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)....
« PreviousContinue » |