in the box instead of the ticket handed in by the colored voter. Is that statement true or not?-A. It is not true; nothing of the kind occurred.

U. W. EARLES:

Q. Were you present on the 2d day of November, 1880, at the election held on that day at Cascade? If yes, what connection, if any, had you with the election ?—A. I was present on said day, and was one of the judges of the election.

Q. Was that felection fairly conducted, and all persons legally entitled allowed to vote?-A. The said election was fairly conducted, and all persons legally entitled allowed to vote.

Q. Jesse Strange, one of the supervisors of election at Cascade precinct on said day, has stated in a deposition given in this cause that James E. Adams, one of the judges, took a colored man's ballot and substituted for it a Democratic ticket and handed it to you, and that you put it in the ballot-box. Is that true or not?-A. It is not true.

RINGGOLD PRECINCT, PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY.

The contestant demands the rejection of the returns of the precinct of Ringgold, in the county of Pittsylvania, on the grounds (1) that separate ballot-boxes were used for white and colored voters; (2) that many votes offered for the contestant were rejected by the judges of election on the pretext that the voters had not personally paid their capitation tax, which pretext, he says, was furnished by the peculiar form in which the county clerk, by the advice of the friends of the contestee, drew the tax receipts; and (3) that one of the judges of election was seen to place the ballot of a voter in his pocket instead of the bal lot-box.

This demand for the rejection of the entire return is made twice in the notice of contest, and no other relief in connection with this precinct is then suggested. The vote stood for Cabell 242, and for Stovall 238. The rejection of the return would, therefore, yield to the contestant a gain of four votes.

The use of two ballot-boxes affords no valid ground for the rejection of this return.

But the contestant asserted, in argument, that 28 votes were illegally rejected on the pretext that the taxes of the electors had not been paid by themselves, and he claimed 28 additional votes on that account. If this claim, being established, could possibly change the result, while we might not be able, without difficulty, to reach a unanimous conclusion that no votes were illegally rejected on the ground alleged, we should be compelled to report that so many as 28 votes were not so rejected. But in view of the fact that the concession of all these votes to the contestant would still leave the contestee a majority of 831, and of the obligation which, if this change be made, will constrain us, for still stronger reasons, to exclude the vote of Shockoe precinct, where the contestant had a majority of 65, and thereby raise the contestee's aggregate majority to 896, we have concluded not to disturb the returns of either of these precincts.

The charge that one of the judges placed the ballot of a voter in his pocket is completely disproved. And if it were, that fact would not authorize the exclusion of the entire vote of the precinct.

The contestant, in his brief, presents a demand, connected with the claim of 28 votes just considered, to which no reference is made in his notice of contest. It is a demand that 175 additional votes, including the 28, be allowed him in the entire county because refused on the ground that the electors had not paid their own taxes. He says—

(1) That he has proven that "28 votes at this precinct were unlawfully rejected because of the manner in which the receipts for the capitation tax were written"; (2) that Sheriff Overby testified that "these receipts were issued to the number of 150 or

200 colored men" for the entire county; and (3) that inasmuch as one of the Ringgold judges of election had said that Judge Aiken, of Danville, had said that these receipts were unlawful, it was to be inferred that 150 or 200 votes offered for the contestant in Pittsylvania County were unlawfully rejected because of the form of the capitation-tax receipts. And thereupon, without proof of the offer and rejection of these 150 or 200 votes, and withont any averment to that effect in his notice of contest, he seeks to appropriate the average of 150 and 200-that is to say, 175 votes.

It is obvious that we could find no excuse for complying with a demand resting on such shadowy grounds. There is no legal evidence of the alleged facts. Hearsay and inference cannot be substituted for proof.

BROSVILLE PRECINCT, COUNTY OF PITTSYLVANIA.

The contestant asserts, in the notice of contest, that at the precinct of Brosville, in the county of Pittsylvania, many illegal votes for the contestee were received and many legal votes for the contestant rejected.

He asks for no relief. The testimony completely disproves his averments. There is not the slightest reason to interfere with this poll.

DOUBLY REGISTERED VOTERS IN PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY.

The contestant, in his brief and argument, claims 550 additional votes in the county of Pittsylvania, on the ground that 550 of his supporters, who were registered, each at two or more precincts, were not permitted to vote. This demand is not suggested in the notice of contest, and therefore cannot be considered by us, and if it were necessary would be rejected for that reason, nor is it sustained by the proofs.

The proof on which this claim is based is found in the following testimony of James Wood:

Q. 26. You are shown a copy of the Daily News, a paper published in Danville, Va., and the copy shown you, dated Tuesday, November 2, 1880. It contains what purports to be letter from Attorney-General Field, of Virginia, in answer to a letter addressed to him by Mr. E. A. Catlin, Democratic supervisor of election, held on that day. In that issue of that paper, and in the article professing to recite Attorney-General Field's letter to E. A. Catlin, as above, occurs the following: "Answer to second question: Any person's vote may be objected to on the day of the election, and if it shall appear that his name is improperly on the registration books his vote should be rejected. If it appears that a person has registered at two places in the same county, without a transfer, his vote should be rejected." Did not the Democratic supervisor and ehallenger at that election, November 2, 1880, act upon that opinion as if it had read that the same name appeared at two precincts, without reference to the identity of the person ?-A. That was my understanding of their ruling.

Q. 29. If the construction put upon Attorney-General Field's letter, above quoted, by the Democratic suprvisors and challengers of Danville had been generally acted upon at every precinct in Danville and in Pittsylvania County, how many colored voters, in your opinion, would have been disfranchised in Danville and Pittsylvania County at that election?

(Objected to, as calling for the mere opinion of the witness upon a purely hypothetical case, which is not evidence, and for an opinion which has about as much bearing upon this case as if, instead of Pittsylvania, it had been asked with reference to Babylon.)

A. In my opinion it would have disfranchised a large number, probably five or six hundred. This witness, it appears "understood" that at one of the 30 precincts of Pittsylvania County every person who offered to vote in a name which was registered at two precincts was denied the right, even when there were two different voters of the same name, and he is of the opinion that if the same thing was done at each of the other 29 precincts then probably 500 or 600 colored men were disfranchised in the entire county.

H. Mis. 35- -43

We should not feel warranted in allowing the contestant any addi tional votes upon this proof at the particular precinct to which it refers, even if the pleadings permitted him to claim them. But if it be true that the judges at the Court-House precinct in Danville placed upon the attorney-general's letter the erroneous construction which the witness understood them to place upon it, we are not at liberty to assume, without proof, that the judges at the other 29 precincts misinterpreted the letter in the same way. Nor, assuming it to be true that the same erroneous construction was placed upon the letter in all the precincts of the county, can we receive the opinion of this witness as proof of the fact that it caused a disfranchisement of 500 or 600 colored voters in the county. It does not appear that expert testimony from this witness is admissi ble to establish that fact. But if the fact were established, we could not, upon this record, assume or conclude that the 500 or 600 disfranchised colored men were all supporters of the contestant. There is no proof to justify contestant's demands.

The census of 1880, showing the population of Danville to have been 7,526, satisfies us that the establishment of this claim by proof was an impossibility. For if of these 550 disfranchised colored men 328 were, as the contestant asserts, voters of the town of Danville, then the voters of that town numbered about 1,983, and constituted more than 26 per cent. of the entire population. By the ordinary rule, reckoning the population of Danville at even so much as 8,000 on 2d November, 1880, there could hardly have been over 1,600 voters if all were qualified according to law. The proof shows that 1,324 persons voted at Danville on 2d November, 1880; that 311 persons were disqualified by non-payment of tax and conviction of crime, and therefore did not vote, making 1,635, which accounts in a satisfactory way, it seems to us, for the vot ing population of that town. If, however, we were to adopt the views of contestant, and add to the 1,635 voters found above 328, which he claims were prevented from voting for him, and some ten or twelve more who are shown by the testimony to have desired to vote for contestee, but were prevented by the crowd from doing so, we would find ourselves confronted with the fact that there were in Danville on said 2d November, 1880, about 1,983 voters out of a population of less than 8,000, a majority of whom, according to the census returns, were females. The fact is the vote at Danville on the day named was quite a full vote, the population and other facts considered.

PETERS'S CREEK, NUNN'S STORE, GATES'S STORE, PATRICK COUNTY.

The contestant asserts in his notice that at the precincts of Peters's Creek, Nunn's Store, and Gates's Store, in the county of Patrick, the judges of election opened the ballot-boxes during the progress of the election, and examined and counted the votes contrary to law, and he demands that the returns of these three precincts be rejected by the House of Representatives.

But he has offered no proof in support of this charge, except as to the precinct of Gates's Store. He produced two witnesses to impeach the returns of this precinct. Their testimony completely refutes the charge instead of proving it.

But if that were not so, their depositions are not admissible in evidence, because, like the rest of the contestant's Patrick County depositions, they were taken before the county clerk, who had no lawful authority to take them, and the contestee objected before they were taken.

CHARITY PRECINCT, PATRICK COUNTY.

The contestant, in his notice of contest, asserts that the county can vassers of Patrick County illegally rejected the returns of Charity precinct, and demands that the returned vote of this precinct be counted. But his own proof shows that the only return made by the judges of election of the precinct was a return of the vote for electors of President and Vice-President, which return wholly omits the votes cast for the Republican electoral candidates. It shows that the judges of election made no return at all of the vote for Representative in Congress. The omission of the county canvassers to canvass votes not returned was not illegal. On the contrary, the canvass of votes not returned would have been a lawless proceeding.

If it were true, as the contestant asserts in his brief, that 51 votes were cast for the contestant, and only 20 for the contestee, at this precinct, the contestant might have availed himself of the net result by proper averments in his notice, duly supported by legal proof. But he made no such averments. His only averment was that the county canvassers illegally rejected the return; and that averment was not true. Nor is the testimony taken on the subject before the county clerk admissible.

CARROLL COUNTY.

The contestant, in his notice, demands the rejection of the entire vote of Carroll County. But there is no proof to justify any modification of the official returns from this county.

SHOCKOE PRECINCT, PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY.

The contestee, in his answer, demands the rejection of the vote of Shockoe precinct, in Pittsylvania County, where the contestant received as reported a majority of 65 votes. We might well exclude this precinct from the count by reason of the wrongful and illegal conduct practiced by friends of contestant at that point, but for reasons already suggested we have concluded not to disturb the return, as we can, after thorough examination of all the facts and circumstances connected with the election in the fifth Congressional district of Virginia, on 2d November, 1880, sustain the contestee, George C. Cabell, in his position by at least his returned majority of 859 votes, and report the accompanying resolutions: 1. Resolved, That John T. Stovall was not elected to a seat in the Forty-seventh Congress from the fifth Congressional district of Virginia, and is not entitled thereto.

2. Resolved, That George C. Cabell was duly elected to a seat in the Forty-seventh Congress from the fifth Congressional district of Virginia, and is entitled to represent the same.

S. P. BAYLEY vs. JOHN S. BARBOUR.

EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.

In this case the only ground of contest insisted on was that contestee at the time of the election was ineligible and disqualified to be the Representative of said district and State, because he was not a bona fide resident or inhabitant of Virginia. Held, That contestee was in fact at the time and before the election an inhabitant of Virginia, and was duly elected.

APRIL 12, 1882.-Mr. WAIT, from the Committee on Elections, submitted the following

REPORT:

The Committee on Elections, to whom was referred the above contested-election case, having had the same under consideration, beg leave to submit the following report :

This case comes before the committee upon the application of S. P. Bayley, who contests the right of John S. Barbour to a seat in this House from the eighth Congressional district of Virginia, contending that upon the grounds set out in the notice of contest the said John S. Barbour was not, and the said contestant S. P. Bayley was, duly elected said Representative for said district and State.

The notice of contest contained six separate and distinct grounds and charges.

The second and third grounds were, that large numbers of persons who were not qualified according to law were permitted to vote at the election held for said Representative on November 2, 1880, and that such illegal votes were received, counted, and returned for the said John S. Barbour for Representative.

The fourth allegation was that large numbers of lawful voters were prohibited from voting, which said votes, had they been received, would have been cast for the contestant.

The fifth and sixth allegations charged that large numbers of lawful voters, by intimidation and gross frauds and abuses, were prevented from casting their votes for the said contestant.

In disposing of these grounds of contest it is only necessary to state that there was no evidence whatever offered in support of them, and that there was no contention before the committee that they were in point of fact true. Having been abandoned, it appears from the record that of the 27,441 legal votes cast at said election the said Bayley, contestant, received only 9,177. This leaves for the committee's consideration the sole question raised by the first ground set out in the notice of contestant, to wit:

That the said John S. Barbour, at the time of said election for such Representative, was ineligible and disqualified to be the Representative of said district and State.

The said ineligibilty and disqualification consists in this, that the said John S. Barbour was not at the time aforesaid either a bona fide resident or inhabitant of said State of Virginia.