Under the election laws of South Carolina the governor of the State, prior to each general election, appoints for each county in the State three commissioners of elections. These commissioners of elections appoint for each poll in their respective counties three managers of elections (Rev. Stat., Title II, chap. viii, sec. 2). By the managers so ap. pointed the election at each poll is conducted, and at its close the votes counted and a return thereof made to the commissioners of elections (15 Stat., 171), who, on the Tuesday next following the election, meet and organize as a board of county canvassers, and from the returns made to them by the managers, they count or canvass the votes of the county and make such statements thereof to the State board of canvassers as the nature of the election requires-making for Representative in Congress "separate statements of the whole number of votes given in such county" (Rev. Stat., Title II, chap. viii, secs. 15-18). From these statements of votes made by the county canvasser, the board of State canvassers determine and certify the number of votes cast for the different candidates for the various offices voted for, and declare what persons have been by the greatest number of votes duly elected to such offices. (Ibid., secs. 24-26.) Acting upon the returns made by the county canvassers of Charleston, Orangeburg, and Clarendon, the counties composing the second Congressional district of South Carolina, the State board of canvassers certified and declared that at the election held November 2, 1880, the vote cast for Representative in Congress from the said district was as follows (Rec., p. 11): Although the vote certified by the State board of canvassers is a correct aggregate of the vote returned to it by the county boards of canvassers, it is not a true statement of the result of the election, because the returns made to the State board of canvassers by the county canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg, upon which the State board acted, were not full and correct statements of the vote cast in those counties. Had the county canvassers in the three counties in the district counted the vote as returned to them by the managers of the election of the several precincts in the several counties, the result would have been a majority of 879 for Mr. Mackey. These managers in every instance and at every poll in the district were of the same political faith, and were the partisan supporters of Mr. O'Connor. The majority certified for Mr. O'Connor by the county board of canvassers, all of whom were Democrats, was obtained by entirely reversing the vote of one, Haut Gap, and leaving out in the final count seven precincts in Charleston County, to wit: Black Oak, Strawberry, Calamus Pond, Biggin Church, Brick Church, Ten Mile Hill, and Enterprise; and four in Orangeburg County, to wit: Fogles, Fort Motte, Lewisville, and Bookhardt's. The committee briefly call attention to these twelve precincts. There is no dispute about the vote in any others. HAUT GAP. In the statement of the vote of Charleston County, made by the county canvassers of that county, were included 1,052 votes for Mr. O'Connor and 19 for Mr. Mackey, as having been cast at Haut Gap precinct, when in truth and in fact the vote actually cast and counted by the managers at that poll was 46 for Mr. O'Connor and 1,037 for Mr. Mackey. Such was the return made by the managers, and sealed up in the box, but after the delivery of the ballot box to the county canvassers the seals were broken, the returns of the managers abstracted from the box, and the ballots originally cast by the voters taken out, and others substituted therefor, so that when the box was publicly opened by the county canvassers, instead of there being in it 46 votes for Mr. O'Connor and 1,037 for Mr. Mackey, and a return to that effect, there were 1,052 votes for Mr. O'Connor and only 19 for Mr. Mackey, and no return whatever. Without making any effort to ascertain what had become of the return, the county canvassers counted the fraudulent ballots found in the box and included the result of their count in the statement of the vote of the county, although before their adjournment positive proof of the correct vote and of the violation of the box was furnished them. BLACK OAK. The vote as returned by the managers for this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey For Mr. O'Connor. 393 11 This vote is established by the evidence of S. W. McKinlay, one of the election supervisors (p. 163), and by the sworn return of the board of managers of the precinct (p. 167), and disputed by no one. STRAWBERRY FERRY. The vote as returned by the managers for this precinct was: 573 90 This vote is established by John G. Smalls, one of the supervisors, who testified that the number of ballots corresponded with the number of names on the poll-list; that the managers counted and canvassed the votes in his presence, declared the result, and signed the return in his presence (p. 168). Two of the managers who conducted the election at the poll were examined by Mr. O'Connor, and they do not deny the correctness of the vote (pp. 420, 433). CALAMUS POND. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey... For Mr. O'Connor 511 119 This vote is established by J. J. Lessene, one of the supervisors, and signed by him and the Democratic supervisor (pp. 172, 173). One of the managers was examined by Mr. O'Connor, and he did not attempt to deny the correctness of the vote. BIGGIN CHURCH. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey... 380 63 This vote is established by the evidence of G. H. F. Graham, one of the supervisors (p. 178). He testifies that there was an excess of 14 votes in the box at the close of the polls, as compared with the polllists; that all the Republican voters folded up their tickets in the presence of the managers to show them that they voted but one ticket; that in drawing out the excess of 14 votes the manager drew out 13 Republican tickets and but one Democratic ticket; and that at the close of the election the managers counted the votes as above, and made out and signed the return and put it in the box. Two of the managers were examined by Mr. O'Connor, but neither denied the correctness of the above vote. BRICK CHURCH. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: 732 16 This vote is established by F. H. Carmand, one of the supervisors. He testified that there was no excess of ballots, that the managers counted and canvassed the votes in his presence, made a return thereof aud sealed it up, and that it corresponded with the above (p. 185). Mr. O'Connor examined one of the managers, but he did not dispute the above in any particular. TEN-MILE HILL. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey. For Mr. O'Connor 603 5 This vote is established by G. St. Cyprian Delany, one of the supervisors. He testified that he saw the managers canvass and count the votes and make out and seal up the return, and that it corresponded with the above statement (p. 180). Mr. O'Connor examined one of the managers (T. B. Curtis), but he does not deny the correctness of this vote. ENTERPRISE. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: 385 161 This return is established by Robert Simmons, one of the supervisors (p. 190). He testifies that the Republicans voted an open ticket until about 200 had voted, when Mr. Schaffer, a leading Democrat, objected, and said if it was not stopped he would protest the election and the whole box would be thrown out. After that the Republican voters folded their tickets. At the close of the poll there was an excess of 139 ballots in the box, and one of the Democratic managers drew out this excess. In doing so he drew out 101 Republican tickets and only 38 Democratic tickets. After this was concluded the managers canvassed and counted the votes. Mr. O'Connor examined the Democratic supervisor and one of the three managers, both of whom corroborate the correctness of the vote returned after drawing out the 139 ballots referred to above. FOGLE'S. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey.. 254 40 This vote is established by Nester Curry, one of the supervisors, who testifies that he saw the managers canvass and count the vote, and sign and seal the return (p 282). This is corroborated by the evidence of T. C. Albergotti, one of the county canvassers (p. 291), and it is disputed by no one. FORT MOTTE. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey For Mr. O'Connor.. 279 85 This vote is established by the evidence of Benj. Moultrie (p. 279), T. C. Albergotti (p. 291), and by one of the managers, James A. Peterkin, and disputed by no one. It is uncontradicted that the Republicans voted an open ticket, showing that they voted but one ticket, yet at the close of the poll there was an excess of ten tickets in the box. In drawing out this excess the Democratic managers drew out 9 Republican tickets and 1 Democratic. LEWISVILLE (OR SAINT MATHEWS). The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey 700 236 This return is established by J. J. Moore, one of the supervisors (p. 286), and by T. C. Albergotti (p. 291). The evidence is uncontradicted that all the Republican voters came to the ballot-box with an open ticket and folded it up in the presence of the managers (pp. 287, 628), showing that each voted but one ticket, and yet at the close of the poll a large excess of tickets was found in the box. There were forty-five packages of tickets containing more than one ballot (generally from 3 to 5 and sometimes as high as 7), all of them Democratic, the narrow tickets being folded inside of the larger one (p. 287). On the demand of the Republican supervisor all the tickets thus found in each package were destroyed but the inside one, but notwithstanding this there was still an excess found in the box of 52 ballots. In drawing this excess out the manager drew out 40 Republican tickets and only 12 Dem. ocratic. After this "purification" there still remained the vote as above returned by the Democratic managers. BOOKHARDT'S. The vote as returned by the managers of this precinct was: For Mr. Mackey For Mr. O'Connor... 212 69 The above vote is established by the evidence of George E. Hart, one of the supervisors, and corroborated by the evidence of A. Lathrop, who was cross-examined by Samuel Dibble, the sitting member. The managers of the election, after they had counted the ballots as above, put the ballot-box into the hands of George E. Hart, one of the supervisors, for delivery to the county canvassers; Hart handed it over to Mr. Lathrop, who took it to the board of county canvassers, but the board declined to receive the box, and refused to count the ballots therein. The managers of the election were not even called by the contestee to contradict the result of the vote in the precinct as testified to by Mr. Hart, who saw them count it as above on the evening of the election, and whose return is also in evidence. This is a brief statement of the number of votes cast and canvassed at these eleven polls rejected by the county board of canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg Counties. It is true that Mr. O'Connor in his answer set up that these polls were thrown out because "threats, acts of intimidation, and violence were perpetrated by the partisans and supporters of Mr. Mackey," "to the serious interference with the managers of election in the discharge of their duties, and to the prevention of a free and fair election," but he utterly failed to establish the charges in his answer. Not a single manager testifies that they were overawed and forced to make a miscount; the farthest they go is that they believe many colored men would have voted for Mr. O'Connor if they had been left to their own free choice. The committee find that every allegation set up by Mr. O'Connor for the rejection of these polls is unsupported even by the testimony of his own witnesses. The reports of the contested-election cases for the last eighteen years do not show a more systematic effort to override the will of the people as expressed at the ballot-box than does this case. Ballot-boxes were stuffed in the interest of Mr. O'Connor, and when the excess was discovered on opening the box, the drawing-out process always resulted in the interest of Mr. C'Connor. A whole poll-Haut Gap-was reversed, making a fraudu lent change of over two thousand votes in favor of Mr. O'Connor, and to cap the climax of fraud and perjury perpetrated by the managers of the election-all of whom were Democrats-precinct after precinct that had given Mr. Mackey majorities was thrown out by the county canvassers-all of whom were Democrats-until a false, fraudulent, and perjured majority was exhumed from this iniquity of 5,272 in favor of Mr. O'Connor. But aside from this, it was the duty of the county canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg to have gone forward and canvassed the vote returned to them from these 11 precincts. In the election laws of South Carolina, so far as a member of Congress is concerned, there is absolutely nothing authorizing county canvassers to pass upon the validity of an election, and to decide whether or not the votes there cast are to be counted and canvassed. Such is the effect of the decision of the supreme court of that State, ex parte Mackey et al. vs. Canville et al., rendered upon an appeal taken by the contestant upon an application to one of the circuit judges for the writ of mandamus to compel the county canvassers of Charleston to count the votes of two of the polls rejected by them. Under the decision of the supreme court the vote of the eleven polls rejected by the county canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg ought now to be added to the vote certified by the State board of canvassers, provided the vote of those polls is established by the evidence of contestant. In the opinion of the committee, the vote of each of these polls is fully established by the testimony, and |