The Thirteenth Ward was also attacked. There was an excess of 9 ballots in the box over the number of names on the poll list, but the testimony showed that this was due to the rush at the polls during part of the day, rendering it impossible for the clerks to get down all the names. There was loud talking and pushing and crowding at the polls during the day, but most of the testimony was to the effect that it was not such as to intimidate anyone. Some of the witnesses thought that from 3 to 8 persons were prevented from voting. It was also said that the votes of some colored persons who were legal voters were rejected, but the testimony was very unsatisfactory. But allowing contestant the votes of all the colored voters in the ward, and of all that anyone thought might have been prevented from voting, and deducting from contestee the 9 extra votes, and the 25 votes in the other ward, contestee would still have a majority, and the committee recommended that he retain his seat.

The House adopted the resolutions without debate or division. [2 Bart., 897-904.]

(24) BOYDEN vs. SHOBER.

Fraud; irregularities. Report for contestee. Contestee retained the

seat.

Report by Mr. McCrary.

Contestant charged that voters were misled by a forged circular and deterred from voting by threats and intimidation, and that illiterate voters were deceived by pasting the names of the Democratic candidates on Republican ballots. The committee found that votes were probably lost to contestant from all these causes, but there was nothing to connect contestee with the wrongful acts, or to show that enough votes were affected to change the result. It was also claimed that the election was void because only one ballot box was provided at each poll, instead of two, as required by law. There was some doubt as to the construction of the law, but conceding the construction contended for by contestant, the law was merely directory, and irregularity in its observance ought not to void the election.

There were charges against the regularity of the credentials of contestee, but that question had been settled by the action of the House in permitting him to be sworn in. Contestee was unable to take the "ironclad oath," but his disabilities had been removed by act of Congress.

The committee recommended that contestee retain his seat, and the House agreed without division.

[2 Bart., 904-906.]

(25) SHEAFE vs. TILLMAN.

Fraud; intimidation; irregularities. Majority report for contestee; minority report for contestant. Contestee retained the seat.

Majority report by Mr. Brooks; minority report by Mr. Dox. According to the vote as returned contestant had a majority of 1,156 votes, but the governor rejected one county and parts of several other counties, and gave the certificate to contestee, who had a majority of 432 votes in the remainder of the district. The committee were

H. Doc. 510--17

unanimous in holding that the governor had no such power to reject counties and precincts, but on the question whether, under the evidence, they ought to be rejected by the House, they differed.

In the county of Lincoln the registration had been set aside by a proclamation of the governor, issued under the law authorizing him to remove registrars and set aside registrations. Under the law the election was to be held in each county under the direction of the superintendent of registration and by officers chosen by him. The registrar took the place of the sheriff under the old law. Under the old law, if the sheriff could not act the coroner was to take his place, or, in his absence, some person appointed by the county court. There was a general impression in this county that the superintendent of registration had been removed, and that therefore no legal election could be held, and many voters remained away from the polls. The county court the day before the election appointed the coroner to organize the election, and he held an election in seven of the twenty-five districts of the county. Contestant received all but five of the votes that were cast. The committee threw out this county. If the governor had, as was contended, no constitutional power to remove the registrar, then he was still in office and was the only officer competent to hold the election. If he was constitutionally removed, the county court had no right to appoint the coroner in his place, for by the new law the appointment of all such officers was vested wholly in the governor, and all laws in conflict therewith were repealed. The coroner was not even an officer de facto, for he did not hold his office under color of legal authority; he was a mere usurper and all his acts were void. He was chosen by the court so late that no due notice of the election was given; the election was only held in a small part of the county and many voters refrained from voting; and it further appeared that the Kuklux Klan was organized in this county and intimidated voters. On all these accounts the committee rejected the vote of the county.

Precincts in a number of other counties were thrown out by the governor because the election officers did not appear to have been sworn. The committee adhered to the ruling in Barnes vs. Adams, and held that it was not imperative that the officers should be sworn where there was no fraud, but in each of these counties it was shown that the Kuklux Klan had appeared and committed outrages during the summer preceding the election, and under such circumstances the committee thought that the precincts where the election was not conducted strictly according to law should be thrown out. Throwing out all these votes, contestee had a majority of 296 votes, and the committee recommended that he retain the seat.

The minority disagreed. The election in Lincoln County was strictly in accordance with law. The registrar was given by the law all the power relating to elections formerly belonging to the sheriff, but the law substituting the coroner for the sheriff, in his absence, or empowering the county court to fill a vacancy had not been repealed. It was admitted by contestee that the two or three thousand voters who did not vote in this county on account of the action of the governor in setting aside the registration would have voted for contestant. This action had been decided by the supreme court of the State to be unconstitutional. There was no evidence that Kuklux outrages in this district intimidated enough votes to affect the result of the election. It was doubtful in any case if they would have had an effect favorable

to contestant, as he had throughout the canvass denounced this organization. The minority recommended the seating of contestant.

The House, by a vote of 123 to 60, adopted the resolutions recommended by the majority, and contestee retained the seat. [2 Bart., 907-922.]

(26) SHIELDS vs. VAN HORN.

Fraudulent registration. Majority report for contestee; minority report for contestant. Contestee retained the seat.

Majority report by Mr. Churchill; minority report by Mr. Burr. According to the returns, contestant had a majority of 983 votes, but the secretary of state of Missouri threw out the votes of two counties, thereby giving to contestee a majority of 867 votes. The committee were unanimous in holding that this action of the secretary of state was illegal, and it had been so decided by the supreme court of the State. But contestee claimed that one of these two counties ought to be rejected by the House on account of fraudulent registration. It appeared that Mr. Phelan, the superintendent of registration for the senatorial district of which this county was a part, had been appointed by the governor as a Republican, and had represented himself as such an extreme Republican that the governor at first hesitated to appoint him, and cautioned him not to be unjustly stringent in the enforcement of the law. Mr. Phelan appointed three Republicans as the board of registration in Jackson County, and tried to induce them to adopt rules more stringent than the law required. He tried to get the nomination for sheriff on the Republican ticket, and failing in this, he became very angry, and threatened to have revenge. He then, for a money consideration, agreed with the Democrats to manage the registration for their benefit. He removed his Republican appointees and appointed Democrats in their places, one of them being a party to the corrupt arrangement. These registrars failed to follow the law, which required them to examine all applicants to see if they had been guilty of any of the disqualifying acts, and registered all applicants who would take the oath of loyalty. The result was that they registered 5,186 names, while only 2,284 were registered at the prior, and 2,967 at the subsequent, registration. There was in addition specific proof that a considerable number of the persons registered were disqualified. Throwing out the vote of this county contestee still had a majority, and the committee recommended that he retain the seat.

The minority (Mr. Burr) held that the vote of Jackson County should be counted. The action of the secretary of state in rejecting it was clearly illegal, and it was prima facie legal. The evidence as to the alleged corruption of Superintendent Phelan was very confused and unsatisfactory. The persons appointed by him were shown to be of good character. The weight of the evidence showed that they followed the law in registering applicants. The evidence that persons were registered who were disqualified was vague and inconclusive. If contestee and his friends desired to object to the registration of anyone they were required by the law to make their objections to the registering officers at the time of registering, and they should have done it then.

The House adopted the resolution presented by the committee without division, and contestee retained the seat.

[2 Bart., 922-941.]

(27) RODGERS.

Claim for additional representation. Majority report favorable; minority report adverse. No action by the House.

Majority report by Mr. Heaton; minority report by Mr. Churchill. The facts in this case were the same as those in the case of Hamilton, in the Fortieth Congress, and the arguments advanced for and against the claim were the same, the only difference being that in this case the majority report was the favorable one and the minority report adverse. There was no action by the House.

12 Bart., 941-950.]

(Mr. PERRY was excused from further service on the committeee, and Mr. CHARLES FOSTER, of Ohio, appointed in his place.)

(1) Tennessee election.

(2) W. T. Clarke, Texas.

Cases.

(3) Thomas Boles es. John Edwards, Arkansas.

(4) Lewis McKenzie vs. Elliott M. Braxton, Virginia.

(5) Election frauds in Arkansas.

(6) John Cessna s. Benjamin F. Meyers, Pennsylvania.

(7) B. W. Norris 8. W. A. Handley, Alabama.

(8) David S. Gooding vs. Jeremiah M. Wilson, Indiana.

(9) W. A. Burleigh and S. L. Spink vs. M. K. Armstrong, Dakota Territory.

(10) D. C. Giddings vs. W. T. Clarke, Texas.

(11) Isaac G. McKissick vs. Alexander Wallace, South Carolina. (12) Christopher C. Bowen es. Robert C. De Large, South Carolina.

(13) Silas L. Niblack vs. Josiah T. Walls, Florida.

(14) J. Hale Sypher, Louisiana.

(1) TENNESSEE ELECTION.

Date of holding election. Election held valid.

Report by Mr. McCrary.

The members returned from the State of Tennessee were elected at an election held November 8, 1870. A protest was filed against their right to their seats on the ground that by the law of Tennessee in force at the time of the election the election should have been held in August, 1871. The code of Tennessee, adopted in 1858, fixed the time for the election of Representatives in Congress "on the first Thursday in August in every second year, dating from August, 1833.”