stop at once to any expression of feeling on the part of those occupying the galleries.

The CLERK. The gentleman from Illinois is aware that the Clerk has no power in the premises.

Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I rose for the purpose of requesting the Clerk to make an appeal to the galleries, and I am sure the gentlemen in the galleries will preserve that order and decorum without which it is impossible that business

should be transacted.

The CLERK. The Clerk trusts that gentlemen in the galleries will refrain from any expression of feeling.

Mr. WASHBURNE. I believe it is in accordance with customary usage that a motion should be adopted by the House to proceed to the election of a Speaker, and I now make the motion that the House proceed to vote, viva voce, for Speaker.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HICKMAN. I now renew the nomination that I have already made.

Mr. STEVENS. I rise, sir, simply to mention the name of a gentleman who was second on the list of candidates for Speaker in the last Congress-GALUSHA A. GROW. I will not imitate the bad taste of my colleague by going into a eulogy of his character, nor be provoked into saying anything against his opponent.

The Clerk then appointed the following gentlemen as tellers to count the votes for Speaker: Messrs. STEVENS, HICKMAN, MALLORY, and VALLANDIGHAM.

Mr. STEVENS. I beg leave to decline to act as teller. The Clerk knows very well I cannot write. [Laughter.]

The CLERK. The Clerk, then, will substitute the name of Mr. COLFAX.

Mr. COLFAX. I hope the Clerk will excuse

For Mr. Grow-Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Appleton, Ashley, Babbitt, Goldsmith F. Bailey, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, Buffinton, Chamberlain, Ambrose W. Clark, Conway, Covode, Curtis, Cutler, Dawes, Delano, Diven, Duell, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Fenton, Franchef, Granger, Hale, Hanchett, Horton, Hutchins, Julian, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Lansing, Loomis, McKean, McKnight, McPherson, Marston, Mitchell, Justin S. Morrill, Nixon, Patton, Pike, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Shanks, Sloan, Spaulding, Stevens, Stratton, Train, Trowbridge, Vandever, Van Horne, Van Valkenburgh, Van Wyck, Verree, Wall, Wallace, E. P. Walton, Washburne, Wheeler, Albert S. White, Windom, and Worcester-71.

For Mr. Blair-Messrs. Arnold, Bingham, George H. Browne, Campbell, Carlile, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Davis, Edgerton, Fessenden, Frank, Gooch, Goodwin, Grow, Gurley, Haight, Harrison, Hickman, Kelley, Lehman, Lovejoy, Moorhead, Anson P. Morrill Olin, Pomeroy, Porter, Riddle, Sedgwick, Sheffeld, Shellaberger, Sherman, Smith, John B. Steele, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, Trimble, Úpton, Charles W. Walton, and Whaley-40.

For Mr. Crittenden-Messrs. Cravens, Crisfield, Dunlap, Grider, Harding, Jackson, Leary, Mallory, Menzies, Rollins, Webster, and Wickliffe.

For Mr. Phelps-Messrs. Holman, Law, Logan, Noell, Pendleton, Perry, and Robinson.

For Mr. Vallandigham-Messrs. Ancona, Burnett, Coop er, Johnson, Norton, Reid, and Wood.

For Mr. Corning-Messrs. Cobb, English, Odell, Vibbard, Ward, and Woodruff.

For Mr. Cox-Messrs. Allen, Joseph Bailey, Morris, Noble, William G. Steele, and Chilton A. White.

For Mr. Richardson-Messrs. Cox, Lazear, and Voorhees.

For Mr. McClernand-Messrs. Fouke and Wright. For Mr. Calvert-Mr. Fisher.

For Mr. Crisfield-Mr. Calvert.

For Mr. Noell-Mr. McClernand.

For Mr. Pendleton-Mr. Vallandigham.
For Mr. Stevens-Mr. Killinger.

your confidence, I am not unmindful of the trying duties incident to the position to which you have assigned me. Surrounded at all times by grave responsibility, it is doubly so in this hour of national disaster, when every consideration of grat

Mr. FOUKE (when his name was called) said: If I have a right to explain my vote. (Cries of "No!" "No!")

The CLERK. Unless objection is made, the gentleman can explain.

Mr. STEVENS. We had better not begin it. It is a bad practice.

Mr. FOUKE. I will state that I have no complimentary votes to give in this House. I come here as a Union man, as one who belonged to the original Union party in this country. [Cries of "Order!"]

The CLERK. The gentleman is clearly out of order. Objection is made upon all sides to his proceeding.

Mr. FOUKE. Then, sir, I wish to state this

The CLERK. The gentleman is out of order. Mr. FOUKE. Then I decline to vote for the present. I would like to explain my vote for the benefit of my constituents. I think it very ungenerous for gentlemen opposite to object. It is a rule which has never been enforced before in this Hall.

The CLERK. The gentleman from Illinois will understand that the Clerk has no power to permit him to proceed.

Mr. FOUKE. Well, I decline to vote for the present.

Mr. FoUKE subsequently voted for Mr. McCLERNAND.

Mr. LEHMAN (when his name was called) said: I do not know whether my right to vote can be successfully impeached. I do not know whether the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] included me or not. The CLERK. The gentleman's name is upon the roll.

Mr. LEHMAN. Then I vote for FRANCIS P. BLAIR.

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri, said: I think it unnecessary to impose upon the House the necessity of calling even another ballot for the purpose of securing an organization of the House. I beg leave, therefore, to decline my candidacy at this point, and request such of my friends who have voted for me, as desire to do so, to change their

votes.

Mr. STEVENS. I have the same remark to make. I will not be a candidate any longer, and request my friend who voted for me to withdraw his vote. [Great laughter.]

The following changes of votes then took place:

From Mr. Blair to Mr. Grow.-Messrs. Edgerton, Arnold, Colfax, Roscoe Conkling, Olin, Campbell, Gooch, Frank, Bingham, Porter, Gurley, Moorhead, Shillaberger, Kelley, Trimble, Davis, Anson P. Morrill, Pomeroy, Sheffield, Goodwin, Charles W. Walton, Fessenden, Lovejoy, Riddle, Benjamin F. Thomas, and Sherman.

From Mr. Blair to Mr. Wright.-Mr. Lehman.
From Mr. Blair to Mr. Corning. Mr. Smith.
From Mr. Stevens to Mr. Grow.-Mr. Killinger.

The CLERK then announced that GALUSHA A. GROW, having received 99 votes-a majority of the whole number of votes cast-was duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Thirty-Seventh Congress.

Messrs. BLAIR and RICHARDSON were appointed a committee to escort the Speaker elect to the chair; who proceeded to discharge that duty.

The oath of office was then administered to the Speaker elect by Mr. WASHBURNE, he being the oldest consecutive member present.

The SPEAKER, before taking his seat, addressed the House as follows:

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives of the United States of America: Words of thanks for the honor conferred by the vote just announced would but feebly express the heart's gratitude. While appreciating this distinguished mark of

Fourscore years ago fifty-six bold merchants, farmers, lawyers, and mechanics, the representatives of a few feeble colonists, scattered along the Atlantic sea-board, met in convention to found a new empire, based on the inalienable rights of man. Seven years of bloody conflict ensued, and the 4th of July, 1776, is canonized in the hearts of the great and the good as the jubilee of oppressed nationalities; and in the calendar of heroic deeds it marks a new era in the history of the race. Three quarters of a century have passed away, and those few feeble colonists, hemmed in by the ocean in front, the wilderness and the savage in the rear, have spanned a whole continent, with great empires of free States, rearing throughout its vast wilderness temples of science and of civilization upon the ruins of savage life. Happiness seldom if ever equaled has surrounded the domestic fireside, and prosperity unsurpassed bas crowned the national energies; the liberties of the people have been secured at home and abroad, while the national ensign floats honored and respected in every commercial mart of the world.

On the return of this glorious anniversary, after a period but little exceeding that of the allotted lifetime of man, the people's Representatives are convened in the Council Chambers of the Republic, to deliberate upon the means for preserving the Government under whose benign influence these grand results have been achieved.

A rebellion-the most causeless in the history of the race has developed a conspiracy of longstanding to destroy the Constitution formed by the wisdom of our fathers, and the Union cemented by their blood. This conspiracy, nurtured for long years in secret councils, first develops itself openly in acts of spoliation and plunder of public property, with the connivance or under the protection of treason enthroned in all the high places of the Government, and at last in armed rebellion for the overthrow of the best Government ever devised by man. Without an effort in the mode prescribed by the organic law for a redress of all grievances, the malcontents appeal only to the arbitrament of the sword, insult the nation's honor, trample upon its flag, and inaugurate a revolution which, if successful, would end inestablishing petty, jarring confederacies, or despotism and anarchy, upon the ruins of the republic, and the destruction of its liberties.

The 19th of April, canonized in the first struggle for American nationality, has been reconsecrated in martyr blood. Warren has his counterpart in Ellsworth, and the heroic deeds and patriotic sacrifices of the struggle for the establishment of the republic are being reproduced upon the battlefields for its maintenance. Every race and tongue almost is represented in the grand legion of the Union: their standards proclaim in language more impressive than words, that here indeed is the home of the emigrant and the asylum of the exile. No matter where was his birth-place, or in what clime his infancy was cradled, he devotes his life to the defense of his adopted land, the vindication of its honor, and the protection of its flag, with the same zeal with which he would guard his hearthstone or his fireside. All par ties, sects, and conditions of men not corrupted by the institutions of human bondage, forgetting bygone rancors or prejudices, blend in one united phalanx for the integrity of the Union and the perpetuity of the republic.

Long years of peace, in the pursuit of sordid gain, instead of blunting the patriotic devotion of loyal citizens, seem but to have intensified its development when the existence of the Govern ment is threatened and its honor assailed.

The merchant, the banker, and the tradesman, with an alacrity unparalleled, proffer their all at the altar of their country, while from the counter, the workshop, and the plow, brave hearts and stout arms, leaving their tasks unfinished, rush to the tented field: The air vibrates with martial strains, and the earth shakes with the tread of armed men.

In view of this grandest demonstration for selfpreservation in the history of nationalities, de

sponding patriotism may be assured that the foundations of our national greatness still stand strong, and that the sentiment which to-day beats responsive in every loyal heart will for the future be realized. No flag alien to the sources of the Mississippi river will ever float permanently over its mouths till its waters are crimsoned in human gore; and not one foot of American soil can ever be wrenched from the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States until it is baptized in fire and blood. [Vociferous applause upon the floor and in the galleries, which lasted for many minutes.]

Gentlemen, as your presiding officer, it becomes my duty to apprise you that any demonstrations of approval or disapproval of anything done or said during your sessions is a violation of parliamentary decorum; and the Chair would also inform the persons in the gallaries that applause by .them is a breach of the privileges granted by the House. The Chair hopes, therefore, that any demonstrations of applause will not be repeated.

"In God is our trust;

And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." [Suppressed applause.]

Those who regard it as mere cloth bunting fail to comprehend its symbolical power. Wherever civilization dwells, or the name of Washington is known, it bears in its fold the concentrated power of armies and of navies, and surrounds its votaries with a defense more impregnable than battlement, wall, or tower. Wherever on the earth's surface an American citizen may wander, called by pleasure, business, or caprice, it is a shield secure against outrage and wrong-save on the soil of the land of his birth.

As the guardians of the rights and liberties of the people, it becomes your paramount duty to make it honored at home as it is respected abroad. A government that cannot command the loyalty of its own citizens is unworthy the respect of the world, and a government that will not protect its loyal citizens deserves the contempt of the world. [Applause.]

He who would tear down this grandest temple of constitutional liberty, thus blasting forever the hopes of crushed humanity, because its freemen, in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, select a Chief Magistrate not acceptable to him, is a parricide to his race and should be regarded as a common enemy of mankind.

This Union once destroyed is a shattered vase that no human power can reconstruct in its original symmetry. "Coarse stones when they are broken may be cemented again-precious ones

never.

If the republic is to be dismembered and the sun of its liberty must go out in endless night, let it set amid the roar of cannon and the din of battle, when there is no longer an arm to strike or a heart to bleed in its cause; so that coming generations may not reproach the present with being too imbecile to preserve the priceless legacy bequeathed by our fathers, so as to transmit it unimpaired to future times.

Again, gentlemen, thanking you for your confiding kindness, and invoking for our guidance wisdom from that Divine Power that led our fathers through the red sea of the revolution, I enter upon the discharge of the duties to which you have assigned me, relying upon your forbearance and coöperation, and trusting that your labors will contribute not a little to the greatness and glory of the republic.

SWEARING IN THE MEMBERS. Mr. STEVENS. I trust that in swearing in the members only those whose seats are not contested will first be sworn in.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will wait until the Hall is cleared of those not entitled to the floor, in order that we may proceed with the business of the House. The members will be called by States, commencing with the State of Maine.

Mr. STEVENS. In my judgment, the members whose seats are contested ought not to be called until the other members of the House are sworn in.

Mr. McCLERNAND. Make that motion. The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the course suggested will be adopted.

Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. That includes all whose rights to seats are disputed.

Mr. WASHBURNE. That does not include the members referred to in the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio.

raising the point except to vindicate the dignity of the House.

Mr. STEVENS. I make the motion that those whose seats are uncontested be first sworn in. Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I second that motion.

Mr. CURTIS. I object to the resolution. Mr. COLFAX. I move, as an amendment to the resolution, that those gentlemen whose seats are contested shall be passed over.

Mr. WASHBURNE. Idemand the previous question.

Mr. COX. Do I understand the gentleman from Indiana to include in that motion the gentleman whose name I see upon the roll from the Fairfax district-Mr. Upton?

Mr. COLFAX. I do not include any of the Virginia delegation, as I am not aware that there is any person claiming the seat of any one of

them.

Mr. COX. I desire merely to say in regard to the case of Mr. Upton, that I am not aware that there is any one claiming his seat. If the statement I made when I was up before is not correct, I certainly have no objection to his occupying a seat upon this floor; but having received the facts which I have stated from respectable authority in Ohio, I was bound to appeal to the House, in vindication of its own honor and of decency, to ascertain whether the statement be correct. I am willing to say, in all frankness, that if the gentleman claiming a seat from the Fairfax district will say to the House that I am mistaken in the statement I have made, I will forgo what other testimony I have received, and make no objection to his being sworn in as a member.

The evidence which has been placed before me

is, that at the time this alleged election is said to have taken place, Mr. Upton was, in fact, a citizen of Ohio; that he went to the election in that State last fall and proposed to vote; that his vote did, in fact, vote. was challenged; that he insisted on voting, and The judge of the election so informed me, and I have deemed it my duty to lay the fact before the House. I have no personal feeling about it. But, sir, the same mail which brought to me a copy of Mr. Upton's circular as a candidate for a seat in Congress from a district in the State of Virginia, also brought || me a paper from Zanesville, Ohio, with Mr. Upton's name at its head as editor and proprietor.

Now, if the gentleman will say to the House that he was a citizen of Virginia, and that he claimed no right of citizenship in Ohio at the time of the election, so far as I am concerned, I will not press the matter further. I shall not stand here to object to any man representing, upon this floor, any district in which he has been properly elected.

I make no question as to the regularity or irregularity of the election in Virginia. I only desire that the House shall possess itself of the facts in the case.

Mr. UPTON. So far as I am concerned, I have a very short answer to make to the gentleman from Ohio. I do claim to be a citizen of Virginia. I claimed so to be when I offered myself as a candidate to the people of the seventh congressional district of the State of Virginia. I have not been in Ohio for some six months. Except with some casual intervals, I have been a resident of Virginia for twenty-five years. It is true that I voted in Ohio, as the gentleman states. It is true that my vote was challenged there. But when, under the circumstances, the gentleman says he is vindicating the dignity and decency of the House by questioning my right to my seat upon this floor, I am glad to find that, while the country is reeling with anarchy, there is some one here to disprove the old maxim, silent leges inter arma. I claim my seat here, sir, as a member of this House from the seventh district of Virginia, and I claim that I am a citizen of that State.

Mr. COX. My friend from Virginia answers my question, whether he voted in the last election in Ohio, in the affirmative. My other statement was, that at the very time when his circular was issued as a candidate for Congress from Virginia he was the ostensible editor and publisher of a paper in Ohio. I ask the gentleman whether such is the fact? He knows that I have no motive in

Mr. UPTON. I say to the gentleman from terested at one time in a paper in Ohio, as he very well knows. I am not interested in it now, however, nor have I been for some time past.

Mr. RICHARDSON. It seems to me that we are anticipating the regular course of business and are getting ourselves into the very difficulty by it the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] is trying to avoid. Now, I will suggest to the gentlemen that we defer this matter for a few minutes in accordance with the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. We can then swear in the members whose seats are not contested, and we can afterwards take up each case and consider it disconnected from every other

case.

Mr. CURTIS. I rise to a question of order. I submit that both the resolution and amendment are out of order. The House is still in an unorganized condition. It is our first business to perfect our organization; and I claim, therefore, until that shall have been done, these resolutions and motions, the effect of which must necessarily be to delay our organization, are not in order.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the question of order.

Mr. RICHARDSON. In order that we may bring this matter to a conclusion without further delay, I will move the previous question on the resolution and amendment.

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

The amendment was agreed to.

The resolution, as amended, was adopted. The roll of the members was then called, and those present whose seats were not contested came forward and took the usual oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

When the State of Virginia was called, Mr. BURNETT offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the question of the right of Charles H. Upton, William G. Brown, R. V. Whaley, John S. Carlile, and E. H. Pendleton, to seats upon this floor, be referred to the Committee of Elections, when formed, and that they report to this House thereon.

Mr. BURNETT. It is my purpose to offer no opposition to the action of this House that shall assume the form of a factious opposition. But, sir, in obedience to what I regard as my duty as a Representative upon this floor, I have brought this matter before the House for its consideration. It involves questions of the gravest character, and certainly deserves a candid consideration. I understand that two of these gentlemen were elected on the 23d day of May, which was the fourth Thursday in the month. Then, sir, the question comes up as to the action of the State of Virginia in repealing that law. If Virginia still be in the Union, as is contended by many, then, sir, Virginia is sovereign, and she has the right to prescribe the mode, manner, and time of holding her election for members upon this floor. If the reverse of that proposition be true———

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I rise to a question of order. I make the point that the House being engaged in the execution of an order, the resolution, and the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky, are out of order until the House has completed the execution of that order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vermont raises the point of order that the House being engaged in the execution of an order, no other business is in order until that is disposed of. The Chair thinks the point of order is not well taken, as the resolution of the gentleman from Kentucky relates to the right of members to seats.

Mr. BÚRNETT. As I was remarking, if the reverse of this proposition be true, then, sir, this Congress has the power to admit new States, and these gentlemen might come in as Delegates.

Mr. STEVENS. I rise to a point of order. I had thought that the proposition now made by the gentleman from Kentucky ought to have been postponed until all the members capable of deciding it were sworn in. The House, however, de-. cided otherwise, and decided that the names of all members should be called, and that they should be sworn in, excepting those whose seats are contested. That, sir, has already been decided, and we are proceeding to execute that order, and the execution of it cannot be interrupted. I admit

that if the gentleman from Kentucky were first to call for the certificates of these members, and there were no certificates to make out a prima facie case, then they must be excluded, as a matter of course. If they have no certificates, they are not entitled to be sworn in; but if they have certificates, then they are prima facie entitled to be sworn in. The House has already decided to go on and swear in every member except such as were excepted by my resolution.

Mr. BURNETT. I desire to make one suggestion to the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will proceed, if there is no objection.

Mr. BURNETT. I think we ought to settle this question upon higher grounds than those taken by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who raises this question of order. The Constitution of the United States declares that each House shall be the judge of the election, return, and qualification of its members. No time is prescribed at which the question shall be raised.

Mr. LOVEJOY. I rise to a question of order. I submit the point of order is not debatable.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky is proceeding with unanimous consent. Mr. LOVEJOY. Well, sir, I object. The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Kentucky is in order.

Mr. BURNETT. I do not desire-and I want gentlemen to understand me distinctly-to interpose any objection to the action of those who have the control of this House unless it is one that my duty to my conscience demands that I shall make. Believing that this is a question of the gravest character ever presented to the House in regard to the right of members to a seat on this floor, I do deem it proper and right to offer this resolution. All I'desire is a simple vote of the House on the resolution. Here is at least one gentleman claiming a seat from the State of Virginia, who, by his own confession, and by his own admission, is ineligible under the constitution and laws of Virginia. By his own statement he is ineligible to a seat on this floor. He is a citizen of Ohio; a voter in that State; and yet asks to be sworn at the bar of this House as a member from the State of Virginia. I do think that the dignity of this House demands that these questions should be referred to a committee; and when that committee shall report, we shall have all the facts before us. I will say, in justice to the gentleman near me, [Mr. CARLILE,] that he was elected on the 23d May, the time that had been fixed by the laws of Virginia for the election. But the question involved in his case is as to the sovereign right of Virginia, through her proper authorities, to repeal that law, and whether he can be entitled to the seat, that law having been repealed. This much I desired to say; and I will not detain the House further, but simply ask a vote on my resolution.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ken- || tucky offers a resolution, proposing to refer the cases from Virginia to the Committee of Elections, when raised. The gentleman from Pennsylvania raises the point of order: that the House is now executing its order for the swearing in of members; having passed the resolution that the contested cases should not be called until the swearing in of the other members shall have been completed. The question which the gentleman from Kentucky raises is, as to the right of a member to a seat which is not contested; and the Chair has to overrule the point of order raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CARLILE. Mr. Speaker, I do not desire that the people whom I have the honor to represent on this floor, or rather those whom I propose to represent, should be deprived of any of their rights under the Constitution of the country by any objections that may be made to Representatives of other sections of the same State from which I come. The fourth Thursday in May was fixed by the laws of Virginia to elect members to the House of Representatives of the United States. On that day I was elected as a Representative from the district in which I residethe eleventh congressional district of the State of Virginia. I received, I think I can say, more votes than the gentleman from Kentucky received in his district. I was elected by a larger majority than any man ever received in the State-one almost approaching unanimity. I received in my

own county 1,500 votes, 23 only were cast against me for the nominee of the Democratic party. And the only question that can be raised in my case is, whether the ordinance of the Virginia convention, attempting to annul the solemn act of the General Assembly of Virginia, by declaring that no congressional election should be held on the day fixed by law, is to exclude me from a seat on this floor. That is the sole question. Sir, I have no doubt about the question myself, and I think there can be but little doubt about it throughout this great republic in the minds of all men who believe that the Constitution of the United States was the work of the people of the several States as much as is the constitution of each and every State. The only question that could be raised in my case is: had the convention of Virginia-itself convened by a law enacted by the Legislature, and restricted in its action by that law-had that powerless body the right to annul a solemn act of the Legislature of the State? For, be it remembered, the law convening the convention expressly declared upon its face that no act of that body changing the Federal relations of the State, or affecting the organic law of the State, should have any validity until such act of the convention had been referred to the people and ratified by them at the polls.

Now, sir, this pretended ordinance of the Virginia convention was passed prior to the vote of the people upon the ordinance of secession itself, and, without being submitted to the people, assumed to forbid the holding of an election for Representatives to the Congress of the United States; and if it is to have any validity, it must of course affect the relations of the State to the Union. That ordinance, as I have said, was never submitted to the people for ratification. And whatever may be said of the action of the people, on | the 23d of May, upon the ordinance of secession which was submitted to them, there can be no. argument drawn from that in support of the validity of the ordinance forbidding the holding of an election.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Do I understand the gentleman to speak of his own case merely, or of all the gentlemen claiming seats from the State of Virginia? Is there any distinction between the

cases?

Mr. CARLILE. I can only speak of my own case and of the case of the gentleman representing the district immediately adjoining, [Mr. BROWN.]

Mr. RICHARDSON. Was the election held on the day fixed by law?

Mr. CARLILE. It was. The gentleman from the Fairfax district, [Mr. UPTON] resides in a section remote from my own, and I am not at all familiar with the circumstances attending his election; nor am I with those connected with the election of Mr. Pendleton. But, sir, in the district represented by Mr. Brown, and in my own district, in most of the counties, all of the officers whose duty it is to conduct elections, disregarded the ordinance of the convention, opened the polls, and held an election in accordance with all the requirements of law. I have with me the pollbooks in some of the counties. I have certificates of the officers who conducted the elections, and of the clerks of the various counties as to its results.

So far, then, as my right to a seat upon this floor is concerned, the only question for this body to determine is, whether, assuming the power rightfully belonging to the convention of Virginia to be all that its warmest advocates can claim for it, the ordinance adopted by them, not ratified by the people, forbidding the holding of this election can have any validity? And that question I think any gentleman, however warmly he may advocate the doctrine of secession, cannot decide except in the negative.

I desire, Mr. Speaker, in order that I may not be misunderstood, to say further in this connection, that I discard entirely any such views of the sovereignty of any State, either through its convention or otherwise, as will permit it to dissolve the allegiance it owes to the Government formed and handed down to us by our fathers. [Applause in the galleries and on the floor.]

The SPEAKER. The Chair must inform the galleries that if these manifestations of applause are repeated he is authorized by the rules of the House to have them cleared.

Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. These demonstrations have been repeated three or four times, and I wish to give notice that if they occur again I shall demand that the rules of the House be executed, and I will not withdraw the demand.

Mr. CARLILE. Mr. Speaker, I maintain, and those I represent upon this floor maintain, that we have as much right and as high an interest in the Government of the Union as we have in that of our own State. I contend that both proceed from the same sovereign power of the people, and that while the State can change its own organic law, it cannot change its relation to the Federal Union without the consent of those who with the people of that State form the Union. We utterly discard, as a usurpation of power and as a gross act of tyranny, every attempt which has been exercised by those to whom the people in an evil hour confided their interests, to deprive us of our rights under that Union. We utterly. discard the acts of those in our State who have turned their backs upon everything like constitution and law and have sought to establish in our midst the most odious despotism. I am proud to say that that portion of the State whence I come are determined to defend their freedom. They have declared before the world their utter repudiation of the acts of tyranny and oppression which it has been sought to impose upon the people of our State, and their determination to maintain to the end of time, or so long as life may last, the Union under which they have grown and prospered beyond all precedent in the world's history. And we desire here in this nation's Capitol that the voice of that people shall be heard, not only in the subsequent deliberations of this body, but at the outset, in its organization.

Mr. LOVEJOY demanded the previous question.

Mr. UPTON. I ask the gentleman to permit me to make a single statement?

Mr. LOVEJOY. I demand the previous question. We want action and not speaking. Mr. UPTON. I wish to make a personal state

Mr. McCLERNAND. Believing the resolu tion to be premature, I move to lay it on the table. Mr. BURNETT. I call for the yeas and nays upon that motion.

The yeas and nays were not ordered, only one member voting therefor.

The question was taken, and the resolution laid upon the table.

Mr. DIVEN. If it be in order I should like to ask the gentleman from Virginia as to the certificates upon which he and his colleagues claim seats upon this floor.

The SPEAKER. No further debate is in order. Mr. WASHBURNE moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was laid upon the table; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE. Äll the members whose seats are not contested having been sworn in, I now move that the rules of the last House of Representatives be adopted as the rules of this House; and upon that motion I call the previous question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would suggest that only such members as were not included in the resolution passed by the House have been sworn in, leaving other members unqualified.

Mr. WASHBURNE. A large majority of the members have been sworn in, and I think it better that we should have rules for the House adopted before proceeding further.

The SPEAKER. The first business to be done is the qualification of members, and until that business is disposed of, the Chair thinks it is not proper to do any other business.

Mr. WASHBURNE. Then I withdraw my motion until that matter is disposed of.

Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I hope the House will agree, by unanimous consent, to adopt the rules of the last House.

Mr. LOVEJOY. I object.

Mr. STEVENS. I find the name of William

E. Lehman on the Clerk's list, as Representative from the first district of Pennsylvania. I do not know how it got there, though I have no doubt the Clerk put it there. But I undertake to say that he put it there without authority. I move that the name of J. M. Butler be substituted as the Representative from the first district; and 1 send up to the Clerk the certificates upon which I found my motion.

The certificates, signed by the seventeen return judges of the district, were read, as follows: "PHILADELPHIA, October 12, 1860. "SIR: At an election held in the city of Philadelphia, on Tuesday, October 9, 1860, you were duly elected inember of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, for the first district of the State of Pennsyl

vania.

“J. M. BUTLER.”

"We, the return judges of an election held on Tuesday, the 9th day of October, A. D. 1860, in and for the first congressional district of the State of Pennsylvania, composed of the first, second, third, fourth, and seventh wards, the first, second, and third election districts of the fifth ward of the city of Philadelphia, at the several clection districts thereof, for the purpose of electing a Representative in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States from the said first district of Pennsylvania, having met this day, according to law, at the State House, in the city of Philadelphia, and carefully compared the returns from the several wards of the said city, do hereby certify, that John M. Butler received eight thousand five hundred and fifty-one [8,551] votes, William E. Lehman received eight thousand three hundred and eighty-three [8,383] votes, Edward King received two thousand and fiftyseven (2,057) votes. And we do further certify, that Jolin M. Butler had the highest number of votes polled for Representative in Congress as aforesaid, and that therefore he is,

and we do hereby declare him, duly elected for the said city of Philadelphia.

"In testimony whereof, we, the judges, have hereunto set our hands and seals, this twelfth day of October, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty."

Mr.STEVENS. Now, sir, I submit that where a certificate of election is duly made out and given to any member, that makes out a prima facia case, and you cannot go behind it, and the member must be sworn in. Now I call upon the party named in the Clerk's roll to say whether he has any certificate at all. I say his name was put upon that roll by somebody who had no authority to put it there, and I defy the gentleman to show any certificate at all. If the gentleman does not put his case upon some ground I do not now think of, I shall say nothing further. If he will state the ground upon which the Clerk put his name on the roll, I will show that it was not put there upon a prima facie case. We have shown a prima facie case, and shall ask that Mr. Butler be sworn in.

Mr. LEHMAN. I come here claiming my seat as the Representative of the first congressional district of Pennsylvania upon the same credential as that of the gentleman who has just addressed the House, and who arrests the organization of the House at this moment. I come here by virtue of the proclamation of the Governor of Pennsylvrnia, under the broad seal of my State, and in the name of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the same credential and the same certificate upon which the gentleman took his seat in this House. When I am asked to present my certificate, I say I know of no higher authority than that which emanates from the chief executive officer of my State-a credential issued in pursuance of law, and under authority of law; and it is the only credential which can be recognized, in the first place, by the Clerk of this House, as being authoritative and under the sanction of all law. If I have sufficiently answered the gentleman, I present that authority to this House. I hold a copy of it in my hand, and the conclusion of it is in the following words:

"Now, therefore, I have issued this proclamation, hereby publishing and declaring that William E. Lehman, Edward Joy Morris, John P. Verree, William D. Kelley, William Morris Davis, John Hickman, Thomas B. Cooper, Sydenham E. Ancona, Thaddeus Stevens, John W. KilJinger, James H. Campbell, George W. Scranton, Philip Johnson, Galusha A. Grow, James T. Hale, Joseph Bailey, Edward McPherson, Samuel S. Blair, John Covode, Jesse Lazear, James K. Moorhead, Robert McKnight, John W. Wallace, John Patton, and Elijah Babbitt have been returned as duly elected in the several districts before mentioned as Representatives in the Congress of the United States for the term of two years, to commence from and after the 4th day of March next."

Now, if this certificate does not entitle me to a seat in this House in the first instance, I am at a loss to know what higher credential I could present. But beyond that, so far as my own conscience is concerned, were I not satisfied that I was rightfully elected and chosen to represent the

All I ask and expect of this House is simple justice. Let my case go before the committee chosen by a majority of this House. Let them look at the papers regularly transmitted to this House, and now in the possession of its Clerk, and I will be satisfied with the result of their consideration and deliberation upon my case.

Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I desire to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether the party by whose forgery the papers presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania across the way, were procured, was not tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned in the penitentiary?

I

Mr. LEHMAN. I say I do not wish to enter upon the facts or merits of this case. I do not wish to prejudice the case; and therefore it is that I have hesitated to state the facts of the case. only want the case to go regularly through; and when the Committee of Elections is duly raised under the rules of the House they will have the opportunity of investigating all the testimony which is now in the possession of this House, and then they can report knowingly to the House, so that it can act upon the facts which have been ascertained by their deliberations.

I wished to state no facts; but in reply to the gentleman from Ohio, and out of courtesy to him, I will state that the return judge upon whose faith that certificate was founded, has been tried, has been found guilty, has been sentenced to the penitentiary, and received the highest penalty of the law for his offense. But these are questions of fact with which the House at the present time has nothing to do; the Committee of Elections can investigate them and report understandingly. At the present time I come here by virtue of the proclamation of the Governor of my own State, and ask to be sworn in. When I am sworn in the contestant has the opportunity of presenting his petition, and presenting it to the committee to be raised to investigate all the facts.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire to ask the gentleman one question. I desire to know, whether in the case between himself and Mr. Butler, a notice of contest has been served, and evidence taken?

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes, sir. If this case takes its regular course, no injustice is done to me or to my constituents; for, after I had received the proclamation of the Governor of Pennsylvania, Mr. Butler, my contestant, under the act of Congress of February 9, 1851, served upon me a regular notice of contest, setting forth the grounds upon which he claimed my seat, alleging frauds at the election precincts, but for which he would have been declared elected. That was done in conformity to the act of Congress prescribing the manner and mode in which an election shall be contested. He set forth various grounds, such as fraud, illegality, illegal voting, and all these various reasons, with precision. Being the sitting member by virtue of the proclamation of the Governor, my duty was to answer that notice. I did answer it, denying, and contenting myself simply with denying-for I need not go further the allegations contained in his notice. A commissioner was duly appointed, in conformity with the act of Congress, and the contestant took testimony in support of his allegations, and I took testimony rebutting the truth of his allegations. That notice, the answer, the testimony, all the public doc. uments the document which the gentleman from Pennsylvania, over the way, has produced, as well as other documents-are fully contained in the record which has been transmitted to the Clerk of this House, for the information of the House, and to be presented to, and adjudicated by, a com mittee of this House. When this record is laid before the committee it will properly be considcred.

But if I am deprived of my seat in the first

instance, I should not have the right now to contest the seat under the act of Congress of 1851. That act prescribed that the notice must be served within thirty days after the election is determined, I all along have rested under the proclamation of the Governor, which entitles me to be called the fact that Mr. Butler was the.contestant, and that I had sufficiently answered the notice in this case; and will this House now do me the injustice, at this late hour, of depriving me of the advantage I should originally have had of contesting the seat? Had the certificate been given to the contestant, and he declared entitled to the seat, I could have given notice, and shown the grounds of my contest. If I am recognized here, and am sworn in, the record is straight. All the testimony and all the light necessary to be thrown upon the case is embraced in the record which will be laid before the committee, and upon that the committee can report whether Butler or Lehman is entitled to the seat. When that report is made, and all the grounds stated, every member of the House can vote understandingly and knowingly. To do the reverse, is to negative the proclamation of the Governor, to negative my position, to change my status-the status I occupy by virtue of the laws and to put me in the position of a contestant at this late day.

Mr. DAWES. I would like to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania answer me one question; and that is, whether the statutes of the State of Pennsylvania prescribe that the certificate to be sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall be the certificate of the judges of election, or shall it be the proclamation of the Governor? I understand that the laws of each State prescribe the form and method of ascertaining who appears, in the first instance, to be elected a member of this House, and prescribes in what method that evidence shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the House. I simply want to know what the law of Pennsylvania is on that point.

Mr. LEHMAN. The law requires that the return judges shall send to the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the returns, and that, upon those returns, the Governor of Pennsylvania shall issue his proclamation declaring who is elected. There are some facts connected with my case which I think ought to go before a committee; but it is to be presumed that that law, which was imperative upon the Governor of the State, has been complied with by him.

Mr. DAWES. I wish to inquire whether the law of Pennsylvania prescribes that any papers shall be sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives?

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAWES. What papers?

Mr. LEHMAN. It prescribes that the returns and the proclamation shall be forwarded to the Clerk of the House.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the gentleman say the proclamation?

Mr. LEHMAN. I thought so. I may be in error; and if so, I stand corrected.

Mr. STEVENS. We will see about that. Mr. LEHMAN. I simply ask that this case shall take the regular course; and that, having been sworn in in the first instance, the whole record in the case shall be referred to the committee to be raised under the 75th rule, which prescribes that—

"It shall be the duty of the Committee of Elections to examine and report upon the certificates of election, or other credentials, of the members returned to serve in this House; and to take into their consideration all such petitions and other matters touching elections and returns as shall or may be presented or come into question, and be referred to them by the House."

The committee are to examine the credentials because, by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, the House is to judge of the returns, qualifications, and election of the members. And how can they judge of the credentials of a member without having all the papers before them? What evidence has the House that the paper presented by the gentleman from Pennsyl vania [Mr, STEVENS] has any verity in it? What evidence has the House that that paper emanates from any board of return judges in the city of Philadelphia? What evidence have they that the names subscribed to that paper are what they purport to be the names of the judges of elec.

tion? There is no evidence that the paper is what it purports to be.

Mr. WRIGHT. I rise to a question of order. I would inquire whether the fact that the proclamation of the Governor of Pennsylvania has been issued, giving the seat to the gentleman, [Mr. LEHMAN,] and that it has been communicated to this House, does not prima facie entitle him to the seat? Now, it is within the recollection, doubtless, of some gentlemen here, that in the contested-election case from the State of New Jersey, some years since, the House decided that the Governor of the State having attached the State seal to the return of members, that gave them a prima facie right to take their seats.

I hold that the fact that the gentleman from the first district comes here with the proclamation of the Governor that he has been elected and returned, gives him prima facie a right to the

seat.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania raises the question of order that the proclamation of the Governor of the State, being prima facie evidence, entitles the member to be sworn in. That is a question for the House to decide under the Constitution; and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Mr. LEHMAN. I do not know by what authority the Clerk of the House placed my name upon the record. At the commencement of the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] he said that my name was there by mistake. I now call for the authority, if it is in the possession of the Clerk, under which Colonel Forney placed my name on the roll.

The Clerk read the following paper:

The Clerk, in placing the name of William E. Lehman upon the roll of members, for the first congressional dis trict of Pennsylvania, was actuated by the following rea

sons:

William F. Packer, Governor of Pennsylvania, on the 8th day of November, 1860, pursuant to the provisions of act of Assembly, issued his proclamation declaring that William E. Lehman was duly elected Representative in Congress from the first congressional district, and enumerating him with twenty-four others as members elect from the State of Pennsylvania to the House of Representatives in the present Congress. This proclamation is presented by Mr. Lehman as his credentials.

John M. Butler, on the other hand, claimed that the offi. cial returns made out by the board of election judges, under act of Assembly, showed he was elected Representative in the first district. This return he relied upon as evidence sufficient for the Clerk to place his name upon the roll.

In this conflict, the question arose which of these claimants should be placed by the Clerk upon the roll, and be called in the organization of the House, or whether the names of both should be omitted until after the organization. The Constitution of the United States provides that the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, inake or alter such regulations. (Art. 1., sec. 4.) The fifth section of the first article provides that each House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its own members. The plain words of the Constitution, as well as the uniform action of the House ever since the organization of the Government, show that it is the exclusive province of the House to decide the right to contested seats upon its floor. The Clerk is but a ministerial officer, having no right to investigate or decide; but, inasmuch as there must be some evidence or rule to guide him for the purpose of organization, the election law of Pennsylvania has conferred upon the Governor of that State authority to decide by proclamation the persons returned as elected in their respective districts. This official declaration is in the nature of a primary adjudication upon the fact of election, which can only be ratified or reversed by the House. The Clerk is therefore bound to look at the law of the State; and where the claimant presents the credential prescribed by that law it must be received as the only authentic evidence. The Governor's proclamation is made the prescribed credential to which the Clerk must look in making out the roll of members; but he has no power to consider anything contradictory, or impeaching that credential.

The Governor's official declaration guides the Clerk in respect to the uncontested seats, and is his general authority for placing the claimant's names upon the roll; and if, where there is a contest, he should go beyond the Governor's proclamation, and look at the returns to see whether the enumerated persons were duly elected, he would be usurping the function of the House, and assuming to judge what is only within its jurisdiction. In the present case Mr. Lehman presents precisely the same evidence of his right to the seat for the first district of Pennsylvania exhibited by all the other Representatives from that State. The Clerk has no power to distinguish between the persons declared in the same proclamation to be elected, but must give the proclamation equal credit as to all who are enumerated as members.

At the organization of the House of Representatives of the Twenty-Sixth Congress, in December, 1839, five seats from the State of New Jersey were contested; and the Clerk, without entering the names of either upon the roll, submitted to the House whether he should pass over their names until the call of the balance of the roll was completed. After a protracted and exciting contest, the House resolved: first, to call the names of gentlemen whose right

to seats was not disputed or contested; second, that after the names of such members were called, and before a Speaker was elected, they should, provided there be a quorum of such present, then hear and judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of the claimants, Messrs. Ingersoll and Naylor excepted, to the seats contested upon the floor. The claimants holding the Governor's certificate were excluded from voting in the organization; but, after investigation and report by a committee, the seats were awarded to their contestants.

But the proceedings of the Clerk and by the House in the New Jersey case were at the time regarded as a departure from previous usage and practice, and very much influenced by special circumstances of a political nature then existing. The constitutional duty of the Clerk to call those whose right is attested by the official evidence of the Governor's certificate was earnestly insisted upon by some of the wisest and most distinguished statesmen of that day, among whom were the venerable John Quincy Adams and two of the ablest jurists of Pennsylvania-John Sergeant and Richard Biddle; and the majority of the House, by its own action at the same time in another case, determined in favor of the prima facie right furnished by the proclamation of the Governor of Pennsylvania. Mr. Lehman is officially declared by the Governor as legally elected in the first congressional district, and is enumerated with all the other members claiming seats from that State. The Clerk has no more right to exclude his name from the roll, on the ground of error or mistake by Governor Packer, or that his declaration is contradicted by the return of the board, than he would have to exclude every other person named in the Governor's proclamation. The exercise of power in any case would imply the right to leave out the whole Pennsylvania delegation, and exclude that State from representation in the organization of the House, and deprive a sovereign State of its right to say through its constituted authorities who should be its Representative upon the floor of this House.

For these reasons I have placed the name of William E. Lehman upon the roll of the House, along with the other members designated by the Governor's proclamation, as the person selected to represent the first district of the State of Pennsylvania in the House of Representatives of the United States.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I desired to be enlightened by authoritative documents of this new Daniel that has come to judgment on the law of this House that has just been read. But, sir, in the haste in which he has made it up, he has forgotten the analogies of the case; for remember he has made up that document since I gave notice this morning that the seat was to be contested. Of course, sir, the Clerk had no suspicion that there was anything wrong, or he would not have entered the name he did on the roll. Now, here is an elaborate argument. Let us, for a single moment, confine ourselves to the prima facie case. I am sorry the gentleman across the way, and who claims to be my colleague, did not confine himself to his own suggestion of propriety, instead of answering questions put to him with reference to facts outside of the record here. Since he has done so, however, I may be permitted to state facts also. This was a triangular fight. Here was this gentleman belonging to one wing of the Democracy. There was also a Breckinridge Democrat in the field, and a Republican; and I believe the Breckinridge Democrat hated the Douglas Democrat a little the worse of the two. They made a false count in some of the precincts, as they always do in the first congressional district, and when they found, with all the false counts, the Douglas Democrat had overrun them a little, the Breckinridge Democrats brought in returns which they said were forged. They got certain witnesses to swear that the returns were forged, and it is true they did convict a judge of elections; but on examination the Governor was satisfied that there had been perjury in the case, and he pardoned the man and let him out. I will state one other thing: after the Democratic Governor had issued his proclamation stating that there were returns there showing Mr. Lehman was elected, Mr. Butler, supposing that it was so, gave the notice of contest required by law. He then had a recount of the contents of the ballot-boxes, and that recount elected Mr. Butler just according to the original returns, showing that the conviction of the judge was brought about by perjury, and that the original returns were correct. Now, sir, I should never have noticed this if my friend had not, in answer to certain questions, (I admit it was dragged from him,) stated these facts. Hence I felt justified in saying this before going into the law of the case.

Mr. LEHMÄN. I know the gentleman's object and mine are the same-to get at the truth; and I desire, therefore, to say that his statement of facts is inaccurate. I know he supposes he has good authority for what he states, but the facts are not as he gives them.

Mr. STEVENS. While the gentleman is up let me ask him one question. Has he ever got the certificates of the return judges?

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Butler himself has not got them.

Mr. STEVENS. Has the gentleman got them? Mr. LEHMAN. I have not, nor has Mr. But. ler.

Mr. STEVENS. I wish to indicate what the law in the case requires, after the learned disquisition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. What I mean to say is this: that in some of the States, as the gentleman from Masssachusetts [Mr. DAWES] pertinently remarked, the certificate of the Governor is the authority upon which members take their seats here, and are prima facie entitled to them, as was the case in the great New Jersey case, where the broad seal was spoken of. I believe there the commission of the Governor was the prima facie evidence upon which they were entitled to seats. My friend on my right says it is so in several of the States; but in Pennsylvania it is just otherwise. The law there requires the return judges to make out the count of the votes and give a certificate as to the number. They are required to file one copy of that certificate with the prothonotary of the county, and send another to the secretary of the Commonwealth, to be filed in his office. The Governor is to look at this certificate and proclaim who is returned as elected-not who is elected, but who is returned elected; and the Governor is to send this certificate to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. He is not to send his proclamation at all. His proclamation is not here; his proclamation, according to the law, is not anywhere except to the people of the State. The only authority upon which the members from that State are entitled to claim their seats here is the certificates given to them-certificates filed in the office of the prothonotaries of the counties and filed in the office of the Secretary of the State, which certificates are to be sent here. Now, they were here if the Governor has done his duty. He sent to the Clerk of this House the certificate of my election; he sent to the Clerk of the House the certificate of Mr. Butler's election; and they are the only certificates of anybody's election that belong here or can have any validity here.

But it is said the Governor of Pennsylvania discovered that there had been fraud, and afterwards proclaimed that Mr. Lehman was elected; and that proclamation is received here as of validity beyond the certificate of the return judges, which repeat are the only certificates that could lawfully come here at all.

I

Now all I want is for the House to understand the question. If we are to take our seats from Pennsylvania upon the certificate of the Governor, then I admit that Mr. Lehman has a prima facie case. But I deny that the certificate of the Governor of Pennsylvania in this case has any validity at all, or that it is before, or can come before, this House at all. And in support of the assertion, I ask the Clerk to read from the laws of Pennsylvania what I send up.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"SEC. 64. The judges of the several counties having met, as aforesaid, shall cast up the several county returns, and make duplicate returns of all the votes given for such office in sald district, and of the name of the person or persons elected; and one of said returns for each office shall be deposited in the office of the prothonotary of the court of common pleas of the county in which they shall meet, and the other shall be, by said judges, deposited in the nearest post office, sealed and directed to the secretary of the Commonwealth, in the manner directed in parts two and three of the eighteenth section.

"SEC. 65. It shall also be the duty of the return judges, in every case, to transmit to each of the persons elected to serve in Congress, or in the Senate or in the House of Representatives of this Commonwealth, a certificate of his election, within five days after the day of making up such returns."

"SEC. 113. It shall be the duty of the Governor, on the receipt of the returns of the election of members of the House of Representatives of the United States as aforesaid, by the secretary of the Commonwealth, to declare by proclamation the names of the persons so returned as elected in the respective districts; and he shall also, as soon as conveniently may, be thereafter, transmit the returns so made to the House of Representatives of the United States."

Mr. STEVENS. Now, sir, it is the plainest thing in the world that the process of making up the returns, and of certifying them to this House, is as I have stated. It was the duty of the return judges, within five days after the election, to notify the man elected of his election. They did notify Mr. Butler within five days of his election. Mr. Lehman never received such a certificate at all. Within the prescribed time, the certificate showing that Mr. Butler was elected was sent to