O'Connor desired a fair election, why this anxiety on the part of the managers of his party to obliterate the evidences of their fraud and seek to make it impossible to discover the effect of the same?

Wherever the ballots in the boxes, upon being counted at the close of the election, were found to exceed the names on the poll-lists, all the ballots were returned to the boxes and the managers drew therefrom and destroyed a number of tickets equivalent to the excess, in order to make the number of votes correspond with the number of voters on the poll-lists as kept by the clerk. Owing to the great difference in the texture of the Democratic and Republican ballots, the person drawing out the excess could easily distinguish the difference between the two. The table which here follows, and which is abundantly supported by the evidence, is the best proof of this fact:

At seven of the above-named polls it will be perceived that not a single Democratic ticket was drawn out, and at six others only one Democratic ticket at each. It is true that at three polls in Charleston County not included in the above list, to wit, the City Hall, Washington Enginehouse, and Ben Potter's, more Democratic than Republican tickets were drawn out, and that at several other polls the number of Republican tickets drawn out did not greatly exceed the number of Democratic tickets drawn out, but this arose from the fact that at such polls more Democratic ballots had been stuffed into the boxes than were necessary

to accomplish the purpose intended, and consequently the excess was almost equal to, and in two instances even greater than, the number of Republican tickets in those boxes, as at the Washington Engine-house, where there were only 245 Republican tickets in the box, while the excess was 379, and at Ben Potter's, where there were only 45 Republican tickets in the box, while the excess was 59.

Every Republican vote drawn out was a loss of one to Mr. Mackey and a gain of one to Mr. O'Connor. On the other hand, by the drawing out of a Democratic ticket Mr. O'Connor suffered no loss, because the excess being created by placing Democratic tickets in the box, whenever a Democratic ticket lawfully voted was drawn out one of the Democratic tickets illegally voted was counted in its place, so that the contestee's vote was not reduced thereby.

THE TRUE STATE OF THE POLL.

In order, therefore, to ascertain the true state of a poll it is only necessary to add to the vote returned for the contestant at that poll the number of Republican ballots drawn out and destroyed, and to deduct from the vote returned for the contestee a like number, making, of course, such additional corrections as the testimony warrants.

Acting upon this rule, the committee find that the correct vote at those polls where the ballot-boxes were stuffed, and Republican tickets drawn out and Democratic tickets counted in their place, is as follows:

Correcting, in accordance with the above tabulated statement, the aggregate vote of the district as it appears upon the face of the returns made by the managers of the election:

Aggregate vote returned by the managers of the election...

Deduct vote returned from those polls where the ballots in the boxes exceeded the names on the poll-list....

Add the vote of those polls as corrected.......

Majority for Mackey.

The committee ther fore recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the Hon. Samuel Dibble is not entitled to hold the seat now occupied by him in this Houseas a Representative from the second district of South Carolina in the Forty-seventh Congress.

Resolved, That the Hon. E. W. M. Mackey was duly elected as a Representative from the second Congressional district of South Carolina in the Forty-seventh Congress, and is entitled to a seat in this House.

APRIL 12, 1882.-Mr. MOULTON, from the Committee on Elections, sub mitted the following

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY:

Election contest in second district of South Carolina.

The undersigned members of the Committee on Elections dissent from the views expressed by the majority of the committee, both in regard to the relation of Samuel Dibble, the sitting member, to the case

of E. W. M. Mackey vs. M. P. O'Connor, and also in regard to the authenticity and genuineness of the depositions in the said case.

In view of the fact that the circumstances present several novel features, it seems to us that great care should be exercised in its consideration, to the end that every determination made therein should become a sound precedent for future adjudications.

The following are a few of the leading facts in the case:

In November, 1880, E. W. M. Mackey and M. P. O'Connor were opposing candidates for Congress in the second Congressional district of South Carolina, and as the result of the election then held M. P. O'Connor was declared elected by the State board of canvassers, and received the usual certificate of such election, which was duly filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Mr. Mackey contested the election of Mr. O'Connor in the usual form, and in the taking of testimony in such contest, by an agreement of which both parties availed themselves, all limitations as to time were expressly waived, so that the taking of the testimony was protracted over a much longer period than the term allowed by the statute, and before the taking of Mr. O'Connor's testimony was completed he died, on April 26, 1881.

On May 23, 1881, the governor of South Carolina, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, issued his writ of election to fill the vacancy in the representation in Congress; and at the election held thereunder, on June 9, 1881, Samuel Dibble was elected, receiving his credentials June 22, 1881, and the same being filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives on June 25, 1881.

Mr. Mackey, the contestant of the late Mr. O'Connor, did not serve any notice of contest of Mr. Dibble's election; but proceeded after the death of Mr. O'Connor, and before the election of Mr. Dibble, in taking testimony in the case of Mackey vs. O'Connor; and the record as now filed and printed embraces testimony on both sides so taken after Mr. O'Connor's death and before Mr. Dibble's election.

On December 5, 1881, the House met, and Mr. Dibble, on the call of the roll, presented himself to be sworn. Objection was made by a member of the House, who stated to the House the general circumstances of the case, and after calling the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Mackey had served no notice of contest upon Mr. Dibble, offered the following resolution, viz:

Resolved, That the certificate of election presented by the Hon. Samuel Dibble, together with the memorial and protest and all other papers and testimony taken in the case of the contest of E. W. M. Mackey rs. M. P. O'Connor, now on file with the Clerk of this House, be, and the same are hereby, referred to the Committee on Elections, when appointed, with instructions to report at as early a day as practicable whether any vacancy as alleged in the certificate existed, and as to the prima facie right or the final right of said claimants to the seat as the committee shall deem proper; and neither claimant shall be sworn until the committee report.

Whereupon the House, after discussion, laid the resolution on the table; and also laid on the table a motion to reconsider its vote thereon. Mr. Dibble then presented himself at the bar of the House, and was sworn, without further objection, and from that time until December 21, 1881, occupied his seat as a member of the House without challenge or dispute.

I.

Upon grounds which will be hereinafter explained the undersigned conclude that testimony in the contest between Mackey and O'Connor is inadmissible as against Mr. Dibble; that Mr. Dibble is not to be con

cluded by any allegations, proofs, stipulations, waivers, or laches made or incurred by Mr. O'Connor, or by anybody else, in the case of Mackey rs. O'Connor, or in any other case to which Mr. Dibble was not a party. But if any testimony taken in that case could be lawfully considered in the adjudication of Mr. Dibble's right to the seat which he occupies, we think there are insuperable objections to the record of the case of Mackey vs. O'Connor, as filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and as printed by order of the committee.

Simply stating the fact, which appears on inspection of the dates of depositions and other papers, that at the time of the death of Mr. O'Connor the testimony in his behalf had not been completed, and submitting that as a matter of law the contestant, E. W. M. Mackey, could not, by any process known to the statute, during the period after Mr. O'Connor's death and before Mr. Dibble's election, complete the testimony in a cause in such unfinished condition, by an agreement with any person or persons whomsoever, we come to the still more serious objections applicable to the record.

The sitting member, Mr. Dibble, without waiving his protest to the whole proceeding previously made, submitted to the committee certain affidavits affecting the integrity of the testimony as a whole, and requested of the committee an investigation of the matter, alleging that there were other witnesses who were cognizant of the facts alleged, whose testimony he could not obtain without the order of the House, as they were persons who were politically friendly to Mr. Mackey, the contestant, and were unwilling to give evidence of what they knew. Mr. Dibble also requested leave of the subcommittee to whom the case of Mackey vs. O'Connor was referred to permit him to occupy twenty or thirty minutes of their time in exhibiting to them certain erasures and interlineations of the testimony apparent on the face of the manuscript, which he claimed would of themselves furnish intrinsic evidence that material changes had been made in the testimony, and in some instances in the handwriting of the contestant Mr. Mackey himself. But the majority of the subcommittee declined to permit Mr. Dibble to exhibit any of the said alterations of testimony, and refused to inspect the same.

In connection with this subject let us consider a few facts which are not matter of dispute, but are admitted by the contestant.

By virtue of an agreement between Mr. Mackey, the contestant, and Mr. Chisolm, who was Mr. O'Connor's attorney, a large portion of the testimony was first taken in short-hand by a stenographer, Mr. Hogarth, who was, so far as the testimony for Mr. Mackey was concerned, also employed by him as his notary public. This testimony was transcribed by Mr. Hogarth in his own handwriting from his stenographic notes, and delivered to Mr. Mackey, the contestant. Mr. Mackey employed C. Smith and G. M. Magrath to rewrite the testimony from the sheets furnished him by the notary, and also rewrote a large part of the testimony with his own hand. Certain depositions, after being so rewritten, Mr. Mackey submitted to the witnesses for such corrections as they saw fit to make in their testimony, and in several instances witnesses did make such alterations. In one instance, a witness, after reading the deposition so rewritten, refused to sign it, on the ground that it was not as he had sworn; but the contestant, Mr. Mackey, and himself disagreed as to the matter, and the deposition, as rewritten by C. Smith, was forwarded without the witness's signature, in the shape which the witness had repudiated. None of the testimony so rewritten was compared at the time with the stenographic notes of the stenographer, who certified the