The Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the memorial of Henry D. Washburn, contesting the right of the Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees to a seat in this House as a representative from the seventh congressional district of Indiana, submit the following:

The election here contested was held on the second Tuesday of October, 1864, in the seventh congressional district of Indiana, composed of the counties of Parke, Vermillion, Vigo, Clay, Putnam, Greene, Owen, and Sullivan. The entire record of the case will be found in Mis. Doc. No. 11 of the present Congress. The following is the official canvass:

...... | Daniel W. Voorheees [sic]. | Henry D. Washburn.

Vote of Clay county ...... | 1, 406 | 1,089

Vote of Greene county ...... | 1,466 | 1,262

Vote of Owen county ...... | 1,544 | 1,086

Vote of Parke county ...... | 1,210 | 2,113

Vote of Putnam county ...... | 2,112 | 2,076

Vote of Sullivan count [sic] ...... | 2, 181 | 750

Vote of Vermillion county ...... | 696 | 1,064

Vote of Vigo county ...... | 2,215 | 2,856

...... | 12,830 | 12,296

Showing an official majority for Mr. Vorhees [sic], the sitting member, of five hundred and thirty-four.

The notice of contest contains fourteen specifications of alleged illegal voting; illegal and fraudulent conduct of officers of election; illegal and fraudulent trampering [sic] with ballot-boxes, and false returns of the actual number of votes cast at the voting precincts in a large number of towns in the counties of Sullivan, Vigo, and Putnam. But no testimony was taken in support of these allegations, except in respect to some voting precincts, viz., that at Hamilton, in Sullivan county, that at Jefferson, in the same county, that of Riley, in Vigo county, and that of Cloverdale, in Putnam county.

The answer of the sitting member denies all of the allegations of the contestant in his notice, and alleges in return like illegal voting for the contestant, and other frauds committed in the interest of the contestant. But as the sitting member took no testimony in support of his allegations, there will be no further occasion to consider his answer.

At the commencement of the hearing before the committee the sitting member made a motion to upset the entire testimony taken by the contestant, because, as he alleged, it had not been taken before a person authorized by law to take the same. It was taken before Albert Lange, mayor of the city of Terre Haute, in the county of Vigo, in said district, but was not taken in the city of Terre Haute, but in the towns of Sullivan, Sullivan county, Cloverdale, Putnam county, Carlisle, Sullivan county, and Lockport, Riley township, Vigo county. The statute of the United States, under which these proceedings are conducted, contains (Stat. at Large, vol. 9, p. 568) the following provision:

"That when any such contestant or returned member shall be desirous of obtaining testimony respecting such election, it shall be lawful for him to make application to any judge of any court of the United States, or to any chancellor, judge, or justice of a court of record of any State, or to any mayor, recorder, or intendant of any town or city in which said officer shall reside, within the congressional district in which such contested election was held, who shall thereupon issue his writ of subpoena, directed to all such witnesses as shall be named to him, requiring the attendance of such witnesses before him, at some time and place named in the subpoena, in order to be then and there examined respecting the said contested election, in the manner hereinafter provided."

But the statutes of Indiana (G and H, vol. 2, p. 576) confer authority to administer oaths upon a mayor of a city only within the city of which he is mayor; and it is contended by the sitting member that the oath administered by the magistrate, in taking these depositions, was administered by virtue of his office of mayor, and therefore, when administered outside of the city of Terre Haute, was administered without authority. But the committee were of opinion that the authority to take these depositions was derived, not from the statutes of Indiana, but from the statute of the United States already cited—the mayor of a city being one of the persons designated in that statute to take such depositions, and that he would have been authorized, as such designated person, to take these depositions had the statutes of Indiana conferred upon him no power to administer oaths. Indeed, the power to administer oaths within their respective cities was not conferred by the statutes of Indiana at all upon mayors till the year 1861. (See Indiana Statutes, 2d vol, Gavin and Hord, p. 576.) Yet, during all the time since the passage of the United States act of 1851, before cited, the mayor of any city within the district has been a person designated to take depositions in a case of contested election. The committee, therefore, denied the motion to reject the testimony.

The allegations of fraud made by the contestant against the poll in the aforesaid voting precincts of Hamilton, Jefferson, Cloverdale and Riley are as follows: (Mis. Doc. 11.)

Third. At the voting precinct of Hamilton township, in the county of Sullivan, in said district, a large number of the ballots or tickets with my name upon them, and which had been voted for me, (the exact number I do not know and cannot state,) were secretly, corruptly, and illegally taken from the ballot-box, after the same had been deposited there, by some person or persons unknown to me, and a large number of ballots or tickets with your name upon them, and which had not been voted for you, (the exact number of which I do not know and cannot state,) were unlawfully and fraudulently put into said ballot-box, and were afterwards counted for you by the inspector and judges of election at said precinct, so that it is impossible to tell how many legal votes were given for you at said precinct; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

Fourth. The inspector and judges of election at the precinct of Hamilton, in the county of Sullivan, in said district, illegally announced, as the result of the voting at said precinct, that five hundred and one votes had been cast for you, and that only one hundred and forty-three votes had been cast for me; whereas, in point of fact, the said number of votes had not been cast for you, but, on the contrary, at least two hundred and fifty of the votes polled at said precinct were cast for me, and a large number of the ballots or tickets containing said votes so cast for me were illegally and fraudulently taken out of the ballot-box of said precinct, where they had been deposited by the inspector and judges of election, by some person or persons unknown to me, and a large number of ballots or tickets with your name upon them, and which had not been voted for you, were then placed in said ballot-box illegally and fraudulently in the place thereof, and were afterwards illegally counted for you by said inspector and judges; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

Fifth. At the election precinct of the township of Hamilton and county of Sullivan, in said district, there were at least two hundred and fifty votes cast for me; and after the polls had been closed at said precinct the ballot-box, containing the ballots or tickets voted at said precinct, was secretly and fraudulently opened, after it had been locked by the inspector and judges of election of said precinct, by some person or persons unknown to me, and a large number of the ballots or tickets so voted for me, and with my name upon them, were removed fraudulently and illegally from said ballot-box before the vote of said precinct was counted, and a large number of ballots or tickets with your name upon them, and which had not been voted for you, were fraudulently put into said box, and were afterwards illegally counted for you by the inspector and judges election at said precinct; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

* * * * * * * * *

Eighth. At the voting precinct of Jefferson township, in the county of Sullivan, in said district, a large number of the ballots or tickets with my name upon them, and which had been voted for me, were secretly, corruptly, and illegally taken from the ballot-box, after the same had been deposited there, by some person or persons unknown to me, and a large number, at least fifty ballots or tickets, with your name upon them, and which had not been voted for you, were unlawfully and fraudulently put into said box, and were afterwards counted for you by the inspector and judges of the election at said precinct; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

* * * * * * * * *

Tenth. At the voting precinct of Riley township, in the county of Vigo in said district, a large number of the ballots or tickets with my name upon them, and which had been voted for me, to at least the number of twenty five, were secretly, corruptly, and illegally taken from the ballot-box after the same had been deposited there, by some person or persons unknown to me, and a like number of ballots or tickets with your name upon them, and which had not voted for you, were unlawfully and fraudulently put into said box, and were afterwards counted for you by the inspector and judges of the election at said precinct; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

Eleventh. At the voting precinct of Cloverdale township, in the county of Putnam, in said district, a large number of the ballots or tickets with my name upon them, and which had been voted for me, (the exact number of which I do not know and cannot state,) were secretly, corruptly, and illegally taken from the ballot-box after the same had been deposited there, by some person or persons unknown to me, and a large number of ballots or tickets with your name upon them, and which had not been voted for you, (the exact number of which I do not know and cannot state,) were unlawfully and fraudulently put into said ballot-box, and were afterwards counted for you by the inspector and judges of election at said precinct, so that it is impossible to tell how many legal votes were given for you at said precinct; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

Twelfth. The inspector and judges of election at the precinct of Cloverdale township, in the county of Putnam, in said district, illegally announced, as the result of the voting at said precinct, that only sixty-one votes had been cast for me; whereas, in point of fact, at least one hundred and thirty of the votes polled at said precinct were cast for me, and a large number of the ballots or tickets containing said votes so cast for me were illegally and fraudulently taken out of the ballot box of said precinct, where they had been deposited by the inspector and judges of election, by some person or persons unknown to me, and a large number of ballots or tickets with your name upon them, and which had not been voted for you, were then placed in said ballot-box illegally and fraudulently, in the place thereof, and were afterwards illegally counted for you by said inspector and judges; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

Thirteenth. At the election precinct of Cloverdale township, in the county of Putnam, in said district, there were at least one hundred and thirty votes cast for me; and after the polls had been closed at said precinct, a large number of the ballots or tickets containing these votes, and with my name upon them, were secretly, corruptly, and fraudulently removed from said ballot-box, by some person or persons unknown to me, before the vote of said precinct was counted, and a large number of ballots or tickets with your name upon them, and which had not been voted for you, were illegally and fraudulently put into said box, and were afterwards illegally counted for you by the inspector and judges of election at said precinct; wherefore the election at said precinct was and is wholly void.

It was claimed by the contestant that, in respect to the four voting precincts before mentioned, he had, under the various forms of allegation here set forth, proved in the record submitted to the committee, and printed in Mis. Doc. No. 11, fraud and error to such an extent as to call for the rejection of the return of the election officers altogether, as untrue, and to justify a resort to other evidence to ascertain the vote at these several precincts. There was little dispute before the committee as to the law which should govern this case. It is laid down as a general principle by Cushing, in his treaties on "The Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies," p. 72, that "if returning officers act in so illegal or arbitrary manner as to injure the freedom of election the whole proceedings will be void." In a late case in the courts of law—that of Mann vs. Cassidy, for the office of district attorney, in the city of Philadelphia—the court in giving its opinion say: "As the case now stands before us, we should be derelict in our duty did we not unhesitatingly express our conviction that the officers in the election divisions to which we have referred, in the receipt and recording of votes, are so utterly and entirely unreliable that the truth cannot be deduced from any records or returns made by them in relation thereto." * * * "The entire proceedings were so tarnished by the fraudulent conduct of the officers charged with the performance of the most solemn and responsible duties, that it would have been not only abundantly justified, but it would have been our plain duty, to throw out the returns of every division to which we have referred."

The same doctrine has been repeatedly laid down by committees of elections in the House of Representatives. (See Blair vs. Barrett, Bartlett Contested Elections, p. 308; Knox vs. Blair, ibid, p. 520, and cases there cited. See, also, Kneas's case, Parson's Select Cases, p. 553, and Howard vs. Cooper, Bartlett, p. 275.) Indeed, the rule laid down in the latter case at page 526 was accepted by both parties as the law which should govern this case, and they took issue upon the facts. The rule is in these words:

"When the result in any precinct has been shown to be 'so tainted with fraud that the truth cannot be deducible therefrom,' then it should never be permitted to form a part of the canvass. The precedents as well as the evident requirements of truth not only sanction but call for the rejection of the entire poll when stamped with the characteristics here shown."

Indeed, the proposition is too plain to admit of dispute. To hold as true that which is so false and fraudulent that the truth cannot be deduced therefrom, is to hold to an absurdity. The rule here laid down is none other than the postulate that, that which is false cannot be true. In adopting this rule the committee do not lose sight, however, of the danger which may attend its application. Wholesome and salutary, not less than necessary, in its proper use, it is extremely liable to abuse. Heated partisanship and blind prejudice, as well as indifferent investigation, may under its cover work great injustice. It is not to be adopted if it can be avoided. No investigation should be spared that would reach the truth without a resort to it. But it is not to be forgotten or omitted if the case calls for its application. If the fraud be clearly shown to exist to such an extent as to satisfy the mind that the return does not show the truth, and no evidence is furnished by either party to a contest, and no investigation of the committee enable them to deduce the truth therefrom, then no alternative is left but to reject such a return. To use it under such a state of facts, is to use as true what is shown to be false.

The committee have applied this rule to the testimony offered by the contestant in support of his allegations touching these four precincts, with a full conviction of the character of the rule, and of the caution incumbent upon them in its use; and they now submit the conclusions to which they have arrived under its operation to the judgement of the House.

The statutes of Indiana governing elections may be found in the volumes already referred to, (Gavin & Hard) vol. 1, at pages 307, 309, 311, 637, and provides that in April, annually, the electors of each township shall elect a "township trustee," who by virtue of such office becomes "inspector of elections" for said township; designates the place where elections shall be held in the same, and appoints, with the consent of a majority of the legal voters who may happen to be present at the opening of the polls, two qualified voters of the precinct who, with himself, shall constitute a board of judges of such election. The ballot-box is provided with a "sufficient lock," and must be locked before the opening of the polls, and the key delivered to one of the judges. An opening is made in the lid of the box, closed with an inside slide. As soon as the election shall have closed, or at any time after the counting has commenced, the board of judges may adjourn the count till the next day, at which time it shall be completed. When such an adjournment takes place, the poll lists and tally-papers are placed in the ballot-box, with the ballots, which is then locked, the aperture for receiving ballots sealed. The key is then given to one of the judges, and the box is taken by the inspector, and both are reproduced by them respectively at the time and place of the adjournment, when the count is completed and a return thereof then made by these same judges. There is also provision for an adjournment of one hour for dinner.

The committee were struck with the loose and ineffectual manner in which the ballot-box was guarded against fraud by those provisions. There is not the slightest provision for its examination before proceeding with the voting, for its protection during the intermission, or during the night after election. When an adjournment of the board takes place before completing the count, if the box is only "kept" by the inspector, it matters not how or where. However honest he may be himself, the law has thrown around the box no safeguard against any fraud that might be practiced upon it by others. It even provides for an intermission of an hour in the midst of the heat of the election, and when the poll will be most likely to be surrounded by excited and unscrupulous politicians, and yet fails to make the slightest provision for the safe-keeping of the box during that time. In like manner it provides for an adjournment of the board after the election is over and before the count is completed or began. Thus time is given to learn whether the poll in question, or other polls, are close, so that if there existed a disposition to commit a fraud, opportunity strengthens inclination. And yet the inspector may take the box with him and travel during the night, or stop and visit with it a friend till morning—any distance from the voting place, and where those from other voting places congregate. The committee would refrain from animadverting upon the character of State legislation beyond its immediate connexion with the subject-matter of their investigation. They believe that the pertinency of these remarks will be apparent as the testimony before the committee shall be examined to this the attention of the House is now directed, in the order in which it will be found in the document (Mis. No. 11) already referred to.

HAMILTON TOWNSHIP.

The official return from this township was (p. 7) for Mr. Voorhees, 498; for Mr. Washburn, 143. The allegation of the contestant is, that the ballot-box at this precinct bad been tampered with, so that the return does not state the true poll, and that the whole proceeding was "so tainted with fraud that the truth cannot be deduced therefrom;" and he accordingly demands, in accordance with the rule already stated, that the return be set aside. The evidence offered in support of this allegation will be found, pp. 8-49, inclusive, and is of two kinds: first, to show how many voters actually cast their votes at this precinct for the contestant; and secondly, evidence tending to show an actual tampering with the ballot-box after the close of the polls and before the count was completed. The evidence satisfies the committee that one hundred and seventy men at least voted for the contestant at this precinct. One hundred and sixty-four witnesses testified to their own votes for him, and as to the remaining six not present, the testimony of witnesses that they knew the vote of each to be also for the contestant, left the committee entirely satisfied that this number at least had so voted. There was testimony tending to the same result as to several others, but not sufficiently positive to satisfy the committee. Here is thus shown a discrepancy between the official return for the contestant and the proof of the vote actually cast for him, at this precinct alone, of twenty-seven votes. There was no attempt to show the discrepancy between the vote actually cast for the sitting member, and the vote returned for him, nor was any attempt on part of the sitting member made to explain this discrepancy in the vote for the contestant.

The tally-list would have shown whether these men had actually voted or not, and their old political associations and professions, if in conflict with their testimony, were legitimate evidence to contradict them. The tally-list would also have revealed, if true, four hundred and ninety-eight other names, if so many votes had been also actually cast for the sitting member, and some approximation to that number might have been found to have so testified. But the case was permitted by the sitting member to rest upon the uncontradicted testimony of the witnesses before stated, and the committee left to the conclusion to which that testimony, uncontrolled, must lead them.

In addition to this, the contestant offered testimony tending directly to show an actual tampering with the ballot-box at this precinct. This evidence will be found in Mis. Doc. No. 11, pp. 45-50, inclusive, and the attention of the House is called to it as there recorded in full. From this testimony it appears that at the opening of the polls in the morning a strenuous but ineffectual effort was made by the friends of the contestant to secure the appointment of one of their number as one of the officers of the election. This was resisted by the friends of the sitting member present at the polls. When several names were proposed for this purpose, a Mr. Hansil leading in the opposition to it, got up on a store box and spoke in very violent language against the one proposed. Another was then proposed, "or some other friend of the contestant." But "Mr. Hansil replied that he would not trust either of the men proposed, or any other black abolitionist on the board." And so the board of three judges and two clerks was composed of all strong partisans of the sitting member. In this there was no violation of the letter of the law, but what subsequently happened to the ballot-box was made easy by the transaction, and it deserves notice in that connection alone. When the polls were closed at night, this board began the count about dusk, and counted some fifteen or twenty votes, stringing them upon a string as required by law.

They then adjourned for supper, first putting the string of votes in the box on top of the uncounted votes, and the poll-books and tally papers on top of them. The box was locked and a key given by the inspector to one of the judges. The box was then left on the table in the voting room, and the officers were all gone about an hour to their supper, leaving the box, they knew not in whose presence or to what treatment. On their return, the key handed by the inspector to one of the judges would not unlock the box. Another was tried without success, when the inspector took a key from his pocket which unlocked the box. On opening the box and taking out the poll-books and tally papers, the string of counted tickets which had been placed on top of the uncounted tickets was not there, and considerable search was made for it. It was at last found at the bottom of the box, under the uncounted tickets. The board of election officers, a few days after the election, published a card respecting this matter, which is here inserted entire:

"A CARD—We, the undersigned, judges and clerks of the election held at the courthouse in Sullivan on the 11th day of October, 1864, in view of the frauds alleged to have been perpetrated, and in justice to ourselves, avail ourselves of this the first opportunity offered to make the following statement:

"Of the frauds charged we know nothing. We saw no act of impropriety by any member of the board while in session; but that we are satisfied in our own minds that such charges are not without foundation, and we have such opinion upon the following circumstance, to which we are willing at any and all times to be qualified: At the adjournment of the board for supper, which was about dusk, we had counted out between fifteen and twenty tickets, which were strung on a string prepared for that purpose. The string of tickets was placed in the ballot-box on top of the uncounted tickets. The poll-books and tally-papers were then placed on top of the tickets, the box locked, and set on a table in one corner of the room.

"When the board met, after supper, the ballot-box was unlocked in our presence by the inspector, the tally-papers and poll-books taken out, but the string counted tickets could not be seen. The inspector turned to the table in the corner of the room to search for it, and while thus engaged we found the string of tickets in the bottom of the ballot-box, completely covered by uncounted tickets. We are satisfied that the string of tickets could not have got to the bottom of the ballot-box without the same being opened in our absence and the tickets handled.

"Respectfully submitted,

"PORTER BURKS,

"JAMES A BEARD,

"Judges.

"DANIEL LANGDON,

"BENJ. HAVENS,

"Clerks.

"I hereby certify that I believe the above statement to be correct. When the box was opened after supper I took out the poll-books and tally papers, but could not find the string of tickets. Supposing they had been left out, I turned to look for them; meantime they were found in the box. It is evident that they were moved while the board was adjourned for supper.

"Respectfully,

"W. C. GRIFFITH. Inspector.

"October 19, 1864."

The committee do not deem further comment upon this poll necessary. The discrepancy of twenty-seven votes between the return (143) for the contestant, and the number (170) proved to have voted for him; the violent partisan character of all the officers of election adversely to him; the steady purpose of keeping the box in such hands; the leaving it for an hour after dusk at the voting place unguarded and exposed; and finally the evidence that the box had been opened and an indefinite number of votes changed or abstracted, disclosed by the judges themselves—all compel to the conviction that "the truth cannot be deduced from this return," and it is accordingly rejected.

But the rejection of a return does not necessarily leave the votes actually cast at a precinct uncounted. It only declares that the return having been shown to be false shall not be taken as true, and the parties are thrown back upon such other evidence as is in their power to show how many voted and for whom, so that the entire vote, if sufficient pains be taken and the means are at hand, may be shown, and not a single one be lost, notwithstanding the falsity of the return. (See Blair vs. Barrett, Bartlett's Contested Election Cases, pp. 313, 321; Clark vs. Hall, ibid, 215.) It was proved, as has already been stated, that one hundred and seventy votes were cast at this precinct for Mr. Washburn. There was also the testimony of four persons that they voted for Mr. Voorhees.

CLOVERDALE.

The official returns from this township gave Mr. Voorhees 276 votes and Mr. Washburn 58 votes. The testimony is found in said Mis. Doc., pp. 53-70, inclusive, and is of precisely the same character as that already commented upon in connexion with the township of Hamilton. All the authorities and the law applicable to such testimony thus cited are equally applicable here. It is proved that 91 persons voted at this precinct for Mr. Washburn, while only 58 were returned for him. It seems to the committee hardly possible that so large a discrepancy in so small a voting precinct could have been the result of mistake. In this precinct, the count was not made till the next day. In the mean time the inspector took the box and carried it away out of town, from half to three-fourths of a mile from Cloverdale, to the house of a friend, a warm supporter of the sitting member, where he spent the night with it and brought it back the next day, when the votes were counted and the foregoing return made out. There is no direct testimony that anything was done with the box during the night. But it is in evidence that the vote in the whole county was very close, there being, as returned, only twenty-six majority for the sitting member, less than the discrepancy (33) found at this poll. The county ticket was therefore in danger. A strong supporter of the sitting member by the name of Scott, (p. 69,) came from the county seat that night, a distance of ten miles, to the house where the ballot-box was kept, about three-fourths of a mile from the town, after the owner of the house had gone to bed and had fallen asleep, and spent the night there. The owner of the house testified that he did not know at what time he came, what he came for, and what he did. And his purpose and business, as well as the success which attended it, only appear from the testimony of a witness who overheard him afterwards relate it. But this was hearsay evidence, which the committee rejected. The case against this ballot-box, therefore, rests upon the great discrepancy between the return (58) and the number (91) proved to have voted for Mr. Washburn, the temptation in the close vote in the county, the opportunity for tampering with the ballot-box during the night, and the suspicious visitation of Scott from the county seat during the night, together with such inferences as it is fair to draw from the fact that no witness is contradicted, no testimony is controverted, no suspicious circumstance explained, so easy of explanation by the calling of Scott or the inspector, if the truth permitted it. But as the result to which the committee arrived upon the whole case, as hereafter stated, would not in any aspect be changed, whether this return be rejected or corrected, they did not determine to reject it entirely, however much confidence in it must be shaken in every fair mind by the evidence here adduced. They, instead, gave the contestant the benefit of the discrepancy proved—viz., 33 votes.

JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP.

The official return from this township was (p. 7,) for Mr. Voorhees, 236 votes; for Mr. Washburn, 24 votes. The evidence relied on to show fraud in this return (pp. 73-80, inclusive) consists wholly in a discrepancy proved between the vote actually cast and that returned for the contestant. It is shown in this record, by the testimony of the voters themselves and those who knew how others absent voted, that thirty-six instead of twenty-four, the returned number, voted for Mr. Washburn. There was no other testimony to show fraud in this ballot-box as the testimony was left by the parties. The committee had the evidence furnished them of correcting all the errors shown, however that might have arisen. They, therefore, did not reject, but corrected this return, giving to the contestant the benefit of the twelve votes here proved and not counted.

RILEY TOWNSHIP.

The official return from this township (p. 7) was for Mr. Vorhees [sic], 173 votes; for Mr. Washburn, 88 votes. The testimony (pp. 81-102 inclusive) is similar in character to that already commented upon in connexion with other townships.

This testimony shows that there were one hundred and eight persons at least who voted at this precinct for the contestant, while eighty-eight votes only were returned for him. There were six others who were political friends of the contestant, who were proved to have voted at this precinct, but for whom it did not appear beyond their political associations. This was a small precinct, only two hundred and sixty-one votes in all were returned from it. It seemed hardly possible that there could have been an honest mistake of twenty in a vote of eighty-eight. But there was additional evidence touching this ballot-box. On the day of voting the board adjourned for dinner, and dined with the inspector. During the dinner, the ballot-box was placed in the front bed-room, adjoining the dining-and opening into another back bed-room. After dinner was over, and while remainder of the board were busying themselves in the dining-room with outline maps, the inspector went into the bed-room where the ballot-box was and shut the door. He was gone about fifteen minutes. The next morning, on opening the door into the back bed-room, from the one where the ballot-box and the inspector were the day previous, the servant girl could not swing the door back, and on looking behind it, she discovered that a nail had been taken out of the carpet behind the door, and "a quantity of republican votes" put under the carpet. She did not know how they came there, nor how many were, but sufficient to prevent the opening of the door. During the count of the votes, after the polls were closed, and after all the votes in the ballot-box had been taken out, it was ascertained that the tally-papers did not show as large a number of votes as the poll-books by four or five, and there were no more in the ballot-box to count, so some loose votes were picked up off from the table and counted to supply the deficiency in the number of votes as shown by the poll-books, and still they were one short. Where these votes came from or for whom they were did not appear. It was testified that they did not come out of the box. Neither of these transactions, nor the large discrepancy in the vote before alluded to, was the subject of explanation by the sitting member. He met this testimony by no countervailing testimony. There was no attempt to account for the votes under the carpet nor for the business of the inspector shut up with the ballot-box in the bed-room, nor whence came the votes picked up from the table and counted. The inspector himself was not even called to repel the accusation which this testimony brought to his door. But the sitting member was content to leave the whole testimony unexplained, and the committee to such inferences as are inevitable from the absence of any explanation of testimony of this character. The committee were compelled to the conclusion that this box also had been opened, and votes, no one could tell how many, abstracted therefrom; and that other votes, never in the box, had been counted. No one could tell for whom; and consequently there existed fraud in this return to such a degree that the truth could not be induced therefrom. They therefore rejected it. One hundred and eight persons, as before stated, were proved to have voted at this precinct for the contestant, and were counted for him by the committee. It only remains to state the conclusions to which the committee have thus arrived on the whole case.

By the official canvass the vote stood as follows:

For Mr. Voorhees ...... 12,380

Deduct from this rejected return from Hamilton ...... 498

Ditto from Riley ...... 173

...... 671

...... 12,159

Add votes proved to have been cast for him in Hamilton ...... 4

...... 12,163

Official canvass for Mr. Washburn ...... 12,296

Deduct from this rejected return from Hamilton ...... 143

Ditto from Riley ...... 88

...... 231

...... 12,065

Add votes proved to have been cast for him in Hamilton ...... 170

Ditto in Riley ...... 108

Discrepancy proved in Cloverdale ...... 33

Ditto in Jefferson ...... 12

...... 323

...... 12,388

Majority for Mr. Washburn ...... 225

If, however, the return from Hamilton alone, where the judges themselves confess that the ballot-box had been opened, be rejected, and the discrepancies in the other townships between the returns and the votes actually cast be simply corrected, then the conclusion would be the same, and the result would then be as follows:

Official return for Mr. Voorhees ...... 12, 830

Deduct from this rejected return from Hamilton ...... 498

12, 332

Add votes proved to have been cast for him at Hamilton ...... 4

12,336

Official return for Mr. Washburn ...... 12, 296

Deduct from this rejected returns from Hamilton ...... 143

12, 153

Add votes proved to have been cast for him at Hamilton ...... 170

Add discrepancy proved in Riley ...... 20

Add discrepancy proved in Jefferson ...... 12

Add discrepancy proved in Cloverdale ...... 33

...... 235

12,388

Majority for Washburn ...... 52

The committee therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees is not entitled to a seat in this House as a representative from the seventh district of Indiana in the 39th Congress.

Resolved, That Henry D. Washburn is entitled to a seat in this House as a representative from the seventh congressional district of Indiana in the 39th Congress.

• Report on the Contested Election of Washburn vs. Voorhees (introduced on 1866-02-19 12:00:00 - CREATE_FROM - e677770) [This document]
• Resolutions on the Contested Election of Washburn vs. Voorhees (introduced on 1866-02-19 12:00:00 - CREATE_FROM - e677773)
• Minority Report on the Contested Election of Washburn vs. Voorhees (introduced on 1866-02-20 12:00:00 - CREATE_FROM - e680378)

• Report on the Contested Election of Washburn vs. Voorhees (introduced on 1866-02-19 12:00:00 - CREATE_FROM - e677770) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]
  • Motion to Print and Lay the Report and Resolution on the Table (introduced on 1866-02-19 12:00:00 - PROCEDURE - e864295) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1866-02-19 12:00:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e864296) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • Motion to Consider the Contested Election Case of Washburn vs. Voorhees (introduced on 1866-02-21 12:00:00 - PROCEDURE - e864302) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1866-02-21 12:00:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e864303) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1866-02-21 12:00:00 - DEBATE_MOTION - e864304) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1866-02-21 12:00:00 - DEBATE_MOTION - e864305) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • Motion to Postpone the Contested Election Case of Washburn vs. Voorhees (introduced on 1866-02-21 12:00:00 - PROCEDURE - e678010) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1866-02-21 12:00:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e678011) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1866-02-21 12:00:00 - DEBATE_MOTION - e678012) [view current proposal at this moment]