Mr. DAWES. It seems that. there is no nrrnn ement suggested by the Gentfrom I Illinois, [Mr. M. UtSllALL,] and therefore I shall be under the necessity of going on todayrl, Mr. Speaker, I take it for granted that every member of the House has read the report of the committee. Before proceeding to its discussion I beg leave to correct one or 2 typo graphical errors in the report. 0n the 2nd page e printer has made this error: “ At the commencement of the hearing beforethe committeethe sitting membermadea motion to upset the entire testimony," It is due to the sitting member that I should say that the motion was not small in that form, nor did I write it exactly in t. at form. He moved in very proper form to “ reject".the testimony on the part of the contestant, butthe printer has pntit in “upset.” I have no doubt that if the motion had prevailed it would have had that. effect. In the 2nd line page 2 there is also an immaterial error. The wor “some” should be printed “ four." ssuming that the House has read this re port, which from in experience here I feel at iberty to assume, I eem it that very little need is upon me of further explaining this case. The olficial majority of the sitting member is 634. The district is composed of 5 counties. The allegations of the contestant are very numerous and cover a large ground, but they relate only to 4 precincts in the whole congressional district. In regard to these 4 precincts it is alleged that there was such evidence of fraud connected with the election—fraud in res act to the conduct of the election officers on of other persons at the polls, some of them unknown person s, in reference to the ballot boxes —that the return made of the result at those 4 recincts was so tainted that the truth could not c deduced from it, and therefore the return must be rejected. This was the allegation made on the port of the contestant in ref erence to the 4 precincts of Hamilton, Jefferson Cloverdalc, and Riley; 2 of them in Su ivan count and the others in the counties of Vigo and utnam. The committee were of opinion that the contestant made out. his allgations in reference to 2 of these precincts, but. failed to make them out in their full extent in reference to the other two., I will briefly state the testimony upon which is founded this conclusion of the committee, and then I will leave the case entirely to such eodnsiderations as may be offered on the other 81 e. i. I 1st desire gentlemen of the House to cast their eye over what is said in the report in ref erence to the law of the State of In icon 11 on this subject—to the manner in which the law ins guarde or, as the committee think, has failed to guard, the pollnud the ballot box at an election. A. man is chosen at the a ring election who is called town trustee. e is modem: W0 inspector of elections. He has the authority under the law of fixing the place of election and of appointing. with the consent of so many voters present at the poll at the opening of inthe morning, 2 other persons who shall act with him as judges of election. A ballot box in the ordinary form is prepared, but there is no provision of law, in the opinion of the committee, for its safe keeping from the time the oll is open until the result is de Olared. 1 ere is on the other hand, it seemed to the committee, a total want of safeguard thrown by the law around the ballot box. These 3 persons, ouc chosen by the town in the spring, and the others appointed by the town trustee, have the entire custody of the ballot box. They are permitted by law to adj ourn for dinner in the middle of the day, in the excitement of the election, and to do what they please with the ballotibox. They may leave it where they were receiving the votes, or they may carry it. to any other place, and there leave it in any custody or in no custody, whenever they lease, and be gone as long as they please. hey may take it, in any condition it may happen to be in, when they return from their dinner, and resume the voting. At the closegof the polls they may then and there, if they choose, count the ballots and make their return, or they may proceed to count, and then, after commencing their count, may adj ourn till the next day. If they do djourn the only safeguard thrown around the ballot box by law is simply that it shall be locked and the slide for putting in the votes scaled up. The he is then given by this inspector to one of the judges, and e takes the box and goes with it where he pleases. He may leaveit in the very room where the election was held; he may carry it to some secret. place known to him and to no one else, or carry it into town meetin and leave it there; he may carry it off out o town and keep it in some unknown place during the night and bring it back in the morning; and than c and his associates may complete their count and certify what they may then find to be the result. These remarks are necessary in order that the House may understand fully the testimony touching some of these ballot boxes, th re alleged to have been so tainted with frau at the truth cannot be deduced from the returns made. There is no dispute between the contestant and the sitting member about what law and rule should govern the committee. It is admitted by the sitting member, as contended by the contestant, that wherever, in point of fact, there did exist such evidence of rand or mal feasance in office or tampering with the ballot box that the committee were satisfied that. the return itself did not. state the truth and there Was no means of correcting that return, and of making it tell the truth, that return itself must be set aside and the parties thrown back upon such other evidence as they could produce of the actual poll at. that precinct so that eve legal voters vote ini lit. if possible, be still preserved and frauds aid aSide. It was only on the ap lication of the evidence in this case to this rule of law that there was any difference between the parties in this contest, or between the membersof the committee, in the conclusion at which they arrived; and a moments re flection will show that the rule itself cannot be controverted when stated as an abstract propposition. I submit that. upon a moments reflec—tion, any man in the House will yield to it his assent. When a return is so tainted with fraud that the truth cannot be deduced from it, to say that it shall be taken as truth is an absurdity. To say that that shall be taken as true, which by the premises is admitted to be false, is that which no honest mans mind will ever consent to. To this rule of law the sitting member very properly yielded his assent. He called the attention of the committee, with great propriety, also to that which they themselves felt to be proper, that while it was a just and sound rule, it was a rule capable of abuse; that under color of it, prejudice, blind political pr judice, passion, on dishonesty itself mighte oak up fraud and availitself of that rule to work injustice. Takin this heed from the sitting member which ad always been the accc ted rule in all cases heretofore, the committee have sought to apply the rule cautiously and with becoming res nsibility to the evidence in this case. ouching the 1st of these township s as e cially, I submit that the evidence is o sac a character that no man can hesitate for a moment to say that even upon the very conlbssion of the Officers of the election themselves there is incontrovertible testimony that the bullotbox had been interfered with, and interfered with to such an extent that it was impossible to as certain the truth, and that therefore. there was no other conclusion but that the return made of the final condition of the ballot box had not in it the all htest element of the real state of the oil on. tprecinct. [allude to Hamilton. the contestant, in the 1st place. attacked this precinct with the allegation that while the return for him was 140 votes, he produced at least 170 men who testified that they had voted for him, adiscrepancy in that small number olvotes of 23 in the count. This of itself might not certainly show any fraud, but is consistent with an honest mistake in the count; and if that Were all there were to it, it would have been perfectly casyto correct such a mistake and add) 23 to his poll. If that had been all the evidence in relation to that town shi, the committee would have conceived it to their duty to have simpl added 23 votes to the voteof the contestant; but whether they should take the 28 votes from the sitting member or not was altogether left in doubt.