Mr. SCOFIELD. I am going to make the House understand it, ifthe gentleman willgive mea chance. This is an intelligent House, and the Gentfrom Wiscousm must not think that he is the only man who can get an idea into the heads of the members of this House. [Lau hter.] If members will only give me half the attention they gave the Gentfrom Wisconsin, I believe I can make them understand the matter. I was stating the evidence upon which I base my conclusion that this return was referred to that committee and somehow lost unintentionally of course. The different records were found, numbered in regular order up to 63; No. 64 was missing; and then the rec ords Were found again numbered in regular order from 65 upward. Now, would anyone numbering those records omit No. 64? As soon as we learned from the Gentfrom Wisconsin, who had the various papers put into his hands for the purpose of preparing the report, that No. 64 was wanting, we telegraphed to the Governor of Pennsylvania, who imme diately sent on a duplicate, marking it “dupli cate’ 1 showing that another record of the same kind had been sent before. Here it is with the broad seal of our good old Commonwealth and the name of her patriotic Governor upon it. Here, too, is an n 'davit showing the pass of the 1st certificate. Thus the majority of the committee would deprive of their votes these 7 soldiers from, Indiana and Fayette counties, who were deutained in Lincoln hospital by sickness; and the round upon which the committee would dot is is because the whole return was sent to Westmoreland county, instead of being divided and a part sent to Westmoreland, a part to Indiana, and a part to Fayette a perfect impossibility. Counting these 7 votes, as they justly ought to be counted, for the contestant, we leave the sitting member with a majority of one vote according to the report of the committee. Take next the return from McClellan hos pital; and I am only going to refer to those returns the rejection of which the Gentfrom Wisconsin seemed to think needed a lit tle bolstering up in advance. McClellan hos pital gave 3 votes for the contestant; and if they are allowed, with the 7 from Lincoln hos pital and the 7 which the gentleman concedes should be counted from compau A, 155th regiment, t a contestant has a majority of 2. Now, what is the difficulty in regard to the vote of McClellan hospital? The majority of the committee admit that the cannot find anything missin in this case. Tereturn is there; the poll boo is there; the tally list is there. On page 6 of the large book we find all these facts set forth. “But, H say the majorit of the committee. “the certificate of the oat is is not there. The certificate that the officers who conducted the election were sworn is not there; and, although they state that they were duly sworn, we should have the certificate of the clerk that the oath was taken, giving the form of the oath.” But, sir, after lookihg a great while the committee, with their extraordinary industry, (to which I am always ready to testify, although the gentleman seems to insinuate that I am a little lazy,) found these oaths on page 880, all in due form, sworn to b the officers, signed by the officers, and certifie to by the clerk. They found this at last, and as the Gentfrom Wisconsin says, they found it even without the aid of the contestant. What now is the difficulty? They have got all the forms. Why, they say the certificate of oaths was not at tached to the other papers; that one is on page 380 in the printed book) and the other on page 6. That is all. There is the certificate of oaths signed by the officers of election, certified by the clerk that it was taken by them, but in the printed book they are some 300 ages apart, and the committee want 115 to believe that they were never introduced to each other in the camp. Now taking the construction that the committee have wrongly given to the soldiets’ voting act, blot out that provision of the law of Pennsylvania that says that no informalities shall deprive a soldier of his right to vote, and take the construction that the committee have taken, and you must still count 17 more votes for Fuller. Company A, 150 5th regiment, cast 7 votes; Lincoln hospital, 7 votes; and McClellan hospital 8 votes, making the 17 that should be counted on the committee’s own showing, but which the failed to count. But the Gentfrom Visconsin gave us an elaborate argument to justify the committee, and had the record read to show how many members of the committee the got 5 out of 9, 3 Republicans an 2 Democrats to justify the exclusion of these 3 returns, and then concluded b telling us that he does not assent to it himsel, although he wrote the report. I am reminded that thereare 6 more votes that the committee propose to count for Mr. Dawson in case of necessity. In the report they are held as a kind of reserve, neither counted nor cast out. This will compel me to examine a few more of the returns favorable to Mr. Fuller, but rejected by the committee. The 15 set down as sure are already offset by the 17 shown to be improperly rejected. To offset their uncertain 6, I will take Camp Pu role, 1; battery H, 4th independent artillery, 4; camp in the field, 206th regiment, 2; and Sattorlee hospital, 6. Camp Parole is rejected for informality, while, in point.of fact, the (papers are perfect. Some of them were printe and are to be found on page 31 of the 2nd book, and the remainder are on file with the clerk of the committee. Battery H was rejected because the oaths taken by the officers were not set out in full, although they certify that they were duly sworn and the tall papers, list of voters, and returns are all m proper form on pages 6 and 7 of the 2nd 00. To “cam in the field” there is even less informality. I‘he oaths here are signed by the officers, but the formal certificate of the officer who administered the oaths is wanting. The fact that the officers took the oath is proved by their own certificate in the caption of the poll book and by their signatures to the form of oath. These oaths, with the poll book, list of voters, tally papers, and return are to be found on page 37 of the 3rd book. In Satterlee hos pital the papers are all perfect except that the judges do not sign the form of oath, although the officers who administered them certify that they did so, and the judges themselves certify in the caption of the pol book that they were duly sworn. Here then are 12 more votes for Mr. Fuller to offset the 6 that the committee contingently propose to count for Mr. Dawson. One word before I sit down, going back to where I be an. I have been attempting to show that these 17 votes should be counted even upon the committee’s wron construction of the law. These alone give e contest ant. 2 majority. If the 6 doubtful Dawson votes are to be counted, then there are 12 less doubtful Fullervotes that must be also counted, giving him 8 ma'ority. If that construction is to be overrule, as I think it on ht to be, then it will be conceded that Mr. g‘uller has 16 majority. The difficulty in the w of the Gentfrom Wisconsin making ailiill concession in clear and unequiVOcal language, I think, is simply this: that he does not want to admit, even for the sake of argument, that these were proper returns, because they lacked the proper forms. But supposing the had the proper forms and I have atlempte to show that they have, the committee themselves bein judges they give Mr. Fuller 2 majority. It you give vitality at all to the soldiers’ voting law of Pennsylvania, then you must. count the balance of the votes given for both of those gentlemen, and that gives Mr. Fuller 16 majority.,