Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1865-08-04

hiiety seven SOlQlefS, there was single one
who was not lawful voter, or who had not
a right to vote for members of the Legisla-
| ture in that district.
Your committee is forced to the concIu-
| sion, that, at least, one of the candidates
for the Legislature, b. f. Meyers, Esq, of
Bedford, was party to this gigantic fraud.
he appeared before prothonotary Shannon
and advised and argued against the recep-
ton of certain returns. He visited Mr.
| Shannon after the argument and remained
with him until his work was complete. He
proelalmed, in his paper, before the meeting
OF the district return judges, that the work
would be done. He was with Judge Lynch
on the morning of the meeting of the dis
trict judges, who remarked, that g Mr.. Mey-
ers are liking the papers The papers
/ were liked, and the work done, as Mr.. Mey-
ers had predicted; and in pursuance of the
result he appeared before the Legislature
and claimed his seat at the organization of
the House. In addition to this, he has been
constant in his Yilification and abuse of the
| majority of the House because he was not
admitted 10 a seat For the truth Of this
assertion your committee refer TO few ex-
tracts from the Bedford Gazette. which are
returned with the evidence True, in most
of his articles, he bases his right to a scat
upon the action Of the return judges, and
not upon the votes Of the people
w. ID. Miller, the return Judge of Somer-
set county, refused to join Judges Lynch and
Elder, In their process of mutilation and
dlstranchisement, and proceeded to make out
and certify full and complete return of all
the soldiers votes, and these two papers,
forming but one returni were presented to
the House; DIT Its orgasiisati5hI and showing
as they did, las held by the court in the
case of Robert Ewing, in Philadelphia, J
that Messrs. Armstrong and Ross had re-
celyed the greatest number of votes, and
were duly elected, when speaking of two or
more papers presented declared IF there
are contradictions, we must reconcile them
if we can; and if this cannot be done, we
must decide according TO the legal intend
ment of the facts found blythe said judges,
acting ,gttlt0, the scope Of their legitimate
authority
In this same case, and in every other case
known to your committee, IN every court in
Pennsylvania, In which the question was
raised, it was held that the duties of the
prothonotarv and of return Judges were
purely ministerial, and in no way partook of
judicial character or nature That it was
the duty of the prothonotary to Ger tify, and
of the judges to compute, all the returns re-
celved. If there were errors or illegalities,
all such questions could be raised, tried and
decided by the tribunals constituted for the
trial of contested elections. These decisions
were made before the passage of the law of
1864, As already seen, the twenty
section of this law expressly declares that
no mere formality shall justify the rejection
of any return of soldiers votes The latter
portion of the twentieth and twenty-eighth
sections of the same law, provides distinct
'...is for tha trial and .fAttlAnlant af All
such questions as were IN these cases tired
and decided by the prothonotary and the
return judges. 1t is a well settled rule of
law, that when the jurisdiction of any par
ticular tribunal is established for the trial of
any question, the jurisdiction OF all other
tribunals is excluded
Your committee is of opinion that the
command of the twenty-seventh section of
the act of 1864, speaks to all the tribunals
before which such returns of soldiers votes
may come. 1t is a positive command to
prothonotaries, in certifying to returns. 1t
is ike command to county return judges
also to district return judges. To courts on
the trial of contested elections; to the Clerk
of the House, in making out his roll of mem
bers to the House, in admitting them to
seats; and to committees selected to try con-
tested elections No informality, or even
bad faith, on the part of any one of these
tribunals, IN rejecting soldiers votes would
bind the next tribunal before whom they
might come The effort of two district
judges to throw out soldiers votes enough
60 change the result of the election In any
district, could have no binding force upon
the House itself These Judges were not act
ing within the scope of their legitimate au-
thority Their omission TO sign the true re-
turn was but an informality, which the law
expressly declares shall not vitiate Ii is
scarcely necessary to add, that Messrs. Mey
ers and Finley never contested the seats
awarded by the House to Messrs. Armstrong
and Ross
During the examination at Gettysburg,
your committee found that the return judg
es Of Adams county, at their meeting for
the purpose of receiving and counting the
soldiers vote, rejected eight returns, con-
tanning in ALL two hundred and eight votes,
of which one hundred and ffty-eight were
cast for General Koontz and fifty for Gener-
al Coffroth.
The first in order was the vote of compa-
ny X, of the One Hundred and Eighty
fourth regiment, which east thirty nine
votes for General KoontZ and twenty-one
for General Cofroth. The reason given by
the judges forrejecting this returnsw was that
it contained one vote given by resident of
Franklin county. The next was the vote of
company G, of the Two Hundred and Sec
ond regiment. which cast twenty seven for
Koontz and fifteen for Coffroth. The rea-
son given for the rejection of this return,
was that but one judge of the election acted.
The next was one vote for koontz from the
Mower hospital, one for the same person
from the Cuyler hospital, and three, also,
for the same candidate, from the M Clellan
hospital, rejected for the reason that the
certificates of the oaths of the election Off
GERS were wanting in each of these returns.
Following these, in the order of rejection,
was the vote of companies, b and G, of the
One Hundred and Thirty eighth regiment,
which cast thirty-two ballots for Koontz
and one for Coffroth These two companies
it appears voted at one poll, before one set
of election officers. Next was the return of
company /, of the Two Hundred and Tenth
regiment, which cast nineteen votes for
Koontz and nine for Coffroth. This was
rejected for the same reason as existed for
the rejection of the hospital votes, to wit:
the want of certificate of the oath of the
election officers.
And finally the return of company B, of
the Twenty first cavalry, which cast thirty
six votes for General koontz and tour for
General Coffroth, was rejected for the rea-
son that no copy of the return OF this COM
pany's election was certified to the return
Judges, by the prothonotary and also be,
cause it appeared, by the original return
that the officers of the election were appoin-
ted by captain who was not an officer of