Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, my friend is again slightly in error as to a matter of fact; and in that slight error of fact he gets entirely into a vice as to the legal position and conclusions at which bearrives. 5 error consists in overlooking this fact: that neither the majoritv nor the minority of this committee have adhered to the papers and said that they would look at no fact outside of them. Sir, the report whichl am now combatting is an ported on its face by extrinsic evidence, as will be seen by reference to the 2nd page. Because the return in favor of)Mr. Collroth is notu n its face as good as the return in favor of h Mr. Koontz, the majority of the committe have resorted to outside evidence in order to show that the men who signed the paperof Mr. Koontzwere not judges.” So I say here, that it is not traveling out of the sphere indicated by the resolution referring this subject matter. to us, to ascertain, not by general parole evidence, but. bycertified papers tiled in this case, the fact that these men who met there at the meeting of the district board representing 4 counties, had in their county boards rejected the soldiers votes for reasons that were utterly frivolous. Let memention one instance now, lest I forget it hereafter. There was one case in which aman living in Franklin county had voted along with 50 or 60 men from Adams county. The Adams county return was right in every particular; but because that one man from another county had voted alon with the men from Adams county they rejected the whole return. This is a specimen of the way in which they get Mr. Coffroth elected, and this appears, not by outside evidence, but by the papers which contribute in part to make up the alleged title of Mr. Cotlroth. Now, sir, when such papers as these brought before the ComElections show that those men had in their county boards arbitra rily and in violation of the express provisions of law assumed ajurisdiction they were prohib ited from assuming, and rejected soldiers votes, and had thus put the district returns into such a condition as that if Somerset had come in it would be only walking into a snare, then I allege that it was the dutyof somerset to stay out of that meetingaud defeat the consummation of a great wrong. I will, on this point, read a sentence from an opinion given in this case. True. it was given by counsel, counsel for Mr. Koontz, a counsel, however, exceedingly emi nent in the law, who certainly states it as well as I could, and I think a great deal better. I mean m idea in regard to the effect in law of the connet of these men upon their ability to make any bindiu or valid count or return at Chambersbur alter they had in the county boards so vio ated the law in making up the returns of Adams and Bedford counties. It is from the opinion of Judge Black, of Pennsylvania. Here it is: "I maintain that where the majority of a county cl cetionboard transcendsits more y ministerial duty ofoounting the votes. Undertakes to dedidothe legality of the township returns by throwing out a part of them and so provokes a split. with those who cannot concur, the proceeding becomes revolutionary, and the power of the body to give any certificate at all is destroyed.” I say any court, I do not care whether it is this one, the highest court of the nation, or the lowest court of the people, could hold that a board whose powers are merely to add up votes shall be tolerated in 1st exercising the high judicial power of deciding that the returns ofeuough of the soldiers votes are illegal and shall be rejected to change the result in the district and then that these men shall be permitted to bring into a district board what they have left of the returns, and upon these illegal county board returns make up a valid count and return for the district binding upon all men and this House.