42D CONG....2D SESS. court of the State; a life-long Democrat, and for many years one of the foremost leaders of that party in the State of Arkansas. (See pages 16 and 17 of the printed papers.) Judge Watkins testifies substantially to the same facts on this point that Colonel Gantt and General Garland have testified to ; and among other mat. ters stated by him, he testifies as follows: Question. Have you any knowledge, direct or indirect, that Governor PoWELL CLAYTON authorized Chamberlain to make the propositions to you named in your deposition? Answer. I have not, only at the time he professed to be acting as the friend of Governor CLAYTON, as I understood him. Question. Do you or do you not know the fact, and was it not generally understood in this community at and before the times and occurrences named, that said Chamberlain was a warm and active supporter of Governor POWELL CLAYTON, and in favor of his election to the Senate of the United States? Answer. Mr. Chamberlain's position in the Legislature seemed to be, in many respects, equivocal, both as to measures and his adherence to Governor CLAYTON, but my understanding from him and others was that he was in favor of the election of Governor CLAYTON to the United States Senate." This evidence shows why it was that Governor CLAYTON did not give me the certificate, although I had more than two thousand majority, and although the laws of Arkansas plainly provided that he should do so immediately after the count was made. And the law did not leave him in doubt as to whose count should determine the person elected, for it plainly and positively declares who shall perform that important duty-that the secretary of State shall make the canvass. And the law is equally explicit as to the duty of the Governor in this connection, his only duty being to be present at the count, and to immediately announce by proclamation the result of the election as determined by the count made by the secretary of State, and to grant a certifi cate under the great seal of the State to the person elected according to such count. His duty being strictly ministerial, there is no discretion given him. Arkansas Contested Election-Mr. Boles. The printed evidence abounds in proof of the Governor's determination to defeat my election to Congress, while he said to John Ayery (see page 33) that "he intended to go to the United States Senate in spite of h-1 or high water." He on many occasions manifested an equal determination to defeat my election; and possibly this determination on his part had something to do in causing him to act thus corruptly. Before proceeding further with my remarks on this point I desire to call attention to the certificate given the sitting member by the Governor. It will be observed that the language of the certificate is, "that it appears from the returns made to the office of Secretary of State that," &c., "John Edwards was duly elected," &c. How does this agree with the official abstracts of returns on file in the secretary of State's office as shown by exhibits B and C, which show my majority to be 2,133 votes? How is he to reconcile this certificate with the showing made by the duly authenticated transcripts of the returns of all the counties of the district, which are found in the printed evidence in this case, on pages 157 to 168, inclusive, which returns likewise give me a majority of 2,133 votes? How is he to reconcile this certificate with the evidence of Hon. R. J. T. White, secretary of State, when he testifies that "it was not issued upon any determination or canvass made by him?" (See page 9 printed papers.) Mr. Speaker, the truth is, this certificate is a base fraud, certifying to a falsehood; and it is difficult to understand how the Governor could be otherwise than aware of its false and fraudulent nature at the time he issued it, when we remember the vote was cast up and arranged in his presence, was counted in his presence. Certainly there was no haste on his part that would allow of such an oversight, since he was about three months in getting up this certificate. SUPREME COURT OPINION. The sitting member has presented what purports to be a copy of an opinion of the supreme court of the State of Arkansas on a petition of certain candidates for seats in the Arkansas Legislature, asking that a mandamus issue against the clerk of the county of Pulaski, com This evidence explains the long delay in issuing the certificate. He was waiting to use the granting of the certificate to the best advantage to promote his own selfish aspirations. He held this certificate back to be used, as he did use it, as so much political capital or stock in trade. This is the reason why he so unscrupulously and flagrantly vio-pelling him to certify certain returns which lated the laws of the State of Arkansas and of the Congress of the United States, and explains why he totally disregarded his sworn duty as the Governor of the State of Arkansas. This evidence shows that he willfully and delib. erately, and in a most gross and criminal manner, violated the right of the people of the State over which he had been called to preside as Governor in order to promote his own interest, in the gratification of his vaulting ambition. It shows how this Governor, chosen by the suffrages of a too confiding people, has been faithless to the trust reposed in him; who, instead of protecting the people in their rights, has aimed a deadly blow at the very source of their liberties by destroying the ballot, in substituting his own will for the will of the people. It appears this man became drunk with the almost unlimited.patronage given him as Governor by unwise provisions of the constitution of our State, and became so accustomed to its exercise, even beyond the authority given him in the appointment of persons to official positions, that he even dared to and has appointed a member to the Congress of the United States. Almost half the Forty-Second Congress has passed, and during this whole time the voice and will of the people of the third district of Arkansas have been silent, have been suppressed, and the voice and will of the Governor has been by his usurpation substituted. 42D CONG, 2D SESS.-No. 3. they alleged had not been sent up to the secretary of State by said clerk. Of course these papers were not admitted as evidence; but even if they had been admitted as competent evidence, they would have done him no good in this contest, for, instead of making a majority for him, they decide that all the returns made were legal and properly included in the count, and were properly returned by the clerk to the secretary of State, except in three voting precincts, being the first and third wards of the city of Little Rock, and Eagle township. The court declared that the returns first made from these voting places were illegally included in the returns so made at first by the county clerk, and that they should be substituted by the statement of votes subsequently returned; which votes, as the clerk shows, were received by outside judges, and not on the poll-book made out by the clerk for the judges of the election. And by way of explanation as I go along, I will remark right here that this decision was made and opinion given by the court under very suspicious circumstances, to say the least. It was made on the ex parte showing of the petition of the petitioners above mentioned. another of the schemes devised for filling up the Legislature with partisans of the Governor in aid of his canvass for the Senate of the United States. No facts were brought before the court, nor would the court suffer the clerk || to present any evidence. If proof had been It was Ho. OF REPS. admitted, and the court had not predetermined the case, a different decision would have been the result; for the proof taken in my case here, as to the legality and regularity of the elections in these three voting places shows beyond a doubt that they were not only legal, but regular, free, and fair. The elections held at other precincts, which had been assailed by the sitting member, were expressly declared by this court to be legally held and properly counted. By making the deductions ordered by the court, and substituting the returns by them ordered to be substituted, it will be seen that I am still left with a majority of 862 votes in the district. Thus it will appear that the evidence, or papers he attempted to introduce as evidence, decides against his right to the seat in Congress. MALLORY REPORT." The sitting member attempted to introduce in evidence certain records and files of the Legislature of the State of Arkansas, his purpose being to bring before the committee and the House a certain pretended report to the senate of that State, commonly known as the "Mallory report." This document purports to be a report made by a joint committee of investigation concerning certain alleged frauds and irregularities perpetrated at certain assailed precincts in Pulaski county, named first, second, third, fourth wards of the city of Little Rock, and Ashley, Gray, Eagle, Eastman, Big Rock, Badgett, Campbell, and Pyeatt townships, and is accompanied by what is claimed to be the evidence on which it is based. While the records and files of the senate of Arkansas might be competent evidence of the official acts of that branch of the State Legislature in a contest where such evidence should be material, they are, for obvious reasons, not competent evidence in this contest of the truth of any of the statements contained in said report, or in the pretended testimony accompanying the same. Te exclude the possibility that said report might prejudice this case, I have not only introduced the testimony of witnesses to prove that said report was devised as a fraudulent pretext for issuing the proclamation and certificate in favor of the sitting mem. ber, but have also proved by the witness, HonT. W. Ham, (62,) a member of the so-called "Mallory committee," that that committee held only five meetings, at four of which the witness was present; that three other meetings were called by the chairman, but were attended by no member of the committee except the witness himself; that the session continued in no case longer than half an hour; that at three of the meetings no witnesses were examined at all; and that at the fourth meeting only one witness, J. V. Fitch, was examined; so that the pretended testimony attached to the "Mallory report," and covering (exclusive of Fitch's) forty-eight printed pages, was never taken by the committee at all, unless taken at a single session, which was, of course, an impossibility. I have further shown by the same witness that the "Mallory report" was concocted by Mallory and Cohen, members of the committee, and Upham, its clerk, who, having been elected a member of the common council of Little Rock at the same election, was personally interested in the investigation, and unfit to serve as clerk; that these men refused to take the testimony of witnesses who were acquainted with the facts and ready to testify; that the pretended report and testimony were not submitted to the other members of the committee before their presentation to the sen ate; that it was currently reported and generally believed in the Legislature, and in the community, that the "Mallory report" was designed to afford the Governor a pretext for issuing the certificate to the sitting member, HO. OF REPS. and that immediately after the adjournment of the Legislature, both Mallory and Cohen were appointed to lucrative offices by the Govenor. I also show, by the testimony of T. P. Johnson, 62; S. Holland, 62; G. W. McDiarmid, 61; H. Green, 59; J. L. Hodges, 69whose pretended testimony accompanies the "Mallory report"-that they never testified before the committee at all; that two of them, Green and Hodges, made statements before the clerk, which he falsely reported. I also show, by the testimony of J. L. Hodges, 69, and W. J. Hynes, 68, that a senator attempted to expose the fraudulent character of the report when it was presented, but was at once put down by the chair. I will now present some few extracts from the testimony of witnesses, taken subject to cross examination, which show the corrupt and fraudulent nature of this infamous report. T. J. Johnson, page 62, says: "I have seen said report, which is printed and now before me, signed "Mallory,' I never was before said committee; never was summoned before any such committee of the General Assembly of Arkansas, and never gave any evidence before any such committee. I never saw or knew of such committee. I have heard such a committee spoken of. That part of said report which purports to be my testimony, taken before said committee, is a fabrication. I never was before any member or other officer of said committee as a witness." Samuel Holland, on page 62, says: "Have seen the printed report signed Mallory,' which purports to be a report of said senate in reference to said frauds. I never was before said committee as a witness, nor before any member or officer of such a committee, and never gave any evidence before any such committee or officer thereof. The statement in said pretended report, that I appeared before said committee, is a falsehood and a fabrication. I was never asked to appear before said committee." Hon. Thomas W. Ham, a member of this Mallory committee, on pages 63 and 64, says: "The report of Mallory was never submitted to me. Said Mallory was considered the leader for CLAYTON and party in the senate. In the house of representatives, Cohen voted with the Clayton party on all questions, and was considered one of the leaders in that interest." * * "It was currently reported and generally believed in the Legislature and in the community that the 'Mallory' report to the senate, referred to by me, was designed to furnish a pretext to Governor CLAYTON for him to give the certificate of election to John Edwards." G. W. McDiarmid, another witness named in the "Mallory report, 27 on page 61, says: "I have examined said report, signed Mallory' I never appeared before said committee, nor was ever summoned to appear before said committee, nor any other committee of the said General Assembly on that subject. I never gave any such evidence before said committee as is contained or alleged in said report. And further deponent saith not. "Major Harrington, counsel for John Edwards, contestee, appeared, but waived any cross-examination of the last two witnesses." J. L. Hodges, another witness mentioned in said report, on pages 69 and 70, says: "I have seen and examined said report; I never was before said committee or examined by them, nor any other committee of said Legislature, on said subject. I never was before any officer of any such committee, except the clerk of said Mallory' committee, whose name was D. P. Upham. He swore and examined me in the abscence of the committee, and reported my testimony taken by him falsely. I stated to said Upham, at the time, that what he had there written down was not my evidence; and I refused to sign or sanction said reported testimony, and I never did sign or sanction it. I applied to Mallory, the chairman of said committee, to go before the said committee and give my deposition properly, which I never was permitted to do. I afterward made an affidavit of these statements I made to Upham and the chairman, Mallory, and handed it to Senator Caraloff, and he tried to get said affidavit before the senate of the State, but failed to have it done. This was when the said 'Mallory' report was presented to the senate, Senator Caraloff, also at the same time presented other affidavits of a similar character to mine in the senate; all of which was denied, and the report was adopted under the previous question and without debate. Senator Caraloff was a senator of the State, from Benton and Washington counties, and an active supporter of General John Edwards for Congress in the election of 1870." Arkansas Centested Election-Mr. Boles. Hon. Joseph Brooks, on page 67, says: "The report asked about was not presented to the said senate until after the 8th or 10th of February, 1871. I was sworn in as senator from Pulaski and White counties on or about the 1st of February, 1871, and remained in my seat just eight days; said Mallory' report had not been presented until after my exclusion from the said senate. I had been elected as a senator from said counties in 1870, by over 1,700 majority, according to the returns made to the office of the secretary of State. I believe, and it was the general belief and understanding that the object of the Mallory report was for the purpose of furnishing a pretext and support to Governor CLAYTON fraud ulently to issue a certificate of election to General Edwards, and for the purpose of excluding from the said Legislature Republicans who had been elected to the Legislature from Pulaski county, but were opposed to Governor CLAYTON's election to the United States Senate. The said Mallory report was grossly unfair, and a gross misrepresentation of facts. Republicans, after repeated written applications made to said committee, were denied the right to appear before that committee and vindicate themselves. They were denied the right to introduce witnesses before said committee and have them examined and their testimony reported. I am satisfied that the facts and showing would have been different, and have established a full vindication, if these witnesses had been called before said committee, and had been permitted to testify there." More evidence might be quoted from the printed evidence in this case going to confirm the evidence already adduced, showing the base and fraudulent character of this most infamous report. Since we have taken our evidence, exposing ably he means to say they did not swear so in The testimony already read is certainly suf- Before closing my remarks on this report, I wish to remind the House that the testimony in this case shows completely, and beyond question, the regularity, legality, and fairness of the elections held at each and all of these assailed precincts, except Gray precinct, and we introduced no testimony as to that one; if we had, doubtless we could have proved the same of that precinct. This Mallory committee, it will be seen, as they report, took a scrutinizing view of the election held in some ten or twelve of the voting places of the county. They found some of them, as they were in fact, held by their favorite judges; others were held in part by their appointed judges; these were dealt with lightly in making out their opinion; but others were found that had been held alone by judges elected by the people, namely, Gray, Badgett, Eastman, and Campbell; and although they were chosen in strict conformity to law, and although they had performed their duties faithfully in accordance with law, this wise, virtuous, and industrious committee saw fit, in the plenitude of their wisdom, to close their report as follows: "Your committee are therefore of opinion that the elections in those townships (Gray, Badgett, Eastman, and Campbell) ought to be declared void for the reasons stated." || 42D CONG....2D SESS. They of course concur in the opinion of the supreme court expressed in relation to the first and third wards of Little Rock and Eagle township. The report embracing the opinion above recited was made to the senate of Arkansas, aud was, under the whip and spur of the previous question, (shutting off debate as Arkansians sometimes do,) declared adopted, notwithstanding several members were on their feet in their places demanding to be heard in opposition to its adoption, and denouncing it as a fraud, a swindle, and a fabrication. By its adoption the senate expresses the opinion of the committee that the elections in the precincts named "ought to be declared void." It does not appear from this report what authority this committee or the Senate would have to declare these elections void; not the secretary of State, for the count had long before that time been made by that officer, and the time had long since passed for casting up and arranging the vote as provided by law. The Governor, it is true, had not made any proclamation of the result, but the law does not give him any discretion in the matter, and therefore he could not have been expected to declare these elections void. It may have been intended as a little timely advice given for the information and guidance of this House in the determination of this case. It will be remembered that in the certificate given the sitting member by the Governor, it is stated that it is founded on the returns made to the secretary of State's office. By reference to the Congressional Globe of the 10th of January, 1872, it will appear that the Governor states that he based the certificate on the opinion of the supreme court, of which I have spoken, and on this “Mallory report." Now, since he has, as we say in Arkansas, "acknowledged the corn," that he did get his information from these bodies (which were mainly creatures of his creation) instead of from the source provided by law, the secretary of State, let us inquire what is the effect of these opinions? Let us see if indeed they do give the sitting member the majority of 50 votes awarded him by the Governor's proclamation; and if not, there will not be so much as a pretext for this violation of the law on the part of the Governor. EFFECT OF THE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT The original returns and count made, gave me 3.297 My majority....... It is evident that if the Governor did base the certificate on the opinions of these selfconstituted boards of canvassers, he has, or they have, made a mistake in the addition, and thereby given the sitting member 58 votes more than he is entitled to, or given me 58 votes less than I am entitled to, even under these opinions; and in doing so gives a majority of 50 votes to the sitting member instead of the majority of 8 votes to which it is evident I am entitled under these opinions. Doubtless the Govenor may excuse this error in addition, which it is evident he has made, on the ground of the hurried manner in which he pressed this count to a final close; for it will be borne in mind that he was only about three months in ascertaining that the sitting member has a majority of 50 votes; and that is more than any one else has been able to do in more than a year's time. Had the Governor discovered this mistake before issuing the certificate, and before making proclamation, he doubtless would have sought further information from his "Mallory committee," and doubtless he would have been promptly furnished whatever information he desired, and as desired. Had it appeared necessary to complete the pretext for the Governor's action in complying with his part of the bargain made with Mr. Gantt, this committee could and would have solemnly given it as their opinion that Big Rock, Ashley, Pyeatt, or some other township with a large Republican majority, "should be declared void." The tables from which I make the foregoing calculations of the votes will be found on pages 133, 134, and 135, of the printed evidence in this case. EVIDENCE OF THE REGULARITY, LEGALITY, AND FAIRXESS OF THE ELECTIONS AT ALL THE ASSAILED PRECINCTS. Arkansas Contested Election-Mr. Boles. subject to the cross-examination of the sitting member and many of them were crossexamined by the United States district attorney, who was the sitting member's counsel. I will not weary the patience of the House by speaking of all these different precincts, but will ask to be indulged while I present one or two of them as fair illustrations of the manner in which these elections were held. To understand the testimony respecting the sev eral precincts it is necessary to refer to certain sections of the election laws of the State of Arkansas, being sections four, seven, and sixteen of those laws which define the duties of the judges of elections and the sheriff and county clerks. The authors of the "Mallory report" recommend the rejection of the vote from the precinct of Eagle, and found the recommendation on the pretended testimony of one E. T. Lindsay, to be found on pages 66 and 67 of that report. He is made to swear, among other things, that he was one of the three appointed judges for that precinct; that he reached the polls a little after eight o'clock in the morning, the hour prescribed by law for the opening of the polls; that there were no polls opened when he and his associate judges opened theirs; that the elected judges opened their polls at about the same time, or later. But the evidence in this case, taken subject to cross-examination, shows that the judges were elected after eight o'clock, that being by law the hour at which judges may be elected in the absence of the appointed judges; that they were chosen unanimously by the people; that no other judges were present; that the proceedings were fair; that the second ballotbox was opened at eleven o'clock in the fore. noon; that J. Steele, one of the appointed judges, voted at the box of the elected judges, and openly declared that to be the lawful box; and that Lindsay himself also declared this to be the lawful box; that Steele arrived at half past eight o'clock in the morning, and Lindsay at a later hour; that the officers of the elected polls had the regular poll-books; and that all the proceedings were conducted lawfully and in good faith. Jerry Steele, one of the appointed judges who held the second polls in Eagle township, which, in connection with Manuel's evidence, together with the evidence of the two Glas coes, (pages 53 and 54,) Bowman, (page 55,) McClellan, (page 65,) and Armstrong, (page 56,) totally destroy the pretended evidence of Lindsay as reported by the "Mallory committee." The authors of the "Mallory report" also recommend the rejection of the vote from Eastman precinct, and give what purports to be the testimony of witnesses relating thereto. But the evidence taken in this contest shows that at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock a. m., according to the watches of three different persons then present, B. F. Woods, one The answer of the sitting member to my notice of contest warned me that he would introduce in evidence of the alleged frauds in Pulaska county, not only the records and files of the Legislature of Arkansas, and the records and files of the supreme court of that State, but that he would introduce "other evidence" in proof of these alleged frauds. Of course I presumed this other evidence would be the testimony of living witnesses, and took it for granted that he would follow up the line of attack indicated in the "Mallory report, which assailed the regularity, legality, and fairness of the elections held at the precincts therein named. And expecting the sitting member would fulfill his promise to furnish the testimony of witnesses in this case, I pre-of the appointed judges, took his place at the pared myself to meet such testimony, by offering the testimony of witnesses on my own behalf to negative in advance the sitting member's promised testimony, and to show that the elections in all of the precincts named were lawful, regular, and valid, and that none of them could lawfully be rejected from the canvass, and it will be found by reference to the printed evidence that I have clearly established the legality, regularity, and fairness of the elections held at each and all of these precincts. This I establish by the testimony of living witnesses who were well acquainted with the facts about which they were called to testify, and whose credibility is unimpeached and unimpeachable, and whose intelligence is evinced by their testimony, all of whom were polls; that two judges were then unanimously elected by the people; that no other appointed judge was present at the time; that thirty voters were present; that it was nine o'clock before any other appointed judge arrived; and that the election was conducted regularly and in good faith. (G. W. Akins, 34; H. H. Pugh, 35.) The evidence I present is that of Major Pugh, to be found on pages 35 and 36, who testifies in relation to the election held in Eastman township as follows: "I have heretofore given my deposition in this contest here. I was at the polls in Eastman township part of the day at the election mentioned. Thomas Boles and John Edwards, parties to this contest, were voted for for Congress at said election. There were three judges held said election; Woods, Williams, and Aikins were the judges. Woods was Ho. OF REPS. appointed by the registration board. I do not remember their first names; I know the men very well; have known them for two years. E. A. Needles and Pullen were elected clerks by the judges; James Rowland acted as sheriff. They were all sworn before they proceeded to act. The polls were not open until about twenty-five minutes past eight. Up to this time but one of the appointed officers was present at the polls, and that was Woods. The other two judges, Williams and Aikins, were elected at the polls by the voters then present, before the voting commenced, and before the officers were sworn. The sheriff (Rowland) stated to the voters that he had the ballot-boxes and books, which I saw him have; and he then asked if the judges were there, those who had been appointed. Woods answered that he was one. Rowland then asked again if there were any others there, and no one responded. Rowland then stated to the voters that there would be two judges of election to be elected by the loyal voters present. Some person nominated, I think, Aikins first; he was voted for and elected unanimously; then Williams was elected in the same manner as the other judge of election. After the officers were all sworn they opened the polls and proceeded to hold the election according to law. Everything was regular, so far as I could see; I never saw a more quiet election; everybody voted who desired to vote; all those present; I recognized them as citizens of the township; I have no doubt that they were bona fide voters, those present. To all appearances the election was free, fair, and equal; do not think there was an angry word spoken while I was there. Voters kept coming and going, and voting during the time I was there; I left the polls about half past ten o'clock in the morning. Before I left I should judge there were 75 votes cast, and I met half a dozen squads of six and ten voters each going down to the polls; I know that there is at least 350 or 360 Republican majority in the township, when it is properly worked up. I am a practicing lawyer." This evidence which I have read in relation to the elections held in Eagle and Eastman townships is only a sample, and a fair sample, of the evidence of the numerous witnesses who testify in relation to the elections held in the assailed precincts; and I maintain that it is sufficient to overthrow very strong proof in opposition to it, if the sitting member had offered any such. He has, however, wholly failed to present the testimony of any witness whatever in opposition to the averments made in my notice of contest, or in support of the averments made in his answer. Therefore I contend that the fact of the legality, regularity, and fairness of the elections held at these precincts is not only established by my testimony, but is left undisputed save by the reckless averments of the sitting member. On the first page of the Mallory report" great stress is laid on their assertion that it was the duty of the registrars to make out copies of the registration lists for the judges of election, and that there was something very suspicious in the fact that the clerk of the county court made out such copies and delivered them to the sheriff. Can it be possible that this wise and learned (?) committee was ignorant of the provisions of the law which has just been read, making it the imperative duty of the county clerk to do this very thing? Or have they willfully made such assertions for the purpose of misleading others? They state that the board of registrars furnished copies to the judges; if so, this accounts for there being two sets of registration books for some of the precincts. The sitting member has complained that men registered in one precinct were permitted to vote in another; and especial mention has been made by him of the deputy sheriffs. The gentleman certainly knows that it was the duty of the sheriff to have deputies at each of the voting places, and that it is by law made the duty of the clerk of the county court to transfer the certificate of registration of any voter requesting it to be done. This, in part, ac counts for the fact that more voted in some of the precincts than were registered there, but this is not the main reason of the excess of votes over the registration. That reason I will give presently. Thus we have shown by the clearest of proof that this committee have not only falsely reported the facts as to the elections at the HO. OF REPS. assailed precincts, but have, either willfully or ignorantly (either of which is inexcusable here) misrepresented the provisions of the law applicable to the holding of such elections. There was one statement made in this report that I was almost constrained to believe, not that there was any more evidence adduced to establish it than there was produced to establish other statements made by them, but from the fact that it was so often made and reiterated. This statement may have had no little influence in causing the Governor to act so promptly on the information given him by this committee, and upon which he says he gave the certificate of election to the sitting inember. This statement was that "Moses Reed was Brooks's son-in-law." But Mr. Brooks, who is supposed to know who his sonsin law are, somewhat shook our faith in this often-repeated statement, when he testified that he had no relative or son-in-law of that name. And so, after looking this whole report through, we find that this committee have, willfully or through ignorance, not only misrepresented the facts and the law in reference to the elections held in Pulaski county, but have misrepresented the relationship existing between Moses Reed and Joseph Brooks. This The sitting member charges that myself and friends formed an illegal combination for the purpose of securing my election, by depriving his friends of the right of suffrage. charge has not one word of truth in it, and certainly comes from him with very bad grace, when it is remembered that the Governor of the State was his friend, and emphatically opposed to me; that he had the entire control of the registration of the voters and the appointment of the judges of election who received and counted the votes when cast; and it is further shown by the evidence in this case that the Governor over and over asserted that he had the political cards in his hands and that he intended to play them. In order that it may be understood whom the Governor favored, I will read a few extracts from only a few of the many witnesses testifyingto these facts. Colonel Joseph Brooks, on pages 66 and 67, testifies as follows: "Judge Boles, the contestant, has been a Republican during the entire time, and John Edwards a Democrat. I know that Judge Thomas Boles was the regular Republican nominee of the Republican convention of the district, as I presided over said convention in 1870. Edwards was supported by the Democratic party throughout the said district, and the Clayton Republicans of Pulaski county, the latter numbering about fifty. I understood the object of these men to be to defeat Boles and the Republican ticket, and to elect Edwards as a Democrat. This was the general understanding in the community. It was generally understood in the community, and believed, and I have no doubt of it myself, that POWELL CLAYTON, then Governor of the State, was in sympathy with and giving direction to this movement, and desired the defeat of Boles and the election of Edwards." John Agery, on page 33, testifies as follows: "I heard Fitch say at another time, when he was tight, that these 'God damned niggers were running about town shouting for Boles, Brooks, and Hodges, and that we would show them where they would be.' Governor CLAYTON was for Edwards, I learned from his conversation with me. He talked against Boles, and told me his reasons for being against hit. He said Boles was fighting him, and had voted wrong on some railroad. He said Boles did not want him to go to the United States Senate; that he, the Governor, wanted to go there. I asked CLAYTON how we should go to work to get a Republican Legislature, and send him to the United States Senate. He said he had appointed good registrars all over the country. I told him we might have all that and then that would not get Lieutenant Governor Johnson out of the way. He said he pledged to get Johnson out of the way, and intended to make it good; that the majority of the supreme court of the State was with him, and he had the cards in his own hands and he was going to play them. He said that it was understood before this, between him and Senator McDonald, that he was to go to the United States Senate, and that they might fight him as much as they were a mind to, but he was going there in spite of hell and high water."" Fitch was the Governor's registrar for Pulaski county, and one of his principal tools there. Arkansas Contested Election—Mr. Boles. John Armstrong, on page 30, testifies as follows: "It was the general understanding and belief in the community, before the election and afterward, that Governor CLAYTON, Fitch, and Chamberlain were supporting Edwards for Congress, and urging the defeat of Boles. The general talk among prominent Clayton men was that CLAYTON was in favor of the defeat of Boles, and wanted him defeated, I have never heard anybody dispute that, or that there was any doubt of it in the public mind. I have no doubt that CLAYTON wished to defeat Boles myself. I went out into the county about ten miles from Little Rock, and found tickets in the hands of colored men who could not read. They were Democratic tickets, with Edwards's name at the head. These colored voters informed me that they had received these tickets from E. H. Chamberlain." Andrew Alexander, on pages 28 and 29, testifies as follows: "Governor CLAYTON was generally understood to support Edwards. I had a talk with CLAYTON once before the election; the last time I talked together with him I asked what Boles had done that he should not support him for Congress. He said Boles was a man of no weight, no influence in Congress; he wanted to send Edwards up there, a man that had some influence. He went on to state that Edwards was a sharp, shrewd man. The general understanding in the community was that Governor CLAYTON was connected with Fitch in trying to defeat Boles." Jesse W. Devine, on page 27, testifies as follows: "It was generally understood, with all whom I had conversation, white and black, that Governor CLAYTON was in favor of Edwards. I believe it was his purpose to defeat Boles." Dr. John Kirkwood, one of the leading spirits of and principal leaders in the Democratic party of Arkansas, on page 18, testifies as follows: "I voted for and supported John Edwards as the Democratic Conservative candidate for Congress in the district, whom I considered the Conservative Democratic candidate. I was a member of the Dardanelle convention, assembled for taking into consideration or for the purpose of nominating a candidate for Congress in the third congressional district of the State, in the fall of 1870, in September last. Before the assembling of that convention I had a conversation with some of Governor CLAYTON's friends, and particularly with Senator Hadley, the substance of which was this: that if we did not nominate they would give us a fair registration under the law, which they failed afterward to do. In accordance with the conversation I advised that no nomination be made, and succeeded, with others, in preventing any nomination." To fully understand Doctor Kirkwood's testimony it must be borne in mind that General Edwards was a candidate at the time of the conversation mentioned. William Manuel, on page 54, testifies as follows: "It was the general and common understanding and belief in the community that Governor CLAYTON, Fitch, and Chamberlain were supporting John Edwards for Congress, and doing what they could to defeat Boles; and that Fitch was appointed and kept there for that purpose. I know that Fitch, one of the registrars, would not register colored men who were qualified voters. Some of these men were men of families, and offered to prove that they were entitled to vote, but he would not hear them or permit them to register. Fitch looked at them, and the only excuse he gave was that he declared they were not old enough. It was apparent to every one who saw these men that they were old enough to vote and to register. I knew that some of them were old enough myself." Henry Clay, on pages 37 and 38, testifies as follows: "Everywhere I went in the county they supposed Fitch and Chamberlain were supporting Edwards and the Democrats. That was the common understanding. Out in Gray and Richwoods townships the Democrats, white men, said to me, 'You damn niggers think you are going to get Boles, Brooks, and Hodges, and your men in, but your Yankee registrars have registered all our fellows, and you niggers will have no show.' I went into nearly all the townships in the county during registration. I think there were from 75 to 100 voters which I saw, in all, turned away as I have stated, and denied the right of registration. They were colored men, Republicans, and friends to Boles; they were in favor of and desired Boles's election. I never saw white men turned away. 42D CONG....2D SESS. "Answer. He was not supporting Boles; it was the general understanding that he was not supporting Boles. It was the general understanding that he was in favor of Edwards and his outfit. I was in Governor CLAYTON's room and heard him say to eight or ten men who were present, that he wanted these men to stand by him, so that he could defeat that Brindle-tailed ticket; that is, the whole Brindle-tail ticket. He was talking then about Boles, Brooks, and Hodges. This was before the election. Fitch, Danforth, and Governor Hadley were present. I remember there was quite a room full. I did not like the conversation and left the room." This man Fitch, just named, was one of the Governor's good registrars of whom he spoke about to John Agery. Chamberlain was understood to be one of the Governor's candidates for the Legislature even while engaged in registering the vote of the county. He publicly announced himself as such a day or two after the close of registration, ran on the Democratic ticket, and was declared elected, and was one of the Governor's chief managing friends in the Legislature, as is shown by Gantt's, Garland's, and Watkin's testimony. After the adjournment of the Legislature, Mr. Chamberlain, although a Democrat, was, for his valuable services to Governor CLAYTON, appointed to a paying office. The testimony which has just been read will certainly satisfy any gentleman that the Governor, instead of being a friend of mine, was a bitter opponent. Indeed, it was notorious throughout the district that he was doing everything in his power to secure my defeat, not only by unfair and foul means in Pulaski county, but throughout the district he was manipulating registration so as to secure my defeat and the election of his partisans to the Legislature. In counties where the Republican majority was large, but the candidates of the party for the State Legislature were unwilling to pledge themselves to the support of the Governor for election to the United States Senate, the registrars were instructed to register and use their influence to secure the defeat of the Republican candidates, especially where the candidates of the Democratic party would pledge themselves to vote for the Governor, which they did do in many instances, and in other instances they merely pledged themselves not to oppose him; all of which pledges they faithfully performed. In other counties, where the Democrats were known to be largely in the majority, but the Republican candidates being partisans of the Governor, the registrars were instructed to register the Democratic vote down to five votes or carry the county Republican. In other counties still, men not entitled to register under the law, were permitted to do so without taking the oath required of them, after agreeing to vote for CLAYTON's friends for the Legislature, which they did, and at the same time voted for the sitting member. Many men, legal voters, were denied registration without any cause whatever being assigned, but was notoriously known to be because they were favorable to me and unfavorable to the election of CLAYTON's partisans. Hundreds of men were thus denied registration for that cause, and that alone. In some instances men were denied registration who had served four and five years in the United States Army-the greater part of the time during the rebellionand who had never lived in a southern State until after the war. The proof in this case shows that Fitch, the Governor's good registrar of Pulaski county, long after registration had closed, put certificates of registration on deposit at the drinking saloons in Little Rock, to be used in the Question. What was the common understanding interest of the ticket on which the sitting in the community as to whom Governor CLAYTON was member was running, and they were so used, as the proof shows, by men who were not entitled to vote. Witness after witness have testified of the 42D CONG....2D SESS. conspiracy on the part of the Governor and his registrars to defeat a fair election, especially in Pulaski county. It is shown by incontrovertible evidence that hundreds of my friends in this county, who were beyond ques tion entitled to vote, were refused registration after doing their utmost to secure it. It is shown by dozens of witnesses, and gentlemen of respectability and high standing, that it was the settled determination of the Governor to cut my vote down as low as possible. The friends of the Governor openly boasted that they were running the election, and that they had the result in their own hands, and that I would be defeated; that they had the count, and that they knew what they were talking about when they said I would not be elected, or words to that effect. Such threats alarmed my friends. They saw that my opponents meant to take some unfair advantage of them, and they resolved to do their utmost to avert the threatened danger of being swindled out of the free exercise of their right to vote, and whatever was done, they intended to see it, and if possible prevent any further wrong being perpetrated. Hundreds of them had already been refused registration in Pulaski county. There was but one chance for these men to yet get their rights to participate in the election, and that chance lay in an appeal to the provisions of the enforcement act of Congress, passed May 31, 1870;|| and in order that this law might be made available to them, they appealed to the United States marshal to assist them in asserting their rights under that law. And in compliance with the request of these people, whose rights had been denied them, he did send deputies to many of the voting precincts of the county, and through the assistance of these deputy marshals many of these men who had been denied the right of registration were permit ted to vote under the provisions of the act just mentioned. Opposite the name of each voter who voted under this act are placed on the poll-books the letters "E. A." signifying that they had voted under the enforcement act. And this is the reason why more voted at some of the precincts than were registered there; and this is the reason why there were so many deputy United States marshals about the election; and in this may be found the reason why so many voters were on the ground or at the voting places so early; and being there when the hour of eight o'clock a. m. arrived, the time for opening the polls, and the appointed judges not being present, as the evidence clearly and positively shows they were not, and as the deputy sheriffs were present with the regular and lawful poll-books and lists of registration, and the law authorizing the voters present to appoint the judges, of course they did not hesitate long to avail themselves of their legal right, and did elect the judges, who held the elections at several of the precincts, and held them fairly and in exact conformity to law. They would have been a pretty set of fools indeed if they had waited around there probably half the day for the judges appointed | by Fitch, the unscrupulous registrar, to come, when the law provided that they might select their judges, vote, and go home to their work. This they did, and did with a unanimous voice, and the election passed off peaceably and quietly. So far as my own observation went, it was throughout the district as peaceable and quiet an election as ever was held in the State, and the evidence in this case shows that it was a very peaceable election, especially at the polls held by the elected judges. The voters were permitted to vote once and only once, and that for whom they pleased. The sitting member began his cry of frauds and illegal voting in Pulaski county as soon as CLAYTON gave him the certificate and sent him here. He has continued such cry from that Educational Fund-Mr. McIntyre. day until this, until he is almost as hoarse as a 66 By reference to sections thirty-two, thirtythree, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-six, thirtynine, forty-two, and fifty, of the election law of the State of Arkansas, found in the statutes of that State for the year 1868, it will be seen that the folowing steps are to be taken to entitle a Representative to a seat on this floor: first, the people must vote; then the election judges must make their returns to the county court clerks; then the county court clerks must make their returns to the secretary of State; then the secretary of State must_canvass these returns in the presence of the Governor, and ascertain who is elected Representative, whereupon immediately the Governor is to issue his certificate of election. The time when these duties are to be performed is expressly named by law: first, the voter shall vote on the day of election; second, the judges shall make their returns to the clerks within three days thereafter; third, the clerks shall, within five days after the election, or sooner, if all the returns are in, make his returns through the mail to the secretary of State; fourth, the secretary of State shall, within thirty days after the time allowed the clerks, and sooner, if all the returns are in, make a canvass of the votes in the presence of the Governor; (in this case the deputy secretary of State testifies that the returns were all in within twenty days;) fifth, the Governor shall immediately thereafter grant a certificate to the person having the highest number of votes. There is no further time given him, there is no postponement of the time for discharging his duties in the premises; and there is no good reason why he should have any further time, for he has no count to make; the duty of ascertaining who is elected is not imposed on him. His duty, and his only duty in the premises is to announce the result as ascertained by the secretary of State, and to give the elected person official evidence of that result. The presumption is, until the contrary is shown, that the people and all these officials performed their respective duties in accordance with law. There has been but one official connected with this whole election from the casting of the ballot to the last step required to be taken, whom it is shown by the evidence has failed to do his duty, and that officer was the Governor of the State. That officer, as has been shown before, totally disregarded his duty as such Governor, and refused to issue any certificate for nearly three months, and when he did issue it he granted it to the candidate whom he knew was defeated by more than 2,000 majority. But I have not rested on the presumption in favor of the lawful discharge of the duties in cumbent on the people and of the officers of election, from the judges at the polls to the secretary of State. I have presented proof on proof, showing and establishing the fact that they each and all faithfully performed their whole duty as required by law, and within the time prescribed by law. That the people went to the polls in an orderly and peaceable manner, and each cast one vote and only one, HO. OF REPS. and that one for the candidate of their choice; that the judges of the elections held the elections in exact conformity to law and with the utmost fairness; and that the clerks of the county courts and the secretary of State each and all performed their duties exactly as required by law. Everything that could be done by the people themselves and the officers of election was done to secure a full, free, and fair, as well as legal expression of the voice and will of the people in this election; but after all their pains and efforts in this behalf, their will is suppressed, thwarted, and perverted by the action of one man, by an unfaithful, unscrupulous, and law-defying Governor, who sent the sitting member here to represent, not the people, but to represent the man who appointed and sent him here, POWELL CLAYTON. To deprive me of my seat here, as I have been thus far, the laws of my State have been trodden under foot by its chief Executive; the laws of the United States have been defied with impunity, while the rights of the people have been grossly outraged, and their voice stifled and silenced, and the privileges of this House infringed upon, by this unfaithful and law-defying Governor. Mr. Speaker, in behalf of that principle on which our Government is founded, that "the voice of the people is the voice of God," which has been unblushingly violated in this case, in behalf of the potency and purity of the ballot, which has been defeated by fraud and corruption, and in behalf of all the people of the third district of Arkansas, whose rights have been grossly outraged, I appeal to this House, in the plentitude of its power, to vindicate the voice of the people, to protect the purity of the ballot, and to do justice to my people and myself by admitting me to the seat to which I was elected by them, and which has been unanimously awarded me by the Committee of Elections, after a patient hearing and thorough investigation of this case. Educational Fund. REMARKS OF HON. A. T. MCINTYRE, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the bill (H. R. No. 1043) to establish an educa- Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I have already said on a former occasion I desire to add the following: The education of the people of this country would be promoted by the diminution of their burdens. The laborer works to support his family and educate his children, and when you diminish the proceeds of his labor by taxation you diminish his educational fund, and to that extent delay and prevent the education of the children of the laborer. The rich man can educate his children without donations; it is the poor that need the aid of legislation. This bill proposes to aid the educational interest of the country by donating one half of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands, which sales amount to a little over two million dollars per annum. The substitute proposes to give all of the net proceeds of sales. This Congress can and ought to go further toward aiding the people of this country. Congress can and ought to lessen these burdens of the people. The currency of the country has assumed a position alarming to the country. The old United States Bank was almost as nothing as compared to the present system. It is a power, with its numerous officials, tending to centralism, and should be abolished and the whole question remitted to the States, where it of |