regulating contested elections in the House of Representatives:

1. Within thirty days after the result of the election in a district has been determined by the proper authority, the contestant must serve the returned member with notice of contest. This notice must be in writing, and must specify particularly the grounds upon which the contestant relies. (Revised statutes, Sec. 105.) The period of thirty days within which such notice of contest may be given, begins to run from the time when the result of the election shall have been determined" by the proper board or officer. The statutes of the several States provide for canvassing the votes cast for Representatives in Congress, and for declaring the result, and these statutes must be consulted in each case to determine the question, when, how, and by whom the result is to be determined and declared. It is no doubt true, that for the purpose of fixing the time when the thirty days begin to run, there must be not only a decision, but a promulgation of the result, for if the result was kept secret after it was privately ascertained, and if it was in fact not communicated to the contestant, he could not be required to give notice. The promulgation need not be in any formal way, unless a formal proclamation or other publication is required by statute. It is only necessary that it be made known in some manner. (Gunter vs. Wilshire, 43d Congress.) The statute is silent as to the manner of the service of the notice; it declares that the contestant shall "give notice in writing," &c. In Follett vs. Delano, (2 Bartlett, 115,) the committee expressed the opinion

that the correct construction of the statute would require personal notice, and that service made by leaving a copy at the residence of the sitting member, would not be good. Undoubtedly the service should be made personally upon the returned member, if this is practicable; but if by reason of his absence, or his avoidance of service, or for any other cause personal service cannot be made, then undoubtedly the notice may be served in the manner provided by the statute of the State for serving process. It is clear that the House should hold service made under these circumstances, in the manner pointed out by the local law for serving process, to be sufficient, because otherwise the incumbent might by avoiding personal service, prevent a contest altogether. Another question is, how shall the service of notice of contest be proved? Here again the act of Congress is silent. The affidavit of the person making the service has generally been taken, but in Follett vs. Delano, supra, the sufficiency of this mode of proof was denied. Where the returned member answers, he waives any informality in the service, or proof of service, but where he does not, the safe practice is for the contestant to call as a witness, the person who has made the service, and prove the fact of service, as he would prove any other fact in the case.

2. The returned member must, within thirty days. from the time when he is served with the notice of contest, answer the same.

served upon the contestant.

The answer must be

This may be done by

leaving a copy with him, or if he be absent, by serving it in the same manner as required for serving

the notice of contest. The answer may deny or admit the allegations of the notice, and may state specifically, any other grounds upon which the returned member rests the validity of his election. (Revised Statutes, Sec. 106.) The statute makes no provision for further pleading, but the contestant may of course, if he chooses to do so, serve the returned member with a reply to any new matter in the answer. This, however, is not necessary. Inasmuch as the notice and answer are the only pleadings recognized by the statute, no further pleading can be required, and the new matter contained in the answer must be proven, to avail anything, whether it is formally denied or not.

3. The statute allows ninety days in which to take testimony in a contested election case, and requires that it be divided between the parties as follows. The contestant shall take testimony during the first forty days, the returned member during the succeeding forty days, and the contestant may take testimony in rebuttal only, during the last ten days. (Revised Statutes, Sec. 107.) The period of ninety days within which testimony may be taken begins with the date of the service of the answer of the returned member upon the contestant. (See act of February, 1875.)

4. The statute provides for taking testimony in contested election cases, either within or without the congressional district. In either case the notice provided for by Sec. 108 of the revised statutes, must be given. By Sec. 109, it is provided that testimony may be taken at two or more places at the same time. The evident purpose of the statute is to ena

ble the parties to complete the taking of testimony within the time prescribed. The officers before whom testimony may be taken, are those named in Sec. 110 of the Revised Statutes, and the same officers are authorized to take depositions of witnesses residing out of the reach of a subpœna. (Sec. 117.) The party desiring to take testimony must give the notice required by Sec. 108, to his adversary, and must also apply to the officer before whom the testimony is to be taken, to issue a subpoena. The officer thus applied to, is required to issue his subpœna directed to all such witnesses as shall be named to him, requiring their attendance before him at some time and place named in the subpoena. The subpœna should follow the notice in giving names of witnesses, and fixing time and places. (Secs. 108, 109, 110, 111.)

5. If neither of the officers named in Sec. 110, are residing in the district, then any two justices of the peace may take testimony. (Sec. 113.) Depositions may be taken by consent, without notice, and before any officer authorized by law to take depositions in common law, or civil actions, or in chancery. (Sec. 113.) Every subpoena must be served by a copy thereof, delivered to the witness, or left at his usual place of abode at least five days before the day on which his attendance is required, and every witness must be examined within the county in which he resides, or may be served. (Secs. 114, 115.)

Witnesses failing to attend and testify in obedience to a subpoena duly served, unless prevented by sickness or unavoidable necessity, are liable in damages, and also to indictment and punishment for a misdemeanor. (Sec. 116.)

6. The statute further provides for taking the depositions of witnesses residing outside of the district and beyond the reach of a subpoena. Depositions outside of the district may be taken before any officer authorized to take testimony in contested election cases. [Sec. 117.]

7. The notice to take depositions of witnesses residing outside of the district and beyond the reach of a subpoena, is the same notice required to be given for taking the testimony of witnesses found within the district, and the substance of the notice, and the manner and time of its service are specified in Sec. 108.

8. When a party to a contest receives the notice provided by law of the intention of his adversary to take depositions either within or without the district, he is at liberty to name an officer [having authority to take depositions in such cases,] to officiate with the officer named in the notice, and if both officers attend, the depositions shall be taken before them both, sitting together, and be certified by both. But if only one of such officers attend, the depositions may be taken before, and certified by him alone. At the taking of testimony by deposition or otherwise, either party may appear in person or by attorney. [Secs. 118 and 119.]

9. As to the manner of the examination of witnesses the statute is not very clear. (See Sec. 120.) The language is, that "all witnesses who attend" &c., "shall be examined by the officer," &c. This should no doubt be construed simply as requiring the examination to be conducted before the officer, and not as requiring him to propound the questions to wit