4518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

should not have a vote to-night on the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. HARRISON. I move that the Senat;e do now adjourn. 

Mr. BLAIR. I wish toaskforthe printingoftheamendmentwhich 

I suggested in my remarks. I desire to have it printed as an amendment proposed to be offered to the bill. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be so ordered. 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask the Senator from Indiana to yield to me that 

I may withdraw a motion entered a few days ago to reconsider a bill. 

·Mr. HARRISON.' I will do so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana withdraws 

the motion to adjourn. 

1\IISSOURI RIVER BRIDGE. 

Mr. ALLISON. I wish to withdraw ·the motion to reconsider the 

vote by which the Senate passed the bill (H. R. 6762) to authorize the 

construction ·or a bridge across the Missouri River at a point to be se- lected between the north and south line ofthe county of Douglas, State 

of Nebraska, and to make the same a post-route. 

My friend from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS], who is a strict parliamentarian, informs me that I should have unanimous consent to withdraw 

the motion. 

Mr. HARRIS. A motion to reconsider can not be withdrawn without unanimous consent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to withdrawing the 

motion? No objection being made, the motion to reconsider is withdrawn. 

HOUSE BILL REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. 263) for the relief of George F. Bicknell was read 

twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. HARRISON. I renew my motion that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed. to; and (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p. m.) 

the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

MONDAY, May 26, 1884. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a.m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. 

The Journal of Saturday's proceedings was read and approV'ed. 

NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF TEXAS. 

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move, by unanimous consent, to take 

from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 2824) to amend sections 4, 5, 

and 9 of an act approved February 24, 1879, entitled "An act to create 

the northern judicial district of the State of Texas, and to change the 

eastern and western judicial districts of said State, and to fix the time 

and places for holding courts in said districts,'' and to provide for holding terms of the court of the western judicial district of Texas at the 

city of El Paso, and for other purposes, returned from the Senate with 

..amendments. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection ? 

There was no objection, and the bill was taken from the Speaker's 

-table and the amendments of the Senate read, as follows: 

First amendment. In section 1, strike out the words: "shall hereafter read as follows," and insert in lieu thereof " is hereby amended as follows." 

Second amendment. Strike out the following: 

"The courts in the northern judicial district shall be held twice in each year at Waco !Vld Dallas, and at Graham, in Young County; and the courts in the eastern judicial district shall be held twice in each year at Galveston, T:yler, and 

.Jefferson; and." 

Third amendment. Strike out the following words: 

"At the city of Waco on the first Mondays in April and October; at the city of 

Dallas on the first Mondays in .Jurie and December; at the town of Graham, 

Young CountyJ on t-he. first l\Iondays in February and August; at the city of 

-Galveston on tne first Mondays in November and March; at the cit.y of Tyler .on the second Mondays in .January and May; at the city of .Jefferson on the sec- • ond 1\fondays in February and September." 

Fourth amendment. Strike out the following. words: 

''And the district judge of each of said districts shall have power to fix ad- ""journed terms at all of said places so as to dispose of the whole of the business ·of said courts." 

Fifth amendment. In section 2, after the word "issued," insert the words' 'at'ter 

the act shall ta.ke effect." 

Sixth amendment. In section 3 strike out the following words: "The ninth 

section of said act be so amended as to authorize the clerk and marshal of the said we t-ern judicial district, respectively, to appoint," a.nd insert in lieu thereof: 

"There shall be appointed, in the manner provided by law." 

Seventh amendment. Strike out the following words: 

"And deputy marshal, each of whom shall reside at El Paso, for said court," 

and insert in lieu thereof "who shall keep his office." 

Mr. LANHAM. I move the amendments of the Senate be concurred 

in. . The amendments of the Senate were concurred in. 

Mr. LANHAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments of the Senate were concurred in; and also moved that the motion 

to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

BRIDGE ACRO S WILLA~IETTE RIVER, OREGON. 

lt{r. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous consent to take 

up for a-ction at this time the bill (S. 820) to authorize the Oregon 

Pacific Railroad Company to construct one or more bridges across the 

Willamette River, in the State of Oregon, and to establish them as postroads. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read, subject to objection. 

The bill was read in exten.so. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to taking up for present consideration the bill which has just been read? 

Mr. WELLER. I object. 

Mr. GEORGE. I hope the gentleman from Iowa will withdraw his 

objection. This is a local measure which has received the approval of 

the Secretary of War. It is a Senate bill. I hope the gentleman from 

Iowa will withdraw his objection. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to taking up the bill for present 

consideration? 

Mr. WELLER. Yes; I object. 

RETffiEMENT OF NATIONAL-BANK CffiCULATION. 

Mr. WELLER. I ask unanimous consent to introduce for present 

consideration a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury 

to invest the lawful money deposited by national-bank associations for 

the retirement of their circulation, and for other purposes. 

The SPEAKER. The joint resolution will be read, subject to objection. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to invest the lawful money deposited in the Treasury, in trust, by national banking associations 

for the retirement of their circulating notes, and for other purposes. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of A mer- ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, 

authorized, out of any lawful money deposited by national banks for the pur- pose of retiring their circulation, under the provisions of section 4 of the act of 

.July 20, 1 4, and of sections 5222 and 5230 of the Revised Statute of the United 

State • and of section 6 of the act of .July 12, 1882, to purchase, at not exceeding 

the par·value thereof, under such regulations as he may prescribe not inconsist;. ent therewith, any bonds of the United States ow outstanding; the bonds so purcha ed to be held in trust and used as security for the payment of the circulating notes of the banks which have or may deposit lawful money for such re- demption and payment : Provided, however, Whenever the circulating notes of 

national banking associations, for the retirement of which lawful money has 

been deposited, are presented to the Treasury for redemption, the Secretary of 

the Treasury shall use any available moneys in the Treasury for the redemption 

thereof, and to that extent the bonds so held shall be canceled and destroyed, 

together with the interest thereon: And further provided, All of the interest ac-- cruing on said bonds or any of them shall be canceled as it matures: And fur- ther provided, That all of said bonds a.nd the intere t thereon shall by the Secretary of the Treasury be canceled and destroyed whenever itshall appear to him 

that the outstanding notes of said banking associations are destroyed or lost, 

the intent being that the Government shall redeem by lawful money payment 

all such notes so provided for and also to cancel all of said bonds and interests 

thereon accruing, as stated hereinbefore. 

The SPEAKER. Is there· objection? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. I think I shallbavetoobjectuntilmybridge 

bill gets through. [Laughter.] . 

Mr. WELLER. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his objection 

until- I present the reasons why this joint resolution should be considered at this time and passed. [Cries of'' Regular order!"] · The SPEAKER. Is the demand for the regular order insisted upon or withdrawn? 

Mr. BLAND. It is withdrawn. 

GEORGE F. BICKNELL. 

Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous consent that the 

Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar be discharged 

fr6m the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 263) for the relief of 

George F. Bicknell, and that it be put on its passage at this time. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read subject to objection. 

The Clerk read as follo:ws: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized 

and directed to remove the .charge of dismissal now standing upon the records 

of the War Department against the name of George F. Bicknell, late captain of 

Company C, Third Regiment RhodeislandVolunteerCavalry, and to grant said 

George F. Bicknell an honorable discharge from the service of the United States as of date.of .June 29,1865 . 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. We reserve the right to object. 

The SPEAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. LONG. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was unanimously 

reported by the Committee on Military Affairs in the Forty-seventh 

Congress, and has been unanimously reported by the same committee 

ofthepresent Congress. The circumstances are these: George F. Bicknell was a faithful officer and served with great gallantry from the time 

of his muster into the service in 1862 until the end of the war. He 

served in the regiment commanded by Lieut. Cpl. George R. Davis, now 

a member of' this House, who c~trtifies to his excellent record. 

.Alter the war was over the colonel of the regiment, who had been 

absent, returned and took command and Bicknell was transferred to a remote station to do police duty. ~ company was greatly diminished by detail, until at last it was so far reduced he sent in his resignation. The colonel was not familiar with his services, and he forwarded his resignation with the recommendation that it be accepted. 

It was accepted, and Bicknell was dismissed the service. LieutenantColonel Davis, of the same regiment, now a member of the House, states 

in emphatic terms the faithfulness and· efficiency of Bicknell'sservices, 

and that he would have forwarded the resignation with a tavorable rec-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4519 

ommendation on account of his good character and excellent record. 

He also states that had the colonel known the circumstances he would 

not have recommended his dismissal. This man has been for ten years 

under this reproach, and the Committee on Military Affairs of two Congresses have unanimously recommended the passage of this bill. At 

this Congress the bill is reported by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs [Mr. RoSECRANS]. I move that the bill be put upon 

its passage. 

There being no objection, the Committee of the Whole House on the 

Private Calendar was discharged from the further consideration of the 

bill, and it was ordered to be engrossed andreadathird time; and being 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

:Mr. LONG moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; 

and also moved 11hat the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

NATIONAL HOMES FOR DISABLED VOLUNTEER SOLDIERS. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. :Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be no objection 

to the motion which I submit on the part of the Committee on Military 

Affairs, that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 

Union be discharged from the further consideration of the preamble 

and resolutions in reference to the national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers. ~he SPEAKER. The preamble and resolution will be read subject 

to objection. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Whereas experience hitherto shows a. steady increase in the numbers as well as in the percentage of disease and death of the inmates of the national homes 

for disabled volunteers, which increase will probably continue for ten or fifteen years and will demand enlarged provision for the care and maintenance of disabled soldiers ; and 

Whereas the board of managers of those homes, solicitous for the best possible administration thereof, have repeatedly requested Congressional examination of their system, and especially in view of certain general and specific com- plaints which have reached the Committee on Military Affairs as to the workings 

and management of some of the homes, it is desirable, for guidance in future 

legislation, that Cont;rress should have full and authentic information on these matters: 

Resolved·, That the Committee on Military Affairs be, and it is hereby, empow- ered to examine and report to this House upon the plan, practical workings, and 

management of the national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers, and to rec- ommend what, if any, legislation appears necessary to insure the most effective, economical, and humane application of the funds annually appropriated 

by Congress to this great beneficence; and for that purpose the committee is authorized to sit during the sessions of the House, to examine by subcommittee 

such of. the homes as it may deem necessary, to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, to employ such clerical assistance as may be required for this 

work 1 and to meet during the recess of Congress; all the necessary expenses to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House upon the certificate of the chair- man of the committee. 

Mr. DEUSTER. I heartily approve of the resolution presented by the 

honorable gentleman from California. Sir, the district I have the honor 

to represent on this :floor has within its boundaries one of these grand 

institutions, a fitting memorial of the generosity and gratitude of the 

American people in caring for those gallant men who sacrifieed the best 

years of their manhood that the nation might survive and who were 

maimed U])On the field of carnage, or broken down by the rigors of the 

camp and the march. Thewhite-winged messengerofpeacethatatlast 

settled down upon a Union cemented together with their blood, as it was 

born. in the smoke of battle, brought joy and happiness to the people, 

and returned the soldiers, or a vast number of them, to the pursuits of 

peace, broken in health, crippled and prematurelyaged, to gain a livelihood in competition with vigorous youth and sturdy manhood, grown to 

those estates while they were breaking down beneath a southern sun and exposure to the elements of war. · 

A generous and grateful people could not do less than they have done 

in erecting palatial buildings and laying out beautiful grounds to at 

least make pleasant the pathway of the grave for these men to whom we all of us owe so much. It was their right to demand and our duty . under the unwritten law of humanity to comply. And yet, sir, with 

all this outward show of beauty set forth in massive piles of brick and 

mortar, wrought out into the highest excellence of architectural art, and 

surrounded with beautiful lawns, from which roses put forth their fragrance and blush in the noonday sun, and with shady groves and sparkling 

fountains, it has been claimed that the "Soldiers' Home "isamisnomer, 

that the outward show of beauty is often but a covering for the inward 

misery and despair. The complaints sent out by the inmates of illtreatmentandhardshipsenduredarenumerousiftheybebutpartlytrue. 

I speak advisedly on this subject, and have only to put in evidence the 

letters addressed to me by inmates of the different homes to justify my 

assertions. It is not in the province of things that so large a body of men should be gathered beneath one roof without some grum biers, but 

the complaints are not confined to the few but extend to the many. 

my judgment the evils complained of are more the result of the 

''rules and regulations'' governingtheseinstitutionsthan the fault of the 

officers in charge. The discipline exacted is that of the regular Army, 

with all its arbitrary rules and articles, which robs the "home" of its 

comforts and reduces the inmate to the level of a cringing creature, utterly dependent, helpless, and devoid of individuality o:r manhood, a mere machine, in fact, to be started and stopped at the order of a supe-· rior officer. Men whom the world has beaten in the great struggle, or who have beaten themselves by yielding to temptations .until unfit for 

anything else, accept the regular Army as the dernier rcssort, the last 

step in human degradation, as a means of avoidin;; starvation. And yet, 

sir, the experiment is going forward of trying to make a home under 

the same system that governs in the regular Army, a system the only 

tendency of which is to degrade. 

The responsibility for ill-treatment complained of by many of these 

crippled, diseased invalids who are slowly tottering toward the grave 

should be placed, to a great extent, to a class that by training from boyhood and associations has become estranged from the mass of the people from whom it was taken to be educated at the country's expense 

at a military academy, and that has thus lost that feeling of a common 

equality. They forget that they are no longer to terrorize poor regulars, but simply to superintend men and citizens who are their equals 

before the law. I demand a rigorous investigation of the management 

of these homes. We owe it to these invalids, who sacrificed their all 

for our common country. Their stay with us is shortening with every 

day, and as I said on another occasion, before long they will have gone 

to that home which is governed by a Merciful Father, which needs no arbitrary rules and regulations save mercy and justice for its inmates. 

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, many of my people are interested in 

the passage oft.his resolution; but, sir, aside from a local desire it is of 

national importance that this resolution should pass. 

This Government has been to great expense in furnishing homes for 

its disabled soldiers, and bills are now pending in this House for the 

establishment of several more of these institutions. It is of great importance that a careful investigation of the manner in which these 

homes are conducted should be made by a committee from this House, 

in order that errors of management, if any, may be made known and 

corrected. It may be that no improvement is needed; but certain complaints have been made against the management of the home situated near the city of Dayton, Ohio. This home, known as the Central 

branch, has over 4, 000 inmates, or almost as many as all the other 

homes combined. 

For years complaints have been made against the management of this 

home, and so numerous were the grievances that the National Board of 

Managers of the Soldiers' Homes deemed it necessary to order an investigation la-st year. This investigation was made and changes in the 

management recommended, but the complaints are now more numer- ous than ever; not from the inmates alone, although a great many reasonable complaints have been made to me from the inmates of this home 

to the effect that they are not treated kindly, that the discipline is so severe and under such constant enforcement as to be even more irksome 

than when they were in the full vigor of their manh~, fighting the 

battles of their country in the trenches and on the tented field, when severe discipline was an absolute necessity. The men have grown old 

and weak, borne down by their age, sorrows, and affiictions, and no rea- sonable man can think that these crippled children of the Republic 

Rhould be treated as if they were in a garrison. 

A short time ago I received a petition signed by a large number of 

reliable and responsible citizens of Montgomery County, Ohio, worded 

as follows: 

The undersigned, citizens of Montgomery County and city of Dayton, in the 

State of Ohio, respectfully request you to urge such action upon the part of Con- gress as will bring about a change in the governorship of the National Military Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers at this place. The conductofthe governor is, and has been in many cases, tyrannical, and we might say inhuman, to the men under his control. He has refused admittance, even temporarily, to many wounded and disabled soldiers, who are thus thrown upon the public charity or have become inmates of the county infirmary, now crowded with men who 

by right ought to be in the home. He has inflicted unusual and severe punish- ment upon the inmates, and for small and trivial offenses that should be over- looked in old soldiers who have been wounded and disabled· in the service and are of infirm health and mind. Blind and insane men~ for expressing opinions 

for which they are wholly irresponsible, have been aishonora.bly discharged 

from the home and are now a. burden upon our charitable institutions. 

I might read a great many other appeals that I have received, but 

the one given is sufficient to show the general character of the com- plaints made. One of the directors of the county infirmary of Montgomery County wrote me not long ago 38 follows: 

There are now twenty-three inmates of the soldiers' home in this county in the 

county infirmary who have been discharged from the home, and nearly all of 

them are either insane or blind, and dependent upon this county for their sup- port. 

Governor Patrick was a regular Army officer and accustomed to the 

rigorous discipline of the regular Army, but the 4,000 men over which 

he has control were·of the volunteer army and unused to that kind of 

discipline. Being volunteer soldiers it would be a fair request that some one should be chosen to govern them from the volunteer army 

rather than the regular Army even if there. was no other cause of com- plaint. • . But, sir, these homes were established in order that the crippled and 

disabled soldiers of this country might have a p1ace to spend the last of 

life in pea-ce and comfort. Money has been extravagantly expended, 

and if these men are not comfortable and happy it certainly is not the 

fault of a generous Government. Grand and expensive places have been 

provided, and there is hardly anything more beautiful on this continent 

than the home and grounds of the Central branch at Dayton. But what are beautiful-grounds or a comfortable place to sleep, or even plenty of · substantial and good food, when you are ruled with an iron hand that 
4520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, \ 

wipes away all sense of liberty, that keeps you so subdued that you 

hardly dare call your soul your own, that .when you lie down at night or wake at dawn the thou6ht is constantly uppermost that you know 

not what punishment is imminent or about to fall upon your defenseless head. 

The men who are obliged to live in our national homes are not in its 

best sense subjects of governmental charity. By their sightless eyes, 

their maimed and broken bodies, their lost limbs, their shattered con- stitutions, and dethroned reason, they present a long line of melancholy witnesses to the fact that they have done more for their country 

than their country can ever do for them. To offer these people a. home, even if it be surrounded with all the beauty of Eden's garden, and is 

not governed in the spirit of kindness, is like asking for bread and getting a stone. The charges made may be to some extent groundless, but 

the complaints are so numerous and from such a variety of sources that 

I hope the resolution will pass without opposition. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? ' 

There was no objection, and the Committee of the Whole House on 

the state of the Union were discharged from the further consideration 

of the preamble and resolution, and they were adopted. 

Mr. ROSECRANS moved to reconsider the vote by which the preamble 

and resolution were adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ASSISTANT ENGINEER HOWARD D. POri'S. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Ca.le~dar from 

the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 6081) for the relief of Assistant Engineer Howard D. Potts, United States Navy. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read subject to objection. 

The bill was read in extenso. _ Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. I object, unless there be some satisfactory 

explanation. 

Mr. BLAND. I object, unless some good reason shall be given for 

the passage of the bill. What is the difficulty about the pension now? 

The SPEAKER. Is the objection insisted upon? 

Mr. BLAND. Yes. I call for the regular order. 

LEAVE TO PRINT. 

Mr. THOMAS. I will of necessity be al)sent to-day, and therefore 

I ask unanimous consent for leave to print some additional remarks in 

connection with those I submitted on Saturday last on the bill for the 

relief of cadet-engineers. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection, and it is ordered 

accordingly. 

SALE OF NAVAL VESSELS. 

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a privileged report from 

the Committee on Expenditures in the Navy Department. I report 

back 'the following resolution with the recommendation that it be 

adopted. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

.Resolioed, ThattheSecreta.ryofthe Navy be, and is hereby, requested to report to this House at as early a date as practicableFil'St. The names of the vessels of the United States which have been taken to pieces or removed by virtue of the provisions of the act approved March 3, 

1883, and the pla.oes where such vessels were broken up. Second. The amount of money expended in breaking up the said vessels, sep- arately stated for each vessel. 

Third. What disposition has been made of the old materials derived from sa.id 

vessels, and if the sa.id materials have been sold, the a.mount of money realized 

from such sa.le, sepamtely stated for each vessel, and the disposition thereof. 

Fourth. The names of any other vessels which in the judgment of the Secretary ought to be taken to pieces, stating the reason why the sa.me should not be sold at public auction or on tender, after due advertisement. 

Mr. CALKINS. I ask for the reading of the report. 

Mr. MORSE. I did not think the rules required in a case of this 

kind the submission of a written report. · The SPEAKER. The rules require a written report. 

Mr. CALKINS. And I object unless there is a. written report. 

AGRICULTURAL .APPROPR;IATION BILL. 

!rfr. DIBRELL, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on .Agriculture, reported back the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. 

R. 5261) making appropriations for the .Agricultural Department for the 

fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other ptirp<>Ses, with the rec- ommendation that the amendments of the Senate be non-concurred in. 

The motion was agreed to; and the amendments of the Senate were 

non-concurred in. 

Mr. DIBRELL moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments of the Senate were non-concurred in; and also mov~ that the 

mbtion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is demanded. It is the call of 

States and Territories for the introduction and reference of bills and 

joint resolutions. On this call resOlutions of inquiry addressed to heads 

of Departments are in order, and also resolutions and memorials of 

State and Territorial Legislatures for reference only. 

INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXATION. 

Mr. HERBERT introduced a. bill (H. R. 7085) to reduce internalrevenuetaxation; which was reada.firstand second time, referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. 

BOUNDARIES OF A MEXICAN GRANT IN CALIFORNIA. 

. Mr. HENLEY {by request) introduced a bill (H. R. 7086) to au- thorize a suit to settle the boundaries of the grant known as the Rancho 

Corte deMaderadelPresidio, and for other purposes; which wasread a fu8t and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

ordered to be printed. 

AMENDMENT Oll' REVISED STATUTES. 

Mr. BUDD (by request) introduced a bill (H. R. 7087) to amend 

section 4426 of t-he Revised Statutes of the United States; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

and ordered to be printed. 

CHARLES E. MILES. 

Mr. BISBEE introduced a bill (H. R. 7088) granting a. pension to 

Charles E. Miles; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

the O:>mmittee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

HENRIETTA M. HALLAM. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND introduced a bill (H. R. 7089) granting a pension 

to Henrietta M. Hallam, widow of Samuel Ha.llam, deceased, Company 

B, Sixty-third--- Illinois; which waa read a. first and second time, 

referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be 

printed . 

WILLIAM HAZLE. 

Mr. LAMB introduced a bill (H. R. 7090) for the relief of William 

Hazle; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, all.d ordered to be printed. 

EMPLOYEs OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

Mr. LAMB also introduced a bill {H. R.· 7091) granting leave of ab- sence to theemploy~ofthe Government Printing Office and paywhen 

actually sick; which was read a first and second time, referred to the 

Committee on Labor, and ordered to be printed. 

ANTHONY BEYER. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa., introduced a bill (H. R. 7092) for the 

relief of Anthony Beyer; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

IMPROVEMENT OF BARRACKS, NEWPORT, KY. 

Mr. CLAY introduced a bill (H. R. 7093) to authorize the Secretary 

of War to improve artd enlarge the barracks at Newport, Ky.; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Military 

Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

PRINTING REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION. 

Mr. WILLIS introduced a.joint resolution (H. R.es. 257) for printing 

report of Commissioner of Education for 1882-'83; which was read a 

first and second time, referred to the Committee on Printing, and ordered 

to be printed. 

PORTRAIT OF LA F .A YETT.E. 

Mr. RANNEY. I desire to inlirod.uce ·a. resolution relating to the 

portrait of La Fayette. 

The SPEAKER (after examining the resolution). This is not a. joint 

resolution, and is not in order under this call. 

Mr. RANNEY. I hope it will be entertained by unanimous consent. · The SPEAKER. The Chair can not ask unanimous consent during 

this call. LEMUEL M. BARTLETT. 

Mr. LOVERING introduced a. bill (H. R. 7094) granting a pension ro 

Lemuel M. Bartlett; which was read a first and second time, referred 

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions and ordered to be printed. 

LEWELLYN E. WOODIN. 

Mr. ELDREDGE (by Mr. WINANS, of Michigan) introduced a. bill 

(H. R. 7095) for the relief of Lewellyn E. Woodin; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee OD Indian Affairs, and 

ordered to be printed. 

CHARLES BRANDT. 

Mr. WHITE, of Minnesota, introduced a. bill (H. R. 7096) granting a. pension to Charles Brandt; which was read a. first and secand time, 

referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

ISAAC HARALSON. 

Mr. SINGLETON introduced a. bill (H. R. 7097) for the relief of 

Isaac Haralson; which was read a. first aJtd second time, referred to the 

Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

J. A. BARNHOUSJI:. 

Mr. FYAN introduced a. bill (H. R. 7098) granting a pension to-J. A. 

Barnhouse, Company H, Seventy .. fifth Indiana. Volunteers; which was read a. first and second time, referred to the Committee OR Invalid Pensions, and orQ.ered to be printed .. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD-HOUSE. 4521 

ELIZABETH SMITH. a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

Mr. FIED.LER introduced a bill (H. R. 7099) granting a pension to and ordered to be printed. 

Elizabeth Smith; which was read a first and second time, referred to ANDREW WINTER. 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. Mr. MOREY also introduced a bill (H. R. 7111) forthereliefof AnMRS. GEORGE w. PATTEN. drew Winter; which was read a first and second time, referred to the 

Mr. KEAN introduced a bill (H. R. 7100) granting an increase of Committee on Military .Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

pension to Mrs. George W. Patten; which was read a first and second JIID..TRY ORR. 

time, referred to the Committee on Pensions, and ordered to be printed. Mr. MOREY also introduced a bilJ (H. R. 7112) increasing the penREVENUE-MARINE SERVICE. sion of Henry Ohr; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

Mr. KEAN also presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of the the Committee gn Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

State ofNew Jersey, requesting Congress to pass a bill to promote the PRESLEY M' GEE. 

efficiency of the revenue-marine service; which was referred to the lir. MOREY also introduced a bill (H. R. 7113) granting a pension 

Committee on Commerce. to Presley McGee; which was read a first and second time, referred to OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS, HARBOR OF NEW YORK. the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ord~red to be printed. 

Mr. COX, of New York, introduced a bill (H. R. 7101) to prevent SARAH A. CRAIN. 

obstructiveandinjuriousdeposits within the harborandadjacentwaters Mr. MOREY also introduced a bill (H. R. 7114) granting a pension 

of New York, and to punish and prevent such offenses in conrrection to Sara.h A. Crain; which was read a :first and second time, referred to 

therewith; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Com- the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. ·mittee on Rivers and Harbors, and ordered to be printed. 

MICHAEL COHEN. 

Mr. MULLER introduced a bill (H. R. 7102) for the relief of Michael 

Cohen; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

FOREIGN EMBASSADORS. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York, introducedajointresolution (H. Re.s. 

258) in relation to foreign emba.ssadors; which was read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee on the Rules, and ordered to be 

printed. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I ask that the joint resolution be 

read at le~h; it is brief. 

The joint resolution is as follows: 

Resolved by the &na.te and House of RepresentatitJes of the United. States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be a standing rule in botli Houses of Congress that no member of either House ought to receive or give any visit to or from any foreign agent or embassa-dor, or any other person that a. vows himself to be a public agent or embassador for a foreign country, without the consent of 

the House to which he belongs. 

FRANCIS DANIELS. 

Mr. BURLEIGH introduced a bill (H. R. 7103) for the relief ofFrancis Daniels; which was read a first and second time, referred to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

JAMES A. WHALEN. 

Mr. CAMPBELL, of New York, introduced a bill (H. R. 7104) for 

the relief of James A. Whalen; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee on War qaims, and ordered to be printed. 

NATIONAL B.A.NXING ASSOCIATION. 

Mr. HEWITT, of New York, introduced a bill (H. R. 7105) to amend 

the act authorizing the formation of national banking associations; 

which was read a :first and second time, referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, and ordered to be printed. 

COL. EDWARD ~UN COMBE. 

Mr. VANCE introduced a joint resolution (H. Res. 259) to provide 

for the erection of a monument in memory of Col. Ed ward Buncombe, a Revolutionary soldier of the State of North Carolina; which was read a :first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Library, and 

ordered to be printed. 

THOMAS MATHEWS AND OTHERS. 

Mr. NUTTING introduced a bill (H. R. 7106) for the relief of Thomas 

Mathewsandothers; which wasreadafirstandsecond time, referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. 

MRS. LOUISA NOLAND. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio, introduced a bill (H. R. 7117) granting a 1 

pension to Mrs. Louisa Noland; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be 

printed. TERRITORY OF ALASKA . 

Mr. JORDAN introduced a bill (H. R. 7108) to facilitate the settlement and to develop the resources of the Territory of Alaska, and to 

open an overland communication therewith; which wasreadafirstand 

second time, referred to the Committee on the Territories, and ordered to 

be printed. ROBERT A. JOHNSTON. 

Mr. FOLLETT introduced a bill (H. R. 7109) for the relief of Robert A. Johnston, of Cincinnati, Ohio; which was read a first and second 

time, referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to be 

printed. 

SIXTY-SECO~'"D REGIMENT PENNSYLVANIA INFANTRY. 

Mr. HOPKINS introduced a bill (H. R. 7115) for the payment of 

bounty hitherto withheld from the volunteers of the Sixty-second RegimentofPennsylvaniainfantry; which was 'read a first and second time, 

referred to the Select Committee on Payment of Pensions, Bounty, and 

Back Pay, and ordered to be printed. 

BREVET RANK UNITED STATES ARMY. 

Mr. HOPKINS also introduced a bill (H. R. 7116) relating to brevet 

rank in the United States Army; which was read a first and second 

time, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be 

printed. . 

1 GEORGE T. M1

CORMICK. 

Mr. CURTIN introduced a bill (H. R. 7117) granting a pension to 

George T. McCormick; which was read a :first and second time, referred 

to the Committee on Invalid ~ensions, and ordered to be print.ed. 

NATIONAL SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY, WASHINGTON. 

Mr. BARR introduced a bill (H. R. 7118) to amend an act entitled 

"An act to incorporate the National Safe Deposit Company of Washington, in the District of Columbia,'' approved Jan nary 22, 1867; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed. 

JOHN H. BRUNING. 

Mr. DIBBLE introduced a bill (H. R. 7119) for the relief of John H. 

Bruning, asignee of Frederick Jager; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be 

printed. GEORGE JACOB HUTHM.ACHER. 

Mr. DIBBLE also introduced a bill (H. R. 7120) for the relief of 

George Jacob Huthmacher; which was read a :first and time, referred 

to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

JAMES B. GUTHRIE. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Tennessee, introduced a bill (H. R. 7121) topay 

to James B. Guthrie, late postmaster at Paris, Henry County, Tenn~ 

see, the amount paid by him to the Government on account of loss of 

package in 1875 when his office was broken into, &c.; which was read 

a :first and second time. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be referred to the Committee on 

Claims. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Tennessee. I move that it be referred to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

The motion was agreed to; and the bill was referred to the Committee on t.he Post-Office and I'ost-Roads, and ordered to be printed. 

COURTS IN TENNESSEE. 

Mr. CALDWELL introduced a bill (H. R. 7122) to establish a district and circuit court at Clarksville, Tenn. ; which was read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered 

to be printed. MRS. ANN B. ARMSTRONG. 

Mr. CALDWELL also introduced a bill (H. R .. 7123) for the relief · 

of Mrs. Ann B. Armstrong; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

JOHN C. GILLUM. 

Mr. CALDWE.LL also introduced a bill {H. R. 7124) for the relief of 

John C. Gillum; which was read a :first and second time, referred to the 

Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

STEWART COLLEGE, MONTGOMERY ' COUNTY, TE~NESSEE. 

AMENDMENT OF PENSION LAWS. Mr. CALDWELL also introduced a bill (H. R. 7125) for the reliefof 

Mr. MOREY introduced a bill (II. R 'nH>) grantingapension to all thetrusteesofStewart College, Montgomery County, Tennessee; which 

honorably discharged soldiers and -sailol'S of the war of the rebellion was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War 

who are now or may hereafter become 45 years of age; which was read Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
.4522 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

DICK MUMFORD. JOHN DEITER. 

Mr. CALDWELL also introduced a bill {H. R. 7126) for the relief of Mr. BUCKNER {by request) introduced a bill (H. R.. 7142) for the 

Dick Mumford; which was read a first and second time, referred to the relief of John Deiter; which was read a first and second time, referred 

Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. • to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

JOHN M. MEICLE. SHIPLEY, SMITH & CO. 

Mr. CALDWELL also introduced a bill (H. R. 7127) for the relief . Mr. FINDLAY mtroduced a bill (H. R. 7143) for the reliefofShip· 

of John M. Meicle; which was read a first and second time, referred ley, Smith & Co.; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. the Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. 

WILLI.A.l\1 TERRELL. 

Mr. CALDWELL also introduced a bill (H. R. 7128) for the relief 

of William Terrell; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

WILLIAM BILLINGS. 

Mr. OCHILTREE introduced a bill (H. R. 7129) for the relief of 

William Billings, postmaster at Victoria, Tex.; which was read a first 

and second time, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to 

be printed. 

H.ARRIET R. HARRINGTON. 

Mr. POLAND introduced a bill (H. R. 7130) granting a pension to 

Harriet R. Harrington; which was read a first and second time, Ieferred 

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

SUITS FOR DAMAGES IN THE DISTRICT. 

Mr. POLAND also introduced a bill (H. R. 7131) ~authorize suits 

for damages where death resulted from the wrongful act or neglect of 

any corporation in the District of Colqmbia; which was read a firstand 

second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered 

to be printed. 

JAMES E. THUMLERT. 

Mr. FINDLAY also introduced a bill (H. R. 7144) for the relief of 

James E. Thumlert, administrator; which was read a first and second 

time, referred to the Com~ittee on Ways and Means, ·and ordered to 

be printed. 

NORMAN K.AUFM.AN. 

Mr. FINDLAY also introduced a bill (H. R. 7145) granting a pension to Norman Kaufman; which was read a first and second time, re- ferred to the Committee on Invalid J;>ensions, and ordered to be printed. 

MRS. C. THOMAS. 

1\Ir. BROWNE, of Indiana (by request), introduced a bill (H. R. 7146) 

granting a pension to Mrs. C. Thomas; which was read a :first and sec- ond time, referred to the Committee on Pensions, and ordered to be 

printed. 

EDWARD WEST. 

1\lr. BROWNE, of Indiana (by request), also introduced a bill (H. 

R. 7147) granting a pension to Edward West; which was read a first 

and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and 

ordered to be printed. 

JOHN B. GOODIE. ELIZA . MURPHY. 

Mr. KASSON (by Mr. POLAND) introduced a bill (H. R. 7132) for Mr. CULLEN (by request) introduced a bill (H. R. 7148) for therethe relief of John B. Goodie; which was read a first and second time, liefofEliza. Murphy; which was read a first and second time, referred 

referred totheCommitteeoninvalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

JOSEPH E. WILSON. 

Mr. HANCOCK introduced a bill (H. R. 7133) for the relief of Joseph 

E. Wilson; which wa-s read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. ' 

HEIRS OF DOC B. SHERMAN. 

Mr. LACEY introduced a bill (H. R. 7134) granting a pension to the 

heirs of Doc B. Sherman; which was read a first and second time, re- ferred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

JOHN BROWN .AND OTHERS. 

Mr. LIBBEY introduced a bill (H. R. 7135) for the relief of John 

Brown, James Payne,andA. G. Lee; which was readafirstandsecond 

time, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

EDW .ARD T.A.TERS.A.LL. 

Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia, introduced a bill (H. R. 7136) for 

the relief of Edward Tatersall; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee on Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

STEAM RAILROADS IN W .A.SHINGTON 1 D. C. 

Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia (by request), also introduced a bill 

(H. R. 7137) to define the routes of steam railroads entoring the city 

of Washington, and for other purposes; which was read a first and sec- ond· time, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and 

ordered to be printed. 

MATHIAS WONDR.A.K. 

Mr. DEUSTER introduced a bill (H. R. 7138) granting a pension to 

Mathias Wondrak; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

PENSION L.A WS. 

Mr.· DEUSTER also introduced a bill (H. R. 7139) supplementary 

to an act entitled ''An act to revise, consolidate, and amend the laws 

relating to pensions," approved March 3, 1873; which was read a first 

and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and 

ordered to be printed. • 

NIELS OL.A. VUS THORSEN. 

Mr. GUENTHER introduced a bill (H. R. 7140) to pay Niels Olavus 

Thorsen the sum of $100 for arrears of bounty; which was read a first 

and second time, referred to the Select Committee on Payment of Penmons, Bounty, and Back Pay, and ordered to be printed. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER. . This completes the call of States and Territories. 

If there be no objection the Chair will now recognize gentlemen who 

were not in their seats when their names were called for the introduction of bills and joint resolutions for reference. 

There was no objection. 

• DA~~EL W. ADAMS. 

Mr. MATSON introduced a bill (H. R. 7141) granting a pension to 

Daniel W. Adams; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

JOHN S. L.AW. 

· Mr. HITT introduced a bill (H. R. 7149) for the relief of John S. 

Law, late veterinary surgeon Third New York Cavalry; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

and ordered to be printed. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER. This being the fourth Monday of the month, the 

session of the day after the call of States and Territories is set apart by 

order ofthe House for the consideration of business from the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. I call up, as a question of privilege, the 

contested-election case ·of Jonathan H. Wallace vs. William McKinley, 

jr., from the eighteenth Congressional district of Ohio. · ' 

The RPEAKER. Ifthere be no objection, the Chair will lay before 

the Hou.-,e certain executive communications. 

There was no objection. 

CAPE HENLOPEN BEACON. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of 

the Treasury, transm.i tting a communication from the Light-House Board 

concerning the threatened destruction of Cape Henlopen beacon, and asking an immediate appropriation of $25,000 for the removal of lights and 

fog-signal to the end of the Delaware breakwater; which was referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations. 

LIGHT·HOUSE ON LUDLAM'S ISLAND, NEW JERSEY. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary 

of the Treasury, transmitting a communication from the Light-House 

Board recommending an appropriation at the present session of $5,000 

for the establishment of a light-house on Ludlam's Island, New Jersey; 

which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

COLUMBIA HOSPITAL, ETC. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary 

of the Interior, transmitting a letter of the secretary of the Columbia 

Hospital for Women and Lying-in Asylum, in referenceto a claim for 

taxes amounting to $13,388.88, which had accrued on the site of the 

hospital prior to its purchase by the Government; and recommending 

the remission of a portion thereof and an appropriation for the payment· 

of the residue. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. This question is now being considered by the 

Committee on Appropriations, and I move that the communication be 

referred to that committee: 

The motion was agreed to. 

LE.A VE OF .ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was grruited as follows: 

To Mr. JoNES, of Arkansas, for this day, on account ofsickness. 

MUSTER AND P .A. Y OF CERTAIN VOLUNTEERS.· 

Mr: STEELE. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. TURNER] yields 

to me to call up the bill (H. R. 365) to provide for the muster and pay 

of certain office~ and enlisted men of the volll;!lteer forces, which has 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORP-HOUSE.· · 4523 

been returned from the Senatewithan amendment. I desire to move a -concurrence in the amendment of the Senate. 

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. If it gives rise to no debate I will not 

()bject. 

The SPEAKER. The amendment of the Semite will be read, after 

which the Chair will ask for objection. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

That the joint resolution· approved .July 11, 1870, entitled ".Joint resolution 

amendatory of' .Joint resolution for the relief of certain officers of the Army,'" approved July 26,1866, is hereby so amended and shall be so construed that in 

all cases arising under the same any person who was duly appointed and com- missioned, whether his commission was actually received by him or not, shall 

be considered as commissioned to the grade therein named from the date when 

his commission was actually issued by competent authority, and shall be en- titled to all pay ltlld emolumentsas ifactuallymusteredatsuch date: Provided, 

That at the date of his commission he was actually performing the duties of the 

grade to which he was so commissioned, or, if not so performing such duties, 

then from such time after the date of his commission as he may have actually 

entered upon such duties: Andpromded further, That any person held as a pris- oner of war or who may have been absent by reason of wounds or in hospital by reason of disability received in the service in the line of duty at the date of 

his commission, if a. vacancy existed for him in the grade to which so commissioned, shall be entitled to the same pay and emoluments as if actually per- forming the duties of the grade to which he was commissioned and actually mustered at such date: And prwided furth~, That this act and the resolution 

hereby amended shall be construed to apply only in those cases where the com- mission bears date prior to June 20, 1863, or after that date when their com- mands were not below the minimum number required by existing laws and 

Tegulations: And pro'!fided further, That the pay and allowances actually re- -ceived shall be deducted from the sums to be paid under this act. SEC. 2. That the heirs or legal representatives of any officer whose muster into the service has been or shall be amended hereby shall be entitled to receive 

-the arrears of pay due such officer, and the pension, if any, authorized by law, 

for the grade -into which such officer is mustered under the provision~ of this :act. SEC. 3. That all claims arising under this act· shall be presented to and filed in 

the proper Department within three years from and after the passage hereof, 

.and all such claims not so presented and filed within said three years shall be 

forever barred, and no allowance ever made thereon. · SEC. 4. That the pay and allowances of a rank or grade paid to and received 

by any military or naval officer in good faith for services actually performed by f!uch officer in such rank or grade during the war of the rebellion shall not be 

-charged to or recovered back from such officer because of any defect in the title -of such officer to the office, rank, or grade in which such services were so actu- :ally performed. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the consideration of this 

.amendment? 

Mr. COX, of North Carolina. Is this a Senate bill? 

The SPEAKER. It is a House bill with a Senate amendment in ·the form of a substitute. · The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. STEELE] 

-desires that the House concur. If there be no objection the amendment of the Senate will be concurred in. 

There was no objection, and it was· ordered accordingly. 

Mr. STEELE moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 

.of the Senate was concurred in; and also moved that the motion to 

Ieconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

OHIO ELECTION CONTEST-W AL.LAOE VS. M'KINLEY. 

The SPEAKER. The ~entleman from Georgia [Mr. TURNER] having called up the contested-election case from the eighteenth Congres-

-sional district of Ohio, the Clerk will read the resolutions reported by 

the majority of the Committee on Elections. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resol11ed, That William McKinley, jr., was not elected a membe.r of the Forty- -eighth Congress, and is not entitled to a. seat in this House. 

.Resol11ed, That Jon a than H. W a.llace was elected a. member of the Forty-eighth .COngress, and is entitled to a. seat in this House. • 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will inquire whether the minority of 

the Committee on Elections desire to offer a substitute for the resolutions just read ? 

Mr. RANNEY. The resolutions of t}le minority are appended to 

their views as printed. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will now read the resolutions proposed 

by the minority of the Committee on Elections, which, as the Chair un- -derstands, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] now ()ffers as a substitute for the resolutions of the majority of the com- mittee. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

.Resol11ed, ThA.t Jonathan H. Wallace was not elected as• a Representative to "the Forty-eighth Congress from the ei~hteenth Congressional district of Ohio . .Resolved, That William McKinley, Jr., was duly elected, and is entitled to Tetain his seat. 

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. If there be no objection, I ask that the 

Teading of the reports in this case bewaived. Onaccountofthelength 

<>f these reports I would be glad to save the time which their reading 

would require. An intimation has been made that this proposition 

will be satisfactory. 

Mr. RANNEY. r have made no such intimation. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I insist on their being read. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Would it not be satisfactory if the reports 

should be printed in the REcoRD without reading? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Very well. 

The SPEAKER. The reports can not be read as a mere matter of 

Tight. Any gentleman who desires the reading may call for it in his <>wn time. 

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. Then I have no objection to the proposition of the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR] 

that the reports be printed in the RECORD without reading. 

Mr. RANNEY. That will be satisfactory. · , The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the report of the majority 

oftheCommitteeon Elections, together with the views ofthe minority, 

will be printed in the RECORD. 

Mr. TURNER, of Kentucky. I object. Any gentleman who desires 

it can call for the reading of the reports in his own time; otherwise I 

do not think we should encumber the RECORD in this way. 

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there are two occasions in 

the life of a man engaged in the public service on which he is entitled 

to congratulate himself. The first occurs when be is praised by both 

parties, and the other when he is abused by both parties. Of 'the en- joymentwhich grows out of this lattersituation I have had in this case a full surfeit. I have been accused l?Y the journals of my own party 

of too much deliberation in the conduct of this case. To that impea-ch- _ment I shall make no reply. On the other hand, by the organs of the 

opposite party I have been accused of a purpose to sacrifice the gentle- man from Ohio [Mr. McKINLEY] on accountofhis political opinions. 

As to whether or not the Committee on Elections are amenable to this 

criticism will depend on the manner in which they present this case. I shall make no specific reply to these denunciations, but upon the facts 

and upon the law of the case I will go to the country without fear of 

the consequences. 

I desire to add, just at the threshold, that for whatever of wrong 

may accrue to the honorable gentleman from Ohio I take _my full share 

of accountability. I know that the responsibility is large. I recognize the distinction of the gentleman who occupies the disputed seat. 

I testify to the fair and orderly manner in which this contest has been 

conducted by the parties and their counsel, and I concede that it will 

be incumbent on me to give a good reason for the judgment I shall invoke from the House of Representatives. 

That reason, Mr. Speaker, I shall now endeavor to give. At the 

Congressional election held in the eighteenth district of Ohio on the 

loth of October, 1882, there were four candidates. These candidates were William McKinley, jr., Jonathan H. Wallace, Lemuel T. Foster, 

and James A. Brash. The first was the Republican candidate, the ~nd was the Democratic candidate, and the other two were respectively the Greenback and the Prohibition candidates. 

The first question is, what did the returns prescribed by law show as the result of these rival candidacies? I ask the attentive consideration 

of gentlemen to the figures. For William McKinley, jr., there were 

certified 16,906 votes, and for Jonathan H. Wallace 16,898votes. Gentlemen may easily deduct the one from the other and show a majority 

of votes for Mr. McKinley over the contestant of 8 votes. As I understand1 that was the basis upon which the certificate was issued to the 

sitting member. 

Now let us look further into these same returns. •Not going behind 

them, but taking them on their face, what did the facts show? For 

John H. Wallace there were certified 4 votes; for l\Iajor Wallace, 1 vote; 

for Wallace without any title or initial, 5 votes; for W. H. Wallace, 2; 

for W. W. Wallace, 1; for Jonathan Wallace, 5; for Maj. Wallace, 3; and 

for J. H. Wallace, 2. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know on what principle any gentleman here can exclude Jonathan Wallace's votes from Jonathan H. 

Wallace? 

Where the opposing candidates were McKinley and Wallace, and 

these surnames were the rallying cries of the two great parties and 

known of all men, would any fair man exclude a ballot that contained 

either of these names without more? I would like to know on what 

principle Major Wallace with the full military title should be treated 

as a different person from Maj. Wallace with the military title abbreviated? I affirm, sir, there bas never been a time·when the votes I 

have designated would have ever been excluded or rejected because of 

their variation from the full and complete name of the candidate. 

Adding these votes thus cast for ' Wallace," for "Jonathan Wallace," for " Major Wallace," for " Maj. Wallace," and " J. H. Wallace," sixteen in all, to the votes certified for Jonathan H. Wallace, 

the positions of the parties are exactly reversed, and the contestant has over his competitora majorityofeight. Byall tbernlesoflogic, byall 

the rules of law, I insist that the burden of proof is shifted from the 

contestant to the sitting member. N 6 lawyer will deny that position. 

Now, 1lfr. Speaker, as to votes cast for John H. Wallace, W. W. 

Wallace, and W. H. Wallace, seven in number, I desire to say a word: 

The facts show that there was no other candidate -competing for this 

place by the name of Wallace throughout the district, and there was much scratching of l\fr. McKinley's name, for reasons that will appear 

in the course of this debate. There were no ballots on which these names were printed; but in every case they appear in the written characters on the printed ticket of the sittingmemberwitb his name erased. 

The ballot is secret in Ohio, and each voter may arrange his ticket as he pleases. It is noi strange that mistakes occurred. The intention 

of the voter is, however, manifest from the ticket, in the light of the 

circumstances. 

I desire to advert to a very late precedent established by the House. 
. , 

4524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

I refer to the ca.se of Abbott vs. Frost, page 614, Contested Elections 

1871-1876. I read now from the report of the committee: 

It is also unanimously agreed that a.ll the votes set forth in the following table 

shall be counted for the contestant and contestee, respectively, the same as if 

the votes had been cast for them with their full names. Josiah G. Abbott, of 

BostonWhich was the correct name of the candidatehad 6 511 votes. Judge Abbott had 2 votes; Josiah G. Abbott had 4 votes· Jo· 

siah G. Abbott, of Ckelsea, had 5 votes; Abbott, of Chelsea, had 1 vote; P. G. .Abbott had 1 vote; J. G. Abbott had 2 votes; Abbott had 6 votes; J. G. Abbott, of Chelsea, had 2 votes. 

Making a total of 23 ballots that involved some slight variations 

from the correct designation of the Democratic candidate. Now let us 

go to the other side, and we will find that " Rufus S. Frost," which is 

the proper designation of the candidate, had 6, 721 votes: 

Rufus S. Frost, of Chelsea, had 6,721 votes; Benjamin Frost, of Chelsea., had 1 vote; Rufus S. Frost ha.d 1 vote; Frost, of Chelsea, had 1 vote; Rufus S. Frost, of Boston, had 3 votes; R. S. Frost, of Chelsea., had 2 votes. 

It was a decision in accordance with the general principle which inclines every patriot and liberty-loving citizen to cast all the presumption in favor of the popular right. I stand, sir, upon a platform which 

demands that no narrow punctilios, no hair·splitting scruples shall 

be set up by any board of precinct judges or returning board or court 

to nullify the popular- will. Adding these votes upon which I have 

just commented, it will be found that there are 23 votes to be carried 

to the contestant's ca.se, making for him a majority of 15 votes at this 

stage of the controversy. . 

Now, sir, I am met here with the views of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] who has presented the minority report. He 

undertakes in his report to save from criticism the canva.ssing board of 

the State of Ohio. It is no part of my purpose to indulge in any strict- ~es upon that board, consisting in part as it did of the governor of 

that great State. I have no heart to inveigh against the conduct of an officer whose dignity is the highest under our system of government 

excepting only the Presidential office. But I desire to call attention 

to the authoritywhich comes tome from thesupremecourtofthe State 

of Ohio in a case which originated in another Congressional district of 

that State at the same time with this case. I refer to the ca.se of Campbell against Morey. In that case it appears that on the face of the returns votes were certified as cast for 

"Henry L. Morey," and also it appeared that votes had been certified 

as cast for" H. L. Morey." Following the precedent which has been 

set by the board in the case of W alla.ce against McKinley, a mandamus 

was issued at the instance of Campbell against Morey in order to test 

this question of hair-splitting-no, I will withdraw that word, because 

I do not mean to apply it to the governor of a State. 

The petition for mandamus recited that so many thousand votes had 

been cast for Henry L. Morey. It also showed that several thousand 

votes had been certified for H. L. 1\Iorey, and prayed the supremecourt 

to compel the returning board to treat these votes as cast for different 

persons; their duty, it was said, being merely ministerial So the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] contends in his report. 

NowJ sir, when Campbell sought that high forum in order to have a 

decision of this question so narrow and technical, that court stated 

what I will now read: 

It is not claimed in this proceeding for mandamus that H. L. Morey, for whom 

5,517 votes were returned from Clermont County, is in fact a different person from Henry L. Morey for whom the votes were returned from the other coun· ties. 

of the certificate to the sitting member on a close ca.se, they would have 

omitted to have counted every item and syllable of this ca.se with the 

minutest zeal and with the most punctilious care is to impose on my 

intelligence. 

Why, sir, those returns were counted up and added and re-examined 

a thousand times before that certificate was issued. There were probably bets made on that election. There were gentlemen of different 

parties present at every stage of the count contesting and litigating the 

result. To assume that in the 'addition of the votes given in a single 

column of :figures there could be an error against the sitting member 

is too preposterous on its face to require further elaboration. 

But let me specifY the manner in which the minority of the com- mittee have sought to establish this error in the count. I am giving 

examples of the manner in which the rights of the sitting member to 

this seat are being presented to the House and to the country. If gentlemen will turn to page 46 of the record they will see in the tabulated 

statement of the vote of Carroll County that the footings showed for 

Mr. McKinley a certain number of votes and for Jonathan H. Wallace 

1,497 votes. Now run up the column which results in this aggregation, and it will be found that the summation of the figures as they 

are printed here would make, iBstead of the number I have given, 1, 487, 

and hence on that basis the minority of the committee claim that there was an error of ten votes in the :figures in favor of the contestant and 

against the sitting member. 

How easy it is, Mr. Speaker, to explode an error the allegation of 

which on its face is absurd and monstrous. Look back to the previous 

page, and it will be found in the certificate of the officers in which they 

give the itemized result in words and letters and :figures and specificaJ.ly 

certify that the contestant received . in that county the vote I have 

stated, 1,497. 

Now, sir, I remember that on a late occasion, when I had the happi- ness to agree with my learned friend from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY], 

there was a return· from the county of Tate, in the State of Mississippi, on one · side of which return there appeared so many votes in words 

and letters and :figures as cast for a man named J. R. Chalmers; in a 

tabulated statement on the back of the paper there appeared not the name of J. R. Chalmers, but the name of J. R. Chambless. I said then 

that the returning board of the State of Mississippi, whose good name I love, ha;d erred in treating that paper as a return for J. R. Chambless. 

How did the gentleman from Massachusetts stand then? I have 

before me the remarks made by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] on that occasion: 

With the fact then patent on the record, as already stated, that the secretary· of state falsified the return aa to the matter of count, when he was merely a. ministerial officer, whose duty it was simply to sum up the returns and ascer- tain who had the greater number of votes and declare him elected and certify that fact to the governor, who was thereupon required by law t-o issue the com· mission accordingly; with the further fact before us that the secretary of state 

falsified the return upon a mere pretext, without even the air of plausibility to excuse him, that there was no such man as Chambless who had run in that 

election, no such man in the district, and the secretary of state probably knew 

it-with these facts patent before us, what are we to conclude? 

There the gentleman said that the secretary of state might act on other information than that which the returns contain. Here the gentle- man stickles for a different principle. 

Mr. RANNEY. Will the gentleman allow me amomentrightthere? 

Mr. TURNER, ofGeorgia. The gentleman will have full opportunity to reply to me in his own time. · 

Mr. RANNEY. I want to caJl attention to one tact which distinguishes that ca.se from this. · Again, sir, that high court said: Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. The gentleman can do it in his own If H. L . Morey and Henry L. Morey designate the same person, as appears · I tated · th t d 1 th t · th tte to from the returns read in the light of such facts of public notoriety connected time. t was s ill a case-an suppose a 18 e rna r with the election as every one takes notice of, the defendants have performed which the gentleman from Massachusetts intends now to caJl my attentheir duty correctly in giving the certificate to Henry L. Morey. tion-that the tabulated statement in the case was no part of the return. 

This high authority settles the principle that the returning board That was one of the questio~ involved in the case. Some gentlemen 

may take notice of .such facts of public notoriety as everybody else is on this side insisted that that was the usual form in which returns in 

bound to notice, and a.ssumes that prima facie H. L. Morey and Henry Mississippi were made; others, the gentleman from Massachusetts 

L. Morey were one and the same person. This ~ecision is found in the among them, insisted that it was no part of the return. 

record of the case of Campbell against Morey, printed by the present There is another principle in the case from Mississippi to which I 

House. wish to apply this argumentum ad hominem. The gentleman from Ohio 

Now, if the returning board in the ca.se to which I have just ad- who occupies this seat [Mr. McKinley] filed an answer in this case verted had applied to that case the artificial rules which prevail in this, in which the canvass was a matter of contention, and on which the 

then instead of Mr. MOREY being a member of this House .Mr. Camp- sitting member in :five different places in his answer admits distinctly 

bell would have occupied the seat. I say that the returning board of that aggregation of the returns which gives to contestant 1,497 votes 

Ohio decided rightly in the case of Campbell against Morey, and I re- from the county of Carroll. 

spectfully and deferentially suggest that that high tribunal, the can- The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY], in the ca.se to 

vassing board of Ohio, decided wrong in the ca.se now on trial. which I have just referred, took the p<>E!ition that when the parties came 

There are other questions involved in this record which will increase to make up their pleadings and the member declared elected bad concontestant's majority to 30 when the reply on the other side has been fessed or traversed the grounds of the contest, and the issues were thus 

fully presented. made up in a regular and orde:dy way, then there could be no controJ come now to notice a reply made to this branch of the case by the versy about the facts which were admitted. I have here in the record 

gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] in his report. It is stated of the speech from which I have already read the doctrine solemnly laid 

in that report that.a close examination of the returns from the county down by the gentleman from Massachusetts that parties are concluded 

of Carroll in this district will show on their face an error against the by the admissions which they make in their answers, and upon which 

sitting member of 10 votes. This proposition, I will not say amazes admissio?s the oth.er parties act in the ~king of testimony .and in the me but I will say that it amuses me. I preparation of therr cases. That question about the error ill the footTo suppose for one moment that, at an election held by partisan of- ing never was raised until the case had come before the Committee of 

:ficers presiding over the returns at every stage of it up 1:.9 the issuance Elections; it was raised there for the first time. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4525 

Paasing all these positions which I have taken as conclusively reinstating the integrity of these returns and the correctness of the addition of these votes, I desire to overwhelm and confute a.ny thought of 

controversy on this question by a certificate sent from the county of 

Carroll since that question was raised. I hold in my hand a certificate 

from the clerk of Carroll County, in which the figures are given in the 

column in dispute so as to show in one place 134 votes for Wallace -instead of 124, as in the copy in the record to which I have referred. It 

dwindles into a mere mistake of the copyist. 

I have reinstated my position if evidence is worth anything, if reason 

is worth anything, if authority can avail. I have demonstrated that 

this contestant has on the face of the returns a clear majority over the 

sitting member of 15 votes. 

In parting with the case at this stage of the discussion, with the burden of proof on the other party and the relations of the pa,rties inverted, I propose to leave to my colleague on the committee and to his 

associates the opportunity of presenting the defense which the sitting 

member makes in this case. Let him state it in his own way. I invoke for him a fair and candid consideration of all the propositions he 

ma.y ad vance. He arraigns me in his report tor having rendered a general verdict. I 

recriminate and say that the gentleman himself has on his part rendered fifty general verdicts; that instead of giving this evidence as I 

understand it, and as I think it ought to be given, he has, no doubt 

unconsciously and without any intention to be unfair, synopsized that 

evidence so as to do this contestant, in my judgment, the greatest wrong. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would ask the gentleman if he has not stated 

generally his propositions in his report, and now proposes to state them 

generally on the floor, without going into the details of the case, but to save that for the end of debate'? 

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 

RoBERTSON] will have his opportunity to state his case. Mr. ROBERTSON. I would like the gentleman to state his position 

on this contested case. :Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. I propose to let the gentleman from 

Massachusetts, the gentleman from Kentucky, and all others who con- cur with them in their conclusions, state their own views to the House, 

and, if they can, confute every general assertion which I have made. I 

promise in the fUrther progres.."'- of this debate to demonstrate to every 

fair-minded man on either side of this House that before you can con- firm the sitting member in his seat you must reject votes contrary to 

law, give him the benefit of all doubts, and deduct from the contestant 

votes to which he is clearly entitled. 

In turning over this case for the defense which is to be made, I do 

not ask that the House accept my statement on the issues of fact and 

law which still lie in my path, and on which I ask the House to hear 

tlie gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. RoBERTsON] and those who agree 

with him in opinion. All I ask (and that I demand) is that gentle- men shall reserve their judgment on these questions until they have 

heard the entire debate. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has eleven minutes remaining. 

Mr. RANNEY. May I ask the gentleman a question? 

Mr. TURNER of Georgia. You may out of your own time. 

Mr. HEPBURN. Mr. Speaker, this case of Wallace vs. McKinley is one which has received very patient attention at the hands of the Committee on Elections. It is a case the record of which shows thab more than two hundred and fifty witnesses were examined. There are more than one hundred distinct controverted ptoposi tions of fact. · After much 

time was devoted to the case a conclusion or conclusions were at length 

rea,ched. We have here what is called a majority report. Whether 

that has "ever received the sanction of a majority of th~ committee I am not yet informed. So far as my knowledge goes, so ·far as any expression has ever been had, there are but six of the fifteen members com- posing the Committee on Elections who have concurred in those conclusions. So far as expression has been had the majority of that committee have declared that in their judgment the sitting member was elected 

by 67 majority, and being so elected is entitled to retain his seat upon 

this floor. · In view of the large vote polled in the eighteenth Congressional district in Qhio in the year 1882 the election was a very close one. About 

35,000 votes were cast. The difference in ihe votes cast for the parties 

to this contest is probably 67-an approa,ch toward equality that should 

induce gentlemen who desire that exact justice attend their action to 

give careful attention to the matters in dispute. 

On the face of the returns the sitting member had a majority over Jonathan H. W aJlace of 8 votes, and, the canvassing board so finding, 

the certificate was given to McKinley. But the returns made by the 

election boards of the respective counties to the State board of canvassers reveal the fact that there were, in addition to the votes cast for McKinley and for Jonathan H. Wallace, 4 votes cast for John H. Wallace, 1 

for Major Wallace, 3 for Maj. Wallaee, 2 for W. H. Walla{le, 1 for W. 

W. Wallace, 5 for Jonathan Wallace, and 2 votes fer J. H. Wallace. 

These, aggregating 23, were not coun~for Jonathan H. Wallace, and 

the failure to so count them excites t:b.'e'cnticism of the committee, who 

say ''there can be no doubt that the certificate should liave been issued to 

the contestant and he should have been the occupant of the seat, with it8 

honors and emoluments." The majority of the committee say there 

can be no doubt upon this question. We think that this poRi.tive ex- pression is indulged in without sufficiently inquiring as to the duties 

and powers of the canvassing board. To me the question does not seem to be material here, except as it is used by the majority as a basis on which to shift the burden of proof, and to exhibit the contestant as a deeply wronged sufferer, entitled to the commiseration and sympathy 

of the House. The duty of the State canvassing board is fixed by sec- tion 2986 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, which reads as follows: 

Within ten days after the first day of December next after such election, the 

governor and secretary of state shall, in the office of the secretary of state, in 

the presence of the auditor of state and attorney-general, open the returns of 

abstract number 2, made to the secretary of state, for State commissioner of common schools, member·of the board of public works, judge of the supreme 

court, clerk of the supreme court, and Representative to Congress for each Congressional district; and if it appear that the returns have been received from all 

the counties, agreeably to the provisions of this chapter, the governor and sec- retary of state shall forthwith proceed to ascertain thenumberofvotes given for 

the different persons for such offices. 

The governor and secretary of state ''shall forth with proceed to ascer- tain the number of votes given for the different persons for such offices.'' 

Their duties are purely ministerial. They have no judicial functions 

whatever. They are not permitted to receive evidence to ascertain 

whether the elector, when he used the name of W. W. Wallace, intended 

to vote for Jonathan H. Wallace, nor yet to inquire into the life of contestant so far as to know him to be entitled to the prefix of maj., and thus 

·create the presumption that when a vote was cast for Maj. Wallace 

the voter had in his mind the ~tary prowess and an~entB of 

Jonathan H. I can not think the board was invested with such judicial power as would have authorized this inquiry. Its powers were limited to a scrutiny of the returns, and its results must be those that 

with certainty could be ascertained from the returns. The rule governing the governor and secretary of state differed widely frQm the one to be followed by a court having jurisdiction in election contests or by this House. Here we exercise judicial functions, and the whole 

range of facts, circumstances, and other environments are open to our scrutiny. And in this examination it may well be suggested that 

under the Constitution this House is and must be the sole judge of the 

election, returns, and qualifications of its members, and the authority 

cited by contestant might well be regarded as an utterance where the 

quoted court were without jurisdiction of the subject-matter discussed. 

But while we deny to the canvassing board the right to determine 

questions that, if considered, might result in the counting of certain of 

these votes for contestant, yet this House undoubtedly possesses that 

right. It has the right to examine this contention in the light of "the 

facts of public notoriety connected with the election '' that are properly 

brought to its attention by and through the proofs, and I am willing 

to concede that all of those ambiguous votes returned that are ex- plained and made plain by the facts of public notoriety established by 

the proofs ought in justice to be counted for contestant. I find tAat 

the votescastforWallace, J. H. Wallace, Jonathan Wallace, and Major 

Wallace, in view of the fact that contestant's name is Jonathan H. Wallace, are ambiguous. It is not certain, looking at the ticket alone, 

that these votes were intended for him; but in view of the facts of public notoriety, aided by these facts, that he was a candidate nominated 

by his party, that his surname sometimes bore the military prefix of 

major, that to those who knew of his affectionate yearnings he was called Jonathan, while still others who knew of his propensity to come at the slightest call officeward seductively called him Wallace-! say 

that in the light of these facts of general and public notoriety we 

may solve the ambiguity of these 16 ballots in favor of the contestant, and give him the 16 votes. We may do so; the board might 

not. But the other 7 ballots-those having the names ofW. H. Wallace, W. W. Walla,ce, John H. Wallace-these ballots·present no am- biguity._ There is nothing to explain. There is nothing hidden. W. 

W. Wallace is as distinct a person from Jonathan H. Wallace, even in 

the light of all facts of public notoriety, as Sancho Panza; and so with 

the other two names. It is not enough to say that there was no nominated candidate named W. W. Wallace, n9r that the parties called as witnesses were unacquainted with a person of that name who was eligible to the office. It may be and often is the case that persons 

who are without proper regard for the duties imposed upon the elector, 

in mere wantonness or ridicule or malice, derisively vote for persons 

not generally known or worthy or nominated. There is no ambiguity 

in these 7 ballots, and the only way in which they could be rightfully 

claimed for contestant would have been for him to have produced wit- nesses to show that through mistake or because of some fraud pra{lticed 

upon them they had been induced to so cast their votes. To secure these votes he should have pursued the course of the contestant in the 

matter of the vote cast for "Kinley"-introduced the man casting 

the ballot bearing that name, fully identified it, and thus showing the 

mistake of the voter, who supposed that Kinley was the name of the 

Republican candidate, and that he had intended to vote for Wm. McKinley, jr. . Pursuing this course or one equally explicit would alone have met 

the requirements of the law and entitled the contestant to the 7 
4526 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

other votes returned to the canvassing board. But the ~ecord is entirely wanting in proofs of this character. The contestant has "apparently entirely failed to notice the distinction between ballots that are 

ambiguous and those without uncertainty, and to have thought the character ofproofadeqnate to meet the requirements of the first would be 

sufficient in the latter case. Commenting upon the case of McKenzie 

vs. Braxton, the rule iS laid down by Mr. McCrary that when it appears that a party is a candidate, and the ballot has his proper initials, 

it should be counted for him. 

Bat he says: 

Where a. wrong initial is given the case is of course very different" from one where the first name is correctly given and the middle initial omitted. And so if the Christian name is given-as Anthony, when it should have been Andrew, or where the surname is euoneously given. 

In that case this further language is used: 

The cases are numerous where a n imperfect ballot, by the aid of extrinsic evi- dence, can be made clear and perfect. No harm can result from admitting such extrinsic evidence so long as it is only admitted to cure or expla in such imper- fections and ambiguities as could be cured if they occurred in the most solemn written instruments, and to t his extent and no further would we carry it. 

I am willing in this case to admit that the ballot may be explained, 

but by an entirely different kind ofprooffrom.that required in case of 

any one of the 16 ballots conceded to contestant. There the rule governing in simJlarity of sound of name and the fa-Cts of public notoriety 

are sufficient. In the other, particular and individual explanation 

must be demanded. 

But the majority, as I believe, by a process that is violative of law 

and justice, give to the contestant the entire 23 votes, forcing for him 

a majority of :1,7 over the sitting member. 

It is further sought to increase this majority by giving contestant the 

benefit of 11 votes said to be found in the ballot-box of Fairfield Township, Columbiana County, on a recount of ballots had several months 

after the election. · The facts sought to be established by a recount should always be regarded with suspicion. They seek to overthrow the long-established 

presumptions of regularity and correctness with which the law surrounds and protects the acts of its chosen and sworn administrators. 

The presumptions a~e always in favor of such acts, and their overthrow 

should never be permitted except by proofs, themselves freed from all 

suspicion and of the most satisfactory and convincing nature. It should 

be shown clearly that the law respecting the custody of the ballots to 

be recounted has been strictly complied with, and, this being shown, 

that material errors were coll).lllitted by the officers of election in the 

original count. 

The law of Ohio requires that at the conclusion of the official count 

the box shall be locked and placed in the custody of one of the officers 

of election (the clerk of the township); that the key to the box shall 

be placed in the custody of another of the officers of the election (the 

minority judge). In this instanc~ this law was not complied with. 

The provisions of the statute are cleM. The box in which the ballots are placed sha'll be in the hands of the clerk, who in the great majority of instances is of the political party of the majority of the election board, but the key to the box shall be in the custody of the minority judge. 

There is wisdom in this provision. The Legislature had an object in 

declaring that one person should have the custody of the box and another 

of a different political party should be the custodian !lfthe key. 

In this instance Angustinewastheclerk, ::m.dCarpenter, who had the 

key (and was Augustine's father-in-law and lived in the same house 

with him), was the minority judge. 

Augustine, in his testimony taken by contestant (page 15 of the record): 

says: , 

13th Q. What then was done by t}\e judges of said election with the ballot-box and contents thereof? A. They opened the ballot-box and proceeded to count the votes ; as they counted the votesth.e!Jwere strwng, and when the count was completed they were all put back in the bo:rr- 1 · 

I call the attention of the House to this language of this witness, 

who swears with emphasis and distinctness that after the ballots were counted, after they were strung, all the ballots cast at that election in 

Fairfield were put in the boxand I locked the box by direction of the judges, and by their direction I gave the key of the box to Robert H. Carpenter, the minority judge of the election. 14th Q. Whntwas then done with said ballot-box? A. I left the ballot-box in the room where the election was held untii the next morning about 7 o'clock, when I went and got it and took it to my office. Shortly after-perhaps an hour after-I left it at my office I met Mr. Carpenter on the street a.nd asked him to go to my office and get it for me, as I was busy and couldn't go myself just fhen. In a few minutes after I asked him to go and get it I met him on the street with it. He gave it to me and I took it to my house, where it has been until to-day, when I brought it here. 

17th Q. Where is the room, in whose house, and who had control of the room in which said ballot-box was left on the· evening of said election, and from which you say you removed it the following morning? A. It is on the first floor of Jacob Hum's residence on Main street, Columbiana, Ohio. Jacob Hum, I believe, had control of the room at that time. At page 13 Mr. Carpenter, the minority judge, testifies in relation to this box as follows: 

22d Q. As I understand you, you got the key ofthe ballot-box on the night of the election, and don't know who got the ballot-box itself that night? A. That is correct. I got the key and I d~dn't see who got the ballot-box. 

23d Q. When did you next see the ballot-box, and where, and who was with you? 

A. It was the next day, I think, I got the ballot-box out of Squire Augustine's office in the presence of Mr. Overholtzer and Mr. Fessler. I think those were the men. 

27th Q. Wh~re was he when you got the ballot-box? ,A. The ballot-box was in his office. I was going down street, and he told me to fetch the ballot-box to him. I took the ballot-box down. I met him some place on the st-reet about Mr. Patterson's, and I gave the ballot-box to him. 28th Q. When did you find the ballot-box in his office, and how? A. I found the ballot-box, I think, on his desk. He told me to go there a.nd get it. 

29th Q. Was the office locked? . A. I stated before there was two men in the office. I wouldn't say positive. 

If those men were in the office the office wasn't locked. I can't say positive whether I unlocked the office or not. 

1\'bether he locked. the office or not, here is proof abundant for opportunity for tampering with that ballot-box. It was left all night in tpe 

protection and custody of no one. It was then taken down to the office 

of Augustine. It was then left in the presence and control of two unauthorized persons-unsealed, unprotected, and was in their custody for 

more than an hour. Then we find it again in the custody of the man 

who had the key of the ballot-box; and we :fipd him and these two unauthorized persons together in an office with the ballot-box, there being 

abundant opportunity for the perpetration of the fraud which we believe it is conclusively shown was perpetrated against the integrity of 

that box. 

Carpenter says he voted for Wallace; Augustine says he voted for 

McKinley. But it is shown that he was violently opposed to McKinley's nomination, and Stephen M. Beatty swears (page 113 of the record} 

that he said he would not vote for McKinley. 

4th Q. Are you a{)(}uainted with John G. Augustine, who was the clerk of this townMhip at that time, and also a clerk of the election ? A. Yes,sir. 5th Q. Have you the means of knowing who he voted for at the election held October 10, 1882, in this township for member of Congress from this Congressional 

district, and who he favored for said office before the election? A. I have no means of knowing who hevotedfor,butfrom whathesaidtome a few days before the election I should judge he favored Mr. Wallace. 6th Q. What did he say to you on tha.tsubjectbeforethesaid election? Please state fully all about it. · A.. During a conversation with him a few days before the election he stated that he would not vote for a man like McKinley. 

It is shown quite satisfactorily that Carpenter was on Friday follow.:. 

ing the election seen with the ballot-box in his possession with the 

avowed, we think, purpose of taking it 'to New Lisbon for the purposes 

of a recount. On this subject the witness Beatty says (page 113 of the 

record): 

8th Q. Do you know the ballot-box of this township that was used at said elec- tion, and are you acquainted wit-h Robert H. Carpenter, who was the minority 

judge of that election? A. I have seen the balfot-box, and I think I could tell it again if I saw it. I am acquainted with Mr. Carpenter. 

9th Q. Did you see him with tha.t box at any time after the election; and, if so, when and where? A. I did. I saw him with the box, I think it was just at the crossing of Union and Main streets, in this t<>wn, or very close to the crossing. To the best of my recollection it was on the Friday morning after the election. lOth Q. Who, if any one, was with him or near him at the time? A. I do not remember of any person being with him just when I saw him. 11th Q. What was he doing with the box, and what, if anything, did he say about it in your hearing? A. He was taking the box down street. I don' t remember of asking him, or hearing him say, anything about the box just then. . 12th Q. Did you afterward have any conversation with him on the subject·; and, if so, when and where? (Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.) A. I think it was in the evening of the same day that Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Robert Patterson, I believe--I am not sure whether it was Robert Patterson or John Patterson-were talking together and I came up nnd asked them what they were doing with the ballot-box., and one ofthem-Idon't remember which one--spoke of taking the ballot-box to New Lisbon, in order to have those 14 or 15, or whatever number of votes were thrown out here, counted. 13th Q. Was Mr. Carpenter by at this time during the entire conversation thnt you had with them? A. I do not remember. 14th Q. Was he present when this conversation a-s to the ballot-box occurred which you have mentioned? (Objected to as leading and incompetent.) A. He was, during the forepart of it at least. 15th Q. How long did the conversation continue? A.. I couldn't sa.y positively, but I think about ten or fifteen minutes. It may have been less or longer. 

We may be quite positive this was on Friday, and was not confounded 

with the other day, Wednesday, on which Carpenter carried the box 

from Augustine's office to his house, for E. S. Holloway says that on 

Friday afrer election Beatty stated to him that a few moments before 

he had seen Carpenter with the box, and that he was going to carry it 

to New Lisbon for a recount of the ballots. It is true that Carpenter 

denies that he opened or tampered with the box or ballots, but that 

·there were ample opportunities for evil persons so to do there can be no 

doubt. 

The mere denial of a man who would thus deport himself is to be 

expected, and ought not to weigh an iota in opposition to the facts that 

bear upon the affirmative proposition. If he had said otherwise he 

would have been a self-confessed felon and would be subjecting himself to punishment for felony. 

The box was negligently left in the place where the election was held the :first night after the election. It was in tJ;te .custody of no one, 
 

\ 

1884 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4527 

in a public plare, with no one to protect. it, and was unsealed. The 

next morning it is found in Augustine's office, an unlocked office, in 

the custody of two men. Next it is found in Carpenter's possession, 

be having at the same time the key. Then it is in Augustine's house, a house occupied jointly by the custodian ~f the box and the custodian 

of the key. Next we find it on its way to New Lisbon in the..custody 

of men who wanted to produce the results that contestant claims were establishe<l on the recount. These palpable and inexcusable violations 

of the law, affording so many and convenient opportunities for outrages upon its integrity, ought to destroy any claim that might be urged 

that weight or credence should be given to the pretended faets of the 

recount. But strong as is this assaulting ar.ray of facts ~aa.inst the recount and its inferences, there is still another of the gravest character. 

The ballots used in the recount were not the ballots placed in the box on' the night of the election. All of the officers swear that all of the 

oallots, after being examined, were '' strung,'' and all. of the ballots were placed in the box. The tally-list and the poll-books show that 

638 votes were cast; besides, there is shown to be 1 · double Greenback ballot that was not counted; making a total of 639 ballots that were plaeed in the box. On the recount but 633 ba.Ilots were found 

in the box. No witness breaks the force of this important fact. 

Six hundred and thirty-eight votes cast at that election about which 

there is no controversy and no room for controversy. Every witness concurs in the statement that ther~ were placed in that ballot-box on that night after the election 638 ballots. In addition to these there was still another vote. It is shown by the proof that there was cast 1 

double ballot-2 Greenback ballots wrapped . together-making 639 

votes, which were placed in the box by the officers upon the conclusion 

of their count. 

Again, there was 1 ballot shown by many of the witnesses to have 

been cast which had the name of McKinley printed and the name of 

the contestant written, the name of McKinley not being erased. On 

the recount there are found in that ballot-box 633 ballots all told....:...a 

deficiency of 5 ballots as shown by the tally-list and by the poll-books. 

Upon this assumed recount this marked ballot, noticed by so many witnesses, which ~re the names of the two candidates for Congress, was not 

found at all. Here is proof convincing, absolutely certain, that after 

that ballot-box was locked on the night of the 17th of November some 

one with improper purposes and without authority opened it., manipulated the ballots, and produced a difference between the totals at the 

time of the recount and the time of the election. 

But there is another circumstance that is more convincing than even 

this. It is in proof, and it is not questioned, that there were 19 blank 

ballots in that box on the night of the election. This is testified by 

Mr. Holloway, a most intelligent witness-a man who understands the 

use of language and uses it with deliberation and correctness. At the 

time the votes were being counted and at the conclusion of the count he 

made a memorandum of the result of the election, and on the occasion 

of giving his testimony he goes to his safe and produces from it this 

memorandum, made by him at the time and put in his safe on the next 

day. I wish to call attention to the results shown by that memoran- dum. I refer to page 104 of the record. Mr. Holloway says: 

The number of straight votes for Jonathan H. Wallace was 232; there were19 

Republican tickets read oft" without any member of Congress; there were 41 Republican tickets that were counted for Jonathan H. Wallace; there were 2 

Democratic tickets with the name of William McKinley for Congress, and 

which were counted for him; there were 2 Greenback tickets with the name of 

William McKinley for Congress; there were 12 Greenback tickets with the name of Jonathan H. Wallace upon, which were counted for him; that is all that is 

put on the memorandum except the total vote and some figuring; t.he 2 Greenback votes with the name of William McKinley upon them were counted for 

him. 

In another place he expressly says that a vote for " Brush" was not 

counted by him. He says in his testimony that .there were from 2 to 4 

votes of such a mutilated character or so difficult to decipher that they were not counted at all. 

Now if you will maite these additions and the further addition of 4 

votes-the increase given to the Greenbacker upon the recount, there 

having been 53 on the first count and 57 on the second-you will find 

thateveryoneofthe638votesisaccountedfor, showing conclusively that 

this statement of Mr. Holloway that there were 19 blank ballots was the 

truth; that there were in that box when it was locked on the night of 

the election 19 Republican votes from which the name of McKinley was scratched, and on which no other name was substituted. 

Now, upon the pretended recount Mr. Augustine, who makes therecount, says there were 7, and only7, blank ballots in that box--only7 

Republican ballots from which the name of Mr. McKinley had been 

scratched. How is it possible to account for the others? Let me call 

your attention to some of the assumed statements of this recount. 

Mr. Augustine, in his testimony, says, among other things: 

I have made the count as requested in the above question, and find the total 

number of votes in the box to be 633. 

All told, 633-5 less than the poll-book, 5les8 thaJ?. the names written on the poll-book, and 6less than the number of votes in the box, counting the double Greenback vote. · Augustine proceeds: 

.A. I have made the count as requested in the above question, and find the 

total nu.m ber of votes in the box to be six hundred and thirty-three (633), of which votes I findJonathan H. Wallaee to have·received two hundred and seventy-nine (279) votes. ' Jonathan Wallace, two (2) votes. J. H. Wallace, five (5) votes. "Mager" Wallace, one (1) vote. "Ma" "Wllac, " · one (1) vote. "Wolac," one (1) vote. "''Mag W olac," one (1) vote. " Wollac," two (2) votes. Wallace, two (2) votes. " W oloc," one (1) vote. "Mage Wolac," one (1) vote. "Wolloc," one (1) vote. "Johanhtan H. Wallace," one (1) vote. Wm. McKinly, one (1) vote. William McKinley, jr., two hundred and sixty-six (266) votes. Wm. McKinley,jr., two (2) votes. William McKinley, one (1) vote. Lemuel T. Foster, fifty-seven (57) votes. 

In the original count Foster had 53 votes. 

Prof. James A. Brust, one (1) vote. Blank, seven (7) votes. The votes here counted for "Wallace," "Magor Wallace," "Ma Wllac," 

"Wolac,""Mag Wolac," "Wolloc," "Woloc," "Mage Wolac," "Wolloc," and " J ohanhtan H. W a.llace," had these names writte~ in pencil on Republican and 

Greenback tickets, on which tickets the printed names of the regular candidates on such tickets were erased, and I here hand the said ballot-s to tbe notary, 

and which are here attached and marked for identification by the notary by his 

initials, H. E. F., and consecutively numbered from one to six hundred an<\ 

thirty-three, both numbers inclusive. 

That is the kind of votes we have on this recount. How easy it would 

have been-and is it not probable, gentlemen, this did occur?-when 

these pa;rties had these ballot-boxes in their control they simply substituted or wrote these peculiarly spelled names. Remember all of 

them ended with a final "c." All so ending on that ticket were written 

under the scratched name of McKinley. The numbers correspond19, 7, 12. It would have been an ea.sy matter to have made the substitution. It would not have answered the purpose to have written 

them "Wallace;" that would ha•e been too open, too plain. 

So, forgetting that rule of orthography that gives to "c" when it 

is the final letter of a word or syllable the hard sound of "k," they 

supposed by means of this orthography they could secure these 12 

''Woloc" votes for contestant. Of these 12 votes 11 were given by 

the majority of the committee to the contestant. 

There is this singular circumstance: Here stood twelve or fourteen 

men around the ballot-box, and these names ofpecnliar and lau?hable 

orthography were ealledout ~if the theory of contestant is true),' Mage 

Wolac,'' '' Ma Wllac, '' and ' W olae,'' for the distinguished contestant 

here, and they never excited a solitary risible throughout that whole 

audience. Nobody laughed and there was no comment. Is it possible my distinguished friend there could be called '' Mage W olac, '' and no one suggested anything about the peculiar and odd designation given 

him? Yet the evidence is entirely silent about it. Though the circumstance is concealed, when it is a thing of importance, if there were these 12 votes there voting in this manner of attempted violation of 

the rules of spelling, some one would have indulged in comment. Yet 

in all of the nearly 7,000 votes the contestant received we have no evidence that in any other township in that entire district was his name attempted to be spelled in this way. Yet in this one there is this large 

number. 

All those which had the initials were counted. He had the benefit 

of them. And now these 11 vo~ with this astonishing orthography 

the majority of the comnnttee say shall be given to the contestant. 

We think they ought not to be counted for him; that the evidence is 

overwhelming that some one has committed a fraud on that ballotbox, that some one has committed a forgery of those ballots, and there 

is now an attempt to give to the contestant in this case the benefit of 

that donble crime. 

Contestant indulges in speculations as to how 5 of t.he ballots might 

have been lost while counting; but the proofs show that no person 

handled the ballots except the officers during the count, and all of 

these say that all of the ballots were placed in the box after the count . 

was finished. This ~iscrepancy of 6 votes, this unexplained absence 

of 6 votes, present at the last lawful opening of the box, is a corroboration as strong as could be asked of the charge that some one in the-interest of the contestant tampered with the box: 

Again, statement of Holloway: 

It is in proof that from 2 to 4 votes were in the box claimed to be for 

Wallace that were not counted for him. It is now claimed that this 

number is swelled by the recount to 13. I think this change can be 

accounted for. The recount shows that 7 blanks were found in the box. 

That is, 7 ballots that had the printed name ·of the Republican candidate for Congress erased and no other substituted. Mr. Holloway, a very intelligent and well-informed witness, swears that he was present 

during the count on the night of the eJection, and that there were 19 

Republican ballots from which the name of McKinley was scratched, 

and no other written in lieu of it. He is corroborated in this by a memorandum which he produces, made at t.hat time, and since kept in his 

safe, from whence it is first taken when and while he is being examined 

in this case. This, among other data, shows that 19 blank ballots--

blank as to Congressional candidates-were in the box on the election 

. 
4528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

night. On the recount there were but 7. May we not assume, in fact 

are we not forced to the belief, that when this box was taken toN ew Lisbon, or on some other occasion, this stupid and blundering fraud waa 

conceived and perpetrated? Here were 19 blank Republican ballots. 

How easy to write something underneath the scratched name of McKinley. That this was done is proven, I believe-there were 19 blanks; 

there are but 7. 

No witness noticed this singular spelling. But why not have written ''Wallace'' instead '' Wollac,'' '' Ma Wllac, '' '' Wolac, '' '' Mag 

Wolac," "Woloc," 'Mage Wolac," "Wolloc ?" That would have 

been too easily detected. It could scarcely have been possible to induce the belief that the judges of election rejected 12 votes written 

"Jonathan H. Wallace," but it was well known that from 1 to 4 

votes with Wallace's name had been omitted from ·the count. This 

gave the opportunity for the fraud, the forgery of the ballots, -and the 

form of spelling so peculiar in its character was resorted to. In the 

belief that contestant could insist upon their being counted, under the 

pretense that they were of the same sound, that is, that Wolac would 

be pronounced as Wallace, forgetting that when '' c'' is used as the 

:final letter of a syllable or word it is given the hard sound of " k," and 

that Wolac properly pronounced could not be pronounced as Wallace. 

The contestant received nearly 17,000 votes. So far as we are advised, 

in no other township or precinct ward was his name attempted to be 

spelled with "c" as the finallepter. Yet in this township of Fairfield 

we find no less than eight ballots in which thiscrimeagainstorthography is perpetrated. The circumstance is so peculiar that, taken with 

the other circumstances of opportunity and probability, there can be 

but little if any possible room for doubting that this ballot-pox was 

outrageously and criminally tampered with. 

But even if we are mistaken in this theory we do know that there 

was a less number of ballots in the box at the time of the recount than 

at the time of the official count. That conceded fact in and of itself 

is absolutely destructive of this pretended recount; and we may here 

very properly remark that if five of these ballots could disappear entirely, as they did, what other changes were made can, perhaps, never 

be known. The box and key were in the custody of Augustine and 

Carpenter, the former the ~on-in-law of the latter; both occupying 

the same house; the key and box under the same roof. The custodian 

of the key was a Democrat and the custodian of the box not a friend 

of McKinle~. But at all events the integrity of these ballots at the 

time of the recount had been entirely destroyed. In addition to'-this, 

we find that while by the official count Lemuel T. Foster, the Greenback candidate for Congress, had 53 votes, by. this pretended recount 

he had 57 votes; and we also further find from the record in this case 

that there was in that box at the time of the official count one ballot 

having on it the names of both of these candidates, contestant and contestee (record, page 11, question 28; page lJO, question 51), which ballot 

was not found in the box at the time of the pretended recount (page 

15). And thus it most conclusively appears that these ballots were not 

the same that were used at the time the official count was made, and 

no weight, therefore, is to be given to this recount 

There can be no recount unless yon have the identical ballots, and 

every one of them, that had been cast and were counted when the official count was made. A recount implies that you are counting again 

the identicaJ. ballots and the same in number that were used in making 

the official count. 

Therefore we insist the majority are in gross error when they add to 

Wallace's vote the 11 votes claimed by him in Fairfield Township, 

which 11 added to the 7 cast for John H., W. H., and W. W. Wallace, 

make 18 that must ~e deducted from the majority of 30 given him 

by the committee. 

The committee have allowed contestant an additional vote cast in 

Washington Township, Stark County. The grounds for such allowance are incomprehensible. The disputed ballot bore the name of 

"Walce" for Congress. The elector casting it is unknown. No explanation is given concerning it, showing the purpose and intent of 

the voter. The proofs show that the officers of election were not able 

to so decipher it as to make the characters spell ~allace. They could 

make out the three first letters W-a-1, but could not determine the 

other two. The ticket is in evidence, and I think the committee correctly spell it W-a-1-c-e-without initial letters. These letters do not 

spell "Wallace." Their arrangement lacks the merit shown by the 

Fairfield conspirator. He had the ingenuity of arrangement that gave 

us a final '' c,'' but this lacks even that poor pretense. The ballot does 

not come within any rule of law that will permit it to be counted for 

contestant. 

Again, the committee concede to contestee a ballot, with his name, 

that was properly rejected in Lee Township, Carroll County. The 

election board did not count it for the contestant because it was a 

marked ballot. On the back of it was written in ink: "H-- W. 

J. McCausland," and then two columns of figures under the letters R 

and D, respectively. The Ohio statute in relation to ballots, so far as is important to this inquiry, is as follows: 

Section 31, page 343, Supplement to Revised Statutes of Ohio, providesThat all ballots voted at any election held in pursuance of law shall be written on plain white paper, or printed with blawk ink on plain white news printing paper, without any device or mark of any description to distinguish one ticket from another, or by which one ticket may be known from another by its appearance except the words at the head of the ticket, and that it shall be un- lawful for any person to print for distribution at t.Qe polls, or distribute to any elector, or vote any ballot printed or written contrary to the provisions of this act: Provided, ~hat no.thing. herein contained shall ~construed to prohibit the erasure, correctiOn, or 1nserhon of any name, by penCil-mark or otherwise upon the fare of the printed ballot. ' 

. The la~ is plain. There.~ust be no device oi: mark of any description. This ballot had proh1b1ted marks and was properly rejected. It 

ought not to be counted. 

No notice was given by contestant of a claim to a vote in .Madison 

Township, Columbiana.County. Bntitisurged by the majority of the 

committee that under the eighteenth assignment of contestant's notice this claim may now be made. This eighteenth assignment is the 

basket clause, a sort of n. o. p. schedule, and is as follows: 

18. That in the several townships, wards, and election precincts composing the said Congressional district, which have not been hereinbefore specifically mentioned. there were polled for me for said office many legal votes by legal voters thereof which were not counted nor returned by the judges of election in said several election precincts; the number of such votes and the election pre- cincts in which the same werecastarenowunknownto me; and I further aver that in the several wards, townships, and election precincts composing said dis- drict, which have not been hereinbefore s~ifically mentioned, there were polled, counted, and returned for you many illegal votes polled by persons who had no rightltovote at said election, becausesomethereofwerenot oflegalage and some thereof were not citizens of the United States and of the State of Ohio' and had not been residents of said State, county, and township wherein they voted a sufficient length of time to entitle them to vote at sa1d election · the n urn ber of such illegal votes so cast and counted for you and the election' pre- cincts wherein they were so cast are now unknown to me. 

The language of the statute (section 105) governing . in contested 

elections is as follows: 

Whenever any person intends to contest an election of aU:y member of the 

House of Rep_resenta.tive!! * * * h~ shall . * * * give notice in writing 

~e ;e~es ,~n~~nc!~~totlce shall specify particularly the grounds upon which 

In all of the other items of contest we find that contestant bas specified his grounds with particularity. Seventeen assignments have been 

made with minute particularity. But suppose that the seventeen particular assignments had been omitted, would the honorable chairman 

contend that the matters urged in the eighteenth would have been a 

response to the requirements of the law for the purposeS of the entire 

case? Yet he might aa well have omitted, any or all. of the others as 

the one under discussion. I can not believe the vote should be counted. 

Here are 3 other votes allowed to contestant by the committee, to 

be added to the 18 heretofore discussed, making 21 votes to be deducted 

from the majority of 30 given him by the committee. A bare majority 

of 9 is all that can be claimed for him if I am correct in the positions 

I have taken. True, there are other votes that contestant claims should 

be given him and a few that he claims should be deducted from the 

tot.al of the sitting member, but I wru not take up the time of the 

House by. examining them, as they were all pressed upon the attention · 

of the committee, and' the majority has passed upon them and found his 

claim to be untenable. I will act upon their verdict thus far and dismiss them from further coDBideration. 

Contestee admits that 2 votes cast for him by Frederick Ott and 

Thomas Black were illegal and ought to be deducted. They are not 

mentioned, however, by your committee. (See contestant's brief, page 

67.) Deducting these 2 from the 9 majority above referred to, we find 

that the 30 majority of contestant found by the committee has been 

shriveled to a bare 7. 

Let us see what further reductions should be made from contestant's 

vote. 

In Osnaburg Township contestee's name was scratchedandJonathan 

H. Walser was written under it. · There is no similarity whatever of 

sound as between Walser and Wallace, nor is there any evidence aside 

from this name on the ballot as for whom the party who cast the ballot 

intended to vote. And, further, Walser is a well-known Democratic 

name in Stark County, where this ballot was cast. In Beaver Township, Mahoning County, there was a vote cast for Wallage (see page 

334, 6, 7) which was counted for Jonathan H. Wallace. 

Those ballots are among the proofs, and open for inspection. They 

are unaccompanied by any explanation whatever. They are given to 

contestant by the committee. The distinguished gentleman making the 

report in that paper says: "We have already cited the principle on 

which the question as to those votes should be decided." I have examined carefully the report to find the "principle," and have utterly 

failed to find anything having that " quality or :flavor," and am left 

entirely in the dark as to the reason, except as I find it in this language 

of the report: '' Besides, the judges of election counted these votes for 

contestant, when the facts were well understood and the tickets were 

fresh from the hands of the voter." What facts are referred to " no fellah can find out.'' There are none except the naked facts presented 

by the ballots. There stand the names of Walser and Wallage, and you can not make Wallace out of either or both, whether the "facts are fresh" or stale. These 2 votes should be deducted from the vote of 

contestant. It is conceded by contestant that four persons, namely: 

Charles Ducatry, Michael Stimler, Bartholomew Waldecker, and 

Joseph Frickert voted the Democratic ticket. These parties were in 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4529 

the Stark County infirmary. They voted in precincts other than in 

which this infirmary is situated. It is claimed that they voted in the 

precincts in which they had resided before going to the infumary, and 

it becomes, therefore, a question in this case whetheitheresidenceand 

voting-place of these parties were in the precinct where the infirmary 

is, or whether it is in the precinct from which they went to the infirmary. 

Now, referring to the evidence as to these voters, see first, as to Ducutry, page 411, where will be found the testimony of Ducutry himself as to his residence. He is 65 years old and an inmate of the Stark 

County infirmary. • 

Q. How long have you been an illJllate of the Stark County infirmary? 

A. Since the 4th of July, 1882. 

Q. State whether or not you have adopted the Stark County poor-house as your home. 

A. Yes, sir. 

In answer to question 4, on cross-examination (page 412): 

Q. 4. When you voted at the election last fall did you regard Louisville your 

home? . A. No; at the poor-house. I lived at the poor-house, but voted at Louisville. 

On cross-examination he states that before he caiQ.e to the poor-house 

he lived in Nimishillon Township. 

Now, contestant has attached to his briefasanappendix that portion 

of the law ofthe State of Ohio in relation to residence, which rea~ as follows: 

The place where the family of a married man .resides shall be considered and 

held to be his place of residence, &c. 

This witness says that he has a family living in Michigan-a wife 

and ~hr~ boys. 

If the above-quoted statute applies to Ducatry, then h.e had no residence in the township where he voted. But he claims that his residence was at the poor-house. 

The supreme court of Ohio (34 Ohio StateR., 525) hold "that an 

inmate of a poor-house in our State is not under· such restraint as to 

incapacitate him from adopting the poor-house township as the place 

of his residence." In the above case the pauper had exercised his right 

to adopt the infirmary as his residence. 

Michael Stimler says (page 413 of the record): 

1. What is your name; age, occupation, and place of residence? 

Michael Stimler; am nearly 80 years old. I live in the poor-house in Stark 

County, Ohio. 

2. How long have you been in the infirmary? Four years next October. 3. Are you able to do any work or labor to support yourself. I am not able to earn anything; all I had burnt up ; I was a wagon-maker by trade. · 4. Since you have lived in the poor-house have you adopted it as your home? 

That is now my home. 5. State whether you voted at the last fall's election; and, if so, where? I voted the Democratic ticket. at Freeburg, Washington Township, Stark 

County, Ohio. . 6. State what ticket you voted at said time and place? Democratic ticket; I voted it since 1835; I first voted for Van Buren for President. 

7. Is the poor-house in Washington Township? 

No; in Canton Township. 

8. 'Vho did you vote for for member of Congress at said election? I don't know any more; I voted the whole Democratic ticket; I put on none and took none off. . 

This man had lived more than three years at the infirmary and had 

adopted it as his home. 

In the case of Bartholomew Waldecker, here is his testimony (page 

414): 

1. What is your name, age, occupation, and place of residence? 

Bartholomew Uvaldecker; am 78; and am an inmate of the Stark County infirmary. . 2. How long have you lived at the Stark County poor-house? Ten years next November. 3. State whetlier or not you have adopted the Stark County poor-house as your home? 

Yes; that is my home as long as I live. · 4.. Have you any other home or place t-o stay than the poor-house? I have no other home, and can't get one, as I am too old for that. 6. Did you vote at the last October election; if so, where did you vote? I voted at the old fourth ward in Canton, on the road toward Louisville. 

7. What ticket did you vote at said election? 

Democratic ticket. , 8. Did you vote the whole ticket, or did you scratch it? 

I voted the whole ticket. 

On page 415 we have the testimony of Joseph Frickert. 

1. What is your name, age, occupation, and place of residence? 

.JosephFrikert; am 70yearsold; and amaninmateofStarkCountyinfirmary. 2. How long have you been in the county poor-house? Four years. 3. Have you any other home except the poor-house? No. 

4.. Are you able to work and earn a living? 

No; my lungs and breast are affected, and I am too old to earn a living. 5. State where you expect to live the rest of your life? lif~.can't expect anything better than to live in the poor-house the rest of my 

6. Did you vote at the election last fall ; and, if so, state for whom you voted at said election, and when you voted? 

Yes; I voted the Democratic ticket at the court--house in Canton Ohio. 

7. What township is the poor-house in? ' 

vJ~ ~::~ Township, Stark County, I got my papers in Canton, and I had to 

There can be no reasonable doubt that these four old men were voters 

XV-284 

in Plain Township, that they voted in other townshipsr and that they 

voted for oontestant. The 4 votes should be deducted from his count. 

John Riegler voted in the fourth ward, in the city of Canton. He 

lived in the :fi.ft.h ward. He voted for contestant. As a witness he 

swears: 

4. To what political party did you belong last October? I always voted the Democratic ticket; I didn't vote the ticket out and out generally. 

5. Did you vote at the October eJection in 1882, and, if so,where did you vote? 

I voted on that day ; I voted on Tuscaroras street. 6. Where did you vote; in what ward? I voted in the fourth ward. 7. You stated in your first answer that in October you lived in the fourth 

ward; do you mean that you lived in the fourth or fifth ward? I meant the fifth ward, but supposed it was the fourth I lived in. I supposed I lived in the fourth w3rd, but u.s I find out now it was the fifth. 

8. For whom did you vote for Representative in Congress from the eighteenth district of Ohio on that day? Wallace. 

9. Was the Wallace whom you say you voted for ori that day Jonathan H. 

Wallace, the candidate on th emocratic ticket from said district for Congress? Yes, sir. 

Fnink Walters testifies: 

Q. 1. What is your name, age, occupation, and place of residence? 

Frank Walters; am 27 next month ; was in the saloon business all winter, and 

live in Canton, Stark County, Ohio. 

2. ·where did you reside on and before the lOth day of October, 1882? In the city of Canton, Stark County, Ohio. ~- On what street and in what ward of said city did you reside on and before 

said lOth day of October, 1882? 

On Tenth street; couldn't say as to the ward; the second house west from the corner of Tenth and Walnut, on the north side of Tenth. 4. What ward did you live in at that time, nearly as you can tell? 1 supposed at that time it was the second ward, but have heard since it was the fifth. 5. Will you examine the ward map of said city of Canton, now before you, and state what ward it was you lived in October, 1882? I have examined the map. It is in the fifth ward. 

Next) Daniel Winkleman, of Canton, Stark Co~ty, testifies as follows (page 387): 

Q. 1. What is your name, age, occupation, and where do you reside? 

Daniel Winkleman; am 45 next April; am a carpenter by trade, and keep a saloon, and live in Canton, Ohio. 

2. ·whereabouts in Canton do you reside? 

By the Valley round-house, on Union street, No. 108. 3. How long have you lived there? 

Since October. 

4. What time in October? 

On or about the 1st of October, 1881. 5. Whereabouts on Union street is your said residence? 

Ritht opposite the round-house. I live on the east side of the railroad. The 

Valley .J;tailway cuts off the corner of my lot. 6. In what ward in the city of Canton is your said residence? I live in the sixth ward. 7. Did you vote at the last October election in this State? 

Yes, sir. 

8. Where did you cast your vote? 

By the engine-house, on Eighth street, corner of Poplar. 

9. In what ward of said city of Canton is said engine-house where you voted at said·election? 

It is in the seventh ward. 

10. What ticket did you vote at said election? 

(Question objected to.) · The Democratic ticket. 

11. For whom did you vote for member of Congress at said election? I voted for Wall ace, I guess. 

12. State whether you voted at said election the entire Democratic ticket. 

Yes, sir. 

Next, Celestine Jordan, of Canton, testifies as follows (page 388): 

Q. 1. 'J'hat is your ;name, age, occupation, and place of residence? 

Celestme.Jordan; am 49 years old; I work in a brick-yard, and live in Canton,Ohio. 

2. Where did you reside on or before the lOth day of October, 1882? . South Plum street, No. 196. 

~'o~:-o.l96, where you resided, ~orth or south of Cedar street, in said city? 

4. In what ward is N o.l96 South Plum street, and in what ward was your res- idence in October, 1882? In the sixth ward; that is what I was told. 5. Did you vote at the October election, 1882; if so, where did you vote? I voted in the engine-house in Canton. 6. In what ward in said city did you vote, if you know? 

At the seventh ward. 

7. What ticket did you vote at the October election at said ward in 1882? 

(Objected to a.s incompetent.) 

Democratic ticket. 

8. Did you vote for any person for Congress from the eighteenth district o( 

Ohio at said October election in said ward; if so, for whom did you vote for Congress on that day? (Objected to.) 

Wallace. 

Next, Martin Zilch testified as follows: 

Q. 1. ~at !-s your name, age, occupation,, and where do you reside? 

A. Martm Zildb; am 32 years old; I work m .Aultman's shop, and live in Canton, Stark County, Ohio. 

2. Were you not subpamaed here to-day as Martin Silk, and are you not gen- l!rally known by that name'? 

Yes, sir ; I was su?prenae_d, and I am generally known by that name .• 3. Are you a marned or smgle man? 

.A single man. 4 . .And were you ever married? 

No, sir. 

5. Where did you reside on the lOth day of October, 1882, and how long had 

you resided there? I resided in 74 Housel street, in the city of Oanton, Stark County Ohio and 

had resided there twelve days before that day. ' ' 
4530 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. MAY _26, 

6. In what ward of the city of qanton was 74 Ho~l s~reet on the lOth day of 

October, 1882, where you then res1ded? · · The fifth ward. • 7. Did you vote on said lOth day of October, 1882, for any person for Congress? If so, for whom did you vote on that day? I voted the Democratic ticket, and voted for Major Wallace for Congress. 8. In what ward did you vote? · In the fifth ward. 

\ - . John H. Hall is theci :yengineeroftbecityofCanton. He IS a Democrat. .As a witness he produces and identifies a map of that city showing 

the boundaries by wards of the city of Canton, each ward plainly marked. 

That map.is in evidence in ~is ease, and sh?ws the loca~ties named ~y 

the last :five witnesses as the1r place of residence to be ill eaeh case ill 

a ward different from the one in which they voted. The committee 

think this evidence is not the best. Winkleman says he lived in the 

sixth and voted in the seventh. Jordan says he lived in the sixth and 

voted in the seventh. Reigler says he voted in the fourth ward and 

lived in the :fift;h. J_'hey ought to know .• They corr~bora.te the map 

and the engineer. They all voted for Wallace. 9n this pomt the case 

of Wigginton vs. Pacheco is in point. 

That was a case in which the vote was exceedingly close and every 

vote was important. In that case OJ?-e Charles Gilbert. resided at the 

houseof Alva Mitchell, and the question was whether Mitchell's honse 

was in the one precinct or the other. It was claimed that Gilbert voted 

in the wronO' precinct ''and one witness testified that he knew the line 

dividing th~ precin?t: for he saw it surv~yed, ~nd that .Mitc~ell's house was not in the precmct;" and upon this testimony Gilbert s vote was 

rejected, because he voted outof.the precin~t in wh!chAlva :~fi~hell's 

house was situated. The committee say Gilbert did not res1de m the 

precinct where he voted and his vote must b~ rejected. 

These :five ·votes were undoubtedly illegal. 

Contestant practically admits these .persons voted in the wron~ ward. 

John Moriarty, of the town of Alliance, Stark County, testifies as 

follows: 

What is your name, age, occupati<?n, and where ?o 3;0u li!e? 

John Moriarty; am 49; am a labormg man ; and hve m Alliance, Stark County, 

Ohio. 

Where did you live on October 10,1882? I lived at the same place I do now. How long have you lived there? I guess about eighteen or nineteen years.. . . . Is your residence in the north or south votmg precmct of said town of Alliance? 

North. . . . i h ~ t d'd Did you vote at the October electiOn,1882; if so, m wh c precmc 1 you ~te? • I voted at the town hall, south precinct. 

What ticket did you vote, and for whom did you vote for member of Congress 

from this district? · I voted the Democratic ticket, and voted for Wallace. 

Joseph Bittaker-contestant admits him to be a Democrat and to 

have voted in Sugar Creek Township, Stark County. .l'rlary Dorey and 

A. Hollinger sw;ear that he was a single.man and lived with J;Us father 

in Tuscarawas County. There is no farr pretense that he lived elsewhere. These 7 votes cast for contestant by persons in wards or precincts other than their residence should be deducted. 

The law of Ohio on the subject of residence and the duties of election officers in determining questions of residence is as follows: · 

SEc. 2945. No person shall be permitted to vote a~ any election unless he s?-all 

have been a resident of the State for one year, resident of the county for thuty days and resident of t.he township, village, or ward of a city or village for 

twenty days next prece~ing theelection_atwi;Iich he offers to v~te, exceptwhe~e he is the head of a family, and has resided m the State, and m the county In which such township, village, or ward of a city or village is .s ~tuat~, the .le~gth 

of time required to entitle a person to vote under the proVISions of this title, 

and shall, bona fide, remove with his family fr~m one ~ard to any other -yva.rd 

in such city or village, or from a ward of .such <:Ity or village to a tow.nship ?r 

village in the same county, or a township o~v1llage to a~ard of a City or VIllage in the same county, or from one townshi_P to another ~n the same co~nty, 

in which cases such person shall have · the right to vote In such township, or ward ofacity or village without havingr':sidedtherein the lengthofti~eab•~ve 

described to entitle a person to vote: Promded, That such voter so removmg with his family from a township to a village, or ward of a ~i~y, or vil1~ge, in th~ same county, shall not have the right to vote at any mumc1pal electiOn held m such 

city or village. 

Herschel Urmson was a minor. He voted for contestallt. Here is 

what contestant says about it (record, pages 338, 339): 

The testimony shows that this party voted in Knox Township, Columbiana. 

County; that he was under age at the time. The ticket he v.oted he says he got 

from a man named Doyle, who wa-s a Democrat. But the twket was folded so that he did not see the inside of it, and does not know what was on the ticket. We submit that this proof does not show that he voted for contestant. It does not follow that the ticket was Democratic because obtained from a Democrat, nor does it follow that contestant's name was on the ticket even if it was a Democratic ticket. 

·If it were not for the great respect I have fm: any person living in 

Columbiana County, Ohio, I should characterize the above as a very 

petty specimen of pettifogging. A Democrat goes to a Democratic ticket 

peddler and is given what he supposes to be a Democratic ticket and 

is permitted to vote it by his partisan friend. This is all conceded, yet 

the contestant meets it all with the ''gush" above quoted. I am re- minded further that U rmson himself says he voted for Wall ace. Ed. Marks voted at :fift;h ward in Canton. He was a ma.rried man. His wife and child resided in Wooster, Wayne County, Ohio, where 

they had resided for many years continuously. The effort is made by 

the contestant to prove that he ~ separated from his wife; this to 

avoid the provision of the statute which makes the residence of fhe 

family the residence of the husband, and for this purpose Marks is 

called by the contestant as a witness. His testimony is on page 462. 

And thescabby creature, for the purpose ofa>oidingthediffi.culty in 

which he had placed himself by this illegal vote; actually swears to a separation from his wife. 

Maggie Marks, his wife, is called as a witness, and shows that he 

was temporarily absent from his home, it being in Wooster, Wayne 

County, but that whenever in that city he made his home. with her and 

their child, and that no longer distant than the Saturday before her 

testimony was given he was with them and remained until Monday; 

that on all occasions when he was in Wooster he lived with his family. 

And yet no longer than the Saturday before this miscreant's testimony was taken it is shown that he was in that city and at his wife's 

home, living with her as her husband. 

Contestant makes the claim that. James Benson had also separated 

from his wife. His wife testifies that he has been back and forth to his 

home. · He told the witness Mossop that his home was in Youngstown, 

and that he had a wife, two children, and property in Youngstown. He 

voted in Lawrence Township, Stark Oounty. 

Lewis Little is shown to be without any residence. He moves from 

place to pl~e. The contestant makes no denial that all of these per- sons voted for him. He appears to concede it. 

Edward Yaste voted in first ward, city of Massillon. It is admitted 

that he voted for contestant. 

He had lived in Massillon, had been in Chicago for about three years, 

and returned to Massillon two weeks before Christmas, 1881. He so 

stated to the witness March 31, 1883 (rec., page 432). He said he had 

been working in Chicago nearly three years. He is an unmarried man. 

He is called by contestant as a witness (page 473). He says that he 

"was away from Massillon two years;'' says he came to Massillon about 

two weeks before the October election. 

An examination of his testimony will show that he was remaining 

wherever he went as long as he could get a job of work. When, if 

ever, he would return to Massillon was wholly uncertain. And I submit that departure from a place with no present intention of returning . involves the loss of residence. 

Nicholas Dicks voted in Canton, Stark County, Ohio, for contestant. 

He is the only witness (pages 394, 395, 396). Says he resided in Pittsburgh in 188o-from January, 1880, to December, 1880, eleven months; 

returned to Canton for two weeks; returned to Pittsburgh, where he 

resided until the following September; thence he went to Cleveland, 

where he staid a .week; thence to Canton, where he remained two 

weeks "on a visit;" returned to Pittsburgh, where he worked at his 

trade for three months; thence to Sharpsville, Pa., where he worked at 

his trade :five weeks; thence to Cincinnati in search of work; thence to 

Saint Louis on a visit; thence to Chicago, where he worked at his trade 

about six montliS; thence to Paris, ,Ill.; thence to Canton, where hearrived about September 1, 1882. 

William H. Ohl voted for contestant, and was an illegal voter. He 

was a foreigner. He claims that he had been natwalized and that his 

papers were bli.rDed. Astothishemakesconflictingstatement:B. First 

he says he burned th~m, and again that they were burned in the burning of Stripe's house. He gives the place where he was naturalized, 

and names the judge before whom, he says, he took out his papers. The 

records of the court are produced at page 410 of the record, and those 

records show that no such person had ever had naturalization papers 

issued to him. We claim that this is an illegal vote. 

This man is sought to be sustained as a voter by a man who claims 

to have seen his naturalization papers. He :fixes the time a year aft;er 

the date of their alleged destruction. . 

William Brown voted for contestant in the wrong county. He voted 

a.tAiliance, Stark County. He resided in Butler Township, Columbiana ·County. The evidence leaves this too clear for argument. 

He had long lived in· Butler Township; own~ a residence there. 

Shortly before the election he went on a visit to Alliance, and after the 

election concluded to sell his residence and reside with his son-in-law. 

(Record, pages 139-141.) 

David Spring voted for contestant in Bethlehem Township; Stark 

County. This is not disputed. He had for many years resided at 

Canton, where he had a family and where his wife died. His children 

were there. He was a traveling clock tinker. At pages 352, 355, 357, 

360, and 361 will be found the evidence relating to his vote and place of 

residence. 

Harvey Sloan was an unmarried man; his parents lived at New Lisbon, not in the township where he voted. He ·had been traveling from 

place to place for more than a year. Came back to New Lisbon and 

from thence to Salmeville, Columbiana County, on the 18th, da-y of 

September, 1882, less than a month before the election. He voted at 

Salmeville. If he had a residence in Ohio, it was at New Lisbon. It was certainly not long enough in the township where he voted to qualify 

him. (Record, pa.ges 124, 125.) He voted for contestant. 

Peter J. Collins's case is similar to the above. His residence was in 

Wayne Township and he voted in Washington Township. He voted for 

contestant. (See record, pages ).26, 127.) 

Frank Kirby was a young physician; he voted for aontestant in Perry 

Tow~hip, Carroll County. In the spring of 1882 he went West for the 
•, 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4531 

avowed purpose of practicing his profession and with no intention of returning. By so doing he lost his residence. He did not return in time to 

gain his residence anew. Robert Figley and George W. Orr voted in 

Saint Clair Township, Columbiana County. Neither of them were legal 

voters at the time of the election. Both of them admitted on oath they 

voted for contestant. These votes should be deducted fromcontestant. 

They were not residents of Saint Clair Township. 

Here are 28 votes shown to have been cast for contestant by ~1130ns 

who are shown not to have had the right to vote. And let it be mentioned that no one of these 28 is shown to have voted for contestant by 

his unsupported statements, unless those statements have been made 

on the witness-stand. I have purposely omitted the name and case of 

every one where the question of so-called hearsay testimony could be 

urged. The fact of the vote being cast for contestant is in no case disputed, I believe. I have left the other class of votes, a. large number 

ofwhich should be deducted from the count of contestant as I regard 

the law and faets, to be presented by some other member of the committee. Deducting these 28 votes from contestant gives to the sitting 

member a. clear majority of 21 votes after giving contestant due credit 

for all the votes he has shown himself to be entitled to. 

But the vote of the sitting member should be increased. 

Contestant on page 23 of his brief says: 

InStarkCountyaballotwascastonwhichcontestee'snameappearedsimplyas 

"Kinley" (record, page 3M), written in pencil under contestant's printed name. While this is hardly idem sonans with the name "McKinley," we do not doubt 

that it was the intention of the voter to vote for him, and we concede him this 

ballot. 

The voter casting this ballot is produced as a. witness, and shows conclusively that it is his ballot and that he intended to vote for contestee. 

In Yellow Creek Township, Columbiana. County, it is shown that contestee is entitled to an additional vote because of a blunder of the voter. 

The proofs are satisfactory. On this question contestant admits as follows: 

In Yellow Creek Township, Columbiana County, a. Republican ballot, containing contestee's name, folded with a. ballot for justiceofthepeace,and both voted 

together. Thisba.llotwasnot counted. Sta.tutes,section2953provides: "When two or more ballots are found folded or rolled together it shall be conclusive 

evidence of their being f.r;audulent, and neither shall be counted." As the two ballots folded together in this instance were not of the same kind, but_ pertain to two different elections being held on the same day, there may be doubt 

whether the statute just quoted applies. If not, he is entitled to this vote. 

In Centre Township, Columbiana County, the sitting member is 

shown to be entitled to another vote because of a. blunder of the voter 

in preparing his ticket. On this point contestant says: 

In Centre Township, Columbiana County, a ballot was cast which is attached to the deposition of James Freeman. (Record, page 163.) It is a Republican ballot, with C. Rune's n ame written below contestee's printed name. It is shown 

that Hune was a candidate for prosecuting attorney; tha t his competitor's n ame was scratched on this ticket, and as contestee's name is not scratched, it is 

claimed that it is apparent that the voter intended to vote for contestee for Con- gress and for Hune for prosecutor. While this is far from bein~ entirely clear, we admit that there is some force in the claim, and that this, hke the one last 

mentioned, is in doubt. 

In Salem Township, Columbiana County, a. ballot was found in the box 

with contestee's name written below contestant's, which was printed. 

It was not counted for contestee, but clearly should have been (Record, 

pages 174, 175). 

Then it is clearly proved by both the Republican and Democratic 

judge that there was such a ballot and that it was not counted for either 

contestant or contestee. (Record, pages 174, 175). 

In the sixth ward. of Canton, Stark County, there was another ballot 

of the same kind. This is clearly proved by the testimony of three . witnesses (Record, pages 370, 390, 392, 394). 

Three of these 5 votes are admitted. Of the right of the sitting 

member to the other 2 there should be no serious contest. 

In Austintown Township, Mahoning County, on a recount of the 

bi llots it was shown that the vote of the sitting member was 201. It 

had been theretofore counted as 199. This increase of 2 votes should be 

allowed him. On this recount it was further shown that on a ballot 

contestee's written name was under the printed name of contestant on 

a. Democratic ballot. A simila,r ballot was found in which the names 

printed and written were unused. As both parties are alike affected by . these last two V6tes I will not count either of them. 

In Butler Township, Columbiana County, it is shown that early in 

the morning some evil-disposed person got possession of all of the Republican tickets and mutilated them by erasing the nameofthesitting 

member and interpolating that of the contestant. Parties were compelled to take these mutilated tickets and attempt to remedy the evil 

by rubbing out the name and pencil-marks. They were not entirely 

successful in doing this, so as to leave the ticket looking fresh and clean. 

The result was that four of these tickets intended for McKinley, and that 

were for hlm, were by mistake counted by the election boardasblanks 

owing to their soiled and blurred condition. These tickets are pres:. 

ent as exhibits; they are satisfactorily identified by the persons who 

voted them or similar tickets, and who say they intended to vote for 

the sitting member. There was a recount in this precinct, in which 

the sitting member had 160 votes. At the original count he had been 

allowed but.l58. The claim of the 2 votes and of the 4 votes is not 

seriously disputed, I think, and the proofs show contestee to be clearly 

entitled to them, and that 6 additional votes should be given him in 

Butler Township. 

G. W. Shrimp, in Minerva. Township, Stark County, tendered to the 

judges of election his ballot for contestee. He complied with every requirement of the law, but from some unexplained perverseness the 

judges prohibited him from voting. His vote should have been received, 

and because of their failure to receive it 1 additional vote should be 

given the sitting member. This, with others above named, makes a 

total of 14 votes to which contestee is entitled but which were not 

counted for him. 

There are 10 votes to be deducted from the total of the contestant because of an error in the footing of the vote of Carroll County, which I 

have purposely omitted to discuss. I have not abandoned claim to the 

deduction. I have the greatest confidence in this claim, but have not 

bad time to properly elaborate it. I leave it with 27 of the 55 illegal 

votes cast for contestant and not discussed by-me to other members of 

the committee. I have only sought to occupy unassailable and indisputable ground. I have only taken up cases where I have thought 

contestee's proofs to be not only preponderating but irresistible, where 

I was willing to meet the issue on the ground proposed by the worthy 

chairman of the committee, not because he stated the law correctly, 

but because I felt that I could safely do so; that is, with the burden of 

proving the case I advocate "to the exclusion of every .reasonable 

doubt.;, That is not thelawbearingupon the question Qfproof. The 

burden is upon the contestant to make out his entire case. But he can 

do that by a preponderance of proof, if he has it. 

I therefore, in conclusion, present the following summary of the votes 

as I view the case, so far as I have argued it, and with the distinct 

statement that I have discussed contestant's claim to every vote to 

which I think he is entitled, and have left undiscussed more than 30 

votes to which I believe contestee to be entitled: 

Official vote for contestee.......................................................................... 16,906 

Add votes not counted .................... ........ ................................ ............ ...... 14 

16,920 

Deduct vot-e of Douglas............................................................................. 1 

16,919 

Official vote of contestant............................................................... 16, 898 

Add votes not counted ......... ............ ... .. ................................. ....... 16 

16,914 

Deduct illegal votes reoeived an«! discussed by me....................... 28 

True vote ........................... , ........... : .................................................. _......... 16,886 

Leaving contestant with a majority of.............................. ............... 33 

Now, in addition to this number are the 10 votes given to contestant 

by an error in the addition of the vote of Carroll County and 24 votes 

that were illegal and were cast for contestant in Liverpool and other 

townships, that I have not had time to present, and which I must. 

therefore leave to some other member. 

· And when the case is further and more fully argued and these other 

numbers which should be deducted are shown in their truenatureand 

character I have no doubt the House will come to the conclusion that 

the real majority of the contestee is 67 votes, and that he should be 

declared to be entitled to retain his seat. · 

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for trespassing so long upon the patience of the House; but this case is one of very peculiar character, as 

you must have seen, involving many controversies as it does; but I am 

willing now so far as I am concerned to leave the matter to the dispa.s· 

sionate judgment of this House. 

During the delivery of the foregoing rem\.rks the hammer fell. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. COBB in the chair). The time of 

the gentleman from Iowa. has expired. 

Mr. HEPBURN. I should like to have a few minutes longer. · 

Mr. LONG. How much time does the gentleman wish? 

Mr. HEPBURN. I should like to have thlrty minutes to conclude 

my remarks. · 

Mr. LONG. I move that the time of the gentleman be extended for 

thirty minutes. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. HEPBURN then resumed and concluded his remarks as above . 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, informed the House that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3967) for the establishment of a bureau of animal industry, and to prevent the exportation 

of diseased cattle, and to provide means for the suppression and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia. and other contagious diseases among domestic animals. . 

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the. 

amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 247) to extend the duration of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, 

and for nther purposes. 

The message further announced that the Senate had passed a. joint 

resolution of the following title; in which the concurrence of the House was requested: 

Joint resolution (S. R. 73) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury 

to pay to Charles L. Jones the sum of $465.65 for services a.s messenger 
4532 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

under the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate from the 5th day of July, 

1879, to the 1st day of November, 1879, inclusive. 

CO~TESTED ELECTIO~-WA.LLA.CE YS. Kl~TLEY. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. · 1\Ir. Speaker, I shall try within the 

time allowed me to present this contest from our side as fairly as I can in the interest of the sitting member. I have given considerable time 

and attention to it. I have gone through every vote carefully, read 

and weighed all the evidence bearing upon each vote, and in the course 

of my remarks I will present a summary of the votes by which I reach 

the conclusion that Mr. Wallace, the contestant, was elected tO a seat 

in the Forty-eighth Congress by not less than 14 majority, without 

regard to the number of votes which he puts in issue that were cast for 

the sitting member and which he claims were illegally cast for him: · 

Totals. Colum- Mahon- biana. ing. Carroll. Stark. 

------------1----------------

Wm. McKinley,jr.................. 2,006 4,411 Jonathan H . Wallace .. ,........... 1,497 4,438 Lemuel T. Foster ................. ;... 63 470 

1~K.~B!;fe~~~~::·.:::::: :·.:·:.:::·.-:::· ............... ~ Jobn H. Wallace......... ............ 1 3 Major Walla.ce ........................ 1 Wallace............. ..................................... 5 W. H. Wallace........................ ............... 2 W. W. Wallace ............... ;........ ............... 1 Jonathan Wallace..................... ......... ...... 5 

4,278 

3,915 256 

53 

6, 211 7,018 187 

149 

16,906 

16,898 976 

261 1 

4 

1 

5 

2 

1 

5 

3 

counties agreeable t? the provisions ofthi~ chapter, the governor and secretary o~ state shall forthwith proceed to ascertam the number of '\'otes given for the dtfferl:lnt persons for such offices. 

Now, that is the law under which they counted the votes. This sec- tion has received a construction by the supreme court of the State of 

Ohio in a decision referred to this morning by the distinguished chair- man of the Committee on Elections. The question before the court in 

that case was as to the correctness of the action of the board of canvassers i.J;l ca~vassing the retur?S of votes for members of Congress at the 

electiOn m October, 1882, m the seventh Congressional district of Ohio. 

In speaking of the duties of the board under the statute aforesaid the 

court holds as follows : 

It is true the defendants as a canvassing board were required to a certain the numbe_r of votes given for the different persons for the office, and the certificate was to Issue to the persons so elected. The person so elected was to be determined from the returns before the board. The returns are only evidence of the will of the electors, exp_re~sed by their ballo~s. . I! t,his evidence is such as to produce reasonable convict!0!-1 of what t~at Willt_s. It should_be allowed legitimate effect. If the person receivmg the certificate did not receive the plurality of votes as shown by the returns, fair!Y. and reasonably understood, the defendants have not performed _the duty enjomed upon them. 

Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, thatitwasthe dntyoftheStatecanvassing board at the. time th~y counted the votes to. have not only given 

the 16 votes which they now concede butthe23 votes if they could be 

'' fairly and reasonably understood '' to have been cast f~r the contestant. 

Now, let u8 see whether they could be fail'ly and reasonably understood to have been cast for the contestant, and for no other person be- cause there was no other person running for that office in the distri~t at 

the time. The court in the same case further says: Maj. Wallace............................ ............... 3 J: H. Wallace........................... .. . ............ 2 Scattering ............................... . 1 ............... . 2 The rule that should govern in canvassing the returns isthusstated by Judge l Co?ley in his work on. Constitutional Limitations, and we think correctly. The actwn of such boards Is to be carefully confined to an examination of the papers before them. and a <;fetern;'ination of ~he result therefrom in the light of such facts of pu~hc notoriety connected With the election as every one takes notice of, and which may enable them to apply such ballots as are in any respect im- per~ect to ~he prol?er can_did_ates or offices for w~ich they are intended, provided the mtent IS suffimently mdtcated by the ballot m connection with such facts so t~at extraneous evidence is not necessary for this purpose. (Cooley's eoX::.st. Lrm., 623.) 

The sitting member received a certificate of election from the govei'nor of the State, and it appears by that certificate that he received 

16,906 votes and Mr. Wallace 16,898 votes, electing the sitting member 

by a majority of only 8 votes. There were three other candidates runming for the same office who received an aggregate vote of 1, 238, as will 

more fully appear by the return I print in the RECORD. It will thus 

be seen that Mr. McKinley was declared to be elected by a majority of 

8 votes over the contestant and received a certificate of election under 

which he has held a seat in the Forty-eighth Congress. The district 

is composed of the counties of CarroU, Columbiana, Mahoning, and 

Stark;. The board of State canvassers was composed of the governor 

.and the secretary of state, and they were to sit in the presence of the. .attorney-general and the auditor of the State. The last two were merely 

witnesses to see that the vote was properly counted. 

The first question that arises in this case is as to the 23 votes for 

Wallace which the State board of canvassers refused to count and about 

which there has been considerable discussion this morning. In the 

argument before the Election Committee the sitting member's attorney 

conceded 16 of these votes. Had they been counted for the contestant 

by the State board he would hav:e been entitled to a certificate by the same n;t.ajority as that by which the sitting member now holds his seat. 

From that poinp of view the sitting member would become the con- testant in this contest, and the burden of proof would be shifted to 

.him to show that he is entitled to a seat on the .floor of this House. 

The nameS appearing on the ballots, which were certified to by the 

district judges to the county clerk, and from him certified to the State 

.canvassing board, are as follows: John H. Wallace, 4; Major Wallace, 

1; Wallace, 5; W. H. Wallace, 2; W. W. Wallace, 1; Jonathan Wallace, 

5; Maj. Wallace, 3; and,J. H. Wallace, 2; making in all23votes, 16 of 

which are conceded by the contestee. Seven of them are disputed or 

denied to the contestant. 

Mr. RANNEY. Conceded on the evidence? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Conceded that they should have been 

counted for Wallace, as there is no other evidence before the committee or the House than the State canvassing board had at the time of the 

count. 

Mr. RANNEY. That they shou).d now be counted on the evidence? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. No, sir; I repeat that the State board 

had the same evidence that we had, and you can not relieve the board 

from the suspicion which attaches to them by their act. 

The 7 votes they dispute areJohnH. Wallace, 4; W. H. Wallace, 2; 

W. W. Wallace, 1. The question that arises, then, is this: Was the 

board right in rejecting the 23 votes? In the report submitted by the 

minority the distinguished gentleman who wrote it uses this language: 

TheyAlluding to the boardhad but a ministerial duty to· perform, and that was simply to sum up the fig- ures from the returns made in conformity to law from the several counties composing the district. 

Now I will read the law ofOhi:o upon this poin~: 

Within ten days after the 1st day of December next after such election the governor and secretary of state shall, in the office of the secretary of state, in the presence of the auditor of sta.te and attorney-general, open the returns of abstract No. 2, made to the secretary of ·state, for State commissioner of com- mon schools, member of the board of public works, judge of the supreme court, clerk of the supreme court, and Representative to Congress for each Congres- sional district; and if it appear that returns have been received from all the 

Now, I submit that they did not need any extraneous evidence in 

this case to identify the ballot and to count it for the only person who r~ in that district by the name of Wallace. But my distinguished 

friend from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] says that their duties were only ministerial. Why, sir, I think that the distinguished gentleman 

who then presided over that Commonwealth, Governor Foster was one of t,he visiting statesmen in 1876, who at that time claimed (and has not 

since repented) the largest and fullest judicial power for all the returning boards in the South. 

And yet, wh~n clothed with the d~ties of the high office of governor 

and charged with the duty of counting the votes, he was, as laid down 

by the decision of the supreme court of Ohio, in duty bound to give 

these ballots effect and count them for WalJace, if no other reasonable 

construction could be placed upon them, in order that the voters of the 

county should have effect given to their preference for Wallace as against the sitting member . . Let us test the action of the State can- vassers in rejecting these 23 votes by the rule laid down by the supreme 

court. 

Now, what are the facts? First, the contestant was the regular nom- inee of the Democratic party for that office; second, there was no other candidate by that name; and third, during the canvass he was 

spoken of very frequently as Ma;jor Wallace, J. H. Wallace, and ge'nera.lly by the press as Wall ace. That the contestant was a reau] ar nominee, regularly no~ated at a public convention of his party;"' that there was no oth~r candidate by that name, and nobody ever heard of and no testimony in the case mentions any other candidate bearing the name of Wallace, are facts cl~arly and legally established by the testimony of Potts, Moore, and other witnesses which appears on ·record. 

The facts are established by the witnesses and are admitted by the contestee. It seems to me that they must be regarded as facts of general 

notoriety, coming within the meaning of the decision of the supreme 

court, and as well known to the governor and secretary of state as to 

a_ny otJ;Ier intelligent citizen of the State who takes any interest in public affaJTs. · 

When we read the official returns in the light of the foregoing facts 

of public notoriety itseemsclearthatthe 2 votes for J. H. Wallace the 

3 for Major Wallace, the 5 for Jonathan Wallace, the 5 for Wallace, 

the 1 for Major Walla<:e, and the 4 for John H. Wallace should have 

been given to the Contestant as clearly falling within the above rule of 

law. If they had been so counted then the majority for the contestant 

would have been 12. 

I further claim that it was reasonably certain that the 2 votes certified for W. H. Wallace and _the 1 vote for W. W. Wallace should have 

.been counted forthecontestant, and thatthereturns, fairlyand reason- ably understood, would have given them to him, making his majority 

15 vo~. But for some reason or other the governor and secretary of 

state ~Jected them and gave the contestee the certificate of election to 

w4ich he was not in anywise entitled and by means of which he is now representing a district which repudiated him at the polls. 

I will not read the authorities which I have befol'e me from cases both in the States and in preceding Congresses which would govern a 
. ., ·~ ,. 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4533 

case presenting the same facts as are presented here. This is no new question; it had been passed upon by prior Congresses and it was the 

duty of the governor and secretary of state, in view of the fact that 

similar cases had been passed on in prior Congresses and by the courts 

of several States in the Union, and it was clearly the "duty of the governor and of the secretary of state, acting not as ministerial officers in 

the sense in which my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] has 

put it, but acting as judges of election in the great State of Ohio, to 

have given to the cont.estant the certificate which by the votes of the 

people at that election he was entitled to receive. I have thus briefly 

passed over the question of these 23 votes, and shall insert in my re- marks the cases which bear on the question, and which can leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of any man as to the duty of the State 

canvassing board. 

It is difficult to see upon what principle of law the 16 votes heretofore referred to should be conceded by contestee and the remaining 7 

votes not. Why concede 16 votes and deny the votes cast for John 

H. Walla-ce, W. H. Walla-ce, and W. W. Walla-ce? If the 16 votes 

which are part of the 23 are to be conceded, in the name of common 

sense as well as justice how can this House deny the other 7 votes? 

In support of this view of the case I cite authorities as follows: 

1. That the 2 votes certified to J. H. Wallace should be counted for contestant. (See Ca rpenter vs. Ely, 4 Wis.,420; People vs. Furgason, 8 Cowen, 102; McKenzie vs. Braxton, McCra.ryEl.,page 336; People vs. Seamen, 5 Denio, 409; Newton vs. Newe ll, 26 Minn., 529.) 2. That the 5 votes certified to Jonathan Wallace should be counted for con.: testa nt. (Se e Carpenter vs. Ely, 4 Wis., 420; 1\:lcKenzie vs. Bra xton, McCrary 

El., page 336 ; People vs. Kennedy, 37 Mich., 67; People vs. Cook, 14 Barb., 259; 

People vs. Cook, 8 N.Y. , 67.) · 3. That the 1 vote certified to Major Wallace and the 3 votes certified to Maj. Wallace should be counted for contestant. (See Carpenter vs. Ely, 4 Wis., 420; 

Chapman vs. Furguson, 1 Bartlett, 267.) 4. That the 4 votes certified to John H. Wallace, the 2 votes toW. H. Wallace, and 1 vote toW. W. Wallace, should be counted for contestant. (See Carpenter vs.Ely, 4 Wis. , 420; Statevs. Gates,43 Conn.,533; 3Am. Law Rev. , 142 (J . Champ- ney for James A. C.), in Mass. legislative house document (1867) No. 64.) 5. That the 5 votes certified to Wallace should be counted for contestant. (See Carpenter vs. Ely, 4 Wis. , 420; Talking ton vs. Turner, 71 Ill. , 234; 'Newton vs. Newell, 26 Minn., 529; Sessinghaus vs. Frost, Election Cases, Forty-Reventh 

Congress, 393.) · From the foregoing authorities it will be seen that votes cast for "Ely "were counted for ''George B. Ely," votes cast for "George B. Ela " were counted for "George B. Ely," and votes cast for" D. 1\'I. Carpenter," "M. D. Carpenter," "1\L F. Carpenter," and "Carpenter" were counted for "Matthew H. Carpen- ter." (4 Wis., 420.) Votes cast for " Talkington," were counted for "Joseph 

Talkington." (71 111.,234; 1 Bart.,267.) That votes cast for" Newell," "Frank E. Newell," "F. E. Newell," or "F. Newell " should be counted for "FrankE. Newell." (26 Minn., 529.) That votes cast for" Jonas Champney" and for" J. C. Champney " should be counted for "Jonas A. Champney," although he had a father living and eligible, whose name was" Jonas C. Champney." (3Am. L. Review, 142.) 

It seems to us that these cases and the other authorities above referred to fully entitle contestant to claim each and all of the 23 votes before referred to, 

counting which gives to contestant a majority of 15 votes on the returns as cer- tified to the board of State canvassers. 

I have thus far considered only what appears on the face of the official 

returns made and certified to by the State board of canvassers. I 

think it is established by abundant authorities that all of those votes 

should be counted. By that way alone will the will of the voters be . established and effect given to their votes. 

I will refer, however, t.o another and a very late case on the question: 

One of the latest decisions is Clarkvs.Robinson,88 lll., 498; it is held: "At an election where there were but two candidates for circuit clerk, E. E. Clark and William E. Robinson, it was held that 3 votes cast respectively for W. E . Robso, Robertson, and W. E. Robers, for clerk of the circuit court, should be counted for William E. Robinson. And when the name of E. E. Clark in the printed ballot was erased and the word Robin written on the margin of the left of the words for 'circuit clerk,' with a light mark at the end of the name a half an inch long, it was held that the vote should have been counted for Robin- son." 

The next question in the contest is as to the 11 ballots found in the 

box in Fairfield Township, Columbiana County, on a recount of the 

votes at the time the testimony was taken. I desire in connection 

with this subject to call the attention of the House to a very important 

fact discovered on the recount of the vote. It appears that the total 

number of votes certified to by the judges of election of that county to 

the county clerk and by him certified to the State canvassing board was 638, of which number Wallace had certi1iedfor him 287 and for the 

sitting member 271. The remaining portion of the 638 votes were cer- tified for other candidates and for State officers. At the recount there was found to be only 633 ballots in the box, showing 5 ballots less 

than the original count. From the loss of these 5 ballots it is sought 

to throw a doubt or suspicion on the manner in which the ballot-box was kept subsequent to the election and prior to the recount. 

The number of ballots found in the box for Wallace on the recount 

tallied precisely with the original count, except that there were found 

in the box 11 ballots upon which the name of Wallace appeared in some 

shape or other. The tickets as found in the box were as follows: for 

''Major Wallace,'' ''Ma. W-llac,'' ''Wolac,'' ''Mag. \\7olace,'' ''Wallace:" "W oloc," " Mage. W olac," and "W olloc," making in all 11 

ballots. 

Now, none of these 11 ballots were certified by the district judges to 

the county clerk and by him to the State convassing board. I desire 

to make this point in the case as clear as I can. Had they been certi-

:fied in the first instance by the judges of election to the county clerk 

and by him certified to the State canvassing board, it would have presented for our consideration the very point involved in the 23 votes to 

which I have just alluded. And the question now arises.whether or 

not these 11 votes should be counted for the contestant. 

Two questions arise here: first whether or not the ballots were in the 

box on the night of the election; that is the first question to be determined. The second question is, was the box properly kept as provided 

for by thelaws of Ohio? If we prove that the ballots were in the box on the night of election, the second question becomes one of minor importance, but becomes subordinate to the first. 

I will now address myself to that point and show by indisput.able 

testimony, by the testimony of three judges of election, two of whom 

were Republicans, and by the testimony of the two clerks both of whom were Republicans, that these ballots were in the box on the night of the 

election, but were not counted or certified to the State board of ca~­

vassers. Suppose, for illustration, that a recount was asked of any particular 

box, but no question was raised as to an excess of ballots at all. 

That presents the question, would it be fair to undertake to throw 

doubt and suspicion on the box because it was not properly kept? I 

am not speaking of any excessive ballots; I am only speaking of a case in which a recount is asked for by e~her party; where, for example, a, district or precinct returns 230 votes and I want to have a recount for 

the purpose of proving whether the first count was right. Suppose 

I am met on the other side by the declaration ' ' Why, this box was not properly kept." But if on the recount it is shown that the identical ballots and the same number of ballots were in the box, is it any answer for you to say that the ballots should not be counted because 

doubt and suspicion are thrown upon the question of the safe-keeping 

of the ballot-box? 

I am going to show by the testimony of every one connected with 

that precinct that those ballots were in the box on election night and 

were not certified to by the judges of election. There is a dispute as to the number of ballots which were not counted and were in the box 

on election night, some of the judges placing the number as low as 2 

and others as high as 15. I think I state the matter correctly. The 

evidence of Augustine, one o£ the Republican clerks, as to the fact that 

the ballots were in the box on election night and were not certified is as follows: · 

7th Q. State whether or not any announc~ment was made publicly by the judges of said election immediately after the close of the counting of the ballots as to the result of said election in said township for Representative in Congress, 

and, if so, state what the announcement was. (Objected to as incompetent by attorneys for contestee.) A. The result as shown by the tally-sheet was announced, and some person or persons also announced that there were fourteen (14) votes ca.st for Wallace that were not counted, and some one announced that there we.re but thirteen (13) votes cast for Wallace that were· not counted. • 

Mr. RANNEY. Do you call that evidence when the witness was not one of the parties? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. He was one of the clerks of the election 

by whom these ballots were counted. They were put down on paper, 

and by this very witness. 

Now I read from the testimony of William R. Heim, one of the Republican judges: 

9th Q. You have stated that after the count made on t.he night of the election by the judges of the election your impression was that there was from 1 to 7 or 8 ballots in the box which were not counted for Congress. A. Yes,sir. , lOth Q. Will you now state whether there is anything that has occurred since that time to change this impression then formed, except what you have heard Augustine, Carpenter, and others say? A. I believe Augustine, Carpenter, and others told me the truth; I believe them truthful men. I believe there was the 13 votes in the box. 11th Q. Is there anything whatever to induce this belief, except what Augus-- tine, Carpenter, and others told you? A . If I mistake not, I also heard Judge Ambler say there was 13 votes that we- hadn't counted in the first place. 12th Q. Whoever you heard say anything on the subject, after the night of the- election, was there anything, except what they said, to change your impression. as to the number of votes not counted on the night of the election-that is to say,. is not the change in your impression made from hearsay alone? A. Well, if the question means, if between the election and the time these votes were counted, no. · 13th Q. That is, you mean that the change in your impression wa-s made from hearsay-wbat people said about it. A. The change in my impression was made after the votes were counted the second time. . 14th Q. By what you heard people say about it alone. Is not that so? A. Why, yes; in a certain sense it is. 15th Q. In what sense is it not? A. It is just this: I believe what they told me. I believe them to be truthful. and I have every reason to believe there were 13 votes there. 

I understand that Judge Ambler was the contestee's counsel in this 

contest at the time of the recount. Now, the testimony of Carpenter~ 

the Democratic judge, is as follows: 

22d Q. State whether or not all the votes cast for Representative in Congress 

in said township at said election were counted by the judges of election. A. They were not. . 23d Q. State whether or not all the votes so cast at said election for said office were tallied and returned by the officers conducting said election? A. They w·ere not. 24th Q. How many votes, as near as you can tell, which were cast for Repre-· sentative in Congress at said election were not counted and returned? 

• 
• 

4534 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 26, 

A: To the bestofmy knowledgelthink-well,from 7to 15; !wouldn't be positive. 

25th-Q. Why did you not, as the judges of said election, count and return said votes which you say were not counted or returned? A. They were declared-! believe they were declared illegal votes by one of the trustees or judges of election, and the other judge di~n't _say nothing. He was willing to couut the votes, but was overruled by ou,stde influence brought to bear, and the whole matter just stopped t.here,just where it was, and the votes wasn't counted. 26th Q. What ground or reason wa~ given by said judge for the claim that said votes for Representative in Congress were illegal? (Objected as incompetent by attorneys for contestee.) A. Because they hadn't Jonathan H. Wallace; the votes were declared Ule~l 

because they wasn't written or printed Jonathan H. Wallace. 27th Q. How were those votes that were not counted written or printed as to .said office? (Objected to as incompetent by attorneys for contestee.) A. There were-some of them wrote" Wallace" .and some of them" Major Wallace.'' 

The testimony of Shields, the other Republican judge, is to the same 

effect: 

5th Q. State who handle · the tickets; who took them from the box, and through whose hands did th ·pass before they came to you. A. To the first question, l. bert Carpenter. Hum and myself handled the tickets. Robert Carpenter tov.-: them from the box; he handed them to W. R. Hum, and he passed them to me. - 6th-Q. What, if any, question was raised during the counting of sa.id votes as to whether or not any of said votes should be counted'! (Objected to as irrelevant.) . A. The first objection that was raise was when we came to a. ticke,t that bad 1\IcKinley's name scratched and the name "Wallace" written for C'.ougress. I objected to its being counted for Jonathan H. Wallace. 7th Q. What was done in that connection, and tell all about it? (Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.) A. 1\lr. Carpenter wanted it counted for Jonathan H. Wallace. It was talked about by the judges, as to whether it should be counted for him or not. Mr. W. R. Hum and myself decided that it could not be counted for Jonathan H. Wal- lace. The ticket was not counted for Jonathan H. Wallace. 8th Q. ·what was done with said ticket? A. It was put on the string with the others by me. 9th Q,. How maqy such tickets were there, and what was done with them? 'A. 'I can't say positively; I can only give my recollection as to the number. My recollection is that there were either two {2) for" Major Wallace" and three (3) for" \Vall ace " or three (3) for "1\I.ajor 'Vall ace" and two (2) for" Wallace," and one thathadboth names on for Congress, "Williaml\fcKinl~y" and" Jona- than H. Wallace." They were strung on the string by me with the others. lOth Q. Were these six: tickets counted or not? A. They were not counted for Congress. The balance of the tic.k:et was counted. 

lith Q. You say you examined these tickets; how was." Wallace" and how was "l\Iajor Wallace" spelled on them, if you remember? A. In regard to the spelling, I would not be positive, but I can give my recol- lection. l\Iy recollection is that the name of "Wallace" wa~ spelled "~allace;" my recollection is that it was spelled the same on all of t!Iem. I thm~ 

the word "major" was spelled correctly ov. part of them, but I will not be posi- tive that it was on all of them. 

I now turn to the testimony of Crook, the Republican clerk. He 

states that he did not say to any person on the nigLt of the election 

that Walla~e received about 15 majority in that precinct or town, but 

did say if all the votes had been counted for him he would_ have had 

a majority of 30 or 31 if all the votes had been counted. Th1s was the 

language be used to a friend of his on his way home that night when 

he called at his house to let him know the result of the election in the 

town. 

Lower, the person referred to, was called to the stand, and in hi~ 

testimony stated that Crook, the Republican judge, did tell him that 

Wallace would have had about 30 or 31 majority if the votes had all 

been Munted for him. I refer to his testimony here toshow that there 

rould be no dispute whatever about the matter; thatinsteadofreceiving 13 or 14 majority, Wallace would have received 30 majority if those 

votes had been counted for him on election night. 

The testimony is as follows: 

Thomas B. Crook, the Republican clerk, says: 

4th Q. How many votes, as near as you can remembe:, for member of Con- gress were not counted, and who were these votes, whtch were not counted, 

for I don't recollect the number. I was under the impression at the time that thet:e were but three (3) or four {4) for Major Wallace. I didn'tknowofanyothe~ then. (The foregoing answer of the witness, so far as the same relates to his im- pressions is objected to as not being competent testimony.) 5th Q After the counting of the votes, did you hear Isaiah Flickinger, or any other person, announce that12 or 15 votes had been thrown out, which should have been counted for Wallace? A. I did not. 9th Q. Are you acquainted with George Lower, and do you know where he lived at the date of said election? A . I am, and I do. · lOth Q. Did you see him on the evening or night of the election, &nd after the counting of said ballots had been completed; and, if so, where did youseehim, and at what time? A. I did see him at his home, about between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morn- ing after election; I mean the morning of the 11th of October,1882. I was on my way home from election. - _ 11th Q. Did you then and there call him up out of bed and have some conver- sation with him on the subject of the election in said Fairfield Township? A. I did. Before be went home from the election he requested that I should call him up as I went home and give him the news. 12th Q. Did you say to him in that conversation that Jonathan H. Wallace bad carried this (Fairfield) township by a majority of 15, or about that number, for Congress, and that he would have had a majority ?f 31 or 32 if a1l the ballots which had his name on had bee.n counted for hrm, or m substance that? A. To the first question, whatever Mr. Wallace's majority was in the town- ship, I told him. But I did not tell him what his majority would have been if the votes had been counted for him or had not been thrown out. 13th Q. Did you tell him in that conversation that about 15 ballots with Wallace's name on bad been thrown out, or not counted, or did you tell him in sub- ~ce~~ . • . 

A. I did not. I didn't know anything of it myself. 14th Q. What, if anything, did you tell him in that conversation about bal- lots being thrown out or not counted for Wallace for Congress? A. I told him I thought there were 3 or 4 for "Major Wallace," written ''Major 

Wallace," which were riot counted for him. This is all I told him on that sub- ject. 

15th Q. What is your politics, and for whom did you vote for Congress at said election? 

A. I am a Republican, and I voted for William McKinley, jr. 

The George Lower refened to says in his tesijmony that Crook did 

tell him that Wallace would have had about 30 to 31 majority if the 

votes had been all counted. He says: 

2d Q. Do you know Thomas B. Crook; if so, do you know where he liYes? A. I know him. He lives in the town of Fairfield, Fairfield Township. 3d Q. What office did the said Crook hold in Fairfield Township, at the elec- tion held in said township on the lOth day of October,l882? 

A. He acted as clerk. 4th Q. Did you see him at the election, and what request, if any, did you make of him on that day concerning the election? (Objected to as incompetent by attorney for contestee.) A. In the evening, after the polls were closed, I told him I was going home,· and that' when they got through counting and he was going home he should call me up and tell me the result of the election. 5th Q. Did he call you up that evening; and, if so, about what time of night; and did he tell you the result of the election in Fairfield Township? A. He called me up, as near as I can say,about half-past 1. He told me the result of the election in Fairfield Township. 6th Q. What did he say to you about the result of said election in Fairfield Township as to the candidates for Congress? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and as hearsay by attorneys for con- testee.) · A. He told me that Wallace had 15 of a majority in Fairfield Township, and would have had 30 or 31 if the votes had not been irregular-that is, he told me that part of the votes had John Wallace, some 1\Iajor Wallace, and some Wal- lace, and some you could scarcely make out what was on them. He told me that they were not counted; ~t they were objected and were not counted for Wallace. 

7th Q. Did he in that conversation say anything to you about the number of such ballots that had on them Wallace, l\Iajor yv all ace, and other Wallaces which the judges did not count? (Objected to as leading, be<;ause the que tion a~sumes what the witnes has not testified to, and is hearsay, and incompetent, by attorney for contestee.) _ A . lle did; he told me that there was either 15 or 16; he did not remember which. 

8th Q. In the conversation you say you had with said Crook at your house on the night of said election did the said Crook say to you in substance that 'Vallace had a majority for Congress of 15 votes in Fairfield Township; that his majority would have been 30 or 31 votes if the judges of the election had counted for Wal- lace all the ballots having the name Wallace thereon, and did the said Crook further say in said conversation that there were 15 or 16 of such ballots which did not have Wallace's full name on them, and were not counted for that reason . (Objected to as leading, incompetent, a.nd irrelevant by attorneys for con- testee.) ·A. Redid. 

I have thus far shown by the testimony of all the witnesses-who 

were parties to the election in that precinct or town that some votes 

were in the box; there is no dispute about that; the witnesses all agree 

upon that point. But they disagree as to the number. When the 

ballot-box was opened there were found in it 11 ballots upon which 

the name of Wallace appeared in some shape or other. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman allow Ille to put a 

question for information? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Yes, sir; certainly. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. If those 13 votes were counted--

Ur. ADA.MS, of New York. Eleven is the correct number. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Thirteen or 11, or whatever the number 

may be, would there have been 5 less in the box than those counted at 

the time? 

:Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I will come to that. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. I would like to know now ''yes" or "no" 

as to the matter. 

:Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I will come to that in due time. 

Now, if the ballots were in the box it is no answer at all to say that 

the box was tampered with because 5 of the ballots are missing. 

1\Ir. RANNEY. You admit there are 5 missing? 

:Mr. ADAMS, .of New York. Oh, yes; I do not deny that. I hope 

the gentleman will be as frank when he comes to be questioned. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. I only wanted to know the fact itselfnot the result-whether if you allow the whole 11 which were not 

counted there would then be 5 less than the number that were counted 

or the number that were in the box. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I do not entirely understand the gentleman's question; but there is no dispute whatever that the original 

count was 638 ballots and upon the recount 633 only were found, showing a loss of 5. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Including these ballots or not-including 

them? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Including these ballots altogether. 

They were not certified. Only the ballots counted and allowed for 

Wallace were certified; these were not counted. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. In the recount they were counted. Now 

in the recount were· there less or more votes than originally? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Of course not; there were 5less than 

the original return. , 

If the other 5 had been there, there would be no dispute at all as to 

this township, except as to the 11 uncounted ballots. 
• 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4535 

Now I come to the n~xt point in this contest. I am going to be perfectly fair and frank. If the members on this side of the House see fit 

to deny to the contestant these 11 votes, they have a. perfect right toreject them. Butevenifthey are rejected Wallace would still be elected 

by 3 majority, saying nothing of 8 or 9 votes which are put in issue by 

him as against the sitting member, and 5 of which are certainly fraudulent votes. 

I claim that the box was properly kept, kept as required by law. I 

invite attention to the testimony of the Republican judges themselves 

as to whether or not the law was violated in the least. 

Augustine, the Republican clerk, says this -and, by the way, I understand he voted for the sitting member: 

13th Q. What then was done by the judges of said election with the ballot-box 

and contents thereof? 

That is the night of the election. 

A. They opened the ballot-box and proceeded to count the vote ; as they 

counted the votes they were strung, and when the count was completed they were all put back in the box, and I locked the box by direction of the judges,, and by their direction I gave the key of the box to Robert H. Carpenter, the 

minority judge of the election. 

Under the law of Ohio I believe the key is to be taken by the minority judge, and the box by the majority judge. 

A MEMBER. Township clerk. 

1\11'. ADAMS, of New York. To.wnship clerk. 

14th Q. What was then done with said ballot-box? 

.A,. I left the ballot-box in the room where the eledtion was held until the next morning about 7 o'clock, when I went and got it and took it to my office. 

Shortly after-perhaps an hour after-! left it at my office I met Mr. Carpenter on the street, and asked him to go to my office and get it for me, as I was busy 

and could not go myself just then. In a few minutes after I asked him to go and get it, I met him on the street with it. He gave it to me, and I took it to my house, where it has been until to-day, when I brought it here. 

That is the testimony of the minority judge, who had the key ofthe 

box. It had remained with him and in.his possession from that night 

until the recount over this contest. 

15th Q. State whether or not you have ever had the key to said box sirice the same was given to Mr. Carpenter on the evening of election ,.as before stated t 

A. I have never had it since, and to the best of my knowledge I have never seen it until to-day. 16th Q. State whether or not said ballot-box has ever been opened, or the con- tents thereof in any way interfered with, since the said box was closed and 

locked on the day of said election, as before stated? 

A. It never has been, to the best of my knowledge. 

17th Q. Where is the room, in whose house, and who ha.d control of the room in which said ballot-box was left on the evening of said election, and f1·om which you say you removed it the following morning? 

A. It is on the first floor of .Jacob Hum's residence on Main street, Columbiana, Ohio. .Jacob Hum, I believe, had control of the room at that time. 

18th Q . What, if you know, was the politics of said Jacob Hum? 

A. He is a Republican. 

At page 13 Mr. Carpenter, the minority judge, testifies in reference 

to this box as follows: 

22d Q. As I understand you, you got the key of the ballot-box on the night of 

the election and don't know who got the ballot-box itself that night? 

A. That is correct. I got the key and I didn't see who got the ballot-box. 

23d Q. When did you next see the ballot-box, and where, and who was with 

you? 

A. It was the next day, I think, I got the ballot-box out of 'Squire Augustine's 

office in the presence of Mr. Overholtzer and Mr. Fessler. I think those were the men. 

24th Q. Ha.d you in the mean time seen the contestant? 

A. No, sir; I had not·. 25th Q. Had you seen anybody who was acting for him? 

A. No, sir; I didn't. We didn't know anything about the result of the election at that time. 

That is an important point. It shows that at that time there was no 

motive, none whatever, to tamper with the box, because the result of the 

election in that district had not then been announced. From the time 

it went into the possession of the Republican judge, the next morning, 

he said it had remained in his undisputed and undisturbed possession 

down to the time of thiR recount. 

26th Q. I understand that Augustine WA.S the township clerk. A. Yes, sir. 27th Q. Where was he when you got the ballot-box? 

A. The ballot-box was in his office. I was going down street, and he told me to fetch the ballot-box to him. I took the ballot-box down. I met him some place on the street about Mr. Patterson's, and I gave the ballot-box to him. 

28th Q. 'Vhen did you find the ballot-box in his office, and how? 

A. I found the ballot-box, I think, on his desk. He told me to go there and 

get it. 

29th Q. Was the office locked ? 

A. I stated before, there was two men in the office. I wouldn't say positive. 

!!'~~h~err~~;;:ce::d~h!h~ffioc!~~ !~~-office wasn't locked. I can't say positive 

30th Q. What relation or connection is Augustine to you? A. He is my son-in-law. 

31st Q. And you live in the same house? 

A. I board with him. 

32d Q. And lodge there also? A. Yes, sir. 

33d Q. What did he do with the box when you gave it to him? 

A. As far as my knowledge is concerned I don't know. 

to~~~· About how long was you in possession of the box before you gave it 

A. I don't think! had the box in my possession over five minutes. 

I submit in all fairness to the gentlemen on bothsides ofthis Chamber if they attempt to throw suspicion over a ballot-box returned by 

their ~wn partisan, and only~ the posse:'Sion of the minority judge 

fivemmutes on the day followmgthe election, whenhemet his fatherin-law and gave it to liim on the street, and from that hour to the 

present the box has not been out of the possession of the man who 

was charged by law to safely keep and preserve it. 

A much stronger case must be made out than this; but I know the 

weakness of the gentleman from Massachusetts when the seat of a Republican is in dispute, a:rid I have met and surrounded him on all sides 

and from which he can not escape. ~ 

Now I come to the loss of the 5 ballots, and it is no more than fair 

and right that we should try to find out where they went to, or to present what seems to be a reasonable excuse for this loss. It will be seen 

by an examination of 8ection 2956 of the Ohio statutes that certain 

duties are required to be performed by the officers charged with the 

duty of keeping the returns of the election. Among other duties it will 

be found that they are required to string the tickets after the votes 

have been tallied, one by one, in order to preserve them. Now, mark 

you, these ballots are counted up to the number of 5 and then tallied 

by the officers, and they are handed to the next officer, who checks 

them, and after that is gone through and the other requirements of the 

law complied with as to their being tallied they are then strung on a 

thread and all preserved until the expiration of the time within which 

any legal notice of contest can be given. 

The loss of the 5 ballots did not take 1 vote from either of the parties 

to this contR.st. 

Mr. McKINLEY. By no means. I lose 1 vote by that on the recount . Mr. ADAMS, of New York. We give you the 1 vote. 

Mr. McKINLEY. But let me interrupt the gentleman, if he will 

permit it? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Certainly. 

Mr. McKINLEY. The recount shows lless ballot for me than was 

given by the official count; so, as the gentleman will see, it does 

affect me to that extent. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. But if you get the 5 you do not lose 

anything by the mere loss of the tickets. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Do I understand you to say that you do not take 

this number from me; is that your conclusion? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I do not think I have done so in my 

calculations. But I hltve the cal(}ulation here and will come to that 

presently. It is reason~ble, however, to assume that in stringing the 

ballots in lots of fives this number, 5, fell to the floor, beca.use on 

the recount they were not found. Now, the purpose of stringing the 

ballots is simply to preservQ them for future reference. And if there 

is no dispute as to the correctnesS of the count--and there is none-the 

loss of 5, or 10, or 15, or 20 ballots could not change the result. The 

contestee can not complain if he loses nothing; but he complains-and 

there is where the sting is-that the contestant gains 11 votes. If it 

were found on a recount that the contestee had gained any votes I can 

imagine how my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] would plead 

that they counted for contestee, and I think he would undertake to 

prove that the ballot-box had been guarded most ·sacredly. 

I will pass from those votes, the 23 votes and the 11, to the votes 

found on the brief of the contestee, on page 96 of his brief. The following are the votes claimed by him: 

Official vote for contestee ............................................................................ 16,906 

Add the following in Stark County: 

Ballot for "Kinley"........................................................................... 1 Sixth ward, Canton........................................................................... 1 G. W. Shrimp, Minerva precinct........................................................ 1 Columbiana County: 

Orlando Brown (admitted)................................................................ 1 Centre Township, Hune ballot (admitted)............................. ............ 1 Washingtonville precinct, Salem Township...................................... 1 Butler Township.................................................. .............................. 6 1\Iahoning County: Austintown Township (recount)........................................................ 2 Austintown Township ballot with McKinley under Walla.ce, 

printed, adnlitted ................. :............................... ...... ...... ...... ......... 1 

Being' a total of................................................................................... 15 

Which, added to the 16,906 votes returned for contestee, foot up ....... 16, 921 

Now, we concede 6 of these votes--

Mr. RANNEY. Do you concede the 6 votes in Butler Township? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. No; I am only stating what appears 

in the brief of the sitting member and as were conceded in the argument. I concede 6 votes, as follows: One of the 3 claimed in Stark 

County, the ballot for" Kinley;" 2 in Columbiana County, the Orlando Brown and the Rune ballot in Centre Township; 2 in the 

Austintown Township on the recount; and the ''McKinley '' ballot 

written under "Wallace" in this same township of Mahoning County. 

Now, 6 of these ballots are conceded, as I understand it, by the contestant on the argument, leaving 9 which are disputed and which we 

do not concede, at least for the purpose of argument at the present 

time. I can therefore eliminate from the discussion these 6 conceded 

ballots. I turn my attention now to the votes that are not conceded. 

The next vote is in the sixth ward of Canton, and I come back to 

that. The evidence shows that the ballotwasnotin the box on therecount. The contestee claims that under the printed name of "Wallace'' his own name was written below, and the Wallace name was scratched out. Two of the judges of election swear there was no such 
. . 

4536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--.-:HOUSE. MAY 26, 

ballot. ·The names of the twojudges, who were Democrats, are Rauch 

and Hawenstine. They testify that there was a ticket so scratched, 

but whether it was voted for Congress or not they do not know. Rex, 

the Republican judge of elections, says that there was such a ballot. 

Now, if! am right-- . · Mr. RANNEY. Let me interrupt the gentleman. They do not say 

that there was no such ballot, but they do say that they do not remember whether there was or was not such a vote. 

:Mr. ADAMS, ofNew"York. If there was such a ballot an answer to that suggestion is given by saying that it was rot produced. It is a case of the non-production of the ballot claimed by the other side. 

I submit if the ballot was not in the box the testimony of two of the 

judges is sufficient to overcome that of one of the judges; but the ques-· tion is absolutely settled, as far as the testimony is concerned, by the 

subsequent fact that the ballot itself was not produced in order to over- throw the testimony to the two judges. Therefore, I deny that vote. 

Now I come to the Shrimp vote. It is claimed that this was rejected; 

but the fucts in the case are these: He was challenged at the polls and 

took the oath. The challenge was as to non-residence alone, and he 

stated that he lived with a Mr. Y ant, in the precinct or township. Mr. 

Yant was sent for-at the time, and in the mean time Shrimp, because he was challenged on account of non-residence, left the polling place, went 

away, and did not return at all. 

Now I submit they had a perfect right to challenge any voter, and 

having challenged him, if his vote was honest it was his duty to have 

remained there until such time as they could have ascertained the fact 

whether or not he was a legal voter. But he did not do that; he left. 

He was not entitled to hiS vote. Non consta' it would have been allowed if he had remained. I deny that vote. 

Washington precinct: This box was not opened at all. It was the 

duty of the contestee to produce the ballot-box, open it and see if the 

ballot was in the box. Not having done so, and the vote not having 

been certified in the first instance, I do not see on what grounds or upon what principle or justice the contestee is entitled to it. 

Now I come to Butler Township, where 'the 6 votes are claimed. 

The claim is made here of 6 votes, 2 of which are claimed on a re- count and 4 are claimed on ballots which should have been counted,· 

as the contestee says, for him. There is some ground or claim as to 

the 4 ballots, all of which I have carefully examined. But as the 

judges of election, charged with the duty of counting the vote -on election night, denied the contestee those votes, my judgment is that their 

verdict can not be overruled. The point as to those ballots was this, as claimed by the contestee: The claim is made that on the morning 

of the election a large number of the Republican ballots, with the con- testee's name on, were scratched through with a lead-pencil mark and 

the name ofW.allace written underneath; and the voter, whoever he 

was, evidently a Republican, being conscience-stricken after having 

written the name of Wallace in, struck the na~e of Wallace out, and so the ballot stood with both names erased; and liaving scratched out 

the name of Wallace after it had been written in with lead-pencil, the 

question arises whether or not the voter intended the'name of the contestee to stand ahd to vote for him. 

The judges of elections did not count those 4 ballots, and I can not overrule their judgment arrived at when the ballots were fresh. 

The ballots have been handled frequently and considerably since that 

time. They have been handled a good deal in the committee-room 

here. When they were taken out fresh by the judges of election they 

denied the contestee tho~ votes and claimed that the voters did not intend to vote for either candidate. I therefore deny him those 4. 

Mr. McKINLEY. The gentleman says these ballots have been 

handled very frequently since. Does not the testimony show those 

ballots were not handled from the time of the official count until they were put in testimony by the contestant and until they came here and were handled by the Committee on Elections? They have been handled 

by nobody else. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I concede that. That disposes of the 

7 ballots; but even though you are allowed all of them it would not elect 

you. 

Mr. McKINLEY. What do you do with the 2 ballots which' are not 

mutilated which are found on the recount? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Have you not referred to themherein 

your brief? 

Mr. McKINLEY. Yes; they are in my brief. There were 6 ballots 

found on the recount which were not counted at the official count. You 

have said you rejected 4 because they were mutilated, and because the 

judges of election rejected them. What of the other 2? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I give you the other 2. 

Mr. McKINLEY. You give me the 2 in Butler Township? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I give you the 2 on the recount and deny 

the 4. So that disposes of all the 15 ballots claimed by the contestee. 

This would make the total number of votes received for the contestee up to this point, taking the number which was certified as 16,906, .adding 8 · votes would make 16,914, from which number Ideduct1, which is deducted by the contestee himself :n his brief, making the total number of 

votes actually cast for him in that Congressional district 16,913; 7 votes more than the certificate of election gives him; 8 altogether, but 1 of 

which they themselves concede. Now, taking Wallace's vote at this 

point, 16,898, adding 23 votes and the 11 and 5 which !believe are con- ceded on the other side in the argument, would make 16,937 votes for 

Wallace. 

If we stop right here, Wallace would have amajorityof24votes, and 

from this point on I will present the case as though the burden of proof, 

the onus, was thrown upon the sitting member and Wallace stood in 

the position of contestee in this House. To obviate or overcome this 

24 majority at this point, the contestee sets up 53 illegal votes cast in 

the district for Wallace. 

It will now be remembered that Wallace stands on the count a,s the 

sitting member, and the sitting member is before the House as the contestant. The burden of proof is on him to overcome the 24 majority 

from this point on, for even if we dispute as to the number 24, it is 

conceded by the sitting member that in the first instance 16 votes more should have been counted for Wallace, which would have elected him 

by~ majority in the first instance. 

I will not, as I said before, refer to the vot.es put in issue by the con- testant against the contestee on the ground of non-residence or illegality, for the reason that, without any reference to them whatever, !claim 

th~ contestant was elected. But I will now take up the report of the 

minority, vote by vote, if I have time, and submit to the honest judgment of this House as to those illegal votes whether or not thatreport 

and the conclusions reached in it should receive the sanction of this &~ - . As a specimen of the facility with which the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [:M:r. RANNEY] gets over an alleged illegal 

vote I will refer only to a case to be found on page 18 of the report, 

the case of Samuel Thompson, whose vote is put in issue by the con- testee. The report says this: 

Samuel Thompson was a Democrat and always voted that ticket; he voted at the election in this township, and unquestionably voted for Mr. Wallace. He is an inmate in the county infirmary. and registered there as an idiot; and if the proof shows that he is an idiot, under the constitution of the State he is not a. legil.l elector. 

Now, whoever heard of an idiot unquestionably voting the Democratic ticket? [Laughter.] · 

1\fr. RANNEY. I think that is eStablished. 

l\ir. KELLEY. It has often been done. 

l\Ir. ADAMS, of New York. "Unquestionably," he says. Thereis no evidence at all, but the gentleman hides himself behind the word 

"unquestionably;" he says that he unquestionably voted the Democratic ticket. Now, that is a specimen of the manner in which he has · 

analyzed the testimony, and the fairne.~ with which he treats all the 

votes in dispute and has by such ponderous research and reasoning 

reached the conclusion that the sitting member was elected by 60 or 70 

majority. 

I will now take up the 53 disputed votes in their regular order, and ' 

be as brief as I can in rqnning them over. I have given the subject a great deal of time and attention, have given the contestee the benefit of 

every doubt, and if it were possible to .vote for the resolution to retain 

him in his seat, I would unquestionably, unhesitatingly do so. Now, starting with the 4 votes of Ducatney, Stimler, Waldecker, 

and Frec.kert. Those are the voters who it is claimed voted in the 

townships from which they were sent to the infirmary. The only 

question as to those 4 votes is whether they acquired a residence in the 

precinct in which the infirmary is situated, or whether they could have 

gone ba.ck to the respective towns which sent them to the infirmary 

and voted there. Each of these four voted in the town from which he was sent to the infirmary. Ducatney testifies that he was taken to 

the infirmary in July, 1882; that he came from Louisville, a town in 

that district, an.d at that election voted the full ticket at Louisville. 

He says that l1e had adopted the poor-house as his home until such 

time as he might get well and be able to find employment outside. 

Stimler says that he had lived at the poor-house for four years; that he was 80 years of age; that he voted the Democratic ticket in Washington 

Township, and that he had voted that ticket since 1835. The poorhouse is in Plain Township, but Stimler testifies that he always voted 

at Washington Township, and went there from the poor-house every 

year to vote. That is the testimony of one of the persons whose votes 

they want to take away from the contestant. He says that he had 

voted the Democratic ticket from 1835 to 1882; that he never voted 

anywhere else since he went to the poor-house but in Washington Township; and that from the time he was placed in the infirmary at each 

successive election he went from the infirmary to his township to vote. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

l\1r. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent that the 

time of the gentleman be extended. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to extending the 

time of the gentleman from New York [J\Ir. ADAllffi]? 

There was no objection, and the time was accordingly extended. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Waldecker testifies that he is 78 years 

of age, had been an inmate of the poor-house for ten years, and that the 

poor-house was his home as long as he lived; he says that he has no other 

home and can not get one. He further says: ' ' I voted at the old fourth 

ward. in Canton on the road toward Louisville; I always vote there." 
., 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4537 

He says that he never voted anywhere else; that Canton ~as his home, 

and that when he moved to the poor-house they told him Canton was the 

proper place for him to vote. That he voted at Canton at that election, as he had done at all prior elections. 

The other voter is Freckert; who testifies that he is an inmate ofthe 

poor-house, is 70 years of age, and expects to live there the rest of his 

life; that he voted the Democratic ticket at the court-house in Canton, 

that he went there from the poor-house to vote, and that he always had 

voted in Canton. 

Each one of these voters went back to the township that had sent 

him to the infirmary, to vote, as they had always done since they had 

been in the poor-house. They had an undoubted right to vote where 

they did. I have an authority on this point, but I can not put my hand on it now. Mr. RANNEY. The· gentleman can not find Ohio authority to sus- tain him; the question is well settled there. 

l\Ir. ADAMS, of New York. Oh, yes; I can. I do notwish to con- tradict the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I say that the gentle- man can not show an authority from Ohio that says otherwise. The 

supreme court of Ohio (in 34 Ohlo State Reports, 525) holds that an inmate of a poor-house is not under legal restraint as to incapaeitate him 

from the poor-house township as his place of residence. The fact of 

living there does not fix that as his home; it is a question of intention. The intention and removal must both concur to bring about a change of residence. Does not the testimony show that they always 

voted in the township from which they came? This constitutes an 

election on their part to make the township from which they came their residence: 

Voting in a precinct is the equivalent of a. declaration of a. residence therein. 

(6 Am. Law Record, 694.) 

The remova l of a pauper from his original home does not thereby change his residence, but that such residence is, constructively, at his old home. (See Mon- roe vs. Jackson, 2 El. Cases; Covode vs. Foster, and Taylor vs. Reading, Forty- first Congress, and McCrary on El., page 502 and section 42.} 

The case of Cessna vs. Myers, reported in Digest of Election Cases 

from 1871 to 1876, page 65, passe&.. squarely on the point. Let me read 

from it .and see whether or not I a:in not right: 

The case of paupers presents greater difficulty. Under the laws of Pennsylvania it is conceded that they may be entitled to vote. In the absence of statute regulations on the subject, a pauper abiding in a. public almshouse, locally situated, in a. different district from that where he dwells when he becomes a. pauper, and by which he is supported away from his original home, does not thereby 

change his residence, but is held constructively to remain at his old home. 

I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] ought 

to be satisfied. Why, sir, there is no statute in Ohio governing the question, and the matter is left to the pauper himself to decide where he 

shall vote. 

I pass now to the question in regard to voters voting in the wrong 

wards. The contestee in this case claims that five votes should be deducted from the contestant on this ground. The voters had all lived in 

the town for a. number of years and voted at ~ll former elections, and 

nowthe claim is made, but noproofis given to sustain it, thatthistown 

was redistricted or divided into new wards subsequently to the preceding election, and prior to the election of1882. 

There is no claim that these are not legal voters. I wish to impress 

that fact; upon gentlemen of the House-no claim whatever that they are not residents of the State of Ohio and legally entitled to vote. The 

point is narrowed down to the question w heiher or not those voters 

have vo~d in the wrong wards. I do not concede that they did, but on the contrary assert they did not from the testimony. 

Now, I admit unhesitatingly that if there was any proof whatever 

that if they voted in the wrong wards, these votes must be deducted 

from the contestant because the law of Ohio says that voters shall vote 

in the distriets or precincts or wards in which they reside; and it is too 

elementary to be disputed that if they voted outside of their wards their 

votes should be deducted. 

But what is the evidence? Two of these five voters are called; a map 

is placed in their hands and they_ are asked, ''By the dividing line of 

this map whatwarddoyoulivein?" Well, they stated that they lived 

in a ward different from that in which they voted. I concede that. 

Mr. McKINLEY. MayiaskthegentlemanfromNewYorkwhether 

each of those voters does not himself swear that he lived in one ward on the lOth of October, 1882, and voted in another? 

1\Ir. ADAMS, of New York. Ianswerthegentlemanby saying that 

such testimony would not be admitted before a justice of the peace in a ten-dollar suit. 

Mr. :McKINLEY. You say that? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I do, if it was sought to prove it as you do here, as I shall presently show. 

l\Ir. McKINLEY. Well, I do not think you mean it. Permit me to say that in the very case now before the House the vote of Elias 

Medley is, I lmderstand, deducted from me as having been illegal, 

though the record shows that the only proof of his having voted in the 

wrong county is the statement he makes himself that he heard the hotel 

in which he lived on the loth of October wasinCarrollCountyandnot in Stark County. 

:Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Does the gentleman concede that vote? 

Mr. McKINLEY. I concede that vote if you show that it W:'l.S cast 

for me. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Yes; but if you concede it do you not 

relieve me from the trouble of ascertaining whether it was cast; for you? 

But if a voter votes in a wrong county it would not present the same question, for the reason that the coUQ.ties of the State are recognized 

by State authority and all courts must take judicial notice of the exist- ence of them. A State court is bound to take judicial notice of all State 

laws, but not of the ordinances of any town or village; they must be 

proved, and it is so laid down in Abbott's Trial Evidence. 

I say that when the gentleman comes before this House or before the 

committee and concedes away 1 or 10 votes to relieve us of the labor of 

ascertaining whether the persons casting these ballots voted in proper 

wards he should be bound by his admission. But I say further there 

is no court in Christendom that will permit a voter to go on the stand 

for the purpose of changing the result of an election and say ''according to this or that map I voted in the wrong ward.'' Ifthattown was redistricted prior to the election in October, 1882, and subsequent to 

the preceding one, there was legal and competent evidence attainable 

which you were bound to produce. ' 

Mr. RANNEY. Was it not swornthatthemapwas made by thesurveyor of the city, himself a Democrat, and that it was an official map? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I say he did not say so, and it is an- other instance where the gentleman shows that he has not read the testimony carefully. He did say that he believed the map was correct. 

We are not electing people or disfranchising a legal voter on the belief 

of any witness. 

The ordinance of the city redistricting the city, or the town, or whatever it may be, is the highest evidence that the wards had been 

changed, and you can not prove such a fact except by the ordinance 

and by official maps authorized to be drawn by the commonalty of the 

town. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Does the gentleman claim that if I should challenge or assail his right to vote, and he should go upon the witnessstand and swear that he lived in Carroll County and voted in Stark 

County, I would be required to produce the act of the Legislature fixing -the dividing line between Carroll and Stark Counties? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. No; but I do claim that--

Mr. McKINLEY. I ask the gentleman further whether there is any 

difference between the subdivisions of a township and the divisions of a county or State in reference to this matter? 

Mr. ADAM::S, of New York. I will answer the gentleman, if he will 

allow me, by reading from my summary, but I have answered that 

question before. • 

Mr. McKINLEY. I did not wish to interrupt the gentleman, only 

to understand him. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York (reading). Rigler says: 

Lived in Canton, Stark County, prior to October (lOth day), 1882. I lived corner Seventh and Cherry streets, what they now call the fifth ward. •• I did not know that last fall." I resided in the same place nine or ten years. I voted the 

Democratic ticket on Tuscarora street, and voted in the fourth ward, and sup- posed it was the fourth ward I lived in, but as I now find out it was the fifth 

ward. Voted for Wallace. 

!didn't know the boundaries had been changed until yesterday. There had 

been no election in the city of Canton since the change of the wards, and prior to the October election of '82. "I thought I voted in the right ward when I did 

vote." I voted in the wrong ward, but for the right man. 

Where is the evidence that they were changed? This testimony was taken in April, 1883, six months aftertheelection, and the witness says 

he did not know the boundary had been changed until-when? The 

day before. In other words, someb9(ly in April, 1883, long after the 

election, told him that he resided without the district. Now, if that 

is competent evidence to deprive the contestant of these votes, then I 

do not understand the elementary principles of evidence. 

Mr. RANNEY. Would not an official map made by the surveyor of 

the city be sufficient evidence? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. There is no evidence in this case of a change in the wards by ordinance or_ otherwise or of any official map. 

I defy any gentleman on this floor to point out in this record any evidence to that effect. I have looked over the volume carefully; except 

the mere statement of the voter, and he says he did not know of the 

change until '' yesterday,'' and he was called as a witness some time in 

April, 1883. 

Walters is the same. No map, mark you, at all was shown to this 

voter; nothing except he heard from somebody else that he lived in a ward different from the one in which he voted. No ordinance, no map, 

no competent person called to prove the boundary or dividing lines or 

any division of that town. Yet they claim the voter himself, who says 

he did not know anything about it but what he was told; that this 

vote shall be taken from the contestant. . Mr. CALKINS. Any proof from the admission of the voter himself 

what ward or precinct he lived in? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I can not find any. 

Mr. CALKINS. Does the gentleman say oral proof is not competent 

to show what ward or precint a voter lives in? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I doubt it very much in any large city or town, and certainly not for the purpose of changing the result of an election. I think I have fully answered that before. 
. '\ 

4538 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

M.r. RANNEY. It is competent evidence in a homicide case. Mr. ADAMS, of New York. That question could not possibly arise 

in a homicide case, unless the party was about to be tried in a. wrong 

county or State, and then that question would be decided before any 

wrong could be done. There is compete~t evidence, and that is what 

I am addressing myself to. 

Mr. CALKINS. If my friend will allow me. In the case of boundaries of land, or when something of that kind is in issue, the position 

of the gentleman may be correct; but where it is a mere incident, 

would it not be competent to show that persons living in a city knew 

the boundaries as marked, and for the purpose of showing the residence 

of the voter would not their oral testimony be perfectly competent in 

any tribunal? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. The point I am addressing myself to 

is the evidence in this contest. 

Mr. RANNEY, In this case. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. And I say there is no evidence as to 

that voter as to where he lived. 

Mr. RANNEY. Except what he said. 

. 1\lr. ADAMS, of New York. Exceptwhathesaid; andhesaidhewas 

told so ''yesterday.'' No map was shown him; nothing except that he 

was told ''yesterday ' ' he lived in another district; and for all I know he 

might have been told so for the very purpose of testifying in this contest. 

Surely my good friend from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] who bears 

the honored title of judge would not write himself down as contending for such a proposition so illogical and so contradictory of all rules of 

evidence. I know he would not do it except in an election case. Mr. ROBERTSON. Allow me- Mr. ADAM~S, of New York. You can answer inyourown time. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I wish to read you some law. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I decline to yield further; I wish to 

conclude what I have say. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If you are in a hurry to conclude, all right. 

You have spoken over your time. 

Mr. ADAMS; of New York. By unanimous consent of the House. 

You were not in at the time. 

Walters, one of the other voters: said he lived in Canton. He could 

not say as to the ward he lived in. He said, ''I suppose it may be the 

second; but I have heard since it was the fifth.'' A map was handed 

to the witness, and he says that his residence from the map is in the 

fifth ward. He voted in October, 1882, and voted for Wallace. And 

that is the character of the testimony that is produced to throw out 

these 5 voters. I have not time to go over all of the voters. 

I desire, in connection with this subject, to ·ca I attention of the 

House to this fact: the contestee and his counsel claim as a reason why 

they did not call the voters on the stand was that they could not be 

compelled to testify. I am not speaking of the 9 I have just referred 

to, but I am speaking of the remaining number out of the 53 whose 

claim to vote i,s put into issue on account of non-residency or fraud. 

There re, I believe, two or three voters called to prove how they 

voted; but as to all others they were not called toproveforwhom they 

voted. They start out with the claim of .inviolability and secrecy of 

the ballot as a reason why the voters were not called. Well, I respect 

that claim. After a ballot is deposited in the box by a voter it is 

claimed by contestee that he can not be forced to tell for whom he 

voted; and counsel for contestee, in his argument before the committee, 

and the gentleman from Massachusetts in his report, also contend for 

the same principle, and rely on the case of the United States vs. Reyburn, 6 Peters, 352, to sustain them. But reference to that case will 

show that it has no analogy to the questions inTolved in this contest. 

It is true that the court did hold that-

. .A. subpcena to compel his attendance (that is, the witness) would have availed 

nothing, and the law does not require the J?erformauce of an act perfectly nu- gatory. But suppose Chase had been within the reach of a subpcena., a.nd had 

actually attended the court, he could not ha.ve been compelled to produce the 

commission and thereby furnish evidence against himself. 

That was a criminal case, however, and the record shows that the 

witness Chase was indicted for the same offense with Reyburn, and could 

not be found. 

Now as to these 5 in the wrong ward and 4 in the poor-house, they 

do not claim they were illegal voters. They' only claim they voted 

at the wrong precinct and wrong wards. They were legal voters; and 

I wish to impress that on gentlemen wlio will have to vote on this to- morrow evening. They have ridden rough-shod over the great principle for which they themselves have contended. Tb.ey have called every 

one of the alleged wrong-ward voters and every one of the poor-house 

Toters; they called every one of them as witnesses. 

Mr. RANNEY. They were honest ones. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. They were honest ones. But you did 

not know that until you called them. The dishonest ones, he says, were not called because no voter can be compelled to testify for whom he 

voted. I have yet to become convinced that you can call a legal voter 

and make him testify how he voted, and that you can not compel an alleged fraudulent or illegal voter to do the same. In other words, a person entitled by the laws of a State to vote and about which no dispute can arise can be forced to tell for whom he voted, and a person 

who had nQ right to vote at all must be pro~cted by the laws ft·om 

divulging the contents of his ballot. Surely we have at last reached 

the highest degree of civilization when the dishonest are protected and 

shielded, not in their right, but in wrongdoing, and the honest voter 

forced to submit to exposing the contents of his ballot. 

They start out with the charge that over forty of these voters had no right to exercise the suffrage, violating the laws of their own Commonwealth and destroying the great right 9f the vote of an honest voter to 

count one. And yettheysaythat as to those voters whom they charge 

with violating the law and having debased the ballot-box, that you shall 

throw around them the great sanctity or privilege you claim for a legal 

voter. But they also say that you can not call a legal voter; he may 

decline to tell for whom he voted; and yet not one of the honest ones, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY] styled them, refused to say howhe voted when called as a witness! 

Now, 1\Ir. Speaker, in the case of O'Ferrall vs. Paul, a very recent 

case, the minority report was written by my distinguished friend now here on my left [Mr. 1\IILLER, of Pennsylvania], sanctioned and approved, as I have reason to believe, by all the gentlemen on the com- mittee on the other side of the House, but suppressed before it reaehed 

the House-a report which I now hold in my hand, and which was not 

the report submitted to this House and upon which this House acted. 

Here is the language of my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania 

who is about to be elevated to a seat on the bench in his own State after 

October: 

The best availa.ble evidence of how a voter cast his ba.llotM:arkthelanguage, becausethisis important. That contest, you will 

remember, was decided on the 5th of the present month, in this House, 

and is a very late case; and I shall preserve it carefully and have it 

bound. 

Mr. RANNEY. I hope you will keep Judge LoWRY'S report, too, 

and have them bound together. 

Mr. AD.A1t1S, of New York. You can refer to that yourself when 

you take the floor. What does the gentleman from Pennsylvania say 

in his report: 

The best available evidence of how the voter cast h1s ballotAnd again I ask your attention to this language-

• • • If 1,385voters cast illegal ballots, as alleged ·by contestant, the persons who cast them may be compelled to answer how they voted. The contestant. says to us," I furnish the names, and residence, and color, and politics of these illegal 

voters." Why did he not call them? What effort was made by contestant to prove by them how they voted, where they got their tax receipts, who gave them to them? None. In Cook vs. Cutts, Dig.l880-'82, 249,200, every effort was made to procure the evidence of the alleged illegal voter, and circumstantial evidence was only resorted to when those efforts failed. · The same rule was laid down in Lowe vs. Wheeler (Id., page 85; see also Mc- Crary on Elections, section 196, and ooses therein cited). Here, however, nothing 

of the kind is done. 

M:r. R.AN~EY. Will the gentleman from New York permit me now 

to ask him a question? · :Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Just let me get through with this portion of my remarks first,• and then I will gladly do so. 

Mr. RANNEY. Very well; when you get through I should like to 

ask a question in this connection. 

1\lr. ADAMS, of New York. Now, M:r. Speaker, I submit, with the 

shrewdness for which these distinguished gentlemen are so well recog-. 

nized upon this floor, knowing this contest was to be bro~ght up here 

in a. few weeks from the date of the report from which I have just read, 

and knowing that this case rested entirely upon hearsay evidence as to 

the illegality of the vote, and knowing that not one of the voters was ever examined, although a large number of them resided in the district 

at the ~ime the testimony was taken, some one on the committee, possibly the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts himself, discovered that to commit themselves to such an honest expression as to 

hearsay evidence would be binding as a precedent on the whole Republican party in the McKinley-Wallace contest. 

Mr. RANNEY. Do you mean to assert that as a fact with reference 

to me? 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Oh, no. I mean to state that the gentleman probably found out that that would be the result of it. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman has been arguing probabilities, not 

facts, all the way through. 

Mr. MILLER, ofPennsylvania. Will the gentleman from New York 

not yield to me now for a moment? 

M:r. ADAMS, of New York. Not now. Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Certainly in t\rlB connection I ought 

to be allowed a moment. 

Mr . .ADAMS, of New York. Very well. 

Ur. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from New York 

scarcely does justice to the CommitteeonElectionswhenhequotes one 

paragraph from the views submitted by me to the minority of the com- mittee. That sentence which he reads was in the report, but when I 

submitted it to the members of the committee they objected to it, and as I was ordered to write the views of the committeeMr. ADAMS, of New York. The minority. 

Mr. 1\IlLLER, of Pennsylvania. The minority of the committee. 

I left it out because they did not indorse it. And I think I was justi-
1884. • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4539 

fied in doing so, because I was asked to write the views of the minority of the committee. For myself, however, I stand by the language 

quoted when you couple it with the balance of my report. But I explained subsequently, while I did not deny that other evidence might 

be adduced, yet I say tha t the best evidence is the evidence of the m:m 

himself, and I do not vary from that statement now. 

l\1r. RAl\'NEY. Even if he is a knave and will swear to a lie? 

l\Ir. 1\ULLER, of Pennsylvania. That is another consideration. If 

a man is not to be believed on oath of course you must seek other testimony. . · 

1\Ir. RANNEY. Will the gentleman from New York now allow my 

question? 

l\1r. ADAMS, of New York. Certainly. 

1\Ir. RANNEY. I would like to know which the gentleman from 

New York considered the best authority on that question, a statement 

in a report which was changed before submission to the House or the 

report of Judge LoWRY, who made the report for the majority of the 

committee, which is otherwise, and which the House adopted? Which 

is the best? 

l\Ir. ADAMS, of New York. I fail to find anything of the kind in 

the report, but do find that you have committed yourself to the doctrine time and time again. Judge LoWRY can explain that for himself, and I have no doubt will do so, but not so as to produce conviction in the mind of the gentleman from Massachusetlts on this side. 

1\Ir. COOK. Redid not have anything of that kind in his report. 

1\Ir. RANNEY. But in the case of O'Ferrall 1,300 votes were rejected where no evidence was called whatever, and the only evidence, 

their politics alone, was put in to show how they voted. 

Mr. AD.A.l\IS, of New York. Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the question 

of whether or not in a legislative assembly, as in a court to which an 

elect ion case may be submitted, you can call a voter, or whether you 

can not, although I know that there are authorities the other way, 

still I claim that in the celebrated case of Vallandigham against 

Campbell, decided in 1858, and adopted by this House, the distinguished 

chairman of that committee dissented from that report and reported to 

the House that neither was elected. In a careful and well-considered 

speech addressed to the Representatives upon the floor of the House he 

stated that not one of the authorities cited in the report by the distinguishedgentlemannow on the other side of this Capitol, Sena'tor LAMAR, 

touched in the' remotest degree the question involved in the case upon 

which they based the opinion, stated that the authorities that were 

cited in that case decided nothing of the kind; but even were it otherwise the later cases that have been decided the other way certainly denounced it, and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi distinctly 

said in that report that it was not necessary to pass upon that question at all, a~ the election of Mr. Vallandigham did not depend upon it. 

In the case of Lowe against Wheeler the distinguished gentleman from 

Massachusetts [.M:r. RANNEY] wrote the report; and that subsequent, 

too, to Vallandigham against Campbell. He says: 

ConteStee's evidence does not show for whom many if any of the persons claimed to be non-registered voted. He ha-s not called the persons themselves 

but attempted with little success t-o prove it by third parties. The instances proved by any competent or sufficient evidence are very few and need not be stated. 

:Mr. RANNEY. I indorse that; every word of it. 

l\1r. ADAMS, of New York. I read further: 

Contestee, for aught that appears, could have taken the evidence of the wit- nesses themselves to establish their title as the persons whose names appear on the p-oll-list and to prove for whom they voted. 

Out of his own mouth he is convicted, and he breaks in upon what 

he now claims to be an unbroken line of precedents from· the Pa,rliament of England to the Forty-seventh Congress. 

But the gentleman from Massachusetts does not now and never did 

believe that hearsay evidence is admissible; for let me read what he said 

in the debates in the last Congress. The language is so eloquent and 

so apropos that I can not forbear to read it: 

I state this, too, as a proposition which will not be denied: One man comes afterward and swears that he was an illegal voter, and voted for contestee illega11y. He is presumed to know the law, and knew if he did what he says he 

did, that he had violated it by voting when he had n.o right to vote. Now, I ask 

if you will rely upon that man's uncorroborated evidence? 

I ask if you will take and rely upon that man's uncorroborated evidence, 

alleging as he does his own turpitude and violation of the law? I state this as a fair prop-osition oflaw that if a. man shows by his own evidence that he violated 

the law and committed a criminal offense he is not to be credited, as 11- general rule. 

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his honest expression 

of opinions upon the subject of heal"SaY testimony. 

I also call the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to the 

case of Cessna vs. 1\Iyers, the report of which is written by Senator 

HoAR, then a member of the Election Committee. Has the gentleman 

from Massachusetts ever read the report? .A.nd if he has, surely his 

prejud!ces, if he have any, would lean towarrd Massachusetts as against 

Mississippi. 

Senator HoAR says: 

Another question of importance which has arisen in the discussion of the cause is the question whether evidence of the declarations of alleged voters, 

'made not under oath, in the country should be received, to show the fact that 

they voted, or for whom, or that they were not legally entitled to vote. Some of the committee think that such evidence ought in no case to be ad-

• 

mitted, except, of course, so far as declarations made at the time of the party's intent or understanding as to his then present residence, or his purpose in a. removal, is admissible as a. part of the res gestm. All of the committee are of 

opinion that such evidence -is to be received with the grea.test caution, to be 

resorted to only when no better is to be had, and only acted on when the decla.-

rations are clearly proved, and are themselves clear and satisfactory. 

And again says: 

It may be said that the principle of the secret ballot protects the voter from 

disclosing how he voted, and in the absence of power to compel him to testify and furnish·the best evidence, renders the resort to other evidence necessary. The committee are not prepared to admit that the policy which shields the vote of the cit.izen from being made known without his consent is of more imp-ortance than an inquiry into the purity and result of the ele.ction itself. If it 

is, it can not protect the illegal voter from disclosin~ how he voted. If it is, it 

would be quite doubtful whether the same policy should not prevent the use of 

the machinery of the law to' discover and make public the fact, in w hate>er way it may be proved. It is the publicity of the vote, not the interrogation of the voter in regard to it, that the secret ballot i<~ designed to prevent. There would seem to be no need to resort to hearsay evidence on this ground, unless the voter has first been called, and, being interrogated, asserts his privilege andrefuses to answer. Even in that case a still more conclusive objection to hearsay testimony of the character is this: It is not at all likely to be either true or trust- worthy. 

The rule that admits secondary evidence when the best can not be bad only admits evidence which can be relied on to prove the fact, as sworn copies when an original is lost, or the testimony of a witness to the contents of a lost instru- ment. Hearsay evidence is not admitted in such cases1 and is only admitted in cases where hearsay evidence is in the ordinary expenence of mankind found to be generally correct, as in matters of pedigree and the like. But a man who 

is so anxious to conceal how he voted as to refuse to disclose it on oath, even when the disclosure is demanded in the interest of public justice, and who is 

presumed to have voted fraudulently-for otherwise, in most cases, the inquiry is of no consequence-would be quite a.s likely to have made false statements on · the subject if he had made any. To permit such statement.<~ to be received, to overcome the judgment of the election officers, who admit the vote publicly, in 

the face of a challenge and with the right to scrutinize the voter, would seem to be exceedingly dangerous. And again in the case of Newland 11s. Graham, the declarations ol' voters made 

after the election of their having voted for the sitting member were held inadmissible and were excluded, although it was shown that by the statute of North 

Carolina, where the election took pla-ce, voters were not compellable to give evidence for whom they voted. The committee did not in theirreportstatethe ground of their decision, but we may fairly presume that it was held that an illegal voter could not refuse to answer for whom he cast his vote, and shield 

himself under the statute made to preserve the secrecy of an honest ballot, and 

that, therefore, since all such persons can be compe11ed to state for whom they 

=~~~d t!~£ beh~~~:d~lled as witnesses, and their declarations not under oath 

Now, I have here a well-considered decision of the court of appeals 

of New York, certainly one of the most respected and ablest benches 

in this country. Judge Andrews, who wrote the opinion in that case, 

says as to the right of calling a voter, for whom these gentlemen here 

claim all the sanctity and inviolability and secrecy of the ballot, says: 

In an action to try the title to an elective office the evidence of voters as to how 

they voted is proper, and a. voter may be required to disclose for whom he voted. 

I also refer to a few other cases: 

Gilliland et al. vs. Schuyler et al. (1872, 9 Kansas, 569): · "Hearsay: declarations of a voter. On the trial of a. contested county-seat election a witness can not be allowed to state what other persons, not parties to the record, told him subsequent to the election as to the number of times and names under which they claimed to have voted." 

On pages 582, 583, and 584 the court say: "That so much of this testimony as purports to give the statements of third 

parties as to the number of times and the names under which they had voted is 

hearsay and incompetent seems to us clear. It is the testimony of what other 

persons told the witness, persons not parties to the suit, so that their admissions 

could be receivable. 

"These declarations were not made at the polls by persons conducting the 

election and so as to make them part of the res gestre; nor do they accompany a principal fact which they serve to qualify or explain. They are simply con- cerning past transactions by strangers to the record. They come within none of the exceptions to the rule which excludes hearsay testimony. It was per- fectly legitimate and competent to prove the casting of fraudulent votes, but it was not competent to prove that fact by the statements of parties who claimed •to have cast them. It may be said that the contest was between Lyndon and 

Burlingame, and that all persons supp-orting either were principals on the one side or the other. But this is true no more in case of a contest between towns for the county seat than between individuals for a.n office. Surely a candidate 

for the office of governor would hat·dly feel that all who voted for him so far 

represented him that in case of a contest their admissions and statements cou,ld 

bind him on the question of fraudulent votes. No more is it than in the present cas~ . 

"We have examined the cases of People vs. Pease(27 N.Y., 45; State vs. Olin, 

23 Wis., 319; and the note in 3 McCord, 230), and so far as they enunciate any principle contrary to the doctrine here announced we disapprove them . " 

761llinois, 34 (1875), Beardstown et al vs. Virginia. et at.: Syllabus 10: "Declarat,ious of voter not admissible to show how he voted. 

"On the contest of an eJect.ion, where the ballots are lost, the unsworn decla.-

rations of a voter as to how he voted are not competent evidence to prove how 

he in fact voted." 

See 11lso 9, and o-pinion of court on pages 45, 46, 47, and 48. 

McCrary, 2d ed., sec. 397a: "But the unsworn declarations of voters a.t such an election as to how they voted are not admissible. As to the admiSsibility of such declarations there is some conflict, but the better opinion is as above stated." 

Now, if a legal voter can be compelled to disclose for whom he voted, 

why not an illegal voter ? The V allandigham case was decided in 

1858. Since that time a statute has been passed-probably some of 

the gentlemeu who are here drafted or voted for it-which seems to 

have escaped the attention of the Election Committee. It has this pro--

vision: 

No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact or to produce any pa 

per respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress or any 

committee thereof. 

These witnesses are treated as testifying before this committee just 

as if personally present. 
4540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. • MAY 26, 

Then in section 859 Coniress shields such witnesses from prosecution, as follows: ' 

Testimony of witnesses before either House, or before any committee of 

either House of Congress, is not admissible against him in criminal prosecutions. 

Now, is not this a proceeding pending in one of the Houses of Con- · 

gress? Have we not the right to-day to call witnesses here to ask them 

how they voted? And if they refuse to testify can they not be com- mitted for contempt? Now, they claim: under the common-law rule 

that where you start out with the theory that v, voter has given an illegal vote to compel him to testify would be to make him criminate 

himself, and no court would com_pel him to do it. But here the laws 

of the country protect him. Even if they do not protect him, I submit 

if you can compel a legal voter to testify, with all the more force can 

· you compel an illegal voter. 

Now ! ·give a summary of the results (as I have no further time. to 

go over the vote in detail) I have arrived at in reference to this election: Wallace has 16,937 votes up to this disputed point. From that 

number I deduct the following· votes included in the 54: Moriarity, 

Black, Ott, Dicks, Huhn, Urmson, Ward, Ueyer, Leibocher; Tas~er, 

Rumberger, and Sterling. And I defy any gentleman to read the testimony and concede one more vote than I have conceded out of the 

whole number. I would show, if I had the time, from the testimony as to the others that they have resided there and v.oted there year in 

and year out. That leaves 16,926. 

:Mr. RANNEY. Three out of the 55. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Oh, no; I give you the right number. 

Now, giving to the sitting member all the votes I can possibly allow 

him, he has 16,913. This leaves the contestant with a clear and un- disputed majority of 14 votes. 

Mr. RANNEY. Will you give methenumberofthose you allow as 

illegal out of those 52? 

:Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I will gladly do so. I leave this contesttothe fair-minded gentlemen on both sides of the 

House, confident that the care and study which the Election Committee 

have given to itwillreceive the approval andsupportofthe House and 

the sanction of the country; that it will not be acquiesced in by any 

person more cheerfully than by the sitting member, if for no other rear- son than that it gives full effect to the free ballot of the voters of the ~ district which he has so long and so ably represented. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. :M:r. Speaker, I hope I will have the attention 

of the House while I proceed to give my views upon this very complex 

·case. I hope I will have the undivided attention of the members on 

this sideoftheHouse, because I wanttotalktothem, and try, if possible, to see if I can demonstrate to their minds that the sitting member, 

the honorable gentleman from Ohio, Mr. William McKinley, jr., was duly and honestly elected a member of the Forty-eighth Congre...qg. 

I have given this case an honest and careful consideration, and if you 

as partisans call the vote I shall give a Republican vote; .then when I 

shall have cast it it will be the first one I ever gave in my life. Tknow 

that the distinguished chairman of the · Committee on Elections said 

that he could convince any fair-minded man that he ~as right in his 

position. I do not say that I have got all the honesty and all the fair- ness of every man in this House of Representatives. The learned and 

distinguished gentleman from Georgia, the man whom I love almost 

above all other men on the committee, may be an embodiment of all 

the -learning and all the fairness upon that committee. But if by 

chance I put in a mild demurrrer to his statement I hope it will not 

offend him. 

When we had a prima facie case here several months ago they then 

tried the merits of the case; and now when we are trying a case on its 

merits they want to try a prima facie (:ase. They want to go back and 

arraign the governor of Ohio, perhaps because they think that will be 

popu1ar with the Democrats. . When I first came here it was my privilege on one occasion to make a few remarks upon an election case. I said then that I intended so 

long as I was a member of the Committee on Elections to vote as I 

conceive the law to be, no matter whom it may hurt; "to hew .to the 

line, no matter on which side the chips might fall," believing that law 

ought to be justice and politics ought to be statesmanship. 

Guided and controlled by that sentimentlhave looked into this~~ 

and after a careful and deliberate examination of it, viewing it from 

all standpoints, and giving my party the benefit of ali doubt, I have 

arrived at the deliberate conclusion that 1\Ir. McKinley was elected. I 

know it is said that it is all right to turn him out. It is said that it is 

all right to do that because in the last Congress the Republicans acted 

in that way. But I say to you, gentlemen, thatthat is.theveryreason 

why I do not want this thing done;.for I do not want to follow Republican practices. If they have done a decent thing in an election case in the last twenty years, it has entirely escaped my observation. [Laughter.] 

Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. Did not the last Congress seat M:r. 

CooK? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If yon had heard as much about Cook against 

Cutts as I have you would not refer to them. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Notwithstanding, they tried filibustering to keep 

him out. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I know that the average American. politician 

and the arverage American journalist can see nothing in an election 

contest. except party. Now, I deplore t-hat; not that I a.m above the 

average, but upon this occasion I want to rise above partisanship, and 

to say to gentlemen on the ~ther side, whom we have denounced from 

one end of the country to the other for their conduct in election cases 

that we are willing to do the fair, right, and honest thing, because w~ do not need now to come in here and vote that this man be seated in 

order that we may have a majority. That is the whole of, it; we do 

not have to do that now. [Laughter.l 

I propose now to come down to the point in this case, and that is as to the votes cast in the wrong wards. I hope I shall have the attention of all here, because I want to speak honestly and earnestly and 

to. state the matter correctly, with a view of appealing to your intelligence and judgment and trying to get y~m to do right on this occa- sion. And I believe I can do it if you will only listen to me and believe what I say. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SPRINGER. Do not draw too strongly on our credality. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The first thing that comes up in this case is 

that the returning board refused to countfor Mr. Walla.ce certain votes 

which were given for John H. Wallace, Major Wallace, Wallace, W. 

H. Wallace,· W. W. Wallace, Jonathan Wallace, Maj. Wallace, and J. 

H. Wallace. Now all of these votes, 16 in number, I concede cheerfully 

to Mr. W alla.ce, believing that the intention of the elector should con- trol, and that those vote..<; should have been counted for Mr. Wallace. 

We now come down to the Fairfield Township vote, where 11 additional votes are claimed for Mr. Wallaceontherecount. I am absolutely 

ashamed to think that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Elections [Mr. TURNER] and the distinguished gentleman from New 

York [Mr. ADAMS] should make any pretense that11 additional votes 

in the Fairfield Township should be given to Wallace. Why do I say 

that? Because the box had been for four long months in the hands of 

hostile parties; every one of the men who had control of it were hostile 

to Mr. McKinley. The district is largely Republican, and naturally, 

without frand and on an honE>-at ballot, a Republican would represent it. 

Mr. COSGROVE. Will the gentleman allowme to ask him a ques- tion? · 

Mr. ROBERTSON, No. [Laughter.] I say that in this Fairfield 

Township the ballot-box was taken after the election and carried to some fellow's house where it was kept for weeks, and then carried to 

the county town, and afterward they met there to recount the votes. 

Now, what do you find as the result of that recount? "You say, Mr. 

Chairman of the committee [addressing Mr. TURNER], that there was no tampering with that ballot-box, do you not? 

1\Ir. TURNER, of Georgia. I did not say so. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well your colleague on the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. ADAMS], says so. The fact is, that when 

they came to recount the votes in that box they found that instead of 

638 votes which had been counted on the night of the election, there were only 633 votes in the box. I say there was eliminated from that 

box 5 ballots. Yet gentlemen say it is all right, it is all honest, it is 

all fair. And then, in addition to the 5 thus abstracted, t4ey claim 

that there ought to be 11 more counted for Wallace. I say that would 

be the greatest outrage that ever was perpetrate4 upon the elective 

franchise . in this country. And I say that unless you give to Wallace 

those 11 votes in Fairfield Township, you can in no way elect him to a seat upon this floor. 

We now come to the votes given in the wrong wards, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. ADAMS] says it is all right and proper to 

count for Wallace, for the men have a right to vote wherever they please. · 

Let us see what the law is in such a case. I am going to give you 

Democratic :taw, law made by a Democratic Congress, made before the 

war, made 'Qefore the gentleman from New York [Mr. ADAMS] joined 

the Democratic party; and therefore I have a right to appeal to it as authority upon the questiolh I quote from the report in the case of 

Vallandigham vs. Campbell: 

Of non-residents of the ward or township 2votes are disputedbythereturned member and none by the contestant. It is not denied that both of these voters were legal electors of the county; but having voted (though not fraudulently. 

but by mistake) out of their proper wards, the undersigned find the votes illegal and deduct them from the poll of the contestant. 

That was Democratic law then, and it was a time when we wanted 

to squeeze a fellow in, I guess. But we do .not have to do that now, 

and we can stand by that law. I now come to the poor-house or infirmary vote. There we have 4 votes that the law of Ohio fixes beyond 

all question. It has been decided by the supreme court of Ohio-! 

thought I had the book here, but I find I have not-that wherever the 

infirmary is that is the home of the inmate and the place which he 

must vote if he is a voter. But the inmates did not. 

I now come to Butler Township. There are·6 votes which ought to 

be counted for Mr. McKinley, and I believe the gentleman from New 

York virtually concedes them, and therefore it is not worth while to 

take up the time of the House considering them. I have gone over the · 

disputed questions except about 12 or 15 votes, and the gentleman from · New York concedes about 8 of them. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 4541 

Now we come to Liverpool Township, and there is the great c~mten

tion in this case. That is a little town of six or eight thousand inhabitants where they make crockery-ware. It is a manufacturing town, 

wher~ there was some dispute, and they raised considerable "fuss and 

feathers." [Laughter.] Mr. Wallace and Mr. McKinley both w~nt 

out there, and it was a question which should be the biggest man :mth 

the "strikers " and the " Knights of Labor." 4-Dd upon tha.t ISSue 

they went to the polls. What was the result? In thattownshipthey 

voted men who lived inSteubenville, Ohio, and in Wheeling, W.Va., 

for Mx. Wallaee; and why they voted I know not, unless they thought 

if Wallace was elected the tariff on the milk vessels of the poor people 

of this country would be a little higher. · . Now I appeal rothe fairandimpartialjudgmentofDemocrats ofthiS 

House ~hether you are willing to say tha~ Mr. Wallace sh~ have a seat on this floor upon the votes cast for him by voters who lived out 

of the district and some of whom lived in West Virgillia. That is the 

way to put the question; that is the question which must be answered. 

~1r. SPRINGER. How many votes did he get of that kind? 

1\Ir. ROBERTSON. Over 25. IfyouthrqwoutthosevotesMr. McKinley is elected by a respectable majority. Now, gentlemen who join 

in tlie majority report do not. dispute this :proposition. My friend from 

Georgia [1\'lr. TURNER] does not dispute 1t. 

1\'lr. TURNER, of Georgia. Does not dispute what? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. You do not dispute that these voters lived outside the district. 

1\fr.' TURNER, of Georgia. Yes, I do. 

l\Ir. ROBERTSON. It was not disputed in the argument before the 

committee, it was not disputed by the lawyers who represented Mr. 

Wallace before the subcommittee, that if the witness had been first 

called the contestee could afterward have produced secondary evidence. 

I want to give a little history of this case, and in doing so I will say 

that the Election Committee is composed of fifteen members, then that 

committee is divided into three subcommittees consisting of five each. 

It so happens that the chairman [1\Ir. TURNER], Mr. ADAMS, Mr. 

RANNEY Mr. HEPBURN, and myself constitute one of the subcommittees, and 1

to that subcommittee was given the consideration of the case 

now being considered by this House. It was learnedly, ably, and exhaustively argued by the most dis:tinguished counsel in this country, 

and at the conclusion of it three of that committee were in favor of 

1\Ir. McKinley; and I desire to say further, thatwefive gentlemen are 

the only members of the Elections Committee that heard the arguments or thatinvestigated the case. Hence I say that instead of us appearing here as the minority we ought to appear as the majority, because nearly, I believe quite, all of the members of the Elections Committee confessed and admitted at the time that they voted when the 

subcommittee's report was reported to the full committee that they had 

given the case little or no consideration. 

1\Ir. ROBERTSON. Now, I ~ay there is no dispute that therewexe 

votes cast in Liverpool Township by men who lived in Wheeling and 

Steubenville; but the proposition of law is insisted upon that secondary evidence to prove how the voter voted can not be produced until 

you first call him. Is not that the position? · 

1\Ir. ADAMS, of New York. NQt exactly. . 

1\lr. ROBERTSON. Well, I would like to know how I have stated 

the proposition incorrectly. I say there is the point of difference between us. 

Now let me produce some Democratic law on this subject. I read 

from the report of the majority of the Committee on Elections in the 

Forty-fifth Congress upon the case of Wigginton vs. Pacheco: 

In the absence of the voter's own evidence it would be difficult to prove more certainly than is done in this case for whom a person voted. A person can not be compelled to state for whom he voted; and the Supreme Court of the United States has expressly decided that where a. witness can not be compelled to an- swer he need not be called (6 Peters's Reports, 352, 367). But l\1r. Pacheco might have called the voter, and if he had not claimed his privilege he could have made it clear for whom he did vote. Mr. Pacheco not having done so, nor hav- ing shown his inability to procure his deposition, we may infer that Gilbert, if produced, would have corroborated the witness whose deposition is in the rec- ord. Gilbert did not reside in the precinct where he voted, and his vote must be rejected. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Now will the gentleman allow me to 

ask him a question right there? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No, sir; I have not time. I now come to thegreatcaseofVaUandighamagainst Campbell; and 

this case came from the State of Ohio, as does the present case. There--

port was written by Hon. L. Q. C. LAMAR, now an honorable and distinguished Senator at the other end of the Capitol. And I remember, 

when the gentleman from Georgia, then standing, as I do now, with the 

Republicans, held him up as the grandest and most magnificent man that had ever lived upon this earth. -

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. No, sir; I did not. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I desire to have read an extract from th e report 

in that case which the gentleman has pronounced good authority. It was written during the same session as the one from which h e quoted 

when we had up the Manning and Chalmers case. The Clerk read as follows: 

Objection was also taken to the admission in evidence of d eclaratio ns or ad- missions b y voters here disputed as illegal touching their qualifications and the / 

candidate for whom they voted. Some of the declarations objected to the un- dersigned are of opinion were such as are received daily in courts of common law relating to residence or being part of the res gestre; others they believe to be competent upon a reasonable application of the usual rules and principles of evidence by analogy and according to their spirit. Neither the commit.tee nor the House i bound by these rules in their letter and strictness, but should pro- ceed upon more liberal principles in the investigation of truth. They regard a contested election not as a mere private litigation but a. great public inquiry, where the real parties are not so much the returned member and the contest- ant as the voters of the district, and they are content to rest their opinion on this question upon the reasoning and upon the usages and solemn decisions of Par- liament and Congress for years past, inasmuch as the distinction claimed to exist between an ordinary forensic court and a legislative assembly is recog- nized not in Parliament and Congress bu.t by the courts themselves and from a very early period. The admissibility of evidenc~ consisting of the declarations of voters as to any matter concerning their own voting has been settled in the British Parliament repeatedly and uniformly for one hundred and fifty years and is no longer to be questioned. These decisions are to be found in numerous volumes of re- ported election cases and of treatises upon this subject. The rule has been rec- ognized also in approved books of law: 3 McCord's Reports, 233, note; Phillips's 

Evidence, with Cow. and Hill's notes, 322. It is sometimes treated as an excep- tion to the rule, excluding the hearsay de~larations of third persons, but gen- erally it is put upon the ground that in elections contested because of illegal votes being received each voter challenged is a party to the proceeding, and therefore whatever he says about his own voting is an admission or confession. In Congress also, while the undersigned find several precedents distinctly adopt- ing or recognizing the rule, they find none where it has been decided the other way except in Newland vs. Graham, 1835-'36. Against this they refer to the fol- lowing: Contested Elections, 80, 260, 272, 282, 258, 367, 750, the Broad Seal case, 1840; 3 House Reports, No. 541, pages 699 and 749; Farley vs. Runk, 1845-'46, and Monroe vs. Jackson, 1847-'48. · In England, as in some of the States of this Union, the voting being viva voce, a class of declarations continually occurring in States where eleetions are by ballot are there of course almost unknown. We refer to declarations by voters as to how they voted. One case, however, accidentally occurred in Parliament where the poll-list did not show for whom the party had voted, and so his state- ment as to how he intended to vote made to a third person was allowed to be given in evidence (the Windsor case,1807; P. &0. ElectionCases,l73.) No dis- tinction has been set up in this country, nor do the undersigned perceive any; both are but hearsay, and the latter affects the party as much and in the same way as the former, and as the voter can not be compelled to testify as to his qualifications, so neither can he as to bow he voted. The American cases have, indeed, been mainly directed to the question of re- ceiving the declarations of voters. As to the latter, and besides several prior cases, the point was 'expressly and deliberately decided in the great New Jersey case in 1840, usually known as the Broad Seal case, and the evidence was unan- imously received and a large number of votes determined upon it. This prece- dent has been generally approved ever since, and the undersigned attach more importance to it than usual because it was unanimous in a highly partisan case, and because of the great ability and distinction of the gentlemen who composed the committee. The same·rule of evidence as to declarations of voters, both as to qualification and vote, was deliberately adopted by the Legislature of Mary- land in 1819, and also in the Legislatures of other States and courts having a special jurisdiction to try contested elections. As to a number of voters whose declarations are given in evidenj!e, it appears upon the papers and testimony that their attendance as witnesses could not be procured; but it is not necessary in such ca-ses to first call the voter and see 'if he will claim his privilege of re- fusing to answer. It was not done in any of the cases decided in the British Parliament. It is not necessary in the settlement of cases where the declarations of the parishioner may be given in evidence (1 Greenleaf on Evidence, section 175), and the Supreme Court of the United States has expressly decided that where a witness can not be compelled to answer he need not be called. (6 Pe- ters's Reports, 352, 367.) 

1\fnt ROBERTSON. You see from that, Ur. Speaker, that a Democratic Congress admitted a man to a seat upon this floor upon the very 

testimony that has been relied upon by the contestee in this case. And 

I say the rule there laid down has been followed by every Congress from 

that time on, when it was a Democratic Congress. When it got down 

to the case ofWigginoon against Pacheco, when Mr. John T. Harris, of 

Virginia, was thechairmanofthe Committee on Elections, he approved 

of that very doctrine I quoted a while ago. The distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. CoBB] also signed his name as indorsing and 

approving of the same doctrine. 

But, sir, before I forget it I must speak of another distinguished gentleman whose · ability every man in this House has long since recognized, because he has stood in the front rank of constitutional lawyers 

on all questions that have come before us. I need hardly say I refer 

to the distinguished gentleman, WI~IA1ll M. SPRINGER, of illinois. 

[Laughter and applause.] It is now easily explained why he wanted 

to take the book away. It was for fear I should see his name, and he 

thought I would not recollect it. But that is not the only distinguished 

gentleman. There is another one on that committee who has gotten 

more mqney out of the Treasury for noble and generous purposes than 

any man who ever came to Congress. I refer to E. JOHN ELLIS, of 

Louisiana. [Laughter and applause.] 

You see, then, Mr. Speaker, .that all these distinguished gentlemen as they have come along have indorsed the doctrine laid down in this 

case. In doing so they are only following the case of Vallandigham 

against Campbell. That case was signed by one of the greatest lawyers this country has ever produced., the Hon. John W. Stevenson, l)f the 

State of Kentucky, than whom no better manor ablerjurist ever lived 

in this country. When he was a Senator from Kentucky he stood 

along with Thurman and a host of others distinguished in our annals. 

Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. ADAMs] mounts the stand and says, '' Oh, no; this is not a ·wellconsidered case.'' [Laughter and applause.] It is not a well-considered 

case, isn't it? Why, that is the very height-well, I will not say what 

I was going to, because I like the gentleman from New York all the same. [Laughter and applause.] 

I am absolutely and profoundly pained, however, to think that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Elections, for;, wh ose ability 
~ . 

4542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

I entertained such sincere respect, should have jumped crosswise on this 

case and got wrongwise on all the others. [Laughter and applause.] 

But I am about to conclude, and I wish to say in all seriousness; hecause I have tried to treat this case in a serious manner-! want to say 

this country can stand all but two things-corruption in the judiciary 

and corruption in elections. Mr. NICHOLLS. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a 

question? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No, sir. Now, when these two combined, the 

judiciar_y and the elections, become corrupt, then only will follow the 

dissolution and breaking down ofthis fairfabric of free government we 

have with so much difficulty erected. The elective franchise will be 

gone, and elections transferred from the people to the House of Rep-· 

resentatives. Perchance if we do not get vqtes enough or a certificate 

we will be counted in just as thop.gh we ~d received one. 

Viewing the case from any standpoint, it can not be denied but what 

1\Ir. McKinley was elected byfrom40to 50 majority, or rather plurality, 

and this is bound to be conceded by any fair-minded man {if I be permitted to use the term) that has given this case a careful consideration. 

Deducting from contestant the votes cast in the wrong wards-the'' poorhouse" vote, the Butler Township vote, the Liverpool Township vote, 

and the other admitted and proved illegal votes for contestant, leaves 

a clear majority in favor of 1\Ir. McKinley. 

Mr. NICHOLLS, What have you to sayabontthedoctrine of turning the rascal out? [Laughter.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. What I was going to say is this: Turn Mr. 

McKinley out if yon will; you do it cont.rary to Democratic precedent. Turn him out if you will; you clo it contrary to the law. Turn 

him out if you will; you do it contrary to the facts in the case. [Applause.] 

E~ROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION. 

Mr. NEECE, from the Committee on Enro11ed Bills, reported that 

they had examined and found truly enrolled bills and a joint resolution of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: 

Joint resolution (S. R. 26) granting permission to' Ensign L. K. Reynolds, United States Navy, to accept the rlecoration of the Royal and 

Imperial Order of Francis Joseph from the Government of Austria; 

A bill {S. 247) to extend the duration of the Court of Commissioners 

of Alabama Claims, and for other purposes; 

A bill (S. 394) restoring to ~he pension-roll the name of Maj. D. Williams· 

A bill (S. 494) for the relief of Nancy Miller; 

A bill (S. 626) to increase the pension of Francis Scott, and to rate 

him in the second grade of pensioners; 

A bill (S. 1299) to increase the pension of Alonzo B. Chatfield; and 

A bill (H. R. 2824) to amend sections 4, 5, and 9 of an act approved 

February 24, 1~9, entitled "An act to create the northern judicial 

district of the State of Texas, and to change the eastern and western 

judicial districts of said State, and to fix the time and places for holding 

courts in said districts,'' and to provide for holding terms of the court of 

the western judicial district of Texas at the city of El Paso, and for 

other purposes. 

Mr. HOOPER, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that 

they had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the following title; 

when the Speaker signed the same: 

A bill (H. R. 355) to provide for the muster and pay of certain offi- cers and enlisted men of the volunteer forces. 

CONTESTED~ELECTION CASE-WALLACE VS. M'KINLEY. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, there is no more unpleasant 

position, I apprehend, in which a man can possibly be placed than to 

feel that he has the charge to some extent of important interests that 

require clo e consideration and careful judgment, and yet feels that the 

tribunal to which he must appeal is indifferent to what he says. I can 

understand how a man may be willing to insist upon arguing to a tribunal that is hostile to him, for that hostility may after a little while 

disappear. I can understand how a man may be willing to argue to a tribunal that he knows is prejudiced against him and his cause, for such 

prejudice may be removed; but I never did, and I think I never can, 

understand how a man can well put important matters of debate before 

a tribunal which he knows is totally indifferent to whatever he may 

say and unheeding to his most serious arguments. 

I stand here for the little time that I shall occupy the floor in behalf of 

my colleague, who has sat for a long time at my right hand, and with 

whom for many years I have been intimately acquainted; believing as I 

live that I stand .tor him in the right and am maintaining the right, 

and in his name and for him I say to this Mouse strike if you will, 

but first hear him. 

Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether even half of the members of this House 

who listen to me have afair andcomprehensiveunderstandingofwhat 

the issues are between these parties, and in saying this I mean no disrespect to any member of this House. Our system here is such as to 

make it almost impossible to get down to the consciences of members 

upon such questions as this. They do better in England, where under 

the same constitution in this respect, although unwritten, they refer 

the whole matter of contested .elections of members of Parliament to 

the courts, and they report the law and the facts, that Parliament may 

consider them. I know how we have to act upon this matter. 

We decide them largely upon the strength of the reports of our committees. 

I have the greatest respect for the Election Committee of this House. 

With many of its members I have a personal acquaintance; with the 

chairman I have been a~quainted for some two years or more. As to 

his intention to do right I have not the slightest doubt. As to his capacity to ascertain the right I have no more doubt than I have in regard 

to any mortal. He is, however, liable to make mistakes. One hundred and thirty members of this House thought he made a grave mistake in judgment in the English-Peelle case only last week, and so expressed themselves in their votes. I think that he has made ami take 

now, not then. So that we may take the case without any great authority resting merely upon the fact that he has reported it, and I 

speak of him merely to illustrate my meaning; for no word of mine 

shall be or can be taken to cast the slightest ·intimation of disrespect 

upon his action in either or both of these cases or upon any a~tion of 

the committee over which he presides. 

Mr. Speaker, we get up committees and give them authority, but are 

wesurehowour committeesst&nd? Will members fora moment reflect 

upon the mass of business coming oefore committees, and how much 

some of its members have to rely upon the judgment of others? The 

cases referred to the Committee on Electionsareeachsubmittecltoasubcommittee of :five. Three-of that subcommittee may act. Taking our 

present case, we will say the subcommittee report in favor of Mr. 

McKinley by a vote of 2 for him, 1 against.• This report comes before the general committee, a. portion only being present, say eleven in 

all. Howmuchit is examined, and whether by all, is unknown. From 

my own experience in other committees I may express a ~oubt as to 

whether all of them a~curately and thoroughly acquaint themselves 

with the facts of the case. Nay, in the very last election ca e that we 

had, and that was tried before that committee and before the House, 

if the votes of members had been given as in the House there would 

have been a different reportr-an adverse report instead of a favorable 

report for the man who now occupies a seat on this floor. Why, upon 

my desk is a report of a committee adverse to a bill here; and yet connected with that report are the views of the minority of the committee, 

so called, consisting of not less than ten members. 

Ten members in the minority of a committee of fifteen ! And the 

bill is reported ad-versely notwithstanding that fa~t, and that an important pension bill. .A.nd yet, Mr. Speaker, we must stand up here 

for our committees; and if anybody says anything against the report 

in the case, it is replied, '' Oh, he is on the other side.'' No matter 

whether I read the newspapers, hether I write letters, or go out.of 

the House, it is safe for me to put my conscience into the ~ustody and 

keeping of a committee of this House when I am unacquainted even as 

to how many of that committee join in the repoct. ~ut we are told it 

is sufficient if they make a report for or against the man. That is all 

we need! We must take their views and adopt them as our own. In 

the case now in hearing the press states that eleven members of the 

committee were present when the report was agreed upon, ix voting 

for, :five against. To the minority report, however, are attached even 

names. It may be the real status of the committee is seven to six in 

favor of contestee, or at best or worst it can only be eight to seven in 

favor of contestant; enough to make a report and place the ban, but 

what firm assurance of correctness in its conclusions does it employ or 

enforce. 

I remember once when I was a lad and reading law a man in the 

neighborhood where I lived went to market one daywithawagon-load 

of produce from his farm, and among other things he had some bags of 

hickory-nuts. He had been for many years wrestling with "John Barleycorn'' and usually got worsted in the contest, and was o at this 

time. 

He thought he discovered that some one had stolen a bag of his hickory-nuts; and as he staggered along he assaulted a gentleman in the 

street. In coming in contact with him this gentleman, not expecting 

the assault, was knocked over, my friend falling on top. I will let him 

tell the balance of the story in his own language, as he gave it in my 

presence. The man be had knocked over says, "Get off from me; 

what are you doing?" Resaid: "You have stolen my hickory-nuts!" 

"I have not touched your hickory-nuts!" 'Yes, you havestolen my 

hickory:.nuts; if youhavenot stolen my hickory-nuts why are you down 

here and I on top of you?'' Well, I thought at the time it was rather 

remarkable logic; but I am older now than I was then, and I find that 

a great portion of the transactions of this world, so far as they have 

come under my observation, have been decided upon that same logic. 

Indict a man, and a community will believe him to be guilty. Let a 

committee report against a man who sits here, and their party is ordinarily bound to understand he is not entitled to his seat. The argument is, ''If you have not stolen my hickory-nuts, why are you down 

here and I on top of you?'' [Laughter.] 

Mr. Speaker, let me come to this case now and say to this House that no part of the contestee's claim for this seat depends upon the counting 

or not counting the votes which it is argued should have been counted 

for him in the various precincts that have ?een named. The report of . 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4543 

the majority of the committee claims that by their way of treating this 

case there is a majoritY of 30 in favor of the contestant. And yfilt, when 

Icometocount the votes as given by that majority report, I make it28. 

Now, I say to this House, I say it without fear of contradiction, that 

admitting every vote that is claimed in that majority report for the 

contestant, still the sitting member is entitled to retain his seat by a. majority of 47 votes. Grant everything claimed in the way of statement in the majority report and this is true. Let no man on this side 

say that a vote given for W. H. Wallace ought to have been counted 

for contestant; that a vote given for John H. Wallace ought to have 

been counted for Jonathan H. Wallace. . For I ~ave included every one 

of those and more in this statement which I here make. 

Nay; let no man say in addition to this that a vote given for ''Mag. 

Wolac" should be counted for contestant; for I have given her vote to 

him; although I think he ought to have been tooga.llantaman to take 

from Mag. the only vote she got. Every vote they claim under any 

name in the world is given in my calculation to this contestant. And 

then let us see how the matter stands. _ 

I, too, hav~ examined this case with care. I would not ask any man 

in this House to vote as I do because I say that; and yet I have a right 

to ask it, at least as much as the gentlemen who have addressed the 

House to-day. I went ovet this case before I saw the report of the 

majority or the report of the minority. I went over every page of the 

evidence. I investigated it not thinking I could change any votes here; 

but I would know for myself upon what I votedand why. And strange 

as it may seem, not going in the same order that the minority report 

did, but covering the whole ground, I arrived exactly at the same result, to wit, 67 majority for the sitting member. Yet I had varied from 

their report in certain ite~ There were four different individuals 

whom I placed differently fl"'om what they placed them; but the aggregate was the same. 

Iclaimnothingfrom that; becauselknowthatitis easy for me to think 

that Major McKinley ought to keep his seat. I know that I may have 

been prejudiced; I know that I may have come to this conclusion from 

a partisan view of the evidence. But I believe that I have been as 

capable of deciding fairly as others. It is true that every crow thinks 

its own chick is the whitest; every mother thinks her own child is the 

handsomest. But that does not apply to me any more than it does to 

you. I think so far as I argue this case I will argue it upon principles 

of law that I· will not have to change before I get through. If I succeed in this I will improve upon the arguments of the gentleman from 

New York [Mr. ADAMS]. I may as well give an illustration. You 

remember that in the case of Fairfield Township--or some of you may 

remember it, the chairmanofthecommitteewillremember it if nobody 

else does-there were claimed to be some votes in the ballot-box not 

counted for either candidate for member of Congress. They were all 

written with peculiar spellings "Woloc" "Wola()" &c Now the 

judges of election read over thdse names 'and judged' that they did not 

mean Wallace; that "Mag. Wolac" was not Jonathan H. Wallace and 

did not mean him. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. ADAMS] who recently addressed the House argued that these votes should now be counted notwithstanding the fact that the judges of election had considered them 

and rejected them. . 

We come now to the precinct of Butler, in the same county, where 

we find 6 ballots of a peculiar kind. On the morning of the day of 

election certain voters came there ~nd were unable to find any Republican ballot that was unscratched. Some of them, anxious to go away, 

took an eraser and eraseq the line that had been drawnin pencil across 

the name of William McKinley, jr., and then voted those tickets. 

When the judges of election came to count the tickets, after the election was over, in the dim light of the evening it was seen that the paper of ,those ballots was roughened, and they were thrown aside. 

But those very voters came by their depositions before the Committee on Elections and identified those ballots. They testified that they 

had themselves erased the pencil line across the name of William McKinley, jr., and then had'voted the ballots, intending them to be for 

Mr. McKinley. The gentleman from New York [Mr. ADAMs] says 

that in that case the judges of election, having carefully considered 

those ballots and decided to rule them out, their action is final and 

this House can not review it. 

Mr. SHAW. Can not go behind the returning boaJ"d. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Verywell; takeitthatway, ifyouprefer. 

But the gentleman !rom New York [Mr. ADAMS] proposes to go behind the returning board in one case but not in the other. I am only 

reciting his argument, not arguing the question myself, and so we might go on; but I will not do it. 

By the returns Mr. McKinley had 16,906 votes. The majority of 

the Committee of Elections add 1 vote on a recount in the sixth ward 

of the city of YoungstoWJl. Wallace had 16,898 votes, as shown by the 

returns. The majority of the Committee on Elections have added to 

that the ballots that contained the names of John H. Wallace, Jonathan. 

Wallace, Wallace, Major Wallace; J. H. Wallace, and perhaps some others, in all making 23 additional votes. And then they also add 11 

votes from Fairfield Township. I will comment on them after awhile. 

They also add 1 which was indicated siffiply by the letters "Wall;" 

the committee now have it "W alee;" not any given name, and with no 

outsideprooftoshow theintentionofthevoter. Thereisalsoa marked 

ticket in Lee Township, Carroll County, which they claim and add to 

the vote for Wallace. Also a vote in Madi«<>n township, Columbiana 

County, which they add to Wallace. These are all the additions which 

they make, giving Walla{!e a. vote ofl6,935, or a majority of28. 

Now, if you will remember all the way through that this is allowing 

the contestant every vote which is claimed, everything that has been 

argued by the chairman of the committee or by the gentleman from 

New York as to votes for this contestant, we will have no trouble. 

Taking that vote, I purpose now to cast up both sides of this ledger 

and see how the b~lance of votes stands. And I will say as I start tha.t 

if I were able to take any man in this House, let him fix the law as 

the questions of law arise, and I do nothing but turn over the leaves 

of the testimony as I go on, I would have no hesitation in leaving the 

decision of this case absolutely to him, I asking only patience on his 

part. I care not who he is, so only that he would hear before he decided and would know what has been testified before he undertakes to 

give his decision as a judge in the case. I intended to have said, and I will say it here, that I have not found, 

as the newspapers say, that these election cases are always decided on 

partisan grounds. In the Forty-sixth Congress, during one session of 

which I was here, I saw a Democratic House voting to seat a Republican contestant. In the Forty-seventh Congress, which was Republican, out of twenty-two contested-election cases all but five were reported in favor of the Democratic side of this Honse. I think the 

very last case we acted upon was the case of ~k vs. Cutts, and the 

Honse voted Mr. Cook into the seat. And I call to mind the fact that 

the present Honse has not, and I venture to say it will not do for either 

side of the House to build entirely upon the idea that the Committee 

on Elections have reported so and so, but on the contrary some of the 

members will investigate for themselves. · 

Allowing every claim that is made by the majority of the Committee 

of Elections in their report, allowing everything for the contestant that 

is specificaJ.ly claimed in it-for I take it they do not ask us to allow 

anything which they do not claim-they have specified in their report 

all the claims which they make, and for the present I admit them all. 

In the footing up of the vote of Carroll County, ·as shown by the record 

produced here, there was a mistake of ten votes in favor of contestant, 

a mistake merely. of footing the column, giving contestant 1,497 votes, 

when he received but 1,487. There is nothing in the testimony that I 

have seen to show that that mistake was anything but a mere error in 

computation. Deduct that number from the majority for Walla()e 

which is claimed by the majority of the Committee of Elections and 

you will find that the balance remaining, according to the claim of the 

majority, as the majority for Wallace is but 18 votes to start with. 

Mr. RANNEY. If the gentleman from Ohio [Mr .. EZRA B. TAYLOR] ':viJ.l yield, I will move tha4 the House now adjourn. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. I will yield for that purpose. 

Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. Pending the motion to adjourn, I desire to give notice that I shall ask the House to come to a vote on tJ:!is 

case to-morrow at 4 o'clock. 

Mr. RANNEY. If we get through the discussion by that time. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, informed the House that the Senate insisted on its amendments to the 

bill (H. R. 5261) making an appropriation for the Agricultural Department for the :fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other purposes, 

disagreed to by the House of Representatives, asked for a eommittee of 

conference on the disagreeing votes ofthe two Houses thereon, and had 

appointed Mr. HALE, Mr. PLUMB, and Mr. CALL as conferees on the 

part of the Senate. · 

Pending the motion to adjourn, the fQ].lowing business was transacted: 

LEAVE OF .A.l3SENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: 

To :Mr. RosECRANS, until Saturday next, on account of important 

business. . · To Mr. GUENTHER, indefinitely, on account of important busine...qs. 

To Mr. CLAY, for twelve d.3.ys. 

WITHDRAW .A.L OF PAPERS. 

Mr. C.A.LlriNS, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to withdmw 

from the files of the House the discharge papers in the case of Lewis 

Deems, there having been no adverse report. 

LEAVE TO PRINT. 

By lillanimous consent, general leave was granted to print remarks ' 

in the RECORD on the resolution for the appointment of a committee 

to examine the National Soldiers' Home. . 

P A.. Y OF HOUSE EMPLOYEs. 

Mr. VAN EATON. I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [:llfr. 

RANNEY] to withdraw for a moment the motion to adjoUrn. that I may 

submit a resolution for present consideration. 

Mr. RANNEY. I will do so. 
4544 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, . 

Mr. VAN EATON. I ask unanimous consent to submit for present ployes in the Doorkeeper's department,-Hou e of Representatives, with a view 

'd · th 1 ti hi h I d to th d k of paying to them the same compensation now paid to the officers and employes cons1 erat10n e reso u on W C sen e es · of the SenateoftheUnited States performingsimilardutiesandresponsibilities The Clerk read as follows: and thereby place them upon an equality with the same, and report back to th~ 

Resolved That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and he is hereby; House by bill or otherwise. 

authorized and instructed to pay the officers and employes of the House their 

respective salaries for the month of May, 1884, on the 29th day of said month. 

There being no objection, the resolution was considered and adopted. 

HOME FOR DISABLED CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS. 

Mr. BELFORD, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 7150) 

appropriating $500,000 for the erection of a home for the disab~d soldiers of the confederate army; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. BELFORD. I ask unanimous consent that this bill, which is 

brief, be printed in the RECORD. 

There was no objection. 

The bill is as follows: 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I object. 

Mr. ERMENTROUT. I hope the gentleman from Missouri will 

withdraw his objection until he hears a statement. 

Mr. HOLMAN rose. 

Mr. ERMENTROUT. Do I understand the gentleman from Indiana 

[Mr. HOLMAN] and the gentleman from l\1issouri [Mr. ALEXANDER] 

to object to the consideration of this matter before hearing my statement? 

Mr. HOLMAN. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvaniawill have an opportunity to make ]+is statement. 

Mr. ERMENTROUT. If the gentleman from Indiana and the gentle-

. man from Missouri object all the tinle, I shall never get an opportunity. 

Be it enacted, &c., That the sum of $500,000be appropriated for the erection of I know no better opportunity than this; and I trust the objection will a home for the d.isabled soldiers of the confederate army, which home shall be be withdrawn. 

erected at Fredericksburg, V a., under the supervision and direction of the Secre- Mr. HOLMAN. I hope the gentleman will be permitted to make 

ta.ry of War. . · · THO:t\o"IAS H. LEAR. his statement. 

The SPEAKER. Does th. e gentleman from Missouri withdraw his Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill objection? 

(H. R. 7151) granting a pension to Thomas H. Lear; which was read Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not. 

a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, Mr. HOLMAN. I move that the Honse adjourn. 

and ordered to be printed. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 15 minJOE FRISBEE. utes p. m.) the House adjourned. 

Ur. WHITE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill (H. R. 7152) granting a pension to Joe Frisbee; which was read a first and second tinle, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

and ordered to be printed. 

JOEL MARTIN. 

' Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, also introduced 

a bill (H. R. 7153) granting a pension to Joel Martin; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

and ordered to be printed. 

NASBY MILLS. 

Mr. WIDTE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill (H. R. 7154) granting a pension to Nasby Mills; which was read a first and second tinle, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

and ordered to be printed. 

MILES W. "'ICKELL. 

Mr. WIDTE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill (H. R. 7155) for the relief of Miles W. Nickell; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and 

prdered to be printed. 

JOHN L. BRASSFIELD. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill (H. R. 7156) for the relief of John L. Brassfield; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and 

ordered to be printed. 

FELIX HIBBARD. 

Mr. WIDTE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, also introduced a 

bill (H. R. 7157) for the relief of Felix Hibbard; which was read a first and second ~e, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

ami ordered to be printed. 

GEORGE S. STEELE. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill (H. R. 7158) granting a pension to George S. Steele; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

ROBERT N. MARSHALL. 

Mr. KEIFER, by unani.Iflous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 7159) 

granting a pension to Robert N. Marshall, of Clark County, Ohio; ·which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions, and ordered to be printed. • 

CAPT. FRANCIS E. HYDE. 

Mr. KEIFER, by unanimous consent, also introduced ~ bill (H. R. 

7160) granting a pension to Capt. Francis E. Hyde, of Mechanicsburg, 

Ohio; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

JOSEPHS. HuRST. 

Mr.· HITT, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 7161) for 

the relief of Joseph S. Hurst, late private Company F, Tenth Wisconsin Volunteers; which was read a first and second time, referred to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

PAY OF HOUSE EMPLOYES. • 

Mr. ERl\1ENTROUT. I desire to submit a report from the Committee on Accounts for present consideration. 

The SPEAKER. The report will be read, subject to objection. The Clerk read as follows: · 

Resolved, That the Committee on Accounts is hereby authorized to take into 

consideration th.e advisability of adjusting tb.e salaries of the officers and emPETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers w e laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. J. H. BREWER: Joint resolution of the New Jersey Legislature. to promote the ·efficiency of the revenue-marine service-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

· By Mr. T. M. BROWNE: Petition in support of pension claim of 

Edward West-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. BUR~~ES: Petiti~n of the Capitol pplice board, to authorize 

payment for uniforms to watchJ.Uen under the act of August 7, 1882-

to the Coi+tmittee on Appropriations. 

Also, petition ofnightwatchmanin the folding-rooms, for pay due him 

from January 1 to February 4, 1884-to the same comnnttee. 

Also, petition of Frank Galt, for salary for services as assistant journal clerk-to the same committee. · 

Also, petitionof JohnM. Carson, for additional compensation as clerk 

of the Committee on Ways and Means during the Forty-seventh Congress-to the same committee. 

By Mr. G. R. DAVIS: Petition of William E. Flynn and 40 others, 

members of Assembly 1810, Knights of Labor, Chicago, Ill., in favor 

of eight-hour law and legislation favorable to labor-to the Committee· on Labor. 

By Mr. DIBBLE: Papers relating to the bill for the relief of George 

Jacob Huthmacher-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also1 papers relating to the bill for the xelief of John H. Breening, 

assignee, &c.-to the same committee. · Also, memorial of the board of health, Charleston, S. C., in favor of 

further legislation to prevent the introduction of infectious and con" 

tagious diseases, &c.-to the Committee on the Public Health. 

By Mr. DING LEY: Petition of George Hoyt, jr., and others, of Vinal 

Haven, Me., and of George Green and others, for bill to carry into 

effect the eight-hour law-severally to the Committee on Labor. 

Also, remonstrance of N. C. Fletcher and others, of Camden, Me., 

against Government postal telegraph-to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

. By 1\Ir. ELDREDGE: Papers relating to the pension claim of Parmelia Smith, of Monroe, Mich.-to the Committee onlnvalidPensions. 

By Mr. ELLIS: Petition of Lieut. E. L. Zaliuski, for allowance for 

mileage for attendance on Committee on Appropriations-to the Committee on .Appropriations. 

By 1\fr. ERMENTRO UT: Memorial of New York Leaf-Tobacco Board 

of Trade, praying for repeal of internal-revenue laws :taxing tobaccoto the Committee on Ways and l\Ieans. . 

By Mr. FUNSTON: Petition of citizens of Lawrence, Kans., for in- crease of ap-propriations for support of Indian schools-to the Committee on Appropriations. • 

By Mr. HOPKINS: Papers relatingto theclaimofirwin B. Linton, 

for compensation as clerk of the Boynton investigation committee-to 

the same committee. 

By Mr. HOUSEMAN: Petition of citizens of Holland, Ottowa County, 

Michigan, and resolution passed at a meeting of citizens, setting forth 

the advantages Holland and vicinity offer forthesiteoftheproposedsoldiers' home for Michigan, and that Holland will be prepared to furnish a suitable site if located in the vicinity of said city-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

ByM:r. LIBBEY: PetitionofcertaincitizensofSouthampton County, 

Virginia, praying for the establishment of post-routes-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 
' 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4545 

ByMr. MILLIKEN: RemonstranceofAndrewP. Wiswellandothers, 

a()'ainst the law relating to telegraph company-to the same committee. 0

By Mr. MURPHY: Petitions of citizens of Iowa, relative to banks, 

&c. -to the Committee on Banking and Currency. 

By Mr. NICHOLLS: Resolutions of the New York Leaf-TC\bacco 

Board of Trade, favoring the repeal oftheinternal-revenuelawsimposing a tax on tobacco-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. NUTTING: Petition in :r:egard to record of soldiers in the late war for use of thi State of New York-tQ the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

By Mr. POLAND: Papers relating to the pension claim of William 

Bridges, jr.-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. RIGGS: Papers relating to the bill for the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth Leebrich-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WOOD: Resolutions of Veteran Post No. 41, Grand Armyof 

the Republic, Department of Indiana, relative to pensions, &c.-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WOODWARD: Petition of W. C. Hobart and others, ex- prisoners of war, in favor of the passage of H. R. 1189-to the same committee. 

By Mr. YOUNG: Petition of R. D. Goodwyn, to refer claim to the 

Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, petition ofR. D. Goodwyn, toreferclaim tothe QuartermasterGeneral to rehear-to the same committee. 

Also, papers relating to the claim of R. D. Jordan, guardian of minor 

children of Claiborn De Loach, deceased-to the Committee on Claims. 

SENATE. 

TUESDAY, May 27, 1884. 

Prayer by Rabbi E. B. M. BROWNE, of New York city. 

JAMES DoNALD CAMERON, a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, 

appeared in his seat to-day. 

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Attorney -General, transmitting, in answer to a resolution 

of the 8th instant, certain correspondence relating to the shooting of 

Black Wolf, an Indian, by Hal Palfarino in the Territory of Montana, 

and the measures taken for his arrest and trial; which, with the ac- companying papers, was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

and ordered to be printed. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented the memorial of Charles 

Sheldon and 23 other citizens of Rutland, Vt., remonstrating against 

the establishment of a governmental postal telegraphic system; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. LAPHAM presented a petition of 91 citizens of Mexico, N. Y.; a petition of 22 citizens of Yonkers, N. Y.; a petition of 50 citizens 

of Oswego, N. Y., and a petition of 291 citizens of the city of New 

York, praying for the passage of Senate bill No. 1223, providing t.hat 

all qualified physicians be made equal before the law in the Government service; which were referred t.o the Committee on Civil Service 

and Retrenchment. 

Mr. SHERl\IAN presented a petition of 104 citizens of Lima, Ohio; a petition of 60 citizens of Columbus, Ohio; a petition of 22 citizens of 

Duncan's Falls and Chancellorsville, Ohio; a petition of 51 citizens of 

:Mjddletown, Ohio, and a petition of 40 citizens of Belleville, Ohio, 

praying for the passage of Senate bill No. 1223, providing that all qualified physicians be made equal before the law in the Government serv- ice; which were referred to the Committee on Civil Service andRetrenchment. 

Mr. SEWELL presented the petition of Dr. C. J. Cooper. and 100 

other citizens of New Jersey! and the petition of Dr. H. F. Hunt and 

84 other citizens of Camden, N.J., praying for the passage of Senate 

bill No. 1223, providing that physicians shall be made equal before the 

law in appoililtments in the Army and Navy; which were referred to 

the Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment. 

Mr. LOGAN presented the petition of Dr. George F. Roberts and 

others, citizens of illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota, praying for the passage of Senate bill1223, providing that all qualified physicians be made 

equal before the law in appointments in the Government service; which was referred to the Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment. 

Mr. LOGAN. I present also a memorial of the Methodist Episcopal 

conference, colored, recently held at Baltimore, asking that a resolution now pending before Congress providing for the appointment of a commission to investigate the condition of the colored people in the South 

may be favorably acted upon at an early day. The resolution was re- ported adversely, I think. 

Mr. BLAIR. It was reported adversely, but I shall call it up at some day and offer a substitute for it. 

XV-285 

Mr. LOGAN. I move that the memorial lie on the table, inasmuch as the resolution is now on the Calendar. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. LOGAN presented a petition of ex-Union soldiers of Ludlow, ill.; 

a. petition of ex-Union prisoners of war of Columbus, Ohio; a petition 

of ex-Union soldiers of Martinsville, ill. ; a petition of Thomas Watson 

Post, No. 427, Grand Army of the Republic, Department oflllinois; a petition of Kenesaw Post, No. 77, Grand Army of the Republic, of Danville, ill. ; and a petition of Post No. 81, Grand Army of the Republic, 

of Kirkwood, ill., praying for the passage of such legislation as is rec- ommended by the pension committee of the Grand Army of the Republic in regard to pensions; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a memorial of citizens of Waukegan, lll., and a memorial of citizens of Freeport, lll., remonstrating against Government control of the telegraph system; which were ordered to lie on the 

table. 

He also presented resolutions adopted by one hundred and sixty-eight 

posts of the Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Ohio, favoring the passage of the bill granting public lands to soldiers and sailors 

of the war of the rebellion; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

He also presented a petition of citizens of Rock Island and .Moline, ill, for the enforcement of the eight-hour law; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and Labor. 

He also presented the petition of Frank Schwartz, of Saint Clair 

County, Illinois, praying to be allowed a pension; which was refe.rr~.;d 

to the Committee on Pensions. . Mr. McPHERSON presented memorials of citizens of Ramsey's, 

Deckertown, Passaic, and Paterson, N. J., remonstrating against the 

enactment of any measure relating to the telegraph which shall in- crease the number of public officials or establish a Government monopoly of the telegraph business, or which shall employ the functions of 

Government to destroy the property of individuals who have embarked 

in legitimate enterprise to provide ample facilities for the public ac- commodation; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented a memorial of the Legislature of New Jersey; 

which was read, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, as follows: 

[Joint resolution No.8.] STATE OF NEW JEBSEY. 

Joint resolution requesting Congress to pass a. bill to promote the efficiency of 

the revenue-marine service. 

Whereas the eminent services rendered by the brave men of the revenue ma- rine entitles them to the hlghest commendation; and 

Whereas no provision exists in the present laws for the retiring of the merit{)-

rious, aged, or disabled in that service: Therefore, 

1. Be it resolved by the senate and general assembly of the State of New Jersey 

That the Senators and Representatives from this State are earnestly requested to use their influence for the passage of the bill pending in Congress, H. R. No. 

4483, "to promote the efficiency of the revenue-marine service," whereby the 

officers of the re-venue marine who have grown old or who have been seriously injured in the performance of their duty may be retired, in accordance with 

provisions similar to those now in force in relation to the naval officers of the 

United States. 

2. And be it further resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Senators and Representatives in Congress irom New Jersey by the secre- tary of state. Approved May 9, 1884. 

Mr. ALLISON presented a memorial of citizens of Charles City, Iowa, 

remonstrating against the Government assuming control of the telegraph business ofthe country; which was ordered to lie on the table. · He also presented the petition of the National Association of ExUnion Prisoners of War, praying for the passage of a Qill granting pensions to all soldiers who were confined in confederate prisons; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a petition ofSelina:Milne, prayingthat an increase 

of pension be granted to widows and dependent relatives of persons of 

the military service; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented the petition ofCarbee Post, No. 270, Grand Army 

of the Republic, of Springville, Iowa, praying for the equalization of 

bounties, and for such amendments of the pension laws as were recom- mended by the pension committee of the Grand Army of tll.e Republic; 

which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented the petition of clerks employed in the post-office at 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, praying that a classification be made of the clerks in 

the distributing department of all first-class post-offices, and that salaries 

be so adjusted that all clerks doing the same kind of work be placed in 

the same class and receive like salaries; which wasreferred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

He also presented the petition of J. S. Duffie and others, praying for an amendment of the bill (H. R. 6094) relating to fees allowed to attorneys in pension cases; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. INGALLS presented the petition of Dr. W. G. Graham and 22 

other citizens of Winfield, Ky., praying for the passage of Senate bill 

1223, making all qualified physicians equal before the law in appointments to the Government service; which was referred to the Committee on Ciru Service and Retrenchment.