The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1866-02-23

given is concerned, for their cOnSidera-
/ ton and action in determining the ques-
/ ton Of the primd .fdcie right of the
claimants to the vacant seat.
/ Aided by the light thus thrown upon
/ the case. the committee were unani-
mOusly Of opinion that the persons
( signing the said return i'm favor of Mr..
/ kOOntZ We're not the legallyconstituted
board Of return judges for said district,
and had no lawful authority to make
any such return, and that the four per-
/ sons signing the said return in favor of
! Mr.. COtfrOth were a majority of the le-
gal return judges, and the only lawful
board
1t was admitted that both the so-call-
ed boards met and acted on the same
/ day, but the kOOntZ board a little ear
lier in the day than the other, both on
the day and at the place fixed by law.
-Four of the five legal return judges,
therefore, being found to have certified
paper 4 that Mr.. CoffrOth had receiv-
ed 9,475 votes, and Mr.. KOOntz S,462
votes, and that Mr.. COffrOth had ere
CeiVed a majority of all the votes cast
as counted before the board, and is de-
clared duly and legally elected MEM
ber Of the House of Representative Of
the United States" and that he had
been awarded a certificate Of election,
it is difficult to explain why this return
thus made and certified by these return
judges, does nOtshOWa pFilRU f0cie right
in Mr.. COtfrOth to the seat in question.
But it is claimed on the part of Mr..
kOOntZ. that the said return shows on
its face that the county Of Somerset was
not included by the said return Judges
in the count, and, therefore, that the
return is void, though it also appears
in the return, and also in the opinion of
the attorney general, above referred to,
that thereturn Judge of Somerset coun-
ty was present at ChamberSburg on the
day of the meeting, and was notified
thereof, but neglected or refused to at
tend.
The Attorney General, in his opinion,
page -, also takes this position, and
claims that the district judges ought to
have adjourned over, and referred to
duplicate originals of the returns for
Somerset county, which he says were
accessible in the Office of the prOthOnO-
tary of said county of Somerset.
To this it may be replied, that the
statute makes no provision tOrany such
adjournment or proceedings, and it does
not appear by the said statute that, in
case where a congressional district is
composed of several counties, any such
duplicate original Is required to be filed
in each of the counties of the district,
but the original statement of votes Civ
EN- in each county for representative in
Congress, certified by the judges and
attested by the clerks, is directed (sec-
ton So to he taken charge of by one of
said judges, who ''shall produce the
same at a meeting of one Judge from
each county at such place in said dis
trict as is or may be appointed by law
for that purpose" :" and when the dis
trict return Judges have met and cast
up said returns, and made duplicate re-
turns of all the votes given for such of
fee in such district it is then, and not
till then, required isectlon 64l that one
of said duplicate returns 50 made by
said district return judges shall be filed
in the office of the prOthOnOtary Of the
court of common pleas of the county
in which they shall meet.
The return judge of Somerset cOun-
ty, therefore, in thus absenting him
self from the meeting of the board, and
Withholding from the other legal return
Judges the returns from his county, and
in thus cooperating with an illegal
board in endeavOring to give certiti-
cate to Mr.. Koontz, was manifestly act
ing in direct violation of law, and in
disregard of his official duty.
1t is now claimed on behalf of Mr..
Koontz that this voluntary neglect Of
duty on the part of his friend, the re-
turn Judge of Somerset county, shall be
made to rebound to his benefit, and
that he shall in fact be placed in bet
ter position thanif said Judge had done
his duty; for it appears that if the act
ual vote of Somerset county paper 6
had been handed in by said Judge to
said board and added to the other re-
turns made to the board and included
in their computation, the result would
still have been the same, and in favor
of Mr.. Cotfroth.
The aggregate returns before the
board, from all the counties composing
the district, would then have been as
fNllpXyS.