1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2883 declines w yield. The question is on the motion of the Senator from North Carolina that the Senate proceed to the consideration of exec­utive business,

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 31, noes 12.

The Senat~ proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After twelve minutes spent in executive session the doors were re­opened; and (at four o'clock and fifty-seven miuu~ p.m.) the Senate adjourned.

BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUESDAY, J[a.y 2, 1876 • .

The Honse met at .twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. I. L. TOWNSEND. . ~··

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. The'SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The Chair begs leave to lay before the

House certain executive oommnnications which were ~ot submitted yesteriay owipg to the suddenness of the adjoumment.

CAMP A...'iD GARRISON EQUIPAGE.

The SPEAKER pt·o tempore, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting lett-ers of the Quartermaster-General relative to House re~Solution No. 102, regard­ing expenditures for ca.mpauclgarrison equipage; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

A. B. STEINimRGER.

The SPEAKER pro ternpore, also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House tho following me::;sage from the Frel:lident of the United States: To the House of Repreaen.tatiues r

I transmit herewith, in answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of 15th March last, a report from the Secretary of State aud accompanying papers.

U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, May 1, 1876.

The message and a-ccompanying papers were referred to the Com­mittee on Foreign Affrurs.

OPENING OF CE:STENl'.~ E.XHIBITION.

The SPEAKER pro tempore also, by uttauimous consent, laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States: To the Hou11e of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, for the information of Congress, the report of the president of the Contennial Commission upon the ceremonies to be observed at the opening of the exposition, on tho lO~h instant. It will b:~ obser>ed that an invitation IS therein extended to 8enators :md Represtlntatives to be pres11nt on that oc~.:asion.

U.S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, Ma.y 1, 1876.

Mr. KELLEY. I desire that the invitation IJlay be read. Mr. HOPKINS. I wa,s about to J+13-ke that motion, if I had been

able to catch the Speaker's eye . . Mr. RANDALL. It is quite long. It is in all the papers. Mr. O'aRIEN. I would like to bear it read. Mr. RANDALL. You can read it in the REGORD. I ask that it

may be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL REC@RD. There was no objection. The message and accompa-nying report were ordered to be entered

on t.he J onrnal, and referred to the Select Committee on the Centen­nial Exposition. The report is as follows:

THE UNITi<;D STATES CENTENNIAL COMMISSION, INTEfu'UTIONAL EXHIBITION OF 1876,

Ph1la-delphia, April 2b, 1876. SIR: In obedience to the law constituting this organization, r have the honor to

submit, in behalf of tho commission, a schedule of the ceremonies t-o be observed at the opening of the International Exhibition of 1876, on the lOth proximo.

Formal invitations to attend ha\e been sent to the President of the United States, the Cabinet, tho Supreme Court, the diplomatic corps, the Congress, the Government cent~nnial board, the foreign commissioners t-o t he exhibition, the governors of the States n.nd Territories and their staffil, the Le~L'lla.ture of PBnnsylvania, the city authorities of Philadelpbia-, the chief officers ox the Army and Navy, the women's national centennial committee, the centeunial board of finance. and others in official positions or officially counect.ed with the work of the exhibition.

On the morning of Ma.v 10 the gmumls and builtiings in general will be open to tho public at 9 a. m. The memorial hall, or nrt gallery, the main build.ing, anti the machinery haU will ue r Pserved to tho invited gnests and the exhibit-ors until tho close of the ceremonies, about noon, \\"hen all restrictions will be removed. The ex. erciscs will take place in tho opc.>n air, upon the south terrace of memor'ill-lhall, front­ing the main bnilding,..in full view of the general public.

Invited guest~, unless not.ifiecl t-o the contrary, will ont~r the main building by way of tlw can1age concourse at the east entl of that building, or by the south, mid­dle, or western cloors thereof. These entrances will be open to them at 9 a. m.

The music will be under the direction of Theodore Thomas, assisted by Dudley Buck, with an orchestra of one hundred and fifty and a chorus of eight hundred.

It is expected that jtnests will be seated in the amphitheater preparerl on the south fron t of memorial hall by 10.15 a.m. The orchestra will play the national airs of all countries represented a.t the exhibition.

The President of the United States will be escorted to the grllunds by (}()vernor Hartranft, of,Pennsylvania, and a division or more of troop8 from Pelinsylvania. and New Jersey arriving about 10.30 a.m.

PROGRA?til\IE.

1. Centennia1 Inauguration March, by Richard Wn.gner, of Germany. 2. Prayer IJy Right Rev. Bi!-lhop Simpson. 3. H .rmn bvJohn G. Whittier ; music byJohnK.Paine,ofl!assachusetta; orches.

tral anil organ accompaniment. 4. Cantata, the words by Sidney Lanier, of Goorgia; muaic by Dudley Buck, of

Connecticut; orchestral and organ accompaniinent. 5. Presentation of ~he exhibit ion by the president of the Centennial Commission. 6. Address by the Presiclent of the United States. ·

The declaration that tho exhibition is open will be followed by the raising of flags, salutes of artillery, the ringingof the chimes, and Handel's Hallelujah Chorus, with organ and orchestral accompaniment.

The foreign commissioners will pass into tho main building and take places oppo­site their r·espective sections. The President of the United States and the guests of the day will pass through the main building. The foreign' commissioners, upon the President's passin~ then:i, will join the procession, and the whoie boclywill cross to machinery hall. There, at the proper moment, the President will set in motion the great engine anrl all Lhe machinery connected therewith. A brief reception by the President of the United States in the judges' pavillion will close the formal observ· ances of the day.

The Centennial Commission is happy to report t.hat the buildinf!B and grounds, so far a-s the commission aml board of financearedirectlyresponsib1e, will be quite completely ready on the appointe d day. The exhibits from foreign countries are extensive and brilliant beyond our anticipations. It would be too much to expect t.hat every exhlbitor should have his space in perfect order at the openin~. though the most strenuous efforts ·to that end will be continually made; but the commission ventures to think that no previous exhibition was so far advanced at the same rel-ative tlay. .

The commission begs leave to ask the President to communicate this report to Congress soon, and most respectfully: in\"ites both Houses to attend the opening ceremonies of the internatiuna.l exbiblt.ion helcl in commemoration of the one hwi. dredth anni,ersary of the Declaration of onr national Independence.

I have the h!Jnor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

To the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

JOS. R. HAWLEY, President Oentennial 00fmnission.

EXHIBITION OF LIFE-SAVING STATION-HOUSE. Mr. FOSTER, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution

(H. R. No. 110) authorizing ihe exhibition of a life-saving station­bouse at the centennial exposition; which was read a first and second time.

Mr. POSTER. I ask that the joint resolution may be put upon its passage.

The joint resolution was read. It authorizes the Secretary of the Treatmry to place on exhibition at the cent.ennial exposition, upon such ground as may be a1ott.ed for the purpose, one of the life-saving station-houses authorized to be constructed on t,he coast of the United States by e.xisting law, and for which appropriation has already been made, and to cause the same t.o be completely equipped with all the apparatus, furniture, and appliances now in use at the respective life­saving stat,ions of the United States, said building and apparatus to be removed aft.er the close of the exposition and re-erected and used for a life-saving station at the place now aathorized by law ; pro­vided, however, that such exhibition of said station-house and equip­ment thereof and the return thereof shall not be attended with anv expense to the United States beyond appropriations heretofore made in aid of said exhibition from the several Departments of the Gov­ernment.

Tbe joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the ·third time, aud passed. · ·

Mr. FOSTER moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint res­olution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

WORKS UNDER GRANT TO JlliES B. EA.DS.

Mr. LEAVENWORTH, by unanimous consent, submitted the follow­ing resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

R&olved, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, reque.~ted t-o send to this House a copy of any report marle to him of the official inspection of works going on onder .the grant of Congress to James B. Eads made since November, 1875.

ELEVATOR IN SOUTH WI~G OF CAPITOL. Mr. LEA. VENWORTH also, by unanimous consent, submitted the

following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed t.o: R~sol.ved, That the Committee on Public Builtlings and Groumls be, antl they are,

requested to inquire into the feasibility, expediency, and expense of putting a. suit: able elevator into the south wing of t.his Capirol.

APPROPRIATIONS FOR LIGHT-HOUSE SERVICE. Mr. WELLS, uf Missouri, by unanimous consent, from the Commit­

tee on Appropriations, reporlied :t bill (H. R. No. :3356) authorizing the transfer of a certain appropriation; which was read a first and second time.

The bill was read. Of the sum of $585,000 appropriated in the first section of the act of March 3, 1875, making a.ppropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year end­ing June 30,1876, and for other purposes, for salaries of nine huudred and twenty-five light-house keepers and light-beacon keepers and their asf>ista.nts, the bill authorizes the sum of $16,000 to be transferred to and used in aid of the appropriation made in the same act for the maintenance of lights on the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers, and snch buoys as may be necessary, including salaries of keepers,

Mr. WELLS, of Missouri. The appropriation for the maintenance of lights on the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers is exhausted. The appropriation for lights on the coast is in excess of th'e amount

2884 CONGRESSIONAL RECOR.D-HOUSE. MJ..Y 2,

ne-cessary to 1st of July. This bill simply transfers $16,000 from one appropriation to the other, in order to keep up the lights on those ri v­ers. It is very important that the bill sboultl pass at once. Unless this appropriation is made the lights will go out this week.

Mr. CONGER. 'Vould it not be better to make a direct appropria­tion for this purpose instead of transferring an appropriation from one purpose to another f

.Mr. HOLMAN. O, no I Mr. WELLS, of Missouri. I have a letter in my haml from the sec­

retary of the Light-House Board showing that there is a surplns of $J:J,OOO or $40,000 in ono fund, while another fund is short. By mak­ing a transfer from one fund to ·another it will not be necessary to call for a new o.ppropriation. I call the previous question.

Mr. CONGER. Is that out of the appropriation for this year or for next year T

Mr. WELLS, of Missouri. It is out of Lhe appropriation for this year.

The previous question was seconded and the main qnestion ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill waa ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. WELLS, of Missouri, moved to reconsider the vote by which t.he bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion waa agreed to. ORDER t>F BUSINESS.

.Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to what I believe is a privileged motion. But if gentlemen desire to offer any matters that are pressing, I will yield for a fow moments.

EXECUTORS 6F REAR-ADMIRAL LA V ALEITE. Mr. O'NEILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No.

33f}7) for the relief of Mary and Albert T. Lavalette, executors of the estate of Rear-Admiral Elie A. F. Lavalette; which waa read a first and second time, ·referred to the Committee of Claims, and oruered to be printed.

HALLET KILBOURN. Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. I ask unanimous consent to offer the

following resolution: Resolved, That the Commitree on the real-est.'lte pool be directed t.o accept the

offer of Hallet Kilbourn to appear before that committee to answer any inquiries relatin~ to such real-estate pool and to furnish snch information to said committee aa tho uooks in his possession may contain, and the said committee are directed to examine said Hallet Kilbourn and his books.

Mr. RANDALL. I move that that resolution be laid on the table; that is the right way to treat it.

Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. I call for the yeas and nays on that motion.

Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to a question of order. I did not yield the floor for the purpose of the introduction of anything for action. The gentleman from Missi sippi [Mr. WELLS] did not certainly understand that I yielded the floor when about to make a motion to go into Com­mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the appropriation bill, to allow him to have the yeas and nays on a proposition like this.

Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. The poixlt of order certainly comes too ]ate. ·

The SPEAKER p1·o tem.pare-. The gentleman from Indiana did not make his objection in time.

Mr. HOLMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi certainly_ under­stood that I yielded the floor simply for the introduction of ·measures for reference, and not for action.

.Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. I understood that I had the floor to offer the resolution. I did offer it; and a motion has been made to lay it on the table, and on that question the yeas and nays are demanded.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. RANDALL. The right way to treat it is to treat it with con­

tempt. [Cries of "ReO'ular order!"] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order is the call of the

roll. • 1\lr. LANDERS, of Indiana. Iwanttomakeaninquiryofthe Chair.

Can this resolution come before this body without unanimous con­sent!

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understood that unanimous consent WaB given, because no one objected when he put the question, and the Chair pnt the question distinctly to the House.

Mr. BLOUNT. The gentleman from Indiana [.Mr. HOLMAN] ob­j ected. I heard him.

Mr. HOLMAN. I tried to object. Tl.te SPEAKER pro tempare. The Chair did not hear the gentleman,

although he was waiting for objections. [Cries of ''Regular order!"] 'fhe question was taken on Mr. R~l>ALL's motion; and there

wore-yeas 138, nays 84, not voting 68; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Ashe, Atkins, John H. Bagley, jr., Banning, Barnum, Bell,

Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Bradford, John Young Brown, Bucl..'ller, Samuel D. Hnrcqard, C~~obell, John H. Caldwell, William P. Caldwell, Candler, Cate, Caul­field, C4apjn, Jo4n B. Cla:ke of Kentucky, John B. Clark, jr., of Missouri, Cl.v· Jl)er, Cocbrane, Collins, Cook, Cowan, Culberson, Cutler, Davis, De llolt, Dibr~il, Douglas, Durham, Eden, :Jj;ubert, Ellis, Ely, Faulkner, Felt.on, :Finley, Forney, Franklin, Fuller, Gause, Gi~son, Good6, Goodin, Gunter, Andrew H. llamilton,

.......

Robert Hamilton, Hardenbergn, Henry R. HarriR, llarrison, Hartriclge, Hartzell, llatcber, Ha~nond, Henkle, Hereford, Golclsmith W. Howitt, Hill, llolmn.n Hop­kins, House, Hunton, Kehr, Knott, Lamar, Franklin Landers, Geor~e M. Lan!lf1rs Lane, Lynde, L.A. Mackey, Mai.~h, Meade, Metcalfe, .MilJiken. Mills, Money Mor: rison, Mut<,hler, Neal, Now, Parsons, Payne, John F. Philips. Piper, Poppleton Potter, Powell, Randall, Rca, Reagan, John Reilly, James B. Reilly, Rice, Ridclle' John Robbins, WiUiam M. Robbins, Roberts, Miles Ro s, Savage,· 'ayler, So:-~les' Schleicher, Seelye, Sbcakley, Singleton, Slcmons, William E Smith, Southard' Sparks, Stevenson, Stone, Tarbox, 'l'eese, Terry, Thompson, Thomas, Throol<mor: ton. John L. Vance, Robert B. Vance, 'Valling, Wah!h, Ward, Warren, Era tus WelL~, Whitehouse, Wi:rginton, Wike,AlphensS. Williams,JamesWilliams,JamctJ D. Williams, JercmiahN. Williruns, l<'ernando Wood, Yeates. and Youn~-!:18.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Ainsworth, George A. Bagley, John H. Baker, Blaine Blair, Bradley, William R. Brown, Horatio C. Burchard, Burleigh, Cannon, Cason' Conger, Crapo, Danford, Darral~1 Davv, Denison, Dunnell, Eames, EvauR, Farwell; Fort, Fostet:, Frost. Frye, Garneld, Hale, Hathorn, Hays, Hendee, Henderson, Hoge, Hoskins. Huntor, Hurluut, Joyce, Kelley, Ketchum, Kimball, Lawrence, LeavenwQrth, Lynch, MacDou~rall, McCrary, McDill, Monroe, Morey, Morgan, Norton, O'Neill, Page, Pierce, Plaisted, PL'ltt;_ Purm:m, Rainey, Robinson, Rusk Sampson, Sinnickson, Sma1ls A. HeiT Smith, ~:;trait-, Thornbur~h, Martin L Town~ send. Washingt-on Townsend, Tnft8, Van Vorhes, Wait.t... Waldron, .Alexander S. Wallace, John W. Wallace, G. Wiley Wel~1 Wheeler, white, Whiting, Willard Andrew Williams, William B. Willliims, Wilshire, James Wilson, .Alan Wood, jr.: and \Voodworth-84.

NOT VOTING-Messrs . .Anderson, Bagby, William H. Raker, Rallon, Banks, Ba a, Beebe, Bliss, Boone, Bright, Campbell. Caswell, Chittenden, Cox, Crouu e, Dobuins, Durand, Freeman, Glover, Hancock, HaraLson, Benjamin W. Han-is John T. HarriR, .AbramS. Hewitt, Hoar, Hooker, Hubbell, Hurd, Hyman, Jenks' Frank Jones, Thomas L. Jones, Kasson, King, Lapham, Levy, LeWis, Lord, Lu.; trell, Edmund W. M. Mackey, Magoon, McFarlaml, McMahon, Miller, Nnsh O'Brien, Odell, Oliver, Packer, Phelps, William A. Phillips, Pratt, Sobieski Ross' Sclmmaker, Sprin)!er, Sten~er, Stowell, Swann, Tucker, Turney, Wadllell, Charle~ C. B. Walker, Gilbert C. Walker, Whitthorne, Charles G. Williams, Willis, Benja.. min Wilson, and Woodburn-68 .

So the resolution was laid on the table. During tbe roll-call, Mr. DIBRELL said: My colleague, Mr. BRIGHT, is coufined to his

room by sickness. The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded. :Mr. HOLMAN. I will now yield to my colleague, [Mr. LANDERS ]

who desires to offer a resolution, and then I will yielu to the gentl~­man from Massachusetts [Mr. TARBOX] with the undel'l:!tanding that neither proposition will occupy any time, but if it be necessary that there shall be a vote taken upon them I must decline to yield.

U~ITED STATES COINS, ETC. Mr. LANDERS, of Indiana. I ask unanimous consent to offer the

following resolution: · Resolved, That a solect committee be appointed to consider the state of gold and

silver coins, domestic and foreign, and to report such amendment t.o the exi tin(!' laws concernin~ coins as may be deemed expedient; and to investirrate the be<!t means of restormg coins to circulation on an equality with each other· antl also as to the best means of making coins and Unite1l States nolA's, known as "green­backs," par wit.h each other; :md further, how to substitute coin from time to time for the lower denominations of United States notes, without selling interest­bearin.!! bonds of the Federal Government to purchtJse coin for that purpose· autl that said committee shall have leave to report by bill or otherwise at ~~tny tim~.

Mr. KELLEY. I object.

LITTLE ROCK AND FORT S:'IIITH RAILROAD BOXDS. Mr. TARBOX. I Rsk unanimous consent to submit for adoption at

this time the preamble and resolution which I send to the Clerk' desk. The Clerk read as follows: Wherf'.as it. is publicly alleged, and is not denied by the officers of the Union Pa­

cific r..ailroad Company, that that corporation did, iu tho year 1871 or 1 72. become the o~er of certam bo~ds of ~be Litt~e RocJr: and Fort Smith R_aila·oad ~ompnny, for wh1~h bonds the s~d Umon Pac1fio Raihoad Company pa1d a consulera.tion la~aaii'ly ~n ex~s of t~01r actual or market value, and that the board of ~lirectors of sau Umon Pacific Railroad Company, though urged, have neglected to mvestigate said transaction: Therefora,

Be it resolved, 'l'!Iat the Committee o~ the Judiciary be inspruoted to inquire if any snob transaction took place, and, if so, what were tho ctrcumstances and in­ducements thereto, from what person or persona said bor1ds were obtained antl upon what consideration, and whether the transaction was from coiTupt desi•!D or in furtherance of any corrupt object; and that the commitree have power to "'sond for persons and papers.

There being no objection, the preamble and resolntion were adopted. Mr. HALE moved to reconsiuer the vote by which the preamble

and resolution were adopted ; and ~l~;o moved that the motion to re­consider be laicl on the table.

The latter motion WaB agreed to. ~

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to move that the House now resolve itself

into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the pur­pose of considering the annual Post-Office appropriation bilL Before submitting that motion--

Mr. POPPLETON. I 1·ise to a question of ortler. The SPEAKER pro tempo1·t-. Tbe gentleman will state his point of

order. Mr. POPPLETON. My point of order is that the House should now

proceed to the consideration of the contested-election case of Le .Moyne t'8. :Farwell, from the third con~:,rressiona,J district of the State of I 1-linois; that that subject takes precedence of the subject embraced in the motio~ of the gentlem:m from Indiana, [Mr. HOLMAN,] both ou the ground that it is a question of highest privile~e, and also that it is the unfinished business coming over from Saturtlay last.

Mr. HOLMAN. I suppose that the question of consitlemtion may fairly be raised upon the mot.ion which I make to go iuto Committe~ of the Whole on the Post-Office appropriation bill. If that m~tion

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2885 shall be voted down, then the motion of the gentleman from. O~o [Mr. POPPLETON] will be in order. The Post-Office appropnatwn l.Jill was made the special order in Committee of the 'Vhole for to­day immediately after the reading of the Journal, and from day to day until disposed of. .

Before my motion is submitted to the House, I desire to ask unam­mous consent for a nicrht session. Inasmuch as a number of gentle­men wish to be hea,rl'in general debate upon this appropriation bill, and inatsmuch as it is quite obvious that no very considerable amount of time can be consumed in such general debate, I ask unanimous consent that the Hoose now order a recess from half past four until half past seven to-day, for general debate in Committee of the Whole on the Post-Office appropriation bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will be bound first to de­cide the point of order raised by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. PoP­PLETON.] Under the rule the Chair decides that contested-election cases are of the highest privilege. This particular case in qnestion is also unfinished business under Rule 56, coming from Saturday la-st; and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. POPPLETON] is entit,led to the floor to make his motion to proceed with the consideration of the con­tested-election case.

Mr. HOLMAN. Then I raise th~ question of con-sideration upon that motion, for I think it is of the highest importance that the ap­propriation bill should be disposed of as early as possible.

:Mr. BLACKBURN. If this question is debatable, I desire to say that I trust the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] will not in­sist upon raising the question of consideration upon this case. T_his is the second time that it is proposed to defer this contested-electiOn case for an appropriation bill. It is a question of the high~st privi­lege, involving the 1ight of a member to a seat an~ vo.te ~ thi~ Hot1;se. This case has already gone over once for an appropnat10n ~ill w h1eh has since been completed. We then had'the solemn promiBe of the Committee on Appropriations that this case should be brought before the House and disposed of as soon aa the lftgislative appropriation bill was passed. ·

Mr. HOLMAN. I have heard of no such promise. Mr. BLACKBURN. The chairman of the Committee on Appropri­

ations [Mr. RANDALL] made that statement upon the floor and the RECORD will bear me out. We accepted his statement, and now claim the fulfillment of the promise,

Mr. HOLMAN. The contested-election case could have been con­sidered on yesterday very well, I suppose, if the House had been dis­posed to consider it then. I insist upon raising the question of con­sideration upon the grounds I have indicate.d, as I am instructed l.Jy the Committee on Appropriations so to do.

'fhe SPEAKER pro tentpore. The first question to be submitted to the House is, will the House now proceed with the consideration of the contested-election case of Le Moyne VB. Farwell, from the third congressional district of the State of illinois T

The question wa.s taken; and the motion of Mr. POPPLETON was agreed to.

ELECTION CONTEST-LEMOYNE VS. FARWELL.

The House accorclingly resumed the consideration of the contested­election case of Le Moyne VB. Farwell, from the third congressional district of Illinois.

The resolutions of the majority of the Committee of Elections were as follows : ·

Resolved, That Charles B. Farwell wns not elected, and is not en~tled, to a s~t in this House as a member of the Forty-fourth Congress from the third congressiOnal di.8trict of lllinois.

Resolved, That John V. LeMoyne waA elected, and is entitled, to a seat in this House as a member of the Forty-fourth Con~s from the third congressional dis­trict of lllinoie.

The resolutions of the minority of the commitee were 1\.S follows : Resolved, That John V. LeMoyne wa.s not elected, and is not entitled, to a. seat in

this House from the third congressional district of lllinois. Resolved, That Char lea B Farwell was elected, and is entitled, to a seat in this

House from the third congressional district of lllinois.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. SAYLER.) The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. PoPPLETON] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. POPPLETON. - Mr. Speaker, in what I shall have to say in the further consideration of the case from the third congressional district of the State of Illinois I shaH cc:.nfine myself mainly to the discussion of the question of t1re disposition to be made of the vote of the first precinct of the twentieth ward in the city of Chicago. Thus far in this discussion much has been said aa to the manner in which this House should dispose of that precinct in determining which of the two persons contending for this seat should have it. The returned majority for the sitting member being 186 in the entire district, the fraudulent votes proved, if rejected, would change the result in favor of contestee. It seems to me that this question has been measurably decided by the cont,estant and contestee in the presentation of the is­sue smTonnding that ward. The gentlemen moRt deeply interested personally in this contest understood best, it is fair to presume, the issue that they were to present for the consideration of this House. In order that the House might intelligently pass upon the questions involved they presented their issue; and that issue, so far as this precinct is concerned, was embodied in the second assignment of the not.ice and answered iu the second assignment of reasons given by the

answer. To these I desire to call the attention of the House. I first read from the notice :

Second. That a large number of P?rsons, t'? wit, m.ore t~an .th·e. h~ndred, were permitted to vote for you at the followwg electiOn precmcts m srud distn.cts, na!Dflly, the first, second, third, and fourth precincts of the sixteenth :ward of ~he mty of Chicago; the third precinct of the eighteen.th ward !Jf the Clty of Chicago; tho first precinct of the nineteenth ward of the mty of ChiCa~o; and t~e first, sooond, third, and fifth precincts of the twentieth ward of the c1ty of Chicago, who had no legal right to vote thereat.

That is the allegation of the contestant. It is answered upon the part of the contestee in this wise:

I deny that any person or persons were permitted to vote for me at the following election precincts or at either of them in said llistrict. '

Giving all the precincts charged in the second specification of the notice, and emphatically the first precinct of the twentieth ward of the city of Chicago. .

This is the issue joined between these parties. When the Issue thus joined is presented they proceed to take the testimony necessary to determine the questio~ as to the number of illegal votes that were polled; and what is t~e re~ult! Upon this issue.Mr. Le Moyne, t~e contestant, produces hiS witnesses, and the result Is that he shows 252 illegal, fraudulent, and unauthorized votes as having been polled for the contestee at that precinct. The proof makes that out clearly and conclusively; there is no question about it. There has been no at­tempt in the committee-room, by counsel or otherwise, to deny the stubborn fact that there is overwhelming proof in this case that 2.t)2 votes were cast for Mr. Farwell a.t the first precinct, twentieth ward, city of Chicago. The whole question was tried upon that proposition. During the whole examination of the case no person attempted to pre­sent any other issue save and except the question as to the number of illegal votes that were polled and for whom they were polled. When the fact was demonstrated that a greater number of votes had been polled for Mr. Farwell than his majority, illegally polled, fraudulently polled, then for the first time in the history of this case have we pre­sented for our consideration the proposition to exclude the entire poll. WhyT I desire the House to understand why. For the reason that Mr. Farwell's returned majority in the first precinct of the twentieth ward of Chicago is 171. Mr. Le Moyne, the contestant, has proved by sworn testimony that Mr. Farwell received 252 illegal votes. Why is this proposition now made to exclude that precinct so that these parties will be sent out of that precinct even f }"or the simple reason that by these mean-s and through the practical workings of that exclusion ltlr. Farwell will receive the benefit of 81 illegal votes. That is the reason this proposition is made to the committee and to this House. Aft.er the ca-se has been submitted to the committee, after it has undergone consideration at the hands of the subcommit­tee, after the proof has been closed, after the argument has been made, after everything that could be said has been saicl for and against the sitting member and the contestant, after all this a sup­plemental brief is presented by the counsel for the sitting member, and placed upon the desk of members of the committee. Then for the first time do they learn the fact that this issne is raised, that the proposition is to exclude this entire poll.

I desire the House to understand exactly how this case is present-ed; and in order that it may be understood I wish to call attention to the claim of the contestee before the committee in the examination of this case.

On the fifth page of his brief you will find the following : N()w, while we are of opinion that, under the law, the contestant has utterly

failed to eatablish his case, we are willing that this election should be decided upon the showin(J' m_ ade by himself ami by his testimony as corrected by the records be· fore tho co'kmittee; ancl we are willing that the canvass of the votes should be made here and now in this room and before thi.8 committee. The papers in the CtUII fttrn.ish the means for making such canvass; · and if we are not supported in our claims by that canvass, we are perfectly willing, if the committee so uecide, to have the case sent back to the people for a new election. But, while we do not admit the correctness of tho contestant's statements, we propose to show that by the figures of his brief, as correctetl by the record. a sufficient majority will be shown for the contestee. We are will-ing to abide by the figures and the jactB.

That is the issue upon which this case was beard and tried before the committee. A13 I have said, never until after the evidence had been closed, the arguments made, and ~he case submitted to the com­mittee was a supplemental brief placed upon the desks . of members raising for tl1e first time an issue that had never been raised in the whole trial of the cause before the committee. After the submission of the case, all parties acquiescing in the proposition that there should be a canvass of the votes made, the case proceeding upon the issue that I have read, the issue presented by the second para­graph of the notice and denied by the second paragraph of the an­swer of the contestee, the proposition to exclude the entire poll is made. As I said, the reason of this change of front is perf~ctly ap­parent; the reason for changing the issue thus joined between the parties is entirely plain. When it became perfectly apparent that this poll had been conducted by the riffraff, by the inhabitants of the sinks of iniquity in the low sands of the city of Chicago in tho interest of the sitting member-when it became perfectly apparent that there could be no integrity attached to the returns of these par~ ties-when it became perfectly apparent that each and every mem, ber of the committee, democrat or republican, most at once renounce the acts of this board thus constituted in the interest of the sitting member, tb.en for the first time the proposition is made to excluue this poll ..

28~6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ~fAY 2,

And there is only one reason for maldng that proposition. By the cxclu~ion of the poll the ~Sitting member would be benefited to

. the extent of !:11 votes. In other words, he would receive 81 fraud­ulent votes. 'flJat was the attempted net on the part of this board of rascals and scoundrels, as the committee each and all admit them to have been proved; that they had carried tho fraud to the fullest extent that they were capable of executing it. Then the sitting mem-

. ber turns to the House and says, "I ask you to consummate the fraud, not onl:v by excluding the vote Le Moyne rccei ved at this poll, but to conut. thft tll fraudulent votes I receiverl."

In order that the House may know something of the character of the men upon whom the sitting member and hisfriendsrely, whoarethe friends of the pal'ty and the sitting member, I desire the House shall know a little something of the character of these persons from the .tes­timony, who thet:lo men were and what ~ind of ru.eu they w~re. l\1r. Hesing, a reputable gentleman of the Cit.y of Ch1cago, hearmg that this mi ·conduct was being bad on the Jlart of those w bo were for Far­well in the first precinct of the twentieth ward, went there to have the abuse corrected. I now read -from his testimony:

As I arrind at the pl'('cinct, I met a perso• who bad been designated as chal­lenger. We immediately were surrounded lly a mob, shoulder-bruisers, peniten­tian·-lJirds, and gamblers. I attempted to wake the ascent of this inclined plane for ·the purpose of talking to tho jnd)!t>B about admittin!! this challenger and was pushed by se>cral persons, and when I I!Ot half way up the inclined plane a man by the name of Burns, who but a s1wrt time proTious had been released from tho penitentiary, pushed me from this plane. The crowd then set 11pon me and said, ··nesinrr. you can't rrut tuis}Jrccinct as you run the convention, you God-damn son of a bit-ch! Go to yom own precinct." 1 called upon the police to interfere. a-sh1ng them if they woullln' t c!efcwl me.· They took no stops, but fiimply said, " We don't rucdtllo in rolitks .. , I mad~ the ascent af!aiu after bein:.r pulled and hauled by this crtnTd, am · ucceeded in gcttin~ on to tho platform. There was nobotly either on the inclined plane or the vlatform wllen I began the ascent the second time. Before I ~ot to tho platform this l'amo m:m Burus gaYo or made one jump on to the plat­form, gave me a push against tllo wall, and ;;otto t.bis opening in the window before I did, put his I.Jeatl tbroueh the opening, aml kept up a. oonnraation with the jmlges. I trierl to speak to tho judge~. motioned to t.l1em, rapped on tho wincJowi Lnt no attention wa1:1 paid b)' th judges. I stood there fully ten minutes. AI this while Burns kt.<pt pushing me and the crowd below was hooting antl URin~ all sorts of thr~~t.s. They th n l.x:gau to pull my breeches to pull me oft the platform. I nt.rain appealed to the polico (there were three officers and a sergeant below) to protect me. 'l'be an~:~wer again was, "'Ve don 't mecldle in politics." The crowd kept on jeering aml hooting aad pulling, while Burns was pushing me. Burns did not voto wl1ilc standing tl10re. The crowd called upon tho police to remove me from t.hat platform, statiug I had no right there. I nov~r spoke back a word to any­body in the crowd. Threats wero then ballootJd out by tho crowd a!!ainst the police that. t.!Je,y mnst do tlwir tlut.r to remove mo from the platform. Policeman No. 512 pulled out his club and 1mi•l, ·• lleMiu)!, ~ot clown from there." Burns gave me a ]lllsh, tho policeman swun~ his club,grabuc•tl mo by the leg of mypants, and pnlled me down from tho platform. I again appcalc!l to the police a tllird time, aa my lifo was in 1langer, to tlefcncJ rue. The crowd surrounded me, hustletl me off, and the polioo replied, " \V o don't mellillo in politics." I remained perfectly cool, didn't say a. wonl tn anybody, aml.Mr. lllichael Vorcoran, brother of the candidate for al­dtmnan, and who has twice been in tho venit~utiarv, stepped np tome, shook his fist for at least two minutes within a llalf an inch of my nose, and sai<l, "Hesinfl, you God-damn son of a bitch, you hacl hotter ~o homo.; yon can't do anytl1ing here l '

Another mnn, who by tho wa.y was a school-mate of mine, Tim Casey, used sim­ilar words. I then ap]lCalotl to Sergca.nt Gerding to protect me, who saw this whole transaction. He simplyroplied, •• It's all right; you h:l<l bett-er f!O homo." I tried again to gnt to thojmlgc . but in vain, as threa.t were used, and I heard voices ex­claiming, "Pusi.J him off! Kill hlru l D<•n't let him up!" &c. I app aled once more to tho police, with tho law about atlmittin.!t a challenger in my hantl, and showed them that a. challcn ~cr mu.'lt be allmittetl. 'l'he crowd a.gain gathol'('d &round us, ancl I heart! voices oxrlaiming, " We won't allroit a challenger hero ; yon can't got one m; ' ' and whon I told them tho law saitl tllore mu~:~t be a. challengezo. there­rly was, "'Vo don' t caro a <larun for tho law, btloauso wo are not going to allow a. tballen_!!el·; we aro going to run this preciuct. " I waited around t-here a. few min­utes, romlsccin~ that all attempts to get to tl10judges or have a hearing from any­bocly, or even ha.o my life protooted, as several missiles had already been thrown, were in vain, I flepartecl

Q. Was there any challenger on behalf ·of the party of which contestant was the noruin~ at ~:~aitl precinct on said da.v at any timo sub~:~equent to the tinlo referred to in tho last answer; if not, why not~

A. No, !Iii·; there wa no challt>n"cr. The jud:res would not admit one, and the crowd interposed its objection. The challenger was there at eight o'clock; the polls were opened at ton minutes b<>fore ci!!ht. The crowtl and tho judges said that a.s the challenger wa.'l not on time they hact no ri~ht to a.rlmit him afterwa.r£1.

Q. Who was the chief of police for tho city of Uhlcago at the time of said electioD. i A. J :.wob Rchm. Q. Did he take any part in the campai~ preceding and at said election ; if so,

on whose behalf, a.nd was ho active or olllcrwiset A. Ile dill take an active part nreceding a.nd at the election. He in fact ran the

campaign for Mr. C. ll. Farwell.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the class of persons, these are the kind of men who were called upon there, anu whom yon are now asked to con­si<ler. These men were got together in the interest of the sitting m~mber, and now he asks you by a proposition for the exclusion of this poll to count for him 81 votes which aro proved to have been fraudu­lently east and illegal. Any gentleman need only to run over the proof in this volume of testimony wllioh we have in the case and he will find reeorded the proof clas ified of these votes, which in the agt,rregato amount to 252. You will find they were votes of persons ret:li(ling out of the precinct, voters from vacant lots where numbers were given for houses on lots where there were no horu;es. You will fiud a large nnmber of repeaters giving fictitious residences, taking the names of men who wore dead, taking imaoinary names. And this te:-<timony is uncont-radicted, undeniable, and nnuenied, so far as the finding of the committee is concerne(l. You will also find changed bal­lots, non-rcsiue ut vot.ers of otltc.r class-es than thos-e enumerat.ed in tllese taulcs. All this you will find in the proof, and all are classi­fied in this way.

Now, in order that you Illi1Y unuerstand how the committee were ablo to determine this, I uesire to call y9ur attention to one of the

features of the law of the State of Illinois. It is this: It requires the name of the voter shall be given on the roll, his residence, anu the number of his place of residence. His name is set opposite a certain number upon the poll-book, and a corresponding number is placed upon his ballot. All that it is necessary to do is to refer to the poll-book and refer to the ballot, and you can ascertain for whom he voted, whether for Mr. Le .Moyne or Mr. Farwell. You ascertain be W8.S a non-resident by having given a fictitious residence. You ascertain he gave a fictitious residence from the fact t.here was no house on tile lot where be said he had his residence. You will find each ona of these ballots accredited to Mr. Farwell-252 of them. Besides, by the dnplicity and uouble-dealing of this board you will tind there is an entire absence of some 84 ballot.s of persons who did voto-1 believe the number is exactly 84.

I desire the House to mark one fact, that throughout the entire can­\%-,s, from beginning to end, from first to last, there is not a scintilla. of proof going to show tbat Mr. Le Moyne received a single fraudu­lent vote-not one fraudulent vot.e. There was nobody there steal­ing for him. They were there stealing from him, but there was no­body thore stealing in his interest. No witness called in the case has attempted either by insinuation or directly to say that Mr. LeMoyne received a single fraudulent vote at this poll.

What neces~arily follows f If the issue is joined the question then becomes important, Who received these fraudulent vot.es, and how many did they I'eceive T Tho proof is that Mr. Le Moyne received no fraudnlcnt ballots ancl that Mr. Farwell received 252. Who shall re­ceive the benefit, the party whose friends perpetrated the frand, or the innocent party-the man whose hands are not sullied with fraud in any shape or form in t.he conduct of the poll f It seems to me the argument is conclusive that these ballots must be charged up and against Mr. Farwell.

. The process of purging these polls is easy, perfectly easy, :md per­fectly t,o be understood. When y6n find the ballot of a non-resident you know exactly for whom he voted. Charge up that ballot to the man for whom be thus fra.utiulently voted, and you readily ascertain the number of fraudulent ballots cast for each party.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the contestee comes before the Honse with a virtual admission of fraud. One of the principal charges of tho contestant ""as that a large number of fra.udu1ent votes were polled for contestee in tbe first precinct of the twentieth ward in the city of Chicago; this was denied by contestee. But these fra.uds are so plainly proved that the committee have a.greed unanimously that the returns cannot stand, that they are invalidated by reason of fraud. The contestee denying all fraud, the proof waa made, show­ing a fraudulent registry, del'lial of challengers, &c., and all tho e frauds committed on behalf of contestee. When the contestant had proved a lar~er number of fraudulent votes for contestee than his whole majonty in the precinct, theri fDr the first time it is proposed, on bobnlf of the contestee-in whose behalf these frauds were com­mitted-thitt by reason of these frauds the whole poll shall be re­jected. It is trne that if these frauds were not shown to be wholly by conte tee, this suggestion might be proper, but it would be grossly inequitable and unfair to thus allow contestee to take advantage of his own wrong, anu the legal maxim should be applied, "Nullus con1r moc1ttm capere pottst de injttria sus propria!' In Broom's Marims this principle is stated most broadly, "A wrongful or fraudulent act shall not be allowed to condncc to the advantage of the party who comm,itted it." It may he true that by rea-son of t.he fraudulent management of the ballot-box it may be more difficult to purge the poll, but if either party is to strlfer }l)y reMon of such manipulation, by reason of such uncertainty, it shonJd be the guilty, not the innocent, party. Suppose these baHots were personal property owned by two persons, one mixes them, aml it thereby becomes impossible to distinguish the property of each, the innocent party takes the whole.

If articles of unequal value are mixed together producing- an article-of a different value from tha.t of either separately, and through the fault of the person mixing them the other party sannot tell what was the original value of his property, bo must have the whole. "At law," remarks Lord Redesdalo, in Bard vs. Hopkins, "fraud destroys aU 'l'ights; if I mix my corn with another's, he tallies oJl." (Lnptin vs. White, 15 Vesey, page 442; Blackstone's Commentaries, pa:ro 405; Colwell vs. Reeves, 2 Campbell's N1si Prius, page 575; Story on Bailment&, §§ 44-47.)

This is a princfple so well settled and so ancient as to forbid dis­cussion. In this c!1Be the sole difficulty which can be suggested arises from the fraudulent tampering with· the ballots. · The method of con­ducting the election-giving on the poll-book the residence and name of ea,ch vot.er and tho number of his ballot with a corresponding number on the ballot itself-made it M easy and certain. as possible to purge the poll, a.nd when the non-residence or non-existence of any voter was established the ballot of such person could at once be iden­tified and charged to the proper party, and if any element of uncer­tainty has been introduced by contestee, or his a.gents, your commit­tee, or the House, or any court would only be following the fumla­meutallegal principle in charging to contestee every illegal or donbt­·ful vote. All doubts which arise from the wrongfu 1 numbering of the ballot-s are to be solved in favor of contestant, not on account of any party bias, but in conformity to a rule of law which any court would be obliged to follow. It is a fair presumption that the judges, clerks, and other persons at this precinct who were cheating for contestee did not hesitate to put wrong numbers on some of the ballots for con­testant; they were-certainly not putting in fraudulent votes for him.

1876. CONGRESSJONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2887 This accounts for the fact that duplicate numbers appear for some of the ballots.

Second. Contestee m:\kes a gain of 81 votes by having the polls re­jected. Contestant bas proved 2.1)2 illegal votes cast for contestee at this poll; his majority as returned wa.s 171; now if be could succeed in having the entire poll thrown out he would be advantaged to the extent of the difference between his majority of 171 and252, thennm­ber of fraudulent votes proved. Is it therefore at all surprising that this desperate effort is being made on the part of the sitting member to induce this House to accept his theory of the case and con~ummate the work conceived and begun by the villains whose habitations are in the sinks of iniquity, who spend their lives in the pit-falls of crime, whose only home is the disreputable" Hatch house," aud who at all times bold themselves ready to embark in any undertaking that has for its object and aim t be strikin~ down of honesty, integrity, and fair uealing f This is the feast to whiCh we are invited; this is the job the House is aaked to finish, acting in its constitutional capacity in judg­ing of the election and qualification of its own members.

No chim is made that contestant received a single fraudulent vott> at this poll. Tb~n it must be admitted that every vote credit~d to him was actually and in good faith on the part of the voter cast for him. The judges of the election stole from him, but clid not steal for him. The number left at the close of the day and counted for LeMoyne was but a remnant of his honest vote. These rascally election officers had robbed him of a large percentage of the votes polled for him during the day, and it may well be said that the wonder is that they did not strip him entirely ; but he had 251 votes left. These votes were so sacred, so just, that even these desperate, unscrupulous vil­lains, clothed with officical position on that election board, dare not lay their iniquit-ous hands upon them, but ~tis reserved for this House, according to the arguments of gentlemen advocating th~ cause of contestee, in the exercise of its high prerogative, to strike down the last vestige of honesty connected with this poll, and finish the work of disfranchisement by this villainous election board so auspiciously begun. ·Reject the entire poll, and we have gotten rid of each and all of the honest votes cast for contestant, that a disreputable elec­tion board bad not the hardihood to rob him of in the hours of their dark and detestable crime.

I now ca~ the attention of the House to the testimony of Chaplin, page 293; of 0' Brien, page 248; of Btakely, page 253; and of Gerb­ing, page 269; persons wbo heard the vote announced at the close of the poll on the night of election. By their testimony it is proved that Le Moyne bad 251 votes in that box still remaining there, After all the stealing during the day there wa.s still this number of votes. Now it may be said, and it was argued, that this testimony also proves 422 votes for Farwell. So it does. But 252 of them have been shown by overwhelming proof to have been illegal. These m11st be dednctetl from the 422, leaving Farwell but 170 votes in all, against Le Moyne's 251; making a majority for LeMoyne of 81 in that election precinct. But Mr. Farwell says," That kind of figuring won't do; I want to throw on t the whole poll." Why floes he want to do this f Jl'or the sole reason that 252 illegal and fraudulent votes have been proven for him. If there were no illegal votes established by proof, he would be the last man to ask for the rejection of the entire poll; but the demand would come, "Countmy42~votes; they are the evidence of theexpressed will of a beloved and appreciating constituency; I dema.nd it as a right to have my 422 votes thua polled for me coH:nt~d at your hands."

.Mr. Speaker, gentlemen on the other Ride say th:\t we must exclude this poll because we cannot rely npon the returns of these villainons officers. So say we. We do not claim that we can rely upon these returns. We give these returns no credit whatever. nut we do say that it is the law that we may prove, that the sitting member may prove or that the contestant may prove aliunde his vote. And we do say that the term ctli1mde it~ used by the author of the work on Ameri­can Law of Elections in the bro?-der sense as meaning "from another place." The proof may be made fr~m anothe:r place other than the record. ·

Now, this proof is made in another way and in another place. The four men whose testimony is taken by the contestee, whose n'ames I have already gi veu, each n,nd all of them swear that on election night there were in that box 251 votes. This is outside of the returns. We give no credence to them whatever. We say these returns shall be set aside. But by this aliltnde proof that is recognized by and known to the law these parties swear that the contestant bas received and t.hat there are in that box 251 votes, and we insist that that proof is just as O'OOd to establish the nnmber of votes received by him as it is to establish it by calling upon the persons that cast the ballot. Why f Because in the second proposition of tile contestee, in his answer toLe Moyno, he sets out this as one of the issues made:

Second, that a large number of illegal votes-

He specifies a limit-That a large nnmberof illegal vot-es, to wit, 100, wore cast and counted for you in

each and all nf the precincts of said disttiot by persons who were not legally enti· tied to vote in said precincts respectively. .

There is the issue again. Mr. Farwell charges upon Mr. Le Moyne that 100 illegal votes were cast for him, Le Moyne, in tho first pre­cinct, twent1eth ward. Does the proof sustain him i Is there a particle of proof that indicates that a siaglo fraudulent vote was ca~ f There is not a word, not n single word. Every vote that was

cast in th:tt ward for Lel\Ioyne stands unimpeached and unimpeachable upon this issue, because the proof made by the sitting member direct to the issue showed that Le Moyne received no fraudulent votes at the first precinct of the twentieth ward. There is not a single iota of testimony, not a word in any shape or form. We have the proof of the four witnesses to whom I have referred, stating the fact that he did receive 251lawful votes. These your committee found ought to be counted for .Mr. LeMoyne. Mr. LeMoyne, by his testimony, has stripped Mr. Farwell of 252votesof his 422. Your committee saitl t.hat that number of votes should be deducted from the 422, ancl tnt) committ.ee found that the difference between the 2i2 and the 422 were legal votes cast for Farwell, and then we cleducted the difference be­tween the legal votes cast for Farwell thus ascertained and the legal voteg of Le .Moyne thus n.scertainod, and then we struck the differ­ence, and gave the benefit to the party to which it belonged, to the man whose bands were not tainted with fraud, to the party who had no part or lot in tho perpetration of fra.uds in that election, to the man who protested that .no fraud should be perpetrated, who stood npou a narrow plank placed there for the purpose of voters walking to the window where the ballots were to be depositecl and protestetl tllat the men of each party should be admitted there, that each was equally interested and was entitled to a challenger, and that the :rights of all parties should be respected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not discuss the other questions in this case. The other precinct-s in controversy are the second and fifth precincts of the twentieth ward and the third and fourth precincts of the eighteenth ward and Norwood Park; but I will only say that I most fully agree with the conclusion reached by the majority of the committee iu each and every one of these precincts, and have no doubt but that the House will be doing but an act of justice in adopt­ing tho report of the majority.

Mr. 'YELLS, of Mississippi, obtained the floor. ·

CENSURE OF- HON. JOHN YOUNG BROWN.

Mr. LAMAR. With the consent of my colleaO'ne, I ask unanimous consent to offer for adoption the resolution which I send to the Clerk's desk relating to a member upon this floor. 1 will state that I believe the resolution is one which will not be una{}ceptable to a single mem­ber on the floor after you heq,r the mqtives which prompt me to pre­sent it.

The Clerk r~ad the resolution, as follows: Resolved, 'rhat so much of the n>-solntion adopted by the House of Representa­

tives of the Fmty-tbirtl Congress, on the 3d of February, lti75, aa charges prevari­cation upon Hou. JOHN YOUNG BROWN be, and the same is hereby, rescinded and ordered to bo expunged.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I object to the resolution; I know nothing about it. I have no other objectio:q than that.

Mr. LAMAR. I trust the gentleman will hear an explanation of the motives which prompt me to present the resolution, and if there is then any objection I will withdraw the resolution.

M:r. TOWNSEND, of New York. I will hear the gentleman. Mr. LAMAR. .Mr. Speaker, I believe th:\t this resolution will not

be unacceptable to a single member of this body when be comes to understand the motive which prompts me to present it.

I have always believed that the action of the last House, referred to iu this resolution, was induced by au entire misapprehension of the attitude and purpose of the honorable and distinguished gentle­man against whom it was directed. From along personal acquaint­ance with him, I believed then, a.s I have never cea.sea for a moment t-o believe since, that he wa-s superior to the arts of equivocat.ion aml wholly incapable of disingenuousness and indirectness. On that oc­casion and upon that particular matter I used the language which I ask the Clerk now to read.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. LAMAR. * • • Now, sir, one word if I maybe permitted as to this oft:lrge

of prevarication in the resolution. I think, Mr. Speaker, you were premature m your censure of tho gentlema:q. I bt-lieve yon did not intend to be unjust, but I think whatever may be said of the course which the gentleman pmsued-and I do not say that it was in aor.ord with the rules of the House-it was not pervaricating.

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not use that word. Mr. J,AMAR. I stand corrected. Mr. Cox. It is in the resolution that that word is used. The SPEAKER. The Chair characterized the gentleman's conduct M "evasive., Mr. LAMAR. I am glad the Chair has corrP-cted me, anti make the amende with

pleasure. Still the Chair stated that the answer wa.~ not in t;oocl faith; that it was e'l"asive. Now, I do not think it will bear even thatoonstrnction. The gmitle­man had just finished a sentence with the 1\'0rd 11 Burking," when the Chair int-er· posed a.nd asked if the gentlem!Ml meant to refer to a member upon this floor. Th() gentleman from Kentucky replied, 11 No, sir; I call no names." Now, sir, it i~ very natural for the gentlema.n from Kentucky to have supposed that the Chatr had from a misunderstanding of the name called. made the inquiry as to whether he w:ts alluding to a member of the House, and he revlied, "No, sir; /called 1w1w.me." He had evidently intended to refrain from making a personal allusion and to con­fino himself to a mP.ntal characterization so as to avOid being called to ortler and stopped by the Chair. Such a mode of dealing in severities is not unusual. The Uhair repeated the question, and then .Mr. BROWN answered, "No, sir; I am hav· ing a member in m:v mind's eye."

The SPEAKER. Not ":\member." Mr. LAMAU. No; I did not mean to say "a. member;" but he said, "I am de­

scribing an individual whom I have in my mind's eye." Well, sir, ho hacl not, at that time, in point of fa<lt referred t-o any member. No matter what his ob,iectin~ point was, it is exactly th() fact that he had not at that instant viola.ted any rule, Had he stopped at that sentence no member oould have been said to have bet>n alluded to. Whatw~tr his intention to do thereajter, be certainly had not as yet made any person&l reference. The Speaker's inquiry was a. proper OJ.le, but the answer

2888 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 2,

it eliciWl could not I think be construed into a pledge that precluded any personal reference in a subsequent portion of hh remarks . . .

I do not believe that the gentleman from Kentucky 1s capable of dismgenuous­ness.

Mr. LAMAR. Those remarks were made after conference with the c:rentleman from Kentnckv; and when I concluded them he came to ~y chair anu thanked me for my defense and assured me that I had stated exactly the impression upon his mind nuder which he answered the Speaker's inquiry. Unfortunately, as ~ then thought a?d as I still think, my friend, under_ the -:escrve 'YhJCh ~e t~ought Ins pecu­liar po itiou imposed upon lnm. rhd not re1trrate m his remarks to the House the assurance that be hau mado privately to me; so that the gentlemen who voted for the resoluti_on di~ so. supposing that. my explanation was only a'rgne11do, when m reality It was an anthonzed version of his intent aud feeling.

Anxious that this mi unuerstanding should be cleared Ul) and the consequences of it repaired, I, at the suggestion o~ ot~er gentlem.en, addressed to my friend from Kentnck~r a commum~at~on reqnestmg him to state in a note to me if I correctly reported htm m that debate, and to allow me to use his reply for the purpose o.f this resolution. I ask the Clerk to reacl his letter.

The Clerk read as follows; HousE OF REPRF:f3E~TATIV&s,

Washington, D. 0., Ftb-ruary 26, 1876.

DEAR Sm: I have just rooriverl your note in which you ask me to state if Y:ou con·ectly representeJ me in tho remarks made by you in the debate on tpe r~solut10n of censure upon mysel£ in tl1e Hou.<~o of Representatives of the Forty-th1r~ Congress. In reply I will state that yon certainly flid. You will remember that on that oc­casion 'before you took tho floor, I explained to you how I had misunderstood the Speak~r and, after you l1ad con<"lnded your remarks, I went to your seat and thank eel yon for ~h:it: you had sai«l.

The fact of t-ho caso aro that, wl!en I was int-errupted in my remarks by an in­~uiry from the Speaker, I hacl just used the word "Bw·king." Supposin~ the l:;pcaker had mi. taken that word for tho name of a member; conscious aL~o of the fact that, up to that roiut., I b. ad made no personal application of my remarks to any one, and understaniling llis inquiry to b ~hether I had. reft'rr~cl ~.o t.ho 1~a~e of a member, my Teply to biro wM in tho ne,!rati ve-t hat I was clescnbmg an mdi­vidun,l who was in my" mind's eye"-and added, in my second reply, that I had "called no names." ·

The personal application of my remarks was m:tde after t~s colloquy. Tho question of the Speaker was unoxpccted-v.nt in tb~ mulst of ~V remarks­

and rnisa,pprchmuled, answered by me under ox01tement, mstantly, Without re~ec­tion for a second. with the impression on my mind a.s stated, and most certainly ~ithout a t·.y purpo. c of disiugennousncs~.

Precisely what I llave now statocl was said to you at the time referred to. On that occa. iou I made no explanation to the House, and felt that I ought not,

as I wa.'l under the menace of tho resolution of censure then pending. Ron. Robert S. lla lo, of New York, tho author of tho resoluUon of censure, when

he afterward learned the facts, not able by reason of his illness to come t.o the House of Reprt'sentativcs, voluntarily wrott', as yon know, an earnest and magnanimous letter which "'M read dm iug the clo~ing hourR of the Forty-third Congress, in which be statocl that great ~ustice had been dono me.

Very truly, yom· fi·ien , JOHN YOUNG BROWN.

Ron. L. Q. C. LAM.An.

Mr. LAMAR. I send to the Clerk's clesk a.nd ask to have read the marked portion of tho letter of Mr. Hale, the author of the reeolution referred to in tho letter just read.

The Clerk reacl as follows : But a careful examination of the record since, qualifying it by my own distinct

recollection, sal is lies me that I did a. groat wrong to Mr. llnowN in imputing this intent to him, and Umt there was not.hin.~ in hi!! response to t-he Speaker incon· sis1 ent with entire good faith or with tho integrity of an upright anrl honorable man.

I rc.,.ret that I could not have st.'\tecl t.~ conviction of mine upon tho floor of the llous<f and haYo tl!ns aided in wipin.l! out tho undeserved imputation upon Mr. BROWN in tbis re.,.arcl inflicted by my resolution; but my continued illness has kept mo fi·om my ~>Oat"' now for nearly four weeks, and will prevent my taking it agam during tho session. ·

I am glad to have the opportunity of oxpreR. ing myself thus freely and unre­servedly to you, especially in view of the opinion I have always ent-ertained of Mr. BUOW:'t as a gontlcmau of the most perfect integrity ancl honor, though «loubt­Jess sometimes excitable and impulsive, as I think lie was on the occasion in quea­tion.

I shall never hesitate to express freely the conviction I have above expres~ed to you, and if anything contain~ iu t.hish·tterwill, ~n your judgmcnt •. bo of serVIce to Mr. BROWN, I be~-t you to conslller tho letter entirely at vour servJCe for any use w hatcver which you or other friends of Mr. Bno~ may think proper to make of it.

With ~>entimrnts of the highest regard for yourself, I am, very truly, your obe­dient servant,

ROBT. S. HALE. Ron. T. T. CmTTENDEN.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. Speakor, the subject brou(J'bt to the attention of the House by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. LAMAR] recalls to my mind that one of the most painful acts I wa.s ever called to take part in was a-dministering t.he censnre of tlle House upon the gentle­man from Kentucky, [Mr. BROWN.] And lam comp&lled here to say that, if the gentleman from Kentucky had that evening, under the excitement, found himself cool enough to have said to the House what ho has now written so frankly and fully, I am very sure the vote of censure never would have been passed. There was a great deal of excitement, there was a great deal of confusion, and it is perhaps true that there was a great deal of tempe~ And yet a word from the gen­tleman from Kentucky at that time, who shared as fully in the tem­per as any mem bur on the Ooor, wonlll have averted the very unpleas­ant conclusion of that da.y's excitement.

I have taken a goou deal of pains myself since then, by conference with various parties in greater or less degreo connected with that event, incluuiug the gentleman from Kentucky himself, to possess my­self of all the facts of tho case. And my most deliberate and candid and complete cone Ins ion is t.hat the gentleman from Kentucky did not

in any way intend to prevaricate or deceive the House; that is my conclusion and my belief. I think it all arose from confusion and nn­due excitement, and, to speak with entire frankness, from a great deal too much temper on the part of the gentleman from Kentucky at that moment which forbade him saying what he has now said in his lettet·.

My own judgment is that justice, not to speak of generosity, re­quires that this House should do what the gentleman from Mississippi has asked them to do in the resolution he has offered. My own per­sonal acquaintance with the gentleman from Kentucky dates back some years, aucl I knew of him and abont him many years before [ met him.' I have hau rea on to know something of the people of his St,ate,and I am sure I do110t go beyond what is the strict limit of tho severest truth when I say that there is no single chapter or feature in the previous or the subsequent history of the gentleman from Ken­tucky that would lead the House to suppose that under any circum­stances he would knowingly be guilty of prevarication; and I hope, speaking from a position of somewhat peculiar know led~~ of this sub­ject, that so far a.~ this side of the House are concerned this resolution may be unanimously adopted.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I have not the honor of a per onal acquaintance with the gentleman alJuded to in the resoh1tion now before this House. Ho holds a seat on this floor, and for that reason, if for no other, I should presUlDe him to be a high-minded and hon­orable man.

I have no wish, in anything I may say on this occasion, to hint or intimate any opinion in regard to what has been discussed by the gen­tlemen who have spoken upon this resolution, unfavorable to the gen­tleman from Kentucky; not one word. Bat I am oppo ed to this resolution and shall not vote for it. :My reason is that I do not be­lieve that the matter properly comes before us for con ideration. It wa.s a matter for the last House, and if the last House committed a . wrong, certainly we eannot determine what t.bat wrong was. I speak now of those who are members of this House anu wro:e not members of t.be last House. For one I do not propose to censure the last Honse.

Mr. HOAR. I was not present in the House, although I was a mem­ber of the last Hou e at• the time the transaction referred to took place. I was then absent in the State of Louisiana by order of the House on public business; and my engagements on my return wore such that I had no opportunity to read or examine with any care the tlebates upon the subject, a-nd I have never been in a position to form an opinton upon the propriety of the action of the last House.

It seems to me, however, that where proper evidence is obtained, it is proper for one House to rescind a resolution pa. ed by another Honse. The last Honse itself furnishes a very notable precedent in that direction. During the war the House of Representatives pas etl a vote of censure upon a gentleman then at the head of the War De­partment, and afterward and now a Sena.tor from the State of Penn­sylvania. Members of the last Honse, of the political party opposed to that gentleman-Ithinkoneofthem, the·gentleman from lnd1ana, [Mr. HOLMAN,] himeelf bad voted for and supported the original res­olut.ion of censure-proposed to the last House to rescind that re olu­tion, which was done; so that the precedent was then established.

It seems to me, however, t.hat the resolution of the gentleman from .Mississippi [Mr. LAMAR] goesalittlefurtherthan this House has any constitutional right. to go, in the last clause, which directs that reso­lution of censure to be expunged.

Mr. LA?\!AR. I think the point well taken; and will modify the resolution so as to stop at the word ''rescinded." I concur with the gentleman from :MaRSaehusetts [Mr. HoAR] that the resolution had better not go to tho extent of declaring the former resolution expunged.

Mr. HOAR. I was about to say that there are but two or threo cases in history where a body bound by a constitution or by its own u ages to keep a journal has undertaken to deal with that journal by resolutions of expunging. Those were cases where the expung­ing was ba ·ed upon the ground that the original re olution had been a usurpation, that the power to do the act the record of which was expunged was a usurpation. The one ease was that of John Wilkes, and the other the case of the famous resolutions of the Senate con­cerning President Jackson.

Now, it seems to me that the statement made by the Speaker of the last House, whose official duty it wa.s to administer this censure, that he has carefully and thoroughly re-examined the ease and has come to the conclusion that the action of the last House ought to be rescinded, is enough to justify this House in removing from one of its members the very heavy burden its censure for such a cause has laid upon him.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. The resolution having beenmou­ified in such form as not necessarily to imply in any respect a censure of the last House, I will withdraw my objection to it.

Mr. LAMAR. The expression referred to by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR] in the latter part of my re olution wa~:~ an inadvertence, and I think the criticism he bas made is just ..

Mr. HURLBUT. Let the resolution as modified be now read. The Clerk read as follows : Resolved, That so much of the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives

of the Forty-third Co~"l"ess, on the 3cl day of February, 1875, as charges prevarica­tion upon Hon. JOH..'i XOUNG BROWN be, and the same is hereby, rescmded.

Mr. BLAINE. Gentlemen will observe, and it is only fair that tho House should observe this, that this resolution proposes to rescind so much of the resolution adopted by the last House of Representatives

1876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2889 as charges preYarication. That the gentleman from Kentucky on that d:!y dill behave in an unparliamentary manner in transgressing what is callccl the proprieties of debate is not here brought into question. That is a matter which too nwuy of us are guilty of, to draw any very fine point upon. The question is one that affects the gentle­mao's personal honor.

The question being taken on agreeing to the resolution of Mr. LA­MAR, it was adopted unanimously.

ELECTION CONTEST-LEMOYNE VS. FARWELL. The Honse resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported by

the Committee of Elections upon the case of LeMoyne vs. Farwell, from the third congressional district of Illinois.

Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to al­low this debate to close without expressing my dissent from the views expressed by· son1e of my colleagues upon the committee in this de­bate, and in cloing so [desire to approach this subject divesting my­Sf' If of n.ll part.isau feeling, and to consiuer it as presented in the evidence and apply the rules of law a-s established both by this House anu by the courts of the country. I hope that the House in consid­ering the case will give it au impartial consideration, divesting itself of all partisan feeling and wei~hingtheevidencejudicially. Contested­election cases ehould certainly be considered by the House, as far as possible, a-s a court would consider them. In my opinion this House, when it has under consideration these questions, is resolved into l\ jndicial body. We have no interest as to the individuals or their par­tisan character. Our aim should be to follow rules that sha.ll be in conformity with established precedents and not in violation of them.

The. committee have disagreed upon certain propositions n.nd have aO'reed fully upon others. Before considering the particular precincts lti>On whlch we disagreed, I wi~li the House to understand distinctly tho question that comes before it for consideration. The committee agrf'e in regard to every precinct and every poll in the third con­gres ional district except the first precinct of the twentieth ward, t·ho thinl precinct of t.he eighteenth ward, and what. is known as the Norwood Park precinct. A majority of the committee, two democrats and four rf'pnblica:Os, agreed that the first precinct of the twentieth warcl should be excluded. In other words, w bile the majority of the committee agree as to the result, they disagree as to the first precinct of 1 be twentieth warcl. ·

Let me read the statement of two members of the majority of the committee in reg:ud to the first precinct of the twentieth ward:

Wo concur in the result reached by the report of a majority of the committee, to wit: That Le Mo:vnowas eler.ted and that Farwell was not. But we cannot con­cur in that portion of the r port which seeks to purge the poll at J?recinct No.1 in twentieth ward of Chicago. The conduct of the officers of election havinl! been shown to b~ grossly fraudulent, and the integ~ty of their returns at this poll hay­ing been thereby destroyed, and the proof havmg shown, also, that the ballots m the box bad been tampered with, we can come to no other conclusion than to r(lject the entire vote at this precinct., except in so far as contestant and contestee have established by proof aliunde the number of votes they received at this poll re­spectively.

JNO. F. HOUSE. CHARLES P. THOMPSON.

Thus it will be seen that. the majority of the committee- acrree that tile tirst precinct of the twentieth ward should be excluded;· but in regard to the third precinct of the eighteenth ward the majority con­tend that it should be excluded, and the minorit.y that it should be

· conn ted; and as to the Norwood Park precinct, the majority hold that the paupers in that precinct were entitled to vote, while the minority hold that they had uo such right under the laws of the State of Illi­nois. I shall therefore confine my remarks to these three precinct.s, namely, first precinct·, twentieth warcl; third precinct, eighteenth ward; aml Norwood Park precinct. There is no member of the com­mittee who has ad(lres ed the House upon this subject but what has admitted that the first precinct of the twentieth ward was covered all over with fraud and corruption .from the very inception of tho elec­tion down to the time when the votes were counted; my colleague on the committee, the gentleman f1·om Ohio, [Mr. POPPLETON,] admits tliis fact. But he contends that Mr. Farwell was responsible, and upon this point I wish to reply to him by saying that at the time this elec­tion was held Chicago was under the control of a democratic admin­istration ; the board of commissioners that appointed the commis­sioners of election were democratic, and every one of the commissioners who held that election in the first precinct of the twentieth warcl was democratic. There wa-s not a republican on t.bat board. Besides, when the gentleman characterizes the individuals who voted at that po11 as having been drawn from the slums of society in Chicago, I want to tell him that that ward was always democratic and was so at that time. Butadi vision occurred on account of.Mr.Le Moyne having been previously an abolitionist; be bad been nominated by the liberal party ; there was no regular democratic candidate in the field; for some reason the democrat-ic vote was divided, a part of it being cast for Le .Moyne and a part for Farwell. And whatever irregularities occurred nt that poll, it certainly comes with poor grace from the other side of tbh~ House to charge it upon republicans, who had nothing to do wit.h the management of that election.

The evidence shows that from the time the election at that poll was opened until it was closed in the evening men voted from va.cant Jots; they voted from other precincts; they repeated. But, says my friend from Ohio, there is not a particle of evidence t-ending to show that Le Moyne received a singLe illegal vot.e, but tba.t ~""'arwell re-

ceived them all. Certainly my colleague on the committee must have forgotten the evidence, for if he will examine the record he will find that out of tifty-six names of persons who voted at the precinct, but resided .out of it, LeMoyne received 6 and Farwell 41, while 23 were not found in the box. It is also shown that of the persons who voted from vacant lots, 16 votes were ca-st for Farwell and 1 for LeMoyne, . while 8 were not found in the box. The gentleman, if be had ex­amined the evidence, would also have found that of thA repeaters and those who voted from fictitious residences, 126 of the whole num­ber voted for Farwell, 2o for Le Moync, and 53 were not found in the box. It is proved that the commissioners exe1nfled challengers at that poll; that riot ran rampant; that violenco LO some extent existed there that day; but the contest was not over the member of Con­gress, but over members of the board of ah.lermen. Right here Jet me remark thn.t if you will examine the evidence you will find that so far as Mr. Farwell's partisan friends were concerned, they were not responsible for the irregularities that occurred; that it was comlnct.ed by men appointe(l by a democratic board of commissioners under the law of the State of illinois.

Nor was Farwell, tho contestee, more responsible for the frauds prac­ticed at that poll than was Le Moyne, the contestant.

Very well, the commitee.e agree that frauds were practiced, that all day long it was a scene of fraud, and that when the votes were counted · Jtnd returned the return gave Mr. Farwell171 majority.

We come now to the evidence as presented before the committee as to what the result of that election was by the actual count of the votes. Let us go one step further as to the custody of these ballots. The law of Illinois provides that when the election is over the ballots and the poll-books shall be sealed in an envelope and transmitted to the count.y clerk of the county. The testimony shows that the com­missioners discharged their duty in this particular and transmitted properly sealed the ballots and poll-lists to one Hermann Lei b. From that time until the evidence in this contested case was taken the bal­lot-boxes were in the custody of this man Leib, county clerk of Cook County.

The committee having agreed that the election itself was fraudu­lent, that the acts of the commissioners were fraudulent, that the acts of the commissioners nullified the return, we are left to the bal­lots. It is a well· established principle of law, sustained by numerous precedents in this House, that when the ballots themselves are not taint-ed with fraud they will be evidence to show what the actual vote polled would be.

In order to show precisely the weight to be given to these votes as evidence it will be necesaary to understand who it was who had the custody ancl control of these ballots after they left the hands of the commissioners of election. The law provides that tbe county clerk shall have the custody of them. Who, therefore, is the eounty clerk, and what his character t He was a man named Hermann Lei b. He was brought before the not.aries in this examination as a witness for the. contestant. I wish to read from the record to show yon the disposition of the man, and his charlacter as it is portrayed in this evi­dence. I do not believe when this House understands this qnest.ion they will be willing to commit so monstrous a disgrace as to seat a man whose only title to a seat is the evidence of ballots which have been in tLe cus.tody of a man like Hermann Lieb, whom the evidence shows to be covered all over with infamy, ancl who cannot under any circumstance be regarded as worthy of confidence.

I read the very first question on page 28 that is put t.o him; and I will follow this through, and I wish the House to follow the evidence with me in reference to this man's conduct while upon the stand :

Question. Are you, as county cler~, by the laws of lllinois, ex. ojftci.o a member of the board of canvassers of the elect.wn returns of Cook Uounty l

That is a question propounded to him by the contestant's counsel. What is his answer f He answers affirmatively:

Answer. I am the presiding officer of said board. He is next turned over to the contestee's counsel when the same

identical question is propounded to him that had been propounded by the contestant's counsel, and I want the House to mark what is his answer . .

Q. Were. yon not and are yon not still clerk of the board of county commis-sioners~

A. I am not certain about that either. Q . .Are yon not ex o.fficio such clerk 1 A. Such appears to be the law.

That is his answer, when just turned over from the contestant's counsel. That is the way in which he answers a question propounded to him by the contestee's counsel.

Again, be comes forward with certain documents to be presented to this committee. The witness Leib has been introducing certain affidavits in reference to certain voters, and the counsel for the con­testee asks that these affidavits shall be attached to and accompany their depositions.

Q. Do yon refuse to permit these affidavits about which you have just testified to be attached to or accompany your testimony as exhibits and part of your testi­mouy1

A. I do, until requestecl to do so by proper authority. Q. What do yon consider proper authority7 .A. Persons or authoriti~ or parties whose premises it is to judge of the law in

such cases. Q. Do you consider the notaries before whom thls testimony is t..'l>ken as such an·

thority~

2890 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 2,

A. I do not. *

(Mr. Van Buren, contsstce's counRol, notes tbe followin"': That he has introduced these affidavits in evidence, that they are now on t.be tab'Ie before the notaries, and th'lt. if the witneRR takes them awav be doe. it against the objection and protest of the contestee. WitncRs says that if anyboclyelse except tho proper authority takes them and puts thew in his pocket, he will have to do with btrn.) ·

Q. Do I understand you to mean that if the notarie11 attempt to take posse;sion of t.bese affidavits for the purpose heretofore mentioned that you will resist such attempt by force 1 ·

A. Of course I will; and, furthermore, if I am strong enough I will boot them out of this house.

A MEMBER. What page is that to be found on t l\!r. WELLS, of .Mississippi. Page 33 of the record. Now on page 34 of the same record, in the testimony of this s:1me

man Leib, yon willfi.nd the following: Q. In ballot 291 of same precinct is not the name of Charles B. Farwell plainly

apparent, and is there an.v other name for Repre entative on the ticket 1 .A. The name of Charles B. Farwell is plainly primed on tho ticket and as

plainly ~SCratched. There appears no other name on tho ticket for Representative to Congress.

(Mr. Van Buren now offers these tickets in evidence, and insists that they shall be attached to this testinton:v as exhlbits. Witness refuses to deliver them into the possession of the notaries.)

This same witness again answers: Q. Look at ballot number 106, from the fifth precinct, twentieth war(l Is not the

name of John V. Lo Moyno erased and a namo written in pencil, which denotes tho intention of the voter to \Ote for Charles B. Farwell, in yom opinion~

.A. The name of John V. J,e Moyne is erased. My opinion is the voter intendod to throw it for Charles B. Farwell.

(Mr. Van Buren now offers the ballot in evidence, and insists that it be attached to this testimony as an exhibit. Witness refu11es to deliver it to tho possession of the notaries.)

The same is the case in reference to bal1ot 142. He refuses again to ·allow them to be used as an exhibit on the part of the contestee.

Here is the same witne ... s on page 135, when under cross-examina­tion by the contestee's counsel:

Q. ~ve von in your possession the ballots, affidavits, and poll-book of the town of lirorwood Park, in this county, and will you produce them for inspection and evidence1

Mr. LeMoyne objects, as this is not cross-examination; objects to his time being consumed in takiug evidence on the part of contestee. Then this witness Leib, answers:

.A. I think tlte objection holds good. I have tho.ballots, affidavits, and poll-books in my possession, and shall produce them at the rei'J.uest of the contestee.

Q. Well, sir, proclnoo them. A. I meant t.o have said cont"stant when I said contestee in the above answer. Q. Do you refuse to procluce them ~ .A. I do npt, if they are required in proper order. Q. Do you refuse to produce them now, a~ my request 1 A. Ido.

. Q. Will yon produce them at our request when we take testimony upon the part of the contestee~ •

.A. When that time comes I will be w.ady with the answer.

This, then, is the manner of this individual in giving his testimony, showing his partisan zeal, showing that he was willing to furnish evidence to the contestant but that he was not willing to furnish evi­dence to the contestee. He in e-very way eva-ded giving testimony and producing documents for the contestee.

Let me go one step further. These votes that are proposed to be taken and counted for the purpose of creating a majority for LeMoyne were under the control, direction, and supervision of this man Leib. Where were they deposited t He answers that they were deposited in the vault of the county clerk's office.

Question. Where is this vault where these ballots and affidavits werekept7 Answer. In the clerk's office on the main floor. Q. Who opens this vault in tho m_ornin~ and who closes it at ni~bt 7 A. The chief deputy Drury or Deputy Cornienti or Mr. Henry Metz, the clerk in

char~ of books an(l papers~ the only ones who have the combination of tho vault. Q. What time is it openea usually in the morning and at what time at night is it

usually closed 1 A . .About ei~ht in the morning and about five in the evening, except when it is

night. work and the books are out. Q. Is the office where the vault is your principal office 7 A. Itis. Q. How many clerks and deputies have you 1 A. I have niue deputies and clerks according to necessity ; sometimes ten. Q. Who appoints your deputies and clerks 1 .A. I do. Q. Which of your clerks and deputies have access to this vault 1 .A . .All the deputies, and Max Schuller, Henry Metz, and Adam Kimpling, clerks. Q. What is kept or deposited at different times in this vault 1 .A. The tax-books in band of the clerks and all the papers of the county court,

estates, wills, &c. Q. Give tbe location of your offices, the number of rooms, where your private

office is, and state in which office you pass most of your time during business honrs.

.A. The main office is on the main floor. occupying tho north wing of the building. My private office is across the hall; and I pass my timo most in my private office. I have five rooms altogether.

One step further. How were these ballots sealed 1 The evidence shows that they were in envelopes sealed with wa.x or with mucilage, and when sealed with wax the seal that was used was a Unite<l States

.copper cent. These envelopes were brought before the notary for ex::uniuation. The contestee's counsel objected to their being broken until the commissioner who sealed them should be brought into the presence of the court to examine and testify that they wero in t.be snme condition as when they were d!3livered to this man Leib. But instead of that LeMoyne's counsel insisted that the seals should be

then and there broken immediately; giving no opportunity for calling witnesses for the purpose Qf ascertaining whether the envelopes were in the same condition as when received by the county clerk; and they were then and there broken, and the evidence, if evidence existed of the fact, was destroyed as to whether they had ever been tampered with or not.

Certainly it is remarkable and extraordinary that, in a case under examination by a court which involved the necessity tha.t the envel­opes containing these papers should be exactly in the same condition as when they were received by the county clerk, such haste should be made to destroy the evidence of the fact and no evidence allowed to be introduced to determine for the satisfaction of this House whether they were in the same ·condition as when the commissioners turnCll th~m over to this man Leib.

Again these envelopes, in which the ballots and poll-lists were sealed, are described by law. Now this man Leib testifies-! will not read the evidence; it is on page 31-that he had the envelopes printed himself. And he testifies further that be got a larger nom ber printed than was necessary for the use of the various precincts in the third congressional district. He swears, furthermore, that he has in his possession, at the time of this examination, blank envelopes; and he produces the blank envelopes, 6xactly similar to the ones which con­tained the ballots that were opened. He also admits, as we might conclude of necessity from the state of facts arising out of the case, that he had copper coins of the denomination of one cent in his office. I would like to know what there was to have prevented an unscrupu­lous man, snch as the evidence shows Leib to be, from opening theso envelopes containing the ballots, manipulating them, changing the numbers, and altering their contents, especially when he swears he has a pecuniary interest in the election of Le Moyna f

When we open the envelopes co~taining the ballots we find-what f One hundred and eighty-three votes gone; 183 votes less than there are names on the poll-list tbn.t are marked a-s having voted. What more T We find 19<3. duplicate and triplicate votes. For instance we find John Jone8 of such a number voted t.hree times; twice for Le .Moyne, once for Farwell; aud we find that John Smith voted three times; once for LeMoyne, twice for Farwell. And we find the num­bers upon the tickets disagree throughout with the numbers on the poll-list.

Now, will you tell me that those bal1ots can be relied upon for the purpose of determining the will of the electors in thn.t district f The commissioners who received the votrs, all agree, acted fraudu­lently. The ballots were in the custody of this Leib, and when tbe ballots were opened they were found to be so disarranged that it was impossible to determine whether they were the same votes as had been cast or whether they had been placed there by some unauthorized individual. I therefore conclude, and I believe the House will con­clude, that fraud not only commenced on the morning of the election but continued clear through to the connty clerk's office, and that the whole vote at this poll was covered with corruption and fraud, and should be rejected. What further! William A. Hettick testifies, on pa.ge 378, as follows :

Questipu . .Are you acquainted with General Leib, the county clerk of this county 7 Answer. Yes sir. Q. Did you, on or before the last congressional election in this State, make a bet

with General Leib 1 If so, what was tl:iat bet! A,. He bet me a hun !Ired dollars that Mr. Farwell was not going to be elected and

I bet he would be. . Q. Was the money put up 1 If so, in whose bands, and has the bet been paid, and,

if not, why ~ . .A. Tho money has been put up in Otto Schoeninger's bands. The bet is not. paitl.

The general says it has not been decided to his satisfaction. ·

Mr. HURLBUT. I suppose this proceeding is to give this man his $100f

.Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. Yes, sir, that would appear to be the object of it. But on page 30, this man Leib, this specimen of honesty, this man who comes forward with ballots that you are asked to count for Le Moyne,after they have been in his hands, and after they have been in the hands of the commissioners who have been proved to be guilty of gross negligence and fraud, t.his man Loil.> says again, on page 30, in n.nswer to the following intenogatory :

Q. What are your politics and by what patty were yon electetl1 .A. My politics are acconling to oirounlstanoes. I was elcctell by a party called

at the time" people's party." Q. Were you not active m tho campaign to secure the success of the regular tickC't

upon which the contestant was placed 7 .A. I never blow my own hom. I leave my political friends to determine that

question. . Q. Did you· J;tot la.bor for the success of that ticket ' A. I tried to convince the voters of Cook County that I was the best man for

couut:v clerk. -Q. Were you not active in the campaign to secure the aucce s of the regular

ticket upon which the contestant was pl:wed W

.A. I was. Q. Did yon not bavo a pecuniary interest in the election of John V. LeMoyne 1 A. I refuse to answer that question. Q. Did you not make any bets on his election ' A. That is no body's business whether [did or not. Q. Do you refuse to answer the question 1 A. Ido. Q. Do you refuse to answer these questions for tho reason tho answer might

criminate you ~ .A. The reasons for the refusal are mtbin my breast.

This is the individual who had the custody and the sole custody of the ballots that are brought forward and ar? now b~fore this House

187G. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2891 to be conn ted in order to build up a majority t.o seat Mr. LeMoyne, when it is known that at the time these ballots were opened 183 bal­lots wore gone and 198 other ballots were either triplicate or dupli­cate of the numr~rs on the back of them. I think tills House will hesitate some time before they will be willing to accept as evidence ballots coming from so doubtful, not to say corrupt source, as a means of determiniug the majority at this poll, especially when the ballots them elves show that they have been manipulated, and do not in hardly any particular agree wi1ih tl1e poll-lists.

My colleague on the committ.ee from Virginia [Mr. HARRIS] says that the gran(Jest sleight-o.f-b:md performance took place where the evidence wa3 being taken in tl1is caso that the world bas ever wit­nessed; that the poll-Est of this precinct was stolen right under the eyes of the notary public and the two counselors of the parties.

Now what particle of evidence is there to sustain this statement! There is not a word of evidence that such was the case; but that man Leib, this pure individual, certified to what7 Here is where my friend from Virginia falls into an error. He certified that this is tho true poll-list of the votes cast at the first precinct of the twentieth ward. How f Hear him. I read frolfl his certificate:

I. Hermann Leib, clerk of the county court of Cook County, in the State afore­said, do hereby cel'tif.y that the foro<:roing is a true and correct copy of the poll­book of the first precinct of the twentieth ward of tho city of Chicaqo, returned by tho,jntl~es of election of November :i, 1874, for said prectnc~, the onginat ofu•hich, after bnng copied, having been stolw from the county commissioner's room while the trsfimony was befng tO>kC'J~ in !he conte11t between Jolm V. LeMoyne a'Tid Oharles B. Farwell, said poll-book having bee1~ taken there at the 1·eqUASt of said parties.

So we have not even the original poll-book. This man Leib, whom I havo described to tbe House and whose evidence I have been read­in~, is tho man who certifies that this is a correct transcript of the original pol !-book; but no poll-book has been furnished, and we have nothing but Leil1's testimony to tho fact that it is a correct copy of the book.

What are you going to do in such a ~se f Are yon ~oing to take the evidence of a man who shows himself as ·actuated by partisan feeling and prejudice, whose evidence i!hows that his conduct was infamous;- a man who, wheu called upon to testify the facts within his Jmowledge, refuses to do so because it was benefiting the con­testee; a mn,n who acknowledg-ed, by his refusal to answer, that be bas a pecuniary interest in the election; a man who confessed that he has no politics, lmt that he sells himself to the highest bidder, anct that he will not only do that, but will do all the swearing necessary for tho purpose of seating tho contestant, in order that he may reap pecuniary uenefit. This is the evidence and the only evidence on wuicb tho majority of tho committee in this case roly for the purpose of establishin~ the true vote of that precinct. Sir, I believe that this House w1ll not bo willing to take such proof as to the vote of

· tho first precinct of the twentieth ward for the purpose of seatjng or ·unscatiug any man.

Now what was proved outside! Mr. Farwell and Mr. Le Moyne provcc.l a certain number of votes aliunde; and the minority of the committee agree with two of the majority that those votes which wero proved outside shall be counted. We understand that to be the correct rule. .

A wonl more before I dismiss this matter. I want the House to be:1r with ffi(>, because I desire that the evidence in this case shall go · before the country anc.1 this man Leib shall be known wherever the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD is read, tba.t his true character shall be llll­derstoo!}, and that the manner in which this election was can-ied on in Chicago tshallbe understood. On page aog of the record in this case you will fi.uc.l this testimony. Frederick Becker testifies as fol­lows:

Question. Do yon know Hermann Leib, the county clerk of Cook County j Answer. I do. Q. Dill you havo any correspondence with him, or communication from him,

also conversation with him, relative to the return of that precinct 1

This was the second precinct of the twentieth ward. There isnocon­test over that. We all agree about that; I simply refer to the evi­tleoce in tho further consideration of the character of Leib who had the cnstouy of those ballots : _

Question. If so. state when, and where, and all about it. Answer. About three r,r fonr days I think, after tho election, General Leib sent

a rlcpnty sheriff over to my store,· and also to Branhn and Asmus, that we should appear tho next morning ut 9 o'clock in his office. I told him I di(ln't know what for, that our report waa correct. We appeared there tho next morning, tho three of us, Fred. Becker, .T ohn Brau hn, antl Theo. Asmus, j utl~es of secona precinct of the twentieth ward. General Leib wanted.·ns to give Lo Moyne 10 votes more on tho tally-list, and we would not do it antl we diu not do it, beeause I told him our report~ wa.s coiTect.

This man Leib sent for the judges of the second precinct of the hwe~t.ieth ward after tllei.r return ha:d ~een made through a deputy sllenff and demanded that the commtsstoners should falsify their re­turn and give Mr. LeMoyne 10 more" votes. I read further on:

Theodore Asmus put all tho two reports, one of which belongs to the judrres into th.o ballot-box, which one report wa.s exactly correct,~ tho votes correspo~drd Wtth the one that belonged to tho county. l asked General Loib that he would show us the two report-s. He saiu he had only one, anu that we must conect that or he woultl punish us, and I toltl him wo didn't care. I told him I would not cor­rect it; then he got excited and said," You wmnot1" and I said, "No." So we left the count.\·-court room.

Q. Wh~n w~re tho ballots and packages r~tnrn.}d to tho county clerh 7 A. I think It was tllo next day after election, as ovorythin,.,. was uoue that ni,.,ht. Q. Did you appear before the boatd of canvassers 1 "' "'

A. I was there at that time. Q. Was Hermann Leib one of that board 1 A.Hew~. · Q. State whether yon made _it appear to the satisfaction of all parties that your

returns were correct at that time. A. Yes, sir; I did. ... ~

Q. Who kept the tally-sheets during tho election 1 A. The two clerks of the election. Q. Who had char~re of the tally-sheets while tho votes were canvassed 1 A. The clerks, I think. Q. Were your returns a.s made out on the night of election COITect 1 A. Yes, sir, as far as we know, because the canva~sers founu it so in the county

court.

But, again, I notice upon page 480 three of the judges of election make their solemn affidavit that this man Leib sent for them and at­tempted to force them to change the return they had ma.de in favor ' of Le Moyne and to give him 10 niore votes, in order that with the vote in the Norwood Park precinct and others he might give Mr. Le Moyne a small majority and give him a prima facie case to a seat in this House. I read froll! page 480: STATE OF lLUNO!S,

Cook County, 88:

Fr11d. Becker, Theodore Asmns, and John Brnuhn, being f'ach duly sworn upon their several oaths depose and say, each for himself, that they were, and each of them. duly appointed, sworn in, and acted as the judJteS of election in the sec­ond precinct of the twentieth ward, on the 3d day of November instant. That thoy duly canvassed ami counted tho votes polled at said preei.nct, and made, completed and executed their properoillcialt·eturn, and duly forwarded the same to tho county clerk of Cook County. Deponent-s further say that they and each of them were ordered by one of tho clerks or cmplo~·es of the county clerk to be and appear be.-

. foro said corulty clerk at nine o'clock this morning; that in response to said order orreque~t these deponents, and each of them, rlld appear before said <;ountyclerk, when saul collllty clerk demaudetl of these deponents, and f'f each of them, that thoy alter their official return (by them made as aforesaid) in this behalf, that the votes counted for Charles B. l'prwell for Congressman of tho third district which by the fact. a.nu by 8aid official return count 2B6, be changed to 276. '

Theso deponents further say that they, ancl each of tnem, indignantly refused to alter their said official returns; and flll'ther say not.

• THEODORE ASMUS. FRED. BECKER. JOHN BRAUHN.

Ssvo mlly subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of November A. D. 1874. '

[SE.AL.J WILLIAM BEYE, Notar-y Public.

Now is a man who was guilty of all that the evidence shows this man Leib to have been guilty of a fit repository of ballots; and will this House take ballots from his hands and count them for the pur­pose of seating a person who was not elected f If the returns from the other precincts outside of this are to be relioc.l upon, in other words, reject the returns from the first precinct of the twentieth ward, wbcro t.here is no contest, except some slight irregularities I have mentione<l, anc.l Mr. Farwell was elected. Throw out the box, count the paupers' votes, and count the returns from the third precinct of the eighteenth ward, and Ur. Farwell is elected even then by three majority. No~, will this House because of partisan feeling arbitrarily seat a

man who was not elected; take the votes t.hat have been in the cus­to<ly of such a man as Leib, a man whom the majority of the commit­tee agree cannot be reUed upon f Will the House do that Y That is to be seen. If it is done, then let me say to you that you throw open wide the doors of fraud, and in the not far futuro it may be that con­tests will be multiplied and frivolous pretexts will be seized upon to defeat the will of the people, a.ncl this Honse will elect its own mem­bers, ignoring the wish of the electors. I think it is the duty of this House to examine and scrutinize the evidence in order to ascertain as far as in their power the will of the eleetors, and to recognize that will when so ascertained, regardless of parti&an prejudice.

It is laid down by IYicCrar.v in his excellent work, The American Law of Election, and established by precedents of this Honse over and over again, that it is one thing to reject a return and quite a different thing to reject a poll; that when a poll is so tainted with fraud that it is unreliable this House will reject the whole poll, and will then rely upon evidence aliun-de to establit~h what the vote was If that rule is correct, then it should be applied to this case.

I now pass to tlie third precinct of the eighteenth ward. In regard to this precinct the majority of the committee decide that the returns should be rejected, while the minority of the committee decide that the returns should be retained and conn ted. Tllere have been but four witnesses introduced in regard to this particular precinct. You may search the record through and through, and you will not find another word than that which I intend to read to this House. If you can find any rule of law or precedent, from the foundation of this Gov­ernment to the present day, that will justify this House in rejecting the return I have nothing to say. I now propose to read the testimony of Da.n.iel Kilroy, on page 154 of t.he record. I regret exceedingly that no more attention is given to these contested-election cases. It is a matter of vital importance to this House that a correct decision should be reMhed, that injustice should not be done to the electors , at home. It makes not so much difference in regard to t.he inc.lhic.lnal contestant a.nd contestee; it is the will of the people that we are to ascertain, and we shQuld give to that will the authority that is due to it. I therefore will tax the Honse by presenting all the evidence bearing upon this poll, that those who have not yet read the record may judge for themselves.

2892 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 2,

DAL"'IEL KILROY, a witness produced and sworn on behalf of contestant, testifies as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. LE Mo"uE: Question. What is your name, age, and pl:J.co of residence, and how long have

you resided there' Answer. My name is Daniel Kilroy; my age is forty-one; my place of rel!idence

is 94 Ontario; have resided iu the nei,.hborhoo(lsince the tire. Q. Did you, on the day following the election of November 3, 187•, see tbe bal­

lot-box of the third precinct of the eighteenth ward; if so, where did you see it and who had charge of it 1

A. I've seen it in St.ock's saloon, Sedgwick street, where the polls had been. It seems no one had cbargo of it; it was standing behind the bar, on cnrl, There was nobody in that room, but in the adjoining room Stock was attending to a grocery business.

Mark you, the majorit.y of the committee decide that these returns shall be rejected, because the box was in the custody of an unauthor­ized person; and this is the only witness who testifies to that effect.

Q. Were there any of the officers of the election of that precinct in t.he adjoining room or in the house 1

A. There might have been up-stairs, but there was nono in that <'Oncern or on that floor.

Q. Were the ballots then in the box and wa.s tho box sealed or opened 1 A. Tho box was not sealed. I couldn't tRll whether thu ballots were in there or

not. Stock said he thought they were, and shook it by the hanille. Q. Did the judges afterward count tbe ballots and make their returns ; if so,

when1 A. They took the box out of that room to a. building in the rear of that lot, and

remained tbere three or four hours, and came back with tbe returns. Q. What time of the day was it that they took this ballot-box from the saloon ! A. About ten o'clock in the morning. Q. What time was it when you first saw the box in tho ll.'lioon 1 A. About eight o'clock in the morning. Q. Do you know if the box had been in the salMn 1\ll night 7 A. Stock and the jmlges t.ol<l mQ it was. Q. After the judges came out of the back building, as you have stated, dirl they

the:n annonnce the result of the count 1 A. Yes, sir.

Cross-examination by Mr. VAN BURF~~: Q. Where were you on the day of the election 1 A. I wa-s judge of election of the fourth precinct of the eighteenth ward. Q. Were you n.t.the third precinct of the eighteenth ward en the day of election 1 A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether or not the judges of that precinct on the night of the

election counted the ballots 1 A. They tolrl me they did. Q. Do you know whether there was any diiferenco between the connt for Con­

gressman on the night of the election and the count for Congresslllan on the next day when the ballots were counted and returns made1

A. I do not. Q. When you SlloW the ballot-box on the connter as you have described, did you

open the box or see what its contents were1 A. I have not said that I saw it on tho counter. I sq,w it standing behind the

counter. I didn't lay my hands at all on it. Q. Did you bundle the box at all1 A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether the box.wa-s locked or not 1 A. This man, Stock, said it was locked. Q. When you counted the ballots of the fourth precinct of tM eighteenth ward

did you seal thllt bl\llot-box 1 · A. Yea. Q. Is there any law that requires ballot-boxes to be sealed 1 A. I believe not; but the law requires to put themintoofiicbJenvelopes and seal

them. Q. Can you state that the ballots in the third precinct, eighteenth wq,rd, wero

not strung and in an envelope which was sealed up and in that box at the time yon saw it1

A. The judges told me they were strung, but not sealed. Q. Do you lillow of your own knowledge whether they were sooled or not 7 A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge that tlt.ere were any ballots in that box

at all when you saw it 1 A. No, sir. Q. Whatjud~e was it that you had a oonvei'SI\tion with relative to t.hese ballots

and box, and wnen and where was it 1 A. With Rankin and Leonard. I met Rankin on the street aft.er I barl seen the

ballot-box, and the conversation'occurred there with him. I saw Leonard in his own saloon. The conversation with him occurred there. I saw Clifford, the clerk, at his own house.

Q. Are you acquainted with Elias Shipman, lllld how long have you been ac-quainted with him 1 .

A. Yes; about three or four years to know him to be Mr. Shipmtm, but not ac­quainted with him yersonally nntil now.

Q. Did yon see h1m on the day of election at the window of the polls of the fourth precinct of the eighteenth ward 1 .

.A.. Not to my knowledge. Q. If he bad been there, interfering for or against a voter, wonld yon not have

aeen him and be likely to remember that fact 1 A. I believe I wou1d.

DANIEL KILROY.

This is every word of evidence tending to sho-w fraud in regard to this box that can be found in this record. Yet the majority would reject the return because, forsooth, there was au opportunity to com­mit fraud. In other words, if a man is murdered aud I am found where I have an opportunity to commit the deed, that is presumptive evidence that I killed the man. Such a doctrine as that, I say, is monst.rous and is not sustained by law; it is a doctrine that the mere opportunity to commit fraud necessarily raises the presumpt,ion that a fraud was committed. I now read the testimony of the next wit­ness, <>n page 157 :

JAMES HANDLEY, a witness produced and sworn on behalf of the contestant, testi­fies as follows :

Direct examination by Mr. LE MOYNE :

Question. What is your name, age, and place of residence, and how long have :you resided there t

Answer. My name is James Handley; my age is about forty years. I resido at

85 Chicago avenue, second precinct. eighteenth ward; have resided there somewhat over t'-.:enty y.m,rs. excepting the fire •. when I was away a few days.

Q. D1d you Ree the ballot!! of the th1rd precinct of the eighteenth ward on the 4th of "&ovember, 18741 If so, at what time of said dav ·J Were they sealed in an en­_velopo or not 1 State also where you saw them an'd whether tbe samo were then counted.

A. I saw them the day after election. I am not sure whether it wM the 4th or not. I think it was about between ten and eleven in the morning. They were on a string-a string run through them.

The law of illinois permits that when the Yotes are counted at night the officers may adjourn until the next morning and then com­plete their returns, and the ballots shall be strung on a Rtring amt inclosed in an envelope and sealed.

They were not in envelopes, but in a cig'\r-box. They were in a bouse. upstairs, in the rear, where the election was held. I don't know the number of the house. The juriges said they had counted them, two judges ; tho third wasn't there.

Q. Did they then recount them 1 · .A.. Yes, sir. Q. Did they make ont thuir official returns 1 A. I couldll't say whether they did or not. I counted the ballots aud then left. Q. If you know, state where tliis ballot-box had boon kept from the time the polls

closed nntil it was taken in that back building. A. I don't know. • Q. Where did you first see it 7 A. Up in tho back building. Q .. Was it then opened or closed 7 A. It was closed. Q. Did you see it opened 1 A. Yes, sir; I saw them open it. Q. Was the tally-list and poll-book in the box when it was opened 1 A. I didn't see any.

Cross-examination by Mr. VA.~ BUR&'Q':

Q. Where was the election held, and how was that bouse connected therewith 7 A. It was held on Sedgwick street, in a s:tloon. I don't know the number. Tho

house in the rear was separate from the saloon. Q. Who were present at the time you saw those ballots there1 A. There was two of the jndges-Scawarrl; the other I don't recollect. Ono of

the clerks, C.lifford, Etlward Kehoe, Michael au1l John Sweeney. Q. Were you present when the ballots were counted on the mght of the election 1 A. No sir. Q. Did you know whether the cigar-box where these ballots were put was in tho

ballot-box 1 ' A. Yes, sir; it was in the ballot-boL Q. Did yd'u see whether the cigar-box was sealed or not when the ballot-box was

opened 1 A. No, sir; the lid was lying loose on top. Q. Were any of these persons that were present at this time candidates for office

on the opposition ticket, and for what office f A. Michael Sweeney was candidate for aldermliD, eighteenth ward. No one else.

[Here the lmmmer fell.] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has ex­

pired. Mr. LAMAR. Inasmuch as the gentleman was so courteous as to

yield to others--The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has had his full hour. Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. I ask permission to complete my re-

marks. Mr. HOOKER. I move that the time of the gentleman be extended. Mr. BLACKBURN. How much time does the gentleman want f Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. Probably fifteen minutes. Mr. BLACKBURN. Iwillnotobject, butiwillsaythatif thetimeof

the gentleman is extended for fifteen minutes, debate cannot be closed until hq.lf past five o'clock, for it was understood that the previous question would be called in two hours after the expiration of his re­marks, and that would bring it to fifteen minutes past five.

Mr. WELLS, of Mississippi. I a-sk my colleague on the committee [Mr. BLACKBURN] whether he will not consent to allow me sufficient time-not more than fifteen minutes-to finish my remarks in regard to this precinct 7

Mr. BLACKBURN. I am not objecting, but simply stating that if the gentleman's time be extended for fifteen minutes, the debate cannot be closed to-day; for even without any extensions of time to any one, it cannot be concluded earlier tha.n qu:uter past five o'clock

'fhe SPEAKER pro te?npore. The Chair hears no objection to the extension of the gentleman's time for fifteen minutes; and he will proceed.

Mr. ·wELLS, of Mississippi. On page 350 John J. Clifford, one of the clerks, giv~ his testimony ns follows:

Question. Were you first duly appointed anrl sworn in a-s such clerk1 Answer. I was askerl to act, and was sworn in and did act. Q. Were :you present a.t the opening of the polls on that day 7 A. Yes, s1r. Q. II ow long did yon remain at the polls that day, and act as such clerk 1 A. I remained from the opening to thecl08inl:Of the polls, and then remained to

count t,he ballots. Q. State whether the votes were all canvassed and counted in your presence,

while therel A. Yes, ir. Q. Was that done before tho board of election adjourned or separated 1 A. I don't know whether thoy call it adjourned or separated. Wo left where we

had been taking in the votes and went np-stairs and counted them. Q. Did you do anything more than merely to remove from ono room to the Pther

as a. matt.er of convenience to count the votes 7 A. That wns all, to my knowledge. Q. State wb~t was done after yon got up in the other room up-stairs. .A.. We ate supper and colmted t.he votes afterward. Q. Were all the votes duly canvassed and conn ted that night 1 A. Yes, sir. Q. Was i~ done in the presence of the board of election 1 A. Yes, au. Q. State who else was pres!lnt

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2893 A. J'ohn Sweeney, Michael Sweeney, Harry .Faith, .Tames Nolan, Mr. Fisher'

(policeman.) Q. State whether the result of the canvass was then publicly announced by the

said board and before tbe board separated. A. Yes, sir. Q. Did any one take the result to the police headquarters; if so, who f A. Mr. Fisher, I think. Q. Did the vote as announced at that canvass that night correspond with official

returns7 A. No, sir. Q. In what re.'lpect did it differ 7 A. It differed in the aldermanic count; any further I don't know. Q. Did it difler in any respect with the vote for Mr. Farwell and Mr. Le Moyne 7 .A. I think not. Q. Then I understand you to say that the votes for Mr. Farwell and Mr. Le

Moyne, as announced by the boarJ, as you here stated, corresponded with tile offi­cial returns 1

A. I think so. Q. Do you remember w hefuer or not there was a man by the name of Coffey pres­

ent at the canvass i A. I do not.

Redirect: Q. You have spoken of the first count and the second count; is not the first

count a counting of thenumberof ballots and the number of names on the poll-book 7 A. I don't understand the question. Q. State what you mean by tho first count. A. I mean counting of the ballots and the names on the poll-book. Q. Did they agree 'f A. All except one double vote. Q. Who was that double vote for; do you remembed A. I do not. Q. How soon was that counting had after you went up-stairs, as you have stated,

on tho night of election 7 A. It was commenced within an hour afterward. Q. Did you continue till you got through! A. Wo didn't make up our official returns. Q. Did you continue the count till you got through 7 A. Yes, sir. Q. What did :von do next 7 A. I believe we went home. Q. Did you go home before you canvassed the vote ~ A. I don't know what you mean by canvassed. Q. After you ascertained how many votes were cast, dicl you or did you not then

proceerl to ascertain who those votes were cast for 7 A. Wedid. Q. How soon after you bad ascertained the number of votes cast did you proc-eed.

to ascertain who those votes were castfor7 A. Immediat.ely. Q. When did you get through with ascertaining who the votes were cast for 1 A . .About two o'clock in the morning. Q. Was it after you had thus ascertained who the votes were cast for and the

public announcement of the result made, that the ballot. box was left at the grocery, as you have said ~

A. Yes, sir; after. . Q. At whose solicitation were the ballots onrha~ and reca.nvassed the next

clav! A. Michael Sweeney's, Dan Kilroy, James Handley. Q. WaH tltis Sweeney running for any office at the same election; and, if so, for

what office, and on what ticket~ A. Yes, sir; alderman, on the people's ticket. Q. Was that the same ticket on which Mr. Le Moyne was running for member

of Con21'ess 7 A. Y('s, sir. Q. Who is Handley that you have spoken of, and in what precinct did be live at

that time~ A. He lives on Chicago avenue, bet,veen Sedgwick and Townsend, in the eight-

eenth ward. Q. Was that in the third precinct 9 A. I am not positive. Q. Was he the friend of Mr. Le Moyne or Mr. Farwell in that election 1 A. I couldn't swear to it: he was a friend of Sweeney's. Q. In what precinct did Kilroy live 7 A .. I know when he was judge, corner of M:u-ket and Ontario. Q. J'ndge of what f A. Of election. Q. Was it in the third precinct that he was judge of election f .A. No, sir. Q. At the recount, at. the request of Sweeney, as you have stat.ed, was there any

Farwell men or political friends of his present 7 A. I believe not.

Then the vote was canvassed the night of election before the board adjourned, before the box had been placed in the saloon, and was not only annouucecl, as I have shown from this evidence, but a memo­randum made by one of the jud(J'es was taken by a police officer named }l.sher; and that identica, memorandum taken that night is here in this record, and it agrees with the returns made by those office-rs, showing conclusively that there could have been no tamper­ing with the ballot-box on account of it having been left in the saloon. In other words, the presumption that fraud was practiced upon that box because of its having been left in the hands of unau­thorized persons is effectually rebutted. The return announced that ni~ht as taken down by the judges and carried to headquarters by a police officer is here in this evidence, and it corresponds with there­turn made the next day by the officers. · That is the evidence of Clitl'ord. I now pass to the testimony of James S. Fisher, on page 353.

Question. Were you there from the opening of the poll to the closing7 Answer. Yes, sir. Q. State what you know of the counting of the votes, and the canvassing, and

the announcement of the result, and all yon know about it. A. I remained at the volls until the closing of the pollB; they then immediately

retired to a room up-statrs, in the rear; we then had something to eat; consumeil not over half an hour. After our supper, the ballot. box was opened on the table and its contents. emptied out. The three judges then counted the number of votes polled at that precinct. There was some tlispute in regard to the number of votes polled; they were countt!ll some two or three ti mea, anct they then tallied with the poll-book; that is, they COITOBpontleu with the number of votes cast as on the poll-

book. In straightening out the ballots they discovered a double vote, also a t.wen tieth ward ticket; t.bose were laid on one side and not counted. After straicrhten ing these tickets out t.hey commenced to tally. and continued until near oneo'i'clock I then got one of the judges-I think it was Mr. Rankin-to read off the number of votes cast for each candidate, which I entered on my tally-list. After getting the full num her of votes cast for each candtda te, I asked them if this was the tinal count. They answered me affirmatively. I then immediately started for headquarters with the report. I mea.n the police headquarters, the general office.

Cross-examination by Mr. LE MOYNE: Q. Have you any recollection whether the vote then ~ven to you was the same

as the official return as made by the said juuges or d1d you ever see the official return Y

A. It was given me that night as the official return; that was my idea when Ire. ceived it.

On page 364 we have the return given to Fisher that night and takeu t~ police headquarters. The majority for Fa1·well is 14, cor­responclmg exactly with · the return as made by the officers the next day. Therefore I claim that neither the Committee of Elec­tions nor the House have any authority to reject this return upon the mere evidence that a man went into a saloon and saw the ballot-box behind the counter, and becam:~e there was thus opportunity to com­mit a fraud upon that baUot-box. Yet the majority holfl that there­turn should be rejected and the poll excluded because the ballot-box waa left exposed. How does this decision accord with the precedents established by this House in previous cases f In the caee of Van Rens­selaert:B. Van Allen, decided aa long ago a.s1793-one of the earliest contested-election cases in this House-the irregularities complained of in the conducting of the election were, first, that more ballots were actually given than were computed by the inspectors; second, that the ballot-box waa not locked; and, third, that the ballot-box waa in the custody of a person not authorized by law to take charge of it. In that caMe the House agreed to the following resolution:

ReRol?Jed, That the allegations of the petitioner do not state corruption nor irreg­ularities of sufficient magnitmle under the law of New York to invalidate the election and return of John E. Van Allen to serve as a member of this House; and that therefore the said J'ohu E. Van Allen is duly elected.

Then in the case of David Bard, of Pennsylvania, the return which the law required to be made in November waa not made till tbe next J nne. The Honse held that in the absence of evidence showing fraud the election waa not vitiated.

Again, in the case of Arnold VB. Lea, from the State of Tennessee, the law required that there should be a ballot-box, but the evidence showed that the ballots were deposited in a gourd; that afterward they were tied up in a handkerchief and passed out of the hands of the inspectors. Yet this House, in which there waa a democratic majority, decided that the election was not vitiated. In that same case it appeared that after the ballot-box had been closed it was re­moved by the sheriff, an unauthorized person, and taken to a dry­goods store and given into the hands of a man named Graham, who it was proved was a personal and political enemy of the contestant, and who bad sworn that the contestant should not be elected. The sheriff placed the box in that man's store over niO'ht, and protest waa ma.de against it; the commissioners were appealed to to remove it. Yet the House said thn.t in the abs~nce of proof of fraud it would not unseat that member. I say that from 1794 to the present time there cannot be found a single authority to sustain the action of the committee in rejecting this return because there was merely an oppor­tunity to commit fraud, while there is an entire absence of proof to show that fraud was committed.

In conclusion I wish to recite the rule laid down by Mr. McCrary in his book, the American Law of Elections, pages 3:n and ~3Z:

When the result in any precinct has been shown to be so tainted with fraud that the trnth cannot be deducible therefrom, then it should never be permitted to form a. part of the canva4!s. The precedents .as well as the evident requirements of truth not only sanction, but call for, the rejection of the entire poll, when stamped with the chara.ct~ristics here shown.

* * * * The returnmnst stand until such facts are proven as to clearly show that it is not

true. When shown to be fraudulent orfalse, it must faH to the grouncl. This rul­ing is well stated by numerous authorities including the following: Blair vs. Bar· rett, 1 Bartlett, 308 ; Knox vs. Blair, 1 Bartlett, 52; Howard vs. Uooper, supra; Washburn vs. Voorhe-es, 2 Bartlett, 54.

The author then quotes with "emphatic approval" the following from the report of the committee in the case of Washburn vB. Voor­hees: If the fraud be clearly shown to exi~ to such au extent as to satisfy the mind

that the return doCH not show the truth, and no evidence is fum is heel by either ]Jarty to a contest, and no investigation of the committeoenal>le them to deduce the truth therefrom, then no alternative is left but to reject such a return. To use it under SUCh a state of facts is to U'3e as true what is shown to be false,

Yet this Honse is aaked, in the first place, to take a poll that is so polluted by fraud and corruption that yon cannot uetermine what the actual vote was; and yon are asked to count that; and yet yon are asked to reject the poll in the next precinct, where there is no evidence showing fraud or corruption on the part of the commission­ers or any one else. "Consistency, thou art a jewel!" I feel war­ranted in saying that, taking this evidence aml carefully scanning it, the House cannot, without violence to every rule of law on this sub­ject, reject this precinct.

As to the Norwood Park precinct and the pauper vote, my time will not allow me to go into it to any extent. The position I take in re­gard to paupers is this: It is clearly established, as the evidence will show, these men were sent to the poor-house by the board of charity. It will clearly appear from the testimony that these men were pau-

2894 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 2,

pers coming from other districts. The law of Illinois declares that no ouo shall be a voter in any precinct unless he has a permanent :tbode-:­not domicile, not residence, lmt a permanent abode. The supreme court (41 Illinois) decided that a pauper can neither gain nor lose a residence while in a poor-bouse, and that the town from which he is f\ent must support him as a resilient of that town or 1)recinct. Yet they allowed sixty of these paupers to vote in Norwood Park, and the majority of the committee insist, notwithstanding the ruling of this House in the case of Covode vs. Foster, that this pauper vote shall IJe counted.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to

discuss any of the questions which arise in the eighteenth or twen­tic1h wards of Chicago. I tried my hand upon a similar question the other day, in the case of Finleyvs. Walls, aml I said in my argument on that occasion that I hoped my friends of the majority, who were for" casting out the nines" on that occasion, would be equally ready to cast out the nines on a future occasion. Whether I had that hope really in my heart or not is between me :md my conscience, but I ex­pre~ ed in a parliamentary way the hope that., on some future occa­sion when tbe casting out of a precinct would work precisely the op­posite result from what it was likely to operate in the case of casting out the colored academy precinct, my friends on the other side would be as ready to cast out as they were on that occasion.· And perhaps H is not inadvisable to mention the fact that, if you did in Walls's case what is sought to be done by the contestant here, to purge the poll, t·cject every vote there could be a word of quarrel aiJout, then Walls would be elected and FINLEY left out in the cold and therefore it would not do to purge. No purging then! No purgative roots could be administered then! [Laughter.] But on this occasion when purg­ing will produce a different result ou the health of the patient, Mrg­iug is the remedy, and bleeding, too, perhaps. [Laughter~] But purg-ing is all that is recommended. '

I will not discuss that question further than to say I have an op­portunity here toseebowmnchmyfriends on the other side of the House are really attached to this system of casting out a precinct where frauds have been perpetrated.

.I rise principally to talk about the Norwood Park matter. Nor­wood Park is a little town in Cook County, outside of the city of Chicago. Norwood. Park haa of its residents eighty-four voters, on all sitles of politics. But Norwood Park was honored by Chicago with the location of the poor-bouse of Cook County, so that the pau­pers (if I understand it correctly) from my friend CAULFIELD'S dis­trict, and from my friend HARRISON'S district, as well as from Far­well's district, are all sent to hibernate at Norwood Park. And a{}_­cordingly if the poor-house votes, Norwood Park is a pretty large town, but if the poor-bouse does not vote Norwood Park has 84 votes.

But the poor-honse is located there. They have a superintendent of the poor-bouse, and that superintendent of the poor-bouse is none of your mean-spirited fellows. He is a high-toned constitutional dem­ocrat, clear up, aud you will see. he is. [Laughter.] He is as high­toned as any of these fellows whose rascalities are sought to be charged over to Farwell in the eighteenth and twentieth wards of Chi­cago. Every individual of them a democrat of the first water-no, not water, for they were democrats, but every individual of them a dem­ocrat of the pnrest spirits, [laughter, l the whole of them, every man of them I Well, this man co rues to the polls and brings down his poor-house vau, a11d every man whose vote is questioned here comes down to the polls, riding in the poor-bouse van. He comes therewith power and consideration which must commend him to the men who want fair play in elections, and he tells -;hem how it shall be, and how it shall not be. One of the witnesses, :Mr. Pennoyer, anhumiJlecoun­trym::m living out of 1ue city, said in answer to a question asked whether this man Kimberly made any threats if this poor-bouse vote was not received:

Well, be did. makA tbrea.ta; said be would put the jod~es through if they were not received, and told me that. I would not occupy that position another year, and that he would follow me to hell

[Laughter.] Can any m::m doubt his democracy' [Renewecl ]auO'bter.] Because

I want to sat.isfy my friends ou the other side. [Laughter.] Whether he followed Penn0yer there or not, the inference is that he probably traveled that-road.

Mr. Bell is sworn as a witness, and be says that Kimberly remarked that" the juuges were damned scoundrels, and if the votes were not received he would be damned if he did not prosecute them ; that was his language."

You see these men not only came in the poor-house van, but they came with power. They came with a man who acted as one having authority, and not as a scribe.

Now, it is said these men were not paupers. Not paupers! Why were they in the poor-hou~e van T

That is not all. Four men testified that in this township of R4 votes they had Jived there year after year and bad never seen the !aces of one of these men; that they knew nothing of them until they ap­peared there to vote. How could that happen 'l

But a case was made on the part of Farwell that induced Le Moyne to put this man Kimberly on the stand. What did Kimberly swear T tt..nd be knew if anybody. He said that he presumed that these men came to the poor-bouse on the certificate of Chicago physicians.

In the cross-examination it was attempted to be made out that these men were working f~r pay. These fellows were in better health than many. Here was the poor-house with nearly two thou and people. These voters were the dii selecli from that great heathen tem­ple. These were the few men that could come and vote, and they were ou the ''pay-list." I do not mean to dispara.ge the men because they were· in the poor-house. A good man may go into the poor­bouse. Two of these men even voted for Farwell, indicating that there was sorue conscience and some feeling even in the poor-house. [Laughter.] I do not ruean to dispara~e them at alL But these were men that came there under the certificate of-physicians of Chi­cago from the Caulfield district, from the Harrison distriet, as well as from the Farwell district. Bnt "they were paid." Ah, paid! Yes; these men were under J!ay. But what was their pay f The board of charities that had control of the poor-l10use bau authorized Kimberly if men were able to work they might have extra. food. That was the word, "extra." What is extra f They were to have extra food, extra clothing, extra accommodation. What is extra f Extra is over and above something. Over and above what f Over and above what the other paupers had. Meu tba.t worked as carpen­ters-as three or four did-men that worked as masons did not have extra pa.y. They had pay. But these men had extra pay and extra clothing; some of them were allowed even to dine in the hospital because they could work. They were allowed-ab! a strong element of democracy, one of the props of the Constitution ana of "the prin­ciples of '9H"-they were allowed tobacco. And every man knows that if you sustain the principles of 1798 you have got to do it with corn-whisky and plug-tobacco. [Laughter.] They had one of these bribes furnished them. They bad tobacco. These were the extras and this was the pa.y these men had.

No, sir; it is the veriest nonsense that was ever put forward in the world to talk about these men, paid or not, being other than paupers in the almihouse, to which, in the la~uage of Kimberly himself, they bad been sent upon the certificate of physicians from Chicago. These were t.he men that came to overvote and control the town of Norwood Pa,rk. Now, if they were lHwful voters that was all right. But I put it to the House whether the town of Norwood Park can be believed to have bargained, when tliey allowed the poor-bouse to bE\ constructed there, to have t.be paupers in the poor-house, led by the superintendent, a democrat this year a.nd a republican next year, vote down and control the residents of the town f I put it to the House to know if that is the opinion of any man that God basmaoef They never bargaineu for it. They never so understood; and no other place ever bargained for such a thing.

I do not see here my colleague on t.he committee from Massachu­setts, [Mr. TIIOl\:lPSON.J I came originally from Massachusetts, and I have a great regard for Massachusetts. Massachusetts bas, I think, in the town of Palmer, a poor-bouse-an almshouse for her St.ate pau­pers for the whole State. Did that township bargain when the poor­house was located there to have these men ontvote a.nd control the town or even the county in which they were located'

But, again, if these men become residents by being in the poor­bouse, what will be the result T I do not know bow the laws are in lllinois. I know how the laws are in my State; I know how the laws are in ne:1rly ali the Northeastern States, or perhaps in every one of them. 'N e have local or town poor, count.y poor, or State poor, as the case may be, in the several States. And if men acquire residence by being located in the poor-bouse the entire riffraff of Chicago would, after a year's time, be chargeable aud the-expense of supporting them woulrl be chargeable to Norwood Park. That is the result. It iB in­evitable ; and I do not care how men bluster. I do not care how men reason, it cannot be avoided; the result is necess:ny. If men a{!!} Hire residence by being supported ns paupers in the poor-house, then the locality in which the poor-bouse is situated becomes under o\,ligation in every State where there is t.be difference between State and local poor to support the entire poor population of the locality from which these men corue.

Now I have one thing more to say, and that is in regard to the law of the State of Dlinois. The law of the State of Illinois ba pro­vided that a man shall IJe for a specified time a resident of the locality where be proposes to vote. And the men that maue the law were aware of the difficulties that arise in the interpretation of th~ laws of residence. They understood perfectly well tl1at at times this House in former da.ys bas been convulsed to its center oyer allega­tions that students attending college for four years or less claimed thereby to have acquired a residence and the right to vote and by their votes to control the legal voters of the place where they got their educ.ation. The State of Dlinois, knowing this and meaning to pro­vide for such a contingency, bas made an addition to the law, requir­ing that voters shall be residents. And they define what they mean by residence. They say that resideuce, as the term is used in the section, must b('. a permanent residence. That is the language of 11he law-a perma;nent residence.

Mr. BAKER, of Indiana. ''A permanent abode." Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. Now were these paupers perma­

nent residents of Norwood Park Y How were they residents. Had they a house "';hat they rented T Had they a bouse that they owned Y Had they a room that they rented! Had they a room t.hat 1 hey could control f Had they a spot or thin~ in Norwood Park tha.t they conlfl control for an instant of time f Tuey were no more residents of Nor-

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2895 ------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------wood Park than the impotent man lying at the Pool of Bethesda was a resident there; lying there impotent and waiting for the angel to descend and trouble the waters to the end that some other man might take him and put him into the pool. There is no case in the books showing that ho ever claimed a title to either of tho five porches. There is no account in the books that he even set up any claim that he bad a right to vote in that ward of Jerusalem where the Pool of Bethesda was, or even at G_ehem1a, alt.hough that. precinct was much nearer to Bethesda than Norwood Park to Chicago. [Laughter.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, they tell us about the soothsayers of ancient Rome being unable to look ea-ch other in the face without laughing, and my friends of the majority of the committee must be in the same situation. No two of them out of sight of this Honse and the grave responsibilities that we are nuder here conlU fail to chuckle and laugh when they looked each other in the face to think that they have to nrgue that because these old paupers are allowed extra clothing and tobacco, and some of them are allowed to dine in the hospital for doing a little work, they are permanent residents in the town of Norwood Park.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend when I rose to talk so much about this matter. I tell you, sir, that t.he man who, in view of the facts in this case, will not adopt the results of common sense is in the sit­uation of those for whom a celebrated individual ·pra.yed that one might be sent from the other world to give them information. It was said of them that if they would not believe Moses and the proph­ets they would not believe though one rose from the dead. I need not talk longer about Norwood Pa-rk. I yield the residue of my time to the gentleman from Illinois, [.Mr. HURLBUT.]

Mr. HURLBUT. I have been a-dvised by those who are older and more experienced than I am, that it is useless to nrgne an election case against the expressed will of the majority of the committee. I do not propose, sir, to accept that prohibition, because I consider that if there ue any question upon which the members of this House shonld act fairly and dispa!~Bionately, it is upon one that relat-es to the right of a member elected by the people to his place here. It is one of the few questions upon which this House is called to pass judicially and upon honor.

In arguing this case I shall endeavor to present to the House the considerations which govern my vot.e n.nd the reasoning on which I sustain them, and I hope that they may receive equally fair and un­biru:~ed consideration from others.

Now, sir, as I understand it, this House is called upon to override · local government, home rule, t4e established laws of the State of Illi­

pois. They are called upon, as I understand the evidence, to rcvei"Re the verdict of the people, rendered in the discharge of their highest capacit.y, upon reasons which it is my duty to show to this House are insufficient. And first I desire to strike out from this case altogether whatever may have been admitte-d into it of prejudice or political partisanship.

I regret th:11t the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. HARRIS,] who opened this debate, is not here, because I shall be called upon on this occasion to show that the allegations which he made, as I understood him, are unfounded in fact and were intended only to !l.I'Onse preju­dice.

In the first place, sir, this does not happen to be a political conte t at all. It is in the proof that Mr. Le 1\foyne is not a democrat, and never was, and never was heard of as such. There are a great, mn.ny things in this proof, and among other things somebody proceeded to give the political history of the contestant. It is shown by tho tes­timony of several very eminent persons that he wa,s a leader in olden times and until a very late period of what was known as the far­a-dvanced wing of the whig party, which favored abolitionism, which preceded even the formation of the repn blican party ; and in the next place it is not true that these officers of election there were dem­ocrats, or t.hat the democrats had any charge at that time of the city of Chicago or the county of Cook. It is also in evidence that a very bad and corrupt organiz~J.tion known as the "peoples party," which as every man knows, like all the miscellaneous parties which grow up between the two great parties, gather together all the camp fol­lowers and political traders who cannot get offices fast enough in the regular parties, and under some sham pretense of reform sweep re­spectable persons into their party. That organization in 1873 took 1•ossession of the city of Chica-go and the county of Cook, and had the appointment of all these officers whose conduct has been shown l1ero to be so derelict to duty; and neither of the great parties of the country has any responsibility for the rascalities committed by these officers. Mr. Leib, whose conduct has been detailed to you here, was one of the free lances, the privateers, who wander around wherever they think there is most food to be obtained. Even those judges of election who disgraced the office of judge in the first precinct of the twentieth ward are of this class of canting reformers whose sole unity of action depends upon what they may steal from a confidin~yublic. I state these things in answer to what the gentleman from virginia. [Mr. HARRIS] said in his opening. He sent up to be read at the Clerk's desk some very cheap and common law; that no man could take ad­vanta-ge of his own fraud. Well, everybody knows that; it is as old as the world. Dut there is a.nother principle of law about fraud that is just as old; that fraud cannot .be presumed of a principal for the act of an agent, that the principal is not responsible until you show that the fraud of the agent was ari a-ct of the principal.

Now, there are two things, and only two things, in this proof that

I care to speak of. The one is the manner in which the election laws of my State were utterly overruled and made of no effect in the first precinct of the twent-ieth ward of Chicago; and the second is the conclusion which, in my judgment, this Committee of Elections and this Honse should have drawn from that consideration. My friend who opened this debate stat.ed with substantial accnracy the laws of Illinois with regard to elections. Our registry and election law in the State of illinois is s11ch that, when the question arises, it is not difficult to ascertain precisely how the vote was cast. If the law is violated, t.he fact of the violation must of necessity appear among the records of the election itself.

For example, accorc1in(J' to the law of Tilinois, a number is placed opposite the name of each voter on the poll-list; and when he .hands in his ballot that number so opposite his name on the poll-list is in­dorsed upon the ballot, which of course is not openeti, but is put into the ballot-box. If the number on the poll-list should be 100, then the number 100 is indorsed upon the ballot before it is deposited in the box. Of course when a judicial investigation ta.kes place, if that business has been fairly done you can open the hallots, ascertain each man's name, and find out exactly how every legal voter in the pre­cinct did vote. At tho same time, if it should so happen that the judges of election should do what they appear undeniably to have done here-that is, stuff the ballot-boxes-then there would appear, as there dlil appear in this case, necessarily the most convincing evi­dence of fraud in the fact that ha.lf a dozen or more ballots would bear the same nnm her and that there would be ballots marked above the entire number of voters as recorded on the poll-list.

Now, t.he gentlemen who have preceded me have demonstrated to this Honse that nowhere in the'history_of any election, in any State, has there been anything so ba-d, so gross, so absolutely fraudulent in every respect as the conduct of the judges of election in the first pre­cinct of the twentieth wa.rd; so utterly bad that there is no paper which they could introduce but what is tainted throughout with fraud. And the very papers they are compelled to produce, and do produce, before the Committee of Elections show how that fraud was carried ont.

Now, in that condition of affairs, wh:tt is the clear rule of law f And law is nothing but high reason. The rule is that whenever it appears conclusively that no further confidence can be reposed in the papers themselves you mnst throw them a.ll away. And that seems to be what this committee at first did. I call t.he attention of the House to the fact that this -contestant, in his original notice and for the whole of the first forty days that are given him by law for the purpose of taking testimony so far as regards this first precinct of this twentieth ward, devoted his whole time and attention to showing the absolutelyfraudulentnature of the election there, and insisted that the returns from that precinct should bo thrown out, and undoubtedly that was the correct thin~ to do. .

Now after that is established, after the vote is thrown out, what else is there left to do f Only one thing. That thing is to call up tho men who are known to be voters there and ascertain how thev did vote. And just so far as Mr. Le Moyne went in doing that thing, after hwing established the fraud of the managers of election, so far those votes proven conn t either for him or for Mr. Farwell ; and after having spent the forty clays which are given him by the law for the purpose of destroying the validity of the entiro return, he cannot afterward, in the ten days which the law gives him merely for rebut­tal and when the opposite party is not permitteu to be he:ml, go into evidence as to the character of the voters in the precinct.

Now, in either of these two events, if you throw out -the whole of that precinct, or if you admit the votes that were proved in the orig­inal forty days, which is all any man nuder the law has a right to claim, still Mr. Le Moyne does not make ont a case without bringing in the question of the p'l.uper votes of Norwood Park precinct. I come now to the Norwood Park vote.

I wish in the first pl:we to call the attention of the House to the common-law definition of residence. By the mere force of the term, residence implies two things; one is that the man has the right to make and_ does make a choice; choice is one thing implied in residence. '!'he other thing is that he has an intention to remain where be has ma.de that choice. These two thin~s enterintothecommon-law defi­nition of residence; and without tnese two things there can be no residence.

A person who has no right to make !1 choice of residence never can acquire a residence. A persl)n who is sent to a place involuntarily can­not claim that he has ever exercised will, intelligence, or choice in going there. A person who has no right to determine for himse-lf how long he shall stay in any place cannot possess the other requisite of residence, the intention of remaining. I take H these two things ­are clear.

There has be~n a. grea.t deal s11id here with regard to the laws of the State of Tilinois that -probably it is not worth while for me to answer. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. HARRIS,] who opened this debate, for some unknown reason introduced here the-law of the State of Illinois which requires able-bodied children to support their parents. I do not lmow what reference that law has to this case. In so doing, the law of Illinois simply enacted the law of God ·and of humanity.

Bnt the State of Il1inois ha.s declared for herself what residence is, and that declaration made by that State is binding upon this Houso

2896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 2,

and upon every one else. You must remember that t.be right to elect members of this House depends upon the qualifications which the State thinks proper to impose upon voters, upon electors for the most numerous branch of her Legislature. The Stat.e establishes those qualifications, under the Constitution of the United States of cour3e, and that establishment is bin<ling upon the question, and this tribu­nal bas no right to set it aside.

Now the constitution of Illinois provides that "every person hav­ing resided in this State one year, in the county ninety days, and in the election districts thirty days next preceding any election therein shall be a voter;" provided, of course, that be is not disqualified for crime. In other words, in the State of Illinois poverty alone does not disqualify a man from voting. He may be as poor as the veriest men­c1ic.-mt that ever begged. still he loses no right of his humanity. There are States in this Union which, perhaps from high considera­tions of pu ulic morals, have forbidden to a person who does not pay taxes, or who is iu fact a pauper, the right to vote. I can understand the reasons why such a provision might be adopted; and I can show

·yon why in our State the proviRion of law which we have adoptetl is a \\ Lo oue. When a man becomes a pauper and is support&l at the public expense be loses a large part of his individuality; he is sub­ject to t.he orders of others; he can be trooped down to vote just as this mau Kimberly dragged down thesfl sixty-seven voters in an am­lmlance belonging to the county poor-house, and as the proof shows put their votes in for them. They were subject in all respects to his tender mercies; and it would be a little difficult to say that they were competent voters, such voters as ought to cast a ballot.. But they were voters under the law of the State of lllinois, if they pos­sessed the other qualification; that is, if they were residents in the township of Norwood Park. In other words, the limitations imposed by the constitution and laws of Illinois is that a man must have a permanent ·known residence of at leaat thirty days in the town shill where he votes.

Now look at this case. Here is a little township out in Cook Gounty with only eighty-four voters-probably not four hundred inhabit­ants. Yonderis a great city twelve miles off, a perfect maelstrom of human life, where great ships have gone down, wheretbere are wrecks innumerable, so that many of these poorer craft, crippled and wrecked, nuable to swim in that tide, drift off into this last resort of extreme necessity. Now in no sense of the word are those men voluntary agents in coming there. As the proof in this case shows, they are sent there by the board of charit.ies of the city of Chicago. They are there at the public expense; they a:re not there voluntarily ; they have no control over the question how long they are to remain there or when they may be turned out. There is nothing of permanence or of clwice about their staying in that neighborhood. In.this state of affairs, is it to be pretended that they acquire under the constitution ::md laws of the State a power which authorizes them to control ev­ery election in that little township Y That portion of the State of Illinois, and in fact nearly the whole of it, is under township organ­ization. The roads, the bridge'3, the town taxes, the local expenses of each township, are governed by their voters. If these men were vot­ers at that election, they must be voters at any township election; and under the law as contended for here-which never can be the la.w in Illinois; it may be the law here, but it will never be anywhere else-those men could control the eutire expenses, the election of the officers, and everything connected wit.h the government of that town­ship. That is a proposition which seems to me on its face atrocious. If these men were not in good faith and by their own choice perma­nent residents of that township of Norwood Park, theu Mr. Le .Moyne cannot maintain his claim to a seat in this House. That is the ques­tion upon which the House is to pass; and I want it to be decided upon the facts as they appear. It is an atrocity to a8sume that any

• House will override tile clear known law of t.he State, that it will make those men voters w bo the State has said shall not be voters. The Honse is called upon in this case to strilre a direct blow at that foundation doctrine of "home rule" which I have heard talked of so much by mem hers of the uemocratic party.

Now, on that point allow me to call attention to the evidence. I will read simply the testimony of this man Kimberly, the captain of the lwst that led these people down there to vote for Air. Le Moyne. He is asked this question :

Question. Do the names of these men appear on any pay·rolli Answer. No, sir. Q. What compensation do they get, then, if any? A. Extra. board, accommodations, clothing, and are allowed small perquisites,

liberty-The idea of allowing "liberty'' to a voter-

liberty, and the men in charge of the wash-house I allow the privilege of selling t()bU{lCO and cigars.

The truth of the matter is simply this, as the clear, unbroken mass of testimony in the case shows: these men were simply paupers, sent there by the board of charities of the city of Chicago; they had never previously been residents of Norwood Park; nobody kuows where they ca.me from, whether from the city proper or from the surround­ing towns, or whether they were more vagrants who had wandered into that great city. The sole ground of tho pretense that they had any rights at all as voters is the fact that if they behaved themselves they received little perquisites, extra ''liberty," extra clothing, the right to sell tobacco, &c. They were a sort of non-commiss~oned officers in this brigade of dismantled and broken-down men.

Now, if in the face of tbese facts, which n.ppoar to menndeuiaule, this House shonlll conclude to so construe t.l!e laws of Illinois as to say that tllese men, who. never had any choice as to tbeir going to that township, who were sent there whether they wunterl to go or not, who had no choice about remaining there, who eif.her remained or were sent away at the will of another-if 1he House believes that these men acquired any permanent domicile or residence there, it bas the right to unseat Mr. Farwell.

Negative testimony in this case is nearly all that can be given. In that little township six mil~s square with eighty-four voters they bring to you eight men who have lived there from six to twentv years who state that they know every resident in that town, and tllat these men, until they came down there at the election, were never known in nny capacity in that town. How are you going to get over that class of testimony Y

Now, if I desired a mere political advantage in a case of tpis kind, I would prefer, knowing the sentiments of our people, that this Honse should overthrow the clear law of Illinois and send this matter back to the people, because among those residing there who know the In.";. of our State it would be considered a great outrage upon the right of self-government, and would redound against the party or the. men who should make any such rule.

Dut I hope this House is going to pass upon it from a different con­sideration; that it is going to measure the rights of these parties to hold a seat here according to the evidence and law; that it is going to determine, if it can arrive at the sense of the people, the real peo­ple who did vote and give it validity and effect. If this House shall do so, then I have no question as to what the result will be.

It is not my intention to prolong this debate at this time, nor do I desire to occupy any more time than simply, clearly, and plainly to state to the House the general principles which are involved in this question, and they are the two which I have stated. The clen.rly-es­tablished rule of law is that wherever the ballots and other evidence of election a.re utterly tainted and bad they shn.ll be thrown out. That was the course this House took in the case of Finley vs. Walls. It is t.he course taken everywhere when you undertake to pnrge a poll. But fair opportunity should be given to the doctrine contended for here, that without any evidence under the sun of the liability of the contestee here for these frauds they shall not be charged against him. Because a. man by the na.me of Corcoran was running as alderman, and who probably stuffed this ballot-box in his own interest, because that was done they shall charge without authority, without law, antl without evidence the whole of these illegal votes upon the contestee is a proposition so outrageous that I have no idea this House will en:. tertain it for a single moment.

These things, gentlemen, I thought it advis::J,ble to say in relation merely to this contest, as viewed from our own laws and the clearly­expressed decisions of our own courts. If it were necessary I could reread decisions of our own snpreme court of Illinois in which, al­though not speaking on contested-election cases at all, it layR clown a.nd supports the broad proposition that no perso~, not a resident of the town prior to the time of his going into the poor-house, can ob­tain a legal residence there. That is the law. If any one of these men was a resident of Norwood Park at the time he became a pnulic charge he would still retain, under our law, the right to vote in that town. If, however, these men were transferred, as the proof shows they were, from somewhere else, from other townships to this pour­house, they do not acquire under the ln.w of illinois residence in the town of Norwood Park, where this poor-house is situated.

There are two ways in which our poor are maintained in the State of Illinois, varying of conrse in different countjes. In some counties the poor are maintained by the town out of the town fund. Those who were residents of the t.own before they became a charge upon the township fund still retain their voting capacity, but in case tlJey are supported by the county at a single house, if you gather men from eight, ten, or twenty towns of which a county may be composed, the men from the nineteen towns in which the poor-honse is not f'it­uated do not acquire any right to vote in the one township where the poor-house is situated. They can go back to their own place, of course, itnd vote, but not elsewhere.

Mr. BURCHARD, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, there are two questions presented in the evidence and in the discussion of meml>ers wl.lo have addressed the House. The one relates to the vote in the first precinct of the twentieth ward. If that. shall be excludetl, the sitting mem­ber is elected, unless the vote of the paupers in the Norwood Park poor-house is counted.

I do not intend to discuss, in the few moments I shall ask the atten­tion of the House this evening, the vote in regard to the first precinct of the twentieth ward in the city of Chicago. W.e have a report here, concurred in by a majority of the committee, that the proper method of treating the vote of the first precinct of the twcnt!eth ward is to exclude it. The republican members of that committee an(l two dem­ocratic members of the committ.ee concurred iu that opinion. Only five members of the committee favor a different. rule from that fol­lowed at this session in t,he case of Finley vs. Walls. Two members of the committee properly dissent from this conclusion of their polit­caJ associates and say:

We cannot concur in that portion of the report which seeks to purge the poll at precinct No.1 in twentieth ward of Chicago. The couductof the officers of eleclion having been shown to be grossly fraudulent, and the integrity of their re-turns at this poll having been thereby destroyed, and the proof having shown also that the

I

t

1816. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2897 ballots in the box had been ta.mpered with, we can come to no other conclusion than to reject the entire vote at this precinct, except in so far as contestant and contestee nave established by proof aliunde the number of votes they received at this poll resp_ectively.

JNO. F. HOUSE. CHARLES ; . ,.THOMP.SON.

A majority of the committee, therefore, concur in the exclusion of that poll. Their view iB in accord with the action of the House but a few days since.

Therefore, unless the vote of the paupers of Norwood Park should b(' counted, the sitting member is entitled to his seat. The disposition of the pauper vote in Norwood Park depends upon the meaning of the word'' resided'' as used in the ll;ij-VS and constitution of the State of Illi­nois. It is not claimed that paupers have no right to vote, but it is claimed that the law and constitution of Illinois upon this question are in perfect a{}cord with the decisions of this House in former contested­election cases. They are also in harmony with the rule approved by the standard authorities on elections as the proper rule to be followed in cases of this kind.

In the case of Covode vs. Foster the House held that paupers could not and did not gain a residence by virtue of location in a poor-house in a particular town. That decision is commended by McCrary in his valuaule treatise on elections as a proper rule to be followed in the decision of contested-election cases. ·

Is the law different in the State of illinois f A case has been re­ferred to, the scope and meaning of which I perhaps can, with some confidence, discuss, because I was one of the counsel engaged in try­·ing it in the court below and afterward argued it with others in the supreme court. I refer to the case of Freeport vs. Stephenson County, in 41 illinois Reports. Before I discuss that decision, I wish to call the attention of the House t() the similarity of language in the law relating to paupers and that used in the constitution and statutes of illinois in regard to residence for the purpose of voting.

The language of the constitution, which iB correctly quoted in the majority report, is that every person ha-ving resided in the State for a certain length of time shall be entitled to vote; and the law requires the challenged voter to swear that he has so re3id-ed. In 1861, I think it was, the Legislature changed the liability as far as the county of Stephenson was concerned, for the support of the paupers in that county. The language used was that-

Ea{}h town in the county of Stephenson, from and after the annual meeting of the board of supervisors of said county, shall respectively pa.y the expenses of the support of the paupers residing in each town.

There were fourpaupersresidingin the town of Freeport forwhose support the town of Freeport contended it was not liable. An action was brought against the town, and wh{'n the case was carried to the supreme court a stipulation was made; and this was the stipulation:

That at the. time said persons and each of them became paupers and were sent to said poor-house, they and each of them were legal f'eridenta of said town of Freep01;t.

The Supreme Court in passing upon this say-It is conceded th~y were residents of the county, and it is expressly agreed that

at the time they severally became paupers they were legal residents of the town of Freeport. Then did they-

That is the question which tho Supreme Court announces to be passed upon-did they, b_y being sent to thefoor·house, lose th~ir residence in that town and be­come residents of the town o Silver Creek, ln which the county poor-house was situated! ·

Did they lose their residence f A term used everywhere in our laws and Constitution, and having a fixed meaning as interpreted by the courts. Now in discussing that the Supreme Court say-

.As a. general mie-Not applying to paupers alone, but applying to all cases- ·

persons under legal disability or restraint, persons of non-sane memory, or per­sons in want of ffeedom, are mcapable of losing or gaining a residence by acts per­formed by them under the control of others. A person imprisoned under operation of law does not thereby change his residence. So of a lunatic legally confined in an asylum. As these acts are involuntAry, there can be no presumption of the nec­essary intent to change the residence. So of femes-coverts and minors. .And no reason is _perceived why the maintenance of o. pauper at the poor-house should form an exception to the rule. He is placed there by the officers of the law and in pur­suance of its requirements.

The House will perceive that a general rule iB here announced, and that the decision is based upon that well-known rule of law to which it is held the pauper is no exception. Now in this discussion has any authority, any decision of any court, been brought to show that that is not the rule of law in regard to residence under our election lawsf Not at all. But here we h:1.ve the decisions of the courts confirming the decision of the House, and sustained by aut,hority.

Mr. MILLS. Does it appear that these paupers were not residents of the district in which they voted f

Mr. BURCHARD, of illinois. It does appear. I cannot now refer to the testimony, because I have not the references here, but I have examined it, and I refer the gentleman to the remarks of the gentle­man from Kansas, [Mr. BROWN,] who points out in detail that these were not residents, the fact being testified to by men who have lived there in the town and knew the residents. It was a small town, :md in one of our little towns of eighty or one hundred votes, as Norwood Park was, or even containing two hundred or three hundred voters every man knows his neighbors, and knows who are voters and wh~ are not. I have found it so. It is not so in the cities.

IV-182

Possibly this case was confusedin the minds of some gentlemen by the citation and discussion of the law of our State requiring relatives to contribute to the support of the poor. That law gives no control to anybody, to any :~;elative. He is free to go or stay, and the l:tw merely imppses-a liability when the pauper becomes a county charge, or as in the· case 6f Stephenson County and a few other counties, a town charge; the control of the pauper is placed in the hands of the officers of the town or county, and they have a right to contract with persons who shall support them ; and the county authorities can say where the man shall go, can put him in this town or that town or anywhere it chooses. I will refer gentlemen to sections 5, .6, 8, 10, and 21 of our law. In the case where there is a county poor-house the law is only changed in taking away the authority from overseers and retaining it in the board, but giving the boarcl the right, if there be any particular case or cases which the board should deem prudent to put out under the provisions of this chapter, to do so, making a proper entry of the circumstances upon their records. They can put tho pauper in the poor-house, or they can contract with individ­uals to support him in different parts of. the county or State. To show that the law treats them as under control I quote section 10, which says:

The county commissioners' court may at any regular term of said court remove any poor penon from the custody_.

From the custody-of the person or persons to whose ea.re the overseers may have commi~ his keeping.

.And he ia to give a bond to provide for them and take care of them. Then here is an express decision of the Supreme Court that as a gen­eral rule, and it is a sensible rule, a common-sense rule, recognized by the courts everywhere in regard to residence, a person under control or custody of another, a-s these are placed by our law1 cannot gain a residence ; and that in the case of the pauper there 18 no e~ception from this general rule that applies to everybody.

And yet they say that that decision is not a case in point. Why, sir, we relied upon this general rule. In our brief we referred to this general rule as being the law, and insisted (aud the court held) that this was no exception. The court sustained us~ basing its decision, as :we based our argument, upon a general rule wnich it said applied to paupers as well as to others under legal control in regard to their resi­dence.

It has been argued that the pauper is an exception so far as gain­ing a residence for voting, though not as to his residence for support. The general rule, it is sa~d, does not apply to gaining a voting residence, even when the pauper IS sent to the county poor-house by the au­thorities, as he must be to gain admission. No decision of any court iB cited to sustain tho argument. None can be found. ·

Throwing out the vote of the first precinct of the twentieth ward, which a majority of the committee agree, after carefully examining the testimony and fairly applying the law to the case, should be ex­cluded, and rejecting the 60 pauper votes of Norwood Park proved to be non-residents in the county poor-house, the sitting member apl" pears by the testimony and from both reports to have received a ma­jority of the votes in tho congressional district, and iB entitled to his seat.

Mr. BLACKBURN obtained the tloor. Mr. POPPLETON. I ask the gentleman to yield to me to make a.

~ti~ -Mr. BLACKBURN. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. POPPLETON. I desire to announce that after the gentleman

from Kentucky [Mr. BLACKBURN] shall have spoken I shall .move the previous question and ask a vote. I now move that the House adjourn. ·

ISSUE OF SILVER COIN.

Mr. PAYNE. I ask unanimous consent to submit a report from the Committee on Banking aud Currency upon a resolution that was referred to it yesterday in regard to the issue of silver coin.

The Clerk read the report, as follows: · The Committee on Banking and Currency, to whom waa referred House resolu­

tion No. 109, report the same back with the following amendments.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the resolution with the amendments in it as reported.

The Clerk read as follows : . Resolved by the Senate and House of Repruentatives of the United States of Amer­ica in Congre&s assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury, under such limits and regulations as ·will best secure a. just and fair distribution of the same through the country, may issue the silver coin now in the Treasury to an amount not ex­ceeding $10,000,000 exchanged for an equal amount of legal-tender notes, and tke notes so received in exchange shall be re-issued only upon the retirement and de­struction of a like sum of fractional currency received at the Treasury in payment of dnes to the United States, and said fractional currency when so anbstitnteu shall be destroyed and held as part of tho sinking fund, as provided in the act approved April17, 1876. ·

Mr. HOLMAN. . I wish to reserve the point of order upon that jolnt resolution until it has been read as it was offered, so that we may see what the amendments are. '

The SPEAKER pro tentp&re. The Clerk will read the resolution as originally offered.

The Clerk read as follows: Resolved. by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of A.mcric11

in Oongre&s assembled, That t~e Secretarv of the Treasury, under such limits and

2898 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAw2,J

regulations as will best secure a just and fair distribution of the same through thfl country, may issue the silver coin now in the Treasury in redemption of an equal amount of logal-tendernotes, and the notes soredeemeii shall bere-issuedonlynpon the retirement of a like sum of fractional currency, and said fractional currency when so substituted shall be destroyed and held as part of the sinking fund, as pro­vided in the .act approved April17, 1876.

Mr. HOLMAN. Without withdrawing the objection, I trust the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. PAYNE] will, if the joint resolution comes before the House, allow a motion to be made to strike out that por­tion of it which provides that the legal-tender notes shall not be issued until a corresponding amount of fractional currency shall have been canceled.

Mr. PAYNE. I think a brief explanation will remove any objec­tion to the joint resolution.

The SPEAKER p1·o ternpore. Is it understood that there is any ob­jection to the consideration of the resolution 1

Mr. HOLMAN. I reserve the right to object until the explanation is made.

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. Will any gentleman be at liberty to object after the explanation f

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection is reserved until the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. PAYNE] shall have explained the joint res-

-olution. That is understood. . · Mr. PAYNE. The difficulty in the way of the Treasurer in putting

in circulation the silver coin now on hand, amounting to some $14,000,000, is that a sort of panic has arisen and the fractional cur­rency is commanding a premium of from 3 to 3t per cent. in different parts of the cotmtry. The process is_so slow of exchanging the frac­tional paper for coin that the supply is not sufficiently rapid to meet the demands of business all over the country.

Now, with a view of expediting the distribution of this silver coin more rapidly than it can be accomplished now, it is proposed that an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 of the silver coin in the Treasury may be exchanged for legal-tender notes under such rules as will se­cme a fair and just distribution throughout the various P¥ts of the country, and that these legal-tender notes . thus deposited with the Treasurer for silver coin shall be retained as a specific fund for the re­demption of a like amount of fractional notes a-s they may come into the Treasury in the course of business. That is the whole pur­port of the resolution. It was drawn in accordance with the sug­gestions of the Treasurer of the United States to meet this exigency and it is proposed that it shall continue until the whole amount of legal-tender notes thus deposit.ed as security for silver coin shall have been redeemed by bringing into the Treasury a.n equal n.mount of frac­tional notes, and those fractional notes are to be retired and canceled, at which time the legal-tender notes will be paid to whoever is en­titled to them.

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. I would like to inquire of the gentle­man from Ohio who reports this joint resolution whether he regards the provision in the resolution for keeping the $10,000,000 as a specific fund, as he himself has stated it, to be sufficient to accomplish thn.t. object f I see that they are not to be re-issued until the fmctional currency is destroyed. Is there anything to prevent this $10,000,000 of legal-tenders from going into the general fund of the Treasury in the same way that the legal-tender notes now deposited for redeem­ing the national-bank circulation go into and form part of the com­mon fund, not to be paid out again, as I think the law requires, but which in fact are paid out for the pmposes of the Government T Can this $10,000,000 of legal-tenders be used to defray the ordinary ex­penses of the Government, or will it be put in a fund by itself and not a dollar of it be touched except for the purpose of retiring and can­celing so much fractional currency f It seems to me that this joint resolution is not specific enough on that point.

Mr. PAYNE. That is a very long question. Mr. HEWITT, of New York. That may be; but I only wanted to

make myself understood. . Mr. MAcDOUGALL. I move that the Honse now adjourn. The SPEAKER pl'O tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.

PAYNE] is occupying the floor. Mr. PAYNE. In answer to the gentleman from New York [Mr.

HEWITT] I beg to say that this joint resolution provides that this $10,000,000 of legal-tender notes shall not be re-issued except upon the retirement of an equal amount of fractional currency. It does not provide that the Secretary of the Trea-sury or the Treasurer of the United States shall not commit a breach of trust, or a penitentiary of­fense. It merely provides that he shall not re-issue these legal-tender notes until a like amount of fractional currency is retired and de­stroyed. · It did not occur to the committee that it was necessary to make any fmther provision against a breach of duty on the part of an officer of the Government. The joint resolution does clearly pro­vide that $10,000,000 of silver coin may be exchanged for an equal amount of legal-tender notes, and that those legal-tender notes shall be re-issued whenever a like amount of fractionalcurrencyis brought into the Treasury and canceled and destroyed.

It is intended to p1·ovide an imn1ediate accommodation to the pub­He; a relief from an imposition now practiced, perhaps necessarily arising from the deficient amount of fractional currency in the cotm­try. It proposes to relieve the people of the country to the extent of at once giving them $10,000,000 of silver change. That is all there is of it. · The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the consideration

of this joint resolution at this time f It cannot be entertained except by unanimous consent.

Mr. BLOUNT. I ·object. :Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. I hope the gentleman from

Georgia [Mr. BWUNT] will withdraw his objection. 1\Ir. BLOUNT. I insist upon my objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is made, and the joint reso­

lution is not before the House.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 1\fr. BLOUNT. I call for the regular order of business. The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The regular order being called for

the qut>stion before the House is the motion of the gentleman fro~ Ohio [M:r. PoPPLETON] that the House now adjourn.

Mr. HOLMAN. Before the question is taken on the motion to ad­Jo~n, I desire to ask the ge~tleman from Ohio [Mr. POPPLETON] when· 1t ts understood the vote will be taken upon the pending resolutions in the contested-election case f

Mr. POPPLETON. To-morrow, immediately a.fter the conclusion of the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. BLACKBURN ] I shall move the previous questions and call for a vote. '

Mr. HOLMAN. So that there will be one hom of debate on the resolutions to-morrow f

Mr. POPPLETON. One hour only.

WAR CLAIMS. Mr. EDEN, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on

War Claims a ~ill (H. R. No. 3359) making appropriations for the payment of clatms reported allowed by the commissioners of claims under the act of Congress of March 3, 1871; which wa-s read a first and second time, recommitted, and, with the accompanying report ordered to be printed. '

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

By unanimous consent, leave of absence w:ta granted to Mr. FREE­MAN for three days.

EXCUSED FROM COl'YIMITI'EE SERVICE. The SPEAKER pro tcrnpore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fos­

TER] desires to be excused from service on the special committee to investigate the conduct of Federal officials in New Orleans.

There being no objection, Mr. FosTER wa.s excused. The question being taken on the motion of Mr. POPPLETON that

the House adjourn, it waB agreed to; and accordingly (at four o'clock and fifty-five minutes p.m.) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC. The following memorials, petitions, and other papers were presented

at the Clerk's desk under the rule, and referred as stated: By Mr. BURCHARD, of Illinois: The petition of citizens of Car­

roll County, Illinois, for the repeal of the resumption act, to the Com­mittee on Banking :tnd Currency.

Also, the petition of Francis A. Anderson, heir of Dr. Gustavus B. Horner, relative to the petition heretofore filed by the heirs of said Hornerfor bounty land or other compensation for services rendered by him dOTing the revolutionary war, to the Committee on Revolu­tionn.ry Pensions.

By Mr. CAULFIELD : The petition of Hermon J. Korff, for addi­tional compensation as a lieutenant-colonel United States Army, and for pay for horse and equipments lost at the battle of Richmond, Kentucky, to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. GOODIN: Concurrent resolutions of the Legislature of the State .of_Kansa-s, memorializing Congress to pay losses sustained by citizens of that State by the invasion of bands of guerrillas and ma­rauders during the years 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and H:!65, to the Com­mittee of Claims.

By Mr. HARDENBERGH: Remonstrance of Thoma-a R. Bennett, Edward D. Lawson, W. F. Smith, and Charles A. King, a committee from 300 plate printers, remonstrating against the practices of mem­bers of the Plate Printers' Union employed in the Bureau of Printin(Y' and Engraving, to the Committee on Printing. .

0

By Mr. HEWITT, of New York: The petition of merchants, traders and other citizens of New York, that no duties be imposed on ra~ materials which enter largely into manufactures, that all duties should be specific and not ad valm·ern, and that all classifications should be simple and distinct, to the Committee of Ways and Means.

By 1\fr. HOPKINS: The petition of soldiers of the late war and other citizens of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, that a pension be paid to Andrew Jackson, colored, to the Committee on Invalid Pen-sions. ·

By .Mr. HUNTON: The petition of Ma.ry Chichester, for compen­sation for her house and contents destroyed by fire immediately after its evacuation by General Geary, United States Army, to the Com­mittee on War Claims.

By Mr. McDILL: The petition of Ellen W. Hardwick, for a pen­sion, to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. MEADE: The petition of liquor dealers of New York, for the definition of the powers and duties of officers of the internal rev­enue and to further provide for the collection of the tax on distilled spirits, to tho Committee of Ways and 1\fe:ms.

' !

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 2899 By Mr. MUTCHLER: Remonstrance of citizens of Easton, Penn­

sylvania, against abolishing the free-delivery system by the Post­Office Department, to the Committee on the Post;.Office ·and Post-Roads. -

By Mr. LANDERS, of Indiana: Resolutions adopted at ·a mass meetin§ held at Indianapolis, Indiana, asking for the release of Ed­ward 0 M. Condon, confined in a British prison, to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. LYNCH : Papers relating to the claim of L. Levy, to the Committee on War Claims.

I3y Mr. ROBBINS, of Pennsylvania: A paper relative to the grant­ing of Mary Lavelette a. pension, to the Committee on Invalid Pen-sions. .

By Mr. WIGGINTON: The petition of Mrs. A. Hawkkins and 250 others, for a resurvey of the Rancho Rio de Santa Clara, in California, o the Committee on Public Lands.

IN SENATE. WEDNESDAY, May 3, ~876.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SuNDERLAND, D. D. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was r~ad and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS. The PRESIDENT pro tem,pore laid before the Senate a letter from

the Secretary of War, transmitting a special estimate, submitted by the Quartermaster-General, for an a:r,propriation for th~ present and ensuing fiscal years for rent of the building at the corner of Fifteenth street and Pennsylvania avenue, now occupied for the use of the Quar­termaster-General's Office; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a letter from Charles T. Gorham, act­ing Secretary of th~ Interior, transmitting, in response to a resolution of the Senate of March 6, 1876, calling for a statement of the annual expenditures of the Indian Bureau since its organization to the pres­ent time, and also the number of Indians provided for at the expense 9f the Government each year since the organization of the Bureau, a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, together with the accom­panying schedule therein referred to; which was referred to the Com-mittee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. .

TRANSFER OF AN APPROPRIATION. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I ask the unanimous consent of the Sen­

ate to have House bill No. 3356 considered without reference to a com­mittee.

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committ.ee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 3356) authorizing the trans­fer of a certain appropriation. ·

Of the sum of $585,000, appropriated in the first section of the act of March 3, 1875, making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending J nne 30, 1876, and f<;)r other purposes, for salaries of nine hundred and seventy-five light-house­keepers and light-beacon-keepers, and their assistants, the bill au­thorizes $16,000 to be transferred to and used in aid of the appropria­tion made in the same act for the maintenance of lights on the Mis­sissippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers, and such buoys as may be neces­sary, including salaries of keepers.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The bill explains itself, for, as a matter of fact, Senators have had no opportunity to give consideration to it. By an act of the last session, to the expenditures under the light-house board was added the service of the light-house board for light-houses, buoys, &c., on the Mississippi River. The general appropriation men­tion~d in the bill, $58.S,OOO, was for the purpose of paying salaries to the light-house-keepers generally over the country. There is a defi­ciency in the specific appropriation which was applied to the service on the low waters of the Missouri River. Being quite a small service and not being well established, it could not be accurately told how much would be needed. It turns out, however, that there is a. defi­ciency of about 16,000 needed to carry the service along to the end of the fiscal year. There is an immediate necessity for the action in­dicated in the bill, and if the money is to be used at all its use should be authorized at once. I hold in my han.d documents from the De­partment specifying these facts, but which, unless Senators desire to hear them, I hardly think it necessary to read. That is all there is of it. The bill has passe(l the House.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. Mr. MAXEY presented a petition of 133 citizens of Waxahachie,

Ellis County, Texas, praying for the establishment of certain post­routes therein named; which was referred to the Committee on Post­Offices a.nd Post-Roads.

Mr. McMILLAN presented a memorial of envelope-manufacturers, print.ers, stationers, &c., remonstrating against the manufacture and sale by the Government of envelopes, postal-cards, &c., at or below their cost; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads.

Mr. HARVEY presented a resolution of the board of county com­missioners of Saline County, Kansas, in favor of the passage of the bill (H. R. No. 1545) declaring lands heretofore granted to certain railroad ~oiQp~ subject to State taxation; which was referred to the Committee 'on Public Lands.

Mr. W ALLA.CE presented a memorial of liquor dealers and dis­tillers of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the pas­sage of the bill (H. R. No. 3137) to amend the laws relating to internal revenue; which -was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented a memorial of citizens of Easton, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the abolition of the free-delivm-y system of post-office matte1·; which was referred to the Committee on Post­Offices !l.nd Post-Roads.

He also presented a memorial of the town council of Easton, Penn­sylvania, remonstrating again.st any change in the free-delivery sys­tem of post-office matter; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads.

Mr. DORSEY. I present a petition of citizens of Hot Springs, Arkansas, very numerously signed, which I ask the Secretary to read.

The PRESIDENT pro te.mpore. The Chair hears no objection, and the Secretary will report the petition.

The Secretary read as follows :

To the honorable the Sena,t~ and HOU8c of Representati?Ju of the United States: The undersigned, resident settlers of Hot Springs, respectfully submit for the

consideration of the national Congress the following statement of facta : In the year 1832 an act was passed by Congress reserving from entry or sale

twenty-five hundred and sixty acres of land in and about the present town of Hot Springs, in the county of Garland and Stat-e of Arkansas, consistino- of sections 32 and 33, and the south one-half of sections 28 and 29 in township "'2 south, and the north one-half of sections 4 and 5, township 3 sont.b, range 19 west. 'fhe cele­brated hot springs are situated in the southwest one-quarter of section 33, town­ship 2 south, range 19 west.

The population of the town of Hot Springs, consisting of between three and four thousand souls, is not of recent <late ; but the settlers comprising it have set· tied here most of them long since, and their number has been gradnally increasing for many years. The well-known virtues of the hot waters in relieving many ob­stinate and painful diseases have for along period offered a. strona inducement for invalids to visit them, and many thousands have come and are still coming t.o avail themselves of their cp.rative properties. This continual tide of visitors has in­duced the erection from time to time of residences business houses hotels. &c.

A few parties, five or six in number, have for a Jong time claimed ownership of the hot springs and of the grouml adjacent theret.o upon said reservation. To these claimants those who have erected the buildings in the town of Hot Sprinaa have been compelled to pay continual tribute in the nature of ground-rent, yielru_;g to said claimants an annual revenue of from $60,000 to $75,000. It thus appears that a few persona who have no title to the property have demanded and collected from those settlers who came later an unjnst and oppressive ground-rent under a pretense of ownership of said ground. This anomalous condition still exists greatly retarding the prosperity of the settlers and the growth of the town. '

And therefore we, the undersigned, bona fuk sett.Iers upon said reservation. hav­ing erected substantial improvements thereon, humbly pray that such legislation may be had t.onching the final disposition of said reservation as will afford us the privilege of acquiring title for a fair consideration to tho ground on which our im­provements stand, and also such other protection and relief as Congress in ita wisdom may see fit to grant.

Mr. DORSEY. I move the reference of the petition to the Com­mittee on Public Lands.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. DORSEY. I also present a petition of resident settlers of Hot

Springs, Arkansas, numbering, I think, something over three hundred and representing improvements amounting to about $350,000, praying sue~ legisl~tion ~y Congress as will enabi? them to acquire title, for a fair consideratiOn, to the ground on wh1ch they have erected im­provements. I move that this petition be referred to the Committee on Public Lands. ·

The motion was agreed to. Mr. WHYTE prese~ted the me~orial of William McKim, president

of the Peabody Institute of Baltimore, Maryland, in favor of Con­gress fixing some date several years in advance when the metric stand­ard in the office of weights and measures at Washington shall be made the sole authorized public standard of weights and measures· which was referred to the Committee on Finance. '

He also presented the petition of Daniel Girard Wright ~f Balti­more, :Maryland, administrator of the estate of Samuel T. Anderson, late naval store-keeper in the United States Navy, praying for the al­lowance and payment of claims alleged to be due the estate of Ander­son forservicesrendereddnring thewarof 1812; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

He also presented the memorial of J. W. Brandel, Evelina Brandel ~nd other heirs at law of J. M. Brandel, of Baltimore, Maryland, pray~ mg an allowance out of the Geneva award for losses sustained by the capture of ~he bar~ Empress Theresa by the rebel privateer Talla­hassee; which was referred to the Committee on" the Judiciary.

The PRESIDENT pro tempo,re presented the petition of the colored people of the United States represented in national convention at Nash­ville, Tennessee, praying appropriate legislation under the-fifteenth amendment for the protection of colored people in the exercise of their political powers; which was referred to the Committee on the Judici­ary.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. Mr. McCREERY, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom

was referred the bill (S. No. 510) to give the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company the right of way through the Indian Terri­wry to o. point opposite the town of Fort Smith, State of Arkansas,