Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. Yes, I find it there. And now, if the gentleman will have patience, I will show where the other 6 votes came from. I have already shown 11 votes legally given and which should have been counted, for they were cast in camp by the soldiers under the law; and yet they have not been counted. Then we have thus 11 votes for contestant. This return included the vote from Fayette, Indiana, and Westmorelaud counties, making 15 votes in all. The committee refuse to count the 5 votes from Indiana county and the 2 votes from Fayette county, making 7 in all. Why do they refuse them? They do not deny that these votes are legal; but they object that the certificate was only from the prothonotary of Westmoreland county, and that he had no right to include in the return the votes of the other 2 counties. This at most is only a technical objection. The return is perfect. On page 5 of the 3rd book will be found the evidence in regard to this matter. The return in full from the secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was presented to the House and the committee, being numbered 64. The duplicate of that return I have now here, and any member can examine it. The certificate numbered 64 seems to have been lost. It is admitted that it was among the papers. The gentleman who made out the list swears that the paper was presented to the House; yet the committee by some means overlooked or lost the document; and when it was found that the return had by some means become missing, and when a duplicate had been furnished, the committee refused to count these votes. As soon as itwas found that this paper was not among the papers in the hands of the committee, the contestant, or his attorney, procured from the office of the secretary of the Commonwealth, at Harrisburg, a duplicate copy of the return, with the seal of the State attached accompanied with the aflidavitof the proper o ficer; yet those 7 votes were not counted. Why? Not because the evidence was not furnished to the committee, for they admit they had it; yet Here, regarded. they refuse to count these 7 v'otes. Adding these 7 to the 11, which I have already shown should be counted, make 18 3 more than the majority claimed for Mr. Dawson in the report. Now, let us turn to the vote of the 206th regiment in the field. In that case we have evidence that the officers conducting the elections were sworn. Yet the committee refuse to count the votes because, they allege, the officers were not “ sufficiently" sworn. It is set forth in the caption of the poll book that the officers were sworn and the oath is given, signed by all the officers, showing that the officers were regularly sworn, and that they conducted the election regularly. Yet the vote thus returned is ruled out and disThese votes would have made 2 more for the contestant. There is no reason why these votes should not have been counted. The law provides that the soldiers’ votes shall not be ruled out on account of any technicality or informality. It was expressly intended by the Legislature that considerablelatitudeshould be allowed for irregularities in the elections by soldiers in the field; that their votes should not be nullified on account of any informality. The 2votes returned from this regiment would make 20 for the contestant. In the 4th independent artillery there were 4 votes cast. The committee make the same objection to these votes. Yet, in the caption of the oil book it is set out that the officers were:11? severally sworn according to law previous to their receiving any of the votes. era are 4 more votes which the committee refuse to count, although itwas admitted that they were polled, as is certified by the oaths of the officers. his true there may be some infor malities; but does the Gentfrom Wisconsin, who has himself served so faithfully in the field and who bears honorable scars, does he stand up in this case and declare that our Pennsylvania soldiers shall be disfranchised because some clerk has not included in the return every word that should have beeuinserted? It is admitted that the returns may be informal to a certain extent; but they are legally sworn to, and the are the very same class of returns upon which the majority have based their report in favor of the sitting member. Now, this makes 24 votes that