqsthofotchlcecsttoartsu.te, shonldhave the effect would be unjust in the epxritnrceimlec.sanofdo.uinrdeed, subversive of thafundamental Government. I think that the only sensible rule upon this subjectis not to permit such omissions, whether they are the result. O negligence, ignorance, mistake or fraud, to invalidate the election. whenever. by going behind the returns, the canvass or even the ballot boxes. the true state of the canvassor ballot can be obtained and the expressed will of the electors ascertained and the casesin this court havealready gonethis length.” Still further, on page 325, is the following: “No one will doubt the importance of a rigid adherenceto all the provisions of thestatute regulating In‘ it is sufficient‘ elections; nor will anyone doubt that it is more important to ascertainthe true result of the votes cast. 0 vote is a right'sccured by a paramount law, and lies at.the foundation of our Government while the statute was intended simply to replate the conduct of those who receive.canvass, an make retuuis of the votes, for the benefit of those upon whom the right to vote has been conferred unrestricted as to form, except that it shall be h ballot. If a strict adherence to the directions of the statuteare indispensable the the validity of an election and they are not complied With the penalty falls upon the voter, ndtivithstanding the exact result has been ascertained, and that too through the mediumof od'icers who, so or as the‘p‘ublicand 3rd personsare concerned had the right to receivethe votes. This. in effect.would make the regulation more important than the right – the statuteand not the constitution the paramount.law and would result so far as conccrns the election at which the statute directions have not been obeyed.either through the ignprance, carclessness, or design of the officers of elections.in a virtual disfranchisoment of those upon whom the right tovote has been conferred.exceptin thosecases where poweris conferredto vacate an election and restorethe electorsto their original rights. We have no such power. The result of an election when controverted in court, is like aiiidgment suedupon." Then further, on page 327: " In 1830 a contest aroseout.of an electionin Tennessec.where by the statute eachticket was required to be put.in a box. to be lpeked up or otherwise well secured; the place madein the box for the reception oftickets to be sealed at the closeof the polls. when the inspectorswereto take chargeof it and keep it until the next day.when the sealwas t o be removed. Upon an investigation upon the petition of Arnold, contostin the seat of Sea. it appeared that in one portion of the district out of which the contest arose, a gourd instead of a box was usedfor the reception of tickets.which at the closeof the polls. was tied up in a handkerchief.'Iu another portion of the distriqt the inspectoiuof election wera not sworn and in another the ballot box wasnot kept governight.by an inspectorbut b a blind man. who locked it in ii. desk and kept it t. are over night. The committee to whom the petition was referredwere of opiu‘ilgn that the omission by the ins cctors to be sworn did not vitiate the election: an that. Nobvitbstandifi the irregularities in conducting the election it been conducted fairly and honestly; and that the scat of Sen.ought not, therefore, to be vacated. A resolution to that efleot was dented by the House. (ContestedElect onsin con.s. 601, 6026,04, 605.) The principle adoptedin each of these cases is sustained y one clearly llnpllt‘d'lll that of Bronson, J., in the case of the Peopleog.Vail (20Wend.llw.)hereherepels theidcatha tt 0 will ofth in the forms prescribed by law. can be cfeatedby the neligencc, mistake, or fraud of thp ulficers appointed to register the result of an election. And in the case of Strong petitioner, (20 Each. 491, 492.) Morton, J. says: ‘It would be more in consonauco with the spirit of our ipstitutions, to mhict severe punishment upon the misconduct, intentional or no cidental, of the officers.but to receive the votes. cwehretanienvtye.r’tUhepyon can be ascertainedWith reasonable principle, therefore, fortified hythe opinions of experiencedand learnedJudgesof courts of justice. a.departure.by the inspectors of elections or clerks of the polls. from the statute directing the manner of conducting elections, whether it, be at tributable to ignorance negligence, or fraudulent design cannot eprivo the electorsof their right, secured by a pas amountla w. unlcss one or more of the causeshas rendered it imposSibleto ascertain the result with reasonable wrtainty.” I will refer to report of an election in Pennsylvania in 1865, in which the same question came up in regard to these soldiers. On page 9 of the report it says: “Your committee is of opinion that the command of the 27th sectionpf the actof 1864speaks to all the triunals before which such returns of soldicrs’ votesmay come. It is a POSlllVO command to prothonotarics in certifying to returns. It is a like command to county return judges also to district return judges. To courts on the trial of contested elections: to the cl kof the House in making out his roll of members; t the House in admitting them to seats; and to committees selected to try contested elections. No informality or even bad faith, on the part of anyone of these tribunals in I‘EJCCUDL soldiers' votes would bind the noxtt tribunal before whom they might come. The offorto.f 2 districtiudges to throw out soldiers’ votes enough to change the result of the election in anydistrict could have no binding forceupon the clerk of the House or upon the House itself. Thesejudges were notactmgwrthin thescope of their legitimate authority. Thoir omission to sign the true return wasbut an informality.which the law expressly declares shall not Vitiate. It isscarcely necessary to add that Messrs.MeyersandFinle nevor contested the seat awarded by the House to ossrs. Armstrong and Ross." And on pages 11 and 12, I read the follow m“g:Your committeealso called before them citizens of Westiuoroland county, to whose testimony the attention of the House is invited. The prothonotury of that county pursued a different. but equally as extraordinary arid illegal a courseas the [immuno tarics of the counties of Be rd and Adams. He declined to certify aco y oft return of votesfrom and by thesoldiers, as ifboted by the act of 1864b.ut. sent before the return judges the returnsthemselves. The said prothonotarywas proven, before your come electors plainl expressed I mittee.to have had an interview and understanding with certain attorneys of the town of Greensbnrg, one of whom wasa return judge himself, and becamethe [trieensiedees nhtoowfsththeabto, aurndoenr their dnirsescetii'opnhl0in.thTishpocrevsi i ( cut, some 22 returns of votesfrom the sol ( iersin the field were thrown out, and that for more informalities, specially provided for in suid act of 1864.The evidence further showsacombiuationand party arran ement to reject said returns, and further showsthat t rough some managementthe minority of the judges wer induced tosi u the necessarycer tificates. before the result had been ascertained, “ before any action or decision was had on any question relating tosaidreturns. This action theminority of saidjudges had no doubt afterwar of being a designed trick and advantagetaken of them, and your committeemay add that they have no doubt of th“e same. Upon a careful review of all the factsdeveloped b the examination of the committee.we havecon c uded that further legislation is necessary, to protect the soldier in the exercise of the elective franchise. Your committeere ortherewith abill which, in their jud ent is calcu ated tesccuretheend con templated y their a pointrnent. The peopleof the State have, as we be love, a high regard andsacred respectfor the doctrine that the will of the minority sha l he the law of the land. It mustnot be permit bteyd that the confidenceandrespectalwaysmanifested the people toward the decision of the ma'ority at the ballot box shall ever be shaken. muc less destroyed. There could beno more speedymethod devised for the overthrow of our institutions than the adoption of people a system whiehshould convincethe that theirvoicc, fairl expressedatthe ballot o‘x, should besetasideby the spiraciesof a fewprothonotarietsricks. frauds or conand returnjudges." In summing up the votes, we have clearly 24 votes cast substantially in the form prescribed by the statute. Taking the 15 from the 24 leaves 9 majority in favor' of the contestant. But suppose you allow 21, which is the highest number the committee take; that would leave 3 majority for the contestant. But, counting the whole number of votes clearly cast, there are 32. Tiflre 21 from 32 and it leaves 11 mn Jority, Or take 15 from 82 and you have 17 maJority. So any way you please to take it there is a clear maJority in favor of the contestpnt. New, I do not pretend to say that party has anything to do With this. I have not a word tosziy about party. We are, as I have already said, on higher ground than that. We found our cl:i im uponthe law and the facts. In Pennsylvania, instead of keeping our brave boys at home we sent them to the battle field, and there, in the face of the enemy, we allowed them to vote. And they voted to elect members of Congress who would vote for laws to sustain them in the field while fighting for their country. Now, the question is, shall those votes be rejected b us? There is no evidence or allegation of road; nothing of the kind. They were lawful voters and deposited their ballots in good faith, and the question fer the House is whether the little technicalities and infor malities of which the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] has said so much, shall de prive them of their votes. Is the Congress of the U.S. to require that every i must be crossed and every 1' be dotted and every comma put in the returns, orclse the soldiers’ vote shall be rejected? If that is so, then the law is but a dead letter so far as its intent and purpose is concerned. I trust the House will take this matter into conSideration, and not, because a majority of a committee have reported a particular way, go with the committee. I have heard the argument used here again and again, “ Go with the committee, " “ Go with the committee.” That is a Strange argument. Is a committee of but 9 members to rule the action of the congress of the U.S.? For what is a committee appomted? To preare business and report'it to the House; an.theu the House is to decide whether the recommendation ‘of the committee is right or wrong. If the committee is to decide all things, then Congress better go home and let the committee decide all these matters for us. I repudiate any such doctrine as that. I say this honorable committee, however fairly and honorably they may have acted. have been mistaken in regard to the law and disregarded the facts. I have undertakon to show by the law that they were wrong. Andnow I appeal to the House and ask them if they will vote to keep the sitting member in his seat merely because he is a fine and clever man, and deny to the people of that congressional district the representative for whom they voted as their choicc? I aver that according to the law and accordin to the facts Mr‘. Fuller is clearly elected, and ask that he be allowed to take his seat. I do not ask it upon party grounds, because we have nothing to 0 With part in this matter. I claim it because the facts an the law are in favor of Mr. Fuller, and it is due to the electors of the 21st district of Pennsylvania that they should be represented in Congress by the man of their choice. If you decide against the right of Mr. Fuller to the sent here, you decide virtually that the soldiers in the field shall not be allowed to vote, and that the men who periled their lives to save our country in her struggle shall be deprived of one of their most sacred rights. I do not believe that any lawyer upon this floor, or any member of this House, who has examined this case thoroughly, will hesitate a.moment to say that the contestant is entitled to a seat here, and will so vote. And with these remarks I leave the question to be decided by the House.