neccessary to deduct the sum of 21 and 13, to wit, 34 from 154, leaving 120 names, which must have been on the registration books of both Goose Nest and Hamilton precincts, and which were marked challenged and rejected on the registration book of Goose Nest precinct. Johnson swears that these all tendered votes for Martin as Representative, and were rejected on the ground that they did not produce a certificate that their names had been erased from the registration books of Hamilton precinct, and this is confirmed by other witnesses.

On the night preceding the election, and after the judges at Goose Nest had rendered their above decision, J. T. Hyman, a Democrat, the registrar at Goose Nest, in company with one J. T. Weldo, the person who had called the attention of the judges to the said twelfth section, and one Boyle, went to Hamilton precinct and asked the Hamilton registrar to issue the required certificates of erasure to a number of electors, most of whose names were upon a list presented by them, comprising between one and two hundred names, for which electors the required certificates were issued by the Hamilton registrar, taking until about 10 o'clock that night to get through the list. Besides these, about a dozen electors applied in person for such certificates and obtained them. Hyman, the registrar at Goose Nest, before 12 o'clock that night, marked the word "certificate" opposite the names of the above-named electors in his registration book, and opposite the names of the other electors, whose names had been transferred to his book from the Hamilton book, he placed a cross mark. Those whose names were marked opposite with the word "certificate" were allowed to vote next day, and those marked with a cross were refused, singly, as each presented his ballot.

The electors so refused their votes then applied on election day, through one W. A. Johnson, an elector, to the registrar of Hamilton precinct for the certificates required, and the said registrar refused to give them the certificates (page 75).

These electors were the same persons who had tendered their votes for Martin as Representative in Congress.

Upon this state of facts the contestee contends that he is entitled to have counted for him the votes thus offered and illegally refused; or, to have rejected the 132 majority already counted for the contestant at this precinct on these grounds:

I. Unless the transfer of the names of electors at this precinct from the registration book of Hamilton to the registration book of Goose Nest was valid as a registration without any personal act on the part of electors, no one of these electors was legally registered at the precinct; for it is not in evidence that any oue applied in person to be registered and took the required oath. The fact that an oath is required as a prerequisite to registration makes registration a personal act, which cannot be performed by proxy. If, as contended by contestant, a certificate of removal of residence from Hamilton precinct and erasure from the registration book of that precinct was a prerequisite to registration in Goose Nest precinct, then, under section 12 of the North Carolina election law, such certificate was required to be presented in person previous to registration anew at Goose Nest; and the law expressly requires that such presentation shall be accompanied with the oath of the elector that he is the identical person named in the certificate, and also by the general oath set forth in section 12. It is not pretended that any of the electors for whom such certificates were taken out presented them in person or took the required oaths. Indeed, the contrary appears. (See Record, page 71.) And it does not appear that those for whom certificates were taken out by proxy either authorized the application for them or even knew that the certificates had been applied for or taken out for them until informed of the fact at the polls.

II. If such certificates were a prerequisite to registration, then the granting of them on the day of election would have entitled the holders to register on that day, because they would in that case "become on that day entitled to register," as required in the thirteenth section of the election laws of North Carolina.

III. The application for these certificates, made for these electors on the day of election, and refused, was a complete compliance, on their part, with the requirements of the law as interpreted by the judges of election, and entitled them to vote as fully as if the certificates had been granted and they duly registered. See act of May 31, 1870, sec. 3 (U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 17, p. 140).

IV. But really these certificates were not necessary at all, and they were not even authorized to be issued under the twelfth section of the North Carolina election law. It is evident that the twelfth section was meant only for such electors as should change their residence from one township or precinct to another; and therefore has no reference to the case in hand, where none of the electors in question had changed their residence. This is plain from the fact that each certificate is required to state that "the elector has removed from the said township or precinct." It is still plainer from the fact that such certificates were only for the purpose of enabling registered voters who had removed to register again in another ward, precinct, or township." But their registration at Goose Nest had already been completed under sec. 6 of the North Carolina law, the proceeding under which section is declared to be for the express purpose of not "requiring such electors to be registered anew."

We think the last ground at least is well taken, and that the statute so far as a certificate is concerned has no application to such a case as this is. The certificate required is "a certificate of the registrar of the former township, ward, or precinct that said elector has removed from said township, ward, or precinct, and that his name has been erased from the registration books of the ward, township, or precinct from which he has removed." None of these electors whose votes were refused had removed from any precinct, but by the re-establishment of Goose Nest precinct, without any removal on their part, they became resident in that precinct, and as the registrar had properly put their names on the registration books of Goose Nest pursuant to section 6 of the act of March 12, 1877, we think their votes should have been received, and having been illegally rejected should now be counted, and we find the number to have been at least 120, which should be added to Mr. Martin's vote.

RESULT.

Martin's returned plurality..

Add plurality for Martin in Salem precinct, not counted.

Add votes rejected in Goose Nest precinct, at least..

Subtract Yeates's plurality in Providence Township, not counted

Martin's plurality

51

135

120

306

39

267

If to this is added the votes cast for Mr. Martin in Merry Hill precinct, and rejected, to wit, 108, the plurality of Mr. Martin is 375. We recommend the passage of the following resolutions: Resolved, That Joseph J. Martin, the sitting member, is entitled to his seat in this House as a Representative in the Forty-sixth Congress from the first Congressional district of North Carolina.

Resolved, That Jesse J. Yeates is not entitled to a seat in this House as a Representative in the Forty-sixth Congress from the first Congressional district of North Carolina.

W. A. FIELD.

J. WARREN KEIFER.

J. H. CAMP.

E. OVERTON, JR.

W. H. CALKINS.

ANDREW G. CURTIN vs. SETH H. YOCUM.

TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

The principal question in this case is whether all the clauses in the new constitution and laws of Pennsylvania relating to "suffrage and elections," and especially those prescribing the qualifications of electors, are mandatory, and therefore not to be deviated from in any particular, or whether some of them are mandatory and others directory merely

Held, That the provisions of the constitution (Pennsylvania) relating to the registry of voters is not mandatory in so far as it affects the right of a non-registered voter to vote, if he is otherwise qualified, the constitution providing: "But no elector shall be deprived of the privilege of voting by reason of his name not being registered."

Held, That the election law requiring a qualified elector to produce his own affidavit and that of a voter of his election district to his qualifications is directory merely. If the elector refuses to comply on being requested, the vote should be refused, because he refuses to obey a reasonable regulation, and he hurts no one but himself. But if he is allowed to vote without being required to file the affidavits, and is otherwise qualified, his vote is not an illegal one. Held, That where the law requires several acts to be done by the officers of election, as (1) to ascertain whether a party offering to vote was registered; if he was not, (2) to require an affidavit of himself and a registered voter; (3) to see that it was subscribed and sworn; and (4) to keep it till the election was over, and then return it to the prothonotary's office with certain other papers, and the last act was not performed, does not show that the rest were left undone, nor must they be presumed not to have required the affidavits at all.

The House adopted the minority report May 11, 1880.

Mr. CALKINS submitted the following as the

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY:

It was admitted in argument in this case that one of the controlling questions is whether all the clauses in the new constitution and laws of Pennsylvania relating to suffrage and elections," and especially those prescribing the qualifications of electors, are mandatory, and therefore not to be deviated from in any particular, or whether some of them are mandatory and others directory merely.

The qualifications under the constitution are—

ARTICLE VIII.

SECTION 1. Every male citizen twenty-one years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections:.

First. He shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. Second. He shall have resided in the State one year (or if, having previously been a qualified elector or native-born citizen of the State, he shall have removed therefrom and returned, then six months) immediately preceding the election.

Third. He shall have resided in the election district where he shall offer to vote at least two months immediately preceding the election.

Fourth. If twenty-two years of age or upwards, he shall have paid within two years

a State and county tax, which shall have been assessed at least two months and paid at least one month before the election.

These are the qualifications of voters as determined and fixed in the organic law of Pennsylvania, and are not in conflict with section 2, article 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

It will be seen that these qualifications are five in number, and all pertain to the person of the voter.

They are personal qualifications, namely: First, age; second, United States citizenship; third, State residence; fourth, election district or precinct residence; fifth, payment of taxes.

We are free to admit that no person is a qualified voter who does not combine in himself all these prerequisites; that the provisions of the constitution in relation thereto are imperative, and are not to be departed from. As no question which can affect the result in this case arises under any of these clauses, we pass to another question, which is more difficult to solve, and one not free from conflict and doubt. It is this: Are the constitution and laws of Pennsylvania on the subject of registration imperative and mandatory? The constitutional provision is as follows:

ARTICLE VIII.

SEC. 4. All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot. Every ballot voted shall be numbered in the order in which it shall be received, and the number recorded by the election officers on the list of voters, opposite the name of the elector who presents the ballot. Any elector may write his name upon his ticket, or cause the same to be written thereon, and attested by a citizen of the district. The election officers shall be sworn or affirmed not to disclose how any elector shall have voted, unless required to do so as a witness in a judicial proceeding.

SEC. 1. All laws regulating the holding of elections by the citizens, or for the regis tration of electors, shall be uniform throughout the State; but no elector shall be deprived of the privilege of voting by reason of his name not being registered.

The foregoing two sections of the constitution comprise all that is necessary to quote in this connection. The law passed to carry out the above provisions, so far as is necessary to notice, will appear as we progress in this investigation.

The first section of the law relates to the duties of the assessors in making registry lists and returning them to the county commissioners, setting aside a time for revision before them. It also provides the machinery for carrying on the election. This is true also of the next preceding sections down to and including section 9.

Section 10 of the registry law under consideration refers to non-registered voters. We deem it proper to set it out in full.

On the day of election any person whose name shall not appear on the registry of voters, and who claims the right to vote at said election, shall produce at least one qualified voter of the district in which he claims to be a voter for the period of at least two months immediately preceding said election, which witness shall be sworn or affirmed, and subscribe a written or partly written and partly printed affidavit to the facts stated by him, which affidavit shall define clearly where the residence is of the person so claiming to be a voter; and the person so claiming the right to vote shall also take and subscribe a written or partly written and partly printed affidavit, stating to the best of his knowledge and belief when and where he was born; that he has been a citizen of the United States for one month, and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; that he has resided in the Commonwealth one year, or if formerly a qualified elector, or a native-born citizen thereof, and has removed there from and

H. Mis. 58-27

returned, that he has resided therein six months next preceding said election; that he has resided in the district in which he claims to be a voter for the period of at least two months immediately preceding said election; that he has not moved into the district for the purpose of voting therein; that he has, if twenty-two years of age, or upwards, paid a State or county tax within two years, which was assessed at least two months and paid at least one month before the election.

The said affidavit shall also state when and where the tax claimed to be paid by the affidavit was assessed, and when and where and to whom paid; and the tax receipt therefor shall be produced for examination, unless the affiant shall state in his affidavit that it has been lost or destroyed, or that he never received any; and, if a naturalized citizen, shall also state, when, where, and by what court he was naturalized, and shall also produce his certificate of naturalization for examination. But if the person so claiming the right to vote shall take and subscribe an affidavit that he is a native-born citizen of the United States, or if born elsewhere shall state the fact in his affidavit, and shall produce evidence that he has been naturalized or that he is entitled to citizenship by reason of his father's naturalization; and shall further state in his affidavit that he is, at the time of making the affidavit, of the age of twenty-one and under twenty-two years; that he has been a citizen of the United States one month and has resided in the State one year; or if a native-born citizen of the State and removed therefrom and returned, that he has resided therein six months next preceding said election, and in the election district two months immediately preceding said election, he shall be entitled to vote although he shall not have paid taxes.

The said affidavits of all persons making such claims, and the affidavits of the witnesses to their residence, shall be preserved by the election board, and at the close of the election they shall be inclosed with the list of voters, tally-list, and other papers required by law to be filed by the return judge with the prothonotary, and shall remain on file therewith in the prothonotary's office, subject to examination as other election papers are. If the election officers shall find that the applicant possesses all the legal qualifications of a voter he shall be permitted to vote, and his name shall be added to the list of taxables by the election officers, the word "tax" being added when the claimant claims to vote on tax, and the word " age" when he claims to vote on age; the same words being added by the clerks in each case respectively on the lists of persons voting at such elections.

Sections 11 and 12 of the act provide penalties for the failure of any of the election officers to perform their duties.

The remaining sections of the law provide for the counting of the vote, the return, and the manner of preserving the papers, ballots, &c.; in short, provides the machinery for carrying out the will of the people as expressed through the ballot-box. Other provisions of the law will be adverted to as they arise.

Having brought to the notice of the House the constitutional provisious, and the law passed by the general assembly of the State of Pennsylvania to carry it into effect, it is proper to call attention to the construction thereof as contended for by the parties to the contest, so far as they affect the present question.

It is assumed by contestant, and we believe, found to be true by the majority of the committee that it is proven that 1,000 and upwards of non-registered electors, voted at the election at which contestant and contestee were opposing candidates. We cannot acquiesce in this finding, as we believe the evidence does not support this view, and we will discuss this branch of the case at the proper time. But assuming the facts to be as stated, we must dissent from the conclusion of law arrived at by our associates. We do not believe that the provisions of the constitution relating to the registry of voters is mandatory in so far as it affects the right of a non-registered voter to vote if he is otherwise qualified. The clause of the constitution in terms excludes any such conclusion. The words "but no elector shall be deprived of the priv ilege of voting by reason of his name not being registered," found in section 1, article 8, to my mind settles the question. They are plain, and admit of but one interpretation, and applying the acknowledged rule to them that the ordinary import of words shall be taken to be their meaning, leaves no room for doubt.