Mr. PAINE.Mr. Speaker, I understand how completel the patience of the House has been exhauste by this protracted debate and I promise ti bring the question to avote. if possible, in a very short time; but in order to do so I must now announce that I shall be unable to yield any portion of my time to any member of the House for any purpose. This contest commenced before the ComElections on the 14th of March last. At or about that time the contestant presented his proofs and they were printed, and here is the volume which resulte. It contains 127 pages. On the 18th day of A ril the attorney of the sitting member aske the attorney of the contestant, in the presence of the edmmittee, whether that book contained all the evidence upon which he rested his case. The answer was that it contained his whole case; I heard that an swer given in the presence of both of the parties to the contest. The committee then resolved to meet again on the 27th day of April for a further heariu of the artieskbut when the 27th day of Apricame the contestant did not appear. It was evident to all of us, I presume certainly it was to me when I came to look into this book that it contained not one single line which, as evidence in this case either before the committee or before the House, was worth the paper upon which it was printed. It contains no certified copies of anything, but merely certified abstracts of returns of votes deposited in the office of the secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; abstracts for which no law of the State of Pennsylvania or of the U.S. provides. It was not seriously contended on the hearing that these abstracts were competent evidence, but the contestant insisted in his “review” that just such certified abstracts were admitted in the cases of Vallandigham us. Cam bell, and Blair vs. Bar rett, formerly decided by this House. An examination of those cases will show that no such abstracts were admitted either by the committee or by the House. In the former case, which was decided in 1868, Mr. Vallandigham produced from the office of the secretary of the State of Ohio, not certified abstracts made by the secretary of returns on file in his office, at copies cer tified by the secretary of election summaries or abstracts preared, in accordance with the statute of that State, by the county clerks of the district, and by them deposited, in obe dience to law, in the office of the secreta of state. The evidence in that case consiste of copies authorized by law of abstracts authorized by law. The evidence in this book consists of abstracts not authorized by law of returns authorized by law. In that case the ComElections were unable to a co, but submitted 3 minority statements. Hour recommended the admission of Mr. Vallandig ham to the scat. 4 were in, favor of Mr. Cam bell, and one, the chairman, recommendedthat the seat should be declared vacant. The only obicction to the introduction of this evidence referred to by those who supported Mr. Vallandigham’s claim to the seat was that it was not procured within the 60 days limited for taking testimony. Those who supported Mr. Campbelfs claim insisted that under the statutes of Ohio the abstracts or summaries made by the clerks and transmitted to the SecyState constituted a valid foundation for the Governor’s certificate of election to the successful candidate, but were not valid for any other purpose, and neither the original summaries of the clerks nor the co y thereof certified by the SecyState won d be competent evidence in a contest. The following is an extract from the views of Mr. Lamar, in favor of Mr. Vallandigham: Itwiis objccted that the committee oughtnot tore eeiveand considerthe abstract'of votes returned to the olficc of the secretaryof state for the returned member and the contestant because the document was not 'obtained'or‘taken‘ within the 60 days limited for taking testimony.’ This objection. in the opinion of the undersigned.is destituteofforcc. Without sdiotteiindginm: wemhebtchrerit was not rather the duty of the than of the contestantto producc it before the committee. they are clearly o the opinion that the negative provision M to testimony.in the 9th section of the act of 1851.was intended to apply and does apply solely to the testimonyof witnesses, or at most to such writing as can beproved only by the examination of Witnesses, and that doc umentaryevidence.at least that which provesitself maybe obtained at any timeafter the 60 days.an producedbefore the committeeat the hearing. The abstractin question urports to come fromtheproper Office and o ccr.nn hoursupon it theimpress of the greatseaf of the State.than which there can be no higher evidenceof authenticity." In the minority report in favor of Mr. Camp be"ll, Mr. Gilmer uses this language: It is not a copy of any official paperwhich of it self. when produced.would he evidence.but a mere copyof a certificatewhich itself is moral a result ascertained by calculation fromtheorigina and only sourceof information, the poll books. The laws of Ohio require oach voter to be registeredon a.poll boolrat the time of his voting, by the judges or commissioners of the election. This poll book is directed to be returned from each placeof voting to the clerk of the county and from it the clerk is directed to certify thesummary that is thenumber of votes cast for the respective candidates. (Sec Swan‘s Dig., State of Ohio, pages342, 343.344, sections 17.18.19.) It is therefore plain that the only original recordsof the votescastat any precinctor oil. are not the clerk’s certificate to the Governor. but the poll books kept baithe commissionersand by them sent to the clerk's o co. to be there safely kept for all persohs“who may chooseto inspectthem. “ the certificate of the clerk to the Governor of the number thosummaryof the votes isan adequate foundation for the mere] ministerial act of the governor in giving the ccrti catoof election to the por son appearing to have. from the clerk’s certificate. the greatest number of votes. For that special ministerial act the clerk’s certificate is a just foundation; the law makm it so; but it goes no further. It does not make it evidence in a legal contestwhen the EUOSUOH is not how many votes are certified to the governor, but how many voteswere actually castat the polls. that any vote was really socast.” The House by a vote of yeas 107, nays 100, declared that the contestant, Mr. Vallandig ham, was entitled to the seat. The character of the evidence admitted in the case of Blair vs. Barrett, decided in 1860, will appear from the extract which I now give from the report of the committee in that case: "In addition to this testimony was that from another source.which was strenuouslyresisted by sitting the member on 2 grounds: 1st. that evi cue. from this sourcowasnot competentin an investition of this kind; 2nd. that the method of prou cin it beforethe committeewasin conflict with the wcl establislicil rules of evidence. The evidence alluded to was this: on the 13thday of Angust 1858, the city council of StLouis passed an ordinance to take the census of the city provided byits charter and previousordinances. A copy of this ordinance will a annexed to this report. For this purposethe city wasdivided into districts and census takers were appointed ltor cach ccnsus district. They were instructed in addition to an enumeration of the inhabitants. to 8:800I'Ifllallnd reportvarious other mattersof statistionl information; among which was the nationality of the inhabitants foundwithin their respectiveprecincts, and whether naturalized or not if formu born; liow lon'.ri'csident.ke. It wasto the evidence which the reports of these censustakers disclosed that the sitting memberstrenuouslyobjected: 1st. becauseunder no circumstances could they be ovi sdeccnocnedolyf.factswhich they purport to contain: and becauseof the manner of bringing that evidence before the committee. The committeeanswer that so far as the census takers themselveswerewit nesses testifying to the facts contained in their report obtained by themselveswhich was the casein very ln‘lllly instancesin which this kind of testimony was ollcred. it is the ordinary case of men makiu memoranda or writing down what they know, an then coming into court and testifying to the fact] thus acquired. Refreshing their memoryfrom the pa perthus madeout by them. Nor is thereany Objection to others comparing the poll books with those memoranilathusverified and testifyingto the result. of the comparison. But these reportsof the consul takers now in the arphives of the city are official documents and areprimafucic evidence of the fact! they contain." The House sustained the report of the committee by a vote of'eas 93, nays 91. The contestant ist erefore mistaken in his assertion that abstracts similar to those contained in this book were admitted in the case of Vallandigham vs. Campbell, and Blair es. Barrett. But ifsnch a decision had been made by this House 20 times over it could be no rule for me, because it would have been so entirely violative of all known principles of evidence and so (lan erous in contests of this kind that I should feel bound to ask the House to recou sider and reject it. I have said that on the 18th day of A ril the committee adjourned to meet on the 27t. But. the contestant did not appear on that day, nor did we receive any explanation of his absence, except a vague rumor that illness detained him at home. On the 4th day of May he at last returned to the committees room, and instead of proceeding with the case upon the evidence already irintetl, he presented some 400 additional documents, which he asked us to receive in evidence and order printed. Leave to postpone the hearing from April 27 to May 4 and obtain additional evidence had neither been asked nor granted, and yet we decided to accept these new roofs and print them for him at the expense of the U.S. such of them as he desired to have printed were printed in this volume of 400 pages. There were also presented in the case, before it finally closed, 2 briefs of the contestant, which have been printed and have been used before the committee, and when the case came up finally for decision, there was printed for the contestant this 3rd brief, [holding apaper u in his hand, ] which I will say here is most cre imble to the attorneys for the contestant, and has been of great service in the examination of the case. After we had heard the case f r the last time, after the contestant had consu ed 9 days in our committee room, and the sitting member had consumed four, days, after we had 5 cut many day's in working out the details of pthe case, and after the decision of the committee had been communicated to the House in this report, the contestant laid upon the desks of members another document signed by him and entitled “ A. short review of the report of the ComElections.” Now, sir, the ComElections found the majority of the sitting member to be 21 votes. It has been said here and man times reiterated that the committee found the majority to be only 15. I will not consume the time of the House now by referring to the language of the report. But I will state a ain that we found that the sitting member ha a majority of 21 votes. I myself, as an individual member of the committee, adhered to the position whichI took in the case of Koontz vs. Coffroth, and held the sitting member’s majority to be 4. I have been willing ever since this case was before us, even since it was decided, and up to this moment I am willing now to reconsider any portion of it in which I may be charged with error. And ifI can be convinced that I am wrong, I am ready at this moment to vote for the contestant. Sir, the only consistency that I care for in such a case as this is consistency in the ur suit of truth; and this I will maintain, whatever the result may be. Having been intrusted with the task of working out the details of this case, I have carefully reviewed them again and again, in order that I might avoid mistake and consequent injustice. I will confess, however, that I have not escaped those feelings which I have no doubt all men experience to a greater or less extent in similar circumstances. In entering upon its investigation I resolved to accept whatever result it might lead to, and yet I felt a stron hope that the result of that investigation won d enable me to vote in favor of awardin to the contestant the seat which he claims. could not avoid the desire that such might be the result, because he is my political friend, and I had more personal acquaintance with him than with the sit ting member. But, sir, I have not forgotten from the beginnin of this examination to the end of it I trust shall never forget that in a case like this I am, whether actin in the committee room or in this House, bot I judge and juror, and that I cannot act as a mere partisan without a violation of my duty and my oath. And I tell this House that after having carefully examined this case over and over again, both before and after the report was printed, both before and after this “short review” by “ Smith Fuller, contestant, ” was put into my hands, I have a clear and firm conviction that John L. Dawson is entitled to retain the seat which he now holds in this House. I feel a greater confidence in the correctness of my conviction concerning the merits of this case than I have felt in any case which has been before the committee since I have been a member ofit. Not only is there in my mind no reasonable doubt as to the right of the sit ting member to retain the seat he now occupies, but an irresistible conviction compels me to give him my vote, and I could not do otherwise withont being guilty of a violation of the oath which I took as a member of this House, without a violation of my sense of honor as a gentleman and of my conscience as an honest man. Sir, in that “ short review" of the report, which was handed to us by the contestant, he asks us to reconsider the case. I have care fully reconsidered it since that pain hlet was handed to me; I had reviewed it be ore; and there is nothing presented in this document, there has been nothing presented to this House by any of the gentlemen who have taken art in this debate, that I had not considered ully and carefully, over and over again, before that document was placed in my hands. One point in the case had escaped my attention whcuI drew up the report' mt before the pamphlet was handed to me I had discovered it, and resolved to present it to the House. That was the case of company A, 155th regiment. I have already informed this House of the immateriality of that return so far as it concerns the issue before us. And now I have to say to this House and I call attention to the statement that if you should proceed, as the contestant asks you to do, to review and correct this case, the majority for the sitting member would be increased by 16 votes at least. By careful reexamination since the report was prepared I find that you would have to add to the majority of the sittin member 4 votes for company C, 4th cava ry, and 12 votes for company K, 105th regiment. If the contestant insists upon a review of this case, and is willing to abide the result of that review, it will compel him to retire from this House with a larger majority against him than that which the committee have reported. When I drew the report I supposed that the return for company C, 4th cavalry, which is found on page 8 of the hook containin the evidence of the sitting member, came from the office of the secretary of the Commonwealth, and therefore could be counted in this case; but upon the last careful review that I have made I have discovered that there is before this House no proof which will authorize us to count those 4 votes. The return, strictly socalled, from the office of the prothono tary, shown on page 19 of the contestant’s 2nd book, was on its face regular, but on reiixamination of the return set out on age 8 of the book of the sitting member, which I supposed to have been made by the secretary oft e Commonwealth, I find that it was made by the prothonotary of Westmoreland county. It shows, what does not apppear on page 19 of the 2nd book, that voters from each of the 3 counties of the district took art in the election. For reasons fully explained in the case of Lincoln hospital in the report this paper cap only be evidence of the estmore and county vote. But the whole number of voters for Westmorcland county was 16. The entire vote returned for Mr. Fuller is 18 and for Mr. Dawson 13. It is not shown how many of the 16 Westmorelaud countfivoters voted for the candidates respectively. Hence the contestant cannot insist upon counting the return unless he allows Mr. Dawson 13 of the 16votes. If re'ected, it would increase the majority of Mr.)awson by 4 only, a correction of I vote having already been made in the report. I have discovered also that the return of company K, 105th regiment, shows that the votes cast by that company, of which the contestant had a majority of 12, were cast for John L. Dawson and Smith Fuller for the Senate of the State of Pennsylvania. As the chairman of the committee sai yesterday, it would be an unprecedented course for us to count those votes without some roof that there was a mistake in the return. the insertion in this return of what would probably be claimed to be copies of the ballots themselves has no semblance of legal proof. But the deposition of one of the judges or clerks would have shown that the votes were cast for Representative in Congress, and that a mistake Iiad been made in the return if such were the facts. But I pass from this to the returnswhich the committee rejected wholly or in part. There were 17 of these returns, namely: Damon. Fuller. 1. Butte H, 4thnrtillory. 4 2. McCle Inn hospital. 3 3. Company. 4t cav '1 18 4. Camp Parole. 0 l 5. Carver hospit 4 4 6. 216thregiment,2 7. CompanyA. 135th regiment. 7 8. Lincoln hospital. CompanyE. 204thregiment. 2 10. COUIEIDY E. 4th cavalry. I 3 11.Co's and C, 99thand 76thregt 3 12.Camp Hamilton. 0 I 13.Filbert street hospital 2 I4. Satterlee hospitn I 6 15.Depot field hospital. 4 16.Company C 212threg. 8 4 17.Company If, 211th regiment. 3 10 Of these 9 were so wort ess that no man in this House can under any pretense of refusing to disfranchise soldiers count a single one of them. I now refer to the returns for company E, 204th regiment; company E, 4th cavalry; companies E and C, 90 9th and 76th regiments; Camp 1 I am ilton; Filbert street hospital; Satterlce hospital; Depot field hospital; company C, 212th regiment; and company H, 211th regiment, which I have numbered from 9 to 17 in clusive. The only proof, so far as company E, 204th regiment, and company E, 4th cavalry, are concerned, is what purports to be a co y made and certified by the prothonotary of estmoreland county of an abstract of votes made by the prothonotary of Alleghany county, in another district. Neither the abstract nor the certified copy was authorized by law. The return for company E, 90 ninth regiment, and company G, 76th regiment, had alreadybeen counted once as the return for Cuyler hospital, and of course, should not be counted the 2nd time. But I call the attention of the House to the comHamilton return at page 310 of this book. I wish the House to see what it is that provokes such a hue and cry about the threatened disfranchisement of the soldiers. Here is the return. It shows only one thing, that 3 men were sworn as judges and 2 as clerks of the election. There is not one word to show that a single vote was cast by any elector for any candidate. And because I refused to count that I am charged with consenting to disfranchise the soldiers in the field. If the contestant can introduce that document and claim one single vote as the result of it, he can claim 500 or 1,000 just as well. If this document can prove one vote for a Republican in a Congress, Republican it could as well prove one tiousnnd for a Democrat if this were a Democratic Congress. This return is a complete blank. Why shall we permit the contestant to fill the blank at his pIeasure rather than the sitting member? It is a mistake to say that the rejection of such a paper involves the disfruncliisoment of the soldiers. Its admission would necessarily work their disfranchisement, for it would leave them no certainty that their votes would ever be correctly returned. I come next to Filbert street hospital, on page 333 of the 2nd book. The evidence shows that certain persons were chosen judges and clerks of the election and that 48 electors voted. but it does not show for what candidates any of them voted. Is it a virtual disfranchisement of the soldiers to refuse to permit the contestant to appropriate these votes without proof that they were cast for him? In the case of Satterlec hospital, on page 886 of the 2nd book. there is no return, and the tally list is only signed by 2 clerks. It might as well be signed by 2 boot blacks. If there was any good reason why the judges did not sign it, there has been abundant opportunity since November, 1&64. to show by epositions what that reason was. The return for the Depot hospital will be found on page 846 of the 2nd book. I ask you to mark the effrontery of the contestant’s claim in this case. The poll book shows that only 4 soldiers of the 21st congressional district voted at this hospital. But in the tally list it is set forth that ohn L. Dawson had 2 votes and Smith Fuller 4, and the same statement is again made in the return. And yet the contestant, who introduces this return, does not hesitate to count all of the votes for himself in making up his alleged majority of 18 votes. But Mr. awsori should have 2 of these votes, and the result, instead of being a majority of 4 for Mr. Fuller, is an even vote. The proof respectin the vote of ccmpany C, 212th regiment is nothing but a Westmoreland prothonotary’s copy of an Alle hany prothonotary’s abstract, and is not entitled to amoment’s consideration. The evidence respecting company H, 211th regiment, on page 341 of the 2nd book, shows that certain persons were selected as judges and clerks, a n ives the names of 23 voters of this district, at does not show how one of them voted. [have already shown that a reconsideration of the case would exclude the return of company 0, 4th cavalry. Of the remaining 7 returns 6 ought, in my judgment, to becounted. They are the returns for battery H. 4th artillery, McClellan hos Hital, Camp Parole, Carver hospital, 206th regiment field and staff, and company A, 155th regiment. have repeatedly stated in the report and in the progress of the debate the reasons why I think these returns should be embraced in the canvass. One only of the 17 rejected returns remains to be considered. It is the Lincoln hospital return. The contestant in his short review of the report makes the following state ments respecting this vote: "The committee declined to count7 votes polled for me at Lincoln hospital. DistCol. upon the ground that they had not.been properly returned. The return contained a majority of 15 votesfor me; 8 of them had been polled by soldiers fFraoymettWeestmoreland county and the others from and Indiana. the other countiesin the dis trict. The committeeheld that althoughthe return of the election was in all due form. an had been returnedto oneof the legal depositaricsof the district. it could not becouutedhccauso it had not been returned to all. They admit. however. that if this return had been returned to the secretary of the State of Pennsylvania it would have been all right and should becounted. They admit also thatit was returned to the SecyState. as is shown by the certificateof the secretary of state. on page 68of Book No. 1. but theysnythat this is only an abstract and they cannot receive it asevidence. it is just such evidence aswas admitted in the caseof Vallandig ham cc. Campbell. Bartlett's Contested Election Cases. pagle22.9a.nd Barrett or.Blair. same. page317. Butw at I consider most unjust to meand to the majority of the peopleof the district is the fact that I procuredthis return in full and just as the committee require it from the secretary, of state and had it referredby th House to this committee as can prove by to counseland by the clerk who compared andnum cred all the ccrtificstes. The papers on file in the room of this committeeshowthat all the other returnsare there in full fromthe SecyState. duly numbered except this particular return and it is one. This return was No. 64 Is appears from the book and wefind Nos. 63and 65onfile. butMu mienrig] This return ulonc.added to the ten above, if it had not beenlost by the comlmttee.would have elected me by 2 votes. I appeal to everyfair minded man to an; if it is just to me or to the people of the 2 rst.district for this "Milt sv whon they admit they had the evidence beforethemthat this return was in the officeof the SecyState and when they know it would showthat I had amajority of the votespolled iiithe district. not to notify me that it had been mislaid. from their files. They had lostthepaperthemselves and theycould have replaced it in a few hours by writing to the secretaryof the State of Pennsylvania at Harrisburg. Oii remling the report ot the committee.a copy of this low!return wassent for to Governor Curtin and is nowon hand in full. marked. as it is. a “ duplicate copy.‘ It thus appearsthat this committee havccounted meout by m'ulakinptheffldn and loamy pn ers. as they mit. I was electedby the rules did own by themselvesfor measuring this case." After Mr. Fuller’s review had been placed upon our desks. he handed to the chairman of the committee a regular return for Lincoln hos pital, with the following nllidavit, namely: In 'rns Tniurv Nis'rn Cosonnss. Coxritsrsn Enscron Funtsu ca.Dawson. WnahimflonD. 0. Bcfore the undersigned appearedWilliam A. Cook who on his oath says that in wasone of the counsel of Dr. Smith Fuller. contestantfor the scatnow held by Hon. J. L. Dawson in the HoRep; that alter the certified copiesof thopoll books or returns from the secreturi of state arrived from Harrisburg and passedinto t 9 hands of the contest ant. they werecarctully examinedand comparedby this deponentand others with the county returnsor copies certifiedby the rothonotaricsof the several counties as well asWit the abstractof returnspreviously obtained from the SecyState and schedules made of the m;that atthetimcof thiiteom parison and examination Lincoln hospital. which gave Smith Fuller I 5 votes. 8 from Westmorclaud county. 5 from Indiana, and 2 from Fayette. was among the number received from the secretaryof state; that it was numbered 6}. corresponding with the same number from Westmorelun county and schedulesretained; that these returns were then placed together and by this deponent and the contestant presented or causedto be presented.to the House and referredto the ComElections and that afterward.under the direction of the said clerk and in presenceof said contestant.all the re turus from the counties were preparedfor printing and whereveracounty return. was supposedto be defectiveor required explanation the certified co iy from the secystate was also printed and the otherslefton file in the committee room;that among these was the entire Boll book and return. complete in all respects.from tesecretaryof state.of Lincoln hospital. Numbered 64 and agreeingin all respectsas regards number of votes.&c. With that from West morclnnd county: that after preparing themin the modeindicated lists of the so so prepare and of those onfile wererctaincil; that on seeingthereport of the committee.iind surprised thatthostatementwnsmade that there wasno State certificate and that 7 votes were therefore reJcctedfor the contestant.theselists were examined and application wasat once made to Governor Curtiu for a copyof the return. which was promptly received marked "duplicate." and which is perfectin all respects and is now on hand. The deponentalso states that the brief of the sitting member refers to thoreturn from Lincoln hospitulas obj0 l!ll0nllbl0 because as is alleged.there was "no certificate from secretaryof stuto;” butthe bricf wns notprinteduntil after the argument of the caseclosed and ueopyofit wasn ot procured until aspecial mes sengerwas sent for it to the roomof the committee sometime after it was filed there and it has never beensubmittedto either the contestantor his counsel. nor. so far as the deponentknows.wasit over in writing beforethe committeeduring any periodof the argument. while the contestant’sbriefs were, in compliance With the demand of the committee.printed at the outset of the argumenton the meritsof the case. Apd the doponent further saysthat. if necessary. he is preparedhe believesto furnish on proper demand additional utfidavitsus to the fact of the re turn in question being referredby the House to the committee; and he herewith inclosesthe“ duplicate" copy received from the secystate. WILLIAM A. COOK. Sworn and subscribedbeforethe undersigned this [L 5'] 3dof July. 1&6. EDMUND F. BROWN Notary Public. The chairman of the committee.thereupou inclosed copies of this ntlidavit and of the contestant’s review, accom anied by several interrogatories relating to the subject to Mr. Bartlett, the clerk of the commit.e, who was then in NewEngland. The following answers were received: WlsT HAVEN, CONNECTICUT July 5. 1866. Dunn Siit: Your note, of the 3d instant surgrises me. It is impossible that any part of the evidence in the case of Fuller cu. Dawson (or in any other case)can have been lost. In accordanceWith the usageof the committee. Mr. Fuller and his counsel arranged the order of their papers for the printer and iri'pured the index. The work wasdone under the ircction of Mr. Cook. one of Mr. Fuller's counsel. In this casej'odwdl rememberthat a verylarge amountof recor evideiiccwas broughtin long after the casewas opened. It is customaryto allow the party interestedtomake his own selectionsfrom this ind of evidencefor the printer. Mr. Cook (for Mr. Fuller) did soin this case: and all the paperswhich he stated it was unnecessaryto print wereat once locked upby me. The paperswhich be selectedfor the pnuter were tied up and sent to the printer by meat once. Sometime after the argument in the casewm closed.General PAINE (lcFlredto examine the origi nal papers and [delivered thornto him. both the printe and unprinted manuscripts.)and they were in his handsfor 2 or 3 days. As I did not exiatmisinimo apopsasgiebolefftohremanuscriptevidenccin the case. meto identify any particular paper. but I cannot believethat it waspossibleto lose oneof the documents. I camehere.asyou know at the urgent summons of my family. becauseof i lnoss that required in presence. If you will write or telegraph me that icnasntabnetlyo.f any service in this muttonT will return Truly yours. D. W. BARTLETT.‘ Mr. Dawns. Gun!of (ion: addreuedtoMr. Bartlett 6 the chairmano the committeea.t therequesot fMr. fininTamui of Mr. Bartlett’ranswer: totheIeceralquertiom: Mr. Bartlett’s attention'should be called to the following points: 1. Who selected the papersto be printed I 2. Were all papers which Mr. Fuller selected printed? 3. Did Mr. Bartlett losean papers? 4. What did Mr. Fuller (tic attorney) any while be In; hunting for this lost paper in the committee room 5. What is the usageas to printing and indexing papers?. 6. Is it the practiceof the committeetoread those not printed Amen. 1. Mr. Cook. 2. They wercall sent to the printer? 3. Certainly not. 4. I have not the slightestrecollection. He asked for the manuscripts and I gavethemto him. 5. theyThe parties selectsuchof their own papers as wish to be printed and make their own index. 1).w. BARTLETT. Wssr Hsvss. Cosxscricur. July 5. 1866. What the committee reported respecting this return will be easily ascertained from the report itself. That portion which relates to Lincoln hospital is “ in the following words, namely: Lincoln hospital (No.16.) 0fthese15votes. 8 are for Westmorclnnd. 5 for Indiana, and 2for Fayette. The only proof beforethe committeerespecting of these notes. except the abstracton page68of BOa0n: 1. which is not loial evidence.was the certified trauBcfffl. of the pr otonotury of westmorcland county. An the question is whether this transcri this competent evidence of the votefor Fayette an Indiana counties. Thofollowrug are the statutory yprovisions of Pennsylvania bearing upon the question:" They are cited at length. “ These provisionsdo not seemto make the certified transcript of the rothonotary of one county competent evidence of the votesof other counties. The prothonotary appears to be the lawful depository of military returns.so asthey pertain to his own count nnd no furth cr. nd hccanonlyccrtify to thoseofw ich.hc is the lawful custodian:utthesame time the practical effect of such a construction of the law should not beoverlooked. Separatepoll books. tally lists and returns are madeforcachof the counties. If 3 voters.one from eachcounty.present themselvesat the polls. Their ballots areall do osited without number.mark or other meansofin entification. in one ballot box and the name of each is entered upon use arato oil book for hisown county. At the close of the pol s the Judges count the votes and find 3 for Representativein Congressfrom this district. suppose I to be for Mr. Dawson and 2for Mr. Fuller. this judges are unable to prepareeither the separateto.ly lists or the separate returns. because they cannot know whether the vote for Mr. Dawsonwas cast by the Westmprcland Indiana or Fayette voter. A literul compliancewith the law is absolutel impossible. They knowthat for theoutin district h Mr. Dawson appearsto have I voteondhMr. Fuller 2. but to which countyto returntherespective votesthey cannot possibly decide. And if they make a retuijn purporting to show for which counties the rneescpeesestaivriely votes for Mr. Fuller were cast. it must fictitious. It is therefore impossible for the county return judges and of course for the district returnJudgesto canvass any votes out under such circumstances. And unlessthereis someother legal mode of proof such votes might be utterly lost in a contestin this House.ifn transcript certified by the prothonotaryof one county could not be admitted to prove the votesof another“ at thereis another instrument of proof. the certified transcri it of the secretary of the Commonwcalth.who is t a depositar lawful of military returnsfor everycountyin the State. this is not producedin the presentease and only 8 of the votes contained in this return can be counted." An examination of the documents which I have submitted shows that all the material statements of the contestant’s review respectpigl this hospital are wholly erroneous, and it be unnecessary to consume any time in pointing out the particular errors. I will only refer to 2 points.‘ We printed the 4 hu u dred returnsat the contestant’sselection in this case, as in other cases, to obviate the necessity of deciphering them in manuscript. Only the printed returns are used on the hearing. But in this case, failing to find the necessary evidence of the Lincoln hospital vote in the printed books, Isought for it also, in vain, among the manuscript returns. Before the report was prepared, I informed the attorney who wrote the contestaut’s review, in rely to an inquiry made by him on the subject, that this evidence was wanting, and the next day I saw the same attorney engaged in the examination of the manuscript returns himself in an unsuccessful attempt to find this evidence. The contestant, therefore, actually had the notice which he denies. Again, the confirmatory evidence of the presence of this return, alleged to be furnished y the consecutive numbering of the secretary’s returns, would not be without weight if these numbers had been placed upon them before they left the secretary’s office. But the fact is that they were written upon the secretary’s returns in Washington in pencil by the contestant's attorney and clerk, in order to give those several returns the same numbers which the corresponding prothonotnry's returns already had. The score ’snumbering, which was in black (not red) in, was entirely differ eat. The returns which are referred to as 60 thrce and 65 were by him numbered one and 21. Nor is it correct that these were the only returns which could not be found. There were 13 others which I could not find. I am constrained to believe that Mr. Cook, although entirely sincere, is mistaken in his affidavit, and that this Lincoln hospital re. turii was never in the committee room before the report was submitted. And yet I would be willing to use the return presented since the report was made if that could be done without injustice to the sitting member, who has been advised, l presume, for the 1st time of this proposed evidence by the debate now in prog ress. But if you embrace in the canvass this Lincoln hospital return, and also the returns for McClellan hospital, battery H, 4th artil lery, Camp Parole, Carver hospital, field and staff 20 6th regiment, and company A, 155th regiment, you must still vote for the sitting member, for e still has a majority of 13 votes.Mr. Speaker, I wish now to call the attention of the House to somflif the results which would follow if we should admit the claims of the contestant in this case. Sir, the contestant in his review of the report of the committee finds fault with the committee because the rejected the vote of Satterlec hospital, to which I have referred, where the tally list was signed only by 2 clerks, and at the sometime counted the vote of Carver hospital, which gave a majority of 3 votes for Dawson, although, as he alleges, the return was altogether blank. The return, strictly socalled, from Carver hospital for Fayette county was, it is true, a mere blank. But, sir, there was appendedto the entire doc ument, including the poll book, tally list, and blank return, these words: A true return of the election held as aforesaid.on the 2nd Tuesdayof October.18M. Certifiedby us the day and year aforesaid. GEORGE HINDS. Hum ItalSteward I, " n tmlShirl nArmy. JOHN W. WINDSOR. Private lTUlItOTWRH V. 1!.(1., a mo. “'lflls’lilr' I mm H, CW" BMW, pal/"mincqe/ themi Election. dttest wittuit C. Sriim. Clerk(kn verH ospital, Hashim r S. Gan. Musician 62dOrinpanw. R. C. Clerks. Now, that Word “ return" may mean either one of 2 things. It may refer to the tech nical return, or it may have a more comprehensive signification, referring not only to the technical return, but to the whole document, including the poll book and tally list. If you cousuler it. in its most comrehcnsive senso as covering the poll book an tally list, then this return ought to have been counted. But if the contestant is unwise enough to insist upon using this final certificate in its restricted sense, I Wish you to observe what the result will be, so far as his own vote is concerned. Sir, if you adopt that view at his request, if you take him at his own word, and decide that returns like that of the Carver hospital shalPnot be canvassed, you will robhim of 5 returns in Wostmoreland county, of 3 in Indiana county, and of 5 in Fayette county, which give him an aggregate majority of 27 votes, all of which we have counted in his favor. Form each of these cases the return was precisely like that in the case of the Carver hos pital. The following statement will show what ie wduld lose by the enforcement against himself of this rule. which he thinks should have been enforced against the sitting member: Weutniorclrinedounty. Fuller. Dawson. CompanyF, 21steavalry. t. CompanyC. 204th regiment. PattersonPark. Findlay hospital. Hospital No. 1, Chattanooga. Indiana county. McClellan hos itul. Carvcrhos ita. Hospital 0. 1, Chattanooga. Fayettecourtly. CompanyK. 211th regiment. B. CompanyA. 121stregiment". CompanyB. 212thregiment. CompanyL. Edui tillcry. Company1", 1st eavalry". Why, sir, if you adopt the rule which the contestant asks you to adopt you add to the majority of the sitting member 27 votes, and subtract therefrom only 8. What becomes of the contestant if you take him at his own word? But, sir, great complaint has been made because I have, as is charged, asked the House to adhere to the rigid rule adoptedby the ComElections and by the House in the case of Koontz vs. Coffroth. I have, however, asked for nothing inconsistent with the views entertained by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIEID] and the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHELLABARGEIL] I differ with them not at all respecting the rule adopted in that case. Butsuppose we had in this cascadhered strictly to the rule then established. I ask you, what would have become of this contestant? 6 s ccified objections to returns in that case were ield by the committee and by the House to be fatal, namely: 1st, the absence of cer tificates of oaths of 2 or more judges; 2nd, the absence of the poll book; 3rd, ajoint election by 2 or more organized companies; 4th, the administration of the oaths to the election officers by persons not of their unin her 5th, an omisSion to keep a separate poll book for each county; 6th, an omission to make a separate return for each county. under one or the other of those 6 objections falls every one of the 7 returns, which I shall now read to the House, and which we have counted for the contestant: Wentmorelumcol unty. Nler. Damon. I. Cuylcrhospital, (ccrtiflcateswanting.). 2 0 2. CompanyC, 204th tificateswantink.) 6 2 8. Compunyltl. 100t tificateswaiiting). 8 0 4. Companies C and I). I40th and 116thregiments, (joint election.). I the 5. Company L, Gthartillery, (oath signedby oneJudge only.). 20 11 Fuyellecounltl. 6. Battery H, Independentartillery, (severa defects.). I 0 7. Cuylcrhospital. (ccrtiticates want iiis.). 2 0 41 13 Now, sir, a rigid adherence to the rules laid down in the case of Koontz vs. Coffroth would have added to the majority of the sitting mem' her the difference between 41 and 13 votes. In support of 3 returns which were counted in favor of the contestant he himself made no proof satisfactory to the committee. But the proof Was furnished by the sitting member. They wereFuller. Damon. 1. Camp Smithers. 4 I 2. Columbia hospital. 3. Company13, 155thregiment. NIHO Let us now reca itulate the results which might have followe if we had enforced against the contestant his own rules, and had rigidl adhered to those laid down in the case 0 Koontz vs. Coffroth: TIfhe committee found Mr. Dawson’smajoritytobe.21 the case is reconsidered corrections must.be made for company C. lourth cavalry and company K, 155th regiment. 16 His majority will then be. It' you exclude blank returns like that of Carver hospitalyou add to his majority. And his majority will be. A rigid observance of the rule adoptedin the case olt‘ Koontz on.Coflroth would add to his mine r 28 IY And his majority would be. 92 And but for evidence intro y th ttlng memberyouwould addto this. And Mr. Dawson's majority would be..99 In conclusion I have to say that I know of no reason why the sitting member should not retain his seat, unless it be this: that he is what we on this side of the House sometime a call a copperhead. That may be a good reason why his constituents should not have sent him here; I believe it was a good reason. But that is a reason for his constituents to consider; it is no reason why you and I should kick him out of this House. And if that shall be done here today, it will, in my judgment, be a violation of right and of duty, to which I can be no party.