REPORT.

The Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the memorial and accompanying documents of J. B. S. Todd, contesting the election of William Jayne as delegate from the Territory of Dakota, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report:

The election here contested was held at the time provided by the laws of the Territory, upon September 1, 1862, and the board of canvassers, in conformity to law, proclaimed the result to be as follows, (Mis. Doc. No. 27, p.126:)

Counties …………………….Todd. Jayne.

Clay, 1st and 2d precincts….64…..66

Yancton……………………….66…..66

Todd…………………………...24…..13

Dakota cavalry………………...9…..11

Cole, 1st and 2d precincts….50…..18

Brulé precinct………………….8…..63

………………………………221…..237

Majority for Jayne, 16.

The returns from Charles Mix county and Bon Homme county were not included in this canvass, but were rejected by the canvassers. There was a return received from Kitson county, a few days after the proclamation of the result was made, as follows:

“ST. JOSEPH, DAKOTA TERRITORY,

“Office of the Register of Deeds, September 5, 1862.

“At an election held on the first day of September, A. D. 1862, in the county of Kitson and Territory of Dakota, being the seventh council and representative district of said Territory, the following persons received the number of votes annexed to their respective names, to wit:

“For delegate to Congress, J. B. S. Todd had one hundred and twenty-five votes.

“For delegate to Congress, William Jayne had nineteen votes.

“Certified by me.

“CHARLES MORNEAU,

“Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners.

“Sworn to before me this 13th day of September, A. D. 1862.

“JOHN D. BATTIMAN,

“Justice of the Peace.”

The proclamation by the canvassers of the final result was made November 29, 1862.

The contestant served upon the sitting delegate his notice of contest, (pp.1, 2, 3,) November 17, 1862, charging the casting of illegal votes for the sitting delegate in the counties of Yancton, Cole, Charles Mix, and Bon Homme, and that other legal votes for the contestant were not counted for him in Bon Homme and Cole counties, and what is called the Pembina district; that legal voters were prevented from voting for contestant in Charles Mix county by threats and violence, and that a majority of the legal votes of the Territory were cast for contestant.

The sitting delegate answered these allegations (pp.4, 5, 6) on the 15th December, 1862, with a general denial, and alleging that the return from Charles Mix county should be received and counted, and that illegal votes were cast and counted for the contestant at Big Sioux Point, in Cole county; that the voting district called Pembina is situated wholly in Indian territory, and was by the organic act, for that reason, out of the political limits of the territory, and no person residing within it was entitled to vote; that a majority of the legal votes cast at said precinct, if any, was cast for the sitting delegate, and that a very large part of the vote returned from said precinct was fraudulent and fictitious, and that a majority of all the legal votes of the district were cast for the sitting delegate.

At the commencement of the session the credentials of both contestant and sitting delegate were referred to the committee, and neither was admitted to the seat. At a subsequent day the committee made a report, (No. 1,) accompanied by the following resolution:

“Resolved, That William Jayne, having presented a certificate, in due form of law, of his election as delegate from the Territory of Dakota to the 38th Congress, is entitled to take the oath of office and occupy a seat in this house as such delegate, without prejudice to the rights of J. B. S. Todd, claiming to be duly elected thereto, to prosecute his contest therefor, according to the rules and usages of this house.”

This resolution was adopted by the House, and Mr. Jayne thereupon took the oath of office, and has occupied the seat pending the contest. Technical objections were raised at the outset, on both sides, that the proceedings had not conformed to the statute of 1851 concerning contested elections. The contestant insisted upon the exclusion of the deposition of Joseph L. Buckman, (p.154,) because taken after the time prescribed by statute for closing testimony. By the statute sixty days from December 15, 1862, the time of the answer, is allowed for taking depositions, which in this case would be February 15, 1863, and they are to be taken in the Territory by some magistrate named in the statute and resident of the Territory. This deposition was taken March 11, 1863, in the District of Columbia, before one of the judges of the orphans’ court of this District. The law is explicit, that, while the House can authorize the taking of depositions after the expiration of the time fixed by statute, yet without such authority the evidence must be excluded. The House has heretofore, in another case, that of Knox vs. Blair, instructed the committee to exclude a deposition—that of N. S. Constable, taken in this city under similar circumstances—and this deposition was therefore excluded.

The sitting delegate objected to the proceedings on the part of the contestant, because they also failed to comply with the statute, in this: First, that while the statute requires the contestant to serve his notice of contest upon the sitting delegate within thirty days after the result of the election has been declared by the board of canvassers, the notice in this case was served upon him before the result was declared. The notice was served November 17, 1862, and the result proclaimed November 29, 1862. The answer of the sitting delegate, which was upon the merits, and without notice of this objection, was served upon the contestant December 15, 1862. And the committee are of the opinion that this was a defect which the sitting delegate could waive, and that by answering after the result had been proclaimed, and within the time when a new notice of the contest could have been served, without availing himself of the objection and proceeding to take the testimony, he had waived the right to object to it at the hearing. The sitting delegate further objected that the testimony of the contestant was not taken before magistrates authorized by the statute to take testimony. The depositions appear to have been taken before two justices of the peace, residents of the Territory, who are only authorized to take them when there are none of the other officers mentioned in the statute in the Territory. The statute requires that whoever takes the depositions shall be a resident of the Territory, and the only persons before whom the sitting delegate claims the depositions should have been taken were the chief justice of the Territory, P. Bliss, and Associate Justice J. L. Williams. Of their residence in the Territory, the evidence is, (pp. 15, 19, 21, 27, 37, 82,) that their families have never been domiciled in the Territory, but, since their appointment at Sioux City, in Iowa, their post office matter is sent to that city, where they reside, only coming into the Territory to hold their courts, and then returning to their families in Sioux City. Judge Bliss, who was in the Territory when the notice to take the first depositions was given, which was given to take them before him, “or before some other person duly qualified to take said testimony,” on Friday, the sixth day of January, 1863, writes to the attorney a note, (p.10,) in which he says “I will open the examination and remain as long as I can, at least till Friday evening.” The committee were of opinion that the two justices of the peace, residents of the Territory, were competent to take the depositions. A voter is to be a white male citizen of the United States, and a resident of the Territory ninety days.

The contestant claims that ten non-resident voted for sitting delegate in Yankton county, (pp. 14, 16, 17.) Their names are, D. T. Fessenden, C. Fessenden, A. B. Wood, J. Mellen, Albert Mellen, N. Edmonds, G. W. Lamson, G. N. Propper, Josiah C. Trask, and Sergeant Patrick Conway, of Company A, Dakota cavalry. The testimony as to the first five named is, (pp. 14, 16,) that they were surveyors, having contracts to survey land under the surveyor general of the Territory, occupying tents when so employed, and leaving the Territory as soon as their work was completed, to their homes in Michigan and Illinois, where their families resided; that they left the Territory a day or two after the election, and whether they ever returned or not depending upon new contracts, not homes, in the Territory. And although it is testified (p.152) that they were residents of the Territory, yet the character of that residence clearly appears to be as above stated, and the committee did not deem them residents within the meaning of the law, and rejected their votes. It was testified of Propper, (p.22,) by a person who accompanied him, that he was a resident of Freeborn county, Minnesota, and left there June 16, 1862, for Dakota. He could not, therefore, be a voter. It was testified of Trask that he resided in Kansas, (pp.27, 29;) was editor of the Kansas State Journal; said he came to the Territory to bring the printed laws of the Territory, and to settle with the secretary for the printing of the same, and returned a short time after the election, and was killed in the raid upon Lawrence. His vote is rejected. Of Lamson it was testified (pp. 14, 17, 29, 31) that he was a clerk in the surveyor general’s office; his family never lived there, but in Michigan; he left the Territory a few days after the election for his home in Detroit, and declared he would never bring his family there. His vote was rejected by the committee. There was also testimony of a similar character in respect to Newton Edmonds, but he himself swears (p.152) that he has resided in the Territory since July, 1861, and he is now there, governor of the Territory, and his vote was not rejected by the committee. Patrick Conway (p.24) resided, at the time of his enlistment, at St. John’s, Nebraska, and enlisted there. The committee, therefore, rejected his vote.

It was not disputed that these nine persons cast their votes for the sitting delegate, and they must therefore be deducted from his count.

BON HOMME COUNTY.

The vote of this county was rejected by the canvassers, and it is claimed by the contestant that there should be counted from this county twenty-six votes for him, and thirteen for the sitting delegate. The evidence shows (pp.33, 58) that the polls were opened at 9 o’clock in the morning, at the house of G. M. Pinney, United States marshal; Moses Herrick, D. C. Gross, and Jacob Kiel acted as judges. Silas G. Irish was originally appointed by the county commissioners of the county, as the law requires, to act as one of the judges. He was notified of his appointment by Harvey Hartshough, one of the commissioners, and accepted the appointment. A few days after this same Mr. Hartshough, one of the commissioners, came to him and said to him “that he didn’t ‘care a damn whether we (referring to the Jayne party) had the majority or not; we would swindle them (the Todd party) out of it anyhow.’ I replied to Mr. Hartshough, that ‘You cannot carry any election that way. As a Republican, I was disgusted with this practice of the Democrats in Kansas, and that no fraudulent vote should go into that ballot-box unless it walked first over me.’ He turned away from me in seeming disgust at my reply. I heard very shortly after that Mr. Skinner was appointed in my place on the election board.”

Mr. Skinner was not permitted to serve, however. On the morning of the election he repaired to the polls, before 9 o’clock as the witnesses think, at any rate before any voting was commenced, and found Jacob Kiel, the servant of this same Harvey Hartshough, and known as the Dutch boy in this county, (p.38,) installed in his place, and the United States marshal refused to admit Skinner into the room, declaring that Jacob Kiel should act as judge. The voting was done through a window. One witness (Shober) thereupon stationed himself at the window on the outside, and requested the voters to vote open tickets, while he took their names, and those who voted for Todd did so, numbering twenty-five in all, whose names he gives, (p.34.) And there were fourteen other voters making thirty-nine in all. A recess of an hour was taken for dinner and during that time Moses Herrick, one of the judges, took the ballot-box and carried it away with him into a room in his own house by himself. The balloting continued in the afternoon, and at the close of the polls, when the counting commenced, which is described by the witness as follows, (pp.35, 36:)

“The judges proceeded to count the ballots, denying admittance to the electors at the polls. The judges first began the canvass of the votes by taking the tickets from the ballot-box and separating the same into two different piles,—the Todd tickets in one pile, and the Jayne tickets in the other. The Jayne tickets were distinguishable from the Todd tickets by their blotted surface, he [sic] ink showing plainly through the ticket. It became at once apparent that a fraud had been perpetrated, by the substitution of ballots during the hour had for dinner. There was at this time about twenty-five persons around the polls, and much excitement ensued. As soon as I saw the excitement, I demanded to be admitted, and to have the canvass made public, which was at that time peremptorily refused by the judges, and by Mr. Pinney, who was their spokesman. During this time Mr. Johnson and myself were standing at the window, directly in front of the judges. Upon this refusal of admission into the room the excitement still increased. The judges thereupon gathered up the tickets and threw them back into the box. I then again demanded admission. After some hesitation, Pinney suggested that myself and Edward Gifford be admitted; we entered together, and went up to Moses Herrick, one of the judges of election, and asked him to proceed with the canvass, which he refused to do. I then asked him to show me the tickets, whereupon he handed me thirty of the tickets to examine. I looked them over in his presence, and found that I was right in my conclusions. I then asked him to show me the other nine of the tickets, which he refused. I found fifteen tickets, among the number handed me, for Jayne. I then laid them down on the table and remarked to Mr. Herrick that there was prima facie evidence of fraud; that there had not been fifteen votes cast for Jayne; whereupon the judges and clerks jumped up, under the lead of G. M. Pinney, and left the room, leaving poll-books, ballots, and all papers connected with the election, lying on the table. Great excitement prevailed. The canvass was never completed. The crowd rushed in (p.159) and took possession of the ballot-box, poll-books and ballots, and proceeded then to hold a new election.”

The committee were of the opinion that the conduct of all parties engaged in this transaction was disgraceful and fraudulent, and that no votes should be counted from that precinct.

CHARLES MIX COUNTY.

The returns from this county were rejected by the canvassers. The contestant alleges against this vote (p.2) that it was wholly illegal, fraudulent, and void, for the reason that one hundred Iowa soldiers and eleven half-breed Indians voted for the sitting delegate, and that violence and threats were used to keep away from the polls the friends of the contestant. The testimony of contestant upon this vote is to be found upon pages 60 to 82; that of sitting delegate upon pages 124 to 152. It is admitted by the sitting delegate that the Iowa soldiers were not entitled to vote; but he claims that four of the half-breeds whose names are found on the poll-book have been made citizens by special act of the Territorial legislature, (private laws, 1st session, p.1,) and were, therefore, entitled to vote.

The committee were of opinion that the allegation of threats and violence at the polls was not sustained by the evidence, and they saw no reason, if it could be ascertained by the evidence how many Iowa soldiers and half-breeds not legal voters cast their votes at this precinct, why the balance of the vote should not be counted. From the poll-book of the precinct (p.111) it appears that one hundred and forty-five votes were cast: for the sitting delegate, one hundred and thirty-eight, and for the contestant, seven. Of the Iowa soldiers several were examined as witnesses—some of them voting at the time, and some not. The poll-book was produced, and the names upon it examined by them. Their testimony as to the number of Iowa soldiers who thus voted will be found, (pp. 63, 65, 66, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79,) and is generally concurrent that there were 70 who thus voted. One testifies (p.63) to the number seventy-eight, two others at 70, (pages 73, 76;) all others below seventy (pages 65, 66, 73, 77, 79.) The committee have therefore rejected seventy votes of Iowa soldiers. As to the number of half-breeds who voted at that precinct, witnesses testify—one (page 63) that there were sixteen, one (page 67) that he recognized the names of four, and then (page 68) six, and another (page 71) ten. The evidence satisfied the committee that there were ten half-breeds, at least, who voted at that precinct, of whom four were made citizens by statute. They rejected the other six votes. Nothing within the allegation was proved against any other votes. The poll of this county is thus reduced to sixty-nine votes. It was also testified (page 147) that about sixty persons voted who were not soldiers, and forty-nine of them are named as known to the witness to be voters, (page 148.) From fifty to sixty, and fifty-six, are named by another witness as known to him to be legal voters, (pages 148, 149.) The committee are, therefore, of the opinion that the remaining vote of this county, after deducting that of the Iowa soldiers and half-breeds named, should be counted, giving to the sitting delegate sixty-two votes, and to the contestant seven.

BRULÉ CREEK PRECINCT.

The contestant, in his notice of contest, alleges (pages 2—4) that the election at this precinct was fraudulent and void, because the polls were opened in the night previous to the election, at a place not provided by law, and a large number of votes of persons not qualified to vote there polled, and that subsequently, without opening or examining the box, the polls were again opened at 9 o’clock on the day of the election, without qualification of the judges or clerks, and the votes then received were placed in the box with those received during the night, and all were counted together. The vote returned and counted from this precinct was for the sitting delegate sixty-three votes, for the contestant nine votes. The testimony of contestant to sustain this allegation is found, pages 82—112. The sitting delegate furnishes testimony in reply, (pages 152, 153, 154.)

The place fixed according to law for voting was at the house of A. K. Phillips, one of the judges of the election. But it appears from the testimony (pages 84, 86, 90, 91) that the judges met at the house of one Timothy Andrews, about midnight previous to the day of the election, and there by candlelight received forty-one votes of persons who had not resided in the Territory ninety days, and some of them unnaturalized foreigners who had been in the country but a short time. All these votes were cast for the sitting delegate. The man at whose house this voting took place, and who had been in the Territory less than two months, (page 84,) was called out of bed to vote, and did vote about two o’clock in the morning. His own son was at the time acting as judge of the election. One man, while he was present, voted for another who was not present, stating his name and absence to the so-called judges.

Two or three persons from the adjoining county (p.91) were present actively engaged in distributing votes for the sitting delegate, and quieting the scruples of those who cast them; and it was openly urged that they “had better vote early, as, when the regular hour for opening the polls should arrive, there would be men present who would challenge voters, and we, who had not been here ninety days, could not vote.” One man was seen to vote three times; twice under assumed names. Foreigners, who has not been in the country but a few months, were made to believe, by some ceremony there performed, that they thereby became naturalized citizens, and they then voted, (pp.103, 105.) The following certificate was then given to one of them by a man by the name of Glaze, who was then present urging men to vote:

“I, Ole Thompson, do declare upon oath that it is bona fide my intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance to any foreign prince, power, potentate, state, or sovereign whatsoever, and particularly to Carl XV, of whom I was last a subject.

“OLE THOMPSON.

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of August, A. D. 1862.

“A. V. ECKLES, Clerk,

“By JOHN B. GLAZE, Deputy.”

There were forty-two votes polled in this way at the house of Timothy Andrews at dead of night, and before 2 o’clock in the morning, (p.84.) At 9 o’clock, the next morning, the same judges proceeded with the same ballot-box to the house of A. R. Phillips, and there, with the same box, with these ballots in it, (p.109,) polled twenty-nine other votes—making the whole number certified seventy-one. When these twenty-nine votes had been polled, and the names of the voters recorded, one of the judges insisted that the clerk of elections should add the list of names of persons who had not voted while that clerk had been present, but which list was furnished to the clerk by the judges; but the clerk refused and resigned, and another was put in his place, and the forty-two names of the voters in the night-time were added, (p.87,) not one of whom was a legal voter.

Whether the judges and clerks were sworn, or not, does not clearly appear. There is a certificate of their qualification appended to this poll, (p.106;) but, although the proceedings from beginning to end are testified to by several eye-witnesses, no one has mentioned the fact of their being sworn; and one of the judges, when the question is put directly to him, (p.109,) “Were the judges of election and clerks sworn at said election?” refuses to answer. The whole testimony of this judge of election is so brazen-faced and unblushing that the committee give it entire:

“My name is Thaddeus Andrews; I reside at Brulé Creek, Cole county, Dakota Territory. I was present at the election held at the Brulé Creek precinct on the first day of September, 1962. I was one of the judges of election at said precinct.

“1st interrogatory. Were the judges of election and clerks sworn in at said election?

“(Witness refuses to answer.)

“The polls were opened at said election at the house of A. R. Phillips, at Brulé Creek aforesaid. They were opened at about 9 o’clock in the morning, on the first day of September, 1862. The judges and clerks were present at said election. One of the judges who was appointed by the commissioners refused to serve, and A. R. Phillips nominated Milton M. Rich, who was elected by the persons present in the house; I do not recollect the number present. I think there were about forty votes cast during the day, after the polls were opened at 9 o’clock a. m.

“2d interrogatory. Was the ballot-box opened and examined before the voting commenced, after the polls were opened at 9 o’clock a. m. on said day?

“(Witness refuses to answer.)

“I should think there were ballots in the ballot-box before the voting commenced after the polls were opened; there were about thirty ballots in the box when the polls were opened. I cannot tell for whom the ballots were cast, but I suppose they were cast for William Jayne for delegate to Congress. They were cast for the south half of the northeast quarter of section No. 29, township No. 92 north, for county seat. These ballots were put in the ballot-box by some person; I am unable to state by whom. The ballots were put in between Sunday evening and 9 o’clock Monday morning; I think about 3 o’clock Monday morning. I think they were put in at A. R. Phillips’s house, but I am not sure that that was the place. I was present at the time they were put in; there were quite a number around while this was going on.

“3d interrogatory. Do you know that those ballots were put in the ballot-box at the house of Timothy Andrews?

“(Witness refuses to answer.)

“I cannot state whether the ballots that were in the ballot-box when the voting commenced were all put in by one man or not. The polls were closed about 6 o’clock. After the polls were closed we commenced canvassing the votes publicly. We counted all the ballots in the ballot-box. We found that the number of ballots in the box did not agree with the number of names on the poll-list. There were six ballots more in the box than there were names on the poll-list. Six ballots were then picked out from the top of the ballots in the box, which were destroyed; the remainder of the ballots we then canvassed, and returned them to the office of the clerk of the board of commissioners of Cole county. The names of persons voting during the day were taken down by the clerks of the election. There are names of persons upon the poll-list who did not vote during election day. I think there are about thirty names on the list who did not vote.

“4th interrogatory. How came those names on the poll-list?

“(Witness refuses to answer.)

“One of the poll-lists was returned to the clerk of the board of commissioners. The clerks of the election were Mahlon Gore and William C. Betts; the judges were myself, A. R. Phillips, and Milton M. Rich.

“THADDEUS ANDREWS.”

The committee are of the opinion that it would be a disgrace to receive a return of votes from persons assuming to act as judges and guilty of such practices in office as the testimony and the foregoing unblushing confession disclose, and submit whether such “judges” have or have not added to their other crimes that of perjury in taking the following oath, which they have certified that they have taken:

“We do solemnly swear that we will perform the duties of judges according to law and the best of our ability; that we will studiously endeavor to prevent fraud and deceit in conducting the same.”

The committee, therefore, reject the entire vote thus returned from this precinct.

KITSON COUNTY.

This is the vote commonly known as the Pembina vote. It was received at the secretary’s office a few days after the canvass was completed, and was not included in the result. The following is the certificate of the vote:

“ST. JOSEPH, DAKOTA TERRITORY,

“Office of the Register of Deeds, September 5, 1862.

“At an election held on the first day of September, A. D. 1862, in the county of Kitson and Territory of Dakota, being the seventh council and representative district of said Territory, the following persons received the number of votes annexed to their respective names, to wit:

“For delegate to Congress, J. B. S. Todd had one hundred and twenty-five votes.

“For delegate to Congress, William Jayne had nineteen votes.

“Certified by me.

“CHARLES MORNEAU,

“Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners.

“Sworn to before me this 13th day of September, A. D. 1862.

“JOHN B. BATTIMAN,

Justice of the Peace.

“DAKOTA TERRITORY, Secretary’s Office.

“I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the original abstracte returned to this office and now on file in my office; and I further certify that Charles Morneau was, at the date of said returns, a register of deeds in and for the county of Kitson, and also that John Battiman was at the said date a justice of the peace in and for said county of Kitson, and that said returns were received.

“In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed the great seal of the Territory.

“Done at Yancton this 12th day of January, 1863.

“JOHN HUTCHINSON,

[SEAL.] “Secretary.”

The committee were of opinion that the arrival of these returns in the secretary’s office a few days after the canvass was completed was not of itself sufficient ground for their rejection. The sitting delegate objects to the counting of this return for two reasons. First, that the vote is fraudulent and fictitious. Second, that the Territory included in the precinct at which this vote was cast, “is situated wholly in the Indian country; and though within the geographical, it is, by the act of Congress organizing the territory of Dakota, without the political limits of said Territory.” (p.5.)

To sustain the allegation that the vote was fraudulent and fictitious, the sitting delegate offered no other evidence except the deposition of Joseph L. Buckman, (p.154,) which being taken after the time for taking depositions had expired, was, for the reasons heretofore stated, excluded. The second point rests upon a mistaken construction of the following proviso in the first section of the organic act organizing the Territory: “Provided that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which by treaty with any Indian tribe is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries and form no part of the Territory of Dakota until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within said Territory.” Now it is apparent, upon the reading of this proviso, that the territory which it is therein provided shall be set apart for any particular tribe of Indians, and thereby to be excepted out of the limits of the Territory, is that which is so set apart by treaty with any particular tribe, and is so excepted by the treaty itself. It does not apply to any portion of the Territory upon which Indians may happen to live, but only such portions as are held by particular tribes under and by virtue of treaties defining boundaries, and stipulating for exclusive jurisdiction to be exercised by the tribes holding them. No such treaty existed covering any portion of the election precinct under consideration, and therefore the vote cast cannot for this reason be excluded. It only remains to state the results to which these conclusions have led the committee. The official canvass stated the result to be—

……………………………………………………For William Jayne. For J. B. S. Todd

…………………………………………………….237 votes………….221 votes.

Add to this Charles Mix county………………….62 votes…………….7 votes.

Add to this Kitson county………………………...19 votes………….125 votes.

……………………………………………………..318 votes…………353 votes.

Deduct Yancton non-residents……………………9

Deduct Brulé precinct……………………………63-72 votes………….8 votes.

……………………………………………………..246 votes…………..345 votes.

This result gives to the contestant a majority of ninety-nine votes, and the committee accordingly recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, That William Jayne is not entitled to a seat in this House as a delegate from the Territory of Dakota in the 38th Congress.

Resolved, That J. B. S. Todd is entitled to a seat in this House as a delegate from the Territory of Dakota in the 38th Congress.

• Second Report on the Dakota Contested Election (introduced on 1864-05-23 00:00:00 - CREATE - e740606) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1864-05-23 00:00:00 - REPORT_PROPOSAL - e740608) [view current proposal at this moment]