« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
COMPILED BY J. H. ELLSWORTH, CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS,
UNDER ACT APPROVED MARCH 3, 1883.
COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS.
William H. Calkins, of Indiana.
Ferris Jacobs, jr., of New York. George C. Hazelton, of Wisconsin.
John Paul, of Virginia. John T. Wait, of Connecticut.
Frank E. Beltzhoover, of Pennsylvania. William G. Thompson, of Iowa.
Gibson Atherton, of Ohio. Ambrose A. Ranney, of Massachusetts. Lowndes H. Davis, of Missouri. James M. Ritchie, of Ohio.
George W. Jones, of Texas. Angustus H. Pettibone, of Tennessee. Samuel W. Moulton, of Illinois. Samuel H. Miller, of Pennsylvania.
JAMES H. ELLSWORTH, Clerk.
DIGEST OF ELECTION CASES.
FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS.
PAUL STROBACH vs. HILARY A. HERBERT.
SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.
Contestant claimed among other things that the vote of a county should be thrown out
because the proper officers failed to give notice of the election, and appoint managers; and that a number of votes were counted for Herbert, contestee, which
were spelled Hebert. Held, That where the statutes of a State provide that when for any cause managers
and other officers of election are not appointed, the qualified electors present may elect them; and it appears that this was done and an election held at the time and place fixed by law, such vote of such county must be counted. That as to the ballots printed Hebert, the evidence shows that they were printed so by mistake of the printer, that no person of like name was then being voted for or was a candidate, and that the ballots were intended to be cast for Herbert, and must be counted for him.
The House adopted the report.
JUNE 27, 1882.—Mr. RANNEY, from the Committee on Elections, sub
mitted the following
The Committee on Elections, to whom the above cause was submitted, beg leave to report that they have examined with care the testimony in the case and the able and elaborate arguments submitted, and they have come to the conclusion that the contestee is entitled to the seat he holds.
Your committee do not deem it necessary to enter into any detailed discussion of the case. A few statements will show sufficient grounds on which to rest the conclusion they have reached.
The contestee in his brief claims that after making allowance for, and giving full effect to, all the evidence in the case he is elected by 3,357 votes.
Contestant is represented by Abraham & Mayer and Robert G. Ingersoll.
Messrs. Abraham & Mayer claim in their brief that Mr. Strobach is elected by 938 votes. This majority is obtained by making many allowances and deductions which they contend are justified by the evi. dence. Your committeě do not wish to be considered as approving or