The above precincts are rejected because of specific acts of fraud, violence, and intimidation having been proven.

At North Oxford precinct the contestee's party friends, on the day of election, fired a cannon in close proximity to the polls, and kept it up at intervals for quite a while. At Byhalia precinct the ballot-box was stuffed. At the other precinct there were irregularities of various kinds, chief among which was the exclusion of the United States supervisor from the polls and the counting of the votes.

DONNELLY-WASHBURN CASE.

We are not willing to go as far in this case as the majority of the committee did in the Forty-sixth Congress in the case of Donnelly vs. Washburn. It was there held

The very fact that in these seven precincts Mr. Donnelly had been deprived by the city council of Minneapolis of all representation among the officers conducting the election is, in itself, a very strong proof of conspriacy and fraud.

We may remark that there is abundance of testimony in this case showing that nearly one-half of the polls in some of the counties were under the exclusive control of the party friends of the contestee; and it is stoutly maintained by the contestant that the refusal to register qualified Republican voters, and that the appointment of incompetent Republican election precinct officers at other polling places, and various other acts and omissions on the part of the partisan friends of the contestee, taken in connection with the fact that at many of the precincts only Democrats were appointed election officers, afford a strong reason why the rule laid down in the Washburn-Donnelly case should apply in this.

The appointment of managers of election, in fairness and common decency, should be made from opposite political parties. A refusal to do so in the face of a statute directing it to be done may in some instances be evidence of fraud, and it might form an important link in the chain of circumstances tending to establish a conspiracy.

We are not satisfied that the evidence in this case establishes such a conspiracy.

A word of explanation. When the Committee on Elections decided this case in committee there were several members absent, as the record of the committee will show. When the report was signed a majority of the committee agreed to the minority report.

We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution : Resolved, That the contestant have leave to withdraw his papers without prejudice.

We concur in the conclusion reached by this report.

W. H. CALKINS.

GEO. C. HAZELTON.
JNO. T. WAIT.

S. H. MILLER.

F. E. BELTZHOOVER.

G. ATHERTON.

S. W. MOULTON.

L. H. DAVIS.

BUCHANAN vs. MANNING.

Mr. W. G. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Elections, submitted the following

MINORITY REPORT:

The second Congressional district is composed of the counties of De Soto, Marshall, Tate, Panola, La Fayette, Tallahatchie, Yalobusha, Benton, Tippah, and Union.

The election for members of Congress was held on the 2d day of November, 1880, and the candidates for Congress were Thomas W. Harris (Greenbacker), George M. Buchanan (Republican), and Van H. Manning (Democrat).

The motion of contestant, in which he set out his grounds of contest, and the reply of contestee thereto, are as follows, to wit:

Notice of contest.

Col. VAN H. MANNING:

HOLLY SPRINGS, MISS., November 23, 1880.

You will take notice that it is my intention to contest your election as a member of Congress for the second district of Mississippi, as a result of the election held for the election of a member of Congress on Tuesday, November 2, 1880, in said district, and on the following grounds:

1st. That in a portion of the counties comprising said district such persons were not appointed, neither was such representation given to the different political parties in said counties in the appointments of county commissioners of election as was designed and required by law.

2d. That in a portion of the counties comprising said district election districts are abolished and other election districts established without complying with and in violation of law.

3d. That in a portion of the counties comprising said district the registration of voters was not conducted as required by law, thereby depriving a large number of persons (of lawful right) of the privilege of registering and voting.

4th. That at a large number of voting places in said district-in the appointment of inspectors of election-such persons were not appointed, nor was such representation given (in making said appointinents) to the different political parties, as was designed and required by law.

5th. That in several of the counties comprising said district a large number of persons lawfully entitled to register were refused registration, and that the registration and transferring of votes was discontinued many days prior to the time contemplated by law, thereby depriving a large number of persons lawfully entitled to register (or transfer) from the right of registering or transferring and voting; and that in a por tion of said counties the registration books were for a time removed from the place designated by law for their keeping, thereby depriving a large number of persons (of lawful right) of the privilege of registering (or transferring) and voting.

6th. That at a large number of voting places in said district many lawful voters were not permitted to vote, their votes having been tendered and rejected by the inspectors of election; that such unlawful interference and hinderance was permitted and practiced (such as is specially forbidden by law) as to obstruct and confuse the voters in the act of voting, or to deceive and prevent a large number of voters from delivering their ballots at the proper voting places; that a large number of persons were permitted to vote for you who had no legal right to vote.

7th. That at many of the voting places United States supervisors of election were not permitted to exercise the duties of their office, being prevented therefrom by the unlawful interference of other officers of election, or from other sources, in violation of law, and to such an extent as to prevent their ascertaining the result of the election and from performing other duties required of them by law; that no separate lists of the names of voters were kept by the clerks of election, as was required by law; that the poles were not opened at the time required by law, were not kept open continuously from 9 a. m. till 6 p. m., as required by law, and that upon the closing of the polls the counting of the vote and making up of returns was not done at the voting places nor at the time required by law.

8th. That at many of the voting places ballots were received and counted that were not lawful ballots in form aud print; that inspectors of election rejected and refused

to count ballots that were lawful after the same had been lawfully deposited in the ballot-boxes; that inspectors of election (with knowledge of the fact at the time) premitted ballots to be voted that were not lawful ballots; that during the hours prescribed by law for voting voters were harassed and disturbed in such a manner as to prevent their voting in a free, fair, untrammeled, and peaceable manner.

9th. That the names of a large number of legally registered voters were not placed upon the poll books (by the officers whose duty it was to place said names on said books) used at many of the voting places, and that in consequence thereof said legally registered voters were not permitted to vote, their votes being refused by the inspectors of elections, said inspectors giving as a reason for such refusal to receive such votes that the names of the parties applying to vote were not on the poll-books.

10th. That the entire vote polled and counted and returned at a part of said voting places was unlawfully rejected and thrown out (and not counted) by the county commissioners of election on making up their returns of the total vote of the county.

11th. That at a portion of the voting places the ballot-boxes were not opened in public when the poles closed, nor was the vote counted in public, nor at the time required by law to be counted; that in making up the returns a large number of ballots were counted as having been cast for you, when in truth and in fact such ballots were cast for other persons, or were ballots placed in the boxes in a manner not authorized by law.

12th. That at many of the voting places a much larger number of votes were returned as having been polled than were actually polled at said voting places; that at many of the voting places the poll-books for said places unlawfully contained the names of a large number of voters, which voters had no right to a vote at such voting places, but resided in other election districts, and that the names of said voters also appeared on the poll-books of the voting places of election districts to which said voters of right belonged.

13th. That at many voting places the election was conducted in many respects in utter disregard of law and the rights of voters; that the registration books and the poll books of a portion of the counties and election districts in said district were at divers and sundry times not in the custody and keeping of the proper lawfully constituted officers, but were on divers and sundry occasions in the care and possession of persons not lawfully entitled to such care and possession; that at a portion of the voting places lawful ballots that were cast for me were not counted for me, but were (unlawfully) counted as having been cast for you, and were so returned by the officers of election; that there were a greater number of legal voters of said district who voted (or who offered to register and vote), and who were unlawfully prevented therefrom, who desired me as their Representative in Congress than there were who desired you as their Representative in Congress from said district.

Very respectfully,

Contestee's answer.

GEO. M. BUCHANAN.

Capt. GEO. M. BUCHANAN:

SIR: I am in receipt of a notice from you, dated November 23, 1880, of your intention to contest my election as a member of Congress of the 2d district of Mississippi, as a result of the election held on the 24 November last.

To said notice I make the following answers, to wit:

First answer. Protesting against the truth of the allegations in said notice, I object and say that said notice is so insufficient and defective that I need not deny or admit the allegation thereof, for the reasons, to wit, said notice does not specify particularly the grounds upon which you rely, and gives no reason for failing so to do.

2d. The allegations are only conclusions of law and general averments of wrongdoing in some undefined portions of the district, by unnamed election officials of precincts not specified, in unnamed counties, or by persons not named or described, and in places and by means not specified, and in violation of laws and the rights of others not designated.

3d. Your allegations are so vague and uncertain that I am not informed as to the persons or officials whom you accuse of crime, nor where committed, nor do you aver that such wrong doings were not instigated by you or that they were known to or acquiesced in by me, or that the result of the election was changed by reason of the matters set forth.

Second answer. Without waiving any objection to the manifold vital defects of said notice, but reserving all benefit and advantage thereof, I deny each and every ground of contest set forth in said notice, and deny each and every allegation therein contained, and aver that throughout said Congressional district a free and fair election

was held in all respects, except that in the county of Marshall and other counties, at every precinct, divers colored voters who wished to vote for me for member of Congress were deterred and prevented from doing so by reason of the threats of personal violence and other means of intimidation used and employed by other colored people, the neighbors of such voters (the names of all of whom are unknown to me), being instigated thereto by those that advocated your election, whereby I received less votes by one thousand or more than I otherwise would; and all such voters by means of such intimidations were induced, contrary to their wishes, not to vote at all, or to vote for you, and thereby the great majority of votes that I should have received more than you at said election was reduced to the number of about five thousand two hundred and fifty.

Third answer. I charge and aver that you have made the wholesale charges of all kinds of crimes and irregularities contained in your said notice without specifications of persons or places, not because you had reason to believe that any one of them had been committed to your injury, but with the deliberate purpose to evade the limitation of the statute and to speculate upon any future discoveries of evidence, and so you have made unlawful, vexatious, and fraudulent use of the notice and process authorized by statute, and the same should be quashed and dismissed.

Respectfully, yours,

WASHINGTON, December 20, 1880.

VAN H. MANNING.

It will be observed that in the beginning the contestee claimed that the notice of contest was insufficient, and has insisted for that cause that the case should be dismissed.

In whatever manner any failure of proper notice might affect the right of contestant in this case (for insufficiency of pleading), if upon examination of the facts in the case it appear that the sitting member is not entitled to a seat it is the duty of the committee to so report.

It appears that the race in this district was strongly contested by three candidates, representatives of the three political parties of the country.

ORGANIZATION OF PARTIES.

We will first notice the evidence bearing on the organization of each of the parties in the district at the time of this election.

We would prefer to eliminate from our report all reference to the organization of voters by colors, but as this question is fully developed by evidence we cannot well avoid it.

The contestee in his answer evidently relies upon the support of a large number of colored voters to bear out his right to a seat, and it is in his answer to notice of contest that the division of electors by colors is first referred to in the case.

We have in evidence conflicting statements as to the number of voters in the district.

On page 393 of Record the contestee places in evidence a recent State census of Mississippi, and on page 199 is found the United States census for 1880, placed in evidence by the contestant.

Taking the latter, and applying the general rule of one voter to every five inhabitants, there are 19,743 colored voters and 17,155 white voters in the district, showing a majority of colored voters of some 2,600 while the former shows that there are 19,780 white voters and 18,998 colored voters in the district. We have examined the facts and comparisons made in contestant's brief (page 50) in relation to the State census, and are disposed to be governed by the United States census. As to manner and spirit of the canvass, it is the universal testimony that each party was active and zealous in its efforts to obtain a full vote, and that the canvass was conducted with an industry on the part of all three parties seldom developed in election cases. That each party made

most extraordinary efforts to bring every possible voter to the polls is shown all through the evidence. And for that reason we do not deem it necessary to refer to it in detail. Nor is the manner in which the voters were organized and came to the polls less fully shown. Especially is it developed in the evidence of witnesses introduced by contestant upon this point.

We are disposed to give more than ordinary weight to the evidence of witnesses who (politically) are not supposed to have any special interest in the result of this controversy. We therefore submit the evidence as follows, which is fully corroborated throughout the testimony. See Record, p. 19, q. 9; p. 22, q. 6 and 7; p. 26, q. 8; p. 23, q. 3; p. 35, q. 3; p. 40, q. 3; p. 464, q. 16; p. 445, q. 405; p. 474, witness Settle; p. 476, witness Matthews; p. 51, q. 3; p. 210, witness Nunnally; p. 189, q. 1; p. 185, q.5; p. 193, q. 8; p. 56, q. 10.

Page 205:

JOHN S. BURTON, being sworn according to law, testifies as follows:

Question 1. You have been heretofore examined in this case, have you not?—Answer. I have.

Q. 2. State what your personal relations are to Mr. George M. Buchanan, the contestant in this case, and what they were during the canvass of 1880: also state your connection with the canvass of that period, and the position that you occupied then to Mr. Buchanan in the canvass.-A. I am a close friend to Mr. Buchanan. At the commencement of the campaign I agreed to take charge of his Congressional candidacy, in which I employed speakers in the district, and employed speakers out of the district to come in this district to make speeches for him. And I attended to the organization of clubs and to all campaign matters in which he was interested.

Q. 3. State, as well as you can, the manner in which the campaign was conducted throughout the district on the part of the Republicans, giving the names or numbers of speakers and number of speeches made, as near as you can. State time of commencement of canvass; also state character of Democratic and Greenback canvass.--A. Our campaign was conducted very actively. The canvass commenced about the 15th of July, 1880. Capt. William Spears, one of the electors of the State at large, accompanied by Captain Buchanan, spoke at the principal county seats in the western part of the district. Our meetings were extensively advertised and largely attended. They spoke in Tallahatchie, Panola, Tate, De Soto, and Benton Counties. About the same time Col. R. W. Floirney, one of the State electors at large, commenced the canvass in the eastern part of the district, speaking at New Albany. The Republican convention was held at Oxford, August 15, when Captain Buchanan was nominated. It was a very largely attended convention; every county was represented with but one exception, On or about the first of September the canvass was renewed. Colonel Mister, elector for fifth district, J. T. Settle, elector for second district, and W. F. Frazee, alternate elector for first district, all came into this district and kept up the canvass incessantly until the election. In addition to the prominent speakers mentioned, Hon. James Hill, chairman State executive committee, Col. Thomas Hunt, United States marshal, and Maj. W. H. Gibbs, all of the very best order of Republican speakers, spent some two weeks in canvassing the district; and, in addition, Captain Buchanan made speeches night and day for the entire time, commencing about the 15th of September and including a day or so before the election. In addition to these speakers there were local speakers constantly engaged in the canvass all the time in prominent precincts in the district, and the canvass was conducted with the same activity and industry on which campaigns were conducted while the Republican party were in power in the State. No effort was spared by myself or Captain Buchanan, or his friends, to see that every vote in the district was brought out. The Democrats did not open their campaign for some weeks after the Republicans commenced, and so far as my observation went their campaign was not conducted with as much as usual activity until toward the close of the canvass. The Greenbackers also made a thorough and active canvass of every part of the district. As near as I can approximate, there were from two hundred and fifty to three hundred Republican speeches made in the district. I estimate this by the number of speeches and the time they occupied.

Page 331:

W. S. FEATHERSTON, having been duly sworn, testified as follows, to wit: Interrogatory 1. How long have you lived in the State of Mississippi and the county of Marshall? What official positions have you held, if any?-Answer. Forty years