Complete returns from the parish of Saint Tammany (page 149 of testimony).. Total vote.... Total vote for Sypher........ Deduct 1,700 votes from Sypher; that number of affidavits, it is alleged, were counted for him (see page 14 oft he testimony).. Deduct 3,077 fraudulent votes counted for Lawrence, (see testimony, pages 192, 193, 194, 243, 244, 246, 247, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237) ....... 12.299 12,225 9, 455 1,652 Effingham Lawrence 478 1,032 1,150 1,425 1,770 852 1,405 1,758 1,464 700 1,355 734 1,860 Deduct 3,077 fraudulent votes for Lawrence, (as shown by testimony, pages 192, 193, 194, 243, 244, 246, 247, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237).. 11, 088 13,035 The testimony shows gross irregularities on the part of the partisans of the contestee, which we are as far from indorsing as those on the other side. They do not seem to have been so general and systematic, and it may be claimed for them, perhaps, that they were resorted to for the purpose of counteracting the schemes and machinations of the contestant's friends, in whose hands all the machinery of the election was placed. We are not disposed, in the light of all the evidence, to weigh one claim against the other. We think both are so tainted, so mixed with fraud, and so involved in uncertainty, that it is safer and better to refuse to affirm either. The precedents heretofore established authorize this decision, and we think the case amply justifies us in adopting it. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That neither Effingham Lawrence nor J. Hale Sypher has shown himself entitled to a seat in the Forty-third Congress. G. W. HAZELTON. H. BOARDMAN SMITH. LEMUEL TODD. CHARLES R. THOMAS. FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS Hon. JOHN T. HARRIS, of Virginia, chairman. Hon. REZIN A. DEBOLT, of Missouri. H. P. COCHRAN, Clerk. Mr. BEEBE, of New York, resigned as a member of the committee, and Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia, was appointed to fill the vacancy December, 1876. J. M. SMITH was elected clerk December 10, 1876. BROMBERG vs. HARALSON.-FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. Charges of illegal and fraudulent votes, deception practiced upon voters, illegal and undue influences employed by United States officials to intimidate voters, and the presence of United States troops at or near the polls. The action of a board of supervisors of election, when in due form, is prima facie correct. and it must stand until it is shown by extrinsic evidence to be illegal and unjust. The testimony of a conspirator swearing to his own infamy and implicating others in the same crime is always jealously scrutinized, and, unless corroborated in material points by evidence coming from uncontaminated sources, cannot generally be received as sufficient to establish a litigated fact. Evidence failed to sustain the allegation of intimidation by reason of the presence of a small squad of soldiers at the polls, or by violence on the part of others. Report adopted April 18, 1876. Authorities referred to: American Election Laws, pages 306, 394, subdivision 10; New Jersey Cases, 1 Bartlett, page 25; Howard vs. Cooper, 1 Bartlett, page 275; McCrary on Elections, pages 343, 416, 424, 586; Harrison vs. Davis, 1 Bartlett, page 341; Brown vs. Loan, ib., page 482; State ex rel. Hopkins vs. Olin, 23 Wis., page 326; Revised Statutes, pages 17, 18, 105, 107; Wright vs. Fuller, 1 Bartlett, page 152. March 23, 1876.—Mr. John T. Harris, from the Committee on Elections, submitted the following report: The contestant specifies fourteen grounds of contest in his notice to the sitting member. The grounds are very vaguely and indefinitely pleaded, being far from having that specific character requisite to a good declaration at common law. But as issue has been taken and proofs made, such legal exceptions to their sufficiency as may have existed have perhaps been waived. The grounds of contest are practically narrowed to the following: 1. That in the county of Mobile more than eight hundred illegal and fraudulent votes were cast for the contestee by minors, by persons not entitled to vote, and by persons voting more than once; and that in said county of Mobile more than two hundred persons were prevented from voting for the contestant by intimidation and deception, or voted for the contestee because of such intimidation and deception. 2. That the entire 976 votes cast for the sitting member in Monroe County were obtained through undue and illegal influences, and were not the expression of the will of the voters; and that 600 of the votes thus cast were illegal and fraudulent, and were cast by minors, by persons not entitled to vote, and by persons voting more than once. 3. That more than 500 fraudulent and illegal votes were cast in Wilcox County for the sitting member, at the precincts of Snow Hill, Pine Apple, and other precincts, by persons not entitled to vote, and by persons voting more than once at said election. 4. That 1,500 illegal and fraudulent votes were cast for the sitting member in Dallas County by minors, by persons not qualified to vote, and by persons voting more than once at said election; that 1,000 illegal votes were cast for the sitting member in said county by persons who were not residents of said county; and that 2,000 voters were prevented from voting for the contestant in said county by intimidation and deception, and that they voted for the sitting member because of said intimidation and deception. 5. That in said district illegal and undue influences were employed by United States and State officials, or by persons representing themselves to be such, adherents of the Republican party, to prevent voters from voting for contestant, or inducing and intimidating voters into voting for the sitting member by threats of prosecution and otherwise, by the presence of United States troops at or near the polls, and by the illegal distribution of provisions among the voters. The sitting member, in his answer, specifically denies all the material allegations contained in the notice of contest; and also charges that by intimidation, deception, and threats, by undue and illegal influence, by unlawful arrests and threats of unlawful arrest, and by illegal and fraudulent votes cast by minors and persons not qualified to vote, the contestant received many thousand votes which otherwise he would not have received, and the sitting member lost many thousand votes which he otherwise would have received. The affirmative matter brought into the record by the sitting member is embraced in eighteen specifications. No beneficial result, however, will be attained by a more specific and detailed statement of their nature and scope. First. The first question considered will be that raised by the grounds of contest relied upon to invalidate a large part of the vote received by the sitting member in the county of Mobile. The grounds of contest in this county may be resolved, so far as the evidence is concerned, into two principal questions: 1. Whether any, and, if so, how many, votes were cast by persons voting more than once at said election. 2. How many, if any, votes were lost to the contestant by intimidation and deception; and how many, if any, votes were obtained by the sitting member by reason of intimidation and deception. On behalf of the contestant it is claimed that there was organized a few weeks before the election, in the city of Mobile, a colored club, known by the name of the Union Republican Club, consisting of about two hundred and fifty members, who met usually several times each week to prepare themselves to carry out the objects of their organization. These objects are thus stated in the testimony of Washington I. Squire, the president of the club: They (i. c., the members of the club) proposed to increase the Republican vote, first, by themselves voting the Republican ticket; secondly, by inducing all their friends to do the same; and third, by voting for their absent friends, those who were dead, and others who never had existence. The methods practiced and the instructions given to enable the members of the club to carry out this scheme of fraud are thus stated by the same witness: Explanations of the election-laws were given, and while they were never told to vote twice or to deposit fraudulent votes, it was explained to them by what means persons doing the same might escape detection, and the consequences thereto ensuing. On one or more occa sions sham elections were held at which the members were drilled in the actual business of election-day. Some were judges of election, some inspectors, others clerks, yet others were challengers, others yet were deputy sheriffs and deputy marshals of the United States. The members were divided into two crowds, representing respectively Republicans and Democrats. Some were steady, quiet citizens, standing around the polls looking on; others were noisy and disorderly, and were arrested; others yet were quietly putting in their work. They would come up and vote, pass away, retire and exchange clothes, return, and vote again. If a man was challenged and objected to, and fearful of arrest, he would retire with out voting and forthwith assume some other and better disguise. Each crowd were shown how they might deceive the members of the other by pretending that they were voting tickets that in reality they were not; for instance, Republicans would receive the tickets from those representing Democrats, and while pretending to deposit such tickets in the ballot-box, really deposited them in their pockets or in the lining of their hats, substituting therefor Republican tickets. In addition to these sham elections, arrangements were made for preparing lists of registered names for use on said election-day; a majority of these names, although properly registered, were only creations of fancy. Some three thousand names were thus prepared. It was proposed that the squads under the control of competent and energetic leaders should assemble on the morning of the election at an early hour, and having partaken of refreshments, should proceed upon designated routes from poll to poll, voting as often as possible. It is claimed by the contestant that this club consummated their stupendous scheme of fraud by casting in the neighborhood of 1,700 fraudulent votes." It may be proper to preface the examination of the evidence adduced to establish these charges by a reference to certain general principles of law applicable to such contests. The burden of proof is always upon the contestant or the party attacking the official returns. The presumption is that the officers charged by law with the duty of ascertaining and declaring the result have discharged that duty faithfully. (Am. El. L., §§ 306, 394, subdiv. The action of a board of supervisors of election, when in due form, is prima facie correct, and it must stand until it is shown by extrinsic evidence to be illegal and unjust. The presumption is always against the commission of a fraudulent or illegal act, and in favor of the honesty and correctness of the official acts of a sworn officer. The rule on this subject is thus stated in the New Jersey cases, 1 Bartlett, 25: It is not sufficient that there should exist a doubt as to whether the vote is lawful or not; but conviction of its illegality should be reached to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt, before the committee are authorized to deduct it from the party for whom it was received at the polls. The true rule is believed to be one which, while it may not require the exclusion of all reasonable doubt, does require clear and satisfactory proof of fraud or mistake before the legal presumption in favor of the correctness of the acts of sworn officers shall be nullified. The testi. mony of a conspirator swearing to his own infamy and implicating others in the same crime is always jealously scrutinized, and unless corroborated in material points by evidence coming from uncontaminated sources, cannot generally be received as sufficient to establish a litigated fact. And if in addition to this, such conspirator declines to submit to a full, thorough, and searching cross-examination upon the whole subject-matter testified to by him in his examination-in-chief, this circumstance casts additional suspicion upon his testimony. And if to this be also added the fact that such conspirator is at the time he so testifies the paid agent of the party producing him in ascertaining and arranging the evidence for his employer, this circumstance is one calculated to cast additional doubt and suspicion upon his testimony. There was a period in the history of both English and American jurisprudence when the paid attorney or counsel of a litigant party would not be heard to testify in behalf of his client. Bearing in mind these salutary rules, there can be found no reliable evidence to sustain the charges of fraud, and overcome the legal presumption in favor of the returns. It would seem upon its bare statement incredible, that, in the city of Mobile, at an election where the contestant polled 6,497 votes, mostly cast by the intelligent and lately master race, a number nearly two thousand in excess of the entire vote polled for the sitting member, such a conspiracy to repeat, if it existed, could have been consummated. It demands large credulity to believe that in the presence of 6,500 white voters, intelligent, alert, jealously watching their rights, 250 colored men, with the aid of a few white leaders, could have polled about 2,000 votes, or in the neighborhood of 1,700 fraudulent votes. There are nine witnesses who were examined to prove that such a fraud was consummated. The only one who can be claimed to have established this fact is the witness Squire, who testified as follows on this subject: Q. Is it not a fact that you did not personally see any member of said organization vote more than once on said day?—A. I saw the squads herein before mentioned go from one poll to another, pass into the line apparently, and obviously with the intention of voting, and when I saw an occurrence of that kind I deemed it expedient for me to have my attention attracted in some other direction, for the reason that for a portion of the time on said third of November I was acting in an official capacity, which rendered it my duty, if I saw the same person actually vote twice, to interfere, and, as I did not wish to interfere with or break up the operations of said club, I did not propose to place myself in a position which would necessitate my doing so. This witness did not see any illegal voting, but he states certain circumstances, from which it is claimed the conclusion that such illegal votes were cast necessarily follows. But if the testimony were delivered by a witness entirely above suspicion, it would hardly justify the |