Mr. DAWES, from the Committee of Elections, made the following REPORT.

The Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the memorial and accompanying documents of Samuel Knox, esq., contesting the right of Hon. F. P. Blair, jr., to a seat in this house as a representative from the first congressional district of Missouri, submit the following report:

The first district of Missouri consists of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th wards of the city of St. Louis and St. Louis township, St. Ferdinand, and Central townships. The election was held on the 4th of November, 1862, the day provided by ordinance of convention for the regular election of representatives in Congress and State officers. The official canvass showed the following result: For Mr. Blair, 4,741; for Mr. Knox, 4,588; for Mr. Bogy, 2,536. Of this vote the soldier vote was as follows: For Mr. Blair, 698; for Mr. Knox, 964; for Mr. Bogy, 54.

This result showing a plurality of 153 votes for Mr. Blair, the certificate of election was awarded him, and he accordingly holds the seat. Within the time prescribed by law Mr. Knox served upon Mr. Blair a notice of contest, containing eighteen specifications, in substance as follows: That at least 400 illegal votes had been cast for him – Blair – at the Abbey precinct; that 78 illegal votes had been cast for him by companies B and K, 32d regiment Missouri volunteers; that “several hundred illegal votes” had been cast for him by workmen on government gunboats at the city of Carondelet, not residents of the district; that more than 100 illegal votes were cast for him by persons temporarily employed at Jefferson Barracks, in the service of the United States, non-residents of the district; that several hundred soldiers of an Iowa regiment, name not known, non-residents, voted for him; that many soldiers, non-residents, voted for him in the eastern precinct of the 5th ward of St. Louis, and that said soldiers, with others, voted again for him at the eastern precinct of the 6th ward, in said city; that at the various precincts in the district many hundred soldiers, non-residents and minors, voted for him; that several hundred soldiers voted for him in a manner not in conformity to the requirements of the ordinance of convention; that “hundreds of minors” voted for him; that there were counted for said Blair votes not cast in conformity to law, of soldiers, some of them minors, all of them non-residents, from the following named companies of Missouri volunteers: Company B, 32d regiment; company K, 32d regiment of infantry; companies C and E, 10th regiment of cavalry; unassigned company, 10th regiment of cavalry; companies A, B, C and E, 7th regiment of infantry; companies A and G, 30th regiment; company G, 3d regiment: companies B, C, and D, 5th regiment; company B, 31st regiment; company A, 22d Ohio, late 13th regiment Missouri volunteers; companies I and F, 8th regiment; companies D, F, A, B, K, and G, 6th regiment; company C, 27th regiment; and company G, 1st regiment of artillery; that the votes of said companies were neither cast not returned in conformity to the laws of Missouri and the ordinances of the State convention; that “many hundreds of voters” voted in precincts other than those in which they resided, without taking the oath required by the statutes of Missouri of such voters; that poll-books of 1st Missouri artillery, 16th Missouri volunteers, and poll-books of Missouri regiments voting at Corinth, casting “several hundred more votes” for contestant than for sitting member, were never returned to the canvassers or counters; that poll-books upon which the contestant had more votes than the sitting member were illegally rejected, marked “Book 77,” “91,” “44,” “88,” “90,” “76,” and “80;” that the 2d and 15th regiments Missouri volunteers, which would have otherwise cast a majority of 500 votes for contestant over sitting member, were, for the purpose of preventing them from so voting, put in motion on the day of the election at sunrise, and marched until sunset; that more than 200 legal voters of the 2d Missouri artillery, stationed in the forts around St. Louis, who would otherwise have voted for contestant, were not permitted to vote because they would not vote for sitting member; and that in order to prevent others from voting for contestant they were made to believe that they could vote only in the second district; that many minors and other persons were induced, by fear and threats of government contractors, combining with other persons in the pay and employment of the government, and by means of the establishment of a newspaper by persons holding office under the government, to vote for contestant; and that said office-holders and government contractors, by expenditure of large sums of money, induced a large number of voters to vote for sitting member.

The sitting member, also, within the time prescribed by law, served upon the contestant his answer denying each and all the allegations of the contestant, and in turn setting out at large twelve distinct and independent allegations upon which he resists the claim of the contestant, in substance: that 240 votes, counted for contestant, cast by the 12th regiment Missouri volunteers, were not cast in conformity with law– were votes of minors, non-residents of the district, and aliens; that for the like reasons 233 illegal votes were counted for contestant by members of the 17th regiment Missouri volunteers, 130 illegal votes in the fourth regiment of cavalry, called “Frémont hussars,” 34 illegal votes by the 5th regiment of cavalry Missouri volunteers, infantry, 16 illegal votes given by an independent battery of 1st Missouri horse artillery; that 605 illegal votes were counted for contestant in the eastern precinct of the 4th ward of St. Louis, “more than 500 illegal votes” counted for contestant in the various precincts in the first congressional district, and that for the same reasons “votes from various other companies of various other regiments” were counted for contestant “which ought not to have been;” that 250 votes, cast for sitting member of persons whose names are annexed, marked H, were illegally rejected by canvassers for informalities not fatal; that “the political friends and partisans of the said Samuel Knox, with his privity, consent, and approbation, were and are guilty of each and every of the several acts of corruption, fraud, and oppression charged in his said notice against the friends and partisans” of the sitting member, “creating disturbances in the vicinity of the polls on the day of election, and by their boisterous and threatening language, and by the use of violence, detained and kept a great number of peaceable and quiet citizens from the polls;” that there were counted and allowed to contestant, in addition to the votes already enumerated, 2,980 votes in the various precincts of the first district, all of which were illegal for the reasons first alleged as to the vote of the 12th regiment Missouri volunteers.

The House will not fail to notice the extraordinary character of many of the allegations of both contestant and sitting member, as well in the matter as in the manner of their presentation. For vagueness, uncertainty, and generality they are, in the opinion of the committee, without example, and seem to have been drawn in studious disregard both of the act of Congress and of all precedent. But as neither contestant nor sitting member was in a situation to take exception to the substance or mode of the other’s pleading, the committee were not called upon for a decision upon this point, but present the case as they find it upon the record. They do not feel at liberty, however, to permit these pleadings to pass into a precedent without recording the opinion that many of the allegations on both sides are bad both in substance and form.

The constitution of Missouri requires as a qualification of voters that they shall be free white male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age, a resident of the State one year, and the last three months before election in the district where they vote. To this the convention which provided a provisional government for the State at the beginning of the rebellion added the following:

AN ORDINANCE defining the qualifications of voters and civil officers in this State.

Be it ordained by the people of the State of Missouri, in convention assembled, as follows:

SECTION 1. No person shall vote at any election to be hereafter held in this State, under or in pursuance of the constitution and laws thereof, whether State, county, township or municipal, who shall not, in addition to possessing the qualifications already prescribed for electors, have previously taken an oath in form as follows, namely:

“I –– ––, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Missouri, against all enemies and opposers, whether domestic of foreign; that I will bear true faith, loyalty, and allegiance to the United States, and will not, directly or indirectly, give aid and comfort or countenance to the enemies or opposers thereof, or of the provisional government of the State of Missouri, any ordinance, law, or resolution of any State convention or legislature, or any order or organization, secret or otherwise, to the contrary, notwithstanding; and that I do this with a full and honest determination, pledge and purpose, faithfully to keep and perform the same, without any mental reservation or evasion whatever. And I do further solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I have not since the seventeenth day of December, A.D. 1861, wilfully taken up arms or levied war against the United States, or against the provisional government of the State of Missouri. So help me God.”

The convention before spoken of passed an ordinance June 12, 1862, entitled “An ordinance to enable citizens of this State in the military service of the United States or the State of Missouri to vote,” which carried out the objects indicated by its title, and provided, in detail, the method of conducting such elections. A voter can cast his vote at any other precinct in the district than that of his residence by first taking an oath that he has not, and will not vote at any other precinct at that election. The voting in this district is by ballot, and the name of each voter is recorded and numbered, and the corresponding number is placed upon his ballot, which is preserved for a specified period, thus enabling parties interested, at any time, to make it certain for whom each voter cast his ballot. The notice of contestant, and answer, as well as the testimony taken by each party, with the exception of a single deposition, are all contained in Miscellaneous Document No.15. After the hearing before the committee was commenced, viz., on the 11th of March, 1864, the deposition of Captain N. S. Constable (Miscellaneous Document No. –) was referred to the committee by the House, with instructions to consider the same, “with other evidence before them taken after the time provided by law: Provided, That this resolution shall refer only to affidavits and depositions, and that all such illegally taken shall not be considered by the committee.” The committee were of opinion that these instructions excluded from their consideration the deposition of Captain Constable, taken more than a year after the time for taking testimony in this case had, by law, expired, and also the affidavits of Thomas Slade, (p.143,) John B. O’Hara, (p.195,) and of John M. Boyd and C. C. Fletcher, (p.199,) of Miscellaneous Document No.15, offered by contestant; all of which appear to have been taken without notice to sitting member.

The first allegation of the contestant is that 400 illegal votes were cast for the sitting member at the Abbey precinct. The names of these alleged illegal voters were attached to the notice of contest, so that the sitting member knew from the start the name of each man thus challenged. The whole vote returned from this precinct was 480, of which there were counted for Mr. Blair 424 votes, for Mr. Knox 41 votes, and for Mr. Bogy 11 votes. It is contended by the contestant that the voting at this precinct was of such a grossly fraudulent character as to involve all concerned in it, either in participation or passive permission, and to render it impossible to sift and purge the poll. And he therefore claims that the whole poll should be rejected. The evidence shows that at this precinct, at the congressional election in 1858, only 93 votes were cast; at the same election, in 1860, only 138 votes in all; and at the judicial election in November, 1863, only 140 votes in all were cast; while in November, 1862, the year before, 480 votes were cast. And this great difference is shown in a precinct where there has been (p.69) very little, if any, increase or change in the population. It also appears that of these 480 who voted in 1862, nineteen only voted in 1858 and 1860, thirteen of them in 1860 alone, and thirty-six of them only in 1863. It was also in evidence (p.16) that from 1,400 to 1,500 paroled prisoners, nearly all from the States of Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, (outside of St. Louis,) Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas, were at Benton barracks, very near the voting place of the Abbey precinct, on the day of election, and had been there for some time under the charge of Captain N. S. Constable, to whom Mr. Blair had, a few days before election, made a presentation speech on the presenting to him of a watch by some of his friends; that on the day of the election government wagons, which were under the charge of this Captain Constable, were, to the number of ten or twelve, employed during the day in taking those paroled prisoners to the polls and bringing them back, the soldiers hurrahing for Frank Blair as they went; that the names of fifty-six of these paroles prisoners (p.19,) all from the seventh congressional district of Missouri, were found by their own adjutant upon the poll-books at the Abbey precinct, voting in a body for Mr. Blair. Companies C and E, 10th regiment of cavalry, were stationed on election day at Camp United States Magazine and United States Powder Magazine, (p.385,) and there voted, (pp.108, 404). These camps are from eight to ten miles south of St. Louis, below Carondelet; one of them very near Jefferson barracks. Other soldiers were also encamped in that vicinity. Soldiers, some from Ohio, Illinois, and other States, as well as Missouri soldiers, to the number of between one and two hundred, (pp.17, 18,) were met in wagons and on foot between Carondelet and these camps on election day, going towards St. Louis, stating that they were from the barracks, and saying they were going to St. Louis to vote, and hurrahing for Blair as they went. And in the evening government wagons, loaded with soldiers, shouting for Blair, (p.56,) were seen below Carondelet, driving toward the barracks and camps already mentioned. By a comparison of the poll-book of the Abbey precinct (p.375) with that of companies C and E, 10th cavalry, (pp.108, 404,) it will be seen that thirty-two of the members of these companies, who voted in their camps for Mr. Blair, travelled some twelve or fourteen miles to the Abbey precinct in St. Louis, and there again voted for him. Whether the other soldiers from other States, who were also seen going up to St. Louis, avowing a similar purpose, carried that purpose into execution, there is no positive evidence, for the want of a list of their names. If their comrades, who left a record of their names behind at the polls in their camp, found no difficulty in voting a second time at the Abbey, it is not easy to resist the conclusion that these soldiers also did not fail in the avowed object of their visit to the city. Persons well acquainted with the voters belonging in the Abbey precinct, themselves voters, (pp.67, 71,) visited the polls at different times in the day, and though hundreds, mostly soldiers, crowded the place of voting, could see scarcely a person known to them. The judges of the election at this precinct were (p.69) Mr. Price, B. Hamerler, and Mr. Carpenter. Yet Carpenter, without authority of law, substituted in his place (p.70) one Jerry Millspaugh during a portion of the day, who acted as judge while he electioneered for the sitting member, and vice versa. The other two judges also forgot their duty as judges in their zeal, for the sitting member, (p.70). The polls at this precinct seemed to have been under the control of one Charles Elleard, an active partisan of the sitting member, the owner of a race course near by, who destroyed the tickets for the other candidates, (p.70,) put one man out of the room because he would not vote for the sitting member, declaring “we have it our own way here to-day,” and, as he tore up the tickets, “damn it, we don’t want any such tickets around here.” (p.70.)

Upon this proof of the manner of voting at the Abbey, the conduct of the judges in admitting illegal voters to cast their ballots in a body, without any evidence that they even administered to a single one the oath required by law of non-residents of the district – themselves acting as partisans of the sitting member, and, against the law, exchanging places with other partisans not authorized to act as judges; surrendering the control of the voting place to a violent partisan of the sitting member, and at last achieving the astonishing result of polling nearly four times as many votes as were ever before or since polled in that precinct, from voters all strangers, to long residents of the district – the contestant claims that the poll itself should be rejected. In reply to this evidence the committee do not find in the whole record that the sitting member has taken any testimony to support the legality or fairness of the voting at this precinct, except the testimony of Captain N. S. Constable, the same person to whom the watch, before referred to, was presented, taken in this city after the hearing was commenced, and excluded from the consideration of the committee by a vote of the House. The sitting member has contented himself with relying upon such testimony as to the validity of this vote as could be extracted from the witnesses offered by the contestant by cross-examination, which consisted in statements that there were teamsters and others in the employ of Captain Constable and others, not soldiers, and also employés of the United States at a government corral a short distance from this voting precinct, who sometimes were soldiers’ clothes, and who were believed to be citizens of St. Louis, and who might have cast this great vote. That they did no one has testified. But the name of each one of these alleged illegal voters was furnished the sitting member in the notice of contest, and he had sixty days after his answer to take any testimony he pleased as to their right to vote. A record of all the teamsters and employés of the government at Benton barracks and the government corral, not soldiers, existed at those places. It could have been compared with the poll list, and if found there the men themselves were at hand to prove their residence in some one of the wards in this district, or others could have testified to the fact, if it existed. If these votes came from the sources suggested, the proof of it was so easy that its absence adds weight to the testimony given against their legality. There is also positive testimony that eighty-eight of those voters whose names are given fraudulently cast their votes in a body, without question or precaution on the part of the judges, and the proof is little less conclusive as to many more. Indeed, it is difficult to see in the manner in which this election was conducted any limit beyond an exhaustion of the supply of men to the number of votes returned from this precinct.

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. In the late case of Blair vs. Barrett, decided in the 36th Congress, (1st session, Report No. 563,) in a contest in substantially the same district, the entire vote of four precincts was thrown out for reasons so similar to those existing in this case, that the committee take the liberty to quote at length from the report in that case, which was adopted by the House, and forms a precedent for our guidance.

In speaking of the great increase of the vote of certain precincts over that of previous elections, the committee say:

“If such increase had been attributable to increase of population, it must have been, under the law requiring a year’s residence in the State before voting, from an addition to the population which had arrived in the city a year previous to the day of the election; if from out of the State, or from some other part of the State of Missouri, three months at least before that day. The presence of a new voting population of five thousand, with all the families, and other indications of their existence which move with them wherever they go, and stop with them wherever they abide, could hardly escape notice for a year, or even three months. It could hardly be expected, either, that any such actual and bona fide accession to the voting population would have cast its entire strength for the candidate of one party alone. To some extent such increase would naturally be expected to distribute itself somewhat among all parties. The committee have not been pointed to any instance elsewhere of so great an increase to the voting population of such a territory in so short a time without any known cause or source, or special indication of its presence, and all one political faith, and casting its first vote in a body for one of three different political candidates, all at the same time and place equally active in canvassing for votes. This district is divided into thirty-five election precincts or sub-districts, and any honest increase of votes arising from natural increase of population would generally find itself distributed among them all; yet it is nearly all found in seven or eight out of the thirty-five.

“These remarkable features of this case, disclosed in the outset, led the committee early to direct a most scrutinizing inquiry into the manner of voting, the qualification of voters, the conducts of the judges of elections, and of others in these precincts. The evidence shows that great irregularities existed at nearly all of them; and just in proportion as these irregularities were frequent and glaring did the increase of vote for the sitting member over the vote cast for the candidate of his party two years before show itself.

* * * * * * *

“Men unknown in the precinct when they offered to vote were permitted to cast their ballots without question, and without first taking oath as the law requires, that they ‘had not voted and would not vote in any other precinct in the district.’ Violent and tumultuous crowds surrounded the polls, and at times had such possession of them, and power over the judges, as to render it almost, if not quite, impossible for any one to approach the polls or cast his vote, unless he carried a ballot for the sitting member. * * *

“An examination of the poll-books and abstract of votes at these precincts, which are a part of the proofs, discloses evidence of these irregularities and the facility they afforded for fraudulent voting. The conviction is forced upon the committee that this facility was eagerly and largely availed of, if it were not the cause and temptation to much of the fraudulent voting. In several of these precincts, it does not appear that any oath had been taken by the judges of election, which, if nothing else, might be supposed to be some check upon a disposition to disregard or overlook the requirements of law. * * * * * *

“The poll-books show that the same person cast more than one vote, sometimes more than two – sometimes at the same precinct, and sometimes at different ones in the city – multiplying in this way his vote manifold in the general result.

* * * * * * *

“In this connexion they cite a late case of contested election in a court of law, the case of Mann vs. Cassiday, for the office of district attorney in the city of Philadelphia, at an election held October 14, 1856, contested in the court of quarter sessions in that city. The facts in that case, that the committee take the liberty to append them to this report in an appendix, marked A, and solicit the attention of the house thereto. A reading of the evidence, as thus summed up, and as contained in the proofs in this case, would almost lead to the conclusion that the one had been taken as the pattern of the other. After summing up the testimony at length, the judge concludes: ‘As the case now stands before us, we should be derelict in our duty did we not unhesitatingly express our conviction that the acts of 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.’ And he adds: ‘Had we not erased from the petition the specifications alleging gross frauds and irregularities on the part of the election officers in the divisions referred to, a different course would certainly have been adopted. 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 we would not only have been abundantly justified, but it would have been our plain duty, to throw out the returns of every division to which we have referred.’”

Following these precedents, based upon facts so similar that either might be taken for the other, and in accordance with their own conviction, that the truth cannot be deduced from the returns furnished by the judges at the Abbey precinct, the committee are of opinion that it should be rejected, and not be made a part of the count of votes in this district.

B and K – 32d regiment. – The second specification of contest is, that seventy-eight non-residents of the district voted for the sitting member, in companies B and K, 32d regiment of Missouri volunteers. The former voted in camp, in the 7th ward, and its poll-book (p.109) returns 17 votes for Blair, 2 for Knox, 1 for Bogy; the poll-book of the latter (p.108) returns 61 votes for Blair, and none for the other candidates. The contestant offered what he alleged were copies of the muster-rolls of these companies, (pp.200-203.) The sitting member objected to these muster-rolls, and to all others offered by the contestant, thirty-seven in all, found between pages 199 and 297, for the following reasons: Because, 1st, they “are neither certified copies, nor sworn copies, in any true sense of the word;” that the papers, from which those copies purport to have been taken, were not in the proper place of deposit, nor in the hands of the legal custodian, and that they are, in many instances, copies of copies. The testimony shows (p.90) that the papers are copies of muster-rolls found in the adjutant general’s office of the State of Missouri, made by the witness, and sworn to as true copies by him. The committee are of opinion that, inasmuch as these are muster-rolls of regiments raised by the State of Missouri, and afterwards mustered into the service of the United States, the rule of the military service requiring one copy of these rolls to be deposited with the Adjutant General of the United States at Washington, does not make either the copy deposited with the adjutant general of Missouri or that kept with the regiment copies of the one so deposited in Washington any more than that is a copy of either of them, but that either and each of them may be treated as an original, and the muster-roll of the regiment for all purposes for which it is to be consulted as such, and the adjutant general of Missouri a proper custodian thereof. “Sworn copies” of papers are expressly recognized in the act of Congress providing for taking testimony in contested election cases. – (Brightley’s Dig., p.255.) The committee, therefore, deemed these papers as properly authenticated. It was claimed by the contestant that these muster-rolls were evidence of the following facts, viz: who were members of the regiment to which the rolls belonged, and what was the age and residence of the soldier enlisting. While, on the other hand, it was objected by the sitting member that, if properly authenticated, still the rolls would be evidence of nothing except the facts required by law to be recorded in them, and that neither the age nor the residence of the soldier was required to be inserted upon the muster-roll, and could not, therefore, be proved by it. The committee were of opinion that the law requires that the age of a soldier must be made known at the time of his enlistment; that by act of Congress, (St. 12, p.502,) the oath of enlistment is conclusive against the soldier as to his age; and that the record of age made from the oath of enlistment upon the muster-roll, by the proper officer at the mustering in, should be taken as prima facie evidence of the age of a recruit by third persons, especially by those who seek to avail themselves of the vote of such soldier. But the committee are of opinion that the muster-roll is not evidence of the residence before enlistment of the soldiers whose names it bears. It is not of the slightest consequence to the recruiting service to know the residence of the recruit. The law does not require it to be ascertained, nor does the muster-roll purport to give it, but only the place where the recruit “joined for duty and was enrolled.” But it is known that recruits are constantly going from all parts of a State and from different States to favorite places of rendezvous, and there enlisting, so that the place where a recruit enlisted is no evidence of his residence.

While, therefore, the committee admit the muster-rolls as evidence of what men compose a regiment, and of their age, they are still only evidence of those facts at the time the muster-roll is made out. The certificate at the bottom of the muster-roll expresses what, in these particulars, it is evidence of, and is in this form:

“I certify, on honor, that this muster-roll exhibits the true state of –––– company ––, of the ––– regiment Missouri volunteers, for the period herein mentioned; that each man answers to his own proper name in person; and that the remarks set opposite the name of each officer and soldier are accurate and just.

“––– –––––.

“Captain Company –––––, Missouri Vols.”

But the committee are of opinion that a muster-roll made out a long time before the day of election (November 4, 1862,) is not evidence of the “true state” of a regiment at that time. Regiments are constantly changing. With many of them, recruiting is all the time going on, and men are every day discharged. It cannot, therefore, be safe to say that because a name is not found on a muster-roll made out in 1861, that that person was not a member of the regiment, November 4, 1862, when the election took place. They therefore rejected all the muster-rolls offered as evidence of who did and who did not belong to the respective regiments on the day of election, excepting the following, viz: Company B, 32d regiment, (p.200,) dated December 8, 1862; company K, same regiment, (p.203,) same date; Naughton’s company, 28th regiment, (p.206) dated September 12, 1862; company L, 10th cavalry, (p.209,) dated October 28, 1862; company B, 31st regiment, (p.212,) dated August 28, 1862; and Captain Cain’s company, 10th cavalry, (p.292,) dated october 31, 1862. All these muster-rolls, made so near the time of the election, were held by the committee to be prima facie evidence of what persons belonged to the respective regiments enumerated. So that if the name of a voter was not found upon these muster-rolls, it was incumbent upon the party claiming the vote of such a person as a member of one of these regiments to show that fact. But all the other muster-rolls, bearing date from one year to a year and a half prior to the day of the election, were not deemed by the committee safe evidence of membership sufficient to be taken as prima facie. But all these muster-rolls show the age of the soldier when he enlisted and the time of enlistment, and therefore of age one is a good evidence as another, and all are admitted as evidence to that extent, leaving each party at liberty to controvert them by other evidence.

Applying this rule to the muster-rolls of B and K, 32d regiment, (pp.200-’1 and 203-’4,) it will be found that on muster-roll of B, (p.200,) compared with poll-book of the same company, (p.109,) five minors voted for Blair and one for Knox, and ten voted for Blair whose names are not found on the muster-roll as belonging to the regiment. A like comparison of the poll-book and muster-roll of company K (pp.108, 203-’4) will show that nine minors and sixteen not on the muster-roll voted for Blair, and the testimony (p.92) shows one other, a non-resident, so voting.

The names of all these persons were given in the notice of contest to the sitting member, at the outset, as illegal voters. Every facility existed for meeting this evidence, but nothing was offered to contradict it, and the committee rejected as illegal the foregoing votes from these companies.

Tenth Specification.

The allegation in this specification is that the votes of the several companies therein named were, for the reasons therein specific, illegal. The first two companies here designated are the companies B and K, 32d regiment Missouri volunteers, already considered. The next is company C, 10th regiment volunteers. A comparison of the muster-roll of this regiment (p.206) with the poll-book (p.108) shows that two minors cast their votes for Blair. Six casting their votes for him are not to be found on the muster-roll, and twenty five are returned as “river men;” which means, as the committee are informed, that the men live upon the river in boating and kindred employments, without claiming or having a residence in this district. The poll-book of “detached unassigned recruits,” 10th Missouri volunteers, (p.107,) return also seven “river men,” voting for Blair. A comparison of the muster-roll of company C, 7th regiment infantry, (p.230,) with the poll-book (p.100) shows the votes of two minors for Mr. Blair. The same comparison of muster-rolls of company E (p. 233) with its poll-book (p.100) discloses the votes of four minors for Mr. Blair. The poll-book of company B, (p.101,) same regiment, shows one vote for Knox from a resident of the second ward, which is not the district. Three minors voted for Mr. Blair in company G, 6th regiment volunteer infantry, (pp.107, 221,) and these several votes were rejected by the committee.

Under the other specifications in the notice of contest the contestant has offered, and there will be found, much evidence tending to show that fraudulent voting was extensively practiced at very many of the precincts throughout the district. At Carondelet, about ten miles below St. Louis, an active partisan of the sitting member, Captain Eads, was at the time of this election building gunboats, and having a large number of men in his employ. They came from all parts of the country, (p. 39.) Some of them had families in St. Louis, and, boarding at home, went and returned on the cars when they had employment. Mr. Eads took an active part previous to the election for Mr. Blair, and induced his men to go up to St. Louis to attend preliminary meetings, and tickets provided for them upon the cars, (p.42.) On one occasion tickets were so furnished them to attend a meeting in St. Louis, at which Mr. Eads himself was going to speak, (p.43.) On the day of election large crowds of these gunboat men took the cars at the voting place in Carondelet for St. Louis, after voting had been going on for some time, late in the forenoon, and a gentleman working as foreman for Mr. Eads passed through the cars and distributed the tickets for Blair, one of the crowds stating as they went that “they were all for Blow and Blair, helping Blow down there in Carondelet and Blair in the city of St. Louis;” and “that they had succeeded in getting a good many votes before the old judge asked them too closely about their residence, how long they had been there, &c., but that he had got too particular, and some of them could not vote at that poll.” There were two or three passenger cars filled with these men on that particular train, (pp. 56, 57.) But, although these men set out for the avowed purpose of casting fraudulent votes, and were furnished with tickets by the foreman of of [sic.] their employer, and were carried from the poll in one district where the judge had become too particular for dishonest voters into this district under the guidance of the employer of Mr. Eads, who distributed among them votes for Mr. Blair as they went. Yet these men are traced to no poll in St. Louis. Their names are not given, so that no examination of the poll-list will enable the committee to detect them. However strong the tendency of this testimony, it lacks this link, and the committee cannot say how many of them voted, nor at what poll they voted, nor for whom. The committee have, therefore, rejected no votes from any poll on account of gunboat men from Carondelet. For similar reasons, though the evidence had a strong tendency to show much fraudulent voting in St. Louis by men from Jefferson Barracks and United States magazine, and also of soldiers going from precinct to precinct in the city, yet the evidence failed either to furnish their names, except the thirty-two at the Abbey, so that the committee could themselves detect them on the poll-book, or to trace the voter himself to any particular poll, and therefore no votes on account of these allegations or proofs have been rejected by the committee.

The sitting member, under his specifications, has confined himself almost entirely to the alleged illegality of the vote cast by the soldiers composing what was known as the “Osterhaus Brigade,” composed of the 3d, 12th and 17th regiments infantry, 3d and 4th cavalry Missouri volunteers.

The allegations of the sitting member against this brigade are, first, that a large number (he claims 302) voted as soldiers in this brigade who did not belong to it, and, second, that a large portion of the others were non-residents of the district, and he insisted that upon the evidence in the record adduced in support of these two allegations, the vote of the whole brigade, 744 votes, should be thrown out. First, the committee call attention to the evidence offered in support of his allegation that 302 votes were cast by men not members of this brigade. It consists almost entirely of the muster-rolls for any purpose, and only claimed that they are to be admitted as evidence for him, if for the contestant. The muster-rolls offered by the sitting member are found on pages 242, 245, 248, 251, 254, 257, 260, 263, 264, 267, 270, 272, 274, 276, 278, 280, 288, 290; and the poll-books with which they are compared are to be found on pages 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311. By reference to the muster-rolls it will be observed that none of them purport to show the true state of the company later than December 30, 1861, and some of them bear date as long ago as August, 1861. They could not, therefore, be taken as showing the true state of the brigade in November, 1862, and would therefore be excluded, when offered for that purpose, by the rule applied by the committee to those offered by the contestant. But it appeared, by direct testimony, that recruiting for [U.S.] regiments had been going on after these muster-rolls were filed in the office of the adjutant general, and previous to the election one hundred and fourteen were shown to have been added to the 12th regiment in the winter of 1861-’2.– (p.349.) One witness was on recruiting service in St. Louis for the 17th regiment when his deposition was taken, February 10, 1863, (p.364,) and another testitied (p.341) that there were recruiting officers all over St. Louis city and county, recruiting for the Osterhaus brigade, from August, 1861, down to the time of the taking his deposition, February 13, 1863. The committee are confirmed by this testimony in the correctness of their conclusion that these muster-rolls, showing the state of the brigade so long a time before the election, and before this recruiting had taken place, could not be relied upon as showing who composed the regiments on that day. One other remark is pertinent to the claim of sitting member, that so large a number of names on the poll-books of this brigade are not to be found on its muster-rolls. The names are nearly all those of Germans, very difficult of pronunciation, and in many instances an American would find it impossible to spell the name correctly on hearing it pronounced. Yet the sitting member seems, in comparing the muster-rolls with the poll-books, as printed, to have pronounced every name on the one as not on the other, if they were not identical in orthography. The committee, in their comparisons, found over eighty such names, but their conclusion that the muster-rolls did not show the true state of the brigade on the day of election renders any comparison of this nature unnecessary. These rolls, however, do disclose the names of twelve minors voting for contestant, and they are rejected.

The sitting member also offered the testimony of witnesses to show that these regiments were composed entirely of non-residents, and therefore not legal voters. Attention has already been called to the fact that recruiting officers for some of these regiments had been engaged all over St. Louis city and county since August, 1861. It was also testified that company H, twelfth regiment, was entirely recruited in the 10th ward, and several other companies in that part of the city which is in this district, (p. 365.) There was other testimony of a like character as to several other companies, tending to show that they were originally recruited in whole or in part from the first district, besides the recruits they have received from time to time from the same quarter, (pp. 337, 343.) But the sitting member submitted testimony from the record concerning many who had voted in this brigade, who, the committee were satisfied, were non-residents, and they were accordingly rejected by them from the count. The attention of the House will be called to the testimony applicable to each company by itself.

Company K, 17th regiment. – The entire vote of this company was twenty-one for Knox. A soldier belonging to this company, (p. 372.) on being shown a list of its voters, testifies that all except two were residents of Iowa prior to and at the time of their enlistment; was at headquarters when transportation was sent up to Guttenburg and Dubuque, Iowa, for them, and when they arrived. Of the two exceptions, he testifies that one resided in Dubuque, but enlisted in St. Louis; the other resided in the first district, though but a short time before he enlisted. This testimony is not controverted, and twenty of these votes are rejected by the committee.

Company I, same regiment, gave three votes for Knox, and the only testimony offered is that of a witness who testifies, (p.328,) that, from what one of them told him once in 1861, he knew he was from Cincinnati. But the committee were of opinion that this was not competent evidence to prove in this case that the voter was not at the time of the election a resident of the district, and so none of this vote was rejected.

Company B, same regiment, gave thirty votes for Knox. A witness testifies (p.328) that two of them named were intimate friends of his, and were at the time of their enlistment from Cincinnati. Another, a lieutenant, testifies, (pp. 329, 330,) that of the list of voters in this company there were but two citizens of St. Louis, and that the others were recruited by him at Cincinnati and Philadelphia, and of these two, the captain testified (p. 340) that one was a resident of Illinois and the other of the first district. Twenty-nine of the thirty are therefore rejected by the committee.

Company F, same regiment, gave twenty-seven votes for Knox. One witness testifies (p. 328) that he was in Cincinnati two years ago, and knew that Sternberg and Schaub lived there then, and was at headquarters when they came there, and they told him that they lived there at the time of their enlistment. But two other witnesses testify (pp. 330, 331) that one of these men, Schaub, as well as several others named, were from St. Louis. There is no evidence given which shows that any other voter in this company was a non-resident, and the committee reject the one vote of Sternberg only.

Company A, same regiment, gave thirty-nine votes for Knox. It was testified by two witnesses (pp. 334, 336) that nine of this list were non-residents, and they are rejected accordingly.

Company H, same regiment, gave twenty-five votes for Knox, and a witness testifies (p.337) that two of them were residents of Fond du Lax, Wisconsin, and they are rejected.

Company D, 12th regiment, cast forty-six votes for Knox. One witness, a member of the company, testifies (p. 360) that this whole company was recruited in the first, second, and third wards – the second district. But he is evidently mistaken, for his captain (p. 332) gives the street where his company was recruited in the first district. The same witness (p. 333) testifies that three named by him of this company, Buckholtz, Schmidt, and John Webber, were non-residents. He also testifies that several others told him that they were non-residents, and one that he was a minor: but the committee rejected the three votes named only.

Company C, same regiment, gave thirty-three votes for Knox. Two witnesses testify (pp. 333, 360,) one of them orderly sergeant of the company, that most of it was recruited in Cole Camp, that ten names shown them were non-residents; one testifies that eleven of the company did belong to St. Louis, (p. 348.) These witnesses testify that others on the list of voters they did not know as belonging to the company, and one of them, the orderly sergeant named, testifies to returning from returning from recruiting to his regiment at St. Genevieve, being with it “several times during three or four days,” and examining the books, he thinks there could have been no such recruits without his knowing it, but states also that the first lieutenant was also recruiting, and he did not know the recruits recruited by him. The committee therefore rejected from this company only these ten votes of those testified to be non-residents.

Company I, same regiment, gave twenty-seven votes for Mr. Knox. The only testimony respecting it is that of two witnesses, members of the regiment, but neither of them of this company. One testifies (p. 347) “the company was raised in Davenport, Iowa, all except four or five, which were obtained in St. Louis;” the other, Benther, who seems to have been relied on for much service as a witness as to many other companies as well as his own, who testifies (p. 360) “a part came from Iowa under Captain Ahlefield, which was company I.” No question is put to either of these witnesses to ascertain their means of information as to the residence of soldiers of a company of which neither was a member, nor was any other evidence introduced to controvert the statement. One of the soldiers who voted was of the “four or five which were obtained in St. Louis,” and the committee rejected the other twenty-six.

Company K, same regiment, cast thirty votes for Knox, and it is testified by a resident of Bon Homme township, which is not in the district, (p. 350,) that eleven of those named were his neighbors, well known to him to be residents of that township. This evidence does not seem to be controverted, and that number (eleven) is rejected from this poll.

The 5th regiment of cavalry voted at Ironton Missouri, (p.386,) and gave thirty-four votes for Knox. It is claimed by the sitting member that this entire vote should be rejected for two reasons: First, because notwithstanding the name of the regiment and place of voting are properly designated, yet the company is not designated. But there is no requirement of law that the company should be stated upon the poll-book, and no necessity for it, if but one voted. Yet, if the law required this duty of the officers of election, the omission of it by them would not deprive the legal voter of his voice in the election if he had cast his vote as required by law. The other objection to this vote is this: One witness (p. 339) testifies that company G came from Wisconsin, and that John H. Baltorf was not recruited in St. Louis. Now, the name of John H. Baltorf is found on the poll-book as voting for Knox, and the sitting member, claiming that this witness had testified that Baltorf belonged to company G, insist that this proves that it was company G which voted at Ironton, and that it is also evidence that the whole number of voters here voting were from Wisconsin. But a reference to the whole testimony of this witness (pp. 339 and 340) will show that he nowhere testifies that Baltorf belonged to company G. If, therefore, the conclusion is logical, the premises upon which it is based are not proved, and the whole fails. Besides, all the knowledge the witness has of the residence of Baltorf is what Baltorf himself told him at some time not stated, (p.340.) The committee have not rejected any votes from this poll.

This constitutes all the material evidence submitted from the record by the sitting member to sustain his allegations against the Osterhaus brigade.

The poll-books from several companies were rejected by the official canvassers because of informalities in the returns. The following is a list of the polls thus rejected, with the reason for the rejection of each as certified by the secretary of the board of canvassers:

List of rejected poll-books, November election, 1862.

H. 7th regiment infantry; camp near Jackson, Tennessee. Rejected for want of a certificate.

F. 7th regiment infantry; Jackson, Tennessee. Rejected for want of abstract votes.

I. 3d regiment infantry; Iron county, Missouri. Rejected for same reason.

A poll-book. Rejected for want of a designation to show that it was a military vote. No regiment nor company indicated.

A poll-book. Rejected for want of a designation to show that it was a military vote. No regiment nor company indicated.

I. 30th regiment infantry; Pilot Knob, Missouri. Rejected for want of an abstract of votes.

A. 29th regiment infantry; Jackson, Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Rejected for want of a certificate.

H. 30th regiment infantry; Camp Farrar, Pilot Knob, Iron county, Missouri. Rejected, as the voters register their names as living in other counties.

A poll-book. Rejected for want of certificates and indication of regiment and company.

A poll-book. Rejected for want of certificates. No regiment or company indicated.

F. 29th regiment infantry; Camp Peckham, Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Rejected for want of a certificate.

D. 2d regiment artillery. No place indicated where election was held, and rejected for want of a certificate.

D. 30th regiment infantry; Camp Farrar, Pilot Knob, Missouri. No abstract of the votes.

K. Colonel Gray’s regiment M. S. M.; South Big River bridge, I. M. R. R., Missouri. Rejected for want of a certificate, the same having been torn off before the book came to this office.

1st Missouri light artillery. No place indicated where election was held, and no certificate.

B, 3d regiment infantry; Pilot Knob, Missouri. Rejected for want of a certificate.

A, 1st Missouri light artillery; camp at Ironton, Missouri. No abstract of votes.

Pioneers, 4th regiment infantry; Moselle bridge, Missouri. No abstract of votes.

E, 27th regiment infantry; Camp Blair, Livingston county, Missouri. No abstract of votes.

A poll-book; Ironton, Iron county, Missouri. Rejected for want of some certificate to indicate that these are soldiers’ votes.

C, 4th regiment cavalry; camp near Ironton, Iron county, Missouri. Rejected for the reason that one judge only signed the certificate.

A poll-book; Ironton, Iron county, Missouri. Rejected for want of some certificate to indicate that these are soldiers’ votes.

C, 4th regiment cavalry; camp near Ironton, Iron county, Missouri. Rejected for the reason that one judge only signed the certificate.

A poll book; Ironton, Iron county, Missouri. Rejected for want of some indication to show that it was the vote of soldiers.

D, 10th Missouri cavalry; camp United States magazine, St. Louis county, Missouri. Rejected for the reason that one judge only signed the certificate.

C, 30th regiment infantry; Camp Farrar, Pilot Knob, Iron county, Missouri. No abstract of votes.

D, 27th regiment infantry; Camp Blair, near Chillicothe, Missouri. No abstract of votes.

13th regiment cavalry, M. S. M.; headquarters Waynesville, Missouri. No abstract of votes.

In the opinion of the committee, all of the polls which were rejected for want of “an abstract of votes” were erroneously rejected. The abstract is simply a computation or casting up of the votes, not required by law, and, if erroneously done, to be corrected. The name of each voter and the person for whom he voted is given in each case, and the computation left to be made is not only perfectly easy, but is what is being done all the way through this investigation. The committee have therefore taken into the count all polls rejected for this reason. The following table shows what polls are thus included, and for whom the vote was cast in each case:

...........................................................................................Knox................ Blair

Company F, 7th regiment Missouri volunteer infantry ................ 0 .................. 75

Company I, 3d regiment Missouri volunteer infantry .................. 0 ....................8

Company I, 30th regiment Missouri volunteer infantry ...............1 .................. 11

Company D, 30th regiment Missouri volunteer infantry ............. 0 ................. 11

Company A, 1st regiment Missouri light artillery ....................... 30 ................ 15

Company of pioneers, 4th regiment of infantry ......................... 4 .................. 3

Company E, 27th regiment Missouri volunteer infantry .............. 0 ..................33

Company C, 30th regiment Missouri volunteer infantry .............. 0 ................ 25

Company D, 27th regiment Missouri volunteer infantry .............. 0 ................. 6

.................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ––– ––––

.................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 35 187

.................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ––– ––––

But a comparison of the muster-roll of company F, 7th regiment Missouri volunteer infantry, (p. 236) – the only one of the poll-books of these companies found in the record – with its poll-book (p. 393) discloses six minors voting for Mr. Blair, and the poll of this company is reduced to sixty-nine accordingly. For the reason already stated the other polls cannot be compared with the muster-rolls of the respective companies. The aggregate of the rejected vote, which the committee have thus included, is therefore; For Mr. Knox, 35; for Mr. Blair, 181.

The committee have thus, as well as they have been abe, considered all the testimony in this voluminous record which they have deemed material to the issues presented. They have found much that is uncertain and unsatisfactory, and no little that is irrelevant; they have also found great difficulty in sifting this evidence, and in determining the weight to which it is all entitled. The result from it all, to which they have arrived, they now submit to the House as follows:

The official canvass gives to the sitting member and contestant the following vote:

............................................................. Blair.

Official .................................................. 4, 741

To be added from rejected polls ............... 181

............................................................... –––––

.............................................................. 4, 922

To be deducted, rejected by committee:

At Abbey precinct ................................ 424

Company B, 32d regiment ..................... 15

Company K, 32d regiment .................... 26

Company C, 10th regiment ....................33

Unassigned, 10th regiment .................... 7

Company C, 7th regiment ...................... 2

Company E, 7th regiment ...................... 4

Company G, 6th regiment ...................... 3

...........................................................–––

..........................................................514

..........................................................––––

..........................................................4,408

..........................................................–––––

..........................................................Knox.

Official ............................................... 4,588

To be added from rejected polls ............. 35

..........................................................––––

..........................................................4,623

To be deducted, rejected by committee:

At Abbey precinct ....................................................... 41

Company B, 32d regiment ............................................ 1

Company B, 7th regiment ............................................. 1

Osterhaus’ brigade, company K, 17th regiment ..............12

Osterhaus’ brigade, company K, 17th regiment .............. 20

Osterhaus’ brigade, company B, 17th regiment .............. 29

Osterhaus’ brigade, company F, 17th regiment ................ 1

Osterhaus’ brigade, company A, 17th regiment ................ 9

Osterhaus’ brigade, company H, 17th regiment ................ 2

Osterhaus’ brigade, company D, 12th regiment ................ 5

Osterhaus’ brigade, company C, 12th regiment ................ 10

Osterhaus’ brigade, company I, 12th regiment ................ 26

Osterhaus’ brigade, company K, 12th regiment ................ 11

...................................................................–––––––– 166

............................................................................... 4, 457

Plurality for Mr. Knox, 49 votes.