Delaware State journal and statesman., 1864-05-20

much upon the principle Of the school-boy in
arithmetic, who had some difficulty in working
out the answer, and SO found the proper answer,
put II down and then made the preceding figures
correspond to it. can conceive Of no reason by
which the committee could have excluded these
two counties unless upon some such mode Of
computation. Then, il we include the vote Of the
counties Of Holt and Nodaway, as In all reason
ableness and fairness we must include their vote,
it adds to the vote Of General Loan 695 votes,
leaving, according to the computation of the COM
mittee, the plurality for Mr.. Bruce l55 votes in
stead Of $50, which by some means they have
arrived Rt and embodied In their report
The majority Of votes actually received and
countei for General Loan in that district was
2,02S; and In order to oust him from his seat,
you must destroy that majority, aud to do that
they have undertaken TO reject the vote Of whole
counties in consequence of Irregularities in sin.
gle precinct. II gentlemen will examine the evil
dence which is reported in this case they will
find in reference to whole counties which the
committee have thrown out, no particle of evil
deuce Of any ifregulaTity whatever, except In a
single precnct and yet the committee have
adopted the rule of disfranchisng whole counties
in the seventh district of Missouri. 1t becomes
a question whether, il we allow the testimony
taken the full force and entire bearing which it
can, as legitimate testimony, be entitled to, then
upon what principle of justice can you exclude
the whole county because given precinct does
not exactly hold its election according to the rules
of lawH Why should we throw out the balance
Of the county on that account They exclude
the whole five counties; yet there lie not one Of
those Eve counties in which there is more than
one or two precincts In reference to which any
testimony has been taken. My colleagues on the
committee and other gentlemen will correct me
II am wrong. In Buchanan county there are
twenty eight precincts, and there isiestimony in
regard to only two Of them. Now, on what prin-
ciple Of justice can you exclude the remaining
twenty-six precincts concerning which there is
no testimony
Now, having reduced the apparent majority
of Mr.. Bruce to l65 votes, let me examine why
Atchison was rejected. said that the counties
OF Holt and Nodaway were rejected without any
testimony whatever. Atchison county ssalso
ruled out. Now Atchison county gave General
Loan 496 votes and Mr.. Bruce 102 votes, making
General Loans majority 394, and deduoting from
that the majority Of Mr.. Bruce Of 1865, II leaves
General Loan clear majority of 1879
Now, ask the House to listen to the testi-
mony on which the county of Atchison was re-
jected. refer to the testimony of silas Puryear.
beg members TO remember as they run along
that the vast body of this testimony is ca parte ia
its character, much Of it being taken without no.
tice.
Mr.. GANsoN ask the gentleman to yield to
me.
Mr.. SMITHERs. Certainly
MIR. GANsoN l call the attention of the gen
teman TO the fact that he took the ground that
these tables were appended here to show that
these counties ought to be excluded.
Mr. SMITHERs. Certainly, sir.
Mr.. GANsoN. II the gentleman from Delaware
had read the report of the Committee of Elections
he would have found that there was no such
thing. 1t is there stated that the tables are ap-
pended TO illustrate the relative. vote these gen
uemen received in the counties where there is al
legged not to have been any interference, as com.
pared with those where interference is proved TO
have occurred They were simply for the pur-
pose OF showing the character and the extent of
the Interference. They are not tables to exclude
these countless as the gentleman from Delaware
has stated.
Mr. saiTHERs. What was the effect of putting
thcm there?
Mr. GANsoN. desire to say that they were
not put there by the Committee of Elections for
the purpose of claiming that those counties
should be stricken out.
Mr. SMlTHERs. But they are stricken out
Mr.. GANsoN. have not stricken them out;
only put them in TO show the relative compare
sou between the counties where there wns an
inteIference and where there was not nterfe-
renee If the gentleman desires to state the case
raly he can read the report of the Committee Of
ElectiOnsi If he does not, of course have nothing
to say.
Mr.. sMrTHEHs. l wish to say here in an
swer, that these counties were thrown out. /
know no other reason why they should be ex-
cluded at all except that ii was considered there
was proof of interference with the elections suf-
oient to exclude them. Having failed in making
that proof there is no reason why they should be
excluded.
Proceeding in relation to that fdesire to show,
according to the idea of the gentleman from New
fork, my own. position. l say, then, upon no
other proofs can those counties be excluded
II you do not exclude Atchison county you
put General Loan in. On what ground can
Atchison county be excluded except that of in
reference with the election in that county p
But they have counted out Atchison, because if
they did not count out Atchison they could not
count out General Loan, and in counting it out
they counted 1t out upon the ground of military
Interference. l want TO show now the whole
testimony in relation 10 interference in that
county, aud show whether there is any ground
for counting it out. The sole testimony in rels.
tion to that is the testimony OF silas Puryear to
be found on page ll6 Of the report Mr.. Pur-
year was the attorney of the contestant, and it is
not often that O case is to be decided upon the
testimony of counsel in the case, though it is
attempted to be doue in this case.
Mr.. DAWES. Allow me to remind my friend
that the report made this morning in General
Blairs case, in which the gentleman ooncurred,
depended entirely upon the deposition of one of
the counsel for the contestant in reference to the
validity of every one of the muster rolls.
Mr. sMiTHERs. My reply to my colleague il
brief and simpler l examined the testimony in
the Blair case sufficiently to satisfy myself that
the vote in the Abbey precinct was illegal which
unseated Mr.. Blair. Whether Knox should be
admitted depended upon the number of legal
votes cast by the Osterhaus brigade, which was
to be determined by mere inspection of the
muster rolls. In this trusted to the examina-
ton and computation Of my colleague, [Mr.
Dawes,l who reported to me the result which
accepted and acted on as true.
MIR. DAWES. l presume my friend was just
as we'll aware when he gave his vote in the Blair
case, as when he gave his vote here, that the
counsel in both cases had been witnesses, and
the only difference between the two is this the
Blair case could not be decided without the tes.
umony OF the counsel of the contestant, while in
this case the counsel of the contestant put in his
aihdayit to show that he had been in certain
counties after testimony aud had been driven
out, and my friend here undertakes to get of Of
MS vote in the Blair case by charging it upon
me- tell my friend that do not take his vote
in the Blair case any more than do this, and
ne Is to stand upon his own judgment in that
case as much as in this.
MIR. SMITHERsi do not desire to get off Of
anything that get on, generally, laughter,
but am perfectly willing my friend should get
on OF me, for his persistence will only lead to
recrimnation.
Mr. DAWES. did not intend to mingls in this
debate.
Ihe SPEAKER. The Chair doubts whether
this debate upon the Blair case is in order.
Mr. SMITHERs. That was the point l was
about to make. l do not desire any controversy
with my colleague; and infinitely prefer, if |