.J*? ~»2^-^ ■^

A— ^

)

=^ — 5

)
^ '

— -

HS^^^^^S

7 =-

9 ^1

7 — ?

K^^B

i >

^ ^:^^

:> > =

?^5'

-^.A

■••4'-

;>5

Jl>

^ ^

1& ^

>/»^

'>j»

>> >

^3»

:»>

) 'SS

^ ^

' 'J^^o

^> ^

* vj^

^«p

^ *-M

:jd

^ '^

> :ji>

> ^a

>.^

:> ^

5 *3

•:^

7 ?<

j» -* '-«

>"'j^

^ a

> i]^

^ 1

^'^

>2^

.:> ^

:> >

> )\

► 3 >

~> :>

-> >

^^.

> :>

:5>

- ) )' )

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

46th CONGRESS.

A., a. ouRTiisr

vs.

SETH H. YOOUIVJ:.

CONTESTED ELECTION FROM THE TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF

PENNSYLVANIA.

CONTESTANT'S BRIEF.

In presenting the brief of contestant in this ease, we deem it proper to
state briefly the principles of hiw which we conceive must govern in deter-
mining the case. These principles are mostly so elementary and well settled
that it will not be necessary to elaborate them, nor to cite many authorities
in support thereof. That the right to vote, by any person, at the Congres-
sional election held in the 20th District of Pennsylvania, on the 5th day of
November, A. D. 1878, must depend upon the provisions of the constitution
and laws of Pennsylvania alone, is made manifest by the first clause of
section 2, article 1, of the constitution of the United States :

" The House of Representatives shall bo composed of members chosen every
second year by the people of the several States ; and the electors in each State shall
have the qualijications requisite for the most numerous branch of the State legislature.^^

By this provision of the federal constitution each State possesses the
exclusive right of defining the qualifications of voters, not only for State
officers, but also for members of Congress, as they are always the same as
those for members of the most numerous branch of the legislature of that
State. In Pennsylvania the qualifications of voters are fixed by the consti-
tution, and are not left to be regulated by the ordinary law making power of
the State. This is as it should be. To define who shall possess the right of
suffrage, to what portion of the inhabitants of a State, the sovereignty shall
be intrusted, is, in its very unturc fundameiifal ; and should be placed beyond
the reach of any department of the government established by the sovereign
power of that State. If this were not so, the legislature, which is a mere
creature of the sovereignty, might by statute change the repository of this
sovereignty, and thus destroy its own creator. Untold evils might result
from this. Whenever all the branches of the law making power were under
the control of the same party, actuated by party prejudices, malevolence, or
desire to perpetuate their own control, they might enact laws which would
practically disfranchise all those who differed from them politically, and thus
transfer the sovereign power of the State from the whole people to a special

2 !/ ^" '..••• ', jcURtiN vs. 'YOCb'M!. '• •

class, the members of which were at the time, in accord iu political senti-
ment and opinion with the law making power. This would soon terminate
free government. From a government of the people and by the people, it
would soon degenerate into the worst species of oligarchy.

That, when the qualifications of voters are fixed by the constitution of the
State, these qualifications cannot be changed by statute ; that the legislature
cannot dispense with any qualifications, which the constitution requires ; nor
can it add new qualifications to those required by the constitution ; are
corallaries to the proposition, that the constitution in the supreme law of the
State. If authorities are needed to sustain a proposition so elementary and
fundamental, they are numerous : Page vs. Allen, 58 Penn'a State Reports,
338 ; McCaflerty vs. Guyer, 59 Penn'a State Reports, 109 ; Thompson vs.
Ewing, 1st Brewster, 103; State vs. Adams, 2 Stewart (Alabama), 239; Mc-
Crary's Law of Elections, chapter 1, section 5.

The qualifications of voters in Pennsylvania are the same for all public
ofiicers, and are distinctly defined in section 1, article 8, of the constitution
of 1873, as follows :

" Every male citizen, twenty-one years of age, possessing the following quali-
" fications shall be entitled to vote at all elections.

" I. He shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month.

" II. He shall have resided in the State one year, (or if having previously
" been a qualified elector or native born citizen of the State, he shall have
" removed therefrom and returned, then six months) immediately preceding
" the election.

" III. He shall have resided in the election district where he shall offer to
'• vote at least two months immediately preceding the election.

"IV. If twenty-two years of age or upwards he shall have paid within two
" years, a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least two
" months and paid at least one month before the election."

These are the qualifications of a voter iu Pennsylvania, and which cannot
be abridged, added to, or altered by legislation. Whoever possesses them all
has the constitutional right to vote ; whoever lacks any one of these cannot
legally vote. Subsequent provisions of the same article of the constitution
qualify iu some degree this right of voting. Sect. 4, Art. 8, provides : " All
elections by the citizens shall be by ballot. Every ballot voted shall be
numbered in the order in which it shall be received, and the number record-
ed by the election ofiicers on the list of voters opposite the name of the
elector who presents the ballot."

Section VI authorizes persons in the military of the State, or of the
United States, to vote under such regulations as now exist, or may be pre-
scribed by law, although absent from the district wherein they are entitled
to vote.

Section VII provides : " All laws regulating the holding of elections by
the citizens, or for the registration of electors, shall be uniform throughout
the State ; but no elector shall be deprived of the privilege of voting by
reason of his name not being registered."

Section VII f of the same article, provides :

" Any person who shall give, or promise, or offer to give, to an elector, any
" money, reward or other valuable consideration, for his vote at an election, or
" for withholding the same, or who shall give or promise to give such considera-
" tion to any other person or party, for such elector's vote, or for the withholding
" thereof, and any elector who shall receive or agree to receive, for himself or
" for another, any money, reward or other valuable consideration, for his vote at
" an election, or fur withholding the same, shall thereby forfeit the right to vote at
^' such election; and any elector whose right to vote shall be challenged for such

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

" cause, before the election officers, shall be required to swear or affirm that the
" matter of the challenge is untrue, before his vote shall be received."'

Section XI defines what shall constitute an election district and provide «
bow they may bo altered and subdivided.

Subject to the provision that voting shall be by ballot, which ballots shall
be numbered, and the provi-^ion which in substance requires that the voter
shall be free from the otfense ol' bribery, the qualifications of voters in Penn-
sylvania arc five in number, to wit :

1st. Age.

2d. Citizenship of the United States for at least one month.

3d. State residence for at least one year immediately prior to the election,
unless previously a qualified elector, then six months.

4th. District residence for at least two months immediately prior to the
election.

5tli. Payment of taxes within two years, which shall have been assessed
two months and paid one month prior to the election.

In this case no dispute will arise as to the first three of these qualifications.
Wherever it is shown the person voting was under the age of twenty-one
years, or was of foreign birth and not naturalized, or had not resided within
the State of Pennsylvania for the constitutional period, it will be conceded
that the vote was illegal and should be deducted from the votes returned for
the candidate. It is therefore unnecessary to occupy any time or space in
discussing these three qualifications.

As to the fourth qualification a difference of opinion may probably exist.
We will state briefly the position we hold to be the correct one upon this
subject. What is meant bv the constitutional expression, " Shall have
resided in the election district ?" Does it mean that the voter must have
been personally present within the limits of the district during all of the time
for the entire two months? Would his temporary absence from the district
any portion of the two months deprive him of his right to vote? Clearly
not, for but few persons would be entitled to vote under this clause of the
constitution of Pennsylvania; for few persons ever remain inside of an elec-
tion district for two months continuously without crossing its boundaries.
Certainly the word " reside " can have no such meaning. As we contcnil
when the constitution says, the voter must reside in the election district for
two months, it means that he must have his ordinary residence, his home, his
domicil there. When his residence, home, or doraicil is there, whether he is
at his residence all the time or not, can luake no difference. In the judicial
determination by the courts, as well as in the reports of the committee on elec-
tions of the House of Representatives, the word residence is held to be equiv-
alent to domicil, in its broadest sense. In most cases no question can ari«e
as to where a man's residence or domicil is? If he owns property and has a
family, where they are situated is universally recognized as his home, or
residence, or domicil. Although he may himself be absent in different places
most of his time, yet every one i-ecognizes his right to return to his residence
and there vote, although he may not have been personally present within the
district during any considerable portion of the two months immediately pre-
ceding the election.

"That place is properly the domicil of a person in which his habitation is
" fixed without any present intention of removing therefrom." — Stori/'s Covfirj
of Laws, Sec. 43.

Judge Story too, claims that personal presence in a place with intent to
remain there only for a temporary purpose, and to depart when that is
accomplished will not constitute residence. Most of men while engaged in
business have some other permanent place or seat of their interests and affec-

JioGiyG

4 CURTIN V8. YOCUM.

tions, aud which they style home, aud which iu the eyes of reason and
common sense, if not in the abstract definition of law, is the place of their
domicil. Nor is it always necessary that the man's family should remain
at the place of his domicil in order to retain his residence there within the
meaning of the constitution and laws. Many people leave their homes with
their families and travel, or board, or reside temporarily at other places for
health, for pleasure, convenience or other purposes, without losing their
residence or domicil at their ordinary or permanent place of abode. In
cities it is a common thing for men to take their families to the sea shore,
springs, or mountains, or the country boarding house, and remain away for
weeks, and sometimes mouths, without ever dreaming that thereby they lose
their residence in the city. Should such a one return home on the morning
of the election he would undoubtedly have the right to vote ; even though
neither he nor his family had been within the election district during any
portion of the two months immediately preceding the day of election. The
absence of the voter or his family in order to deprive him of the right to
vote on the ground that he lacked residence within the district must always
be accompanied with the intention to abandon his former residence or domicil
within the district, and acquii'e a new domicil or residence somewhere else. —
Chase vs. Miller, 41 Pa. State Rep., 404 ; Miller vs. Thompson, 2 Cong. Elec.
cases, 118 ; McDaniel's case, Brightley's Elec. cases, 238 ; People vs. Holden,
28 California Rep., 128 ; 13 Alabama Rep., 806 ; 11 Mass. Reps., 330 ; Fry's
case, 71 Penn'a State Reps., 302; The Reporter, vol. 8, pages 163-187.

When a person moves his family from one district to another, with the
intention of residing permanently, or for an indefinite period at the new place
and abandons his former home, he ceases to be a resident, within the meaning
of the constitution, of the former place, and cannot return there to vote,
although he has not been a resident of his new home sufl[iciently long to
entitle him to vote there. While, in contemplation of law, every person has
a residence or domicil somewhere, and cannot at the same time have two dif-
erent places of residence or domicil, still a person otherwise legally qualified,
may lose his right to vote by changing his residence or domicil within two
months immediately preceding the election. If the voter actually does change
his home, domicil or residence, within two months preceding the election, he
cannot return to his former domicil to vote ; neither can he vote in the
district of his new domicil for he has not resided there for two mouths imme-
diately preceding the election. If a man having a permanent home in one
district, goes into another district to work temporarily and remains there
during the whole or a portion of the two months preceding the election, he
may return to the district in which his permanet home is and there vote
because he has not lost or abandoned his residence there ; the intention of
returning having remained. The taking his family with him to the place
where he is engaged temporarily, for the convenience of boarding or any
other similar purposes, with the intention of returning to his permanent
home after his temporary employment is done, would not cause him to lose
his domicil or residence at the former place and thereby deprive him of the
right of voting. The intention of not making the place of his temporary
occupation his domicil, and the intention of returning to his former domicil
as soon as his temporary occupation is done, retains his residence or domicil,
and thereby retains for him the right of voting there.

The proper application of these various propositions, we contend, will cor-
rectly determine every disputed case turning upon the question of residence.
That this is a correct statement of the law on this subject, as laid down by
elementary writers. Judicial decisions and Congressional determinations, we
need only to refer to the elaborate review of the subject contained in the

CURTIN VS. YOCUM. 5

report of the contested election ca-se of Cessna vs. Meyers, reported in
" Smith's Congressional Election Cases," page 60.

Before leaving this subject of residence, it may be })ropcr to refer to the
case of the twenty persons who voted for the contestee in the borough of Mill
Hall, in Clinton county, when they were residents, and possibly legal voters
in the townshij) of Bald ICagle. As to these twenty voters no question arises
as to tho abandoning or changing of residence. They resided on the 5th day
of November, 1878, at the same place where they had resided a long time
prior, and where they had resided for many years when voting properly and
legally in Bald Eagle township. The town council of the borough of !Mill
Hall attempted, by an ordinance, to extend the limits of said borough so as
to include the territory in which these voters lived and thereby to bring them
as residents into the borough of Mill Hall. This ordinance of the town
council was a mere nullity, without any shadow of legal authority, and had no
possible effect in changing the limits of the borough, or township, and of course
left every resident with the right to vote in the district that he had voted in,
before the passage of the ordinance. These twenty persons, assuming that
the extension of the borough was valid and legal, improperly and illegally
voted on the 5th of November, 1878, in the borough of Mill Hall, instead of
voting where they might legally have voted in Bald Eagle township. While
do we not allege that this voting was fraudulent, or done with any improper
or criminal purpose, we do assert that it was illegal and in violation of the
provisions of the constitution, which requires the voter to have resided in the
district where he shall offer to vote, two months immediately preceding the
election. But these persons not being legal voters in the borough of Mill
Hall and having been proven to have voted for Scth H. Yocum, the contestee,
their votes, twenty in number, must be deducted from the votes returned for
him. It will no doubt be urged on the part of the contestee that this would
be a hard ruling, as these persons have not been shown to have lacked any
other legal qualification, but having voted in the wrong district through
inadvertence or mistake, they should not be disfranchised for that reason
merely. The same argument and plea could be made for every person who
possessed the other constitutional qualifications of a voter, but voted in a
district where he had no residence. The sovereign people of Pennsylvania
saw fit in their fundamental law to require district residence as one of the
qualifications of a voter. No person has a right to vote in any district
where he docs not reside. No tribunal trying contested election cases under
the constitution and laws of Pennsylvania can dispense with district residence
as a qualification of a voter any more than it can age, citizenship, or the pay-
ment of taxes. If a vote otherwise legal, but polled in the wrong district,
could be counted as a legal vote, out of mere favor to the voter, when it wa.^^
supposed or believed that he acted in good faith, the door would be opened
wide for the admission of illegal, fraudulent and corrupt votes by non-
rasidents of the district. If a vote is clearly illegal the honesty or bomifidea
of the voter can have no effect, and cannot possibly legalize it. These
twenty votes having been cast by non-residents of the borough of Mill Hall
are clearly illegal and must be excluded from the count.

As to the fifth and last qualification of a voter, to wit : "A payment
within two years of a State or county tax, which shall have been assessed at
least two months and paid at least one month before the election," much dif-
ference of opinion exists. This difference of opinion arises not so much from
any obscurity in the language of the constitution, as from other considera-
tions. In fact no language could be plainer than that employed by tho
framers of the constitution of Pennsylvania in 1873. Because payment of
taxes is not made a qualification of a voter in many States, citizens of such

C CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

States look upou Ibis provisiou of the Pennsylvania constitution as being
wrong in principle, and restrictive of tbe rigbt of suffrage, wbicb, in their
opinion, should be universal. This class of persons naturally contend for a
construction of this clause which practically fritters it away. With the senti-
ment, opinions and prejudices of all such we have no quarrel. Whether the
payment of tax should be required as a qualification for voting is a question
not open for discussion. The people of each State have the right to make
such regulations upon this subject as they see proper, and the people of no
other State have the right to quarrel with them for so doing. The people of
Pennsylvania have settled this question for themselves, and it is the duty of
all, who under any circumstances are required to administer her laws to
recognize the mandate of the constitution in this respect, and to execute it
faithfully. The provisiou as it now stands in the constitution of Pennsyl-
vania is not a new one, but in a different form is found in the three pre-
ceding constitutions of our State — those of 1776, 1790 and 1838. The plain
and manifest meaning of this provision must not be construed away, or any-
wise weakened because some may doubt the propriety or wisdom of its being
in the constitution. The words of the constitution are so plain as to hardly
admit of two constructions : " If twenty-two years of age and upwards, he
shall have paid within two years a state or county tax, which shall have been
assessed at least two months, and paid at least one month before the election."
This duty of paying a tax at least once in two years is made a prerequisite
to the right of voting and attaches to the person of the voter. It is a per-
sonal qualification which the voter himself must possess or he cannot legally
vote. It matters not who else may have paid taxes, nor how much tax may
have been paid, if the particular voter has paid no state or county tax within
two years himself, he cannot legally vote in Pennsylvania for any ofiice.
His mere liability to pay the tax, or the ability of the collector to enforce the
payment from him is not what the constitution requires — but actual payment
by the voter. This provision is in no sense a revenue measure. The liability
of the collector to account to the county treasurer for the taxes will not
qualify a voter whose name is upou the duplicate, if the voter has not paid
his taxes. The collector might settle and actually pay into the county
treasury the whole amount of his duplicate, and yet no one voter whose name
was upon it be qualified to vote without himself paying the taxes assessed
against him. The personal payment of tax is as necessary as personal
citizenship, or personal residence. A boy of eighteen could just as well
claim the right to vote because his brother is over twenty-one as one citizen
can claim the right to vote because another has paid taxes into the public
treasury ; one can as easily be naturalized, or gain a residence by proxy as
he can comply with the constitutional requirement of paying taxes by proxy.
Of course we do not mean to contend that the payment must necessarily be
made by the hand of the voter himself, lie may legally employ an agent
to pay his taxes for him, just as he may employ an agent to do any other
legal act for him. We recognise in its fullest sense the application of the
maxim, "(jiu facit per alium facit per se" to this subject. If a citizen
authorizes another to pay his tax for him, and it is so paid, this is a valid and
legal payment of tax by the citizen. If one pays to the collector the tax of
another without the previous knowledge or consent of the tax payer, but he
afterwards approves and ratifies it, it becomes his act, and is as valid and
binding as though the tax were paid by his own hand. But nothing short of
an actual payment satisfies the requirements of the constitution. But the
voter himself must make |payment, either in person or by another, at least
one month before the election. If the taxes are paid without the knowledge
or consent of the tax payer, such payment is not his act, nor binding upon

CURTIN VS. YOfUM. 7

him until ho is notified of it and ratifies it ; it becomes his act only from the
time of ratification, and if that ratification occurs le.s.s than one mouth before
the election he is not qualified to vote by reason of such payment of tax. If
a person is not qualified to vote because he has paid no taxes for more than
two years, he cannot qualify himself by any payment or ratification of a
payment made by an other, within a month immediately procediug the elec-
tion. His act of pa3'mcnt must be comi)lete one full month before he has a
legal right to vote. In support of this proposition we need only apply and
refer to the very clear and lucid opinion of Judge Trunkey, now a Justice
of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of Marks et al. vs. Park,
Phi/a. Legal Gazette, vol. 7, page 24(5.

So far we have discussed the actual payment of taxes, without referring
to the evidence of such payment. While the constitution provides that an
actual payment of tax by the voter shall be a requisite qualification which
the legislature cannot dispense with, the legislature may of course provide
by statute what evidence of such payment shall be necessary. The legisla-
ture of Pennsylvania, by Sect. 3, of the Act of February 13, 1874, has pro-
vided : " And when the person oflfering to vote claims the right on the pay-
" ment of tax, the receipt for such tax, if signed by the proper officer, shall
" be the evidence thereof; if such person does not produce such receipt, then
" the payment of the tax may be proved by the oath of such person, or other
" evidence, stating when, where and to whom such tax was paid." This
act we recognize as a valid and pi'oper exercise of the power possessed by
the legislature. It, however, does not and canuot mean that a person
possessing a tax receipt is a legal voter, if in fact he has not paid the tax
required by the constitution. The tax receipt is simply the evidence of such
payment, which the board or election officers must be satisfied with. If it
should subsequently appear that the voter had actually paid no tax, the fact
that he had such a receipt would not make his vote a legal one. The receipt,
though actually signed by the proper tax collector, may have been stolen,
fraudulently issued, or ante dated. In either of these cases, if the facts were
clearly proven, no one could honestly pretend that the voter was legally
qualified to vote, without the payment of tax, because he held such a receipt.
The possession of a tax receipt signed by the proper officer, and bearing the
proper date, is evidence of the payment of tax at the time, but may be cou-
tradicted by other evidence. It is no more conclusive than a receipt for the
payment of a private debt. It is sufficient if uncontradicted or unimpeach-
ed, but like all other evidence it is liable to contradiction and impeachment.
It is conclusive upon the election officers, when the evidence is presented,
because it is impracticable for them to enter upon any extended inquiry as to
its truth or falsity. In the absence of a tax receipt the payment of tax may
be proven by the oath of the voter himself, or by other evidence showing
when, where and to whom such tax was paid, yet it would not be pretended if
the voter perjured himself in making this proof, that this evidence would
make his vote legal, or that in the trial of a contested election case it might
not be proven that he had not paid any tax, although he had on the day of
the election sworn to such jiaymcnt. We concede that the production of a
tax receipt, signed by the proj)er officer, in the absence of other evidence, is
proof of the payment of tax. But to say that this proof may not be rebut-
ted, when it is not true, in fact, is to make the jjo5«c.'?«to« of a ta.v receipt the
qualification of voting, instead of making the payment of tax the qualifica-
tion, which the constitution does. If a tax receipt is clearly proven to be
false, that it was issued without the payment of any taxes by the party, or
that the taxes were paid within a month of the election, and the receipt ante
dated, so as to show the payment more than a month before the election, the

« CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

receipt can have no legal effect, other than to excuse the'electiou officer in
taking the vote, but, cannot possibly make the vote legal. The practice of
fraudulently issuing tax receipts on the eve of an election, in order to get the
votes of persons who are disqualified, because of the non-payment of taxes, is
a growing evil in Pennsylvania ; and it is the duty of all tribunals trying
contested election cases to give no encouragement to it, but on the other hand,
to frown upon it, and to enforce the constitutional requirement rigidly.
Another practice of paying the taxes of a large number of voters by political
committees, without the knowledge, consent, or direction of the voters, taking
receipts for such taxes, and holding them until the day of the election and
then giving them to the voter on condition that they vote the proper ticket,
is a most pernicious practice, corrupting in its tendencies, and to a very great
extent interfering with the freedom of elections. To hold as Judge Trunkey
held, that the taxes must be paid by the voter himself, or by some one previ-
ously authorized by him to make the payment, or if paid by another without
the previous authority of the voter himself, ratified one month before the
election, removes all possibility for improper or corrupt influences over the
voter through the instrumentalities of political committees.

In those States in which the qualifications of voters are incorporated in
the constitution, and thus placed beyond legislative interference and caprice,
codes of election laws are still necessary. While the legislature cannot de-
prive any one of the right to vote, when that right is given to him by the
constitution, nor can it grant to any one the right to vote who lacks the con-
stitutional qualifications, still it has the power, and necessarily must exercise
it, of regulating the times, places and modes in which elections shall be held.
The abstract right of voting would be useless to a citizen unless the time,
place and manner in which he might exercise that right were regulated by
law. Although the constitution determines what qualifications a person must
possess in order to be entitled to vote at an election, some tribunal must
determine whether each individual claiming this right possesses all the con-
stitutional qualifications or not. The law must designate who shall make this
decision and may designate upon what evidence they shall decide. Of course
it is important that every constitutionally qualified citizen shall be protected
by law in his right to vote, but it is equally important that this right to vote
shall not be rendered useless and unavailing by other persons voting who
have not the constitutional qualifications. All this must be regulated by
statute, and in its nature cannot be provided for in the constitution itself.
In the exercise of this conceded power of the legislature, many States have
enacted registry laws. Where these laws merely attempt to regulate the
exercise of the elective franchise in order to secure honest and fair elections,
they have uniformly been held to be constitutional. — Capen vs. Foster, 12
Pickering, 485 ; Patterson vs. Barlow, 60 Peun'a State Reports, 54 ; People
vs. Kopplekam, 16 Michigan, 342.

Wherever they have attempted to impose upon the voter additional quali-
fications to those required by the constitution, they have just as uniformly
been pronounced unconstitutional. To absolutely require that the name of
a voter shall be upon the registry list, in order to entitle him to vote, would
be to add a qualification not made necessary by the constitution, and would
therefore be null and void. To provide that the absence of the name of a
person from the registry list is prima facie evidence that the person lacks the
constitutional qualifications, and that he must affirmatively show' his right
to vote before his ballot can be properly received by the election officers, is
a legitimate exercise of the powers of the legislature. If the unregistered
voter refuses or omits to produce before the election board the evidence of

CURTIN VS. YOCUM. 9

his qualifications required l)y law, he has no right to complain if the election
board should reject his ballot, even though it should subsequently appear
that he actually possessed all the constitutional qualifications.

The proper and legitimate purpose of the registry of voters is to ascertain
in advance who are legally qualified to vote in the district. This list being
prepared by sworn officers, elected or appointed for that purfjose, it is pre-
pared in advance and is presumed to be correct, and should be received at
least as prima facie evidence of the right of parties to vote. No one, how-
ever, will pretend that it is conclusive. To hold that the registry list is
conclusive of the right to vote of every person whose name appears thereon,
would be to make the act of the registration officer of the district the test of
the right of all citizens to vote, instead of the actual possession of the consti-
tutional qualifications. The right of a person to vote may be challenged,
even though his name appears upon the registry list; and should it be made
plainly to appear to the election board that the j^erson thus challenged, lacked
any of the constitutional qualifications, his vote should be rejected, notwith-
standing his name is upon the registry of voters. So also the officer may
have omitted from the registry list the names of persons possessing all the
constitutional qualifications and therefore entitled to vote; the omission of
their names cannot deprive them of the right to vote, if they produce to the
election officers the legal evidence of their qualifications. If, however, the
election officers receive the ballot without demanding or receiving the legal
evidence of the qualifications of the unregistered voter, the vote is ^9?-tma
facie illegal, and the burden is thrown upon the candidate benefitted by it
to show affirmatively that the vote was legal when voted.

An act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, approved April 17, 1869, pro-
vides for the registration of voters, and also provides what evidence the
unregistered voter shall produce to the election board in order to entitle
himself to vote. This act still remains in force in Pennsylvania, except so
far as it is amended by the act of January 30, 1874, to make it conform to
the provisions of the constitution of 1873. The 10th section of the latter
act is as follows :

" On the day of the elections any person whose name shall not appear
" upon the registry of voters, and who claims the right to vote at said
" election, shall produce at least one qualified voter of the district as a
" witness to the residence of the claimant in the district in which he claims
" to be a voter, for the period of at least two months immediately preced-
"ing said election, which witness shall be sworn or affirmed, and subscribe
" a written, or partly written and partly printed, affidavit to the facts
" stated by him, which affidavit shall define clearly where the residence
" is of the person claiming to be a voter ; and the person so claiming the
" right to vote shall also take and subscribe a written, or partly written
" and partly printed affidavit stating to the best of his knowledge and
" belief, where and when he was born ; that he has been a citizen of the
" United States for one month, and of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania ;
" that he has resided in the commonwealth one year, or, if formerly a
" qualified elector or a native born citizen thereof, and has removed
" therefrom and returned, that he has resided therein six mouths next
" preceding said election ; that he has resided in the district in which he
" claims to be a voter, for the period of at least two months immediately
" preceding said election ; that he has not moved into the district for the
" purpose of voting therein ; that he has, if twenty-two years of age or
'* upward, paid a State or county tax within two years, which was assessed
" at least two months, and paid at least one month, before the election ; the
" said affidavit shall also state when and where the tax claimed to be paid

10 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

" by the aiBdavit was assessed aud wheu aud where and to whom paid, and
" the tax receipt thereof shall be produced for exaraiuation, unless the
" affiant shall state in his affidavit that it has been lost or destroyed, or
■' that he never received any ; and if a naturalized citizen, shall also state
" when, where, aud by what court he was naturalized, and also produce his
" certificate of naturalization for examination."

The 12th section of the act provides for the punishment of the election
officers if they receive a vote from a person whose name is not upon the
registry list without requiring this evidence as follows :

" If any election officer shall refuse or neglect to require such proof of
" the right of suffrage as is prescribed by this law, or the laws to which
" this is a supplement, from any person offering to vote whose name is not
" upon the list of assessed voters, or whose right to vote is challenged by
" any qualified voter present, and shall admit any such person to vote, with-
" out requiring such proof, every person so offending shall upon conviction
" be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be sentenced, for ever}^ such offense,
" to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or to undergo an imprison-
" ment not more than one year or both at the discretion of the court."

The affidavit thus taken showing the qualifications of the unregistered
voters are required to be returned, by the act of 1869, and filed in the
office of the Prothonotary, aud there remain for inspection with the other
election papers.

Under this state of the law, what is the status of a vote cast by a person
whose name is not registered, and who failed to make the preliminary proof
required by the statute ? Is it only prima facie illegal, and capable of being
legalized, upon proof that the person giving it possessed all the constitutional
qualifications ; or is it absolutely illegal, and incapable of being legalized by
evidence subsequent to the election? There is a conflict of opinion upon
this point in Peimsylvania. In the case of ]\Iann vs. Cassiday, 1 Brewster,
11, and in the case of Weaver vs. Given, 1 Brewster, 141, it was held that
votes received from electors whose names did not appear on the assessment list,
without the preliminary proof required by law, were only prima facie illegal
and to be rejected, unless adequate proof were made on the trial of the legality
of each vote. But in the case of Myers vs. Moffat, 1 Brewster, 230, and Shep-
pard vs. Gibbons, 2 Brewster, 129, it was held that such votes being illegal when
received, cannot be made legal by the production of evidence of qualification
on the trial, which ought to have been produced to the election officers. Mr.
Brightly, in his " Leading Cases on Elections," 492-3, pronounces the latter to
be the best opinion of the two. We cannot coincide with Mr. Brightly in
this conclusion. The effect of it is to make a statute overrule the constitution,
to make the time wheu the evidence of qualification is produced, to be of more
importance, than the actual existence of the qualifications themselves. If at
the time the vote was given the voter possessed all the constitutional qualifica-
tions, the vote is legal and ought not to be thrown out, notwithstanding the
election officers may have been guilty of a misdemeanor in receiving it with-
out requiring the proof of the qualifications of the voter required by the
registry law. It is sufficient, however, upon this point that all four of the
cases cited were adjudged before the adoption of the present constitution of
Pennsylvania, which declares expressly, " but no elector shall be deprived of
" the privilege of voting by reason of his name not being registered." We
presume that since this became a part of the supreme law of the land, no
lawyer or judge will maintain the opinion expressed in Myers vs. Moffat and
Sheppard. vs. Gibbons. McCrary, in his American Law of Elections, Sec. 62,
in commenting upon this statute in Pennsylvania aud referring to the very
case of Myers vs. Moffat, comes to the same conclusion we hold and says :

CURTIN VS. YOCUM. H

"Where it is thus shown that persons have voted without proving their
" qualifications as rc(iuired by positive statute, it is iucuuihent upon tlie party
" claiming the benefit of the votes of such persojis, to show aflinnatively that
" they were qualified voters."

When a number of unregistered persons voted without niakingthc prelim-
inary proof required by the statute, and in the trial of a contested election, no
evidence is given to show for whom they voted, what is to be done with .such
votes ? Where the number of such votes is large enough to destroy the relia-
bility of the return, and there being no proof upon which the poll could be
purged, all authorities seem to agree that the return from such jjoll must bo
rejected. Myers vs. Moffat siqyra. Covode vs. Foster, 2 Bartlett, page GOO.
McCrary Am. Law Elections, sect. 62. Where the number of such illegal
votes is not sufficient to change the result from the eleciion district, and thus
not sufficient to justify the throwing out of the poll, what shall be done with
them ? Two different rules have been adopted by the courts of Pennsylvania.
One rule deducts all of the illegal votes from the candidate having the major-
ity in the district ; the other charges the illegal votes to the candidates in
proportion to the votes returned for them from the district. The first of these
rules is recognized in the case of the Commonwealth vs. McCloskey, 2 Rawle,
369, and in Duffy's case, 4 Brewster, 531. The latter rule is recognized and
applied in Sheppard vs. Gibbons, 2 Brewster, 128. McDaniels' case, 3 Peun'a
Law Journal, 310 ; Cushing's Election Cases, 583 ; Brightly's Leading Cases
on Election, 492. McCrary's Am. Law Elections, sections 298, 299 and 300.
Many reasons might be given in support of the one rule over the other.
The application of either rule may work injustice. When the illegal votes
are wilfully and fraudulently polled, the presumption would be that they
were polled for the candidate who received a majority or who agreed in
party affiliations with the election board. It would hardl}'- be supposed that
they would knowingly receive illegal votes for the candidate they desired
to see defeated. In such cases to charge the j)roportion of illegal votes to
the minority candidate would be manifestly unjust. On the other hand,
if the votes are simply illegally polled without the preliminary proof of
their qualifications and without evidence to show that they were fraudulent
or corrupt, it would be a very violent presumption to say that they were all
given for one candidate. Probably in such a case to deduct them from the
total vote of the district and divide the residue betw^een the two candidates in
proportion to the votes returned for them, would be a close approximation to
the truth.

We submit to the committee which rule should be applied to the unreg-
istered voters in the different wards, boroughs and townships in the 20th Con-
gressional District of Pennsylvania, where no affidavits showing the (puilifica-
tious of the voters are returned, and no proof given during the taking of the
testimony that these unregistered voters severally possessed the constitutional
qualifications. Any rule the committee may adopt will be conclusive against
the right of the contestee to retain his seat and will clearly demonstrate that
the contestant received a majority of all the legal votes cast for representative
in Congress, at the election held on the 5th day of November, 1878.

Still another and most important question arises for the committee to decide
and that is, when, under what circumstances, or degree of proof shall the
returns from an election district be rejected and disregarded in the general
count. We contend that whenever the correctness and integrity of the return
is impeached, when the papers themselves show that illegal votes have been
received and counted, that the election officers have conducted the election in
such a way as to tarnish the entire proceedings by their own fraudulent and
negligent acts, so that the returns are not intelligible, or the election, because

12 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

of such fraudulent conduct is not reliable, it may and does become obligatory
upon every and all tribunals trying a contested election case to throw out
i'rom the general result the entire return from such election district. And
wherever it is shown that the provisions of the election laws have been
entirely disregarded by the board of election officers, and their conduct has
been such as to render their returns utterly unworthy of credit, such conduct
ought and will have the effect of destroying such returns as evidence. The
statute to which reference has repeatedly been made, regulating the time,
place and manner of holding an election, defines how the election officers shall
conduct the election itself.

Section 9 of the act of January 30, 1874, provides, that all elections by
the citizens shall be by ballot, and in order to conform to the requirements of
section 4th, article VIII, of the constitution of 1873, further provides, that
every ballot shall be numbered in the order in which it shall be received and
the number recorded opposite the name of the elector from whom received.
It also prescribes the oath, and by whom to be administered to the election
officers respectively.

Section 10 provides what proof shall be required of persons whose names
are not on the registry list of voters ? the mode and manner of receiving the
proof, we have already adverted to fully, in discussing the subject of the ille-
gality of votes of persons whose names do not appear on the registr}' list of
voters.

Section 11 prescribes the proof or evidence to be pi'oduced by naturalized
persons, and that except where the person has voted for five years consecu-
tively in the district in which he ofiers to vote, he shall produce the certificate
of his naturalization at the election before voting, and that it shall be the
duty of the election officers to write or stamp on such certificate the word
" voted," with the day, mouth and year.

Section 12 provides how the votes cast shall be counted and returned, who
shall take charge of the returns and to whom the same shall be delivered ;
how the returns shall be opened and counted, and v,-here the ballot boxes
shall be deposited.

Each and all, of the prescribed regulations were enacted by the Legisla-
ture in order to secure a fair and impartial election and an honest count of the
votes cast. The observance of these several requirements by the board of
election officers is of the very highest importance ; and while it may not be
sufficient cause to throw out the returns from a district where some of the
minor details have not been observed, yet, where there has been a gross disre-
gard of the important requirements of the statute, or if fraud be shown to
exist to such an extent as to satisfy the mind that the return does not show
the truth, and that it is impossible to ascertain with certainty what the legal
vote cast in the district was, then it should never be permitted to form a part
of the canvass ; the precedents, as well as the entire requirements of truth not
only sanction, but call for the rejection of the entire poll, when stamped with
such characteristics. And it is now the settled law of the judicial tribunals
of the country, as well as by the decisions of Congress and the Legislature
of the several States, that an entire poll should always be rejected if it appears
(1) That the persons conducting the election had no authority to do so ; (2)
That fraud was practiced in conducting the election ; (3) That such irregu-
larities or misconduct exist as to render the result uncertain. We quote in
support of our position the following, authorities : Mann vs. Cassiday, 1
Brewster, 61 ; Thompson vs. Ewing, 1 Brewster, 109; Weaver vs. Given, 1
Brewster, 157; Covode vs. Foster, Dig. Elect, cases, 1865-1871, page 600;
Italian vs. Reid, ibid, 831; Washburn vs. Vorhees, ibid, 54; Howard vs.

CUKTIN VS. YOCUM. 13

Cooper, Bartlett's cases, page 275 ; MeClure vs. Grav, Leg. Record Penua.,
1872, page 1012.

The law tluis established by the authorities quoted will compel perforce
the rejection of the returu.s from the districts of Woodward township aud
Houtzdale borough, Clearfield couuty ; Philipsburg borough, Ecimer, College,
Ferguson (new ])reciuct). Liberty, Spring, and Union townships. Centre
county ; West Keating township, Clinton county ; Horton township, Elk
county ; Old Armagh and Union townships, Mifflin county, and White Deer
township, Union county.

The testimony taken during the progress of this contest disclosed that in
these several districts, not only that in each and all were there gross irregular-
ities, but in some the election was tarnished by the actual fraud of the officers
conducting the electiou. We make and prove specific charges that the
election officers, who were in duty bound under the law to require of each
elector a full compliance of the law, did themselves knowingly and wilfully
violate the law and permitted others to do so ; that in the district of Wood-
ward township the electiou board violate the law in the following respects, viz :

1st. In that they were themselves not sworn according to law.

2d. In that they did not use or check off thd registry list as the electors
voted, and no examination of the registry was made.

3d. That the board did not require persons not registered to make any
affidavit or other proof of their resideace in the district.

4th. That the board disregarded challenges of non-registered persons.

5th. That the clerk of the board was permitted to administer the oath as
to payment of taxes, and that he wilfully administered but part of the oath
prescribed, and disregarded the challenge upon this matter.

6th. That they did not require, save in a very few instances, the produc-
tion of certificates of naturalization, although they knew that fully one-third
of the persons claiming to vote in this district were of foreign birth, and had
not voted in the district for five consecutive years.

7th. That one of the inspectors knowingly voted on an illegal and fraud-
ulent tax receipt, and the other permitted his son to do so.

8th. That the board allowed all persons to vote who had 1876 tax receipts.

9th. That they permitted seventy and more persons whose names did not
appear upon the registry list to vote, and did not take a single affidavit
required by law, although the blanks for that purpose were furnished them.

10th. They disregarded the challenges of non-naturalized persons, and
left the ballot-box unsecured at the electiou house for ten days after the elec-
tiou.

We charge that in Houtzdale borough,

1st. That the board was illegally organized and that a legal organization
was prevented by confusion and a tumultuous assemblage of persons, and that
the polls were not opened in consequence thereof for more than one hour after
the time fixed in the law.

2d. That the board did not coraply with the constitutional requirement
in that they did not number a single ballot.

3d, That they did not check off the registry list.

4th. That they did not require affidavits and j)roof of residence from
persons whose names did not appear on the registry, and permitted a lai-ge
number of such persons to vote.

5th. That they did not require the production of naturalization papers,
although they knew that one-half of the persons claiming to vote in the
district were of foreign birth.

In Benner township. Centre county, the contestant has distinctly proven,

1st. That the electiou board was not sworn.

14 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

*M. That the ballot-box was stuffed.

3d. That no affidavits were returned and the law in general disregarded.

4th. That one of the inspectors and a clerk pilfered the ballot-box subse-
quent to the election, and that the ballots thus stolen were placed in the
possession of coutestee, and remained there more than seventy-five hours, and
wex-e then offered in evidence to rebut the proof of fraud by contestant, and
that contestee was only able to call and prove eighty-five legal votes out of the
one hundred and twenty-one returned for him in this district.

In College township. Centre county, the election board returned no list of
voters ; negligently disregarded many other important requirements of the
election law ; meaibers of the board took from the ballot-box the list of
voters, and placed them in the hands of contestee's counsel, by whom they
were kept and suppressed.

In Philipsburg borough, Centre county, it was shown by the testimony that
in accordance with the law, overseers were appointed but were not permitted
to act. The election officers did not check off the names of persons as they
voted ; no use was made of the registry and no reference was made thereto.
That they permitted a large number of persons whose names did not appear
on the registry to vote without requiring the proof of residence in the district.

In the election districts of Ferguson township, west precinct. Centre
county. West Keating township, Clinton county. Old Armagh and Union
townships, Mifflin county, there was no registry of voters as required by the
law, and no effort made by contestee to purge the poll or to prove the legality
of the vote as returned.

That in Horton township, Elk county, the room occupied by the officers
conducting the election was kept open and constantly filled by persons during
the whole day, and that owing to the intimidation of the election officers, no
fair election was had.

And that in White Deer township, -Union county, the judge and majority
inspector, against the protest of the Democratic inspector, adopted a resolution on
the morning of the election, that they would not require any affidavits or proof of
residence from any persons whose names did not ajypear on the registry of voters,
and who might claim the right to vote, and that this resolution was faithfully
and effectually carried out, while the most important requirements of the stat-
ute regulating elections were wholly disregarded and violated.

This, in brief, is a summary of some of the most important reasons shown
by the testimony why the districts named should be rejected. And we submit
that under the evidence, and the author thus quoted, the committee can not
count the returns from these districts without doing violence to the rights of
the contestant, and placing a premium upon fraud and gross carelessness.

This brings us to the consideration of another question in this case. In
some of the districts above named the committee will be asked to count the
legal vote proven, should they reject the returns from the districts as claimed
by the contestant. That this may be done we do not dispute, for it is well
settled both by principle and authority. Where the falsity of an election
return is shown, the return may be set aside or disallowed^; but the election
itself may stand ; and the legal vote proven to have been cast may be
counted in the general result. Washburn vs. Voorhees, Dig. Cong. Elect.
cases, 1865-1871, page 54 ; Julian vs. Ried, ibid, 831 ; Littlefield vs. Green,
Brightly's Elect, cases, 493.

It may be contended on the part of the contestee that no notice can be
taken by the committee of the unregistered votes shown by the evidence ; that
the coHtestant in his notice that he would contest the right of the contestee to
a seat in the 46th Congress of the United States, did not specifically charge
and set forth that unregistered votes were cast for the contestee. This was

CURTIN VS. YOCUM. 15

not necessary. The contestant did give notice and charge that a large num-
ber of illegal votes were cast for coutestee, and every unregistered vote, not
proven to have been legally cast, and that the voter at the time of the election
possessed the constitutional qualifications as to residence, came within the
category of illegul votes, and is covered with this specification in the general
charge and notice of the contestant.

In the three election districts, namely : "Woodward township and Houtz-
dale borough, Clearfield county, and Benner township, Centre county, the
contestant called and proved his legal vote during the time set apart by the
act of Congress, for rebuttal. Contestee, by his counsel may argue that this
testimony should not be considered, and the legal vote thus proven on the
part of the contestant ought not to be counted ; that it was not rebuttal, aud
that no evidence ought to be received during the time mentioned, that it was
not strictly and technically rebuttal.

With this contention we do not agree. In the case of Reed vs. Kneass,
Brightly's Elect, cases, 416, Judge King, one of the purest and ablest jurists
that ever adorned the bench in Pennsylvania, says this, " Rebutting testi-
" mony is after all a thing dependent upon a sound discretion of the court,
" provided always, that the testimony is relevant ; and the courts of Penn-
"sylvania have gone very far upon this subject. To this eflfect we have the
" the authority of Chief Justice Tighlman in 4 Binney, 198, where he de-
" clares that material testimony ought not to be rejected merely because oflfer-
" ed after the evidence closed on both sides, unless it has been kept back by
" trick or fraud, or the adverse party would be deceived or injured by it.
" The same doctrine is asserted in Deval vs. Burbridge, 6 W. & S., 529, where
" Judge Huston declares it requires a strong case, to authorize the absolute
" rejection of material testimony in any stage of the cause. Now I myself, if
" I am justified in quoting my own experience, have admitted testimony after
"the case closed, and for what: to advance and promote right; for those
" purposes the rule is, to receive material testimony oflTered at any stage, pro-
" vided the offer is made bona fide, under stress of unforseen circumstances
" and unaccompanied by trick or fraud." He says furthermore: " It does not
" follow because testimony may be admitted in chief, it may not be admitted
" by way of rebuttal."

It is always right and proper to receive evidence at any stage of the pro-
ceedings that is pertinent to the issue, and it can be no objection to the testi-
mony that it might have been ofl!ered as part of the case in cljief. It is a
matter that lies in the discretion of the tribunal hearing the evic^nce, and
that discretion ought never to be exercised in a way so as to exclude material
testimony which will i)romote aud advance right and justice between the
parties. To this effect we quote : Commonwealth vs. Gaines, 50 Penn'a. St.
Rep., 319 ; Hessler vs. McGrath, 52 Penn'a. St. Rep., 533.

But we contend that the evidence was even in a technical sense rebutting.
Contestant having by his testimony attacked the truth of the returns and the
fairness aud legality of the election in the districts, could not presume that
the contestee would admit the charges and not reply by showing error in the
testimony offered by the contestant, or in some way disprove the serious
charges made against these districts. Instead of pursuing this course, the
contestee set up a new defense as it were to the charges. Not that the returns
were true, or the election fiiir and legal, but that the contestee had so many
legal votes in these districts. This did not conflict with the testimony offered
by the contestant, but admitted its truth and force. It was new matter, not
directly, but only infereutially conflicting with the averments of the contest-
ant. It could not be anticipated that contestee would admit the charge? of
fraud made against the election aud returns from these districts, and therefore

16 CUKTIN VS. YOCUM.

evidence of how many legal votes contestant received therein was admissable
as rebuttal, though it may have been admissable in chief. Stetson vs. Cros-
key, 52 Penn'a St. Rep., 230. It is entirely consonant, therefore, with the
rules of evidence laid down by Judge King and Judge Strong, now of the
Supreme Court of the United States, for the committee to receive and give
due weight to the proof of the legal votes for contestant in the election
districts named, to the end that justice and right may be advanced, and the
legal voters of the districts in question may not have their rights overthrown
by the gross negligence and fraud of the election officers, supplemented by the
frauds of the zealous supporters and partisans of the coutestee.

"We have thus briefly, as we could set forth our views of the law upon the
different questions arising in this contest. We have confined ourselves to the
legal aspects of the case, not stopping to discuss the evidence introduced by
the contestant pointing to the corrupt use of large sums of money to secure
the election of the contestee. It may be contended that the evidence dis-
closed but little of this matter in the case. It is true that the parties who
Avere placed upon the witness stand to be examined upon this branch of the
case, and who have testified fully upon this subject, took refuge behind the
criminal's shelter and declined to answer. Their examination cannot but
convince the impartial mind and judgment, that the corrupting power of
money was freely used to secure the election of the coutestee. That which is
right and honest needs no concealment. Its honesty becomes only the more
apparent, the more carefully it is scrutinized and enquired into. Vievv'ed in
this light, the evidence so far as given upon the corrupt use of money and the
refusals to testify to the questions bearing upon this subject, must convince and
convict the mind of any and all, who will examine into this branch of the
case. Fraud and corruption do not often appear openly, and are not often
practiced before the eyes of the public. Those who engage therein are gen-
erally careful to cover up and conceal the evidences of their evil work. For
the first time in the history of elections in the 20th Congressional district was
money corruptly and fraudulently used to afiect the result and thwart the will
of the majority. But, as we think, the eflTort was futile. The law and the
evidence in this contest are with the contestant. We believe that a fair,
honest and impartial construction of the law applied to the evidence, demon-
strates that the contestee is now occupying a seat in Congress to which he was
not elected by the legal votes, but that the contestant was elected to the 46th
Congress of .the United States from the 20th district of Pennsylvania by a
large majority of the legal votes cast for Congress on the 5th day of Novem-
ber, 1878. Being firmly convinced of the rightfulness of the claim of the
contestant, we ask for no strained construction of law or evidence, but only
for a fair and an impartial hearing and a just decision.

All of which we respectfully submit.

DAVID L. KREBS,
WILLIAM H. BLAIR,

Of Counsel for Contestant.

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

o
o

w
w

-K

«>

U -

o*^

"rt

-- >•

b5«
O to

-ij

??5

f o
o

CI.

. . s

fflO

a .»

CO 5

t- —

S 0)

'^ 9
"£ «^

I -

^^
•^ <v

.a o

tn Si

«C o

3.^

Urn '^

-sl

.5:5

C/J

•^

'*.:5

9> 9

Xi *^

T3 SJ

3 08

O C

votes sl
lowing

'list.

■^

• ^

egal
vote

.4..3

~ -^ o

oh5 2

a -i

4—

*J i-< O

^-v <^

eSr-l J

5 C

^3 es -"^

^< L

•*-» en T*

o ^

2 32

0-3 «
5 -a "^

o =5 o

M _ o

- E _,

00 o .i

(M -^ >>

u " s
^ o «

Sj3. •

E3 ^ h5 o cT

C o >

tee

3 — o

o B.'

855

DC SS t*^
<S ..J

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

a
«

t 1

??■

s'"

«>

>:ii

'' 3

PJCS

-^ T-H

-«!

*%
■^

1-1 (M

?:>i

t— t^

lO lO

1—1 T-l

T-l

5»s

?»

O-

1^ o

XJl

>-.

'S C

o'^

isl

faC

<»

■to

i3 c

[ H

:)t-

.2 >^

^S ^

I-

wQO

CO 2
o o

^>^

(D CO

05 V

;-r

bfl

nrJ

o
>

;-.

Sfi

OCJ

'T3

3
O

P-CO

"^^

■*

1—1

^>^

•s.

■X-)

rr?

»— t

C-1

• 1-H

-kJ

>■

o
>

^'^,

a ?

o -•

a -'^

13 >->

m *-

a> o3

(M CO 00

CO T-l

lO CO

T-l t^

♦3 ©

o) a

a -a o

S <3^

Ph Si

a a
o

!^;^

a ^ S

e:^ 3

-i->

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

3
O

a 3

c -,"

rriO

a 1^

t^ a

CO 2

-^ S
o o

cc a

CO 3

" a
c^ a

o _

5C O

eu
&-

T-H

3
O

. CO

S a

^ 3

(— 1

T— 1

-*->

o
>

t^ r-l O
OO t^ t—

O CO CO
CC CO -f CO CO

o c^i

tH CO

^ CO Ol t^
■r-l (M (M
T-( CO CO

CO CO

Sj O

3
o
o

c3 6 ^ b 6

a -w
o o

1—1

#— *

-t<

o -t

«.

■m

fp'

-t

!-l

t-i O :3

S a wi; ^ -

a - S =^ -::

h>. t: ,- t_H ?>•

=3 9.

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

O 1

B •

T-i

;c)

—

■«

«J

>*1

1—1 :

►-i

«i

CO :

«^

o :

-C

CO .

fts

1—1 ;

P-

•S^

CIh

9. ^

2 OJ

Ph ?h

o a

o o

<t>

JSl

I-;

t^ at

T— 1

<T)

<1J

T— 1

■I— 1

-*— *

CIJ

o
>

3 cc

a 3
o o

3
O
O

CO
3

>-.

CJi

1—1

<4-3

r/J

T— 1

bJO

a'TT

fTt

CIJ

o
>

fTI

i-,

CO OS

T-l t^

CO T-l

(M 00

CO ^

a
o

^ .22

-kj a
o o

03 o

o
>^

CO
CO

. 1— t

CO g

3 Ol

CO a

>'^

<« o
OO

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

o
1—1

05
r-l

" s

bX) o

03 O

(V) T-H

T— (

-*-s

o
>

rr!

a r»

03 m

a a

o o

a
o

...

5z5

. c<>

t- T-(

CO ^

r^ a

O 3

bCS

c3 ,"2

a.>^

;-i

ic bD

a ^

I -

f[-! l<

03 o

o o

<M (M CO

■t— I 1— I Oi
O Ci CO O lO
OO (M G<l O C5 c: 1— I
lO 05 Ol CO IC lO CO

1— I T— I CO 1—1 T— I CO

C5 1—1 T-l

3
o
o

od"

j^ddodcJo'd^

rtooooooo
C^'O n3 "TS 'T3 "73 "^ T3

a
o

^a a
ao -- ^ - -

a t-i -a

d~ s 5 djf^'i

S-a ot-^

. Oi
t^ 1-1

'-I a

(U 3

be"

2-^

I- bJD

•<-•

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

^ 1

.^^1

l^^ll^

V\i

.^S

a .

•

O ai

•5

•Ki

>r,

■*

1 «

5>,

■^^

■t-i

3S
O

r/;

-2^

"-O

P-.

■^

■^-^

>->

"«

'o^-

<»

^«

CO 3

g I

.9 ?
I of

o -^
^ o

Oi o:> Oi
c<> o o

1— I CO CO

CO CM

CO CO

OS
t^ o o

>-> . .

goo
Pins -"O ;-!

fl a

o o

III

i-sPnPiH

. o

CO —

T-i a
Q ^

I -

-u >

«6 o
GO

1— ( T-t T-l T— (

«<

1—1

OO lO

CM (X>

00 tH O i-H

T-I o

T-( -TlH

O lO

O (M

'^ T-I

;z;

h-3

h-l

t*-.

Sh q; . P-1

^25 !z;

. >

-»

: ^

• fl)

: 'o

•'a s^;^ 1

r— . 02 a

g:^M

>-. a o rr:

: 1

1—1

fci

CO tH

T— 1

o
o

T— 1

r-H <D

>'^

m 3

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CD 1-.

OO Ci
CCOt— l-1<-f'OI>»CO
lOCOOOi— li— iCiCiOl

•^ "^ *^ "^ Tf "^

rH 1—1 T— I T—l 1— I tH

00 OO

CD CO

i-( O -t t- O ■nH
O CO O O CO o

1—1 tH 1— ( CO

lO CO

00 Oi

>->

a
o
a

-a

Q, Cm

IS -3

O Oh

X
ci

o o o o

""C! "^ -^ "73

a j= o o

rr-l n

o o o o o o

'U "^ "XJ "tS "^3 '^

o o

fl a
o o

^'i^^

o o o o o o

■^ '^ "X! 'C '^ 'T3

w ^

S 03

S QJ

a o

go
tf a

K- ^ ■ 1 C ' ' °

o <i be t: s M
. Ph " . *S .2

be 03 . cj

-a <^ a ,-a *^ o
O 1^ o o • «u

a (U en

5 03 a

ffi

« a "^ ^- S •

a
o

T— 1

fcf

t~^

a
o

O
O

;><

;>^

T-H

'-S

;-i

>'^

T-l rH (M

C<1 CO

LO lO

bfl

Oi (M

-1

c ;

o
>

•—I -*->

.5 o

O Si
flH Ui

513 O

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

sti;

«)

02
<

f^ifci

1^)

O
CO

a
o

co"

i-(

'-C

O rs

o
>

;-t

ozj';^

CO t— Ol CO C<)

-* CO o -* -^

CO CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO

'T3

C3 O O "13

-a i-'

.22 -eft I— i o ;^

Si . b>- g

S; J5 '^ '- ^
■^ . a^rz:

1-^ ?- t-S 1-5 K*

O
00
CO
CO

O
CO

to
a
&.

a
o

t«D
03

a o
3 O

§>^ .

3 I +j
I S ^

3 2 2

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

•<

CJi

<«

is .'^

a
>-. .

^ o

a
o

t-3CC

f>4

O rH

1—1

O
O

;>H

co"

-t

•^

o
>

o
r~ CO (M
o T-l o

T— I th

CO CO
'^
o

o o

a
'^ .

goo
f-'TS -a

a
o

a >;a
^ .:s "a

• % S

>i^

CO
CO

t~-

y-i

fcn

<T)

C/J

'-4J

r~>

t/J

~i^

C/J

o
o

>^-v

ct. .:i

a ^

S-c

0')

-1-'

o ■-0

o
>

-/2

.-I

OOP

'tl CO
CO CO
CO CO
CO CO

2 a

> CO

CO
TS CO

-2 o

tH O

J^ CO

O CO

a
o

'a. .a

<D I—!

CO „

a a

t^ o

CO *-<

a:=!

c3 to

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

<5l

C<1 CO

CO -^

CO CO

be o

® rS

0) "

o g

C<J

C<1

t^ CO

!zi

CO TO

T^ <0

^ ^

Of >,

See
imon

C^ -u

• t- %

d 3 8

E3 O^"'

§^ .

>^CO g

.sCO >

CO T-l O

CO ^ ^H

^ 2 Ph

fl-S:z2

•X3 3 OS

■sVs

O 1 o

1 a> >

■^

. i O'-O

-iii > cu

O S-i

fficia
orrec
nreg

OOP

a
>-.

c3
P-(

a
o

c<»

-4^

c<»

1— t

!=-.

3 Ol

ctT

Oi T-H

CO
1—1

( )

O
1

o
>

-TS

r-,

hr.

OOP

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

COi-liO-^Ot-COiO

cocococococococo

t^OOOOOOO

^ooooooo

P-'T3 -^ -^ "TS '^ n3 13

O c3

"S -"^ i2 ^ 'S d a H
f^ p4 p:^ 6 S § h^ t3

3
o

rr:^

-2
"o

'— !

1- -1

OCJ

CIh

a
o

3
o

o
o

T- (

1— I

-u

>■

o
>

5fi

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CORRECTED RESULT IN CENTRE COUNTY.

Bellefonte borough — N. ward

do. do. — S. ward, official
do. do. — W. ward

Milesburg borough

Unionville borough official

Howard borough

Philipsburg borough

Boggs township

Benner township

Burnside township

College township official

Curtin township

Ferguson township, old precinct....
do. do. new " official

Gregg township

Haines township

Half Moon township

Harris township official

Howard township

Huston township

Liberty township

Marion township

Miles township official

Patton township

Penn township

Potter township, northern precinct.,
do. do. southern precinct..

Rush township

Snow Shoe township

Spring township

Taylor township

Union township

Walker township

Worth township official

Total.

By Harding's Rule.

CURTIN.

Majority.

138

115

141

196

106

104

244

212

108

228

257

166

169

175

192

3519

365

YOCUM.

129

113

173

207

107

185

111

102

118

129

102

123

195

115

108

3154

By Mc Crary's Rule.

CURTIN. YOCUM.

138

115

131

196

106

246

212

108

228

257

166

169

158

195

3463

145

129
113.

183

207

107

185

107

111

102

119

129

104

127

212

115

105

3318

But should the committee come to the conclusion that the returns from
Philipsburg borough and the townships of Benner, College, Liberty, Spring
and the new precinct of Ferguson, should be thrown out, this majority
will be corrected accordingly. For the evidence on this point see printed
testimony as follows: As to Philipsburg borough, pages 303, 312, 32i, 371 ;
Benner township, pages 13, 14, 18, 22, 24; College township, pages 11, 1250 ;
Spring township, pages 82, 87, 94, 97, 99, 101 ; Liberty township, page 276 ;
Ferguson, new precinct, pages 3124, 3135.

CURTIN VB. yOCUM.

•2

H
t— (

■<«5

o rrzr
K .
feii
s

O CO

■w

'rl

«55

•S

^-^

00 (M

CO Ci
CO 1— i

•^ ^ a>

o ?^?

'^ a c

a o o

"•^"^

CI "

CD 5

bC O

^^
O OS

<y CD

T-H

Pm"

— ;-

■T— t

Cl-

■73

;?;

C-

1— I

o
o

^r^

I— 1

-t

;-i

.^ — ■

<>>

•"^

K-^

«T

•4->

o
>

c-.

i -

a trj

o £

CD o

bliH

O) GO

co.S

o ' -
a i

^'bC

<z: a

4S fe

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

5>-

CO,

>~>

•

Ho
<1«

O >>

a .

•

>Si

•^ a

;«

^ to

■5

■e

T-i th :

->J

«J

"* t^ :

lo lo :

^ ^ .

(In

1— 1

P-

;:§

^ s

■^

•^^^

^^3^

-t-3

55 >^

a> u

O CO

^'6^

SpHT3 ?;<

a a

o o

^ ;z;

>~o

Cri

i-i

?^ h

•^

t-Dl-2

a>-*

o .

a 8

3
o
o

n30
CD §

c:)

d ^

'T!

Oi T-H lO
CO '^^ t^
•^ "^ '^

o
a

(D a

.t^ OS -

iJD

o ©

a a
o o

-S —

_ a a
CO j-i ^a
o _>:> o
•-sQt-s

3
o
o

;-<

;:h

QJ 00

'tM

CL'

<15

or>

■4-J

-tj

-u

•—j

-k^

-u

h(1

!-<

-t->

^J2;

CURTIN V8. YOCUM.

CO
CO
CO

i> 3 A

o
o

«w o
00

JZi

Ir-I

. 10

CD -

CN a

CD 3

«5

&. ^

QJ 10

^J a

• u

CO 3

a
3

>^ -

i-T be

t- a

a ^

.— fcH

t^ 1^

1 "^

"fi O -+< T-i 1-1 'Tt* 10 CD -rfi CO

as o o i-H c) CO CO

O-tiiOiOlOiOiOiOLQiOOOiO-^
O 10 CO

!>\ 10 10

C^OiOlOiOiOiCSOiOtiOS o
OOOOCOGOOOCOOOQOtXi "^

''^ ""^ ^7^ "*sj^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^'^ ^^ ^^

o ^ ^

O a>

pOOOOOOOOTS

t^i^

c^ . .
A o o

;2i

O o

O X

'^ c;

2 «

0000

>: a

2-° o
^ s ^

J « a

:io r^ = :£

O I a I cc ;^ ^ : ^

« w <i 5 pq ^ ^ ^

r—

T-H

t«

TS
©

• •^

' — ■

b£

!>H

1—1

-1-1

(-r

T-^

1—1

(ji

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

'i')

■H-i

""o

Ci-i

55i

1^
. o

'-' a
a S

:3 o
§>^

(M a

a=f

^'^^

^ o

oil— li— IOTHt^rtlOOi-lOC<>
COOiOlOiOOCiCOCO-rt^CMeM

(Ml— iC^rHrHT— lir-(i— i

-4-J

t^OOOOOOOOO

a
©

a
>^. .

a o

a
o

oooocooo

^T3 "^ 'TIS ^O "^ *T3 ^^ "^

pqpqo:;;

a ;:;

o •

l-S r— I

® a

^ . >-> a &C

i — I J — o t/3 g a
'^ c^ rz: -^ _2 o <i^

^ '^ ^ CO <^ — o

r— I 3 T3 r— I i_| r^ ^

2 .^ g a jr^

h^ p:; g p^ H^ g ii^

C/J

•

1—1

T— (

o
o

i-l

S-l

o
>

O
>

'^3

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

-t

CIO

3
O

.1^

o
>

■-1

-£

t^ Ci O O 1-1 -f o
O O 1-H O O O 1— I
CO CO 1^ 'O lO OO 00
CO CO CO CO CO tH T—(

c^ O O O

5 c o o

o o o

■3'T3 'O

3 S i^ 'n

a = ? '^

r^ =^ ^ S ^ - ^

H-( -C 2 "^ rt 3

fcD

~ o

^><

>^00

._ >->
9 I

T-( 1—1

t^CO

[H
►J

1
i
i

>•
i

c;
■f

Ci
CO

3 5

6 I
I ^

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

«^

h- 1

^ ^

&1.

100rH(^^-^^00■^T-lOlO^-^CO^— IIOIOO
C^ CN CM Cs) (M T-l <M 1-: COCO

'OOOOOOOOOO
I f^ n^ nd "^ '^ '~o '^ "^ "^ "T^

c3 ^

!z;

OOOOOOOOOO^
"^ "^ "^ "XJ "^ "XJ "^ "^ "^ "^ '^

=5:2

tz;pq Izi

t-5l-2i

cs ::i

?5 ci H a

'^K* 2

o > S S 2 ? § § gJ-2 I g

-u)

■4J

-2

fcJO

Cfi (jq

T— 1

-i

h-^

-t

lO CO

!-(

■pj

( J

o
>

'eS

OCJ

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CO ■

tH
CD

oT3

a
>^ .

c3 O

iz;

02 .

. <M

t~ T-l

<M „

^ s

r- 3

a u

3,0

^'^

>H-f

10 T-H

S.2

a «

•^ 3

'^^

1 "^

«3 «

.—

sa s

0<M-f<i-lt^iO-t<OiOO

t^ooooiocsoo t^c:ii^
00

a
o

!S 6 6 6 6 '

c3 o

O ^^ Oj

^ si) A
i^ o

^ SJ2;

J ^^

^' ^ 2.

-5"=; ?^ rt

^> ^H -v* .-^ ^^ ->. *— I •/. i-s

C/J

»>»

't^

T— (

(TO

1—1

;>^

'i^

•^

—

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

Fs.

o
to

Ol CO !X> oo
CO CO CO
-^ T}< "^

•to

o a

S r2

^ 6 I"!

a T5 Pi sh

■^ a a
o o o
5zi iziizi

a 3 ?? ^
r^ S a'S

bCfcCg g

S 3 a ,a

O !U S CL,

'"i^

1—1

1— (

o
o

lO"

lO T-H

T-H

t-l

■*->

O
>

<-)

■^

->->

CiOOOGOt^OS'^T— It-h— 'CO(M

O O O <X) O ^ -^ '^ Tji CO <X> -«J<
CM C^J C-a tH 1— I CO COCO

oooooooooooo

cSoooooooooooo

S a> g

o pi ^

O O 0^
1-3 1-5 1-^

.pp^'

a a
S 2 >

. . ^ o tn
^\D S.^ a 3

a' a 1^'

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CO CO CO
r-l rH i-H
^ "^ "^

^ o o
pq

H-g a

C5
O
o

oc s
S §

3 O

'^ T— I

o I

o ,_-
> S

yji(i5D(i

CURTIN VS. YOCUM,

CORRECTED RESULT IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY.

Burnjiide borough oflScial

Clearfield borough

Curwensville borough official

Houtzdale borough

Lumber City borough official

Newburcjh borough official !

New Washington borough.... ofhcial

Osceola borough

Wallaceton borough official

Beccaria township

Bell township

Bloom township official

Boggs towushij)

Bradford township official

Brady township

Burnside township

Chest township

Covington township official

Decatur township

Ferguson township official

Girard township

Goshen township official

Graham township

Greenwood township official

Gulich township

Huston township official

Jordan township

Karthaus township official

Knox township official

Lawrence township

M orris township

Penn township official

Pike township

Union township official

Woodward township

Total.

Majority.

By Sarding's Rule.

By McCrary's Rule.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

201

139

201

139

106

108

104

108

104

100

118

146

118

146

347

211

347

211

173

180

104

125

104

125

106

112

50-

102

249

126

249

126

165

120

165

120

149

109

127

2971

2671

2932

2712

300

220

But should the committee come to the conclusion that the returns from
Houtzdale borough and Woodward township should be thrown out, this ma-
jority will be corrected accordingly. For the evidence on this point see
printed testimony as follows : As to Houtzdale borough pages 535, 527, 1858 ;
Woodward township, pages 504, 509, 513, 593, 592.

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

.1 -• 1

— -

d><^

■^

a a

«t)

o ^.

•2
"Si

aSPS

T— 1

c
"2

T-H

•

1— 1

T— 1

T-H

T— 1

o
o

--1 2

th :

rH T—t rH 1— 1

T-H

T— (

Pi
g

c»

t^ t^ t-

^T" a

C^ 1

o:' Ci Ci

'^'3

CO :

>i 1

a o

■«

t— l- O l^

c '^

•B >:>

•<

CO :

a -c

CO O CO -+I
00 CO o

a "^

E-i

CQ
1

t^ t— t-

1—1

1— 1

: 5

'7 ^o

^ avS

S',

be O

CC i-H

C<1

• >

►-5

a
o

o
o

a
o

a
<

cr^ a

M
o
o

-t-J

<^
c

■ c
... a

: c
: <

c
c

See page 254
138,Yocuni 1

t-^.

. a

-4-3

a ::

^ • 2

- lO '-3

rj.

i:^ =

S X

CO ti
1—1 a

a t

£ ^ 3

'^-^

^ be

5 f

rt o O O C

s a 1

3 1

O 3

c 3

a c

a o o

1^1

^ fen

lO p

T-H fcD

CO x"

T-H a

1— ' .a

a ^<

a "?

.2'H

•- c3

• a

: o

1 sw

i ?

: o
; c

Official vote— C
Corrected vote,

harles Bowei
ohu Edward
olin Harvey.

■z

►-

t>'^

^•-

■J h-

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

'>>

■a

h9.

[K5H

•^

„n

C<)

-2

—

tH ;

H»l

?5i

«>

CO :

trj

CO :

'^i :
(M :

oo'

^ =^

=+-( ^-■'

a >^

CD U,

Ch f-,

c ci

1^^

">»>

55^

feH

h-;

; 1

0.;

S-l

u
CO

•I— 1

■4^

-u

r-1

;;;

'-.

J-t

1— 1

I— 1 :

t^ .

01 :

t- :

r/)

Iz;

T— 1

S=u

»—

CIh

C-

t<-

-t^

X CD

-^ a

Iz;

S-l

>.l

•.,-;

f-(

i~*

(1>

bl)

■cc

CfJ

fcfl

•73

t-i

Oi Ci Oi CO

1—1 1—1

<Xi CO
Oi CN O

CI,

rt ; "
^ a
X ?:;

ei ^'
c -<

r— CD

03 '^

9. ^ u

■"O 1^3 _oo

• '^ 'S fcJ3
" O CD CD CD
Ch'^ t< Sh ;-!

a a a a
o 000

a ~ lS '^

.>^ ci ^
w . x J:;

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

—

1— 1 1—1 :

1—1 T— 1 :

•^ CO (M (M •

lo o lo lo :

CO ri< t^ t^ •

(M c<j oi CO CO :

-t :

(M CO GS O CO :

lo lo lo CO .

CO CO i>- 1- :

(M C<1 CO CO .

•00

. T— 1

: ^

'■ X

. o

. d-

Cl.

.<1

(»■

d d 6^

'TD'TSTS -^

■^

"> . . . 'Pr

o o d oT

U '-OTi'TZ •'■*

a> :

.2 1

a a> fc<

:::: o ^

^ oS^

o
o

1—1

00 ^

be o
03 O

1—1 3

2|
14

>1<

CI,

-I
o S

'I ^

S-,

o-i

1—1

c<->

c/,'

3
O

1—1

bl)

o
>

r-I

;-i

o -z

>-.

■^

IpH

1—1

fcx:

3
8

^>H

co"

u~l

1—1

't:

o
>

t-l

t£

-1

o
CO

b£
a

bi.

^^-1

<>\

*- *

•!->

o
>

■4-1

5£

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

o
33

1—1

a
<u

a
>^

Ph
a
o

1-3

h-I

t>^

• CO

°5 tH

th q

a Fi

3 O

^>H

bn -

1^ CO

S~3

th a

.s t:

-" 3

1 OJ

O) O

% >

> -^

r— 1 -1^

ci o

• ^ a;

O ^H

a ^

CO T-H

T-H O C<) CO

CO lO CO CO

t-t^i— lC<lC<lC0-*(MC^OC0t:^t>.00C50iOr- lT-1

t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ t— t- t>> t- !>• t- t^ t' t-

:D OO -^ lO

CO CO t^ t^

<s o
a

ooccooooo

oooooooo

^^ '^ '^ '^ "^ '^ "TJ "^

:ho

2 S

a !h
a o
iO g

-' "-3 M

^^ .

: K : : a a tH : .
• S ^- . « • a o . ; .
.Soj-S t'TSi^rtOa : :

■^ ^ ^3 rK t^ ^ -5 . 1^ 2 > 0^
. 3 a a rfi • H 9 c/j —• -^ . •

o ^

dl^J^agcgia-a^

r^ O
SO

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

l-H CO 00

T-H CO '^ t^

00 CO CO CO

l>--^"^-flOlOCDlO(MC^C<lC0

COCOCOCOCOCOCO 'f

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

b- CO CI 'O

t^ CO CO CO

(M CO <»

oooooooo

c3 . .

a =■
o P

S rt j^
ci :: r. r- 3 i£

b(l

ti.

C/J

■X)

o
>

*-^

Oi Gi

T— 1 l-H

l^ t^

'rfl CO CO CO CO CO

O oo T-H ao

b- CO t^ CO

CO QO C<) CO lO C<>

O 1-t

t- t^

CO CO

a
o JIh a

> —

s- :i:

'"' .3 02
« ^ 6
&H S O

or;

T-(

tJO

CL.

fcl)

S'^D

o
o

!>^

o
>

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

'^N^

<Sj

?5^

??5

CM t^ O CO 10 O
GO Oi Ot) Oi 05
t- t^ t- t- t^

Ci
Oi

Oh .

12;

• o § ^: p

o -Q ^ o

12;

r>i

. T— i

a §^

s>^

;>H^-

05
>

~-*

^ .3

a t^

•^ a

'^^

3 1

-u

i ^

1^ s

i-i

odP

03 ^•

fcJO

00 s

!>^

■^

'-S

!-i

( ;

'TS

'c3

'So

oot^

G5
O

C<1

1-1

(^4

OL.

bf)

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

c =«

!2;

00
CO

00
00
CD
CO

a
c

»■ .H

oo' c,

^ 3 a>

§>^ .

^t^ >

O r-l O
GO ^ p;

S b ■"■

it's

'o S ?•
5E o J

i-H T-i (^q

o CO '^

T-H !» lO

^ t^ C^
(M CO CO

c5 o O

^ =* 3

S'^ a

C c« C3

^" *^ r^

•^

t-
r—

<15

cr<

C-

T— (

C-

r/?

<—•

;>^

co"

(^ o

'Zj

i-l

<1>

c
>

t/3

*"0

OOP

O r-l 00
CD CO CM
t^ CO t^

CO CO CO

a
>-> . .

^ O o

a
o

a ;:;

3 3

c3 r~^

"— '

-^-^l

p.>

ii>

ri)

,-t

<_)

I-H

CO
1— (

C-

-*j

*— t

•~

s->

<l)

-<->

c
>

O'^

>
o

l-l

5fi

OOh2

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

«■>

"■^

53
551

^3
I

tH rH T-l r-l

O lO
CO t^

^ CO i:d

■^ O CO
o t-

00 CO

OOOi— iCO'^CDrHCOCOCOOi— iCNCO'+C^'-t^iOO^t-tMCO

Oi— li— iT-ii-li-ICsJtMfMCMCOCCiCDCOOt^l^t^t^t^ i-l

OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 00

(M(MCNC<J(MC<>C<lCq(MCqcOCO

■I— I

•

ooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooo

o o o o o o

•T^ 'Ti ""O ""O ''O Ti

. a

^ g ^H Q _^ ^

r4 >< ^ li

in - a a o cc .

2 oO

a 5.= >>

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

t— t^ CO <X) lO lO

iO lO 'Tf '^i Ci Oi
t- t^ t^ t^ b- t^

O CO CO CO CO CO CO

CO lO t>- 00 Ci -^ 00
Ol Oi C^ Ci O C<l
CO ilD CD CO t>- t—
CO CO CO CO CO CO

-u

. o o o o o o
^ 'O T3 TS '73 'T3 TS

c3 d 6 o d d d

$^•^3 T3 TS r^S TS 'TJ

c
o

.2 a

T3 rf 1^ 9

'^ "c3 tj

^:;:; o ^ o f^ a
'^ !^ O t-5 H PQ 1-5

UTi

C/J

3
O

o
o

1—1

;-■

c ;

O
>

'«

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CORRECTED RESULT IN CLINTON COUNTY.

Allison township

Bald Eagle township

Beech Creek township

Beech Creek borough official

Chapman township

Colebrook township

Crawford township

Castanea township official

Dunstable township official

Gallauher township

Grugan township

Greene township official

East Keating township official

West Keating township official

Lamar township official

Leidy township

Logan township

Logansville borough

Lock Haven — First ward

do. Second ward

do. Third ward

do. Fourth ward

Mill Hall borough

Noyes township official

Pine Creek township

Porter township official

Renovo township official

Wayne township

Woodward township

Total.

By Harding's Rule,

Majority

CURTIN.

6Q
51
79
34
62
22
52
33
56
41
45

182
17
20

125
31

179
63

154

146

117

138
39
77

101
93

291
81

130

2525

YOCUM.

103
76
60
55
73
37
34
29
49
13
8

177

157

137

127

121

18
94
102
264
49
80

388

2137

By Mc Crary's Rule.

YOCUM.

CURTIN.

63
51
80
34
76
20
52
33
56
41
45

182
17
20

125
27

179
63

154

146

117

139
39
77

101
93

291
81

130

2532

352

106

177

175

137

133

121

102

264

2180

But should the committee come to the conclusion that the returns from
West Keating township should be thrown out, the majority will be corrected
accordingly. For the evidedce on this point see printed testimony pages 732
to 749.

CURTIN VS. YOCUM

ffl

"-^

K-1

•2

ool

ta .

'■^ 3
BSPS
O m

a
U

1— (

T— ( ;

o
n

t^- :

T— 1 :

c
a

■ rH
. 1—1

cL
a

o^
c

a>
a>
CO

"Sc

c
c

a ^

TO >^

.as

I-* o
H

^lO

i^.a

5-r o

„

c:;

*•-.

f-!

o
>

c
>

S£

o;^

-^OiCOOO-fCDCOCO
l^ t^ t^ l^ l^ O Oi t^

, p
> si

a,
-5 <^

c3 O O ."ti Qj
Cun3 --o o s-i

*^ • .

C3 O O

^5zi

a
o

tc-5 5-2

Ho S^-= S2

a^-

rt rj rt « HH a
OT :c ei .i. tr s

1-5 t-5 ^ ^ 1-5 <^

3
o
o

§-5

W >-i

T-H g

co'=^

^ I-

C? 3

o o

O '^
- CO

(>« .2

I -

o'3

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

T-H I

T-\

o >.

a.-

^ ^

••^^

o »

Cci to

►-1

—

■c

<§■

-«!

•^

<»

i:o t^ 00 CO "^ '.

S»

o\o^(^^-^ :

Ci Oi Ci Oi Oi .

tH .

1—1

?>^

■-a

f-ii

1 8

-u (D ' -u

a CI _2 i=i a

O O^ o O

^^ ^ ^

^n^

a cs.S o a

O P i:! -3 Q^

ja &:_a S o^

3
o
o

,_^

--!

S-i

"r!

r/)

*^^^^

l-^

-i-i

T-!

'^ CO

■I— 1

!-l

<i)

r^?

1—1

-1^

1—1

co"

C<1

esjD

T-H

rrt

-t->

o
>

•m

O CM

tH 1—1
_^ GO 00

-fCOOCOCOt-CMOSCMCMlOOiOOCO
CMCMCOOOOOGOOO 1— <Oi— (CM

OiOiOt^t^t— 0000 OOOCOCO

1-lCMCMCMCMCM^'T^CslCMCMOM

o o

00 00
CM CM

"^3

C
^3

'73

jv) a <v> a

a o 2 a;

a 'TS a n3

^ 'm • ^'m

ff3ooooooooga>
. . O-'^ '^iT3'T3'T3'X5 7''^ T^T'

,2^ 3 a a a

/T3 T3 o coo

O) O

'- 2

o a

Oh O)

O ^^ 'TS S <3

rj O o =3 "S!

oj i< », a

:sv.O

C3 c3

cS^g^p4^^

o "^
t, ya

C3 -^
1—1 y

0*3
o CQ

02.2
. >

^ a

03 r5 LT

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

C<1 (M C^l CM C<I C<1 <M Cv) G^ -M CM CN C<1 (M r-i

:«_ O O O O
O -O TS 'O -^

a
2 X

a . o o o o

a " a "a

Qj a 03 a aj

s ^ a ^ a

"*"> . 'TT '^ . . . . '^ f^ . . . .

£Oci3i^0OOOoC30O00

CL,'^ fc, Ci'w T3 'TS 'T3 ^H CU-a ^3 '^ 'C

a a a a a

o o o o o

a u
S a

a a
c o

bfl

rj -r O r— ( ^ Ih

-'^ "Z ^ c 1^

<^ a
^ "ii i>->

«>^^

>>a

o -a o

^<^

I s| ^ a^^^cq^ a g^"^

a ;^

•-2 (-H

• ^

;>^

-+ OO

IC- o

•-3

?.|

o O

OQ-^

lo t!

o a

a 1

a o

o ^^

O 3

^ ^

tH tJO

'f a

a "3

■!-' c5

~ 1— 1

= 1^

O .

1 '^

o ^

ci o

._. o

o t<

=£ ^

CO
CO

!2i;z;

-o

3
o

!>^

3 ^

a ^

•r; w

o a

i-H 3

^'r ^

o -o
C/2 a

t- 3

a I

3 O

?25

o ,_

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

M c3

C;^

^-i

QO ^

^ 00
<M OS C<) O
CO CO

Oi CO

(M -TO CN

CO "*

c:> OO

r^ ^

!^ O)
ci <v

. a >-.

O O) i-

«+-, ^

a a
o o

^ a a

o o o

-1-J

fl)

r- 1

'-^

■ v..

(-5

(—1

C<1

1—1

cr>

C/J

<:d

• ^

ri^

-*-^

o
O

tdO

1—1

-i->

rf>

•^

(-1

-rJ

(-!

OO,

a
o

!zi

-3 CD

• OO
-f lO

■= a

(D O
bJD o

OJ ■X'

02 «

CO 3

I I
3 ai

o i — ■

O 3

>H >-

i>r"bo

o a

I -

o _

>^
I— I -t^

«5 o
OO

05 10

(M Cq LO
C5 05 o

"S • • be

O O O o

a a

bcPQ^
o -^ o

O c3 O

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

E-i

■vo

c>,

>■

>-H

OO CO

CO OO
CO CO

C3 o

a
o

If-I

>— I

'•/I

_ ^

HsU

CO
OO

-f<

-rii 00

lO CO

o „

1—1 QJ

<» ^

^ H.

&H >^

cc a

o '-S

• -^ s

Ol ^ ^

^ a ^

a 3 a^

§>^ .

K*^ co" §

-<M >

CO(M O

C^ ^

c^ a o-

a "£=:

•^ 3 oi

hO o

3 1 ■>->

2^3

P^ s

" ^1^

c3 " 5b

T ?-^ a>

'^ S a

OOP

o
o

t>^

;>^

c<r

<ri

;-i

'r>

O
1

f ■)

C
>

o
>

r*.

!>. ~V

CO
OO

OO
C<1

as .

(X) o

a
o

-*^

'-' a

o .a

o a

T— I

3 §

a
O

o
>

, — 1

«H

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CORRECTED RESULT IN ELK COUNTY.

Benezette township

Benzinger township

Fox township

Highland township

Horton township

Jay township

Jones township

Millstone township

Ridgeway township

Spring Creek township.
St. Mary's borough

By Harding^ 8 Rule.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

286

126

130

106

200

223

Total.

Majority.

998

359

639

By Mc Crary's Rule.

CURTIN.

287

117

223

966

274

YOCUM.

60
26

139

211
17
40

692

But should the committee come to the conclusion that the returns from
Horton township should be thrown out, this majority will be corrected ac-
cordingly. For the evidence on this point see printed testimony pages 951,
1060, 1066, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1074, 1076, 1081, 1090, 1096, 3930, 3933.

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

O
U

o
tz;

<X> 1

- •

•f»»

-•e

O —

.■^^

T— (

<>,

■^ 3

<»

;i^

irt

t— 1 T— 1 th :

'c:

i»

'-f T-H lo :

i^ o CD :

-i<

«^

T— 1 Cl Oi

T-i (M (M :

r-(

■S*

-73

C/J

&»
>»

'*C3

^— ^

03 1

Not of age.
Non-residen

do.
Non-resistry

CTi

"s.

rSli^ M

a be be

^ww

S'^ 'a

fei

C< Si C3

t-^

>P^

^f:

i 1

t^ t^-

O T-H

•d

0'>

fiJ

rf)

T—l

t-,

•r-\

<15

3
u

f-r

b«

T-(

■^

b- CO

CO • fcC
o O o

a
o

tzi

-a

bJD

CO
CO

3 «

1- H

r-l

-J

■4.J

;-i

1— (

3
Sh
CO

r-5

tJ3

a-p

t-,

5£

CO -f
CO CO

o a->

-^ la ^
a CO fc^
o a is

a g.2

c! . — o

^ V "r
g § 3

00
00

tX) o

a
C.5

O D

T-i "bfi
10 s

= W

I -

S >

O Si

CUBTIN VS. YOCUM.

s
■^

^i:

?^«

E-i

fti

5rs

• ^

■^

,__

•)-^

|»

"»<>

Crj

5»

5?i

■

fcM

[-1

1—1

G-

. GO

o „

CO S

-3 3

3 C

S>^

>^o

-t-

t^ „

t^ a

a "S

•-3 3

1=^

3 1

C3 O

.— o

o u

se ,^

OCJ

a.
<

CO
tH

O
>H

C<1

3 P4

1-1 s

CD S

beg

•^

1—1

bJL

T-(

'T3

-4^

-i->

a:>

o
>

Oh
<1

o
o

« o

CD '}ia
o a

a'S

I -

a
o
o

>^
CO

3
Q

. OS
O C<1

CI-
<

. a

CD S-,

(M a

a'^
affi

I— I -*^

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CORRECTED RESULT IN UNION COUNTY.

Buffalo towuship

East Buf I'alo township

West Buftiilo township official

Gregg township official

Hartley township official

Hartleton township official

Kelley township official

Limestone township official

Lewis township official

Lewisburg borough — North ward..,

do. South ward...

do. West ward

Mifflinburg borough — East ward....

do. Westward...

New Berlin township official

Union township official

White Deer township official

Total.

Majority.

By Harding's Rule.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

141

174

170

106

142

115

106

122

133

166

102

127

170

146

i 51

1 59

1 70

i 60

149

229

1445

2085

640

By Mc Crary's Rule.

CURTIN.

122

106

115

122

123

136

YOCUM.

1398

193

173

142

106

133

166

102

174

150

242

2132

734

But should the committee come to the conclusion that the returns from
White Deer township should be thrown out this majority will be corrected ac-
cordingly. For the evidence on this point see printed testimony pages 1196
2996.

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

<»

0«

■^

o =:

a .
^■2

•2

pj«

».

O "0

JI"

ESH b£

—

•*

O
O

►"J

5f5

e
&»

;i3

;z;(z;

a S

^ a

eS O

OQoo

OO be

a 'S

o .
I '^

5E O

a t^

J^ilz;

a g

T5 i.

S',

-20

fl o

•eg

-«1

1-1 lO

<:d i-H

^ a

<U ='^

l^o

^>^

LO 'IS

lO S-
1-1 3

3 I
o a>

■^ a;

T-l 5

"is

1—1 -l^
cS ^

O >-

^ 3
OO

^
-^i

^ 3
[/J

-73
1—1

T-l ^

CO a

. t-
^ 3

a 1

CO .5

-i-'

c
>

o
>

fTl

5fi

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CO
CO

a
o

g'S

t— )

•2 ^M

1 ^

■is o3

.ss

1—1 1—1

1—1 P

T-l 3

0^ s

o-t

ID O

CCi-t

c<j t.

^ 3

-^o

3 1

-^ o

o . — <

O 3

!>H ^

-f fcfl

o a

1— t "^

a s-i

•t eS

o ^

-vJ

5P O

3
O

3 a

iz;

JZi

. -»

. o

-!l

1-1 C5

rH a

tUCk

c3>H

o '^

o t—

^-^ a

• >-i

I- 3

OS (J

3 cj

O '^

o ?

lo" bJC

t^ 3

3 'P

t^ o3

V^-^"

K O

s >

^7>

<=i 9.

.— a>

O S-,

m ^

a;
<1

3
O

tJD

.g-H

<-)

«8 o
GO

a
<

3
o
o

;=^ g

00 '

o tfl

rH 3

o
_ >

tp o
GG

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

«5

"t^

C<J

— 1

a ,

•■::<

■fii^

tfM

•0

j^O

ITI

•S

•-"i

fin

■rt*

551

-ts

"^ — '

<»

•~~»

<>^

Q
o

05 3

oi O

OJ ^

Oi CD

04 3

a 'a

I -

10
o

10"

T-H

Tfl

■Ti

1— 1

bf)

a->.

iTi

C/J

C75

CO
T-H

T— 1

-1

iXi

-TS

;«

>n3

•4-J

CURTIN V8. YOCUM.

a,
<

3
o

>~t B

■^

..<

"" — '

T-l

1—1

T— (

(rj"

1—1

■^

»k

1—1

o
1

1— I

a 'TS

-i->

o
>

•73

3
O

-:*<

1— (

Ci'

T— 1

-f

C/J

1— t

3
o

r-T

f>j

1—1

■«-*

(1)

o
>

-4-2

t.1

I.
o

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

CORRECTED RESULT IN MIFFLIN COUNTY.

By Harding^ s Rule.

CUBTIN. YOCUM.

By Mc Crary's Rule.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

Armagh towuship (old)

Armagh township (uew)

Bralton townshij)

Brown townsh i p

Decatur township

Derry to wush i p

Granville towuship

Lewistowu borough — East ward

do. West ward....

McVeytown borough official

Menuo towuship official

Newton Hamilton borough

Oliver township

Union township

Wayne township

Total

Majority.

104

107

196

152

184

167

109

113

123

124

142

172

115

171

155

119

153

1757

106

1651

172

158

187

174

109

115

127

1518

103

105

196

115

171

155

119

1432

But should the committtee come to the conclusion that the returns from
the townships of Old Armagh and Union should be thrown out, this majority
will be corrected accordingly. For the evidence on this point see printed tes-
timony as follows : As to Old Armagh township page 1126 ; Union township
page \VaQ.

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

GENERAL RESULT IN THE DISTRICT.

Official Vote.

By McOrary's Bide.l

By Harding's Bule.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

CURTIN.

YOCUM.

Centre county..
Clearfield " " ..
Clinton county.'

Elk county

Mifflin county..
Union county..

3535
3034
2565
1010
1782
1455

3486
2914
2264
803
1767

2220

3463
2932
2532
996
1518
1398

3318
2712
2180

692 ,
1432
2132

3519
2972
2525
998
1757
1445

3154
2672
2137
639
1651
2085

Total

13381

13454

12839

12466

■ 13216

12338

Majority

373

878

Official majority — Yocum 73.

Actual majority, McCrary's rule — Curtin 373.

Actual majority, Harding's rule — Curtin 878.

It will be observed that the above result has been reached without im-
peaching the regularity of the elections held for Benner township and Phil-
ipsburg borough, in Centre county, Woodward township and iloutzdale bor-
ough, in Clearfield county, or Horton township, in Elk county. As to these
districts, the contestee practically concedes the allegations of the contestant by
abandoning the official returns and undertaking to establish the true result of
the election, such as it was, then and there held by evidence aliunde. The
issue thus tendered was promj)tly accepted and a large amount of testimony
taken, to whicli we respectfully refer the committee. It will be seen that in
Woodward township, Clearfield county, the contestee was found to have
received a legal majority of but THREE votes, instead of the 91 fraudulently
returned for him. (See pages from 494 to 564, from 1785 to 1886, from 2219
to 2295, from 2193 to 2214, and fn^m 3408 to 3606.) In the borough of
Houtzdale, same county, instead of a returned majority for the sitting member
of 14, there were in fact 56 more legal votes proven to have been cast for the
contestant than for the contestee. (See pages 545 to 549, 1630 to 1650, 1806
to 1809, 2184 to 2311, and from 3427 to 3687.) As to Horton township. Elk
county, see pages 1058 to 1104 and 2606 to 2856, where the contestee again
signally failed to justify his returned majority. Considerable testimony
to the same effect was taken relative to Philipsburg borough and Benner
township, Centre county, to which we would invite the attention of the com-
mitter, were it not merely cumulative of a majority in favor of the contestant
already sufficiently decisive for all practical purposes.

But we must insist that the returns for White Deer township. Union county,
should be entirely excluded. The officers had just sworn and subscribed a sol-

64 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

emn oath that they "would not receive any ticket or vote from any person withou
requiring such evidence of the right to vote as is directed by law," that evidence
being the " written or partly vrritten and partly printed affidavits" of the
claimant himself, and also an " additional written or partly written and partly
printed affidavit of at least one qualified voter of the district," stating the facts
upon which the right to vote is claimed. (See Sec. 10, act January 30, 1874.)
And yet it is incontestibly proven that the election board of "White Deer
township not only omitted to exact this requirement, but deliberately passed
an official resolution to ignore and disregard it. (See printed testimony, page
1196, where one of the inspectors swears: " We did pass a resolution that we
would call NONE hut the person claiming to vote, and we would swear him
(them) and ask them questions concerning their right to vote without reguir-
ing any written or printed evidence either from the voter or any one else." Af-
ter thus formally and officially resolving to nullify one of the most vital pro-
visions of the election law of the State, and by so doing violate their official
oaths, they proceeded — not to hold a legal election — but to receive votes mi
the basis agreed upon, resulting in a majority of 115 for the sitting member,
42 more than the Official District Return under which he took his seat. Fur
ther comment is unnecessary.

APPENDIX.

UNREGISTERED VOTES, NOT PROVEN, IN TOWNSHIPS GIVING MA-
JORITIES FOR CONTESTEE.

BELLEFONTE BOROUGH, CENTRE COUNTY — WEST WARD.

iS'lLl ^'-^'^e of Voter.

No. on
Poll Lid.

Name of Voter.

Total.

87
76
98

Roland Craig,
Daniel Hoover,
Charles Hall,

79
80

Peter Foot,
Josiah Fute,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 174 and 205.

MILESBURQ BOROUGH, CENTRE COUNTY.

123

I. P. Boulcau,

119

John H. Hahn,

117

William Furcy,

Byers Price,

100

James Heverly,

115

I. W. Shope,

121

Isaac Sager,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 242 and 260.

HOWARD BOROUGH, CENTRE COUNTY.

James Morrison,

John B. Holder,

John A. McGee,

W. N. Neff,

J. B. Akers,

M. J. Hays,

George AV, Council,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 189 and 207.

PHILIP8BURG BOROUGH, CENTRE COUNTY.

141

Austin Atherton,

224

W. H. Imbodcn,

W. G. Bardry,

310

J. 15. Kernes,

205

J. C. Braden,

Henry Lehman,

John Grain,

320

William C. Lehr,

221

James Carter,

332

E. Plunimer,

294

Andrew Clare,

333

James Ryan,

John Fish,

313

James Trimmer,

133

Luicc Frank,

Orlando Weston,

308

John Ginghery,

248

James N. Way,

274

Isiah Hunt,

116

William M. Ross,

336

William Hess,

258

Haymer Saway,

209

T. C. Jones,

For poll an

d registry lists see printed te

stimony, pa

gos 287 and 391.

APPENDIX.

BURXSIDE TOWNSHIP, CEyTRE COUNTY.

Xo. on
Poll LiM.

Name of Voter.

Xo. 071 TkT f fT 1

Poll List. ^"'"""-^ ^'^-

Total.

48
50

1
Mont Askey,
George Roseucrans,

: 1

20 John Oliuger.

For poll and registr}- lists see printed testimony, pages 231 and 266.

FERGUSON TOWNSHIP, EAST PRECINCT. CENTRE COUNTY.

W. C. Myers,

D. W. Miller,
Wm Miller,
JonathaD Musser,
A. R. Markle,
J. H. Ro...
O. M. Whipple,
Henry Webb,
Jacob F. Weibly,
George Wilson,
R. P. Craig,

E. C. Frye,
Henry A. Garner,
George H. Woods,
J. C. Johnson,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, page? 248 and 274.

HALF MOON TOWNSHIP. CENTRE COUNTY.

Samuel J. Atlee,

F. G. Arehev,

119

240

A. G. Arehev,

133

W. H. Bennett,

' 166

231

W. H. Bumsarduer,

241

J. C. Eckel,

Andrew Firns,

196

Charles Fiwer,

George Griem, !

James Glasssow,

199

Daniel Harpster,

J. G. Hess, 1

49
118

125

J. C. Houser. :

186

George E. Harper,

280

S. K. Hess,

174

Adam H. Krumriue,

Ru.'^ell Bigelow, ^

, 127

Durbin Wrve,

John Cowfer,

128

J. W. Bean,

J. H. Deaver,

John ^r. C. Miller

David Miess,

118

J. F. Pavne,

Chas. Peary,

B. A. Swoop,

Frank Stevens,

137

T. W. Gray,

Wm. Wrve,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 234 and 201.

HUSTON TOWNTHUP, CENTRE COUNTY.

24 Charles Richards, 150 Stuart Reid,

59 j Charles Swisher, ' i

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 146 and 156.

HOWARD TOWNSHIP, CENTRE COUNTY.

116 i Wash. Daugenbaugh, 159 ! John Barklow,

28 ■ Jesse Lucas, 124 Wm. Chatman,

151 ! Alfred Shank, 174 : Hays Shank,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 195 and 20S.

APPENDIX.

PATTON TOWNSHIP, CENTRE COUNTY.

No. 011
Poll List.

42
98
75
57

Name of Voter.

Geo. W. Behrer,
Lau Beck,
Simon Nolen,
Harry Reeser,

No. oil
Poll List.

69
131

87
94

Name of Voter.

Alfred :\[iller,
T. G. Miller,
William Rockey,
Caleb Kepliart,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 221 and 258.

Total.

SNOW SHOE TOWNSHIP, CENTRE COUNTY.

I. A. Crissraan,

171

David McCloskey,

138

Pat'k Heatou,

John Redley,

161

John Harshberger,

144

Wm. Thompson,

200

Thomas Healy, Jr.,

147

Alfred Thompson,

194

Philip Krollraan,

H. M. Watson,

176

James Linn.

Philip Walker,

For poll an

d registry lists see printed te

stimony, pages 217 and 263.

SPRING TOWN8I

IIP, CENTJ

IE COUNTY.

383

Wm. H. Alters,

318

Abraham Hammett,

298

S. A. Bell,

397

Uriah Housel,

325

Wm. Bitler,

417

Israel Hoover,

400

Andrew Breon,

108

M. A. Kirk,

409

Wm. Barn hart,

370

Michael Kelly,

332

L. P. Cor man.

304

Richard Luitz,

346

John Gorman,

254

W. H. Mallory,

351

Chas. Gorman,

305

James Minich,

395

B. F. Creamer,

322

Jonathan NefF,

160

Wilson Davis,

328

John Osmer,

110

Andre Emil,

413

John Pease,

193

Henry Everly,

241

Wm. Rauckhauser,

282

Calvin Eckly,

355

Samuel Rice,

171

Stephen Frost,

378

Irwin Taylor,

324

Frank Folchert,

405

George Tress! er,

342

J. JSIilton Furey,

122

Saudford Wilson,

177

G. P. Gent7X'll,

209

George Eby,

222

David Hendershot,

279

G. W. Noll,

244

John Hines,

365

John Roundtree,

313

Ho. K. Hoy,

For poll an

d registry lists see printed te

5timony, pac

;e8 225Hnd 271.

TAYLOR TOWNS

HIP, CENTI

IK COUNTY.

Herbon Blowers,

Jonah Griffith,

T. G. Vaughn,

A. R. Price,

Daniel Moore,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 199 and 210.

APPENDIX,

DERRY TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

J. J. Akers,

101

Jacob Smith,

325

Stewart Albright,

361

J. Stuck,

345

Geo. W. Ayres,

417

James Smith,

Daniel Ayres,

372

W. Hewitt,

351

W. R. Price,

Jerry Janoe,

353

D. R. Price,

John Koou,

425

Win. Pretty leaf.

162

H. Kaley,

407

Jno. Pennypacker,

403

Saml. TomlisoD,

416

David Rupert,

105

Christ Miller,

257

James Bushman,

120

S. J. Myers,

258

R. Barger,

123

P. T. Mertz,

Homer Cropper,

173

Daniel Mowry,

W. Carln,

159

Millord Muthersbaugfe

John A. Cramer,

370

D. H. Meek,

S. Chesnut,

294

D. S. Price,

331

J. C. Cubbison,

303

A. J. Ready,

274

James Dreese,

306

W. H. Roges,

358

Thomas True,

310

J. S. Reddy,

145

R. C. Graham,

245

R. H. Stewart,

326

M. Garver,

261

S. Strail,

413

E. F. Gross,

206

W. R. Triester,

195

John Hall,

378

W. M. Temple,

375

M. C. Radcliff,

341

Geo. N. Ulsh,

Jacob Shoop,

330

W. H. Vanorman,

James Stewart,

989

Peter Wertz,

J. W. Sayer,

404

W. J. Yeager,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1133 and 1110.

121
89

156
23

NEW ARMAGH TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

170 Fredrick Pecht,

147 W. D. Ramsey,

37 Robert Shaw,

Daniel Krotzer,
Henry Miller,
James C. Negney
Charles E. Philips,

26 Uharles ii;. Jb'hilips, |

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1149 and 1120.

BROWN TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

George Bell,

175

W. E. McMinn,

John Bell,

201

G. F. Miller,

119

John A. Bowers,

173

H. T. Peters,

184

Bates Bell,

James Reed,

234

Silvester Ecard,

137

D. W. Reynolds,

M. R. Ferguson,

179

George Rights,

Jos. Galbraith, 1

James A. Swint,

113

Henry Harmon,

John H. Taylor,

126

John W. Hunt,

Foster Taylor,

John M. Tunison,

185

James Taylor,

APPENDIX.

BROWN TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY — CONTINUED.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

• Name of Voter.

Total.

155

158

171

Joseph Kelph,
Samuel Mills,
J. B. Morrison,
George Mull,

188
52

115
23

M. P. Weaver,
Simon K. Yoder, Sr.,
John D. Yoder,
H. G. You,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1143 and 1115.

NEWTON HAMILTON BOROUGH, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

J. W. Robinson,

22 j L. Hoi Hugs worth,
65 I J. S. Norton,
For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1147 and 1119.

DECATUR TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

166

Jacob C. Arnold,

213

James Bryant,

, 38

119

J. C. Burkholder,

J. W. Free,

179

H. J. Gross,

178

F. W. Grininger,

1 205

109

George Gardner,

149

David Hook,

212

122

John Heury,

103

135

Ellis Hummell,

138

136

Ceylon C. Hummell,

120

214

Hiram Harpster,

Robt. W. Ingram,
Levi Kerstetter,
Erastus Kemerling,
W. L. Muthersbaugh,
Simou W. Arnold,
Charles W. Oldt,
M. G. Kiggle,
Henry Raley,
Howard Strawp,
Luther Scott,
Philip PL Will,
Jas. Yetter,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1153 and 1113.

106

115

123

144

151

185

189

208

239

263

265

273

UNION TOWNSHIP,

Reuben Axe, Sr.,
Wm. F. Axe,
Isaac Axe,
Wm. G. Aultz,
Wm. W. Axe,
James Alexander,
Robert A. Alexander,!
Howard Alexander,
Peter Anthony,
Henry A. An round,
Reuben Axe, Jr.,
W. R. Alexander,
R. ]\[. Alexander,
Alfred Aultz,
C. C. Bennett,
Jonathan Y. Byler,
James N. Bennett,
Cyrus Brindle,

MIFFLIN COUNTY.

147

160

169

182

184

197

202

2l6

222

269

276

46
56

Samuel Kauffman,
John F. KaufFman,
Samuel Kucpp,
J. D. Kellv,
Christian Kauffman,
David H. Kauffman,
Sinison Kcnagy,
Wm. 11. Kosier,
Ellas Kenagy,
John H. Kurtz,
Jacob Koon,
H. A. Lantz,
W. O. Lantz,
J. J. La.shell,
J. P. V. Libkisher,
Samuel R. McClay,
Wm. McNabb,
Hon. Robt. P. McClay,

.a.j

irrrjiMj±.&.,

UNION TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY — CONTINUED.

No. on
Foil List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

87"

John C. Briudle,

Charles McNabb,

111

George Beck,

Samuel Macharaer,

119

James M. Bullick,

J. H. McClintic,

133

Elpha C. Biglow,

James T. Wills,

156

S. B. Byler,

113

J. H. McClay,

183

Jonathan L. Byler,

138

K. P. McClay, Jr.,

224

Richard Brindle,

157

J. D. McClinket,

228

Solomon U. Byler,

163

J, H. Morrison,

259

Emor N. Bulick,

J. A. McClure,

266

Levi K. Beyler,

174

H. W. Matterson,

267

Eli Byler,

191

D. A. McNabb,

170

Henry Bawel,

214

William J. McCauley.

277

Rudolph Byler,

235

James McCormick,

278

George Byler,

243

W. McCauley, Sr.,

Joseph Campbell,

272

Jessee McCollum,

Samuel Cogley,

W. C. Nelson,

Rev. R. Campbell,

203

Joseph Osborn,

John Carolus,

204

George W. Osborn,

104

James A. Conner,

238

Charles Osborn,

122

Robert Campbell,

141

Daniel Peters,

128

Williamson Cummins,

161

Jonathan Plank,

131

N. R. Kriger,

172

C. B. Peachy,

132

Robt Clinger,

210

Joseph Potts,

143

A. W. Campbell,

220

J. R. Peters,

158

J. 0. Campbell,

225

Samuel Y. Plank,

177

J. A. Campbell,

233

Christian E. Peachey,

196

R. D. Campbell,

Charles Rodgers,

212

Milton Campbell,

Charles Rodgers, Sr.,

240

John Clinger,

114

William Rusler,

242

Samuel Clinger,

155

Lemuel Rusler,

250

John Carson,

187

Wm. G. Roper,

255

Alonzo Russler,

200

Lewis Reel,

258

George Corolus,

205

John Koser,

274

Willis Clinger,

192

Joseph L. Roper,

Robert Dixon,

244

Samuel M. Riden,

226

Jacob K. Detwiler,

M. D. Snyder,

246

David J. Detwiler,

J. D. Stroup,

Henry Evans,

George Smith,

213

Amos Ealy,

112

John Saukey,

A. L. Focht,

117

Levi W. Smith,

John Fultz,

146

William Smith,

254

John Ealy,

221

John A. Steele,

Adam Finkle,

232

Lawrence Stroup,

David Fultz,

245

Edward Stump,

Rev. David J. Foulk,

251

Adam Steely,

W. W. Focht,

253

James Scott,

Isaac Frankhouser,

268

Benjamin Smoke,

Henry Fox,

George Trostle, ,

APPENDIX.

UNION TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY — CONTINUED.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

100

Rev. Moses Floyd,

Henry P. Taylor,

126

Michael Fox,

Pat Troy,

178

Jacob Finkle,

199

A. M. Thomas,

217

Dr. J. B. Floyd,

173

Hampton Utts,

252

Samuel G. Fultz,

Isaac Wartmau,

275

Samuel Finkle,

David Weiler,

W. C. Gardner,

William Wagner,

JoliH Gihbony,

150

R. A. Willis,

A. G. Gibbouy,

162

Adam Wudemau,

A. B. Garner,

206

J. W. Wilson,

John Gillilaud, Jr.,

219

Willis C. Willis,

Levi C. Glass,

230

Henry AVithers,

Charles B. Gibbouy,

Benjamin Yoder,

J. R. Garver,

Ben. P. Yoder,

137

Levi Glass, Sr.,

Jacob N. Yoder,

152

A. F. Gibbony, Sr.,

Jonathan K. Yoder,

175

S. G. Gillilaud,

Solomon K. Yoder,

198

E. B. Grassmer,

Wesley Young,

207

S. W. Gillilaud,

Christ. G. Yoder,

231

William Gibbouy,

Israel T, Yoder,

249

Wesley Gooden,

Christian H. Yoder,

256

Howard Gibbouy,

Levi B. Yoder,

264

Wm. T. Gross,

Christian Z. Yoder,

Samuel Haffley,

Levi D. Yoder,

Miles Haffley,

105

Samuel K. Yoder,

Levi Hostetter,

107

Jonathan N. Yoder,

Edward Harmau,

109

John L. Yoder,

W. J. Haffley,

Isaac K. Yoder,

Wm. B. Hurraan,

120

David Young,

Jesse W. Hortou,

130

Richard Young,

H J. Hortou,

135

Abraham Yoder,

G. G. Harm an,

139

Peter Yoder,

Adam Hartzler,

153

Johu H. Young,

Jos. B. Hostetter,

J 59

John H. Yoder,

101

Clinton Haffley,

166

David H. Yoder,

108

Joseph Hobaugh,

154

James Young,

110

David K. Hooley,

168

Johu N. Yoder,

118

Solomon Heninger,

176

Daniel C. Yoder,

121

A. C. Heunerson,

488

Yost Yoder, Sr.,

124

M. F. Hudson,

236

Joseph C. Yoder,

125

Solomon Harmau,

241

Jacob Young,

129

David Hostetter,

260

Christian P. Yoder,

142

Joseph Y. Hostetter,

262

Levi Z. Yoder,

148

Wesley Hemiuger,

Jacob Y. Zook,

171

John Hayes, Sr.,

Daniel Zook,

179

Levi G. Hartzler,

Benjamin Zook,

186

John Harkness,

Jacob B. Zook,

195

Jacob Hull,

Jonathan S. Zook,

APPENDIX.

UNION TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY — CONTINUED.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

201

Joseph Haffley,

Moses F. Look,

211

S. C. Haffley,

Simon K. Zook,

237

Lewis Harmon,

102

John P. Zook,

• 248

Solomou Z. Hartzler,

136

David H. Zook,

257

Yost Hartzler,

140

Jacob Zook,

261

Jonah Hayes,

167

Solomon Zook,

271

James Hayes,

180

John G. Zook,

279

Christ Hooley,

154

Christ. J. Zook,

181

Wra. S. Jones,

1 34

Isaac Horton,

B. F. Klepper,

209

Joel Zook,

Wilson Knepp,

218

Enoch A. Zook,

103

John B. Kautfman,

227

John D. Zook,

134

George Koser,

253

For poll an

d registry lists see printed te

stimony, pa

ges 1156 and 1122.

OLD ARMAGH TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

Peter Barefoot,

114

Robert Cummins,

A. A. Brown,

117

Samuel Culberson,

W. F. Alexander,

123

H. J. Close,

142

Hugh Aitkens,

135

James N. Carson,

134

Lot Armstrong,

164

Isaac Coldren,

212

C. R. Alexander,

166

W. G. Carson,

216

R. B. Alexander,

167

J. H. Camp,

John Barger,

169

J. M. Crissman,

162

Ed. Krichbaum,

170

Saml. D. Coldren,

132

Isaac Bobb,

186

Austin E. Coleman,

168

Leonard Barger,

199

William Coldren,

177

Peter Bailey,

228

John Chamberlain,

181

E. A. Barger,

241

Samuel E. Close,

195

Frank B. Baker,

250

W. T. Close,

233

S. S. Barger,

James Davis,

238

A. F. Black,

James Davis,

L W. Coplin,

S. V. Dye,

John Coutner, Jr.,

Thomas Depo,

Owen Coplin,

118

Wash Delauey,

G. W. Crissman,

180

Elias Dean,

John Camp, Sr.,

201

J. P. Derr,

James Contner,

203

W. S. Dellett,

W. H. Culberson,

234

J. I. Dellett,

A. E. Close,

W. H. Ebaugh,

153

S. S. Cottle,

156

Wm. Ehrnfield,

111

Thomas Close,

184

Jacob R. Elliott,

193

J. N. Emill.

174

Lewis Houser,

Jos. D. Forrey,

C. Hartmau,

David Felmly,

103

Joseph Hoar,

Robert Forrey,

140

Thomas B. Henry,

127

Jacob Felmly,

145

Joseph Hassenplug,

APPENDIX.

OLD ARMAGH TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY — CONTINUED.

'No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

L. M. First,
G. W. Fleck,
William Grem,
John N. Gwinu,
Walter Graham,
John D. Gommill,
Levi Gearheart,

D. S. Graham,
A. W. Graff,
John Gemill,
Adam Greer,
Uriah S. Hoar,
W. P. Henry,

E. P. Harvey,
Samuel F, Henry,
O. P. Harpster,
Ezra M. Hoopes,
Nelson Hoar,
John Hunter,
Perry Hassiuger,
John Havice,
Samuel J. Havice,
John Hall,

W. C. Linthurst,
Samuel Lirabert,
Samuel Linthurst,
John P. Linthurst,
John Magary,
John Mabin,
W.C. McClenahen,
James C. McNitt,
H. McCliutic,
Thompson McManigal
Jacob Maben,
Samuel McClay,
Andrew Maben,
David Maben,
P. B. Moore,
Chrisley Myers,
D. F. Moore,
Thomas B. McNitt,
John McDowell,
James McNitt,
Henry Moore,
F. McClintic,
John L. McNitt,
Wm. H. McLenahan,
Wm. McClintic,

No. on
Poll List.

112
124
175
190
202
208
213
198
209
219
230
109
110
129
82
95
108
151
191
242
84
161
197
137
143
147
159
119
122
126
131
157
163
172
194
204
229
254
67
146
150
125
245
40
36
106
196
205

Name of Voter.

Adam Henry,
G. M. Havice,
Amos Hetrick,
Philip Hassenplug,
Abraham Harsbarger,
A. S. Harshbargar,
Joseph Hartman,
Wm. Hawk,
John Hartman,
C. Hooley,
J. T. Hassenplug,
Frederick Havice,
John W. Havice,
A. J. Johnson,
J. S. Killmer,
Saml. Kesler,
Emer Kibb,
Jacob Krise,
John Kohler,
W. C. Hosier,
Thomas Lougwell,
Henry Lehr,
G. W. Linthurst,
Samuel B. McNitt,
John C. McClintic,
Thompson McCormick
W. D. INIcNitt,
Elliott McDowell,
Eugene Miller,
Joseph Mouch,
Wm. McNitt,
G. McClenathan,
C. F. McCormick,
A. B. McNitt,
M, M. Naginey,
Joseph ]\rathews,
John Miller,
J. R. Maben,
John D. Naginey,
W. C. Naginey,
John R. Nale,
Samuel Neese,
W. W. Nale,
J. W. Ocker,
John B. Piatt,
John Pccht,
Frank Pecht,
Wm. Pecht,

Total.

APPENDIX.

(

DLD ARMAGH TOWNSHIP,

MIFFLIN <

:30UNTY — CONTINUED.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

101

James McManigal,

William Thompson,

107

C. B. McClenathan,

144

Albert Thompson,

John W. McClelland,

116

Ner. Thompson, ,

Wm. Payne,

179

Saml. P. Triester,

C. E. Ramsey,

183

James Thompson,

John Rapp,

220

Jake Triester,

104

Lewis Reed,

248

0, B. Thompson,

139

Joseph Kamer,

Warner Underwood,

141

J. L. Russler,

138

Newton Underwood,

152

Hamilton Ramsey,

William Wilkey,

115

Daniel Ramer,

David Wylan,

133

John Riden,

Alexander Wray,

182

George Reed,

Joseph Wagner,

192

W. I. Rusler,

Henry C. Worley,

214

Fernando Rogers,

S. S. Wagoner,

218

E. M. Russle,

Wm. Wylan,

John A. Shoemaker,

John W. White,

S. G. Shannon,

100

Samuel Worley,

Josiah Showalter,

136

James Wylan,

W. A. Sterrett,

148

Lawrence Wall,

Freman Shipton,

120

Isaac Ward,

128

Samuel Stringfellow,

130

Taylor Wagoner,

176

Reuben Stump,

171

Jacob Wagoner,

178

Henry Shirk,

221

Peter Woodburn,

185

H. P. Seigler,

222

T. M. Williamson,

188

Reed Sample,

237

W. Worrell,

215

W. E. Stringfellow,

246

G. W. Young,

225

S. R. Spangler,

H. A. Gwinn,

239

Joseph Stringfellow,

John Contner, Sr.,

249

F. E. Sunday,

R. J. McNitt,

Roland Thompson,

154

W. W. Dillett,

243

C. H. Williamson,

155

J. A. Cottle,

247

James Wagoner,

158

C. J. Ehrenfield,

James Rusler,

210

Cyrus Alexander,

John H. Rager,

251

Ewd. Ritter,

Moses Thompson,

252

Robert T. Close,

Ira Thompson,

23]

For poll ai

id registry lists see printed U

istimony, p£

iges 1139 and 1121.

ALLISON TOWNS

HIP, CLINI

DON COUNTY.

W. H. Bridgens,

Wm. Tidlow,

130

Harvey Keiffer,

156

John Logue,

145

Howard Witzell,

169

Isaac Fogel,

Geo. Esenwine,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 866 and 845.

APPENDIX.

COLEBROOK TOWNSHIP, CLINTON COUNTY.

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 866 and 840.

No. on
Poll Lid.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

50
17
45

Patrick Donahay,
M. L. Eaton,
John Murphy,

38
15

C. F. Earon,
Wm. Grugan,
Thoma.s Ryan,

LEIDY TOWNSHIP, CLINTON COUNTY.

James Couch,

Scott Dickenson,

Daniel Glosner,

Charles Dodge,

Samuel Nelson,

M. K. Nelson,

Baxter Roberts,

Nicholas Watt,

Milton Summerson,

John Wilson,

Davies Walters,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 884 and 854.

BENEZETT TOWNSHIP, ELK COUNTY.

Geo. Daugherty,

112

Robert Jones,

T. J. Lewis,

John Mahen,

124

126

John IMiller,

107

Abner Ober,

131

114

John Ober,

129

David Schwertd,

104

R. J, Wiuslow,

John Tattle,
Thonias Boyle,
James Biglan,
Hugh Brennen,
William English,
John H. Fink,
L. D. Hawley,
Samuel Rathburn,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 969 and 964.

FOX TOWNSHIP, ELK COUNTY.

Charles Brandmiller,

161

Cornelius McCusker,

148

Joseph Brahm,

261

Peter Ponser,

233

John Brown,

Eugene Thompson,

239

Isaac Brown,

253

Ephraim Denton,

Anthony O'Chase,

220

Edward Goodman,

John Copelli,

James H. Keeley,

250

Thomas Craig,

157

Andrew Lintner,

156

Frank W. Clafferty,

269

Thomas Thomas,

Wellington Emmett,

141

John Wonderly,

212

Samuel Kelly,

272

Thomas Moriarty,

poll an

d registry lists see printed te

atimony, pa

ges 971 and 956.

HORTON TOWl

*SHIP, ELI

C COUNTY.

128

E. C. Bennett,

Richard Himes,

Lewis Frants,

John Hyatt,

Isaac Graham,

116

Henry Halst,

103

George W. Gardner,

Henry Yale,

For poll and registry lists see printed tostimony, pages 973 and 903.

APPENDIX.

JAY TOWNSHIP, ELK COUNTY.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

Wm. J. Erieg,

Charles J. West,

Patrick M. Pike,

James A. Burke,

T. F. Furley,

Edwin W. Gray,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 975 and 963.

RIDGEWAY TOWNSHIP, ELK COUNTY.

350

John Anderson,

179

William McChesney,

Joseph Black,

Frank Paullman,

206

Charles Brack,

313

A. J. Parker,

307

Fred Baretzsky,

224

Charles Quinn,

Pat'k Collins,

254

C. P. Guinn,

178

Thomas Conlin,

James Harm,

347

Henry Iloff,

254

Fred'k Hemke,

211

Henry Dahlor,

118

Jacob Steis,

216

John Dolan,

329

Jerry Sheean,

292

John Dallenback,

138

Henry Warner, Jr.,

Michael Egler,

280

Jno. Boyle,

129

Dennis Flynn,

Dennis Healy,

262

Swen Froberg,

339

Henry Iloff,

230

D. Farrell,

347

Henry 11 off,

J. M. Gillette,

240

Taylor Rhine,

256

Christian Lindgren,

107

Joseph D. Stone,

Peter Mann,

231

John Schilk,

For poll an

d registry lists see printed testimony, pages 978 and 965.

JONES TOWNSHIP, ELK COUNTY.

167

Victor Abot,

Marshe Myers,

125

Daniel Craukin,

Michael Myers,

156

Louis Van Flick,

Tim Moser,'

151

John Henderson,

Peter Myers,

180

John Hausman,

174

Fen O'Garry,

181

Lome Hertzman,

165

George Powers,

Edward Johnson,

Frank Wauk,

Martin Lowe,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 976 and 959.

SPRING CREEK TOWNSHIP, ELK COUNTY.

Mathew Chandley,

Lester Schools,

J. H. Carbon,

Wake Brockway,

Saml. Hildebrant,

John Lahive,

James Q. Sweeny,

George D. Messenger,

John Kelso,

Jacob Wingard,

Levi L. Miller,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 981 and 965.

APPENDIX.

WHITE DEER TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY.

No. on
Foil List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

Martin Broward,

360

Jacob F. Erdlcy,

Richard Beuuage,

104

John S. Miller,

142

George Botiu,

214

James W. Noll,

164

John Bitting,

198

J. M. Bawling,

372

Jno. L. Bitting,

292

James Brcssler,

400

Sim Biddle,

317

Saml. J. Ranck,

371

E. Cramer,

W. P. Ritter,

293

Alfred Dennis,

265

John Stadden,

373

John Erb,

407

Jacob J. Katherman,

288

Wm. R. Tollmer,

J. A. Sanders,

252

R. M. Griffy,

John J. Smith,

278

J. N. Guyer,

136

Geo. W. Scheuery,

110

Geo. U. Hertz,

183

Saml. P. Smith,

215

Wm. T. Huff,

221

John Trait,

228

H. R. Hutchison,

H. A. Weless,

Daniel Kolp,

James Ziglcr,

David Kawk,

403

J. R. Runk,

135

Phaus Koser,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1230 and 1234.

BUFFALO TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY.

30
85

183

238

245

254

262

339

316

150

169

194

244

251

280

281

284

297

353

J. F. Brown,
Jack Bottiger,
Geo. W. Bigler,
J. K. Berkamer,
David Beaver,
Jack Benjamin,
J. W. Grouse,
Solomon Clase,
Lewis Dauberman,
Reuben Feasted,
W. R. Gerhard,
W. F. Glover,
Saml. H. Himraelreick
Wilson Herman,
Flert Hauck,
John Hafer,
Joseph Harman,
Ellis Heimbach,
Israel Helrig,
Clarence Hauck,
Samuel Hackenberg,
Jas. A. Hackenberg,
John Hoy,
Calvin Horael,
Geo. A. Turner,

405

228

190

325

184

225

141

271

311

219

163

246

263

302

315

360

158

278

285

Jacob S. Helvick,
Wm. L. Irwin,
Daniel Joels,
Joseph Lebard,
J. P. Miller,
G. F. Miller,
H. B. Rilly,
Isaac Ruhl,
Wm. A. Walter,
Solomon Renner,
James Rigel,
Henry Rcimert,
J. W. Spangler,
Wilson Smith,
Lewis Shaffer,
Simon Snyder,
William Stoot,
Jacob Yj. Shrader,
XJlrich Strickler,
Johnson Shell,
Charles Steniger,
Jacob Weinghard,
William Wolfe,
Wm. C. Wixongaren,

451

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1238 and 1241.

14^

APPENDIX.

EAST BUFFALO TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

22
151
107
147
138
117

James Beacham,
Milton Brouse,
Albert Dewire,
W. B. Ervin,
Frederick Micely,
John G. Smith,

75
211
172
187
235

John G. Smith,
Charles Schruck,
Isaac Young,
David Young,
Francis E. Brown,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1223 and 1225.

LEWISBURG BOROUGH, UNION COUNTY — WEST WAED.

120

143

36
49
33

Geo. M. Bennett,
John H. Betzer,
Samuel Brocius,
Frekerick Davis,
W. T. Grier,
John H. Gray,
Leopold Koch,

28
29
30
107
6
92

William Lloyd,
Noah Lloyd,
John Lloyd,
William Lloyd,
Wm. W. Musser,
Thomas F. Stannard,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1220 and 1221.

LEWISBURG BOROUGH, UNION COUNTY — SOUTH WARD.

S. C. Carroll,

233

J. C. Catherman,

180

C.L. Fry,

187

Wilfred Gerhard,

John Hauck,

James Knittle,

120

Josh Neyhart,

227
198
147
175
140
148

P. B. Stahl,
Brady Thompson,
H. C. Wolfe,
A. (C.) Waldron,
J. T. Gallagher,
H. C. Hall,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1215 and 1217.

LEWISBURG BOROUGH, UNION COUNTY — NORTH WARD.

177

L. R. Asten,

117

W. B. Hefelfinger,

303

Joseph Burris,

W. S. Lineback,

190

Jacob Defrain,

192

Wm. Thomas,

104

Samuel Torum,

J. F. Walker,

118

Miles Irwin Greenwalt,

114

H. N. Wendel,

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 1208 and 1211

APPENDIX.

BURNSIDE TOWNSHIP, CLEARFIELD COUNTY.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

Bee, Jacob

159

NefF, Gideon

192

Bates, F. C.

233

Nichtly, John

209

Brother, Charles

Penticofi", Jacob

Brickley, Jerry

Rummell, Charmsbus

Dunmier, Peter

175

Riley, J. C.

Fulton, Albert

Stiffler, Peter J.

179

Fulton, Daniel

Smead, Henry

188

Fry, Amos B.

Souman, Harrison

251

Good, Amos

^' 100

Selring, Abner B.

205

liultou, Edward

; 101

Selring, Wm. C.

Keira, Daniel

.' 151

Smead, Jackson

Kneedler, Joseph

■ 240

Thompson, Aaron

223

Kane, Harry

, : 158

Westover, Wm.

190

Laugdon, David

191

Walls, Johnson

Millison, Samuel

260

Westover, John E.

Nichtly, Henry

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 719 and 714.

GULICH TOWNSHIP, CLEARFIELD COUNTY.

Ausborn, Aaron

150

Bowers, John

118

Croyle, Philip

175

Croyle, Wm.

154

Elliott, E.

138

Fulkerson, S. 0.

124

Fox, Fred.

Foster, Joseph

155

112

Flynn, Daniel

132

Gibuey, Benjamin

170

Ginter, James
Hunter, John
KnofFs, Saul
McFarling, Robt.
Osborn, Hugh
Rebmes, Wm., Sr.
Stiles, Edward
Sedswick, J. M. B.
Tipton, Mathew
Tipton, Wm.

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony, pages 726 and G55.

WOODWARD TOWNSHIP, CLEARFIELD COUNTY.

146

Albot, Jackson

Freeman, John

Brewer, D. H.

187

Fanney, Peter

Boyer, A. D.

Goss, A. J.

243

Bowen, Richard

Gyles, Edward

Canty, P. M.

Greaves, Cartwright

164

Croyle, Jeff.

173

Gould, John

190

Casey, Michael

209

Garrity, Joseph

218

Carl, William

266

Gill, J. W.

303

Davis, T. P.

230

Garrett, Joseph

Denny, Joseph

Hamil, James

124

Delauder, John

Higgins, Joseph

134

Donovan, Daniel

253

Harrison, Joseph

193

Edy, W.

264

Haines, Edward

227

Elridge, Burton

267

. Higgins, S. G.

APPENDIX.

WOODWARD TOWNSHIP, CLEARFIELD COUNTY — CONTINUED.

No. on
Poll List

293
119
162
217
162
201
220
154
225
21
156
213
263
18
26
24
120
166
282
284
9
16
109
125
142
179
183
186
197
202
232
258
261
277

Name of Voter.

Hoffman, John
Hull, Anthony
Hill, William
Hill, Levi C.
John, William
John, William T.
Jenkins, Geo.
JandaJy, Joseph
James, Thomas
Kline, Oscar
Kephart, Joseph
Kline, Allen
Kelly, D. J.
Kneppenburgcr, Hiram
Kanlen, John S.
Lacey, James
Luzier, Abraham
Larrigan, Thos.
Lloyd, Edward, Jr.
Loffard, Joseph
McHenry, D. M.
Miles, S. W.
Maxton, A. P.
McGuire, John, Sr.
Miller, Jeremiah
Mullaney, Thomas
McMouigal, David
Morris, Hugh
Mobart, John
McHugh, A. J.
McHugh, E. M.
Magee, John
Maher, Edward
Martin, Joseph

For poll and registry lists see printed testimony,

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

279

Morgan, Richard

280

McFilony, Edward

281

McGowan, Frank

298
311

McArchy, Daniel
McGrath, James E.

312

169

Maher, Joseph D.
Neff, A. G.
Norton, C. L.

180

Nollern, John

229

O'Connell, John

275

Owens, Roger

143

Palmer, John

Rowles, J. M.

Ross, Ferm

150
296

Reese, Joseph
Rosevere, William

301
295

Rowley, H. C.
Reese, John D.

Smith, G. W.

56
59

Shoff, Bigler
Stone, M. W.

Stabband, Walter

153

Sullivan, James

188

Steele, Thomas

274

Strout, Joseph

107

Tate, John

211

Tobin, Richard

255

Vlance, William

226
94

Waterson, Joseph
Westover, Aaron

196

Weeble, F. C.

278

Watkins, James

297

Whitehead, Robert

307
stimony, pa

Williams, T. S.

ges 640 and 657.

APPENDIX.

GIRARD TOWNSHIP, CLEARFIELD COUNTY.

No. on
Foil List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

Geo. W. Wilson,

Thomas Thompson,

Ephraim Wetzel,

Joseph Leigey,

Jacob Shope,

Daniel Stover,

Henry Rousey,

Moses Thompson,

Eraiei Rougeux,

For poll an

d registry lists, see printed testimony pages 634 and 651.

GRAHAN TOWNSHIP, CLEARFIELD COUNTY.

George C. Forcey,

John Enright,

Henry Hubler,

Daniel Collar,

T. Hubler,

John Deanly,

W. H. Lansbery,

M. B. Smeal,

A. G. Herren,

105

L. H. Pace,

James H. Hurael,

113

Isaiah Smeal,

AV. M. Shemel,

122

Peter A. Lansbery,

Henry Hurael,

For poll an

d registry lists, see printed testimony pages 712 and 665.

LOCK HAVEN — FIRST WARD, CLINTON COUNTY.

164

A. J. Brown,

107

Winslow Poorman,

309

Perry Bird,

385

J. H. Rodig,

251

G. H. Caldwell,

Sigismund Siraonds,

271

John M. Fry,

215

Albert Sheid,

263

Frank Herd,

252

Richard Shradt,

261

P. Keller,

256

Gotlieb Smith,

267

John Ordner,

332

Henry Smith,

E. L. Packer,

134

C. A. Wise,

John Probst, Sr.,

211

Henry Yearick,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 900 and 855.

LOCK HAVEN — THIRD WARD.

113

Thomas Crowly,

242

237

Martin Carey,

230

224

Adolph Gans,

CLINTON COUNTY.

Peter Jacoby,
George McDermott,
W. A. Simpson, Jr.,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 905 and 858.

LOCK HAVEN — FOURTH WARD. CLINTON COUNTY.

285 I Samuel Snyder, [| |

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2537 and 2597.

BALD EAGLE TOWNSHIP, CLINTON COUNTY.

50 I B.F. Bottorff, |! 124 | H. C. Niles,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 874 and 847.

BEECH CREEK TOWNSHIP, CLINTON COUNTY.

73 I W.L.Miller, || |

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2525 and 2578.

APPENDIX.

CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP, CLINTON COUNTY.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

No. on
Poll List.

Name of Voter.

Total.

146
28
36

144
14
99

103

Henry Donly,
Isaac Hurd,
V. J. Howard,
Durell Johnson,
Jacob E. Kline,
William Keller,
Fremont Kinley,

90
37
26
105
120
121
140

Charles R. Miller,
Wm. Percing,
Samuel Shampane,
Rudolph Slifer,
George Snyder,
Edward Smith,
James Weudall,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2521 and 2582.

152

193

153

PINE CREEK TOWNSHIP, CLINTON COUNTY.

M. F. Cryder.
Charles A. Fry,
Albert Ferguson,
Charles Henry,

172

Robert Kissell,
Wm. A. Kissell,
Nelson Rouck,
Samuel M. Simmons,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2566 and 2579.

159
166

LEWISTOWN — EAST WARD.
133

MIFFLIN COUNTY.

Smith, James W,

Clark, John C,
Yearick, David,
For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2919 and 2945.

MIFFLIN COUNTY.

McCook, George,
Reese, Edward,

177
160

Rodgers, Samuel,

LEWISTOWN — WEST WARD.

Corbett, George, | 170

Dunkinson, Samuel,
Glazier, Wm. H,
Miller, Scott,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2914 and 2942.
BRATTON TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

150 I Kauffman, J. A, || 130 | Miller, B. J,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2924 and 2948.

83
248

39
322

252
186
246

GRANVILLE TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

Barclay, J. C,
Crum, Simpson A.,
Crisswell, Thomas,

96
107
178

Pennypacker, S. E,
Shoemaker, John A,
Steely, Jacob S,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2932 and 2952.
OLIVER TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

169 I Allen, J. H, || 158 | Rhodes, J. K,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2937 and 2954.

WAYNE TOWNSHIP, MIFFLIN COUNTY.

Rhodes, Samuel T,

173 j Clemens, George,
24 j Harsbarger, Joseph,
For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2928 and 2950.

BENZINGER TOWNSHIP, ELK COUNTY.

114

Frank Buckhite,

Michael Neubert,

323

Stephen Busk,

128

Valentine Neubert,

Joseph Hahn,

Rev. Sigfried,

155

Martin Johnson,

242

Herman Stockman,

For poll and registry lists, see printed testimony pages 2685 and 2857.

HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES,
FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS.

A. G. CURTIN

VS.

SETII H. YOCUM.

» I ^ I »

CONTESTED ELECTION FROM THE TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF

PENNSYLVANIA.

CONTESTEE' S BRIEF.

The principles of law appliealjle to this contest, and involved in this case,
are for the most part so plain, simple and elementary, that it would be
affectation on our part to cite authorities to maintain or sujjjjort them.

We seek not to disguise any portion of the proof, by any extended argu-
ment of the law, but invoke the attention of the committee specially to the
facts in evidence as showing how utterly groundless are tlie charges made by
the Contestant, and further as demonstrating clearly tliat Contestee was elected
by a majority more than double the official majority returned.

This conclusion will inevitably follow from a careful investigation of tlie
entire testimony in the cause.

In every investigation of this character it is reasonably to be expected
that those who are to sit in judgment upon the cjuestions involved, represent-
ing directly as they do the peoj)le, will be governed rather by that broad
common sense view of the case, which includes as well the real as tlie alleged
reasons for the contest, tlian by any technical process which would seize
upon some mere presumption antagonized by all the proof, or on some isolated
fact, as the basis of judgment.

This case, tried by thi« reasonable rule or test, we have no fear as to the
result. It will confirm the voice of the people as expressed at the polls on
the 5th day of November, A. D., 1878, and ofiicially embodied iu the certifi-
cate issued to Seth H. Yocum, the sitting member.

What was the real cause of the defeat of the Contestant by the people at
the late election? If there was a clear, obvious and decided reason why
contestant could not succeed in the attempt before the people to secure a seat
in Congress, it has much to do in explaining the reduced vote and majorities
for Contestant in manv of the election precincts in this congressional district.

2 CUR'I'IN VS. VOCIJM.

It will be ob.scrved thuttlio reasons assigned, in the notice of contes^t, are that
in some way (not explained by him) there were so many frauds perpetrated
upon him, and such cxv.nbinations of fraud massed against him, that he
failed to have a fair and legal mode of securing his election. This is, in this
connection, worthy of note, that these alleged frauds did not affect any other
candidate on the same ticket.

The election on the 5th of November, A.D. 1878, was a State election, in
which the people of Pennsylvania were called upon to vote for a Governor ;
it was thus such an election as to bring out the full vote.

This congressional district is composed of six (6) counties. The majority
for A\ H. Dill, Democratic nominee for Governor, over Governor Hoyt, in
the same district, was three thousand seven hundred and thirty-two (3732).
A comparison of the vote for Governor with Contestant's vote for member of
Congress, shows that many who voted for Dill refused to vote for Contestant.
This will, of itself, show a division in the Democratic party as to the congres-
sional nominee. There was also a Greenback candidate for Governor — Mr.
JNIason — who received a large vote in the same district. For Congress there
Avere but two (2) nominees, namely, the sitting member, who was the regular
nominee of the National-Greenback party, and who also received the entire
vote of the Republican party — they having declined to make a nomination
against him ; while Contestant was the nominee of the Democratic party,
which nomination caused a division in the party itself to such an extent that
many Democrats declined to vote for him, and were active in opposition to
him, and some of the leading Democratic organs in the district refused to
announce his name as a candidate, or support him, while a large proportion of
those who did vote for him, did so reluctantly.

The reason of this political division consisted in the fact that Contestant
was not recognized as a Democrat by the masses of the party, whose candi-
date he was. Hence the defeat and the reason of it.

This important factor, standing, as it does, at the very threshhold of this
contest, and explanatory of its character and merits, is so Avell understood
and universally known, and so much a part of the history of the contest
itself^ that any direct testimony to establish it would seem to be unnecessary ;
but if required, Ave refer to the tabulated statement of the ofiicial result in
this district, and to the following pages of the printed testimony (page 580.)

What are the qualifications of an elector in Pennsylvania ? They are
found in Section I, Article 8, Constitution of 1873, as follows : " Every male
" citizen twenty-one (21) years of age, possessing the following qualifications,
" shall vote at all elections.

" I. He shall be a citizen of the United States at least one month.

" 11. He shall have resided in the State one year (or if having previ-
" ously been a qualified elector or native-born citizen of the State, he shall
" have removed therefrom and returned thereto six months) immediately
"preceding the election.

" III. He shall have resided in the election district, where he shall offer
" to vote, at least two months immediately preceding the election.

" IV. If twenty-tv;o years of age or upwards he shall have paid, within
" two years, a State or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least
" two months, and paid at least one month before the election."

The qualifications of electors under the Constitution of Pennsylvania are
five in number, namely : 1st, Age. 2d, Citizenship of the United States for
at least one month. 3d, State residence for at least one year immediately
prior to the election ; unless previously a qualified elector, then six (6)
months. 4th, District residence for at least two months immediately prior
to the election. 5th, Payment of taxes within two years, which shall have

CURTIN VS. VOCUM. 3

been assessed two months, or more, iind paid one juontli.or more, prior to the
election.

As is stated by contestant in liis 1)ricf', there will probal)ly be no dispute
as to the first three qualifications above named.

As to the 4tli (jualification, namely : District resilience, \vc do not deny
the construetion contended i'or by contestant, that residence means domicii,
and that if a man have his domicii in an election district for two months im-
mediately ])rior to the election, he responds to this qualification ; and if he
has not, he then fails in one of the requisites of a legal votei".

Residence is a question of intention, and so defined by all authorities.

The material in(iuiry in any controverted case is, how is that intention to
beshowu? and among different kinds of proof, which proof is to be given
the greatest weight? The acts and conduct of the party at the time it is al-
leged he gained or lost his residence, or his testimony as to what his intent at
the time was. If the latter rule be adopted, then the votei", interested as he
always is, in sustaining his vote when attacked, has it in his power upon a
friendly cross-examination to establish his residence in the district where he
voted ; when upon the contrary every fact and circumstance connected with,
or attending the removal from the old, or the acquisition of a new residence,
contradict him.

"We contend that the former test, that is, the acts and conduct of the
party at the time, arc of much more value, in determining the fact, than his
testimony after he voted, and when his vote is attacked, as to his intent.
Sec McDaniel's case, Brightly's Leading Cases on Elections, Page 246.

While residence is a question of intention, yet under the laws of Penn-
sylvania that residence, which is requisite to a voter, is defined to be, a resi-
dence in pursuit of one's latuful calling, or the place where he attends to his
ordinary civil rights and duties, and this upon the principle, that there is the
place where he is best known. (See Allentown Election Case, 8 Philadel-
phia Reports, Page 575). (Taylor vs. Redding, 4th Brewster, Page 439).

As to the Fifth qualification, the payment of a tax. That a payment of
tax by the voter is requisite, is undisputed. The only /'oint in controversy is
as to wliat amounts to payment, within the meaning of the Constitution of
Pennsylvania ? It is conceded by contestant's argument, (Page G), that pay-
ment nuiy be made by an agent of the voter, provided the voter ratifies the
act of the agent at least one month prior to the Election. To this latter
proposition we do not assent, lie tnaintain that the voter may ratify the act
of the agent in paying the tax at any time prior to his depositing his vote in the
Ballot Box, even on the day of the Election. And further, that the act of the
voter in voting upon such payment of tax by another, knowing the same to
have been paid, in the absence of other evidence impeaching the payment,
is evidence of ratification^gif/a)'/;;^/// of taxes by an agent subsequently rati-
fied by the Elector, is a sufficient qualification.

Dauphin County Election, 32 Legal Intelligencer, Page 59 ; Marshall
vs. Baldwin, ibid 20S.

And such has been the uniform decisions of the Courts of Philadelphia,
upon cases in which this precise (juestion was in issue.

In the registration of voters, the law requires a personal application to
the Assessor by the voter ; but in the Constitution requiring the payment of
the tax, and the Registry act, e xaotia g the provisions of the Constitution, it ^
is nowhere rc(iuired to be paid l)y the hand of the voter. If therefore the ^
act be done, within the proper time, the spirit and policy of the law have '^
been complied with. A minor, on arriving at age, may ratify a promise
made during his minority, and the sa ti fc ^f a o t i on relates back to the date of the y
promise. It thereupon iiccomes a promise binding in the law, upon the in- '

4 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

(livi'lual, not from the date of ratification, but from tiic date of the
])romisc'. What diflereiic'(! in j)riiici])lc can there he between .sueh a ease, and
the (luestion here ])resented ?

This view is in accordance with tlic uniform practice of both parties,
under our present Constitution. But if the hvw ba, as to the payment of tax
as chiimed by eontestaut in his Brief, then it is worthy of remark that he is
utterly re_<:^ardless of this, his own Rule, in the abstract containing his list of
voters which lie admits were illegally cast for him, and his opponent, re-
spectively : for ia every case where the vote would be illegal under the
Ilule, and it is proven to have been cast for Contestee, he charges it as an
illegal vote ; but where the proof shows .that such vote was cast for Contes-
tant, in every instance he counts it as a legal vote.

We have but one further remark to make on this point the enforcement
of this Rule as contended for by Contestant, will greatly increase the number
of illegal votes shown to have been cast for him.

In Contestant's Brief (Page 7) it is conceded that a tax receipt is not
conclusive, but only prima facie evidence of the payment, and where it is
shown that the tax was paid, in fact within one month of the day of Elec-
tion, or was never paid at all, and the Receipt antedated, that the Receipt is
worthless. To this doctrine we most heartily subscribe. If the tax was not
paid in legal time, the defect could not be cured by a receipt dated back.
But if the tax were paid in legal time, the antedating of a receipt, so as to
correspond with the actual day of payment, however improper the practice
may be, could have no effect to destroy the right of the Elector to vote upon
such payment of tax.

Under the operation of this Rule, suppose it should appear that an active
partisan of a candidate should on the day before the Election go to the col-
lector, with a list of names of voters, and pay or agree to pay their taxes,
and on the same day, to-wit : the Fourth (,4th) of November, 1878, obtain
from the collector receipts for such persons, antedating them to the 3i'd day
of September, 1878, and then on the following day, at the Election, give
each one of such persons a ticket for such candidate, and go with him to the
Polls, and at the Polls hand the voter such antedated tax receipt, upon
which the Election Officers received the vote ; and suppose further, that after
said election, (such candidate having been defeated) said partisan, in order
to conceal his fraud, should go to the voters and request them to destroy the
receipts, would such persons so voting be regarded as legal voters ? We
think not. We regard such a case as a fair illustration o. the pernicious
character of a practice of which contestant complains. For such a case, in
the interests of this Contestatit, we refer to the printed testimony relating to
Hoiitzdale Borough, Clearfield county, (see Pages, 1642-1650-1632-1638-1820-
1822-2191-2293-2294). See also the testimony of Benjamin Hartshorn,
(Pages 1672-1674) and Albert McGeary, (Pages 1655-1658) and John T.
Stage and others (Pages 2071-2072-2077 and 2085) relating to Curwensville
Borough and Pike township, Clearfield county.

If the Rule be as stated by Contestant on page 8 of his Brief, that pay-
ment of the taxes of a large number of voters, by political committees,
without the knowledge or consent of the voters, is not a good payment, then
a very strong illustration of the evils flowing therefrom would be where a
chairman of a County Committea would make such payment, out of the
cam])aign funds, as was done by the chairman of the Democratic Committee
of Clearfield county in the interest of Contestant, and perhaps with his ap-
proval, on the night of October 5th, 1878, by which operation the taxes of
Thirty or more voters were paid, without their knowledge or consent, in
many instances, and the receipts distributed to them on Election day;

CURTIN VS. VOCUM. 5

which pcr.-ons voted for Contestant and are counted as lc;:al voters for him
in his Brief, Reference in \m)()i of thi.s is made to printed testimony, (Pages
56G-102:Mr)r)l-U)!)7-581 and 8G7.S) rehiting to Ck-arfiehl horough and Law-
rence township, Clcarliekl county; also (Pages 21o:}-21or)) relating to Bell
township in said county.

It is scarcely neces.sary to state that under the Constitution it is not requi-
site that tax should be assessed ivithin the two years — simply the payment
must he made within the two years. 8cc 2 Brewster, 138. V>\\i'\i\ii abso-
lutety necessary that the tax he assessed upon the individual himself. Catlin
vs. Smith, 2 8. & R. page 267.

It is charged by Contestiint in his notice of contest, and argued in his
brief, that the returns of certain election districts should be disregarded and
the entire poll set aside, l)ecause he alleges,

1st, That the election officers were not qualified.

2d, That fraud was perpetrated in the conduct of the election.

od. The existence of such irregularities or misconduct as to render the
result uncertain.

We will consider these allegations in their order.

In a number of districts, (as many on the one side as on the other), the
election officers were not properly sworn. "We contend that such failure does
not vitiate or affect the return, and that for this cause the returns cannot be
set aside ; and that the election officers are nevertheless officers de facto, and
their acts are valid as to third parties and the public. It is sufficient if the
officers have color of authority. The recent judicial decisions of Pennsylva-
nia are all to this effect, and the acts of an officer de facto are as valid as
those of an officer de jure. Stevenson vs. Lawrence, 5 Phila. R. 88 ; Boil-
eau's case, 2 Pau'e., 503 ; Baird vs. Bank, 11 S. & R., 414. _

'•' In this latter case the court say if the officers of election fail to perform
their duty the law provides a penalty, hut the election is not therefore rend-
ered void * * * The principle of colorable election holds not only as to
the right of electing, but also of being elected." Jukcr vs. Comth., 8 Harris
48o ; Thompson vs. Ewing 1 Brcwst. 99. The decisions of other States
are to the same effect. :Miiriken vs. Fuller, 1 Bartlett (N, Y.) 176. Clark
vs. Hall, Ibid 215. Flander vs. Hahn, Ibid 443. Blair vs. Barrett, Ibid
313.

This question was reviewed at length in the case of Barnes vs. Adams,
which arose in the Forty-First Congress, reported in 2 Bartlett (N.Y.) 760.
Most of the cases arising both in Congress and in the courts, were cited and
examined and tlu* conclusion was reached both by the Committee and the
House, that in order to give validity to the official acts of an officer of elec-
tions, so far as they affect third parties and the public in the absence of
fraud, it is only necessary that such officer shall have the color of authority.
The report of the Committee in this case was adopted by the House after
full discussion in July, 1870. See Congressional Globe, pages 5179 to 5193.

The same question was decided in Eggleston vs. Strader, 2 Bartlett (N.
Y.) 897

In People vs. Cook 4 Selden (N. Y.) it is held as follows : " The doctrine
that whole comnmnities of electors may be disfranchised for the time being,
and a ?ninority candidate forced into an office because one or more of the
judges of elections have not been duly sworn, or were not duly chosen, finds
no support in the decisions of our judicial tribunals.

See also McCrary's American Law of Elections, Sections 77-78 and 79.

As to the other specifications of irregularities on the part of the election
officers, the evidence utterly fails in any particular to point out a single
fmudnient Jtet of any officer. S^ijrbt errors of judgment may occur, and no

6 CURTIN VS. VOCUM.

doubt will hereafter occur ; but that there was any attempt by any election
board in this congressional district to do an act contrary to law, or to in-
fluence the election by improper conduct, or to assist, combine, conspire, or
act with any partisan, in the interest of Conteste?, or in any manner to pre-
vent, alter, or change the free ballot of the people, or to falsify the result of
the election, or in any way or manner .'to control the electors or influence
their judgment, or knowingly or willingly receive the vote of an}"- one, not
legally entitled to vote, or refuse to receive the vote of any one legally en-
titled, we utterly deny ; and in this investigation and upon this point we in-
vite the closest scrutiny into the conduct of the several Election Boards im-
peached.

The evidence is full of the testimony of the election ofiicers, called by
both sides, in this contest, and in no single instance is there anything shown
affecting the honor, honesty, motive or purpose of any ofiicer; while upon the
contrary it is clearly and fully shown that each and all acted bona fide, and
with perfect fairness, indifferent as to the result. This is the first contest that
has ever arisen in this district.

The character of the people composing the district is such that of itself
would repel the charge of fraud in this election.

Almost the entire population is devoted to agriculture. In scarcely any
one of the counties can there be said to be even a floating vote.

The vast majority of the people of this district are natives of the district.
They are " to the manor born." They arc educated to labor, and not to
practices of fraud, as charged by Contestant. In addition to this, the organi-
izations of the large majority of the election boards were in the hands and
under the control of the partisans of Contestant, and have been for many
years under the control of the Democratic party.

Five counties out of the six are, and always have been, Democratic ;
each one of these five counties gave Contestant majorities, and but one (Union)
gave Coutestee a majority. It is w^orthy of notice that in the county of Union
there is not, in the notice of contest, a single charge of fraud or fraudulent
conduct on behalf of the election boards, or any of them, or any irregularity
in the election. It will be further noticed in the testimony that Contes-
tant, during the forty days allowed him to take testimony, failed to prove
a single fraudulent or illegal vote, although the county w-as searched with
diligence from one end to the other. Not a single illegal vote for any cause !

And yet in view of this fact contestant in his brief admits ten illegal votes
for himself !

We propose now to notice the charges as to these several election districts
in detail, and we will state the substance of the testimony in reference thereto^
as proven both by contestant and contestee.

First — As to PhilipsMirg borough, Centre county :

It is alleged by Contestant that overseers were appointed according to law,,
but were not permitted to act ; that the election ofiicers did not check off the
names of voters from the registry list, as they voted, and that a large num-
ber of persons were permitted to vote who were not qualified, &c.

These overseers were J. J. Lingle and Albert Owen — both partisans of
Contestant and life-long Democrats. They both swear that they ivere not dis-
turbed in the performance of their duties ; that they remained at the polls
with the election officers during the entire day, and ^'were treated with the ut-
most courtesy!''

But in law they were not overseers ; they were in fact partisan intruders
of Contestant. The act of Assembly, approved January 31, 1874, Ph. L.
33, Section 4, under which they claimed to be appointed, provides that upon
the petition of five or more citizens, it shall be the duty of the Court of

CUUTIN VS. YOCUM. ^

Common Pleas of tlic proprr cnuiity, all the law jnd^^es able to act at the time
conairritii^, to apijoiiit /iiv yV/<//V/fc'//i' citizens belonging to different political
parties, overseers of election to supervise tlie proceedings! of tiie election olii-
cers of said district.

In this case, at the time of appointment, there was no court in session, lus
is shown by the evidence ; they were appointed at Chambers by one of the
judges, in the absence of the President Judge, who had no notice of the appli-
cation, and who did not concur therein ; they were also known to be parti-
sans of Contestant, and both of the same political party. This api)ointment
was void in law, because there was no authority given in the Act to a single
judge to appoint at Chambers; and also in the persons appointed, being both
of the same political ])arty. Yet it subserved the end had in view in the ap-
pointment — to keep the outside partisans of Cotitestant continually advised of
the progress of the vote, and the success of their favorite candidate.

It has been a source of regret to the overseers, even to this day, that they
were not interfered with at the polls, or obstructed in the discharge of their
very onerous duties. The commissioners failed to furnish a proper registry of
the voters, and this cast a greater burden upon the election officers, in seeing
that no one was permitted to vote who was not entitled. The officers were
duly sworn and the election conducted with the greatest care; the ballots
were all numbered and no one was permitted to vote who did not first prove
his qualifications as an elector. This is the testimony of the entire board.
It simply shows how groundless is the charge, and how untruthful in every
particular.

SECOHD—Benner township.

The allegations against this district arc :

1st, The officers were not sworn.

2d, The ballot-box was stuffed.

3d, No affidavits returned.

4th, That certain officers on the 18th of February, 1879, (over three
months after the election) pilfered the ballot-box ! !

The township of Benner, adjoins the borough of Bellefonte, and by law
the voters thereof hold their elections in the Court House, in Bellefonte.

It is composed entirely of farmers and mechanics — life long residents of
the township. There is not a single transient voter in the district,
and on tlie day of the election, there was not a single elector voted who was
not personally known to some member of the Election Board. Through an
inadvertence, the officers were not sworn. Contestant called the officers as
witnesses, and they were re called by Contestce. The testimony ot each
member of the Board is, that they were extremely careful, and that they be-
lieve not a single illegal vote was cast ; that they numbered every ballot re-
ceived, called out the name of the voter, and checked off* his name on the
registcry list ; that everything during the election was regular and no dis-
turbance of any kind occurred during the entire day. After the election
had closed, in counting off the vote, about midnight, some one of the officers
discovered, when they were about half way through with the count, an un-
numbered ticket in tlie box ; during the remainder of the count, eight more
were discovered ; these nine tickets were taken charge of by one of the officers,
and carefully kept in his possession, until compelled to produce them under
a subpoena duces tecum.

The testimony of the officers was taken by contestant prior to the 18th
day of February, 1879, the day of boding the spring elections, when ac-
cording to law, the boxes are to be opened and the contents destroyed. The
officers had severally sworn that they thought thcv bad not counted a single

8 CURTIN VS. VOCUNr.

i/iuiniJii'crcii t\vk.vA, ullliuugli their uUciitioii luul not been specially eiilled io
it, until iil'ter the first one unnumbered had been discovered.

The list of voters in evidence showed that 219 persons had voted for mem-
ber of congress, while the tally list showed that 227 votes were counted for
member of congress ; 107 for Contestant, and 120 for Con testee, making a
discrej)ancy of eight votes.

Tiiis was discovered during the time of taking Contestants testimony, and
before the holding of the spring elections. The Contestant, for reasons, no
doubt satisfactory to himself and his legal advisers, took no steps to ascertain
the cause of this discrepancy.

The inspectors, who had sworn that they had not, as far as they knew,
counted any unnumbered tickets, were anxious to know whether any had in
fact been counted.

It was the duty of the same offlcers who had held the fall election to open
the ballot-box and hold the spring election ; when they oj^ened .the box on
the morning of the 18th of February, 1879, Avhich was done publicly in the
election room, they took out the string of ballots therein contained, and pre-
served the same until they could ascertain whether any unnumbered tickets
had been counted, and to their surprise they found eight unnipnbered tickets
on the string, which they all swear were fraudulent tickets, and every one of
them was for A. G. Curtin, the contestant. .

" Further comment might be unnecessary" as to who stuffed the box.
■ The officers swear that they did not receive these tickets at the window.

This discovery was made by the inspectors in opening the box, and with-
out the knowledge of Contestee or his counsel. As soon, however, as it was
known, Contestee had the officers subpoenaed to bring not only the ballots
contained in the ballot-box, but the nine unnumbered tickets which had been
taken during the count on the night of the election.

The officers obeyed the subposna and produced the ballots and the nine
unnumbered tickets, and these nine unnumbered tickets were also found to be
fraudulent tickets for contestant.

The contents of the ballot-box were produced by the inspectors before the
commissioner taking the testimony, and in his presence, and the presence of
the counsel for Contestant, the inspectors examined them carefully and com-
pared tliem, and identified their own handwriting on each ballot, and thus
not only proved the genuineness of the ballots themselves, but also proved
the very important fact that eight fraudulent votes were counted for Contest-
ant — showing conclusively and beyond question that Contestant had but 99
votes, instead of 107, while the official return made by the election officers of
120 votes for Contestee was fully confirmed and verified by the ballots pro-
duced, and sworn to by the officers of the board. It also further demonstra-
ted the fact that the person, whoever he was, that had made an effort to tam-
per with this district did it in the interest of Cotttestant ; and the law will
scarcely tolerate the idea that Contestant can take advantage of anything
done by his partisans to further his own interests. Contestee, to show the
correctness and regularity of the election in Benner, not only offered in evi-
dence the ballots, but also called the voters themselves, and though some of them
were absent from home, succeeded in j^roving that one hundred and nineteen
qualified electors in Benner township voted for him on the 5th day of Novem-
ber, 1878.

This evidence on behalf of Contestee, was most vigorously objected to,
and resisted by Contestant's counsel, when they discovered that a full investi-
gation of the case would show clearly and distinctly the bald fact that no
fraud had been perpetrated by the election officers, nor by any one in the in-
terest of Contestee, while it would bring home with equal clearness the sol-

Cl'kTIN VS. VOCUM. g

(.'iiin fact, lliat fVailihiloiit votes — oi^^^lit in miinher — luid hciMi cjiiiiU'l and
returned for Contestant, and that his partisans had heen cndeavorin"^' to cor-
rupt tlie return.

The hi;_diest evidence, ol' which the ease in it- nature is su.sceptihle,
shouhl always he i>r()duce(], is a cardinal rule of evidence, and yet Contes-
tant, well knowing that the contents of the halhjt box in this district would
.surely and iully prove or disprove his allegations, took not a single step
to preserve them ! although he knew that before the time arrived lalien Con-
testee eouhi begin the taking of his testimony the boxes would be opened
and the contents destroyed.

When this was perceived by Contestec he presented his own petition to
the courts of Clearfield and Centre counties, praying ^the court under the
laws of our State, in relation to like contests, to grant an order on the
several election officers in the districts where the returns were attacked by
Contestant in his notice of contest, to preserve the contents of the ballot
boxes, so that they might be produced in evidence before the Commissioner.

This application was resisted by counsel in the interest of Contestant,
and the court thereupon refused making the decree, as will be .seen by ref-
erence to the printed testimony.

This resistance to the preservation of the ballot boxes was made after the
testimony in many cases developed the fact that the election officers had
inadvertently placed in the boxes, and sealed up the same, certain important
election papers, to wit : lists of voters, affidavits of non-registered voters and
registries ; some of which they should have returned and filed with the Pro-
thonotary. The assertion therefore by counsel in their Brief, that Contes-
tee suppressed evidence is unworthy of further notice.

The, investigation of Benner township, however, revealed the fact that
Contestec had received one hundred and twenty votes and Contestant but
ninety-nine, and the majority for Contestec should have been twenty-one
instead of thirteen, as the official returns made it.

TiriKiJ. — College township, Centre eounty, :

The allegations are:

1st. The election board returned no list of voters.

2d. Disregarded many important requirements of the law.

.'}d. Members of the board took from the ballot box the lists of voters
and i)laced them in the hands of Contestec's counsel by whom they were
sup])ressed.

The evidence taken by ConJestant and Contestec shows that the officers
were sworn, and it further shows that all the iniportani and material
re(iuirenieiits of the luw were observed.

That the list of voters was placed in the ballot box and, although bitterly
opi)o.-;ed by counsel for Contestant, wa.s offered in evidence by Contestec.
Counsel .seem to forget that any effort to supj)ress evidence and exclude
the light which could have been obtained by a preservation of the ballot
boxes were made by them as representing Contestant.

The officers of College township produced the list of voters and ball<it.s
taken out of the box on the J 8th of Fel)ruary, 1879, in obedience to a
subpicna duces tecum and thes3 were put in evidence, against the protest of
Contestant.

In every instance where the evidence disclosed facts contradicting the
allegations, objections were made by Contestant. The ballots themselves in
this district contained the name of Seth II. Yocuu), for Coi.gr(!.ss, thus ex-
plaining the error of one of the clerks, who wrote his name Seth A. Yocuni.
It was to explain this alone that the ballots were offered, and even this was
met by objections from Contestant.

lO CURTIN VS. voci/i\r.

It mi'jiit v<M'y |)ro])t'rly in lliis coniioction hv uskcd, liow any act oecur-
r'luix on till' li'^lli (if l'\'l)i-uary, l^STU — over tliri'c nionLlis al'tcr the election —
could 1)0 cdustnu'd into iVauil in the election lield on the 5th of November,
1878? yh/j Cixrnest endeavor after irutJi tvoiild have found a more fitting cx-
Iiibition ill an attempt to preserve the contents of the ballot-boxes than in the
persistent determination, and desire to have them destroyed. Not a single alle-
gation i.s !:!ustained, and the evidence disclosed an election in College township
held as carefully and as honestly, and with as strict an observance of the re-
quirements of the law, as can be found in the entire commonwealth.

FouKTii — As to /liberty, Spring and Union townships, Centre county.

In none of these election districts is there any irregularity shown, and
none is alleged in the notice of contest, and we therefore dismiss these with-
out further repl3^ An allegation of counsel, without any charge or proof, in
the notice of contest or the evidence, is only calculated and intended to mis-
lead.

Fifth — Ferguson township, Centre county.

In this election district not the slightest irregularity was shown of any
kind, notwithstanding the reckless and untruthful charges contained in the
notice of contest. The testimony shows that the officers were duly quali-
fied ; that the election was conducted in a peaceable and quiet manner ; that
all the material requirements of the law were observed. The evidence is
barren of every fact alleged in notice, and it is, therefore, abandoned b}' coun-
sel for Contestant in the argument, and the only error they now allege is that
there was no registry of voters as required by law. This is a little singular,
in view of the fact that their own witness — Henry Beck, clerk of the com-
missioners — whose duty it was to furnish a registry list, swears distinctly that
he made out a registry list and sent it to the assessor of the district, and for
some cause. Contestant makes no effort to produce the list or offer it in
evidence. Having shown the existence of a registry, how can Contestant
allege anything against this district without attempting to produce the only
proper evidence, and which was in his power to produce ? It simply illus-
trates the fact that Contestant had no ground uj^on which to impeach this poll.

►Seventh — Woodward township, Clearfield county.

The charges here are :

1 — The election board were not sworn according to law.

2 — They did not use nor check off registry list as the voters voted.

3 — They did not require unregistered persons to make proof of residence.

4 — They disregarded the challenges of non-registered persons.

5 — The clerk of tlie board wilfully was permitted to administer but part
of the oath as to payment of tax, and disregarded the challenges in this
matter.

6 — They did not require the production of certificates of naturalization as
required by law.

7 — One of the inspectors knowingly voted on a fraudulent tax receipt,
and the other permitted his" son to do so.

8 — The board allovred «:// persons, who had 187() tax receipts, to vote.

9 — They permitted seventy or more persons, whose names did not appear
on the registry, to vote, and did not take a single affidavit required by law,
although the blanks for that purpose were furnished them.

10 — They disregarded the challenges of non-naturalized persons, and
left the ballot-box unsecured at the election house for ten (10) days after the
election.

CUKIIX VS. VOCtlM. II

1 — As to the first charge, rolatinij; to tin- inodc in which the hoaid was
sworn, the evidence is (pat^e 50'>) that the justice swore the judge, and the
judge swore the rest of the hoard. It will scarcely he contended tliat such
an irregularity could aflcctthe return oC election ; neither will the ( 'ont<'stant
agree that the returns ironi Wallaceton horough and Morris township, where
all the officers were sworn hy u justice of the peace, or those from Chest
township, wliere the record sliows ■ they were not sworn at all, shall
be disregarded ; for in all these districts, in the same eoujity, he received
large majorities.

2 — That no registry was used by the board, nor names cheeked from it as
voted, is an allegation not sustained by the testimony, and is distinctly dis-
proved l)y George W. (^uinn, the Democratic judge, (page 1874), who him-
self kept the registry list, and in every instance referred to it, excej)t where
he knew the voter's name was thereon.

3 and 9 — The third charge, that no proof of district residence
was required of non-registered voters, is contradicted l)y Contestant's witness,
John Sandrock, one of the Inspectors, (pages 500-508), and l)y George Quimi,
Judge, (pages 1 874-1875) called by Contcstce. And the ninth charge, that no
affidavits in writing were taken from such voters, is disproved by IMr. Qninn,
(pagel87o) who states distinctly that such affidavits were taken and deposited
in the ballot box, instead of forwarding them with the returns to Clearfield, as
was done in many other districts. AVhile this is the condition of proof, as to
what was required of non-registered voters, in that district, and is uncontra-
dicted, except by negative proof, in the following districts, in the same
county, which gave majorities for C-ontestant, no affidavits of non-rc^istercd
voters were returned, to-wit : Clearfield, Newburg, Osceola and Wallaceton
boroughs. Bell, Bloom, Boggs, Chest, Ferguson, Jordon, Lawrence, Morris,
Penn and Pike townshijis, (see pages 1601-1002 and exhibits); of these, in
Chest, (page 8074), Jordon, (page 2167), and Morris, (page 2178), there is
affirmative proof that no affidavits in writing were taken from such voters,
and in Bell, (pages 8511-3512-8518 and 365'8), and Pike, (pages 8510-3516)
townships, the unregistered voters themselves were called for the purpose of
qualification, and testify that no ])roof whatever was required of them by the
board, yet the Contestant would be unwilling to have the returns from these
districts taken from this count.

lu order to preserve the contents of the ballot boxes, and thereby relieve
this case from any dispute as to what papers were required, or taken, and de-
posited by the board, an a])plication was made by Contcstce on January 25th,
187i), to the court of Clearfield county, asking for an order to preserve the
contents of the ballot boxes. This a])plication was opposed by Contestant's
counsel, it being urged by them that it would be too expensive to provide new
ballot boxes, (page 1608). The result was that no such onlcr was made, and
the contents of the boxes were destroyed, at the next townshi|) election on
Feliruary 18th, 1870. AVhile this course was pursued by Contestee's counsel,
the Contestant's counsel took a more direct route. Having begun the in-
vestigation and learned that the ballot box of Woodward district was at the
same place and in the same custody it had been at all previous elections, and
where so far as any testimony indicates it was wholly free from tampering, they
directed that it be placed in difierent custody, (pages 516 and 18G9;. Accord-
ingly a Justice of the Peace, who hail no more right to the custody of that
ballot box than any other citizen of the county, (page 2250), obtained pos-
session of it, and by direction examined its contents. He [x?rformed this
delicate office secretly and privately upon two or three occasions. He
wanted to see if eertain persons, whose names Imd been handed him, by thp

12 CURT IN VS. YOCUM.

Democratic ('onstable, lliggeus, had voted. lie al.so wanted to .see if there
were affidavits of non-registered voters.

Having satisfied himself upon these essentials, he then directed his atten-
tion to the individual ballots, to discover how some of his neighbors had voted,
(pages ol<S-519). He states that he did not open all the divisions of the box,
nor inspect all their contents, and yet his testimony, if referred to at all,
will be relied on to ])rove tliat no affidavits of non-registered voters were de-
posited by the board, in the ballot box.

A similar direct route to the ballot box was pursued in Knox township,
in the same county, where Contestant received a large majority. Two (2)
Democrats went to the house of the officer, in whose custody the box was,
during his absence, and by assuring his wife that they had orders to examine
the box, they obtained access to it and overhauled its contents, comparing the
result of the count with a list of names, in a book, brought with them, which
names w'ere in a handwriting different from their own, (pages 1691-ir594-
2225 and 2228). These are the only well established instances of any one
improperly touching the ballot box in the county, and in both instances the
work was done by Contestant's friends. The testimony of all the officers of
the board show that the third charge and the ninth charge are not sustained.

4 and 10 — That challenges of non-registered and unnaturalized voters,
were disregarded, is not sustained by any proof. William Luther, who ob-
tained and examined the ballot box, in the mode just stated, says [page 512]:
"I objected t>) a number of persons on the ground that their iiames did not appear
on the register}' list. The election board held, that the parties had a right to
vote on account of us having no assessor in the tcjwnship to register them.
They did not require them to sign written affidavits, and produce affidavits
by other* qualified electors." The challenge here was not /or any specific
cause, other than non-registration. Wliether the board required proof, other
than b}^ written affidavits, is not asked the ^vitness, nor stated by him. No
witness swears he challenged a single voter for any cause upon which his vote
could legally be excluded, and the board disregarded his challenge. This
dearth of proof, on so important a charge, is significant. Put alongside of
this, the testimony of the Inspector, John Sandrock, Contestant's own witness,
[page 506]: " We required of them, first that they were either native-born
" or naturalized citizens of the United States, and that they had been in the
" State over one year, and six (6) moxths in the county, and thirty (sixty)
" days in the township, and that they had paid a State and County tax
" within two years and not later than thirty days previous to the election,
" and [page 508]. Question. Was any person permitted to vote at that
" election, whose right to do so was challenged without being required to
" produce legal proof of his right to vote? Answer. No sir, there were
" not. Question. When a naturalized person claimed the right to vote,
" and his citizenship was called in question, was he required to produce his
" papers, or make such other proof as the law requires ? Answer. These
*' were called to produce their papers, and give such proof as the law re-
" quires."

5 — That the clerk of the board was permitted to omit part of the oath,
as to payment of tax, in qualifying voters. Luther swears to the fact that
some of the voters were only asked if they had paid tax within two (2) years.
That such omission was wilful, even he docs not pretend. But as to the fact
of such omission he is contradicted by Contestant's other witness, who«e lan-
guage has just been referred to, and who had better o})portu:iity for knowl-
edge of the fact, and has exhibited no bias, one way or the other, and is cor-
roborated by David Westover, the other inspector, [page 510], and by George
Quijin, the judge, [page 1873.]

( I'KIIN VS. YOft'.M. 13

G — Tlie sixlli cluirgc alleges tlu; hoanl did not re'|U'ro prudii.-tion of iiatu-
ralizalion certificates, save in a few instanco.«, Tiic testimony of all the'
nieinhers of the board is, that all persons who had voted leas than five years
on naturalization papers, were required to produce them, except in those
cases where the board, or some of its niend)ers, had seen the j)apers of the
voter at former elections, and knew he was (jualified [pages oOd, oOH, and
510 and 187.'!.] While this was not a strict compliance with the terms of
the law, it was doubtless as full compliance as the board honestly believed
was re(iuired. That many of the pajjcrs were exhibited to the board, is evi-
dent from the nundier which incidentally appears by the testimony taken in
j)roving votes in this district to have been endorsed by the board, allhough
it is not probable that near all which were produced were so endorsed. It
appears that the papers of the following voters were endorsed, "Votcii at
Woodward, November 5, 187S," to wit :

Joseph Reese, page oil.

Whitfield Kddy, page 178.").

John Thomas, ))age 18o.'i.

Josei)h Wilkinson, j)age 1871).

Phili]) JJenard, jiage 188().

Thomas Steel, i)age 2271.

Jacob Cam})bell, page'o5-'>G.

Thomas Larigan, page ')041.

iMichael Kelly, page .''418.

Solomon Longstader, page 0451.

The first six of these voted for Contestee, and the last four for Contest-
ant, which proportion indicates that no discrimination was made against Con-
testant in this ro(iuirenient of voters. Besides the proof furnished by the
endorsement on these ])apers, nearly every voter who was asked the (juestion,
testified that he was recjuired to make proof of his right to vote, when that
right was cpiestioned or his name not on the registry.

7 — That one of the inspectors knowingly voted on a fraudulent tax
receipt, and the other i)erniitted his son to do so. Neither charge is sustained
by the proof Sandrock, inspector, [pages 507, 508], paid his tax in good
faith about sixty days before the election to another partv who agreed to i)ay
the collector, but failed to do so until less than thirty days before the elec-
tion. While he loses his vote, the Contestant's own proof shows that he had
no knowledge of the actual date of i)ayment to the collector, nor of the antc-
dathig of the lax leceipt, and that when he voted he honestly believed he
was a legal votvr. If (he fact of his being an illegal voter affects the return,
then the retu.rn of IJell townshi}), in the same county, which gave Contestant
a majority, is effected in the same way, for one of the inspectors, William
O'Dell [page 2150], was an illegal voter by non-payment of tax. The ob-
jection to tlie other inspector — David Westover — assumes, without proof, that
lie knew his son — Aaron Westover — was above twenty-two [22] years of age,
and knew he had not paid tax in legal time, and knowingly permitted him.
illegally, to vote. These tilings cannot be taken as truth, without some kind
of proof, and there is none. It is not even attempted to show that his atten-
tion was in any way directed, by challenge or otherwise, to his son's vote, and
the testimony of the son is, [page 525] that his fatlior knew nothing about
when his taxes were paid.

8 — That all persons were allowed to vote who had 187() tax receipts; if
by this is meant that all persons whose tax receipts were dated in 1870, prior
to November 5th of that year, then there is no proof of any such allegation.
At mo.?t it amounts to an attetiipt, by putting words in the mouth of a wit-

14 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

iu'.s.s, to confound the cases of receipts dated in the latter part of that year,
\vith those over two years old in date.

10 — That the board failed to deposit the ballot-box in the proper custody.
The proof is that the clerk, who was the justice of the peace residing nearest
the election house, proposed to take charge of the box, andrGeorgc Quinn — •
the Democratic judge — insisted that it remain at the election house, for the
reason that such hud always been the custom at other elections [pages 1874
and 2251.] There is no proof whatever that the ballot-box was touched, or
its contents in any way disturbed, during those ten days nor until it was im-
proi)erly seized and clandestinely examined by a partisan of Contestant.
That the failure to deposit tlie box in the proper custody can affect the
return, will scarcely be contended. If so, then the returns of Knox town-
ship, [page 2225 and 1691], and Morris township [page 2173 and 1749], in
the same county, which gave majorities for Contestant, are effected to the
same extent. The testimony of the members of the election board of Wood-
ward is that the box was properly secured when it left their hands. The
testimony of Joseph G. Higgins, who next received it, is that all the divis-
ions of the box except one were closed carefully ; whether they were sealed
or not he cannot say, and in this he contradicts Luther, the final depository
of the box. But the testimony shows that it was quite as well secured as
were the boxes in Chest, Knox and Morris townsliips, in the same county,
with which no fault will be found by Contestant.

Eighth — Houtzdale borough, Clearfield county.

The allegations relating to this district are :

First — That the board was illegally organized, and a legal organization
prevented by ccnfusion and a tumultuous assemblage, and in consequence the
polls not opened for more than an hour after the time fixed by law.

Second — That the board did not number the ballots.

Third — That they did not check off the registry list.

Fourth — That they did not require affidavits and proof of residence from
non-registered voters.

Fifth — That they did not require the production of naturalization papers
frona foreign-born citizens.

1 — The facts proven as to the first charge — the organization of the board
— are: The officers elected were Sharbaugh, (Democrat), Judge. McDermott,
(Greenback) and Charleton (Republican), Inspectors. On the morning of
the election, both Sharbaugh, the Judge, and Charleton, the Inspector, were
absent, and McDermott, the other Inspector, alone being present, appointed
Dennis White, (who was of the same political faith as himself), Judge.

The complexion of the board, caused dissatisfaction among those who
were opposed to the Greenback party, and some dispute arose. The princi-
pal actor in this disturburbance was a Democratic Justice of Houtzdale,
who was an active partisan of Contestant, and who had distinguished him-
self on the day before by ante dating tax receipts, and on that day by dis-
tributing them with tickets for Contestant, and subsequently by advising the
voters to destroy such receipts, and to whom we have already referred. He
alone is shown to have used violent, or threatening, language.

Because of this dissatisfaction the newly appointed Judge did not wish to
act, and after a delay of an hour J. S. JNIoore, (Republican), was selected by
the persons present to fill the vacancy in the office of Judge. The absent
Inspector's place was filled by Robert IMcNamara, (Democrat), he having at
the preceding borough election received the next highest number of votes
for Judge, which fact entitled him, under the law, to the place of the
absent Inspector, (page 536-539-1877 and 1878). The law provides that
wliere a vacancy in the board continues fot* one hour, the voters present

CURTrV vs. YOCUM. 15

are entitled to select a person to fill it. There hein^ no stcp-J taken hy
D.nnls White to fill tlu' duties of his appointment and no orjranizatiori
of the hoard, we sul)niit that the selection of Moore, as .Indite, was p.o-
per and le^al, and that both vaeaneies were filled as the law provides.
If the law were otherwise the Denioeratic Justice and his crowil rruirht
have wholly j)revented an election. But even if the ori;anization of the
board was not strictly regular, in the absence of fraud or unfairncs.s
practiced by its officers, there wa.s at most an honest mistake, and that
made to avoid the imj)utation of unfairness, and at the instance of Con-
testant's warmest friends. A like case occurred in Decatur township, in
the same county, where the board appearing all to be of one party, the
Judge at the request of Contestant's supporters appointed that one of
their number, who at the preceding election, had received the next high-
est number of votes for Judge, as Inspector, instead of the regularly
elected Inspector, (page r)72), and no such irregularity has ever been
held to efTect the return. A nuich stronger case against tlie validity of
a board, is that in Bell township, the same county, where Contestant
received a majority, and where an unsworn supporter of Contestant took
the place of the Republican inspector, who was called away, after the
l)olls had opened, and proceeded to attend to the duties of inspector du-
ring the balance of the day, although the returns were afterwards signed
and certified by the absent inspector, who could have no knowledge of their
correctness.

2 — The omission to number the ballots was an oversight which is fully
explained by the testimony of the members of the board, and in any event
could bave no greater effect on this district than the same kind of omission
would have on the returns from Jordan township, in the same county, whieh
gave Contestant a majority [page 2167.]

— That tbe board did not check off the registry list, is not sustained by
the proof, and is contradicted by the Democratic inspector [page 18'")^)], and
no such strange result appears as in Brady township, in the same county,
where Contestant had a majority, and where the registry list w'as checked and
ballots numbered ; and yet the names of D. D. McHugh — who was not in
that county on election day [page 583], and of Frederick Knorr, who was in
the district, but was not at the election at all that day [pages 1701) and 211-")]
— both appear on the list of voters numbered respectively 458 and 100 ;
while the name of F. B. Williams does not appear on that list, although he
swears positively [page 1658] that he voted in that district at that election.
4 — That affidavits wdre not required of non-registered voters. This alle-
gaticm is shown not to be correct by Contestant's own witness [page 580],
and it appears by that witness, corroborated by another witness [page 18')!)]
called by Contestce, both of them officers of the board, that such affidavits
were required and deposited in the ballot-box, where they remained until the
borough election of February 18th, 1870, when they were destroyed.

5 — That foreign-born voters were not required to produce their naturali-
zation certificates. This is contradicted by the proof [pages 528 and 1850] ;
upon the several charges against this district, we respectfully invite attention
to the testimony in full of James H. Moore, judge of election, [pages 527-
531], and P. McDermott, inspector, [pages 585-589], which is relied on by
Contestant, and also to the testimony of Dennis White [pages 1877-1870],
and Robert McNamara, a Democratic inspector, [pages 1858-1860]. This
testimony, taken together, establishes that the election was fairly and honestly
conducted, and wholly disproves any allegation of unfairness or fraud. To
this may be added that it is rather significant that in this district, so com-
plained of, Contestant admits [page 32 of his Brief] that out of eleven (11)

]6 rtiKTiN vs. vot;i!M.

])r()/('ii illi'gal votcs.eiu'lit (8) of tlioiii woix; cii.>t lor liiin. The ti'iieo)uiit of
illfgal votes shows that he received a slill larger l)enelit iVoiu whateviT wioiig
was (h)iie in this distrieto

We confidently submit that there is no ground whatever upon which the
returns from eitlier of these districts — Woodward or Houtzdale — can be
rejected. In view of the strained attempt by Contestant to impeach the con-
duct of the election ofiicers as fraudulent and unfair, and the undue advan-
tage which was obtained by successfully op[)osing Contestec's application for
the preservation of the contents of the ballot-boxes, while he obtained access
to that one in reference to which he raises the dispute as to what it con-
tained, it is singular that so little has been devclo])ed in support of the
charges made, and that the only material part of that little comes from those
who were actively engaged in working up Contestant's case. The Demo-
cratic judge of the election board of AVijodward was the most experienced
member of that l)oard, liaving before that time frequently held positions on
election boards. The Democratic inspector of Iloutzdale was the oldest and
perhaps the best informed member of that board. Both these men swear
they voted for Contestant, but there is nothing to show an undue bias for him
on their part, either at or since the election. They were both called as wit-
nesses by Contestant, but not a question touching the conduct of the election
by his counsel. They were both called by Contestee, and their testimony
shows the entire fairness and freedom from bias with which the elections were
conducted. AVhile we did not apprehend that a careful examination of the
evidence could result in any action by the committee which would disregard
the returns from these districts, the Contestee has called a large number of
voters in each of them and proven their qualifications. We elsewhere in this
Brief state fully the reasons why such proof of votes cast for Contestee can-
not in any event be set off by like proof of votes for Contestant offered in
rebuttal. When the Contestant asks that a return be disregarded, and makes
his attack upon the i)oll of a district and goes no farther by his case-in-chief,
he cannot in rebuttal prove votes for himself. He may contradict or rebut
the proof offered by his opponent, but he cannot then luake out a ])art of his
case-in-chief. If there is any case in which the rule as to what is evidence-
in-chief and what in rebuttal should be strictly applied, it is in a case like
the present, where each party is limited in time and in character of i)roof by
a statute which gives the defense no o])poi'tunity to answer what is offered in
rebuttal.

Ninth — IV^s/ Keating township. Clinton counly.

The allegation here is, (in Contestant's Brief',") there was no registry list, as
required by law.

Referring to the notice of contest, page 24, section 08, we find that
there is no irregularity alleged against this district ; we might, therefore,
dispense with any discussion upon th.s subject, but we desire to refer the
committee to the testimony, for the purpose of showing how baseless in
law and in fact is this allegation.

Suj)pose, however, for the sake of the argument, that the County Com-
missioners fail to lurnish a registry of voters to the election board, does that
vitiate the election ? Are honest voters to be disfranchised because some in-
<lolent clerk neglects his official duty ? If this be so, then the party in
j)ower would always have the opportunity of defeating the will of the people,
by withholding «ome election paper. 't^w^s-^Q^^ftVid election papers are sent to
the officers, are they to adjourn and go home, without holding the election ?
The voter sui-ely is not to be deprived of his political rights by subterfuges
so sillv and absurd.

CUKIIM VS. YOCU.Nt. 3 7

Tkntii — Union township, Mifflin county.

As to this election district no ullcj^'Ution of any in\'giil;iiity is found in
notice of contest. See j)ii<fe 2H, Sect. 7<S.

Ill Contestant's Brief it is said that tlierc was no registry list of voters.

Contestant in this township only i)Uts in evidence the si.\ty day list and
not t/iefui/ rci:;ist/y, (see printed testimony, i)age 1122).

Miles Halley, the assessor, swears that he made the assessment and reg-
istry of voters and returned the same to the county Commissioners (see page
2897). Judge Campbell, who was the judge in holding the election in thi3
District, and who has resided in the township for sixty years, swears that he
knew of no illegal vote, except Charles Mc Cab, who voted for Contestant;
he further swears that they had a registry list before tJiem, and the names
were all checked off, (sec testimony, pages 2892, 2893 and 2894). And yet
Contestant prints the names of the voters in this township in a list of two
hundred and fifty three names and mildly terms them non-registered voters
and therefore fraudulent ! If this registry list has been mislaid, it was not the
fault of Contestee, who made every effort to ])reserve the balloi boxes, in
which the original \\^Q{\ by the officers was deposited, and which if i)reserved
would have sliown that there was not a single non-registered voter in this
district.

Eleventh. — Old Armagh township, Mifflin county.

There is no allegation of irregularity contained in notice of Contestant
as to this district, (sec notice of contest, page 27, section 71).

Contestant offered in evidence for this township the sixty day list, and not
the registry of voters, (see testimony page 1121). Wliile the very registry of
voters that was used by the election board, and which they declined to ofler was
within their control. This registry was offered in evidence by Contestee, (sec
printed testimony, exhibit E. C, 14, page 2956).

James D. Forey and Adam A. Brown swear that this list was used by
the election officers on the 5th of Nov., 1878, and was furnished by the pro-
per authorities, and it bears on its face the evidence of being used by the
board, in the additions of " tax " and " age."

An examination of this registry list, when compared with the list of
voters, will show that there are but three names on the poll list, which do not
appear under the same initials on the registry list — namely, No. G, James
Davis, No, 215, AV. E. Stringfcllow and No. 148, Lawrence Wall.

How little dependence can be placed upon a calculation, under this evi-
dence, that would claim two hundred and thirty-one non-registered voters in
this township, composed of old settlers and farmers ! And yet Contestant is
driven to this extremity.

TwEi.i"ni — White Deer township, Union county.

As to this election district there is no allegation of fraud or other irregu-
larity in notice of contest, (see notice of contest, page 30, section 90).

It is claimed that a resolution was passed by the election board that they
would 710 1 require any affidavits, Si.i\, from the voters.

"We deny that any such resolution was passed as stated in Contestant's
Brief. An attempt was made to put such words in the mouth of the witness
whom contestant called, but the witness states no such resolution. The ma-
jority inspector swears, (see his testimony on page 2990-2997), that after dinner
an understanding was liad, that they would swear the voters, and this, because
any other method would have })revented a large number of legal voters from
voting — a calculation will show, that from eleven o'clock a. m., till 7 o'clock
p. m., the average of the voting was about one a minute, so that some method
of convenience had to be adopted, so as to receive the vote. There were four
hundred and thirteen votes cast at this poll, and the voting did not begin till

1 8 CUKl'lN VS. V(JCUM.

about ten or eleven o'clock. Is it proven in tlu; evidence tliat there was a
single illegal vote cast for Contcstec ? was there a single vote challenged by
Contestant ? He has shown none. The evidence flatly contradicts any such
allegations.

Had there been illegal voters in this township, the Contestant would have
found them, and called them as witnesses ; for the utmost zeal was displayed
in the search of a single fraudulent voter in the whole county of Union, and
not a single one could be found !

A compari.-=on of the list of voters with the registry list offered in evi-
dence, (see pages 1230 and 1234), shotas but twelve persons, whose fiamcs do
not appear on the registry list as they are written on the foil list. Kencc it is
requisite to make some other charge, although not proven, for the purpose of
misleading in the investigation of the true cause of Contestant's defeat.

The proof in this case further shows that the tax collector attended at the
polls, and he informed the board as to the payment of the taxes by the
voters.

When a voter is duly registered he \% prima faeie entitled to vote, and un-
less challenged for cause, his vote sliould be received, imquestioned at the
polls. And this is the uniform rule in Pennsylvania, except where the board
know grounds of objection.

Not a single objection was shown against the regularity of this election in
this district ; or that illegal voters hr.d been permitted to vote. Mere allega-
tions cannot be substituted for proof .

Thirteenth — Horton toivnship, Elk county.

As to this district — in notice of contest fsce page 2G) — there is no alloga-
:)iou of fraud or other irregularity. However, in Contestant's Brief, it is
claimed "that the election officers were intimidated, &c., so that no fair elec-
tion "svas held."

It is somewhat surprising that if such a state of afRiirs had in fact exist-
ed, that it was all unknown to the election officers. The voting at this poll
was done, as in a great many other districts throughout the Commonwealth,
in the room. A number of persons would of course be present, and for a
legal purpose — to vote. One partisan of Contestant was challenged on ac-
count of non-payment of taxes, and he is called to prove confusion in the
room ! but he utterly fails to show the least disturbance of the officers. No
one svv'ears to any intimidation, and this for the cogent reason no one was in-
timidated, and none undertook to intimidate the officers. In Elk county a
very spirited contest was had over the election for member of the State Leg-
islature, ainl both parties were interested in having a fair election. Contest-
ant in his Brief does not undertake to point out wherein any intimidation
was resorted to, or wherein the result was not legal, but simply contents him-
self by making the assertion, Avhich is totally unsupported by the evidence.
It is directly and absolutely disproved by the whole tenor of the evidence.
The confusion at this precinct was far less than the disturbance shown to ex-
ist at the election held in Penn township. Centre county, where Contestant
obtained a large majority, and yet he does not pretend to assert, that in this
latter district, there prevailed the least disturbance or irregularity. With
Contestant the questions of disturbance, illegality or fraud in the election de-
pends solely upon the inquiry. Who obtained the majority ? This is a quietus
as to anything irregular in districts giving him a majority !
Fourteenth — Borough of Mill Hall.

It is contended by Contestant that tweiity-eight legal voters, of whom
eight voted for Contestant and twenty for Contestee, should be disfranchised
— not because they f:\iled in a single requisite of an elector, but because the
Town Council had no authority to extend the limits of the borough so as to

cu'KiiN VS. voi:UM. 19

embrace the territory wheru thc^e twenty-eight vuter.? resided. Ami in the
same argument Contestant's counsel tacitly admit that these twenty-eight
persons were legal voters in Bald Eagle toNvnship. If this he so, wherein is
Contestant injured ?

We contend that these electors resided within the borough the recjuisitc
time, had all the (jualidcatioiis required, and were e;ititled to vote in the bor-
ough. Counsel for C/ontestant, without any reason, beg the (juestion and as-
sert that the action of the Council was illegal and void, without giving any
reason for the proposition. A reference to the facts and tlie law will (IcnKdi-
stratc that this proj)osition of Con^estaiit is erroneous. The Ijorougli of Mill
Hall was incorporated on tlie 16th of February, A. D., 1849, by a decree of
the proper court of Clinton county.

By an Act of Assembly approved 3d April, 1851, Ph. Laws 325, section
30, it is provided as follows : "The Burgess and Town Council of any bor-
" ough sliall have power, and by virtue of this act are directed and required
" on petition of any number not less than twenty of the freehold owners of
" lots or outlots or other tracts of land in any section lying adjacent to said
" boi'ough to declare by ordinance the admission of the section on which such
" petitioners and others reside; and the said section shall forever thereafter
" be deemed and taken and allowed to be a part of said borough, and subject
" to the jurisdiction and government of the jnunicipal authorities of said
" borough as fully as if the same had been originallv u part of the said bor-
"ough."

Under the provisions of this act a petition was ])resentcd to the (/ouncil
signed by some thirty freeholders, &c., praying the extension of the limits of
said l)orough, which included this section ; action Avas taken on the same by
the borough authorities and an ordinance was framed and passed on the 3d
day of September, 1878, admitting said section into the borough, and upon
that day the said section became a part of said borough in law and in fact.

As to these persons, and as to the public, the borough of Mill Hall was
their voting precinct tie facto and de Jure. The subsequent act of the Coun-
cil on the 7th of January, 1879, induced by the partisans of Contestant, was
void in law, as they had no authority to pass an ordinance of their own mo-
tion to repeal their former action ; but whether void or valid their subsc(|ucnt
act could not be so retroactive as to affect the rights of citizens on the oth of
November, 1878. They could Jiot repeal the right of the elector to his bal-
lot, which right had been exercised and fully aeconiplished, more than two
months belbre.

This indeed would be a more dangerous exercise of power that anything
complained of by Contestant !

The doctrine is so monstrous and fraught with such fallacy, that it is
shocking to common sense.

If further authorities be necessary to supj)ort these po.-itions,
maintaining the regularity and validity of the election held in these
several districts, we refer to the case of the People vs. Cook, 8 JV. Y.,
(57, where it was held by the Court of Appeals of New York that in a- con-
tested election case, very little attention should ordinarily be paid to mere
irregularities in the proceedings of the election officers, which do not affect the
real merits of the case. Thpt where the evidence goef? only \o show an irreg-
ularity without fraudulent intent, and by whicl/nobody is injured, the Court is
not bound even to submit it to the Jury as an open question. This rule was affir-
med by the Apellate Court.

The officers of election may be liable to punishment for a violation of the
directory provisions of a statute. Yet the people arc not to suffer on account

20 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

of the (lolaiilt of their agents. Piatt vs. People, 29 Illinois 72, McCrary
American election laws, .sections 123-128 and 121).

It was decided by the Supreme court of Pennsylvania in 1S76, after the
adoption of the new Constitution, and the passage of the Registry act, that
at an election for the office of County commissioner, the County commission-
ers did not furni.sh a corFCct copy of the resident taxable inhal)itants to the
officers of election in one of the election districts, as required by section 3 of
the act of January oOth, 187-4 (Registry act), this was not ground for setting
aside the entire poll. The court below in the opinion filed, and which was
affirmed by the Supreme court, say, " an election is the embodiment of the
])opular Avill, the expression of the sovereign power of the people. When the
application of techincal rules and a strict construction of the acts of the
officers in preparing the election papers and conducting an election, would
tend to defeat the will of the people and change the result of an election for
an important office, they should not be applied, and all reasonable intend-
ments should be made in favor of the legality of their proceedings."

" To disfi-anchise all the voters of a township, the facts on whicli we are
required to act should show a case free from legal doubt. If Ave, by our de-
cision should permit the carelessness or even fraud of officers, whose duty it
is to furnish a list of voters at the election, to defeat the election and deprive
the people of the county of the officer, who was elected by a majority of
their votes, we Avould thus make the people suffer for an act in which they
did not participate and which they did not sanction. A decision of this kind
-would be fraught Avith danger, by inviting unscrupulous or unprincipled per-
sons on the eve of an important election to secrete or destroy the list of
voters, or other important papers in a township in Avhich the majority may
determine the result in the county."

See contested election of EdAvin R. Wheelock 82, Pcnn'a. State reports
(1 Norris), page 297, McCrary election cases, sections 303-304 and 305.

Fifteenth — Bribery.

We scarcely think it Avorth the trouble to revicAV these allegations. The
evidence discloses nothing to implicate any one, or that any money Avas thus
used.

An attempt Avas made by counsel for Contestant in the examination of
certain Avitnesses, to pry into the afl^iirs of individuals, Avhich had no relation
to the election, or the contest between the Contestant and Contestee, for the
sole, and sinister purpose, of hunting up or discovering some act or thing
that could be distorted and perverted, and not Avith any bona fide intent to
shoAv its connection Avith the present contest. All the Avitnesses for Contestant
called to shoAv an illegal use of money by Contestee, or his friends deny
having knoAvledgc of such use. It Avas well-knoAvn that Contestee had no
means of his OAvn, or Avithin his control to use for any such purpose, and it
is equally Avell-knoAvn that none Avas used, or attempted to be used. Not a
single Avitnesss refused to ansAver a proper question.

We, hoAvever, think that Contestant is not guiltless in this resj^ect ; as the
evidence shoAVS that one man paid out a very large sum of money, in the in-
terests of Contestant and for the purpose of influencing votes.

It is Avell to talk against bribery, but to act honestly is a better policy.

This brings us to the question of Avhat Avas proper evidence in rebuttal.
We deny Contestant's right, during the last ten days of taking testimony, to
shoAV original illegal votes for Contestee, if any such there Avere, and Ave
deny that right here. We make no contention Avith the practice of the
courts, in receiving testimony in rebuttal, or more properly speaking " out
of order," Avhere justice requires it. Where the offer is made bona fide, un-
der stress of unforsccn circumstances and unaccompanied by trick or fraud as

CUKIIN \S. VO( I'M.

ill Deial vs. Ijiirljiiiljio, W.& P. 528, iiiul kiiidrcd casc'.'<, wIrtc tlR'ojjposifc
parly has llu' onporluiiily of calling witncssfs in reply. iVf maintain no
case can be found in ivhich the doctrine is held that testimony in chief, and
Avliich shoukl be given in chief, may be given in rebuttal, ichere the opposite
patty has not the opportunity of reply.

The i)rincipal \\\w\\ Avhich such testimony has been received by the courts
is to prevent a failure of justice, and then only allowing the oi)posite party
to call witnesses in reply. It has never been allowed by the courts where it
would give an undue advantage to one party, Hesler vs. Grath, 52 Pa. St.,
Rep., 531.

These principles have grown up in the courts under the practice of the
common law of England, and are only applicable to trial of cases in court
where the parties have equal opportunities to call their witness, and hence no
surprise or trick can be intended, at the same time under the supervi-^ion of
the court, Avhose duty it is to prevent an unfair advantage to either party,
]5ut this principle we apprehend does not obtain in this case where the order
and lime of proof is regulated by statute.

Chapter eighth of the Revised Statutes of the United States regulating
the mode of contested elections, section 107, provides as follows : "In all con-
tested election cases the time allowed for taking testimony shall be jiinety
days, and the testimony shah be taken in the following order : The Contestant
shall take testimony during the first forty days, the returned member during
the succeeding forty days, and the Contestant may take testimony in rebuttal
only during the remaining ten days of said period."

Contestant, in his notice, alleged a certain number of illegal votes and
certain irregularities in election boards in specified districts; this he was
bound to do under the statute referred to, (section 105). The Contestee, un-
der section 106 of same statute, denied these allegations, and further made
similar charges in other districts against Contestant. Thus the issue was
made.

The Contestant had forty days within which to maintain his allegations
by calling his Avitncsses.

Contestant's counsel have contended that notwithstanding the statute, he
might withhold part of his proof and not offer it during the first forty days,
but in the ten days given him, inrebuttal only, he might adduce this original
proof. And in fact he so did. This attempt on behalf of Contestant is in
direct conflict with every principle of fairness, honesty and precedent.

If this statute bo binding on Contestee, as we admit it is, why is it not
binding on Contestani? Had we undertaken, after the close of the ten days,
to call Avitnesscs in reply to the original jiroof of Contestant taken during
the ten days, we would have been met with the objections of counsel and
the positive bar of the statute. And yet under the precedents Contestant
cites in his Brief, he admits our right to do so ! We sulimit the true rule to
be this: That Contestant during liis forty days was bound to call his wit-
nesses to su]i])ort his allegations, and wherein he failed to do f-'o he waived it.

If he attacked an extire poll, claiming that the election as held was ille-
gal, and if he desired to count the vote which was returned for him, he must
prove his vote by calling the individual voter and showing how he voted, to-
gether with his qualifications — failing to do this, he'either abandons his charge
or his vote in that district. He cannot call his voters in rebuttal, because
this was testimony substantive in its nature and in chief, and in no sense
could it be rebuttal to the testimony of Contestee.

Again — Contestant during his forty days offered in evidence in certain
districts the list of voters and the registry list, claiming that all persons
whose names are on *he list of voters and not on the retristrv list, are what he

22 <.:URT!M VS. ^-CJCUIM.

terms non-regi.stercd votcr.s, and hence illegal. While we deny his entire doc-
trine as to non-registered voters, yet \ve contend that i! he wished to avail
himself, of the benefit of this proof, in the view Contestant takes of this class
•of voters, he was bonnd during the forty days to call and qualify all those
he intended to qualify, and that he could not legally do so during the last
ten days, for the plain reason that this was not in rebuttal of Contestee's tes-
timony.

During the ten days he undertook, against our objection, to call and qual-
ify a few of the non-registered voters on the lists that he offered in evidence.

This right we deny, while we admit that he had the right to qualify all
such non-registered voters as appeared upon the lists we offered in evidence.

We further contended and still maintain that without notice, in his notice
of contest, of any allegations as to non-registered voters (except in four dis-
tricts) he cannot avail himself of the proof he has made in relation to this
class of voters.

This brings us to the discussion of the status of non-registered voters,
where, as in this case, Contestant not only failed to call them but declined to
prove for whom they voted:

Contestant claims, ^frj-/, that these votes shall be deducted from the ma-
jority candidate ; second, if this be not the rule then they are to be deduc-
ted from each candidate in proportion to the vote cast for each candidate in
the district. The first rule he denominates in his tabulated statement as
Harding's rule ; the second as McCrary's.

We deny both these propositions. The rule in Duffy's case, 4th Brewster,
531, termed Harding's rule, may have suited the facts of that case, whereas
the judge declared, th.e entire election was teeming with fraud, and he based
it on the fraud of the party, but the ruling by Judge Harding, who was then
the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county,
Penna., was expressly overruled and disapproved of by the Supreme Corrt
of Pennsylvania on the 22d of March, 1875, in ex-part e Barber, 32 Legal
Intelligencer, page 229, and also in 22d Pittsburgh Legal Journal, page 195,
in which case the Supreme Court held that it is ?iot competent for the Conrt
to deduct illegal votes proved f'om the inafo7-ity candidate without proof , that
they were cast for him.

As to the second, which is termed McCrary's rule, we have searched Mr.
McCrary's valuable treatise on the Liav of elections, and no where can we
find that he gives any authority for the adoption of the rule as contended for
by Contestant, but on the contrary he expressly disapproves of it. He says :
" We tlr'.ik the safer rule would be for the Contestant to shoiv not only that a
certai7i number of illegal votes 7uere polled, but also to show, if he can that they
were cast for his opponent."

That the ordinary principle which requires the party holding the affirma-
tive to prove the facts, and all the facts necessary to make out his case, is the
better rule, and that it will in all cases be safer to follow.

That he must use due diligence to find the illegal voter, and upon being
found to ascertain from his testimony how he voted.

He bases this rule upo.i the true theory that the illegal voter can be
called as a Avitness and compelled to testify for whom he voted, which he says
is beyond doubt the true theory. See McCrary's election law, page 227.

Counsel for Contestant do not distinguish in their argument between the
case where the Contestant does not use due diligence to show how the illegal
voter voted, and the case where after using due diligeiace it is impossible to
show for w^'om he voted. There is a marked distinction in principle between
the two cases.

cuiniN' vs. YocuM. 23

III the ])rc.scnt contest wc liavc no ilifKculty, a.s Coiite.'^liuit laudt; 110 cflurl
to call the illej2;al voter or show how he vot("(l,

Mr. ^IcCrary, in stating the true rule in the like case, hapj)!!}' recognizes
the rule adojjted by our own Supreme Court in McDaniel's case, reported in
3(1 Pennsylvania Law Journal, olO, and also in Brij^htly'.s leading cases on
elections, {)age 288, which has been fully sustained i)y all the subsetiuent de-
cisions in our connnonwealth, and which is accepted as the undoubted law
upon this (juestion. It is stated thus : "To reject an illegal vote, it nuist a])-
pcar for whom it was polled ; it cannot be taken from the majority candidate
unless proved to have been polled for him." This rule has not only the au-
thority of law, by the highest tribunal in our State, but it is based upon the
broadest ])riuciples of e(]uity and right.

If Contestant fails to show, or use reasonable diligence to show for whom
the illegal voter cast his vote, by calling him as a witness, or if he fail to es-
tablish the fact by other competent evidence, then his complaint must fail for
want of proof, like any other cause Avhich is lost for Avant of sufficient evi-
dence to sustain it ; upon no principle of justice could such votes be deducted
from Coutcstee.

Under the express provision of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, that
" no elector shall be deprived of the privilege of voting by reason of his name
not being registered^' it does not follow as a sequence that non-registered per-
sons arc illegal voters — some indeed may be, but the vast majority are not.

This case does not require us to discuss the constitutionality of the Regis-
try act of Pennsylvania under the restriction placed upon the Legislature, in
the above clause of the fundamental law.

We simply affirm this to be the law, that the Legislature, under the Con-
stitution of Pennsylvania ctinnot alter the constitutional qualifications of
electors — it may prescribe the necessary regulations as to place, mode and
manner of holding and conducting the elections ; but such regulations are
to be reasonable and subordinated to the enjoyment of the rig/it itself.

In Pennsylvania where an election has been held since the adoption of
the present Constitution, and unregistered voters, have voted, and a contest
has arisen, we think no lawyer will deny the right of a non-registered
voter to testify as a witness to his own qualifications, and where unim-
peached, his testimony alone, will be taken as full proof.

In appendix to Contestant's Brief a list of alleged unregistered voters is
printed, which Contestant claims must l)e deducted from Contcstce, cither ac-
ct;rding to Harding's or McCrary's rule. We have already shown that no such
rule as the former exists, and that the latter rule is not maintained by
jNIcCrary.

We deny that this list published by Contestant as unregistered voters,
is correct or true. An examination of the several poll and registry lists
referred to, will conclusively prove, that there is no reliability, or accu-
racy in it. It is solely made upon the slightest discrepancy between the
spelling of the names on the poll list, and on the registry list ; or where
the initials of the voter are transposed ; or where only one initial of the
name is given ; or where the christian name is written in full on the one
list, and not on the other ; or where Junior or Senior appears on the ono
list and not on the other ; or where any other similiar variation may be
found in the respective names. /// all these cases the person is claimed
by Contestant to be an illegal, non-registered voter.

And not only this, but in all cases, where the election officers have
received the vote of an elector, on "age," and so marked it on the regis-
try as required by law ; in all cases where they have received the vote
of an elector, and marked his name on the rcirislry, as "fax," as re-

24 CURTIN VS. VOCUjM.

quired by tlic Ilogistiy act ; in all cusses where the registry was lost,
iiiishud or not furnished by the Connnissioners, and in nearly every case
where the voter was qualiiied as a witncs.-, and jjrovcd his qualification
as an elector — in all these cases they are marked on this list as non-
registered voters.

As an illustration how this list is made, we refer to one instance in Spring
township, Centre county, page 3 of Contestant's appendix, No. 342, J. Milton
Furey.

On the registry list of Spring township, printed testimony page 271, his
name is printed John M. Furey, on the poll list, page 222, it is printed J.
Milton Furey ; Contestant claims him as an illegal non-registered voter! !

This is but one of a hundred others, in this list, which we might enumerate.

On pages 5. R, 7, S, 9 and 10 of Contestant's Appendix, all the voters in
Union and Old Armagh townships except the GO day lists, are claimed as
non-rcgister(d voters. In Old Armagh township, the election officers identify
the register used by them at the ])olls, and which was furnished them by the
Connnissioners, and which was offered in evidence. See page 290G-2956 showing
that every voter but three was duly registered ; and in Union township the
ofiicers swear they had a register, that the names were checked off as the
voter presented himself at the polls ; yet Contestant claims this entire town-
ship as non-registered.

There are various reasonable methods to account for all these slight dis-
crepancies in the names of voters.

The usual manner of holding the elections in Pennsylvania is as follows :
One inspector takes charge of the registry list ; the other inspector receives
the ballots and announces the name of the voter. In most of the districts
the elector is personally known to the inspector, and he announces the voter
by the name by which he is usually called or known without giving the ini-
tials ; the clerks Avrite down from the sound without seeing or knowing the
person, and they very often differ in their method of spelling it. The other
inspector not only sees the voter, but checks the proper name on the registry
list. There is no time to compare the orthography or the initials of the
names. The list of voters goes to the prothonotary, and it is copied by him
to be used as testimony. It then goes to the printer, and the next appear-
ance is in the testimony. Is it at all singular tliat many errors should thus
be made to appear? Are honest voters to be termed illegal simply because
some one has made an error in spelling his name, or omitting one of his
initials?

Are election officers to be stigmatized as acting fraudulently in receiving
the votes of such persons? It must also be borne in mind in tfiis connection
that the clerks of the commissioners were not careful in recopying the registry
lists after the June assessments were made. In Cefifre ^i?//;//}', the corrected
lists made by the assessor on the Gist day before the election, as required by
the Registry act, were not copied by the proper authorities, and then sent
direct to the election board ; but the assessors handed these corrected lists to
the election officers, and they were required to place the same in the ballot
boxes and seal the same, so that in many instances the certified copies of reg-
istry lists oflered in evidence are necessarily incorrect ; and in not a single
case, except Old Armagh toAvnship, was the registry actually used at the polls
offered in evidence, and in that case but three persons appear as unregistered.

We claimed when the testimony was being taken by Contestant in chief,
and before the destruction of the contents of the ballot boxes, long prior to
the 18th of February, 1879, that the only true and correct registry of voters,
were those used by the election officers and deposited by them in the boxes ;
that these registries would show who voted as the law required the officers to

d-URTllij VS. YOCUM. 2^

murk opporiitc tlio iiaiiio of every persoir who voled the letlcr " V," :iii(l if
on a<!;e, the word " ai;e," and if not registered tlien to add liis name and tuuvk
" tax." That the be.'^t evidenee of non-regi.<tered vo!er.>^, in fact tlie only
evich-nee eonsisted in tlie jjroduction of the.se rejxistry lisl.s ; ihat it wsis in ihe
jHiwer of ('ontestant to ])ro(Uico tliein, and that ii|)()n a i)ro])er petition ad-
dressed to the Court hy Contestant an order eouhl readily he oh'.ained to
open the boxes and j)roduee the eontent-s befor^' the eoninii.'<sioners ; that
without this eiibrt on bi'half of Contestant the eertifii'd ettniis of registry li.st.s
in the connnissionir's olHee were not evidenee ibr the purpose intended. C'on-
testant deelined to make any eiibrt to obtain or seeure the produetion of the
ballot-boxes before the eonmiissitJiier, a/ni for the very plain and palpable
reason that the contents of the ballot-boxes, would have utterly disproved every
allegation on the part of Contestant.

Having thus prevented the produetion of the best evidence we submit to
the eonnnittee that lie cannot use secondary and inferior evidence to accom-
plish the j)urpose — not only inferior evidence, but that which, upon Contest-
ant's own showing, is not evidence of the foct.

The ])roduction of the boxes, would also have shown the affidavits that
were made, in nearly every ease, of non-registered voters, a fact which Con-
testant by the character and method of his proof sought to avoid showing.

The entire evidence taken by Contestant, as well as his tabulated state-
ment, printed with his Brief, demonstrates the fact that wherever a non-
(lualified person had voted, or wherever a non-registered voter was not (piali-
hed by reason of non-registry, non-residence, non-payment of tax, or for
any other cause, he was called and his disqualifications shown.

That among all the non-registered voters in the six counties. Contestant
was able to prove that but a few were not qualified, and these he called with-
out a single exception. That having thus searched the lists with the greatest
care, as well as the entire Congressional district, and having found a very
small number as shown by the proof, who were not qualified, he now seeks to
class the entire residue as" illegal voters by reason, as he contends, of non-
registration ! ! And this, too, notwithstanding his own argument that under
the constitutional provision referred to, non-registration is not disqualification.
This effort is made, not by those clear, distinct means of proof which the
law recognizes as the best evidence, and without accounting for its non-produc-
tion, the only evidence, but l)y an inferior 'clnas of evidence, which on its own
face shows the legal reasons for its rejection.

And in endeavoring to accomplish this result Contestant comes in direct
conflict with the latest decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in
the case of Wheelock, 1 Norris 21)7, delivered on the 8th of Juno, 1870, and
the only one, under the new* Constitution upon this question, in which the
Court held that the absence of a registry of voters is no cause for setting
aside the i)oll. That "if we by our decision shall permit the carelessness or
even the fraud of officers whose duty it is to furnish a list of voters at the
election, to defeat the election and deprive the ])eop]e of the county of the
officer who was elected by a majority of their votes, we would thus make the
people suffer for an act in which they did not participate and which they did
not sanction ; a decision of this kind would be fraught with danger, by invi-
ting unscrupulous or unprinci])led persons on the eve of an ini|)ortiint elec-
tion, to secrete or destroy the lists of voters, or other im])ortant papers in a
township in which the majority may determine the result in the county."

This being the law as declared by the highest court in this State under
this very Registry act and under the new Constitution, it may well be asked.
How then can the absence of a registry be made to support a basis upon
which the entire poll list is claimed to be non-registered voters and thereby

20 CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

ncconiplisli the same result? And tlie same inquiry is pertinent to the case
where the ])roof shows imperfect registrys, or fails to show the registry used
by the election officers.

"NVc have made a corrected summary of Contestant's Brief, in which we
have corrected his tables as to illegal votes cast for Contestee. We have also
corrected his list of alleged non-registered voters, and shown by reference to
the registry lists referred to in Contestant's Brief and other evidence, that
nearly the entire number are registered ; that many whom he claims as non-
registered made the affidavits required by law, and that Contestant offered the
same in evidence ; that the greater part of the residue were called as wit-
nesses and proved their qualifications, leaving a comparative few, whose
names we have rot been able to identify, on the registry lists.

We respectfully refer the committee to this corrected list, deeeming it
proper to say, that upon a comparison of the two tables, it will become ap-
parent, upon the least investigation, that the method adopted by the Contest-
ant, in order to show non-registered voters, was both strained and unfair.

We called and qualified nearly all the real unregistered voters in the dis-
tricts, in whicli Contestant offered poll and registry lists, although in many
of them no allegations were made in notice of contest ; and in only four or
five in the entire Congressional District were any allegations made as to non-
registered voters

In addition to the correction of Contestant's Brief, which is contained in
appendix A. and B., we have presented in tabulated form the illegal votes
for Contestant, as shown by the evidence and designated as the general sum-
mary of Contestee.

We have also prepared a list of non-registered voters, in districts giving
Contestant majorities, and we submit to the committee, that a careful com-
parison of this list, with similar lists, made by Contestant, printed in his
Brief, will show more non-registered voters in districts giving Contestant a
majority, than in districts giving Contestee a majority.

No doubt Contestant in reply will undertake to show that these are not
non-regislered voters ; that they were called and qualified ; but we have en-
deavored to strike from our list, all that were duly qualified, leaving as the
result, the list printed as non-registered voters. In a few instances we may
have overlooked some names, owing to the large mass of testimony, but we
submit, that the table is much nearer the true record than the table of Con-
testant.

The official majority for Contestee was seventy-three ; a mistake of seven
in the west ward of the borough of Mifflinburg, Union county, against Con-
testee, and which is admitted by Contestant, in his Brief, will increase Con-
testee's majority to eighty.

Added to this, the illegal votes shown to be cast for Contestant, after de-
ducting the illegal votes admitted in our summary for Contestee, we feel
confident in saying that the true majority for Contestee is more than triple
the official majority.

We submit that Contestant has failed to make that character of proof
as to alleged non-registered voters, which every principle of justice and right
require, and which every authority of the highest courts in the land de-
mands ; and having so failed, he cannot under any principle of law, or
under the guide of any precedent, or rule established by authority of law,
charge any proportion of alleged non-registered voters to Contestee.

Without any charge in notice of contest ; without any proper proof of
the existence of non-registered voters, and without any evidence, showing for
whom any such persons voted, although the Contestant had ample means
at his command to call the voter ; having used no diligence to call thera,

CURTIN VS. YOCUM. 27

but upon the contrary refusing to do so, while at the same time a larger per
centage of this class of persons is found in Contestant's own districts, we re-
spectfully submit that Contestant cannot, without a violation of the rights of
Contestee, derive any benefit or advantage therefrom.

We therefore submit the adjudication of this contest to the committee,
being assured that any impartial view of the evidence, and the law applica-
ble to the case, will clearly vindicate the right of the Contestee to retain his
seat in the 46th Congress of the United States, from the 20th Congressional
district of Pennsylvania, to which he was legally elected by the voice of the
people, as expressed at the polls on the 5th day of November, A.D., 1878.

A. O. FURST,
THOMAS H. MURRAY.
J. G. LOVE,

Counsel for Contestee.

2§

eORTlN vs. YOCUM.

GENERAL AND CORRECTED RESULT IN DISTRICT.

Centre County....
Cleartield County
Clinton County..

Elk County

MilHin County

Official Vole.

CURTIN YOCUM

3535
3034
25G5
1010
1782

Union County j 1455

Total.

Majority.

13381

3480
2914
2264
803
1767
2220

13454

Corrected Vote.

CURTIN YOCUM

3438
2U37
2498
978
1768
1427

13046

3480
2896
2263
800
1767
2219

13425

379

Official majority — Yocum 73

Actual majority — Yocum 379

CURTIN VS. YOCUM.

GENERAL RECAPITULATION OF TITK lihSULT IX IM8TRICT BY

COUNTIES.

CENTRE COUNTY.

Illegal votes claimed by Contestant in his Brief, for Yocuni 70

Shown to be legal by "testimony G-4

True number illegal Yocum votes 6

Number admittca illegal for Curtin in his Brief. 7

Proven illegal Curlin votes see general summary of Contestee, in-
cluding those admitted

CLEARl'IEI-D COL^NTY.

Illegal votes claimed by Contestant in his Brief, for Yocum G4

Shown to be legal by testimony 40

True number illegal Yocum votes 18

Admitted illegal Curtin votes 29

Proven illegal Curtin votes see general summary of Contestee in-
cluding those admitted

f'MNTON COUNTY.

Illegal votes claimed by Contestant in his Brief for Yocum 69

Shown to be legal by testimony 68

True number illegal Yocum votes 1

Admitted illegal Curtin votes 25

Deduct Mill Hall list 8

Admitted illegal Curtin votes 17

Proven illegal Curtin votes see general summary, including those
admitted

ELK COUNTY.

Illegal votes claimed by Contestant in his Brief for Yocum 53

Shown to be legal by testimony 50

True number illegal Yocum votes 3

Admitted illegal Curtain votes 4

Proven illegal T'urtain votes see general summary including those
admitted

MIFl'MN COUNTY.

Illegal votes claimed by Contestant in his Brief for Yocum 2

Shown to be legal by testimony 2

Illegal Curtin votes admitted in his Brief 1

Proven illegal Curtin votes see general summary including the
one admitted

UNION COUNTY.

Illegal votes claimed by Contestant in his Brief, for Yocum 4

Shown to be legal by testimony 3

True number illegal Yocum votes 1

Illegal Curtin votes admitted in his Brief. 10

Proven illegal Curtin votes sec general summary including those
admitted

Total illegal votes in district

Official vote in district

Deduct illegal votes above

Corrected vote in district

Corrected majority in district for Seth H. Yocum

Curtin

335

13381
335

13040 13425

3°

CURTIM VS. YOCUM.

This result is ohtuiiied withoul any rufercuce to what is termed unregistered
voters. We have preparetl a tabulated statement of unregistered voters by counties,
made up in districts, giving majorities for either Contestant or Contestee. If un-
registered voters be considered by tlie committee, in light of tlie fact, that neither
side offered any evidence, for whom they voted, it is very apparent, that no Rule can
be adopted, which would be of advantage to Contestant. Tlie result would simply
be to confirm and increase the majority of Contestee. See following statement:

STATEMENT OF ALLEGED UNREGISTERED VOTERS IN THE DISTRICT.

CENTRE COUNTY.

Number of alleged unregistered votes in election districts, giving

C u r t i n a m a j r 1 1 y

Same in districts, giving Yocum a majority

CLEARFIELD COUNTY.