have unanimously come to the conclusion that the whole vote of the city of Charleston must be rejected, as fraud was committed by, or assented to by, the managers of the election as well as by other parties, and it is impossible to ascertain how many legal votes were cast. Your committee have had not a little difficulty in determining what ought to be done under the circumstances of the case. The district outside of the city of Charleston gives a large majority for the contestant. Still, we are of opinion that he ought not to be declared elected, as it is impossible to determine who received a majority of the legal votes of the district. And the votes of so large a proportion of the district have been rejected and the people thereby disfranchised that justice to the district requires that a new election shall be had, and an opportunity given the legal voters to hold an election to determine who shall represent the district. Your committee cannot close their report without alluding to the imperfect system adopted by the State of South Carolina to secure a fair election. There is not any system of registration in the State, and the voters are permitted to vote at any voting precinct in the county, so that every facility is furnished for repeating; and even where the election-officers are honest, great frauds may be readily committed without there being any practical means of detecting them. The facilities are so great for repeating that it is hardly to be expected in times of high political excitement that a fair election will be held. It is indispensable to a fair election that the electors shall be required to vote in the precinct where they reside. Had such a check existed, it is safe to say that the frauds perpetrated would not have been attempted, much less committed. The committee recommend the passage of the following resolution: Resolved, That neither C. W. Buttz nor E. W. M. Mackey was lawfully elected to the Forty-fourth Congress from the second Congressional district of South Carolina, nor is either of them entitled to a seat in said Congress. 44 E C INDEX. LIST OF CASES. ABBOTT 18. FROST, 4th Congressional district, Massachusetts, 44th Congress CESSNA 18. MEYERS, 16th Congressional district, Pennsylvania, 42d Congress Election of President and Vice-President, 43d Congress. MAXWELL U8. CANNON, Territorial Delegate, Utah, 43d Congress. NIBLACK 28. WALLS, 1st Congressional district, Florida, 42d Congress. Tennessee Election, 42d Congress West Virginia Elections, 43d Congress.. Page. 594 247 18 99 240 355 89 179 683 259 60 6 428 26 275 592 367 291 91 79 130 340 589 406 108 182 19 98 101 68 650 196 144 500 108 3 108 108 WILSON 28. DAVIS, West Virginia, 43d Congress. A. Abbott, Hon. Josiah G., Massachusetts, notice of contest to Rufus S. Frost..... Act defining the qualification of Territorial Delegates.. NORRIS 18. HANDLEY, 3d Congressional district, contested election BELL 18. SNYDER, 2d Congressional district, contested election 268 247 355 68 91 291 247 233 240 130 Arkansas-BOLES v8. EDWARDS, 3d Congressional district, contested election.... BOLES vs. EDWARDS, 3d Congressional district Arthur, Hon. W. E., member of Committee on Elections... concurrence in minority report, GOODING v8. WILSON Attorneys-General, opinions of..... B. Baker, Hon. John H., Indiana, member of Committee on Elections concurrence in minority report, FINLEY vs. WALLS. Page1 18 26 58 3 88 16 114 355 406 631 421 Bartlett, D. W., clerk of Committee on Elections, 42d Congress concurrence in majority report, FINLEY v8. WALLS.. BELL v8. SNYDER, 2d Congressional district, WELL majority report, SPENCER v8. MOREY. testimony of witnesses Bell, Hon. M. L., resolution relative to..... concurrence in majority report, LE 3 ....... 355 391 421 452 683 615 247 247 252 250 259 593 355 421 BOLES 28. EDWARDS, 3d Congressional district, Arkansas, rejecting application.... Boles, Hon. Thomas, resolution relating to. 18 58 BRADLEY 28. HYNES, Representative at large, Mississippi, report in case of... BROMBERG 18. HARALSON, 1st Congressional district, Alabama, report in case of. BURLEIGH and SPINK vs. ARMSTRONG, Territorial Delegate, Dakota, report in case BURNS vs. YOUNO, 10th Congressional district, Kentucky, report in case of..... Buttz, Hon. C. W., resolution relating to. 89 179 180 689 BUTTZ v8. MACKEY, 2d Congressional district, South Carolina, contested election. 683 C. Cannon, Hon. George Q., Utah, resolution relating to reports in the case of.. communication of.. investigation of charges against resolution relating to majority report minority report... Cessna vs. Meyers, 16th Congressional district, Pennsylvania, report in case of.. statement of votes cast. resolution relating to... report of committee relating to case of.. Cochran, H. P., clerk to Committee on Elections... Committee on Elections, 42d Congress.. 43d Congress.. Constitution of Pennsylvania, article 3.. COX v8. STRAIT, 2d Congressional district, Minnesota, report in case of Crossland, Hon. Edward, member of Committee on Elections.. submitted minority report, GAUSE v8. HODGES.. Page. 268 268 273 259 185 190 195 60 9 10 9 6 355 3 108 355 60 428 432 108 306 Dakota-Burleigh and Spink vs. Armstrong, Territorial Delegate concurrence in majority report, FINLEY vs. WALLS, and Eames, Hon. B. T., Rhode Island, member of Committee on Elections, 42d Con- Edwards, Hon. John, rejection of application. Election of a President and Vice-President, reports relating to. views of a minority Enforcement laws of Congress, May 31, 1875.... F. Farwell, Hon. C. B., reply to contestant, J. V. Le Moyne.. resolution relating to Federal Constitution, article 1, section 4. FENN US. BENNETT, Territorial Delegate, Idaho.. 3 18 26 27 29 37 39 41 134 227,566, 457 415 368 11 149 110 275 290 237 407 421 118 592 |