the vote, as it appears in the record, does show that the vote of these two counties was so canvassed and returned. It is conceded on every hand that Kittson County was, at the time of the election in November, 1878, an unorganized county. It was attached to the county of Polk, an organized county, for election purposes, in accordance with the law of the State of Minnesota, and the return thus made is in exact. accord with the requirements of the statute of the State. We give here in full the section of the statute bearing upon that subject. It is as follows: After the canvass is thus completed, the judges of election, before they disperse. shall inclose the said returns in a cover, seal the same, and indorse thereon the following words, viz: "Election returns of the election district of - -, in the county of -," and direct the same to the county auditor of their county; and the said returns shall, within five days of the day of election, be conveyed by one of said judges, to be chosen by lot, if not otherwise agreed upon, and delivered to the said county auditor at his office: Provided, That the returns of election in unorganized counties shall be made to the auditor of the county to which they are attached for elective purposes, and the votes shall be canvassed, and certificates of election issued to the persons elected, in the manner provided in this chapter for canvassing votes and issuing certificates of election in organized counties. (Bissell's Statutes, page 171.) The abstract and certificate thereto and the attestation thereof are in precise accordance with the requirements of the law of the State of Minnesota. It is not true that the vote of the counties of Polk and Kittson is lumped together in such abstract. The abstract itself, as well as the proof in the case, shows that there were but two precincts in the county of Kittson, and the vote of these two precincts is stated in the abstract separately. There is no difficulty about separating this vote on a mere inspection of the abstract, but if it were true that the vote of the several precincts could not be distinguished, it would not be an objection, for still the abstract would be in accordance with the law of the State. It is expressly admitted by the contestant in his argument, and all the way through the case, that the majority for Washburn, as returned in the county of Polk, was 497, and also that the majority as returned for Washburn in the county of Kittson was 181. On what theory members of the committee are now able to say that the vote of these two counties is so intermingled as to be indistinguishable we have not been able to discover. In the contestant's printed brief, under the head of "Polk County," in speaking of the contestee's majority, he expressly states that 497 of his majority was received from Polk County alone (printed brief, page 4). The witnesses, in speaking of these two counties and giving the votes by precincts, also mention the vote, as indicated in the abstract referred to. The contestant has put into the record a complete abstract of the votes cast in the several counties in the State of Minnesota, in which the vote of Polk County is given, Washburn 659, Donnelly 180; and Kittson County, Washburn 183, Donnelly 2 (Record, pages 58, 72). The same and a similar abstract has also been put in evidence by the contestee, which shows the vote as stated (Record, pages 343, 346). This abstract of the entire vote cast in the third district of the State of Minnesota in itself proves the vote to have been cast for the contestant and contestee as given in the abstract found on page 64 of the record. It is proper to observe that there is nothing in the record to show that other returns of the vote cast in the county of Polk and the county of Kittson may not have been made separately. And it is important to say that in the contestant's notice nothing is said by way of objection to the return made of the vote cast in either of these counties; but, on the contrary, the contestant, in paragraph 7 of his notice, expressly admits that the votes of these two counties were cast, returned, counted, and canvassed without attacking the regularity of the return or the counting or the canvassing of such vote. He does say in his notice that "the officers receiving, counting, and canvassing said alleged votes were not officers of said election districts or said counties," thus expressly admitting that officers did receive, count, and canvass the votes. There is, however, no objection made to appear by the evidence that the officers were not the proper officers to receive, count, and canvass the votes. We are cited to the testimony of one witness, John N. Gilman, to show that this county was not attached to some other organized county for election purposes. But the proof of this witness is, that as a lawyer he did not know that it was legal for votes to be cast in unorganized counties, and he had never seen a law authorizing certain unorganized counties to be attached to organized counties for election purposes (page 41). The contestant claims in the face of the record and the official returns from Polk County that he has proved that one precinct, to wit, Farley, which gave Washburn 9 votes and Donnelly 24 votes, was not, in fact, in Polk County, as appears by the abstract. If his testimony could be relied upon, and his objection was good, and contestant's notice justified the proof, which it does not, the contestee might be quite willing to have the vote of this precinct rejected. There is no attempt to offer any proof to show that any other precinct canvassed and returned in Polk or Kittson County was not in the counties indicated in the abstract. But the sole witness relied upon to prove that Farley precinct was not in Polk County has no sort of knowledge on the subject. The first question asked him by the contestant (page 226) was as follows: Q. Do you know whether the polling-place at Farley is in this [referring to Polk County] or Kittson County? His answer was A. I was told that the polls of Farley was not in Polk County. No, sir; nothing else. His testimony on cross-examination is as follows: Q. Do you know where the north line of the county lies as regards Farley?—A. I could not tell you exactly where it is, but I thought it was outside of the line. This is too shadowy to found a judgment upon to overthrow the official returns and canvass of a precinct as made by officers who are to be presumed to have done their duty as precinct, county, and State officers. The testimony itself is not competent, because it is purely hearsay, and shows upon its face that the witness is talking from mere rumor. It is a well-known fact that for many years the vote in these two counties has been counted, canvassed, and returned together for all State officers, as well as for electors and members of Congress. In the absence of proof it should be conclusively presumed that the election officers in election districts or precincts, and the county canvassing board of Polk County, and the State canvassing board, composed of the governor and the secretary of state, who are required to act in the presence of the auditor of state, attorney-general, and one or more judges of the supreme court, have done their duty. This is so clear, that it can hardly be imagined that further objection would be made to counting 436 votes for Washburn and 135 votes for Donnelly, cast in the county of Polk, as to which there is no other objection than the fact that they were canvassed with the votes from Kittson County. If the return should be defective as to Kittson County it is wholly unobjectionable as to Polk County. There is absolutely no attempt by contestant's notice or in his argument to deprive Mr. Washburn of a majority of 301 votes in the county of Polk, and it is difficult to properly characterize the attempt to do so now. In conclusion, it may be proper to say on the subject of the vote of the counties of Polk and Kittson that, notwithstanding the fact that extended oral arguments were made by the contestant, no objection was made throughout them to counting the vote of these two counties on the ground that it was not properly canvassed and returned. The returned majority for W. D. Washburn is 3,013. If the views of the members of the committee who are in favor of unseating him should be adopted, then there should be added to this majority the unreturned votes cast for him from the counties of Stearns (144) and Morrison (68), 212, which would increase his majority to 3,225. On this theory of the case there should be deducted, on account of unreturned votes claimed to have been cast for Donnelly in the counties of Stearns (396), Morrison (165), and Douglas (61), a total of 622 votes, which would reduce Mr. Washburn's majority to 2,603. The entire majority for Mr. Washburn in Crookston (168), Polk County, and in Tamarack and Two Rivers precinct (181), (his whole vote in Kittson County), and all the alleged bribed votes (22), as found by a portion of the committee, aggregate 371 votes, which, if deducted from the number ascertained as above, would still leave the sitting member with a majority of 2,232, as to which no bribery is pretended, and as to no portion of which can there be any reasonable or possible pretense for a valid or legal objection. In the light of the law, and giving due weight to all competent testimony in the case, not even a technical ground can be found for rejecting any part of a majority thus found. The members of the committee who concur in the annexed resolution declaring that W. D. Washburn was duly elected, &c., do not agree that his true majority is only 2,232. Ten members (two-thirds) of the whole committee conçur in holding that Ignatius Donnelly was not elected, and that he is not entitled to a seat in the House. It seems to the members of the committee who, without qualification, sign this report that it is a gross inconsistency to not find as a logical consequence that W. D. Washburn was duly elected to his seat in the House of Representatives. A resolution declaring that Ignatius Donnelly is not entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives is reported in accordance with the instructions of the committee. The members of the committee who sign this report concur generally in the views therein expressed and in recommending for adoption by the House of the following resolutions: Resolved, That William D. Washburn is entitled to retain his seat as a member of the Forty-sixth Congress of the United States as Representative of the third Congressional district of the State of Minnesota. Resolved, That Ignatius Donnelly is not entitled to a seat as a member of the Forty-sixth Congress as Representative from the third Congressional district of the State of Minnesota. J. WARREN KEIFER. E. OVERTON, JR. LIST OF CASES. Acklen vs. Darrall, third Congressional district of Louisiana, Forty-fifth Con- Bisbee vs. Hull, second Congressional district of Florida, Forty-sixth Congress. Bradley vs. Slemons, second Congressional district of Arkansas, Forty-sixth Page. 124 315 346 296 Curtin rs. Yocum, twentieth Congressional district of Pennsylvania, Forty-sixth Dean rs. Field, third Congressional district of Massachusetts, Forty-fifth Con- Donnelly rs. Washburn, third Congressional district of Minnesota, Forty-sixth Duffy rs. Mason, twenty-fourth Congressional district of New York, Forty-sixth Finley rs. Bisbee, second Congressional district of Florida, Forty-fifth Con- Frost r8. Metcalfe, third Congressional district of Missouri, Forty-fifth Congress. Herbert vs. Acklen, third Congressional district of Louisiana, Forty-sixth Congress Holmes, J. C., claimant, eighth Congressional district of Iowa, Forty-sixth Con- Iowa election case, eighth Congressional district of Iowa, Forty-sixth Congress. Merchant vs. Acklen, third Congressional district of Louisiana, Forty-sixth Con- 416 190 439 361 74 289 345 322 322 322 320 345 O'Hara 8. Kitehin, second Congressional district of North Carolina, Fortysixth Congress.. 378 Patterson rs. Belford, State of Colorado, Forty-fifth Congress.. 52 Richardson vs. Rainey, first Congressional district of South Carolina, Forty-fifth 224 Wigginton v8. Pacheco, fourth Congressional district of California, Forty-fifth 5 Wilson, J. J., claimant, ninth Congressional district of Iowa, Forty-sixth Congress 322 Yeates vs. Martin, first Congressional district of North Carolina, Forty-sixth 384 |