IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS.-STANTON vs. LANE
THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS.-FISHBACK AND BAXTER.
[This Index is frequently more minute than the syllabus in the body of the work. For
the sake of economy, and to make the volume a hand-book, the contents have been
compressed into a small compass. It contains 32 more cases than are included in
"Clark & Hall's" "Contested Elections," and 350 pages less. The reader will find no
difficulty, however, in finding a case or any point in it if he will consult the Index.
Two or three unimportant errors have been discovered after the body of the work has left
the press. The second case of "Segar, of Virginia" precedes the first, and in the
syllabus of “Reeder vs. Whitfield” (page 215) the word "legislature” appears instead of
"people."]
Abstract of votes.-Returned to the office of Secretary of State, though not obtained
within the sixty days, can be used as documentary evidence. (Vallandig-
ham vs. Campbell)..........
Adjournment of poll.-See case of Goggin vs. Gilmer...
Amended return.-An amended return of votes, sent in seven days after the election,
was counted, and the certificate given accordingly. House justified the
proceeding. (Sleeper vs. Rice)......
Apportionment act.-When it took effect. See case of Lowe.
Archer vs. Allen, of Illinois.-A ecount of votes by the judges of election gave a
majority to contestant. The evidence indicated the same thing. Com-
mittee reported in contestant's favor, but the House declared the seat
Baker, of Illinois.-Accepted military appointment under the government. Held by
the committee that the acceptance vacated the seat at once......
Ballot. The voter (by ballot) cannot be deprived of his right of secresy, and if it is
done by judges of election it tends to vitiate the entire proceedings.
(Otero vs. Gallegos)..........
Ballot-boxes.—A recount of votes showed a majority in favor of contestant, and the
committee reported in his favor. Minority of committee dissented
on the ground that the identity of the ballot-boxes was not proved,
and that they had not been so kept as to rebut a presumption
that they had been tampered with. House adopted conclusions of
minority. (Butler vs. Lehman)
Recount of votes not permitted to overturn original sworn returns.
(Kline vs. Verree)........
Application for opening of boxes must be founded on proof sufficient
to raise a presumption of fraud or illegality. (Kline vs. Myers)....
Beach, of Virginia.-Non-compliance with State laws owing to existence of rebellion.
Seat not given to claimant
Bennet vs. Chapman, of Nebraska.-Allegations of illegalities on both sides. Sitting
delegate retained his seat
Birch vs. King, of Missouri........
Blair vs. Barrett, of Missouri.-Charges of fraud and irregularities. Contestant
obtained the seat.
Bonzano, of Louisiana.-Not acted on. Report in his favor......
Botts vs. Jones, of Virginia.—Contest upon qualification of voters, and illegalities.
Mr. Jones retained his seat...
Bright and Fitch, of Indiana.—(Senate)
Brockenbrough vs. Cabell, of Florida.-The validity of the returns not questioned...
Brooks vs. Davis, of Maryland.- Contestant asked the House to make a special
investigation, examining witnesses at its bar. Prayer refused..
Bruce vs. Loan, of Missouri.-Grounds of contest were, interference with the election
by the State militia, and improper conduct of officers at certain polls.
Committee recommended that seat be declared vacant. Minority made
report in favor of sitting member, and its conclusions were adopted by
the House
Butler vs. Lehman, of Pennsylvania.-The return judges declared Mr. Butler elected,
but one of the returns was subsequently found to be a forgery. The gov
ernor went behind the returns, and by proclamation declared Mr. Lehman
elected. Ballot boxes were opened, and report was in favor of contestant.
House gave the seat to sitting member
Byington vs. Vandever, of Iowa.-Sitting member accepted office of colonel of volun-
teers, and was sworn into the military service. House vacated the seat..
Cameron, of Pennsylvania.—(Senate)
Carrigan vs. Thayer, of Pennsylvania.—Contestant having neglected to take the
proper legal steps to procure testimony, asked for special authority. It
was refused
Census.-A political census too vague for a judicial decision. (Ingersoll vs. Naylor).
A municipal census prima facie evidence of facts it contains. (Blair vs.
Barrett.)
Chandler, of Virginia.-District within control of rebel authorities. Election re-
garded as a nullity....
Chapman vs. Ferguson, of Nebraska.-Preliminary contest for further time. Main
contest upon allegations of fraud and irregularities. Subject laid on table.
Chrisman vs. Anderson, of Kentucky.-Contestant alleged that a mistake in the re-
turns, discovered after the county boards had sent them in, gave him the
majority. Committee went behind the returns and reported in favor of
sitting member. House adopted conclusions of committee...
Citizenship.—(See case of Levy, of Florida Territory).......
Mexicans, inhabitants of U. S. Territory, under treaty stipulations
elected to be Mexican citizens, and afterwards voted for delegate to
Congress. The votes were rejected. (Otero vs. Gallegos) .........................
Clark vs. Hall, of Iowa.-Allegation of informalities in the county abstract of votes.
Sitting member retained the seat......
Clements, of Tennessee.-Admitted to seat. Rebellion in Tennessee
Cloud and Wing, of Virginia.—The State in rebellion. Claimants not admitted...........
Convention.-A constitutional convention cannot assume legislative functions in pre-
sence of the legislature. (Beach.). ..
County. The act of a legislature does not organize a county. County officers must
first be elected. (Daily vs. Estabrook)
Credentials.-Refusal of a governor to grant a certificate does not prejudice right of
claimant. (Clements) ..........
Governor of a Territory gave certificate to one candidate, and upon the
ground of discovered fraud revoked it and gave it to another. House
approved proceeding. (Morton vs. Daily)
Daily vs. Estabrook, of Nebraska Territory.-Allegations of fraud and irregularities.
Contestant obtained the seat
Dacotah Territory.-Todd vs. Jayne
Dixon, of Kentucky.—(Senate)...
Domicile.-(See Residence.) Domicile of the father is domicile of the son during his
minority, while the son is under the control and direction of the father.
(Lery)..
Doty vs. Jones, of Wisconsin Territory.-Mr. Jones, though elected in 1836, and
taking his seat at that time, claimed that the time did not legally commence
till the 4th of March, 1837, and consequently did not end till 1839. The
seat was given to the contestant, Mr. Doty..
Election. (See Judges of Election.) Where the law or custom fixes the election at
a particular place, and it is held at another, the vote shall be rejected.
(Howard vs. Cooper)......
A governor cannot delegate to another person the power of fixing the time
of an election to fill a vacancy. (Graflin)................
Election officers.—(See Inspectors.) The neglect or refusal to take the oath prescribed
by law by election officers is sufficient cause for the rejection of the poll.
(Blair vs. Barrett .............
Evidence.-(See Testimony.) Abstracts of votes not returned within the sixty days
can be used as documentary evidence. (Vallandigham vs. Campbell..
Poll lists are not sufficient evidence that a person voted-parol evidence is
necessary A resort to parol proof, where poll lists are not required to
be kept as records, is admissible-
(Vallandigham vs. Campbell)
The declaration of a voter as to any matter concerning his own vote is
admissible-
Ex parte affidavits, taken after the case had been fully considered, not
admissible. (Blair vs. Barrett)....
|