Mr. PAINE. I suppose there is no difference between the gentleman and myself when we come to the real point. The committee did find that the contestant claimed a majority of 16 votes. They found more than that, that he claimed a majority of 18 votes, insisting upon the 2 corrections to which we have particularly referred in our report. But we did not find that he had receive amajority of 16votes. We found, it is true, that if we had counted all the votes alleged to be contained in the papers which he laid before the committee he would have received a majority of 16 votes. But we found that the papers which he laid before us were not such that we or the House on ht of right to receive the votes they containe. So that, leaving out of view entirely the questions raised by the sitting member in this case, in? stead of the contestant having a majority of 16 votes, the sitting member has a majority of 21 votes. It is true that if we had received every paper, whether merely informal or absolutely deective and worthless in substance, every paper which had any value, whether in form or substance, and every paper which had no value, either in form or substance, if all that were claimed by the contestant had been allowed by the committee, he would have had a majorit of 16 votes, as the Gentfrom PennsyIvania [Mr. Scorrnw] says. But I shall show, before conclude, why we were compelled to reject many returns placed before us. The contestant proceeds in his “ review” to say, “It seems strange, under these circumstances, that the voice of the people of this district is to be stifled, and a man who has been rejected by their votes is to be retained as their Representative.” That would be a strange thing for the committee to recommend to this house. it will be a strange recommendation for this House to adopt. But, in my judgment, it would be aproceeding no less marvelous for this House to evict the sitting member and give the contestant his sent here because he claims it without proving his right to it. I say that the voice of the electors of the 21st congressional district of Pennsylvania will not. be stifled by permitting the sitting member to retain his seat. On the contrary, I say that their voice, so far as we are able to gather it from anything placed before the committee or before this House, will be stifled if you drive out the sitting member and admit the contestant to the seat which he claims, butwhich he has proved no right to hold. “But, ” he proceeds to say, “the committee have given their reasons for reporting in favor of the candidate having the smallest number of votes; and to these reasons I will briefly call attention.” I shall make no comment, Mr. Speaker, upon the taste which the contestant has shown in that passage of his short review of the report of the ComElections. The committee have not undertaken to give their reasons for rejecting the candidate having the smallest number of votes. The committeehave fairly stated to the House which candidate they believe had the largest number of votes; and as in duty bound they have recommended to the House to give him the seat. What less than this, what else than this, I ask, could the committee do? wag g. Now, sir, I come to these particular returns about which there was so much disute in the committee, and about which there Will be much debate, I presume, in this House. van“Mr. Fuller. in this document, says: 111“? “The committee reject the returns of election; "at! by companyA. 155th regiment Pannsylvunia vnlnntecrs.upon the round that thm is no evidencethat the tllllt tTrwho old the election were sworn. They also rejectthe return of the clention holdat.McClellan hospital.Virginia, forthesame reason. If theyhad turned to pages 59 and 600 fbook known asNo. 2 printed by them for their own convenienceJhoy would have found that the 1st named of these retnrns showed that thoofficershad been duly swornandall the certificates required by law had been iluly signed by the ponons who administered the oaths. Had theytaken mins to turn to page SSO of the same booktheywould ave foundthat the officerswho held the plot lionat McClellan hospitalhad been sworn, as I shown hr the certificates of the 0mm who admin rstered the oaths. I append these oaths to this state ment' they will be found in the a pendix. marked A and B. So if the committeevia to correct this statementin their report they will have no in doingso. Thesetwo retuQns give m9apra(jlolflrilteylllolr 10votes anw douldhave reduced thonqonty accorded to the sitting member to 5 vote a’llmm;, 1'1“kn W, I will 1st consider the return of company A, 155th regiment Pennsylvania volunteers. The contestant asserts that we rejected this return on the ground that there was no evidence that the officers who conducted the election were sworn. He has not stated the whole of the objection which we made to that return. He has stated on] one of 2 objections which we raised. ne was that there was no evidence that these judges were sworn, but the other was that there was no poll book accompanying the return and tallylist. That there may be no mistake on this point, let me read from pages 4 and 5 of the report of the committee; and I shall be obliged to read in this connection the Opinions expressed by the majority and minority of the committee in the case to which I have so often referred, the case of Koontz vs. Coffroth, in order to show precisely the points of objection to this return, and the reason why it was excluded by the majority of the committee: “ The military returns alleged tohave beenomitted from the canvass.althoughin manyinstancesirregular and informal, seemto be good in substance, With th“e following exceptions.namely: McClellan hospital, (No.3.) The return for lVest ine rclautl county in this case ism all things.except the namesand residences.identical with the return from the same hospitalfor Adamscountymadebythe same officers, and produced in evidence in the case of Koontz on.Cotfroth, recentlydecidedbythis House. In that casethemajority used the following language: Of unthty. 8 allegedas reJccted returns for Adams thctlirce from the hospitals mamcly: Mower. Cuyler and McClellan, (pa are23.24.25.lare by all the committee admitted to e too defectively certified and authenticatedto be entitled toanyconsideration. The law in relation to the cert'iy inmsiirning and returning with the poll book. the evidenceo the administeringof the oath to the officers of the election(sections5 and 15)waswholly disregarded.‘ the minority in the same case expressed the following opinion: "I‘hc 3 returns from the Mower. Cuylcr, and McClellan hospitals (papers12.B, 2i. 25) wererejected because the certificatesof the oathsof the election officerswerewanting. This was no lawful groundfor their rejection, for it a pearsfromthe whole papersthat the judges and cler swore actually sworn and the returns. Though defectiveiii form.aru perfectly intelligible, and clearly within the provisions of the statutoapplicablo to mere formalities.’ The authority of that decisionis unanimously recognized by the committee mlthough its corrcctnessisstiI doubtedbythe minority. It excludes the thrcovotes from McClellan hospital for Westmorcland county. which areclaimed by the contestant“ Upon similar hut rather stronger irrounds the following transcripts, wofh’oicahthdso, nnaomt contain the poll hooks or certificates batter H. 4th artillcr, (No. 2:) Cam Parole, (No.9: Carver hospital Jho. 10;) field on staff, 206th regiment, (No. 12:)and companyA, 155th regi ment.(No.13,)are rejectedb the committee. They would give Mr. Dawson4an Mr. Fuller 18votes." I call the attention of the House to the exact language of the report, because it becomes important in deciding as to the precise reasons for which this return of company A, 155th regiment was excluded by the committee in the case now before us. I am one of the minority who still doubt the correctness of the decision referred to. Upon the statements in the extract which I have read from the report of the committee relating to the return for company A, 155th regiment, is predicated the contestant’s assertion that this return was rejected, because there was no evidence that the officers who held the election were sworn. Now, it is true that the absence of the cer tificates of oaths was one of the reasons why the committee rejected this return; but that was only one of 2 reasons. The other reason was that the poll book was wanting. In the case of Koontz vs. Coffroth the committee and the House decided that the following 6 defects were each and all substantial and fatal, namely, 1st, the absence of the car. tificates of oaths of 2 of the judges; 2nd, a joint election by 2 or more organized companies; 3rd, the administration of the oaths to the election officers by a person who was not one of their number; 4th, the absence of a certified ell book; 5th, a failure to keep separate poll ooks for the voters of each city or count; 6th, an omission to make separate returns or the voters of each city or county. I did not think, as the majority of the committee did in that case, that the presence of the certificate of oaths or of the certified poll books was essential to the validity of a return if it was substantially shown by the papers taken together that the officers were sworn and that the votes were duly cast. Indeed, I was, and still am, satisfied that under the law of Pennsyl vauiathe return, strictly socalled, should sulIice, if substantially correct, without either oaths, certificates, poll book, or telly list. And if in this case the decision had turned upon the vote of company A, 155th regi ment, I should have voted for the contestant, because I believe that return should have been canvassed. I said so in this report. I agree with the contestant that it should be countedin this case, and if when counted it would secure him the seat I would vote to give him this contested seat. The contestant asserts in the extract which I have given from his pamphlet that ifthe committee had turned to pages 5‘.)and 60 of the 2nd volume of his evidence they would have made certain discoveries respecting the return of company A, 155th regi ment; an if they had taken pains to turn to page 380 of the same book they would have made certain other discoveries respecting the return for McClellan hospital. In other parts of his review similar language is used. Sir, if he means by all this to say that the cemmittee did not carefully and patiently examine these returns from beginning to end, he does, I know, great injustice to the committee, for never since I have been a member has any case been so patiently, so carefully examined as this case. There is no item of evidence referred to in this review as having escaped the attention of the committee which I ad not read many times and carefully considered before the contestant’s attorney placed the review in my hands. There is one item, and only one, which I had not observed before I drew up the report, and that was the certificates or oaths of company A, 155th regiment. think the reason these were overlooked ought to satisfy the most fas tidious contestant. The statute of Pennsyl vania provides the forms in which oaths, cer tificates of oaths, poll books. tally lists, and returns are to be sent in duplicate to the SecyState and the prothonotary of the county. The several documents are"arrauged in the order in which I have named them, the oaths and certificates being 1st, the return last, and the poll book and tally list between them. I believe that in all the 100s of returns printed in this and other Pennsylvania contests there is but one solitary case where this order is inverted, and that hap ens to be the identical case which is now before the House. Here the return comes 1st and the certificates last. I had examined the return over and over again, looking for the certificates in their proper place without finding them. But I had discovered them before the review was placed in my hands. And it is true that upon these pages are to be found the certificates which this contestant alleges are there. If that fact would entitle him to have these votes counted under the ruling of the majority, then they should be counted by the majority of the committee. I, as one of the minority, had expressed in the report my opinion that this return ought to be counted, even before I had discovered the certificates of oaths. Their discovery, therefore, does not affect me. But the majority of the committee required not only the certificates of oaths but also the poll books. The latter are wanting; hence the discovery of the certificates does not affect the majority. But, counting this return, I cannot vote to give the contested seat to Mr. Fuller, because this return added to all the others to which he is entitled would not destroy the majority of the sitting member. I proceed now to the examination of the return for McClellan hospital, on page 380. Here, too, the contestant intimates neg igence on the part of the committee. But I was fa miliar with that return long before the report was prepared, and I must again say that the insinuation that the committee have shown want of diligence in searching for evidence in this case is uu'ust. They have shown more diligence here, am sure, than they have ever shown before or will ever show again in favor of any contestant at the expense of a sitting member.