2. That the evidence shows that the following votes were unlawfully rejected by county canvassers, viz:

1.-Girard Precinct, Russell County.

3. That the evidence shows that the following vote of Russell County, rejected by the State canvassers on account of defects in the returns, are to be counted by the House, viz: B. W. Norris....

W. A. Handley....

Majority for B. W. Norris......

1,426

1, 157 269

4. That the evidence shows that thirty of the votes received by the sitting member at Bluffton, Chambers County, were illegal.

5. That the illegalities practiced at the precinct of Silver Run, in Talladega County, were such that the returns of that precinct furnish no evidence of the will of the electors, and are to be rejected. The vote was as follows:

W. A. Handley.

B. W. Norris ....

124

42

Majority for W. A. Handley....

82

6. That the election in the following counties was rendered invalid by systematic anl general intimidation of the supporters of the contestant, effected by the deliberate efforts o the supporters of the sitting member, viz:

7. That by violence and intimidation the supporters of the sitting member unlawfully deprived the contestant of the following votes, viz :

1. Opelika, Lee County.

2. Chambers County.

3. Hurtville, Russell County..

4. Childersburg, Talladega County

5. Macon County, exclusive of Texas, Notasulga, and Society Hill.

6. Dadeville, Tallapoosa County...

20

300

200

50

150

100

8. That by gross deception and fraud practiced at Silver Run, Russell County, by sup porters of the sitting member, three hundred and twenty-five electors who intended to, and at the time supposed they did, vote for the contestant were made to vote for the sitting member.

These embrace all the allegations relied upon by contestant, as stated by his counsel. They are severally denied by the sitting member, who also makes charges of fraud and intimidation against contestant and his supporters. Upon the issues thus joined a large volume of testimony has been taken, and the same has been examined and considered with much care and labor by the committee. The case must turn upon the question of intimidation, or rather upon the question whether the result was secured by means of violence, intimidation, threats, or other unlawful means resorted to by the sitting member, or his supporters, to deter legal voters from casting their votes, as they desired to do, for contestant. It will be more couvenient for us to reserve what we have to say upon this question of intimidation until after we have stated our conclusions from the evidence upon the other questions in the case.

GIRARD PRECINCT, RUSSELL COUNTY.

At this precinct two ballot-boxes were opened, which are designated as box No. 1 and box No. 2. The former was rejected by the county canvassers for alleged fraudulent voting, and the latter upon the ground that it was not opened by proper authority.

The statute of Alabama, defining the powers and duties of the board of county canvassers, or supervisors of elections, provides as follows:

That it shall be the duty of the board of supervisors of elections, upon good and sufficient evidence that fraud has been perpetrated, or unlawful or wrongful means resorted to to prevent electors from freely and fearlessly casting their ballots, to reject such illegal or fraudulent votes cast at any such polling-place, which re'ection so made as aforesaid shall be final unless appeal is taken within ten days to the probate court.-(Acts of 1868, page 277, sec. 37.)

Another section provides that this "board of supervisors of elections" shall be composed of the judge of probate, sheriff, and clerk of the circuit court in each county.

In the opinion of the committee it is not competent for the legislature of a State to declare what shall or shall not be considered by the House of Representatives as evidence to show the actual votes cast in any district for a member of Congress, much less to declare that the decision of a board of county canvassers, rejecting a given vote, shall estop the House from further inquiry. The fact, therefore, that no appeal was taken from the decision of the board of canvassers, rejecting the vote of Girard precinct, cannot preclude the House from going behind the returns and considering the effect of the evidence presented. From this evidence we conclude that box No. 1 was improperly rejected by the board. The evidence offered for the purpose of showing fraudulent voting at this box is insufficient. As to box No. 2, the committee are satisfied that it was properly rejected. It was opened only during a part of the day, and it is at least doubtful whether it was legally opened. It

was closed by order of the sheriff about 12 o'clock in the day, and we have no doubt that many of the voters who had deposited their ballots in it were advised to, and did, subsequently vote at box No. 1.

RUSSELL COUNTY.

The entire vote of this county was thrown out by the State canvassers on the ground that the return was signed by but one of the three county officers required by law to sign it. This action on the part of the State board of canvassers was in pursuance of the statute, which declares that the returns from each county must be certified by a majority of the county canvassers. It is, however, the duty of the House, in considering the merits of the case, to go behind the returns, and consider such competent evidence as may be produced to show the number of legal votes actually cast for each candidate. An examination of the evidence satisfies the committee that the vote of Russell County, with the exception of that cast at box No. 2, Girard precinct, should be counted.

MACON COUNTY.

The judge of probate, sheriff, and circuit clerk of this county, com posing the board of county canvassers, in revising the returns from the various precincts, rejected 326 votes which were cast for Norris, and 40 votes which were cast for Handley. We have already seen that the statute of Alabama confers upon this board authority to revise the return of the vote of the several precincts, and, upon sufficient proof, to throw out such as in their judgment are illegal or fraudulent. Although this is an extraordinary, not to say a dangerous, power when placed in the hands of a board of this character, with such inadequate facilities for obtaining legal evidence and deciding upon questions of fraud, yet it is believed by the committee that the action of such a board under the statute in question, and in pursuance of the power conferred thereby, is to be regarded as prima facie correct, and to be allowed to stand as valid until shown by evidence to be illegal or unjust. The testimony of but one witness has been taken in relation to the rejection of these votes in Macon County, and that is the testimony of J. T. Menafee, judge of probate, and ex officio one of the board of canvassers. He testifies that the board spent several days in the work of revising the vote of the county.

They had no evidence before them, however, except the registrationlist and the poll-list. The former is shown to have been exceedingly imperfect and unreliable, and cannot be considered such "good and sufficient evidence" as the statute requires to justify the board in rejecting the votes in question.

The presumption is strongly in favor of the legality of a vote which has been received by the officers provided by law for that purpose; and the question is whether this presumption can be overcome by evidence so unsatisfactory as that upon which the board acted. The board were empowered by the statute we have quoted to obtain evidence of the alleged illegality and fraud practiced at the precincts named, and they were not limited to an examination of the registration-list and the polllist. Since no evidence was taken, it is our opinion that the decision of the officers of election at the varions precincts, admitting the votes in question, is entitled to greater weight than the action of the board of canvassers in throwing them out. The former had the voters before them, and the power to examine them as to their qualifications, while