The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1874-06-19

it is a case which ought to go to the com
mittee for investigation on the facts.
And Hon. Geo. F. Hoar Republican of
Mass, said:
The certificate of the Governor is entire.
" consistent with the statement that eth
er Wiltshire or Gunter were duly elected,
because he says Wiltshire had so MANY
votes, Gunter had so many votes, and that
there were so many scattered votes polled
for Guntee, so many for Gunter, and so
many for other persons, without saying for
whom that large number of votes was to be
counted. He leaves that entirely indeter-
inmate; and therefore, submit that the
case of Clark and Giddings is direct au-
thority as far as the opinion of the commit
tee goes for Mr. Gunter, and not for Mr..
Wilshire and, in fact, is direct authori-
| ty against seating Wiltshire on prinna ia
eie case before the merits are investigated
And Hon. Joseph r. Hawley (Republ-
cam of Conn.,, said:
have been looking over the report in this
case, seeking to make up my Judgment as
to how | should vote; and | will say
plumply, to begin with, that if | am re
quired to decide to-day, shall vote to seat
Mr.. Gunter. If it be thought best that
the case shall go through the form Of re-
commitment, so that there may be some
further investigation into the matter, / am
willing to vote with the minority of the
committee in favor of that proposition
but Judging by what appears in this report
| do not see how any man can have rea-
sonable shadow of doubt that Mr.. Guntel
was the man elected by the people of that
district.
This paper of the Governor, which il
! not a certificate of election, but certificate
of certain returns, shows that Mr.. Wiltshire
received 1854 votes that Thomas NJ
Gunter received 1l,499 votes, and tina
there we're number OF scattering vote
for "Guntee," IS. NJ Gunter," IT NJ
Guntee, "Thos NJ. Guntee," IT. Ro!
Gunter," and Thos NJ. Crenter, and also
sol votes for ''Gunther." No one car
/, doubt for whom those 59l votes were in
: tended. There was no man named Gun
Their running; and those votes beyond
$ question must have been intended for Mr.
Gunter. There were over 400 votes II
e Pulaski county which are returned a
; scattering" Now, we find the return o
Y that county on page ii Of the report, ant
r it clears up good deal OF the myster
q which arises in connection with the follow
l. ing note to the general abstract:
a The scattering vote in Pulaski county given t
wi shire" 'Guntec, IS NJ Guuter, IT. NJ Cur
p tee" 'Thos. NJ Guutec." II. Ros Gunt.r" an
: 'Thos. NJ Crenter, is literal copy Of the clerk
y return.
Now if any man will amuse himself b
e taking pen or pencil and scribblng tn
name Thomas NJ. Gunter," he will Sc
tt how very easily a careless or dishone>
clerk might make all those variations c
r. the name. But, as | have said, this not
e is explained in a great measure by the re
!. turn from Pulaski county as given on pag
lie IL. from which, if it be truly printed
n appears that there was for :. NJ. Gunter
Is vote for Thomas NJ Gunter 81
N votes; for 'Gunter l3S votes; for T. n
10 Gunter" 353 votes; for Thomas NJ Cur
e ter" 50 votes for Thomas \. Gunter' 8
!. votes for Thomas NJ Gunter 500 votes
:. for Thomas NJ Crenter" 81 votes Thes
= 80 vote for Thomas VI. Crenter' are tn
d only ones about which any man can hay
, any doubt; and yet it is about as easy fl
dishonest or careless clerk to writ
/. Thomas NJ. Crenter' as to write "Thoma
Continued on third page