Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr. Speaker, this is a que‘ion which involves, to some extent, the right of soldiers of Pennsylvania to vote. We had before us here a question involving the right of the soldiers of Michigan to vote, in the earl art of this session. But this is not a case Ii 'e that. That depended upon the constitution of the State; but when it was as certained in Pennsylvania, that the soldiers had no right to vote the great anxiety of the public to extend to them this high privilege induced them to amend their constitution, and, under the amended constitution, the legislature passed an act providing the place, manner, and form under which the soldiers should cast their votes. The law of Pennsylvania as it stood prior to the passage of that act, as respected the home vote, under the decisions of our courts, waived almost all of what ma' be termed technicalities in the returns, an determined that where ever a return was sufficiently intelligible to be understood by the judges who were to not upon the case, the voters’ will should be registered. But for fear that even that little remnant of formality might not be understood by our soldiers distant in the field and in the camp, the Legislature of Pennsylvania further provided that “ no mere informalities in the manner of carrying out or exeeutin any of the provisions of the act should invalidate any election held under the same or the returns thereof, ” using the word “return, ” as a Legislature is always bound to do it, in a technical sense. Now, sir, I would not say a single word about this case but for one thing. I know the fairness and industry of my colleagues upon the ComElections. I know the vast amount of labor that is imposed upon them, and I ud mire the im artiality with which they have attempted to discharge their duty. I would not, for the mere sake of determining whether my friend in front of me [Mr. Dawson] should occupy the seat, or the contestant outside [Mr. Fuller] should occupy it, say a single word. We have majority enouvh now, and there is no need of another vote. Cl3ut I believe the committee have done a great wrong to the Legislature and soldiers 01 Pennsylvania in the construction which they have given our laws. Our courts have construed our laws for home voting. where we have experienced and intelligent clerks to perform the duties, to mean simply that you shall have an intelligible return, cov ering, as some here hold, even the oath of office, under resumption that the officers have discharged) their duties and taken the oath when it is not legally certified. But to make the soldiers doubIy sure of their votes the Legislature passed this act, in addition to our judicial decisions, providing that no mere informality or omission of form should set aside the soldiers’ 'return. They designed to make allowance for the haste, the inconvenience, and inexperience of the camp, and give effect at home to the absent warrior's vote, however informally cast. I am unwilling to see this House, even upon the recommendation of the committee, pass sentence of disfranchisement upon these soldiers and of condemnation upon the law. The majority of the committee have made 2 mistakes: one of law, in the construction of the soldiers’ voting act; and the other of fact, in the rejection of votes, even according to their own wrong construction of that law. The correction of either their mistake of law or their mistake of fact will give the contestant the seat. Their mistake in law consists in construing the soldiers’ voting act out of existence. It amounts to a judicial recal of the sections that waive informalities an omissions. Instead of givin" the soldier greater latitude than is given to the clerk at home, they have given him less. They not only require that the returns must be perfect, butevent attbe oaths take by the oliicers must be drawn up in full, and signed and certified to by the person that administers them, and some of the committee go further than this, and demand a perfect tally list and oll book in addition. By this construction t icy exclude from the count a large number of soldiers’ votes; some for each candidate, to he sure, but between 30 and 40 more of those cast for Mr. Fuller than for Mr. Dawson. This changes the majority of 16 for Mr. Fuller into a majority of 15 for Mr. Dawson. But even under this erroneous construction of the law Fuller would still have a majority of 2 if they had not committed another prror in the application of their own rule to the acts. I will now briefly call the attention of the House to the mistakes in fact. I am notgoing to refer to them; only enough to show that their majority of 15 for Dawson should be a majority of 2 for Fuller, if they would only follow their own had rule ofconstruction. The Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr.PAINE] admits that if we count all the votes that were returned, lcnving out of nestion the formalities which are supposed to e wanting, the contestant has a majority of 16 votes.