day. He, on that day, drew up an appointment of clerk to fill the place of the clerk who had left, leaving the name blank, and the town board, upon motion, inserted his, Miller's, name, and the appointment was signed. This was on Saturday, before election, while the board of registration was in session.

The paper purporting to be the return of the township of Avon, shown to witness, who says:

The body of it is in Miller's handwriting; Mr. Miller was present at the opening of the polls; he did not take his seat as clerk, or act as one of the board of inspectors on that day. I was present at the canvass of the votes; I saw a double vote then. After the polls had been closed, pursuant to declaration, we unlocked the box, and emptied out the votes upon the table and proceeded to ascertain the whole number of votes, I with the rest. We counted votes and compared the number with the footing of the poll list. I think we found the number short, can't say how much; one or two, I think. There had been errors on the poll list discovered during the day, as for instance, a number was repeated twice; Miller had made out the poll list and put the numbers on, and handed them to us. There were two repititions in one list, and one omission in the other, or "vice versa." I have examined the poll list; did so on the fifteenth, (15th,) instant. They have, since election, been in Mr. Miller's office. I counted the names; there were 374 names on the poll lists; the two lists tallied; have not seen the votes since clection; I found double tickets among the votes at the time of canvassing them. In unfolding the votes, I found two votes folded together. They looked as though the votes had been placed together, and folded up before they were voted; do not think they could have got together in that way, in the box; do not believe they could; did not believe so at the time, and said so to the board.

Both were

Those votes were both counted in the canvass. votes for Miller, for Representative.. I called the attention of the board to them. There was a good deal of talk about it by those outside. They were carefully compared to see if the

folds of the tickets were alike, and they were. Then they were put under the candlestick until the rest of the votes were counted.

The paper purporting to be the official return from the town of Avon, shown to the witness, who says:

I do not know when this was written. I know that Miller drew up a return, or statement, on the next day after election. Mr. Terry was present. I presume this is the one, but do not see anything upon it by which I can identify it as the one. It is in the hand-writing of Mr. Miller.

Being cross-examined, says: After the rest of the votes were counted, Mr. Burbank made a motion that the two votes be counted. Mr. Terry was silent. Roberts and Burbank voted for the counting. Terry did not vote for it. They were counted. The majority for Miller, I think, was 17. I presume this statement is correct, as I announced it-could not say positively. I read off, or announced the result. I think Mr. Miller and myself compared the statement, or return he made out, with the tally lists. They agreed, all through. The number of votes counted was less than the number of names on the tally lists. We all counted votes, and gave the numbers to one, who figured them up. This was done before the votes were unfolded. There were 374 names on the poll lists, I think.

Being re-examined, says: I was sworn in by Mr. Miller, on the day of election.

Zephaniah B. Knight recalled upon the part of the sitting member, and to whom was shown the returns from the township of Avon, of the last election, says: They are the returns made last fall. Henry Miller presented those returns. He appeared as one of the canvassers, and presented them just as they appear. I think the statement is in his hand writing. There was objection made before the board of canvassers, on account of the fact that it did not appear by the returns that a majority of the board of inspectors had joined in the appointment of a delegate to the board of county canvassers. It was laid upon the table for a while, and was finally received as it is.

MINORITY REPORT of the Committee on Elections, in rela tion to the petition of Hon. Henry Miller, claiming the seat occupied by Hon. John N. Donaldson, as Representative from District number one, of Oakland county.

The undersigned, from committee on elections, to whom was referred the petition of Henry Miller, contestant for the seat now held by John L. Donaldson, as member of this House from the 1st Representative district of the county of Oakland, asks leave to report that he has examined the allegations in the said petition set forth, and the evidence of the parties contestant, with the following result:

As the main issue of fact made in this case by the contestants, was in relation to the number of votes cast for the parties respectiveley, in the township of Addison, in said district, I have endeavored to determine from the evidence, what majority John N. Donaldson did actually and legally receive in said town. Without stopping to inquire as to the propriety of considering the testimony of Knight, Kleinhans, Adams and Brewer, as to the statements made by one Bower, sometimes in the presence of Donaldson and sometimes not, but giving it the

weight the majority of the committeee seem to give it, let us see if the contestant establishes the sweeping charges in his bill, or proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that John N. Donaldson did not receive a majority of 103 in the town of Addi. son. By doing so, we do not mean to admit that it was proper to receive as the sole evidence upon which to convict a member of this House of a high crime, and unseat him, or keep from his seat a person legally entitled thereto. Inasmuch as the evidence adduced by the contestant shows conclusively that there was within his reach direct testimony as to the truth or falsity of his allegations, we feel bound to scrutinize carefully the testimony he does introduce, and give it the construction most favorable to the sitting member that it will permit of. Upon the contestant is the burden of proof.. If he relies upon merely raising a presumption in his favor, that presumption must be so strong as not to admit of a reasonable doubt. Without repeating the testimony, as it reported, we will merely refer to facts that we think are shown by it. Donaldson was clerk of the town of Addison, and one of the inspectors of election, on the 4th of November last, and while thus acting as clerk, when the votes were counted and sone was read off that had his name pasted over that of Miller, he failed totally mthat to himself, but did tallyeit to some one else; at least, a placed the tally of that vote upon the dine next above, or next bibelow his name. His attention was called to the mistake. It Jwas not corrected, because she, it may be through pride, and because he failed to be convinced that he had made a mistake, -thought he had not.

This vote could not have been tallied upon the line of the name I of the office, or on a vacant line, without his discovering it immediately, and correcting it. As it appears from the returns from bithat town, that no votes were given for any other person for

the same office, and considering othat, according to the usual hform of tally lists, (first, the name of the office, then that of one rricandidate, and following that, the other, or others, if more than

two candidates are in the field, and then one or more blank

lines,) Miller's name immediately preceded or followed Donaldson's name, we are forced to the belief that this vote, spoken of by Benjamin Ketchum, was erroneously tallied to Miller's name. After the votes were all counted, Donaldson, in or der to send to Pontiac news of the result, figured up the majorities of some of the principal candidates, among them his own, which, in accordance with his figuring, he declared to be 98. No formal announcement was made. This figuring up of the majorities of some, was merely for the purpose of the mes-* ^ senger. Either on the same night or on the next day, at the ad journed meeting, (the witnesses are in doubt which was the time,) a mistake was found in the tally list, according to the witnesses retailing statements, not testifying to facts, a correc tion of which made Donaldson's majority 100, or 101. (Here, again, the witnesses are in doubt about the number statedLa strong proof that this hear-say evidence ought not to be relied! upon.)

If we put the construction upon the testimony to this point," that common sense dictates, and consider the character of the testimony, and also the fact that up to the time of the discovery of the mistake, Donaldson, or his friends, could have had no motive to criminally strike out, or add to the tallies, the most reasonable conclusion is, that the correction spoken of was merely a correct counting of the tallies on the list, and thus correcting the conclusion that he arrived at, while figuring 6 for the benefit of the messenger merely showing that he thena figured wrong.e

And when the witnesses speak of Bowers saying that by this correction it increased Donaldson's vote to 100 or 101, it cannot surely be claimed by this House, as the majority of the come mittee seem to think, that Bowers intended to be understoods that they stuffed the ballot-box, by putting in two or three more ballots! Bowers had been speaking off Donaldson's ri majority of 98y and not the number of votes in all cast for himo He sayspincreased his vote from 98 to 100 or 101," and not!+ from 153 to 155 or 156, referring to the number of ballots.