should be completed, and the States notified of their rights under it, by the 1st of November.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we claim that in the absence of any law determining when that census shall take effect for the purposes of representation, the rights of every State affected by it accrue the very moment that the fact of the number of Representatives to which it is entitled is ascertained. I think no one will doubt that. No one will attempt to controvert it. If there is no established law or rule to govern us, then our rights must of necessity accrue, under the census, the very moment that census is completed. But I do not propose to pursue this point. As I said before, I think this matter can be reached in a manner satisfactory to all, and without establishing a precedent that will disturb the representation of any State. The majority of the committee was kind enough to say in its report, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has very kindly and very justly stated this morning, that the people of California feel they have never been allowed the representation to which they are entitled, and I propose to submit some evidence to demonstrate that fact. The majority report says:

"The memorialist urged upon the committee other considerations, for the purpose of showing that California was in equity entitled to a third Representative, even under the apportionment based upon the census of 1850. It never could be ascertained by that census what was the actual number of inhabitants in that State in 1850. A portion of the census papers were accidentally burned in the great fire of that year in San Francisco, and were never returned to the Secretary of the Interior. Large settlements were omitted altogether from the enumeration, under the mistaken belief that they fell within the Territory of Oregon. The vast extent of territory sparsely settled, in some parts by miners almost hidden among the mountains, and the small remuneration to the marshals for this service, were thought very much to corroborate the statement of the marshal and others, that the number returned fell short of the true number by from thirty to fifty per cent. The apportionment based upon the returns actually made gave California but one Representative with a fraction. Congress, in 1852, before the apportionment took effect, in justice to California, undertook to remedy this defect by an act reciting these considerations just stated, and providing that the State should be entitled to two Representatives till the next enumeration. The memorialist urged upon the committee that full justice was not done California at that time, and that she was actually entitled to three. The whole vote of the State at the presidential election in 1852 was 74,736. Adopting any ratio between voters and population, or even a much smaller one than is adopted in the older States, and there would have been population enough for three Representatives. The State census of 1854, which was only approximate, gave 264,435-only 14,000 less than enough for three Representatives. The vote of California in 1861 was 118,840, giving evidence of a much larger population than by either apportionment is represented in Congress.”

Now, Mr. Speaker, the population of California in 1850 and 1852 can be better ascertained by the votes cast then, than by any attempt at enumeration made up to this time, for we never have yet had any enumeration there on which we could rely in that State. In 1852, as the committee state, California cast 74,736 votes. With two Representatives, she is allowed one to 37,368

voters.

In the same year Connecticut cast 66,768 votes. She is allowed four Representatives, or one to 16,692 voters. Maine cast 82,182 votes-less than 8,000 more than California-she is allowed six Representatives, or one to 13,697 voters. Massachusetts cast 132,936 votes. She is allowed eleven Representatives, or one to 12,613 voters. New York cast 522,294 votes. She is allowed thirtythree Representatives, or one to 15,827 voters. Now, while I do not claim that the population was relatively as large to the voter in California as in those States, I do claim that the disparity was not so great, or near so great, as this representation would show. If California had been allowed three Representatives in 1852, she would then have had one to 24,912 voters, or nearly double the number required to entitle any other State to a Representative. We have never been in a position to demonstrate the number of our population better tiran in this way. I presume that there is not a man throughout the length and breadth of California who has not felt, during the last ten years, that she was entitled to this increased representation. I do not suppose that there is any disposition on the part of this House to deny us the full representation to which we are entitled, provided it can be given us without inconvenience or the establishing a precedent that will lead to inconvenience in

the future.

In 1860 California cast 118,840 votes; Connecticut, 77,246; Maine, 97,918; Massachusetts, 169,175; New Hampshire, 65,953; New York, 657,123. If you allow California but two mem

bers, she has 59,420 voters to each Representative; Connecticut, 19,311; Maine, 16,315; Massachusetts, 15,378; New Hampshire, 21,984; and New York, 19,913. If California be allowed three Representatives, then she has one to 39,613 voters, being about double the number required in any other State.

Again, sir: by the act of 5th August, apportioning direct taxes to the State of California, if you are to decide that California is entitled to but two Representatives, you thereby require California to pay a much larger proportion of these taxes according to its representation than any other State. If you allow California two Representatives only, you require her, in the face of the provision of the Constitution which contemplates, at least, if it does not expressly provide, that representation and taxation shall go hand in hand-in the face of that provision, I say, you require California to pay $127,000 for each of her Representatives, while you require Connecticut to pay $77,000; Maine, $70,000; Massachusetts, $75,000; New Hampshire, $73,000; and New York, $79,000. But if you allow California three Representatives, you then require her to pay $85,000 for each Representative, a much larger sum than you require of the older States.

These are considerations, Mr. Speaker, in equity-and I will not detain the House with argument-showing that, according to the law as it now stands, we are entitled to this third Representative; though I believe it could be made so plainly to appear that the House could not in justice refuse issue then, notwithstanding any inconvenience it might cost us in the future. But, sir, neither Mr. Lowe nor myself, so far as we are concerned, are disposed to ask anything of Congress that can possibly cause any inconvenience now or hereafter. I have, therefore, drawn a bill declaring when all subsequent enumerations of the inhabitants of the United States shall take effect for the purposes of representation. That will settle the question for the future beyond all doubt or cavil; and I shall ask the consent of the House to introduce it and have it acted upon at this time. We are perfectly willing that this question shall rest upon the sense of justice of the Senate and President as well as that of the House. I now ask the consent of the House to introduce the following bill:

A bill to define the time when censuses hereafter to be taken shall take effect for purposes of representation. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a census shall be taken in the year 1870, and shall take ef fect for purposes of representation in Congress from and after the 3d day of March, 1873, and shall continue as the basis of representation for a period of ten years, and each subsequent census shall in the same manner continue for a like period.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That as the census has never been reliably taken in the State of California until the year 1860, and as it appears that the said State has sufficient population to entitle her to three Representatives under the said census, and as three Representatives have been duly elected to the Thirty-Seventh Congress under the suppo sition that the said State was entitled to the same, as ap pears by the certificates of the Governor thereof, and as direct taxes have been apportioned to and paid by said State under the census of 1860, the said State shall be allowed three Representatives in the Thirty-Seventh Congress; and for that purpose the whole number of Representatives is hereby increased one, until the beginning of the ThirtyEighth Congress, when the whole number shall be the number now established by law.

Mr. DAWES. I would suggest to my friend from California, that he withhold his bill until the House has acted upon this resolution. I will not object to it then.

Mr. DAWES. I do not desire to object, but it seems to me it would be better for the gentleman from California to postpone it until a vote has been taken upon the resolution. I do not think the passage of the resolution would affect the status of Mr. Lowe at all, in view of the passage of the bill.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. I would much prefer that the bill should be acted on now. I am of opinion that the passage of the resolution would shut the member out. If we declare that Mr. Lowe is not entitled to a seat in this House, although a law may be subsequently passed declaring that California is entitled to three Representatives, he could not then come in and claim a seat.

Mr. DAWES. I repeat that I do not think it would alter his status at all. The reason why the Committee of Elections report this resolution is because there is no law. If a law is passed that is another matter. Men are elected before a law is passed authorizing the election oftentimes. A Representative from Kansas was so elected. Representatives are often elected in that way. I do not think the passage of this resolution would affect his position at all under the proposed law. If the House do not concur in the resolution, you do not want the bill. If the House agree to the resolution, the bill may then be brought up, so far as I am concerned.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. It places those who believe as I do, that Mr. Lowe is entitled to a seat, in this position: you do not desire the passage or the defeat of the resolution if the bill is passed; but it compels us to vote against the resolution, to which we have no objection in case we are allowed to act upon this bill, for then we should care nothing about the resolution.

Mr. DAWES. I interpose no objection to this bill, so far as I am concerned; but I make the suggestion that the Committee of Elections desire that the vote shall be first taken upon this resolution.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the introduction of the bill?

Mr. COX. I do not desire to object to the bill, but I would suggest to the gentleman from California that it is hardly proper to press it upon the House at this time. The passage of the resolution of the Committee of Elections will not affect Mr. Lowe's standing at all. If it is a proper and suitable bill, in the opinion of the House, it will be passed anyhow, and I suggest to the gentleman that it will be better to defer the bill until the resolution shall have been disposed of.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. I will move to postpone the resolution for one week. I do not think there can be any objection to that.

Mr. DAWES. Upon that question, I have simply to say that I desire a vote upon this resolution, and that will clear the way for the consideration of the bill, if the bill is a proper oneand upon that point the Committee of Elections do not propose to interfere at all. The Committee of Elections, so far as I am informed-for myself at least, I say that I do not propose to interfere in the passage of that bill at all. The committee are very confident that as the law now stands the State of California is not entitled to these Representatives in this Congress. It does not alter the

Mr. DAWES. I think it would be proper to take the sense of the House upon the resolution reported by the Committee of Elections, and then, so far as I am concerned, I will not object to the introduction of the bill which the gentleman proposes.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. My idea is, that action upon the bill is necessary to enable the House to act upon the resolution. If the resolution of the committee should be adopted, the passage of the bill would not give Mr. Lowe his seat. Mr. DAWES. It would not affect him. It would leave him just where he would be if the resolution were pending while we acted upon the bill. It would not affect his status at all.

concerned. It only shows the necessity of the bill if there is notice in the bill. If the House votes down the resolution and admits Mr. Lowe, there is no necessity for the bill. If the majority of the House think the resolution is wrong, let them vote it down; there is no cause why it should be postponed. I hope therefore the motion of the gentleman from California will not be adopted.

The motion to postpone was not agreed to. Mr. PHELPS, of California. I then ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the bill which I have read. I think it is the true policy to act upon the bill in connection with the resolution.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I object. Let us first take a vote upon the resolution of the Committee of Elections.

Mr. DAWES. If nobody proposes to debate

1862.

the resolution further I will call the previous question.

Mr. SARGENT. I do not propose to debate the resolution, but I desire to amend it.

Mr. DAWÉS. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend the resolution by striking out the word "not;" so that it will read:

Resolved, That F. F. Lowe is entitled to a seat in this House as Representative from the State of California, in the Thirty-Seventh Congress.

I now ask for the previous question on the resolution and amendment.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put.

Mr. SARGENT called for the yeas and nays upon the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 49, nays 69; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Ancona, Ashley, Francis P. Blair, Blake, George H. Browne, Buffinton, Campbell, Clark, Colfax, Cox, Davis, Delaplaine, Duell, Edgerton, Fessenden, Fisher, Franehot, Frank, Goodwin, Granger, Haight, Johnson, Kelley, Lehman, Lovejoy, Moorhead, Anson P. Morrill, Morris, Noell, Olin, Pendleton, Timothy G. Phelps, Pike, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Richardson, Sargent, Shanks, Vallandigham, Van Horn, Voorhees, Ward, Washburne, Whaley, Wilson, and Windom-49.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Babbitt, Joseph Baily, Beaman, Bingham, Jacob B. Blair, William G. Brown, Calvert, Chamberlin, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Corning, Covode, Cravens, Crisfield, Crittenden, Cutler, Dawes, Diven, Dunlap, Dunn, Eliot, English, Fenton, Gooch, Grider, Gurley, Harding, Harrison, Holman, Hutchins, Julian, Francis W. Kellogg, Kerrigan, Killinger, Knapp, Law, Leary, Loomis, McKnight, McPherson, Mallory, Maynard, Menzies, Justin S. Morrill, Noble, Odell, Perry, Porter, Riddle, Robinson, Edward H. Rollins, Sedgwick, Sheffield, Shellabarger, John B. Steele, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, Trimble, Trowbridge, Wadsworth, Wallace, Charles W. Walton, E. P. Walton, Webster, Wheeler, Albert S. White, Wickliffe, and Woodruff

-69.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

The question recurred on the adoption of the report of the committee; and it was agreed to.

Mr. DAWES moved to reconsider the vote by which the report was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. Mr. PHELPS, of California. I now ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill to define the time when censuses hereafter to be taken shall take effect for the purpose of representation, and to have it put on its passage.

Mr. MAYNARD. I object to that bill being acted on at this time. I suggest that it be ordered to be printed, and its consideration postponed to a future day.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. I move that the bill be ordered to be printed, and made the special order for Friday next.

Mr. MAYNARD. I do not object to that. Mr. SHEFFIELD. This is an important bill, and it ought to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. I hope that the gentleman will not press that motion. The bill Las been discussed, and is understood by every member of this House.

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. I do not understand it.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. It will be understood when the bill has been ordered to be printed.

The SPEAKER. There is a special order for Friday next.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. Then I move that it be made the special order for Monday next. Mr. F.A.CONKLING. I object to the introduction of the bill.

Mr. PHELPS, of California. I will move that 1 he bill be referred to the Committee on the Judieiary, if that be the desire of the House.

Mr. F. A. CONKLING. I withdraw my objection on that condition.

The bill was introduced, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

VIRGINIA ELECTION CASE.

Mr. DAWES. I rise to a question of privilege. I call up the election case of Joseph Segar, claiming to represent the first district of Virginia in this House.

ative.

State of Virginia, with a population of one hundred and twenty-two thousand by the census. The population of each one of those counties is given on the second and third pages of the report. The whole number of votes cast in that district at the last gubernatorial election was 7,956.

After the proceedings in the House on the first application of the memorialist for a seat in this House, Governor Pierpont, of Virginia, issued his writ, I believe, following the provisions of the statute of Virginia, calling for an election in this district, and I think he also followed the recommendation of the report of the Committee of Elections made to this House in the previous case. The condition of things at the time this election was held was such in that district that, of the seventeen counties, only three were not in the armed occupation of the rebels, and in one of those was entirely clear of the rebels. The writ of eleccounties, Hampton was the only precinct which tion reached the sheriff's in those three counties, and so far as we know they gave the notice and the polls were opened in all the precincts of Northampton and Accomac, and at Hampton, in the county of Elizabeth City. One thousand and eighteen votes were cast, of which Joseph Segar received 559, or a majority of the votes cast in those precincts. At the last gubernatorial election 7,986 votes were cast, and at this election 1,018, or about one eighth of the whole number, and of that one eighth Mr. Segar had a little more than one half.

The difficulty which the Committee of Elections
encountered was this: they have laid down a prin-
ciple heretofore, and the House has acted upon it
in several cases which have been brought before
the House, that if the voters of a district had an
opportunity to vote, if there was no restraint upon
them, so that they could vote, he who had the high-
est number of votes is entitled to a seat, whether
the votes be few or whether they be many; and
the question is whether this case came within that
rule.

Here were only three counties out of seventeen,
and although they are large counties, they contain
a little over thirty thousand out of the one hundred
and twenty-two thousand of all the inhabitants,
and there were polled only one eighth of all the
votes. Whether it could be said that in the other
fourteen counties which were in the occupation of
the rebel armies, the voters could not go to the
polls and express their opinion at all, or not, or
whether it could be said that the voters of these
three counties, numbering about one thousand,
expressed the wish or desire of the voters in the
other counties, so nearly and so fairly, that under
the present state of things in Virginia, it is right
or proper to admit this man to a seat, is a ques-
tion which the committee felt disposed to bring
before the House to let them pass upon it.

The committee recognize the fact, and believe
in the doctrine of restoration-yes, sir, they are
restorationists, and they look forward and will hail
with delight the glorious day when the restoration
of representation in the several districts shall be
[A VOICE. Latter day saints.]
consummated.
"Latter day saints," my friend says. Better be
latter day saints than no saints at all. [Laughter.]
All that the committee desire is, that the House
shall say when that state of things, all things con-
that it shall be safe and proper to admit as a Rep-
sidered, shall have been so nearly approached as
resentative upon this floor, from the first district
of Virginia, or from any other district situated as
that district is, a man who has received but little
more than one half of one eighth of the votes of
the whole district, and that, too, under circum-
stances such that the committee was not clear to
say that the others could be said, in law or in fact,
to have been free, or had the opportunity to vote
if they had seen fit. If, out of all the voters of a
district, one half or one sixteenth of them chose
to go to the polls and elect a Representative and
the others chose to stay away, it has been the
doctrine of the committee, and of the House, in
adopting their reports, to say that they had the
right to select the Representatives. And we say
so here. If the House can see their way clear to
say that such is the fact in this case, they ought
to admit this man to represent the first district of
Virginia; but if they cannot, they ought not to
admit him.

The committee have instructed me to make this sort of a statement of the facts of the case to the House, and to leave it to their decision. I will

say that, so far as forms are concerned, it appears that the forms of law were complied with, up to the time of the election, but that after that, from the nature of the case-all the rest of the district being under the martial law of the rebels-it was impossible to comply with the forms. Such is the case in reference to the certificate of election. The statute requires the conductors of the election to meet in Middlesex county, and to make a return to the Governor from that place.

Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to give way that a dispatch from General McClellan, at Williamsburg, may be read.

Mr. DAWES. Certainly.

The dispatch was read, as follows:

BIVOUAC IN FRONT OF WILLIAMSBURG, May 5-10, p. in. It is clear that General Joe Johnson is in the immediate front of our advance, in strong force, and very strongly intrenched.

General Hancock has taken two rebel redoubts, and repulsed General Early's brigade by a real hard fought charge with the bayonet; taking one colonel and one hundred and fifty others prisoners; killing at least two colonels and as many lieutenant colonels, and many privates. His conduct was brilliant in the extreme.

Our exact loss in the affair is not known, but we fear that General Hooker has lost considerably on our left. Prisoners say that they intend disputing every step to Richmond. There can be no question that the force of the enemy is very large.

Mr. DAWES. These stirring events which now arrest our attention are being enacted at this moment in the district which this claimant seeks to represent. How far a few days will work such a change in this district as that the House shall see more clearly.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I wish to interrupt the gentleman by a single word.

Mr. DAWES. Certainly.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I was pained during the first part of this session, and I might say during the whole of it, by whispers of combinations, with a view to disturb the position of General McClellan. I know him not personally, but I have great confidence in him by the representations which I have had from sources which satisfied me; and I rise now more to appeal to those gentlemen, who have been disposed to find fault with his conduct and seeking his removal, to cease their fault-finding. I rise to pass no compliment or encomium upon that general. He needs no praise from me, because I cannot do him justice.

hope we shall hear no more whispers about General McClellan being removed from his command. The labor of organizing an army of seven hundred thousand volunteers, in the putting of them in the field, drilled and disciplined as regulars, has been a herculean task, and I am persuaded that no man could do more.

Mr. DAWES. I was saying that we are informed every hour that events of the most important character are transpiring in this district; and all of us have an abiding faith that each hour brings this district nearer to a glorious deliverance from the thralldom of these rebels, and the Union voters of each and every county in it nearer to that position where they can exercise the elective franchise, with none to hinder. Whether that should have anything to do with our judgment upon this case, as it now presents itself, is for the House, and not for me, to determine.

It is the desire of the committee which I represent upon this occasion, that just at the moment when this district and every other can come so near that deliverance that the House can say in good faith and fairly that he who presents himself at our door as a Representative, does represent the Union sentiment of this district, he shall be admitted here to do it.

I have stated the facts as they existed at the time of the selection of this individual. If they appear to this House to constitute such a state of things as I have described, then the committee will be sustained. If it appears to the House that the facts constitute such a state of things that they cannot say that the Union voters of the district have had an opportunity to express their opinion, and he shall be bid to await until these great and stirring events shall have had their consummation, then, too, the committee will have been sustained. It will be difficult for the House to pass upon this question in any way which shall be against the committee.

Mr. NOELL. I do not desire to discuss the merits of this question at all. The resolution

which I propose to introduce for the action of the House does not involve the merits of this case. We have no case presented to the House by the Committee of Elections. They simply content themselves with a recital of the facts, without reporting any resolution upon which the House is called to act. The case, then, now stands precisely as it did when Mr. Segar presented his credentials to this House in the first instance. He appears here with the credentials of the Governor of Virginia, declaring him duly elected.

credentials whether he has a prima facie case upon which he should be admitted to a seat upon this floor.

As I remarked, I do not propose to discuss the question raised in regard to the position of a portion of the territory in this district; but I would ask the attention of the gentleman to this condition of things: suppose that his idea should be carried out, what kind of position would this Congress be in to-day? If a fraction of a congressional district has not the power and capacity to elect a Representative upon this floor, has a fraction of the Congress of the United States power

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. Allow me to state that the applicant brings here the regular certificate of the Governor of Virginia. The polit-to make laws? Has a fraction of this Confederical departments, of the Government have recognized F. H. Pierpont as the regular Governor of Virginia. All the Departments of the Government have recognized this as the existing legal government of Virginia. Bringing that certificate, having exactly the same force as that of any other Representative upon this floor from any State of this Union, it is referred to the Committee of Elections.

That constitutes prima facie evidence, and the Committee of Elections have reported nothing that controls that certificate.

Mr. DAWES. When this matter was referred to the committee, there was no such certificate. The certificate has been obtained since. In point of fact, the certificate was issued before the law authorized its issue; but I do not know that that makes any difference.

acy a right to elect a President of the United States? If this thing of fractions is to be excluded in determining whether an individual holds public office by virtue of an election held in a congressional district, or throughout the nation, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts by what condition of things do we find ourselves now surrounded? Sir, if a presidential election was to take place to-morrow there are nine or ten States of this Union in which no election could be held. It matters not that these men are rebels, and that they have made war upon this Government. The principle appealed to by the gentleman from Massachusetts applies with equal force to States in a presidential election as to counties in a congressional election. Sir, we have got to go back to that first elementary principle in all free republican governments, that the majority of the people who have the abil

are loyal to the Government and exercise the elective franchise, must determine that election. So long as States remain in the Union as members of the Confederacy, we are obliged, by the principles involved in our Constitution, to treat them in that form.

Mr. NOELL. I am obliged to the gentlemanity to get to the polls and vote at an election, who from Massachusetts [Mr. THOMAS] for stating the matter in a better form than I could do. I was proceeding to say that the memorialist presents himself with a certificate from the Governor of Virginia, and asks to be admitted to a seat, and that we are not called upon by the action of the Committee of Elections to go into an investigation of the merits of the case, or to go into a scrutiny of those acts which have been detailed by the chairman of the Committee of Elections. We are simply called upon to determine whether a gentleman who presents himself here with such credentials as have been presented by every other member of the House shall be admitted to a seat upon this floor.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had passed the bill of the House (No. 125) to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain, with sundry amendments, in which he

was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

VIRGINIA ELECTION CASE-AGAIN.

Mr. NOELL. I was remarking that we are not called upon to scrutinize these facts which have been referred to by the chairman of the Committee of Elections, but we are called upon to determine whether we shall discriminate against one gentleman, or extend that kind of courtesy to him that we extend to all other persons who apply here under similar circumstances. I do not propose to test the right of Mr. Segar to a seat upon this floor upon the merits of the case which have been referred to by the gentleman from Massachusetts. My proposition is, that he be now admitted to his seat and sworn in as a member of this House, as he should have been, in my judgment, in the first instance, precisely as all the rest of the members of the House have been sworn in

upon similar credentials.

The gentleman and the House will remember that when this case was under consideration before, under a former election, there were no writs of election issued. It was so reported by the committee to the House, and the main point in the objection taken to his being entitled to a seat upon this floor was, that the Governor of the State of Virginia had issued no writs of election, in conformity with that provision of the Constitution which requires it to be done in the case of vacancies. But now it is frankly admitted by the chairman of the committee, that all the forms and requisitions of law have been complied with, and, so far as we are permitted to look into the case as it is now presented to us, we have no inquiry to make in regard to those facts that go behind and beyond that election, but we are to take the credentials which the applicant has presented here for our consideration, and determine upon those

But, sir, I do not propose to discuss that question. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.' I do not ask any gentleman upon this floor to commit himself upon that question. We have enough of troubles on our hands now, without anticipating others. I only ask that Mr. Segar, who is the colleague of gentlemen who have been admitted to seats upon this floor under similar circumstances, and under the provisional government of Virginia, which has been recognized by every Department of the Federal Government, shall be treated as those gentlemen have heretofore been treated-admitted to a seat upon this floor; and if the House, in its wisdom, thinks it worth while to enter into a future investigation of the merits of his case, it can be done. I will not detain the House longer, and I do not suppose any gentleman is disposed to discuss the question at length. I offer the following as an amendment to the resolution reported by the Committee of Elections:

Resolved, That Joseph Segar be admitted to a seat in this House as a Representative from the first congressional district of Virginia, and that he be now sworn in as such.

As I understand that the gentleman from Massachusetts does not desire to be heard further upon this question, I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

Mr. BINGHAM demanded the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 71, nays 47; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Allen, Ancona, Babbitt, Joseph Baily, Biddle, Francis P. Blair, Jacob B. Blair, Blake, William G. Brown, Calvert, Clements, Colfax, Corning, Cox, Cravens, Crisfield, Crittenden, Delaplaine, Diven, Dunlap, Dunn, English, Fisher, Goodwin, Grider, Gurley, Haight, Harding, Harrison, Holman, Horton, Johnson, Killinger, Lansing, Law, Leary, Lehman, McKnight, Me Pherson, Mallory. Maynard, Menzies, Moorhead, Morris, Nixon, Noble, Noell, Olin, Pendleton, Perry, Timothy G. Phelps, Porter, Price, Alexander II. Rice, Richardson, Riddle, James S. Rollins, Sargent, Shellabarger, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, Train, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Wallace, Ward, Webster, Whaley, Wickliffe, and Woodruff-71.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Ashley, Baker, Beaman, Bingham, Buffinton, Campbell, Chamberlin, Clark, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Cutler, Davis, Dawes, Edgerton, Eliot, Fenton, Fessenden, Gooch, Banchett, Ilutchins, Julian, Kelley, Knapp, Loomis, Lovejoy, Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Pike, John H. Rice, Robinson, Sedgwick, Shanks, Shetheld, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Horn, Verree, Charles W. Walton, Washburne, Wheeler, Albert S. White, Wilson, Windom, and Worcester-47.

So the amendment was agreed to.

mony in that county, they were sent for to come down to Omaha, the capital of the Territory, and there give their evidence before the district judge, or the proper officer, whoever he was. They were hired to come down, and were forty days absent from their homes. One of them was paid $100 for coming down to give this testimony, and the other fifty dollars. I believe these were the sums they were respectively paid. It is claimed by the contestant that they were hired in consideration of this $100 and this fifty dollars to give a particular kind of testimony, rather than merely to have their expenses and time paid to come down to Omaha to tell the simple truth. The contestant introduces testimony to show that fact, and argues that that was the purpose of the sitting Delegate in hiring them, or of his friends, for it is not claimed that the sitting member himself paid them, but that the money was paid by parties interested in the election. The person who hired these witnesses states frankly that he hired them to come down because he could not induce them to come that distance in the cold weather without paying them these extra expenses. But there is nothing against their testimony growing out of this imputation.

There is, however, a witness by the name of Cox, about whom nothing has been said by the contestant, against whose testimony there is no charge imputing anything against his credibility. He stands without any reflection of any kind, and he testifies and corroborates the whole story sworn to by these three other witnesses; so there is one witness to this point whose character stands unimpeached. There is the testimony of another, who certifies to the contrary in his official capacity as judge of the election; and there is the testimony of two others to the same fact, who were hired to come down from the extreme part of the Territory to give their testimony.

The contestant has borrowed an affidavit and offered it before the committee; he has borrowed it from another gentleman, who took it in another case, without any notice, of course, to the sitting Delegate. He borrowed it of a gentleman in Dakota Territory, who took it in a legal matter, I believe, which he was investigating in a court concerning matters in L'eau-qui-court county, or the northern precinct of that county. Having used the affidavit for his own purpose, he was kind enough to lend it to the contestant in this case, and the contestant offered it to the committee. I think the affidavit is from the man who hired these witnesses to come down to Omaha City to testify. He does not say he paid them the money to come down and testify one way or the other, but he gave it to them to come down and testify.

Another affidavit that gentleman was kind enough to lend the contestant is of another person who testifies that he asked these men beforehand what they would testify; that they stated they would testify so and so, and then they were hired to go down to Omaha. There are affidavits taken in another case, with which neither of the parties to the case now before the House had anything to do, of which neither party had notice, and in reference to which neither party was present to put questions to the witness. The committee, although they admitted, as instructed by the House, all the evidence presented without regard to the notice of contest, where both parties were present to put cross-interrogatories, yet felt themselves bound to exclude the affidavits borrowed from a third party not taken in the presence of or with the knowledge of either party to this contest. If they had been admitted, they amount to simply this: one of them sets forth distinctly that before these parties were hired to go down to Omaha, the party hiring them made inquiry of them how they would testify, and they declared that they would testify so and so, as they subsequently did testify. The other is an affidavit taken, I have no doubt, in Dakota Territory for the purpose of showing that these parties were hired to go down there and testify; but I submit that neither affidavit pretends to show that they were hired to go there to testify in a particular way. That is all that is produced by the contestant to meet the testimony of these four witnesses, the character of one of whom is unimpeached and unimpeachable, that the men who pretended to vote in this precinct came from the four quarters of the globe, almost; that there were but two residents of L'eau-qui-court county who voted at that precinct on that occasion, and

that for the 122 votes cast for the contestant at this precinct there were not present more than 25 to 40 to do the voting.

But there is another piece of testimony more decisive and controlling than this. There were 77 votes cast at the old established precinct of L'eau-qui-court county about which there is no dispute. They are admitted by both parties to be honest votes. But the census of the county-the United States census-taken that very summer, closed up the 1st day of November, while this vote was taken in October, discloses that all the inhabitants of the county-men, women, and children, all told-were only one hundred fiftytwo. Now add the 77 lawful votes cast to the 122 votes claimed by the contestant to have been lawfully cast at the northern precinct, and you have 199 votes cast in a county in which the census shows there were, all told, but one hundred and fifty-two men, women, and children. So that there were 43 votes more cast than there were inhabitants in the county.

The committee, under these circumstances, could not doubt that something was the matterthat the ratio between the number of inhabitants and the number of voters had had a wonderfully strange twist. This ratio has been a matter of much discussion. Sometimes it has been placed at one voter to three inhabitants, sometimes one to four, and sometimes one to five, changing in the different States; but it never came to my recollection before that there could be four voters to one inhabitant. [Laughter.] I think, therefore, taking the testimony altogether, there can be no doubt that this precinct must have been what it is charged with being-one gotten up altogether

for the occasion.

I am sorry to say that I see there the name of a gentleman who figures on the rolls of this House. I wish that he had given his deposition in this case. I wish that during all the time that passed after the session of July last there had been a notice on the part of Mr. Morton, so that he could have had an opportunity to have told his story. True, after the testimony was all in, after it was too late to take testimony on one side or the other, an offer was made to produce this man before the committee to testify. It was objected by the sitting Delegate that to take his testimony at this late day, when the hearing had commenced, affording him no opportunity of taking rebutting testimony, would not be fair or just. The committee, therefore, were of the opinion that the 122 votes cast at the northern precinct of L'eau-qui-court county should be rejected.

Next comes the Monroe precinct of Platte county. It is urged on the part of the sitting member that of the persons who voted in the Monroe precinct, in the county of Platte, five were not residents of the last-mentioned precinct, or county, and the rest were inhabitants and then residents of the Pawnee Indian reservation. The testimony on this point is set forth in full in the report, and I have not time now to repeat it. I ask the members of the House to read it and satisfy themselves. There is no conflict touching it. There is nothing said on the part of the contestant to qualify it. It is the testimony of Charles H. Whaley, then a resident of the precinct, and who had been a representative in the Legislature of the Territory. I have heard nothing against his reliability, and I have nothing, therefore, to say on the subject until it is questioned. He supports the allegation of the sitting member. It appears from his testimony that nearly all of these voters were at the time residents upon the Pawnee Indian reservation, and that when challenged, they took the oath with the condition attached-provided the Pawnee Indian reservation was considered a part of Platte county. The statutes of Nebraska require, as the qualification of a voter, that he shall reside in the Territory forty days, in the county twenty days next preceding the election, and at the precinct in which he votes at the time of the election. This man testifies that the parties resided on the Pawnee Indian reservation. It is shown that the Pawnee Indian reservation is not within the Monroe precinct, and it therefore follows, as a matter of course, that these men had no right to vote at that precinct. As I have said, the statutes of Nebraska declared that the voter should vote in the precinct where he resided at the time, which is a very proper provision, for if it were otherwise, a man might vote in as many precincts

as he could travel through during the day of election. Now, whether that provision of the statute should be held strictly a requisite on this occasion or not, there is another provision which is fatal to this vote, and that is this: the act of Congress organizing the Territory of Nebraska, in the first section says:

"Provided, further, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said Territory so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any Territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but ail such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of Nebraska, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within said Territory of Nebraska."

It was not claimed before the committee, nor do the committee understand it to be true in fact, that the Pawnees have ever made any such stipulation in their treaty as is here mentioned, or that they have ever signified their assent to the President of the United States to have their reserves included within the boundaries or constitute a part of the Territory of Nebraska. It follows, therefore, that persons residing upon this reserve are residents upon no part of the Territory of Nebraska, and are not entitled to vote therein. They have just as much right to vote in Nebraska as they have to vote in Kansas, or in any other State. It is not claimed by anybody that these parties did not reside on the Pawnee reservation. It is only claimed on the part of the contestant that they had the right to vote, because it had been customary to let them vote; but he does not dispute the fact that the testimony shows it most conclusively to be true that they actually voted, although they resided upon the Pawnee Indian reservation. I state that that Pawnee reservation is as much a part of Nebraska as it is a part of Massachusetts, and no more, and that I would have as much right to vote on the election of a Delegate to Congress from Nebraska as anybody who lived upon that reservation. That, sir, disposes of the votes in this precinct.

The next is the case of Buffalo county, where 39 votes were polled for the contestant. It is set forth in the specification of the contestant challenging this vote, that the county of Buffalo had never been organized, and that therefore there could be no precinct there at which to hold an election. It is provided by the Legislature of the Territory of Nebraska

"That whenever the citizens of any unorganized county desire to have the same organized, they may make application by petition, in writing, signed by a majority of the legal voters of said county, to the judge of probate of the county to which such unorganized county is attached; whereupon said judge of probate shall order an election for county officers in such unorganized county."

This claim on the part of the sitting member, that this was an unorganized county, and that nobody could legally vote there, was made precisely in the same form during the last Congress. Certain men voted in the election for a Delegate to Congress from Nebraska, while residing in Buffalo county, and it was alleged then, as it is alleged now, that this was an unorganized county, and that those votes should be thrown out. The parties took the testimony of the Governor, and recited at full length the laws in relation to the organization of counties in Nebraska, and it was agreed that the testimony then taken should be held to apply to this case. The testimony of Samuel W. Black, Governor of Nebraska Territory, and of others, on this point, was laid before the Committee of Elections at the last Congress, and that committee reported (which report was adopted by this House) that this was an unorganized county; and, therefore, that as a precedent in favor of the decision by the House at this time, that the county of Buffalo is an unorganized county, and that the votes cast there ought to be thrown out. If gentlemen will look at the evidence they cannot entertain a doubt that that was a correct conclusion, and that this is an unorganized county. The officers obtained their commissions by recommendations of a meeting got up and attended by a half dozen, or such a matter, of their friends. The proceedings of the meeting were signed by the president and secretary and forwarded to the Governor, who, upon the strength of it, commissioned the officers so chosen; although there is no law authorizing him to issu