Mr. KOONTZ. SPEECH of HON. w. H. KOONTZ, OF PENNSYLVANIA, In THE HoRep, July 18, 1866. Elections: Resolved.That Alexander H. Coffroth is not entitled to a seatin this House asa.Representative from the 16th district of Pennsylvania in the 39th Congress. Ifeuilvrll, That William H. Koontz in entitled to a seat in this House as a Representative from.the 16th district of Pennsylvania in the 39th Ccnlross. Mr. KOONTZ, (contestant.)Mr. Speaker, I claim the right to represent the 16th congressional district of Pennsylvania in this Congress. I will endeavor, in as briefa manner as possible, to present to the consideration of the House the grounds upon which my title is based. I assert thatamajority of the legal votes of the district were cast for me, and that the official canvass, which gives the sitting member 11,067 votes, and myself 10, 979 votes, bein a majority in his favorof88, is incorrect, for 5w folfowing reasons: 1. It does not contain all the votes that were cast for member of the HoRepin said district by the duly qualified electors thereof; the return judges of 3 of the counties, to wit, Bedford, Fulton, and Adams, having excluded from the count 11 returns of elections held by soldiers from the districtin actual military service under the laws of Pennsylvania. 2. That the board of return judges of Adams county made a mistake of 2 against me in countin the vote of the district of Hamilton Ban on Liberty townships, which should now be added to my vote. 3. That certain illegal votes were cast and counted for the sitting member. I will proceed to considerthese points in the order in which the are stated. The returns which were rejecte by the judges, and which I claim should be added to the official canvass, are as follo ws: No. Koontz. azflrnlk. 1. Company H. 208thregiment. army of the James.. 3f 18 2. Barracks No.1, Soldic Washington, D. C. 58 29 3. CompanyG, 205thregi 8 2 4. Mower liospital, U.S. d Pliiladelphia. I 5. Cuvler U.S.hospital, ‘1"5, Philadellipia". 14r 6. ItIcClclllali;hln‘iittidh States hos 3 ita. iaepia. 7‘. 7. Edith Pennsylvania regiment, "W" Front Royal. Virginia. 82 I 8. 181thPennsylvania regiment, 39 i 21 9. 202dPennsylvania to iment, "' White Plains. 27" M 15 10.21stPennsylvani ty i is; Point. Virginia. 3B 13, 4 11. 210thPennsylvania regiment, 19 9 Total. 58 99 I will not consume the time of the House in answering the various objections that were made to these returns, as that has been fully and ably done by the committee in their report. I will simply state that all the objections are overcome y the testimony, which shows conclusively that the elections were all fairly held that the persons voting were duly qualified voters of the district, that they were required to establish their right to vote by the production of tax receipts or other necessary proof, and that in every case save one the officers were duly qualified according to law. In that case the officers were sworn by the captain of the company, who is not authorized by the law to administer the oath; but because the officers were not properly qualified the election is not thereby invalidated. They were public officers do facto, and as such their acts are valid and binding. This principle of law is thus laid down by Chancellor ent: fac“tIon, atchtiengcaseof public oficers who are such deunder color of office, by an election or appointment not strictly legal or without having qualified themselvesby the requisite tests, or by holding over after the period reseribedfor a new apointment.their actsare hel valid asrespectsthe rights of 3rd persons who have an interestin them, and as concernsthe public, in order to prevent a failure of justice." It is proven, also, that this election was fairly conducted, and neither in this nor any of the other rejected returns has the sitting member attempted to show fraud in holding the elections. The committee have deducted 1vote from me in each of the returns of company H, 208th regiment, and company K, 184th regiment, by reason of a discrepancy in the number of votes returned and the number of voters on the lists, the returns being in excess of the lids, I in each company. They also refuse to count the vote cast for me at Cuyler hospital; not because it was an illegal vote, for the voter, Henry Rupp, on page 60, Miscellaneous Doc ument No. 117, sivears that he voted for me, and that he was a qualified voter at the time; but because I failed to insert the name of this witness in the notice for taking testimony. With these exceptions, the committee have recommended in their report that the votes contained in the foregoing returns should be counted, the legality of the votes having been fully established by the evidence. By the act of 3lst of January, 1801, (Smith’s Laws, volume 3, age 449,) the townships of Hamilton Ban and iberty', in Adams county, are created into an election district. A certified co y of the return of this election, on age 113, it iscellsneous Document No. 117, s ows that I had 165 votes, while the testimony of Wolf, on pace 212, shows that said return was ouly counted 168. I am therefore clearly entitled to these 2 votes. The illegal votes that I object to as havin been cast or the sitting member were those 0 3th reepaupers taken out of the cor houses of the counties of Adams and Bed ord. As it does not appear in the testimony that the votes of the 17 Bedford county anpers were included in the official count, it though it is clearly proven that they voted for the sitting member, and as it is not shown that the 16 paupers in Adams county who voted for him were not residents of Cumberland township, wherein the poorhouse is located, and further, ’as the question of the right of paupers to vote under the laws of Pennsylvania has never been adjudicated by the courts of the State, the committee have refused to deduct these votes from the sitting member. Although upon this point I yield to the superior judgment of the committee, I cannot but express my firm conviction that under the laws of Pennsylvania a pauper in the common poor house of a county is not entitled to the right of suffrage. By the constitution of Pennsylvania this right is restricted to white free men over the age of 21 years, and when over 22 years of age the voter must have aid 9.State or county tax within 2 years. the foundation of this tax is an assessment upon the real or personal estate of the voter, or his occupation, or upon single free men above the age of 21 years. A pauper cannot be the subject of taxation, because the moment he is sent to the poor house his property is by law placed under the control of the directors of the poor; he cannot sue for and recover it, and is in the same position, in the eye of the law, as infants, luna tics, &.c. His “occupation is one” the moment he enters it, for he there becomes liable to do such duty as the steward may direct, nor has he the right of locomotion; he cannot come and go whithersoever he pleases, but his person is under the control of the overseer, an he therefore does not possess the essential ele ments necessary to constitute a freeman as in tended by the legislative clause making single free men the subjects of taxation, or within the meaning of the constitution restricting the right of suffrage to white fi eemen. The danger of allowin them the rightto vote is shown in this case. n both the counties the stewards were active partisans, looking after the assessment and payment of taxes, and taking the paupers to the polls, and in one county it is proventhat the steward offered to treat all who would vote the Democratic ticket, and as an inducement to one of the paupers to vote that ticket offered to buy him an article of clothing. It must be perfectly plain that under such circumstances a pauper cannot casta free ballot because, did he attemptto contravene the wishes of the steward, he would not be permitted to go to the polls. The refusal of the committee to deduct these votes from the sitting member does not, however, change the result, and under such circumstances it could not be asked of the committee to decide an immaterial point which has never been adjudicated by the courts of the State. Without deductin these votes from the sitting member I have stila majority of 71 votes Over his majority in the official canvass, having shown to the satisfaction of the committee that in the uncounted returns I had a majority of 159votes. And what is the answer made by the sitting member to my case, which is so clearly establilshed by the testimony? The points raised by him in his answer and argument maybe classr fied as follows: 1. Alleged illegal votes received and counted for me by the board of election officers in some of the election recincts in the district. 2. Alleged illegal military returns said to have been receive and counted for me by the boards of return judges, of the different counhas. 8. That certain legal voters were restrained from going to the polls in certain districts in Bedford county through fear of arrest by the militar, they being deserters, and that as they. desire to vote and would have voted for the sitting member, had they gone to the polls, their votes should now be counted for him. To sustain the 1st proposition the testimony of several witnesses was taken in all of the counties of the district except Fulton. It does not appear from the testimony that the votes assaile by the sitting member were included in the official canvass. Before any votes can be deducted from me he must 1st show that the votes were illegal, and 2nd, that they were counted for me. In every instance he has failed to make the necessary proof that. they were counted, attempting by illegal papers, wholly unauthorized by law, to establish these facts. But as this question has been so fully discussed by the committee in their report, and settled in accordance with the previous rulin of the committee upon like questions, I willlsnot dwell upon it. I now propose to take his testimony, and, assuming for the sake of the argument that the votes assailed by him were included in the official canvass, show that even if it were con, sidered and all the weight given it that could be given by an impartial tribunal, it cannot change the result in this case. I will consider, 1st, the votes assailed by arol proof; 2nd the returns that he would have rejected; an 3rd, the votes that he demands should be counted for him; and will take them just in the order in which he presents them in his brief prepared for the use of the committee. The alleged illegal votes in Somerset county are the following: 1. QharlesB. Ellsworth. companyF, 198 h regiment. 2.LGcorgeC.Chrestncr, companyF, 45th regi men 3. Lewis Andrews votedin Jenner township. 4. John Ellis voted, 54th regiment, Cedar crock V irginia. 5. ‘Iohn H. Lloyd, companyF, 138th regiment., Paul Hoffman. in Grccnville township. 7. John Miers voted at Clarysvillo hospital. 8. William H. Owen, Mower hospital. 9. Edward llalsapple, York hospital. 10.SamuelHummel, companyE, 54th regi cut. 11. Hirain I. Sauncr, Chesterhospital. 12. William H. Sanncr, Chester hospital. 13. William C. Kelley. Chester hospital. 14. I. Albright.Mower hospital. I 15.ChristianDiets. AlexandriMVirginia) hospital. 16. Daniel I. Miller, Campbell hospital. 17. Edward Ling, company F. 138th regiment. 18.QaorgeHudeufclter, companyD, 138th I'CRHDQDI. 19 Charles R. Walker, Mount Pleasant hospital. 20.Philip Glepncr. Lladding tou hospital. 21. Hem vWare, Cuyler hospital. 22.A. J. Parker, Mount Pleasant hospital. It is not proven for whom 2 of the parties above name voted, namely, Andrews and Hoffman, so that no deduction can be made for. their votes unless it be from the sitting member, who proves themillegal, but fails to prove they were cast for me. Chrestner’s vote m is assailed, because it is alleged that he is a mulatto, and not entitled to vote. I do not believe the proof is sufficient to show that the person who voted in the Army is the some person that is alluded to by the witnesses in their testimony, but if it is, then possibly under the testimony the committee would have been warranted, had the proof been made that this vote went into the official count, in deduct ing it from me. Lloyd swears that he voted for Mr. Coffroth, although the return gives me all the votes cast at that poll, his among the number. In this case it is the oath of one man against the oaths of 5 sworn officers, and as the preponderance of testimony is in favor of the return, and as it has been so long since the election took place that be may be mistaken, this vote shOu dnot be deducte from me. The votes of Ellsworth, Miers, and Owen are as sailed, because it is alleged that they were non-residents of the districts where their votes were returned, all having voted in the Army. It is proven that when Ellsworth went into the Army, his family moved into Shade township on the lst of September, 1864, and remaine there until in the 5 ring of 1865. They were living there more than ten days before the election, which took place on the 2nd Tuesday in October, 1864, 11th day; and as “ resi dence is a question of intention, ” to quote the authority cited from 8 P. L. J., page 310, Me Daniefs case, by the sitting member in his brief, Ellsworth evidently considered Shade township (as it actually was by the residence of his family there) his residence, and he was clearl entitled to vote as a resident of that towns ip; otherwise he would have been deprived of his vote altogether. Miers is returned as a voter of Salisbury borough, while one of the witnesses swears that no man of that name has lived in the borough for 13 years past. It is proven that hliers did live in Elklick township before he went into the Army, that Sal isbury borough was a part of said township until within a few years, and always was, and now is, the place of voting for Elkliek township. Therefore, how natural would it be for him to say, when interrogated by the officers of elections as to his place of voting at home, that it was Salisbury borough. One of the witnesses swears that no man by the name of Owen lived in his township for the last 5 ears, “that he knows of; thinks he would have known it.” This testimony, however, is too uncertain to overcome the legal presumption that the proper proof was made by the voter before the election officers, of residence, payment of taxes, &c. The other votes 00119tained in the above list are assailed by reason of alleged non-assessment and non-payment of tax. It is D‘OVCKhI, owever, ‘(sec page 116,) that the taxes of 3 of said persons, namely, Kelley, Ware, and Parker, were paid, and the witness thinks Ellis also. But let me examine the kind of testimony by which it is attempted to show the uon payment of tax by these parties. A list of names is put in evidence (see paper marked A, on page 148) containing the names of these persons and their townships, and the clerk to the board of county commissioners is called as a witness, and he swears that he has examined the as sessments on file in the commissioner's office for the years 1862, 1863, 1864, and that their names do not appear upon them. I deny that this is legal evidence, because it is not competent to prove the contents of a record by arol testimony. The record must speak for itself as to what it does or does not contain and certified copies should have been produced for the inspection of the committee. But even if it were legal evidence it proves nothing, because all of these parties may have been legal voters, and their names not appear upon the assessments. There are 3 classes of voters whose names would not appear upon these books of assessment: 1st, voters on age; 2nd, persons who voted upon the payment of a State or county tax elsewhere in the State within 2 years; and 3rd, persons who established their right to vote before the board by the production of a receipt for payment of taxes, under section 40 of the act of 25th of August, 1864. These men were all in the Army, and voted under this law, which states specifically what shall be noted upon the rec 0rd and none of its provisions require that it shall appear whether the voter voted on age or upon payment of tax. But, I may add, why were not the assessors of these various precincts called as witnesses, and why were not. the voters themselves called and examined upon oath as to their right to vote 7 Why were the legitimate and proper modes of proof abandoned, and the attempt made to take away the dearest right of the citizen by this kind of evidence? The votes assailed in Bedford county are these: 1. GeorgeC. Gondon.voted at CampBiddle. 2. John Stinemaii, voted at CampDiddle. 3. William Mock. votedat CampBiddle. 4. James Cull. (or Carl.) voted at Lincoln hospital. 5. James Gaguely. 186th regiment.provostduty. Philadelphia. 6. William ernst. votedat Mower hospital. 7. Andrew Buzzard. WestProvidence township. 8. John C. S arks, Cam i Carroll. 9. George ll edaniels. avy School hospital, An napolis. Maryland. It does not appear from the evidence that Gondon was not a legal voter; neither is it shown anywhere for whom Stineman, Mock, and Gaguely voted; nor is there any legal evidence to show whether Buzzard voted at all, or for whom. It is said that he admitted he voted for me in the township of West Provi dence. Yet no list of voters of that township is put in evidence, nor is it shown that it was counted, even if proven to have been cast. The testimony relating to Call,ernst, Sparks, and Medanicls is too uncertain to be of any weight whatever. In Adams county the following votes are assailed:. “ Get!churnStudentVote JacobRhone.J. C. Kuh lor, J. Krumwine, P. H. Schaffor, Joseph Griffith, S. S. Henry William H. Gottwaldt. M. (l. Boyer A. Swope. (iicorgoGrossman Michael Colner, whliam 11.Stick. T. C. Pritohar s l3." The testimony shows that only 3 of these rsons voted for me, 2 of whom swear os itively that they considered Gettysburg their residence at the time, and were therefore legal voters. The testimony of the 3rd is rather uncertain as to residence, but there is no legal roof that he voted, as there is no list of voters in evidence for the borough of Gettysburg, nor is it shown anywhere that this vote was counted. The votes assailed in Franklin county are, Major General D. N. Couch, Major John S. Schultz, Captain T. B. Swearingen, and Major Bent 4. Iassert, without fear of successful contradiction, that there is not a particle of testimony to show that these men voted for me. Why these names, along with others that the sitting member has not proven voted for me, are brought into this case and asked to be deducted from my vote is beyond my comre hension. It would be a singular procecing indeed to allow it to be done. A careful examination of the testimony in regard to all the votes assailed by parol proof in the different counties of the district will satisfy any candid mind that no legal tribunal would be warranted in deducting more than 3 votes from me, even if it had been proven that these vote were embraced in the official count. The next class of votes to which he objects are the military returns. And what is the character of the demand made by the sitting member upon the committee and this House? It is that they shall deduct from the official count sundry returns of soldiers’ votes that he alleges Were embraced in it by the board of canvass ers simply upon the ground of informalities on the ace of the papers, and without his having produced one io.ta of testimony to prove il L. fraud in conducting anyone of these elections. This demand is so preposterous that I will not attempt an examination of these returns in detail, but, as an instance of his mode of assailing votes, will refer to one of these returns, which he would have excluded. It is the return of company K, 5th Pennsylvania heavy artillery, Somerset county, and found on page 150. An examination of this will show that the poll book is complete; the oaths signed by the judges and clerks; the certificate by one judge; that the other 4 officers were sworn; the tally list complete, giving the names of the voters, and the township, and county to which they belong, with a proper certificate, signed by the judges and clerks; a complete tally paper, signed by the clerks as required by law; and a full return, in the exact form rescribed by law, signed by the judges and clerks. In short, it is absolutely perfect, with the single expection that one of the clerks does not cer tify that one of the judges was sworn, although said judge certifies that be administered the oaths to the others, and he, along with them, signs the oath. This return gives me 23 votes and the sitting member 8, and for this trifling informality he would willfully disfranchise these voters. It will be found, on an examination of all these returns, that, with the exception of company E, 149th regi ment, (page 254,) which gives me 4 votes, but does not show the names of the voters, and of company B, 203rd regiment, (page 261, which gives me 2 votes, with their names an residence, but does not show, on the face of the aper, that the offi cers were sworn, all the ot ier papers produced by him give the poll bo0ks, showin affirmatively that the officers were sworn, an in every instance the names of the officers holding the election, in many instances the full oaths and certificates attached, in every case the list of voters, showing their names and residence, in every instance a tally paper or return, which are precisely the same in pliraseology, and in many instances giving both; thus showing who held these elections, that they were sworn, and the names and residence of the voters, and beingin substantial compliance with the act of Assembly. This, I contend, was sufficient, assuming, for the sake of the argument, that these votes were counted, to have put the sit ting member upon his guard, and to have required some evidence of fraud in conducting these elections, before they could be thrown out. He would have the committee and the House repeat, on a larger scale, the action of the return judges. These returns passed the keen scrutiny of his friends in the board of judges, who could only pronounce the 11 returns above referred to to be too defective to be counted; while, by his answer and argument in this case, the sitting member has attempted to disfranchise nearly every soldier from the 16th district who voted at the October election in 1864, and that, too, without producing any testimony to show fraud at anyone of the various polls held in the mili‘ tary camps. The record of contested elections may be searched in vain to find a more cruel assault upon the elective franchise than is attempted by the sitting member in this case. Next in order is that class of votes which the sittin member claims should be added to his vote, because the voters, who were deserters, were restrained from going to the polls for fear ofbeing arrested by the military; and thatthis art of the case maybe fully understood by the TZIouse, I will here note a portion of the testimony in relation t icreto: “Laban Johnson. being duly sworn.doth say. that he is ii.residentand voter of Southampton township, Bedford county.Pennsylvania. I wasatthe election and voted on the 11thof October. A. D. 186l I tolerably am well acquaintedwith mostof the votersof that township. I never know a manof the nameof James A. Shade in that township. No man of that namewont to the Army from that township that I know of. There weresoldiersat the polls froma few minutesafter they were openeduntil after they were closed. They said they weretherefor the purpose of takin any conscriptthateamcthereto vote from the townsiip. There was a.right smart companyof sol iliers there.ten or a dozen. All the conscripts were deprivedfrom votingl except oneman, who voted a few minutesbeforct e soldiers came. The soldiers said that if they had got there a fewminutessooner he would not ave got away from there. Gideon Smith. Aquilla Smith. David Smith, James Smith, James Collins were deprived from voting. James Hook I saw him on the mad; he didn t vote. Jesse Henser wasaconscript; there.too. I didn’t seeFran cis Donahoothat day. I saw Joseph Barnes on the road. Amos Perrin was in the band that wason the road to vote. These men were not permitted to come in the yard thatday. I sawJoseph Mosson theroad that day and he was a conscript. The polities of these men were Democratic. And those thatI saw said they were gomir to votefor Coffroth. Cross examined by Mr. Cessna, under protest: I was a clerk at the polls and passed in and out of the election housethat day. I newthe were conscripts and they told me that they were railed and hadn’t gone; they werethere. GideonSmith didn t offer his vote. anddidn‘ teome insightof the Window that day: nor did Aquilla Smith nor David Smith. nor James Smith nor James all ins nor James Hook. nor Jcsso Henser, nor Ig‘rancisDonahoo.nor Joseph Barnes. nor Amos Perrin. nor Joseph Morse. nor any other conscript except the one that voted. The so diersdid not arrestanybodyat the polls that day. I don‘t know that thereweremendeprivedof their votes except from what they told me alter the election. They said that theysawthe soldiersthere and know that theywould be taken up. They cal culated that they would be taken up. The soldiers wereat the polls all day. LABAN JOHNSON. Attest: 53. L. Russsna. Isaac ] iams, called. Mr. Cessna makes the same objections to the evidenceof this Witnessthat he did to that of the above witness.Laban Johnson. Isaac Jiauis. beingduly sworn doth say. that.he is a.citizen of Southampton township Bedford county Pennsylvania; that ho was at the clect on in said township on the llth day of October.A. D. 1864.The testimony given by Laban Johnson is substantially correct. I sawJohn Jiams. I talked to him. It was bytho soldiers being there that he didn t vote. I saw Josh on Houser there. Thesemenwere Democrats and intendedyoting the Democratic ticket. Cross examined by Mr. Cessna:. I diduiot see any of these conscriptsofferto vote. There was a company of conscripts about twp 100yards from the wmdow. They sawthe Window. I was With them. I don t know that they went any nearerto offer to vote. They could secthe soldiers and thovwero afraid to go to vote. They had been told by different ones that if they went to votethey ld by k d. m“ we up ISAAC fiisms. mar ttest: S. L. RUSSELL, annmummer. Richard McMullen. sworn declaresand says. that hehas been a legalvoter of Napier townshipfor man years; that he did not vote at the election of llt October, 1864; that he did not vote becausehe had been drafted sometime beforethe election and did not report at the time he was bound to report: that ho had sent his papers down by the deputy prorpst marshal who thought that hccould fix by mepaying him a little. The soldiersarrestedhim on Saturday evening before the election. He studied about the matter a little and sawa good opportunity to leave them and he left them: that they were thercat his housetwo or 3 times scaroliing for him. and were thereon the morning of the election; that aboutthe middle of the (lay of the electionhe understoodthat. there were soldiersat the polls, and that their hnSiness there wasto arrestall descrters and he did not on that accountso to the polls; that he would have gonclto the oils if the so diers had not beenthere: that if be h goneto the polls he Would have voted for A. ll. Coffroth: that he was told that there were soldiers at the polls by a man who had beenthere and voted: that be reported at Somerset onthonoxtFriday and was discharged; that he knew John Mansfield: that Sflld‘hlllni‘fieltlwaswith deponenton the day of the election avoiding the soldiers: that.said Mans field did not vote; he votesthe Democraticticket. Cross examined by Mr. Ccmnannder retest: That he madehis escapefrom the soldiers a little after dark: that he lives 4 miles from the polls: that on the day of the election he was 6 or 7 miles from the Rolls and was not at home on that day: that ho di not go to the polls to offerhis vote; that he did not goucarer to the polls on thatdaythan 6 miles becausehe was afraid that he would be ar rested: and the reason that howasafraid was. that hthoehraed; beentold that there were going to be SOldI QIS that John Mansfield did notgotoany election on that day. u RICHARD McMULLEN. est: S. L. RUSSELL, Comminroner. Mr. Reed calls A. J. reiglhard. Mr. Cessnamakes the same objections to him that he did to Laban Johnson and Richard McMullcn. A. J. Reighard. beingduly sworn.doth do youand say. that ho is iilegal voter of Bedtordtowns ip: that he did not vote at 18M; the election of thellth of October. that he didn’t Vote becausehe was afraid to comein: that he wasafraid to come in becausehe heard that there were soldiers here: that he always did cometo vote; that ifho had come he would have Erlited the Democratic ticket: that he knows Hcnry aar. Cross examined by Mr. Cessna under protest: That he was 8 or ten miles from the polls on the electionday; that he was not in Bedferd town ahi on the day of the election: that the citizensof ford townshipvoteat the courthousein Bedlord orough: that hedidn t comeany nearer than 8 or 10 miles to the election house on that day: that he don t know that there were any soldiers in Bedford on that do. exccpt from hearsay: that he was afraid of the sol mmon that do becausehe had been dSreapftteemd“btchra, 1864 had beendra tedon the 21stday of that hisdayto report wasthe 1st of October and the election wasthe 10thor 11thof Oc that hedidn‘t report and that was the reason thBayt lie wasafraid. Air. lteod I desired to vote. A. J. REIGHARD. Attest: S. L. Rosanna. Gimmiamfler. Mr. Reed calls John Groman. Mr. Cessna makes the same obg‘ctions asin the last above case. John roman.beingduly sworn. Deposes and says. that he thought that he was a legal voter prior to and sincethe election of llth October, 1864; that he is sure that he was a legal voter on the llth October.1864; that he did not vote at that election: that he was a drafted man and wnsiifraid of the soldiers and that wasthe reason he didn t vote; that itwtis'his desire:9 vlote and intended to have voted for A. ll. Cof rol. Cross examinedby Mr. Cessna under protest: That he wasnot in Bedford on the election day: wasabout 9 miles from the polls; didn‘t comeany nearer than that and didn’t offer to vote; that he was drgifted in September wasto report on 1st October: didn’t report, and that wasthe reason that ho was afraid to comehere to vote; was informed that there were soldiers here; didn’t know except from that information. JOHN GROMAN. ttest: S. 1.Rosana. Mr. Reed calls Adam H. Earnest. Mr. Cosine makesthe same obJectionas in the former cases. Adam H. Earnest. being duly sworn, doth de ose and say. that he is a resident of Bedford towns in and avoter for cars; that hedid notvoteat the election of the llt October.1864;that he did not vote sboeledaieursse; he was afraid to come in on account of the that hewishedto comein andvote: that he would havecomein. he guesses.if therehad been no soldiers here; that if he had comoiii and voted.he would have voted the Democraticticket. Cross examined by Mr. Cessna under protest: That he wasabout ten milesfrom the polls on the election do '; didn‘t come nearer that day; didn t come to 0 or to vote: that the on] way he knows that therewere soldiers here wasby earsay; thn tho Jwualysd: rafted in Junc, 186 l; waste report in June or didn’t report and that is the reason why he didn t cometo vote. ADAM H. EARNEST. t t: S. L. RUSSELL. Mr. Reed calls William Thompson. Mr. Cessna m kesthe same ofucctionasin formercases. William Thompson being sworndeposes andsays, that he is a re5ident and voter of Bedford township: that he has a brother.James Thomson who in 1864 was a legal voter that he, James. 1ntgucsses. must now be in Indiana; that he. nines. was out about Mr.Hcmining’s; that he would haveliked to come inand voted but he wasafraid of the soldiers. Lto this Mr. Cessna emphaticall objects.asbein but carsay:) that he. James. tol me he would have voted the Democratic ticket. Cross examinedby Mr. Cessnanpdor protest: Thii.t James was drafted and didn t report and didn t comein to the election. h. WILLIAM ismourson. Attest: ma. S. L. RossnLL. Gammiuroner. PeterA. Miller. sworn.dothdepeseandsay. that he iyseaar citizen of Napier township. audhasbeenfor 5 Iwns in Napier township on the 11thday of October.A. D. 1864. would have beenat the polls had not beenafraid that I would be takenby the soldiers that wero there. I wasthreatenedto betaken, ecausethe wereaftermeto take me. I wouldhave been a tto have voted for CotfrothifIhad gone. most assure ly. Iani s. Democratin politics. I was in formed that there were soldiersthere. Cross examinedby Mr. Cessna: 0n the day of the election I was acrossbetween the top of the mountain and the foot of the mount ain. t was about 6 miles from the election. I didn’t go any nearer than that to the polls that day. I didn t offermy vote to the officersof the election because I was afraid to go there. I was afraid of bein taken. Iwas a conscriptand hadn‘t reported and wasafraid that they would take me for that was drafted in 1863o. n the 25thof August and had managedto escape the officers all that time. They had beentrying to take me for sometime beforethe election. I didn t see any soldiers at the election that day. I only know that thereweresoldierslhero from hearsayonly. I do not know that the soldiers on that day arrestedanybody or otferedto arrest anybody or disturbed anybody. PETER. A. MILLER. ttest: S. L. RUSSELL, Gmmunoncr. Mr. Reed calls Henry Stichlcr. who, having been sworn.doth depose and say. that he is Napier. a citizen of and has beena voter there for 14 years. asnear as I can recollect. I wasin the townshipon the llth October.1864. I did not vote at that election. I desiredto vote. I wasafraid that the follows with the blue clothes on. the soldiers would arrest me and thatwastherenson I didn t vote. If I had voted I would have voted for Colfroth. Henry Miller was then in the same situation and would have voted the same scale. Cross examined by Mr. Cessna: I was around at homeon the day of the election; aboutmy father's house shoemaking a little sneakingly. I was not at the election: was 5 miles of and didn t file any ncnrcr: didn‘t offer my vote to the officers of the elect on. I didn’t go to the election for fear of being taken. I report: wasdrafted and did not I wasdraftedin June. And was trving to keep coauutgohftthe way; that was my game. ‘lic soldiers me at inst: treatedme 1st rate. I knewthat there were soldiers at the polls from hearsayonly. I. cannot say that the soldiers arrested or offeredto arrest or disturbed anybody that day. Iing know noth about Henry Miller. exceptwhat he told me. I cannot tell where he wasthat day; he wasnot With me. HENRY STICHLER. Attest: S. L. RUSSELL.Commasnoner. Mr. Reed calls John Oldham. who having hccn dul affirmed.doth deposeand say, I am a citizen llllJVOtPf of Napier townshiperersince I hada vote; wasin the townshipon the 11thOctober.1864;didn t vote. I wasdrafted and had not reported and was afraid that the soldiers would take me and therefore I thd not vote; they had beenafter me on the Sunday previous.but they did not get me. If I had voted.I would havevotedfor Coffroth: I havealways voted the Democratic ticket and alwayswill. I knew that Henry Miller was similarly situated; he told meso, and that be was chased back by the soldiers when hewont to vote. (.Mr. Cessnn‘objot‘tsto the declarations of Miller.) Cross examinedby Mr. Cessna: I saw Henr Miller the night of the election; hadn’t secnqumbe are on that day we had a little tent wherewe laid together; to tell the plain truth it was about a unrter of a mile from my house. in the woods. I enry Millcrwns adrnfted manbefore I was. I wasdraftedin thoJune draft. about the 2dofJifne. I wasaboutsix miles awayfrom the polls on election ay: sawno soldiersthere: only knewaboutsoldiers being thereby hearsay. I hadnot reportedafterbeing drafted. I knewthat according to military law I was a descrter. I was afraid, because I was drafted and hadn t reported. If Jeff. Davis should get upon the Democratic ticket. I would vote for him. Rocross oxamined: crIafti Thaddeus Stevens should get upon the Demo I would vote for him. Miller is not in Bedford county. h. JOHN250LDHAM. mark. Attest: S. L. Rosanna. ammim‘om. Mr. Reed calls GeorgeW.Burkholder. who.having been duly nfiirmed.doth sav. I have beena citizen and voter of StClair township. Bedford county for many cars: I didn t vote on the 11th of October, 1864 was drafled and didn t proportand wentaway: took the western train at Johnstown 7 days before the election. G. W. BURKHOLDER. ttest: S. L. RUSSELL. amnirsn'oner. It is true, sir, that by the 95th section of the act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, of 2d July, 1839, it is provided that “ no body of troops in the Army of the U.S or of this Commonwealth shall be present either armed or unarmed, at any place of c cction within this Commonwealth. during the time of such election;” butitis further provided “that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent any officer or soldier from exercising the right of suffrage in the election districtto which he may belong, if otherwise qualified accordin to law.” bow, while itappears from the testimony that there were soldiers at certain polls, there is no proof that they were not residents of these districts, and therefore may have been rightfullythere for the of exercising the right of suffrage. purpose f, however, they were there in violation of law, they could doubtless be uiiished for it; but it is no reason why it should enable these persons to have their votes counted in this contest, because not a man of them offered to vote. On the contrary, they all say that they were deserters, had failed to respond to the raft, and havin heard that there were soldiers about were afrnig that they would be arrested, and staid away from the olls, being in most instances 5, 6, eight and ten miles away. If all the votes of this description could be added to the vote of the sitting member, my mn'ority of 71 might erhaps be overcome. I su mit, however, if it is not rather inconsistent in the sitting member, afterting so hard to take away from me the votes oxalic soldiers actually in service and who did vote, to ask that the votes of these draft deserting soldiers hid in the mountains, and who never offered to vote, should he added to his vote? I have shown conclusively that certain legal votes were excluded from the official canvass, and that these votes when added thereto give me a majority of 7L I have demonstrated that there is nothing in the proof adduced by the sitting member to cause the reduction of this majority except the mere trifle of a few votes, and therefore having a clear majority of the legal votes, I am entitled to be admitted to this House as the member from the 16th district of Pennsylvania. A few reasons wh I have made this contest and I have done. ii the 1st place, since the day the return judges assembled in the various countiesin the district to sum up the home and soldier vote, I have entertained the sincere conviction that I was honestly and fairly elected, and so believing, I determined that I would push the investigation of this case until after a fair and full bearing upon the merits, it would be determined by the learned and honest ComElections whether that convictior was right or wrong. They have after a patient and careful examination of the case reported to this House that I Wig; elected. But there were other reasons still that prompted me to make this contest. I was chosen as the candidate of the Union party in the 16th district in one of the most critical periods of the country’s history. Over 3 years of war, carried on upon the most gigantic scale upon the part of the Government, had failed to at down a wicked rebellion, organized fpr e purpose of destroying this Union. An unsubdiied rebellion, a rap idly increasing and enormous public debt, the finances of the country unsettled, gold as high as 290%., and repeated drafts, so depressed the public mind that the loyal people of the country almost began to wonder whether, when the dark clouds were rolled away and the sun of peace again shone forth, it would be uplon a rent Union or a reserved Republic. he public sentiment or7 the country was divided upon the question whether the war should be stopped or whether it should be carried on by ever resource of the Government until the robe lion was overthrown. The feeling of distrust in our institutions, of our inabilit to put down the rebellion, of admitted weeness and half concealed sympathy with treason, found expression in that remark able document promulged at the city of Chi cago, which declared “that the war was a fail ure, and that justice, liberty, and humanity required that it should be stopped.” On the other hand, the unwcaried patience, the unswerving loyalty, and deep and profound faith of the American people in the fpermanency and stability of ourinstitutions, an of our ultimate success over armed treason found utterance in the patriotic resolves of the Baltimore convention, which declared that treason must be overthrown and the unity and integrity of the Government preserved. These were no uncertain sounds. The former was an appeal to the timid, the wavering, the on patriotic; the latter spoke the language of faiti and hope in the darkest hour of the nation’s history. Selected by the Union party of the 16th district of Pennsylvania as their candidate at such a time, and upon such an issue, I would have been untrue to them had I failed to make this contest. But there is still another reason. Beaten upon the home vote largely, my election was saved by the brave men in the field, who for a brief time stopped their work of putting down treason in the front to send a crushing blow against its allies in the rear. To the brave men in front, with cannon in front of them, cannon to the right of them, and cannon to the left of them; to the brave men hurrying to the front to join the deadl strife; to the brave men who had been to tie front, but alas! then lay prostrate in the hospitals with fevered brows, maimed limbs, and bodies pierced with shot and torn with shell, is due the credit of having saved the 16th district of Pennsylvania to the Union cause. Many of them have since the close of the war returned to their homes, and are now engaged in the peaceful pursuits of life, while many others were stricken down upon the battle field or by disease contracted in the service of their country, and were not permitted to return to their homes and fire sides, but now rest among the patriot dead of the Republic. “They sleeptheir last sleep.they have fought their ast battle, No sound can awake themto glory again." Justice to the martyred dead and heroic living of the brave soldiers of the 16th district of Pennsylvania demanded that I should make this contest and vindicate their rights by reserving the purity of the elective franchise. mpelled by these considerations, air, I have gone through this long and annoying contest to find at last, as a reward for my time on labor, that justice is about to be done to myself and the majority of the legal voters of the 16th congressionpl district of Pennsylvania.