Mr. UPSdN. In either case the law is the same. I have not here all the papers referred to; but I think that in that case there was a majority and a minority report. the same as in the other case. I know that the majority and the minority of the board disagreed; and it was on that very point, because they disa eed and did not sign the report, the district judges made the point that it should not be received and counted, and they threw out the votes, thereby electing the Democratic candidate. The Governor laid the matter before the AttyGen, who says, in his opinion: “The district return udgesof the 16thjudicial district. composedof the counties of Franklin. Bedford. Somerset and Fulton. have transmitted to the secretary of the Commonwealth 11return. in which they state that they have not included the Bedford county returnof soldiers votes. a copyof which they annex and they assignas the reason for not including it that said return was not certified to by 9 of the return judges of Berllordeounty. The return in question is signed by 13 of the county return judges. forming therefore a majority of the whole nu“mber. The reason MSIRDEd for not includin: this return is palpably insutheient. As the authority of the return Judges concerns matters of a public nature. a maiority may act at a meeting law ully assembled and their meeting is presumedto be lawful in the absenceof proof to the contrary. The clause of the 79th section of the actoflffiil. providing that the returns rhnll be signed by all the judges present. does not govern the present case: and if it did. it would. 1st. be construed as director merely and 2nd it would be presumeddhat the return was signed by all the judgespresentin the absenceof proof to the centrary. Therefore, in either case it would be imma terial whether the judges who did not sign the report were present or absent. so far as the reasoning of the AttyGen is concerned. I now call the attention of the House to these returns, which will be found as follows: for Franklin county, on page 27 of the report; for Somersetcounty, on age 28; for Fulton county, on age 29; for Begford county, on page 30; an of Adams, on page 32. The returns from tocounties of Franklin, Fulton, and Somerset are signed byIall the judges. The return of the home vote of Bed for countyis signed by all the judges. The return of the soldiers vote of Bedford county and the return of the vote of Adams county, including the soldiers vote, are si edb a majority on y of the returnjudges. ow, when we compare these majority returns with the minority returns, and when we find that it has been decided by the courts of Pennsylvania, and by the AttyGen of that State, that under the law of that State a majority of the judges may act, it at once does away with the whole action of the minority, because, as has been well said, the minority cannot represent the board, and they have nolegal power to act separately and independently of the majority. fl The identity or genuineness of these papers is notquestioned; and the returns of these votes from dams, Bedford, Fulton, Franklin, and Somerset counties, will be found summed up on age 4 of the report, giving 11, 067 for Mr. oifroth, and 10, 979 for Mr. Koontz; leaving Mr. Coffroths majority on the face of these county returns at 88, so that he still has the primafacie right to the seat. Now, I submit to this House, in considering a claim of this kind to a primafacie right to the seat, what authority have we to go beyond the official returns of those who were the properofficers for computing and certifyin the returns of votes cast in that district? I0 consider that our duty is ended on this investigation of a prima fucic right when we have compared these offi ciai returns and counted the number of votes given for the respective candidates, and find that on the face of them Mr. Coffroth has a majority of all the votes so certified. L In this rima facie case we are simply to inquire, whioin does the certificate of the proper officers show to have received the greatest number of votes? An investigation on the merits must be had on evidence; and ivhen that investigation is bad, then the question as to whether any legal votes have been rejected or any illegal votes counted is a fit subject for examination. Until the time arrives for determining the contest on its merits, we cannot, I submit, go behind the returns of the proper ccrtifyin officers. But, in addition to this, it in“ e seen that by the law of Pennsylvania, when the board of return judges for the congressional district have cast up and computed the votes and certified them to the secretary of the Commonwealth, it is also made the duty of those return judges in every case to transmit to each of the persons elected to servein Congress a certificate of his election within 5 days after making up such returns. such a certificate is presente here by Mr. Coifrotli. That certificate, which Will be found on page 37 of the report, is in these words: We. the undersisned. return judges. eleetedby the board of return judges of the counties composmg the 16th conercssional district of Pennsylvania, viz: Adams. Bedforil, Franklin, Fulton, and Somer set. toexaminethe returnsandeount the votes oust for memberof the HoRep of the U.S. castin the countiesfor said officeat a cen crnl election held on the 2nd Tuesday of October. it being thellth day of the month. havi met in the courbhnuscjn the borough of Chambers ur, on the 4th day of hoveinber, and having examin the returns and counted the votes cast in said district. do hereby certify that you. havinc received a majority of the votes cast as counted by us. are duly and legally elected IlNmlHIo f the HoRep Of the U.S. In witnesswhereof we have hereunto set our hands and sealsthis 4th day of h ovember. A. D. 1964. [1, 5.] w. FINDLAY MANN, Jurlne nf Uedford county. [L. 8.] F. DIllllL, judge of Adams county. [1. s.] JOHN if. LAK P. Judgefrom Franklin. [1“5.] NATHAN WINTER. judgefrmli "ulton. Attest JOHN ii. can. Clerk. Hon. A. H. Corriiorn. Somenet. Pennsylvania. The return judges who sign this are the same who signed the aforesaid district return sent to the secrete of the Commonwealth and laid before the overuor. The other return judgessocalled return judges for the AttyGen of Pennsylvania ecided that they were not legally return judgesgave a certificate to Mr. Koontz, but that certificate falls from the fact that the persons signing it had no legai authority, 1ind therefore their acts are of no validity. The certificate which Mr. Coffroth presents stands, therefore, uuconfronted by any other official paperfromany board authorized to act in the prem ises. The primafacie right, therefore, of Mr. Cof froth appears 1st from the certificate given by the majority of the district judges, who are competent to act in the premises, and who acted, so far as appears here, in good faith. It does not appear in any way that the district board did anything to prevent the attendance of the other district judge. On the contrary, the papers show that they notified him to appear, and that be neglected to appear on notice. His purpose, it would seem, was to defeat the action of that board and prevent a certificate from beinggiven. The action of the majority should be considered as sufficient. They did what they were authorized and required to do by law; they counted all the votes returned to them. I will here say that I do not know how it is in other States; but I know that in my own State the State eanvassers only canvass the votes returned to them at the time the canvass is made. It happens at times that counties may not make returns on account of the distance or other difficulties in respect to the transmission of returns; yet the board are required by law to not between certain days, and the result is determined without countin the returns which may come inafterward. I have been credibly informed that this is also the practice in the l State of Pennsylvania. How truethis may be those who come from Pennsylvania may know best. We are told when an election is had and it becomes well known who is elected, that sometimes the returnjudge of some county in the district, knowing that. the return from his count will not change the result, neglects to atten the meeting of the board and allows the remainder of the district board to add up the returns and declare who is elected. It is known that it is unnecessa to include their return, as it would not nffect lie ultimate result. But it is claimed we still have a right to go behind these returns. Why? Because it is said that 2 of these returns are signed by only a majority of the board, and that all must sign the return or it is invalid. I have endeavored to answer that objection, and to show that the AttyGen of Pennsylvania, in a case arisin out of this very election, has decided directly the reverse. He evidently will not be accused of any partiality toward the minorit in this House. If there were any partiality, it would be in favor of the majority of the House. We have seen what he has decided in relation to this matter, and that the Governor of pennsylvania has acted upon it. He decided that it was legally sufficient if the return was certified by a majority of the board, and the commission was given by the Governor to the man who had the highest number of votes, counting the returns which were so signed and certified by a majorit of the board.