, V   1-.
F z.
ltQ. HENRY Mi FULLER,
THE CONTESTED ELECTION
ELEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTR'ICT OF PENNSYLVAIA,
HENDRICK B. WRIGHT vs, HENRY M. FULLER.
DELIVERED IN TIlE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 25, 1852,
WASHINGTON.
PRINTED BY JNO. T. TOW.ERS.
1852.
S PEE CH
OF
UPON
FROM THE
0, 
1.. 
6  -{  -.,b
6    -2 —A?   3,3;
SPEECH
oF
HON. HENRY M. FULLER,
UPON THE
CONTESTED ELECITION FROM THE ELEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
IiELIYERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRES.ENrTATIVES, JUNE 25, 1852.
Mr. FULLER addtressed the House as follows:
Mr. SPE.AKR E    Before I proceed with my  argument, I wish to inquire of the
Chair what is the usual course pursued in proceedings of this character?  I know
the contestant is present, and I understand he desires to be heard by the House in
his own behalf   If that be the case, I wish to move  that he be furnished with a
seat upon the floor for that purpose.
'The SPEAKER.   The Chair decides that in very many cases contestants have
been admitted to seats upon the floor, and been allowed to be heard in their own
cases.
Mr. FUILER.   I move, if the gentleman desires it, that he be permitted to do
,so in this case.
[Cries of "Agreed!"  Agreed!"]
The question was then taken upon Mr. Fu]LElt's motion, and it was agreed to.
Mr. W RIGHT then took a seat within the bar.
Mr. FULLER.   I have nothing to say for myself..I speak to-day in behalf of
s majority of t~e  people of the Eleventh Congressional District of Pennsylvania.
Were I alone concerned this ease would be submitted to your decision, without
any remarks of mine.  But; when the people of my district are unjustly accused,
when they are arraigned and  put upon their trial, it is not permitted that 1, their
elected Representative, should remain silent.  This action makes it my  duty to delend their reputation thus assailed, to vindicate the purity of their motives, and the
fairness of their-election; to repel all unworthy imputations, to wipe out all false
aspersions upon their character and good name.   In discharge of that duty, it will
be my object fully and frankly to relate the history of this contest, and to state all
the facts which have brought it before the House and before the country   The
character of the case will require me to become, somewhat personal, without inten tional offense, however, and(, of course, within the rules of parliamentary order;
so far as there may be occasion to speak of myself, it will be done, I trust, with be coming modesty; and so far as there may be necessity to speak of others, it shall
be done moderately, temperately, and with all possible charity.
Sir, four weeks previous to the election here in controversy, little dreamed I of
becoming a candidate, much less of being elected to the present Congress; but it
so happened, in the political history of the district, that the nomination of the honor able contestant was not altogether so satisfactory as it should have been.   This,
surely, was no fault of mine. It may not have been any fault oi his, though I
submit that such a state -of feeling as existed there rarely arises without some real
or supposed good and sufficient cau,se.   What the reasons were that influenced the
people on that occasion would not be the'subject of legitimate inquiry here. The
effects of the disease, however, will I think be sufficiently exposed without tracing
the cause. Be that as it may, at the solicitation of many worthy and highly honor,able men of both political parties, both Whigs and Democrats, I was induced to
4k 
4
enter the canvass, and most unexpectedly, and I am frank to  adrnit, quite as ttn
deservedly, I was elected.   I da not claim  the election as the,result ofaniy merit
or public service of mine. It would not become me to say that it was owing tq
any demerit on the part of my honorable opponent, but the fact is undoubtedly
true that the people, in the exercise of their-constutional right, chose to withdraw
their confidence from  him, and cast it, undeserved, upon me.   Now,  that he
ws greatly mistaken, that he was greatly disappointed), I have every reason to tI)e  lieve; for, only a few  days before  the election, he ex'pressed his  regret, in most
decided terms, that he would be compelled to defeat me, his neighbor, so\ badly
This was very kind, most amiable, and most neighborly on his part.   I remember
to have rejoined in the same spirit, expressing my entire satisfaction with any re suit; but, at the same time, commendinrg him to a prudent husbandry of all his
resources.   Now, that he was disappointed, I have still stronger reason to believe,
for, on the very day of the election, up to the hour of the closing of the polls, he
boasted very loudly, and most publicly, (as his habit is,) that his majority would
be 2,999, with something to spare.
Had it been so, Mr. Speaker-had his expectations been realized,.no man could
have yielded more cheerfully than I would.   Instead of being soured  anid disap pointed, it would'have rather rejoiced me that the people of the district had elected
a man so much abler-certainly so much more anxious-to represent them than I..
But had he'  been nelected by one mitority, I trut no  man, neither he, nor any of
his friends, will ever do me the injustice to suppose that I could have contested it,
No, sir, I was prepared then, as I trust I am prepared now, to fall at least with
decency.   No, sir; my principles, such as they are, and my  sense of duty, such as
it is, have ever taught me to bow with respectful submission to the expressed will
of the people; and desperate, indeed, in my humble judgment, must that man's po litical fortunes have become-reckless, indeed, of human  evil and  human,peril
must that man have become, who wantonly attempts to thwart the wishes, to palsy
the will, or to set aside the verdict of the people; for rest assured, that  "whom
they will they will set up, and whom they will they will set down." Mr. Speaker,
our experience in life'proves the fact, that the philosophy of some men is unequal
to discomforture. The public appreciation of men does not always quite come up
to their own appreciation of themselves.  It often happens with defeated candidates
whose aspirations for political preference have in some manner been signally dis appointed, that they imagine themselves to have  been greatly wronged, grossly
cheated, infamously defrauded.   Perhaps there is nohman whosshows this infirmity
more largely than the honorable contestant himself.   Now, in order to show you
with what facility some men will deceive themselves in this particular, and in order
to illustrate more fully this part of my argument, I propose to give you an example
exactly in point, and I am induced to do so for the reason that the gentleman him.
self, in his opening speech before the committee, as they will remember  declared
that this was the second time that he had been cheated out of a seat in this House.
In 1848 the gentleman was a candidate for Congress, and at that time ran in op
position to the late lamented Mr. Butler, a pure and upright man, as many of you
know, and also against a Mr. Collings, as able and as unflinching a Democrat as is
to be found in the State of Pennsylvania.. On that occasion he  was defeated, and
immediately thereafter appeared in a newspaper, in which I believe he is'largely in terested, an article, which was said to have been written by himself. He will have
an opportunity of denying it, if I misstate the matter; but taking it, as I do, to be
his own production, and regarding it, therefore, as the highest authority, I read it
for the information of the Hose.  It is to thti W.         -.
i"SSAMFFUL FRAUD.-A most disgusting fraud occurred on the day of election in the Carbondale
district. The Democratic tickets were lilded up in bunches, and put in the hands of Mr. Tbohistas
Boland for distrikution at the polls.  These tickets he carted in his coat pockets.'The Federalists
procured tickets in the same type, and tied them up- in'exact inmitation of the Democratic bunches and watching Mr. Boland in the crowd, took the tickets with Colonel Wright's name, out of his lIock e-s, and placed the"Whig ones in the place of them. Mr. Bolandl not discovering the error, handerl out
the bunches to the voters, who put them in thie polls, surlosing tlhem to be the Democratic tickiet,
with Colonel Wright's name among them.  Is this way our Democratic candidate lbr Congress was
defeated. Shame where is thy blush. When fraud of' this kind is resorted to, can a cause prosper )
We were well aware that Colonel Wright would get from one hbndred and fifty to two hundred majority in the Carbondale district, and had he not been CHEATED  in this way, would lhae been tri —
umphantly elected over a stronger combination of men and money than was everbrought to bear
against a single man before.  But though defeated, he is at this moment stronger in te affectionss of
the people of thisdistrict, than though he had been successful." 
5
' THIE FRAUD.-We cannot help again reverting to the revolting and wicked fraud in the Carbondale district  Our information is, that at least one hundred men went to the polls withl, as they supposed, Colonel WVriglht's ticket in their hand, but were deceived and cheated out of their chloice.
What must a  H,)NORABLE man thi, who holds a place obtained in this way? Does he repose
easv on his pillow, when the station he is elevated to is the result of so base a deception?
V" We4ow it is no apl)oloy for a voter not to examine his tickets; but how many hundreds are
olere who take the tied up bunch fiomn the haud of a friend? So it was done at Carbondale. and
MIr. Boland all the time supposing he was handing out Colonel Wiight's tickets-while craven villains
were picking his pockets, and spplying them with other tickets.  Are such frauds to prosper?"
Mr. STUART. I rise to a question of order. I understand the gentleman to
be discussing circumstances attending an election two years prior to the one now
in dispute.
Mr. FULLER.   This is a mere illustration of my argument to show how men
will be deceived in this respect.
The SPEAKER.   Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order.
Mr. STUART. I do, sir.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not know precisely the application of the
paper which the gentleman is reading, which he adopts as part of his speech, and
is disinclined to rule him out of order.
Mr. FULLER.   I have read as much as I desire, and, although sustained by
the Specaker, I will desist. The first scene in this drama of contested election
opened just seven days after the canvass had closed, and came very near being a
tragedy in the first act.  Under the election laws of Pennsylvania th return judges,
or canvassers of the several counties, are required to meet at a pl.$ designated by
law for the purpose of footing up the returns, ascertaining the result, and giving to
the individual chosen a certificate of his election. The judges met in pursuance of
this law, on the seventh day after the election at the borough of Wilkesbarrre,
where the honorable gentleman and myself both reside. Meanwhile, the lightning
and the press had announced the result of the Pennsylvanian election all over the
country, and I had the pleasure, if pleasure it could be, of seeing myself in print
as the member elect from the eleventh Congressional district; and while in the very
act of receiving the congratulations of my Whig and Democratic friends, who had
elected me, while we were in the act of making ourselves merry in the manner and
after the fashion of the times, what sort of an announcement  do you think I received?  Why, sir, I was told that the judges were in convention, and that the
honorable contestant had  presented hiniself before them, and was demanding, ay,
begging, and that, too, tearfully, a certificate of his election. Ex gratia modesti!.t
Before the election, claiming three thousand majority, and after the election, attempting to get a certificate by disfranchiising just about the same number!  Will
'he deny that?  What was his argument?  It was that Montour county, a new
county, which had bIeen erected out of a part of Columbia, then and now a part of
the district, had not then held har courts, and that she was not entitled, therefore,
to a separate representative in the board of returning officers. It was not contended, sir, that they had not the right to vote, nor was  it contended that their vote
was not correctly numerically returned, but uponfi this shallow pretence, this bald
invention, this miserable quibble, did the gentleman attempt to disfranchise over
two thousand voters.
On that occasion f remember to have heard one of the' most remarkable speeches
to which I ever listened in my life.   One of the most remarkable, perhaps, in the
history of human eloquence-for pathos and deep feeling, -that of Mark Anthony,
over the dead body of Caesar, would bear no sort of comparison. Not content with
pressing the legal argument, which he did with great force-he urged other considerati)ns upon the attention of the judges. What these considerations were, I do
not propose now to relate. They were innocent, however, and perhaps, to avoid
all improper inferences, I may as well state, that he pressed upon them his age,
that he was a native of the county, that his voice had been heard for twenty years
in that court-house, that he had rendered many most important, but long, unrequited public services, and therefore, that he should have a certificate of election.  But,
sir, the judges, all of them Democrats, because every county in the District is strongly
Democratic, would not, of course, yield to this extraordinary demand.   They were
men of firmness and integrity-they were men  who  felt that their oaths and their
honor were of higher obligation than their duties as partisans, and as honest men5 
they of course refused; in this respect permit me  to say, they have set a  high atio
worthy example.   Had it been  otherwise, the honorable  contestant might  have,
taken a certificate, but it would have been  against  law-against the popular will,
and in defiance of public shame.   Ha'l  he received it he could not have' retained it
a single hour, for such would  have been  the excitement  if a people, whom seitiments of common  Jaw, common  honesty, and  common justice, would have been
outraged, that no earthly power could have  prevented their doing themselves justice, even at the personal sacrifice of the contestant and the judges.  Then there
would have been -a tragedy in the first act, and  the  harmony of this interestiing
drama very much disturbed. Fortunately the integrity of the judges averted any'
such result.
Now, sir, in order to show in what light this proceeding is regarded by the tried
and true Democracy of the district, I propose to read from the leading Democratic
journal, published in the very town  where the contestant resides.  That will be in
order, I am sure.   It is the Wilkesbarre Farmer and Journal:.
ELEVENTH CONGORESSIONAL DIsTRICT.-Thle followin, is the otflicil voie in this district:
I'ri#rht.:b, lkul,r.
Mr toni...:                               -     v -  v -., -:............, 473:  1.7,17
Col umbvia..        *.......     1.5se932
Luzerne.....3,247                                     2,9 4S
Wyoming................                                            848 619
6,157       6,'216
6,t574
aFlller's majority.59
The return judges of tie district are now in session at the court-house in thibs orough.  Stiennosii;
opposition has been raised by tie defeated candidlate asd his fiends to lile reception Of the votes fionm
iontour county, on ihe ground of alleged itiformaihty in the fprteedi     o   o f retuan judge of
that county. The vote of Motour eommty is sought to be thrown out, al a costi!uey  nuibeit  between two ad! three thousand thus disfra nhised. In su-lch a pioeedicng a   tiss, tihe true an-  rithtt
Democracy o'f this county iave, and wi hahave, no lit or part-  They believe iclii ously in the sIcred
character of the right of fraelise. and regard w     ith abhor,ence evely effirt of unscrlpulos  nen,
under the stimulus of bad eassion and greedy ambition; to violate that right They denouneed the infamous frauds of the mnemorable era known as th'e'bucl shot war, and they will not wieel about and
be guilty of th sae atroities themselves. They know that lhe inviolability of lims right rests,I the
very basis o  all thici    ii ous liberty that     upon it a  a hest aidace  b its lecision s
deuenils the security ant the safety of- their lives amlnpor, ud, y n,d, act of theirs will tliis saredt:
safeguardsbe brokenrdown.      -'.'''''.
"The majority in the above ease is elearly ascertained and expressed  The will of' tile ifoile is
made maniifest in unmistakable unbes, and no ear,thly tribunal has the righ to t t hat will aside."'
That, sir, is good Democratic doctrine in my  district.s
Having thus disposed of the early history of the case, we  will proceed to reply to
the argument of the honorable chairman of the  Committee on Elections.   Before
proceeding further, however; I will state in this connexion, that the specifications
of the contestant, some  twelve inr number, and  very wide in,their latit'u'de6' were
narrowed down to the single pull of the borough of Danville.   Now, sir, how did
the gentleman and  myself stand  related to this poll?   I live, arid he lives, fifty
miles distant, and so brief was the period- between my  nominatioh and tthe election
that I had no opportunity of visiting it all.  In this respect tlihe honorable contestant
had very greatly the advantage; for it is in evidence, as the committee will remember, that he visited the borough of Danville undter the happiest possible auspices, at
the invitation of Captain  Thomas Brandon, who appears, from this:evidence,  to
have been his patticular friend, advr,ande            espotn'let;.  X.It -was at his writlen
request that the contestant visited the borough of Danville, and while there, he- wvas
engaged in-rallying his friends, in, giving all the required pledges upon their local
questions,  and in making such  distribution of the "material aid" as is usual, and
which he regards as exceedingly potent in campaigns of this character.  [Laughter.]
But such was the effect (I will not, however, charge the gentlemen with producing
it) upon Captain Thomas Brandon, that it is in evidence here that he became, on
the day of the election, most strangely unmindful of his duty as a good citizen.  It
is in evidence here that Captain Thomas Brandon  voted number ten in the morning, and becoming oblivious to that fact, attempted to vote number four hundred
and forty-eight in the afternoon.   [Laughter.]   such is the fact, sir.  It will not.be denied.   And I allege that this is the only evidence of attempted fraud, becaulo
no other fraud is proven, during the whole day of that election.
6 
7
Now, the gentleman must not be offended if the vindication of the people, in this.
case, should expose the fact that leprosy and uncleanliness existed elsewhere. f.o
must not be offended if the inquiry should arise whetner he belongs to that denomination of men, who, being without sin, are by special grace permittedto cast the firm:
stone.  [Laughter.]
But, sir, he comes here, they say, upon notice.   Now, I am not going to argue
about notice.  I care nothing about notice.   I wish to say here, as my people de
sire me to say, that we waive all legal and technical objections, for, notice or no
notice, specification or no specification, law or no law, we desire to be judged by
the facts of the case.  Sir, were I capable of claiming a seat here to which I never
had been elected, I should expect, as I would deserve, the derision and scorn of all
,honorable men.
Now, sir, I am charged with having received illegal votes.  Does the gentlera
produce a single witness who swears to having voted for me, who  voted illegally?
Not one.  Does he produce a single witness who swears to his knowledge of a
single illegal vote having been given by any person, and given for me?   Not one.
I defy him to show any such evidence. - It is not on this record.  It is all inference.
It is hearsay.  Itis what Tom, Dick, and Harry have said about rag-tag and bobtail.  It is not such evidence as canjustly impeach the character of electors.  OE
what, then, does it consist?  It consists of declarations of intention on the part of
certain men, to become citizens since the election.  Did they vote?  What evidence
is there of the fact, beyond the similarity of names upon the list of voters? There
is none.  Are any of them produced?   Not one.  There is the evidence of two
other men, who swear to the fact of illegal voting, but did not know for whom they
voted.  But does the whole number thus claimed defeat my majority?  Not at allIt still leaves me a majority of 16, and if you add the 13 illegal votes that this report admits the contestant to have received, it increases my majority to-29.  There
is no escaping this result.
Oh, but, says the gentleman, the witnesses would not attend; they would not
obey the subpena which was issued by the United States commissioner.  Ay!
thereby hangs a tale."  Under the act of Congress any judge of a court of record
is made, by the selection of the party, a United States commissioner.  Does the
gentleman select one in Montour county, where theso. irtegularities-are complained
of, or fraud-if it pleases any gentleman to call it so, though no such thing is
charged in the specification, and none actually occurred?   Not at all.  Does  he~
take one from  Colhmbia  county?  Not at all.  Does he take one from  L,,
zerne county,  adjoining?   Not at all.  Does he take the first man  even ina
Wyoming  county-the  most distant county?   Not at all; but he  takes  the,
most remote man, and for what reason, we shall see hereafter.  He goes to Danville with this judge. They stay at the same hoase, and, as is shown by this record, occupy the same bed chamber,  sleeping, and eating inseparably together!
during the whole two weeks of this investigation.  Yes,  sir, during those  t
weeks they were together inseparably, and the judge  was engaged  a good portiol
of the time in taking the depositions or affidavits of witnesses, ex parte, before they
were called upon the stand!  That is proved, but I should not have alluded to it if
the chairman of the committee had not spoken yesterday-not from what appears
upon the record, but from representations that have been made" to hir-in regard to
the character of this judge.   I do not wish to expose them.   I know that the office
of the common hangman is the most odious andhateful in the world.   I feel to day
as if I were'a public executioner compelled by virtue of my; office to nail upon t1
gibbet of public opinion, a convicted malefactor. If there be any resurrection from
the foot of the gallows, which their own hands have reared, I commend  them to
your mercy.
Mr. ASHE.   I merely wish to say that I- particularly stated that I did not ape
,prove of the-conduct of either of the commrnissioners.  They both acted as if they
had not a proper idea of what was the duty of a commissioner.
Mr. FULLER.   I am very glad to hear the admission in regard to the contestant's commissioner, but Judge Cooper I am bound to defend, and there is no complaint that he did not discharge his duty.  He is a capable, an honest, and a highly
honorable man. I say this of the contestant's judge, that during that examinatioa
he rejected questions that were perfectly legalD and admitted questions that the corn 
mrittee themselves will decide were inadmissible.  I say, further, that he  permitted
a drunken witness to swear, and then refused to take down  his testimony as it was
delivered.  The  honorable chairman of the committee endeavored to excuse him
yesterday, upon the ground that judges of courts very often exclude the impertinent
and irrelevant answers of witnesses.  That is perfectly correct; but you must recollect that you are the judges in this case.   A commissioner is not the judge-he.
has no judicial powers.  How are you to understand the temper, appearance, and
character of a witness, to know whether he be drunk or sober, a sensible man or a
fool, unless you have his statement upon oath, as it is made before the commissioner?  It is impossible.   That is the only means you have of judging.  The witnesses do not come before you, and you have no means'of determining from their
appearance as to their character and credibility. I think, therefore, upon reflection,
the chairman of the committee will admit-that he was wrong in that regard.
. Well now, sir, I de not find fault with the contestant, because  he slept with the
judge.  That, doubtless, is a matter of taste, in which. you or I, Mr. Speaker, might
respectfully differ from him.   But I do insist that the judge should have "assumed
a yirtue if he had it niot."  I do say that there is nolangiage of reproach sufficiently
pungent to express your' commefitry up'onn''de' uct of that judge.   His behavior excited suspicion and public remark-in fact, became a matter of public comment in the papers.   I read from the Berwick Telegraph, a Democratic paper published in the county of Columbia, within the district:
"THIE CONTESTED- ELECTION CAsE.-We publish this week the principal. and most important part
of the "testimony -' taken at Danville on the part of the plaintiffin this case. A more ribald mass of
unmeaning nonsense, dignified with the name of evidence, we have rarely seen strung together. A
miserable object or two, suborned with rum and money-admittinlg, under oath, that they had been recently drinking in the room of the contestant, are brought forward and: emptied of kearsay trash, that
would not have been listened to as evidence for an instant by any body but the effigy of imbecility anti
ignorance, used as a tool, on the occasion, and called a'comnmissioner.''
There is such a thing as decorum, propriety, and decency, to be observed among
judges, the absence of which cannot be too severely reproved.  I make these remarks
with much regret. The honorable contestant is alone responsible, for he has forced
uapon me the necessity thus to speak. Of Judge Jayne I desire to say that he is in
good repute among his neighbors, and that I know nothing to his prejudice except
his conduct in this case.  It was discovered upon the first day of that examination
that the subpena which hadbeenissued bythe "enttel an/, was;irregular and llegal;
that instead of issuing his process in the name of the [Inited States of America, he
had issued it in the name of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Now, the Commonwealth of, Pennsylvania has never passed a law authorizing suck a subpena to
be issued in her name; and no process can beissued in her name, except by the authority of her laws.  But had the gentleman  an opportunity to perfect it?  Certainly he had.   His examination lasted eight days.  And a few days afterwards he
gave me notice of his intention to hold a second examination, to examine the persons of whose non-attendance he had complained. Did he, then, perfect his process? Not at all.  And, sir, it is believed that this subpena was issued in that form
intentionally.   I will not charge it, but I will state the reasons which have influenced others in coming to this opinion.   The contestant stated before the committee, that he was a lawyer of twenty years' standing.  Such is the fact, and I grant
he has attained to some eminence in his profession. But having passed the viginti
annorum  lucubrationes, which, Blackstone says,, are required  to make  t perfect
lawyer, I submit that he was bound  to'kriow that his subpena was irregular and illegal.   But if he did, as many believe, carry out this professional game of issuing
an illegal subpena, in the first place, and then manage so to disgust people afterwards, as to prevent their attendance, I want to know if I am to be-held accountable for the non-attendance of his witnesses?   I want  to know if this is to relieve
him of the necessity of making out his case from evidence?
Now, I will show you in this connection what sort of evidence is regarded as
proving an illegal voter. Here it is:
"Reuben Shock," a witness, to whom I will refer more at length hereafter, says:
"Question.  Do you know L. Steinhammer, the Jewish rabbi?
"/Inswer. I do.
"Q. WVhat do you know as to his voting at the election in October last, and who induced him to
vote?
"ah.  1 saw him about the court-house towards evening; I had some poplar scantling lying thero
which I went after, and saw several round him, and wanted him to vote-there There four, five, six, or 
9
eight standing there. I think Colonel Watson-was one, and Dr. Strawbridge was another; they wanted
him to vote, and he said he had no right to vote; they were coaxing him up to it, and gave him tickets.
After that I saw him walking up to the box at the window, and saw his arm going up to the window;
I thought his vote was pretty;ure, thatlhe had got it in, and I went away."
That is all the evidence we have about this man, except that his name appears
upon the list of'voters.
I will show you another:
"-Jacob Dietrick, sworn.-Q.estion.  Was your brother David living in Danville boroigis at the
time of the last October elections
".dnswer.  Yes.                 -
"Q. How many years has he been in the United States?
"/. Next fall it was two years; it was one last October."'
This is all the evidence we have about this man, except that a similar name appears upon the list of voters.   He  is not in. any. other way identified.   Now, I
want to know of the American Congress if evidence- such as this is to disfranchise
men?  I want to know'if men, freemen, American citizens, are to be disfranchised
upon such stuffas that?  Why, sir, in our courts of'justice, in the most trivial matters between man and man, there is no security or truth without the sanctity of an
oath; and will you in so important a matter as an election, involving the right of a
freeman to the exercise of the highest and dearest right known  under your Consti
tution-that of voting for his representative-will you undertake to disfranchise him
upon such testimony as this?  I submit it, sir;-I submit this question to the good
sense and honest judgment of you all.
But there was another point which the gentleman raised before that committee,
one which appeared most prominently in his specifications, which was this: He
charges that the election officers had thrown out and  suppressed votes, contrary to
law.   And how was this attempted to be shown?   Why  he produces a number of
men to swear to the fact of having voted for him,- whose votes, he says, were not
counted in his favor, -and almost the first person called was a Mr. George Smith.
Well George swears positively and roundly that he voted for Mr. Wright, that he
read his ticket, &c., &c. Upon his cross-examination we asked him if he could
read-if he was sure he could read?  Well, he said, he thought he could.   We gave
him a ticket with the word "Congress" upon it, and nothing else, and asked him
to read it.  After spelling for some five fninures  (it; was'pnnted'in large'type) he
said it read "Mr. Fuller" if it read anything.   [Laughter.]
The next witness-was a Mr. Daniel Whitmoyer-a very euphonious name. Ilie
swore that he voted for Mr. Wright; but upon being asked if he was sure he read
his ticket, he replied that he could not read.   [Renewed laughter.]  Another wit ness was a Mr. Thomas Ray, who swore most positively and roundly that he voted
for Mr. Wright.  He said he voted a whole bunch for him, with a red string tied
round it, [great laughter,] and that he had not voted for anybody else.  And eigh teen of the most respectable people of Danville swear that he has been a liar for the
last twenty years, and that he is not to be believed- unde'  oath       
Again, a Mr. William Strow was called.   He had been brought, as I understand,
a distance of seventy-one miles by the contestant himself, for the purpose of testify ing. The gentleman (Mr. Wright) is present, and can deny it if such was not the
fact.  He swears most roundly, too, that he voted for the-contestant.  We  asked
him who else he voted for?  He stated he had voted for a man by the name of
Thomas Yorks for constable.   There was no candidate for constable at that elec tion.  We asked him,  "Are you as certain that you voted for Mr. Wright for
Congress, as you are that you voted for Mr. Yorks for constable?"'No,sir, I
am not, because Mr. Yorks was the only man I cared a d    d about at the time
of the election.   [Great laughter.]  All this you will find in this interesting vol  uine of two hundred and ninety pages of evidence which you, Mr. Speaker, as a
judge, and these judges, will of course read before they decide.   Why, sir, at the
request of the honorable chairman of this committee, this book was published; and
for what purpose? The General Government has been at the expense of-I do not
know how much, but certainly to a considerable amount-in its publication, and
are you going to throw it under your tablewithout reading it.  [Laughter.]  I under  take to say you will read every page from number one to two hundred and ninety.
[Renewed laughter.] These are the intelligent "white freemen" whose votes the
honorable contestant says were rejected.  There is just one dozen of them, and ff
0
to 
10'
time would permit, I would introduce you to them. all.  You will find their names
in the minority report.   The committee were of' opinion that where voting, as in
Penns.ylvania, is l-y secret ballot, this kind of testimony should be received with sornme
caution-that to render it credible it should atleast be intelligent, positive, and above
suspicion.  Judging the witnesses by this standard, they-came to the conclusion
that this [)art of the case was not sustained. I dismiss it, therefore, with the renark,
that I wish to he distinctly understood as laying no claim to the-suffrages of these
gent/eoen.   I hope I have not any of that kind  of merit-any of those high
quali/ies, which could attract and attach to me  men of this character.   For these
"most sweet voices" the honorable contestant and myself never will be rivals.
Now, sir, we come to the irregularity of the election, and this is the point to
which I wish to direct the particular attention of the House, as it was-the point'to
which the chairman of the committee (Mr. AsaF) especially addressed himself.
It is complained that Judge Kitchen, the judge of this election, stood at the win dow a -good portion of the day, and( received the ballots from the voters.  This, says
the chairman of the commtittee, was in violation of law, and designed  to cloak a
fraud; that his position, under the law, was that of umpire merely; that he was to
sit in dignity, of course, from nine o'~ack in the gmrniog.til:seven:o'clock in the
evening, and could not interfere in any manner with the voters or the lallots unless
the insp,ectors should disagree.   Now, if the chairman had read a little further into
the law, he would have discovered his error.  I am happy to say, however, that the
disposition he has manifested in this matter has been fair throughout, and I wish to
say also that I do not complain of any of the committee.   I have been treated fairly
and with uniform courtesy by them all.  I desire, above'all, not to misrepresent
him, and as he indulged me in interrupting him in his remarks yesterday, bso he
shall have the same privilege to-day, if you will only give me time enough to reply
[laughter.]  But [ was proceeding to say, that if the chairman had read a little
further he would have found that the form of oath for the julge of an election, prescril)ed by, and made part of the law, requires that he shall faithfully assist the inspectors in' conducting the election.  Assist in what?  V hy,certainly, assist in the
discharge of any duty imposed upon the inspectors, in the reception, distribution,
and counting the tickets, and in the general conduct and management of the election.'I'his is the practice in Pennsylvania, and every memt)er upon this floor from
that State knows the fact.. If they' vere to T'e' t           ti iup   tif"-sarmegound, you —
could cut of all their heads to morrow.  Not one would be entitled to a seat in this
House if such an objection could be sustained.  It is the uniform practice in Pennsylvania for the judges to assist in this manner., But in case there is a question
about the reception of a vote, then he is charged with the higher and more extraoroinary power of determining whether the voter be a qualified elector or not.  Such
is the law, and such is the practice in Pennsylvania.
But, sir, who was Judge Kitchen?  For twenty years a resident of Da'n/vil-e.
Twice elected sheriff of the county, an acting justice of the peace.   In politics, a
Demnocrat.   In this case, however, he swears that he did not vote for either party.
Judge Kitchen cloak a fraud!   We could not have selected a more impartial, or a
more unprejudiced man.   Judge Kitchen cheat, and cheat fr ime!- His whole life,
his whole character, repels any such insinuation.
But who was Thomas Mettler~  For he has been spoken of in this connection
as a man who had some grains of honesty left?  What does he say?  Does he not
swear that thnis election was conducted-fairly and l'nes'tly? I'est D   t  hei say that
all -was (lone in the presence of the whole board, and that it was fairly done~ Andis he not their witness?  But, some months afterwards, Mr. Mettler, who is a fun.
loving man, fond of cracking his "dry joke," declared to some men with whom
he was indulging hisnatural humor, that he guessed "it Was not all done exactly
right.  The fact was, they' wanted FULLERt elected so d-n  badly that anybody
could vote."  [Laughter.]   Now,  we  proved by several witnesses that this Mr.
Mettler was in the habit of cracking this kind of jokes, yet tlis. happening months
after the election is brought in here to give an impression unfavorable to Mlr. Mettier, and in prejudice of the election in this case.  Yes, sir, as the gentleman at my 
right remarks, in violation of every principle of evidence.   They cannot impeach
their o-wn witness; besides, fifteen of his neighbors were produced, who testified
that he was a man of truth and integrity. 
1I
Another inspector in this election was Mr. Mc(Callister. who has been for thirtyseven years a resident of Danville   He swears the election was conducted fairly
and honestly.   In politics he is a Democrat, who voted for me.
I believe you will all pardon him for-that; if you do not, he says he will dothe
same thing again.  [Laughter.]
But, then, who is the clerk who is complained of in this case?   Why  Mr. E.
W. Conklin. He is complained of because, during a portion of the time, he assisted the inspectors in the discharge of their duties.   Why, nothing is more common than when the inspectors have to go out, as from necessity they sometimes
must, during. the nine hours of the election-they must eat and drink, and, being
men, do such other things as nature requires. I say, -when they go out nothing is
more common than for the clerks to assist.  Mr. Conklin did this in good faith, and
he swears there was no fraud in the reception, in the distribution, or in the counting of the tickets.   Who is Mr. Conklin?   He  is a Democrat.   His oi,ly offence,
too, is having voted for me; and I know you will pardon him for that. Now, sir,
here a majority of the board were Democrats.   The returning judges were Democrats, and they have returned me  here, and I believe, It thold this seat honestly.
Where is the proof that I do not?
Now,  sir, there was another point raised by the committei,. which was this:
They say there are eighty three names appearing upon. the  " list of  voters," who:
do not appear upon the "list of taxables," and' therefore they say, because the
reason of their voting is not affixed to their names, they are to be regarded as illegal
voters.  Upon this point I most respectfully join issue, and I shall prove,  I think,
to the entire satisfaction of the cornmmtittee, that they are  entirely mistaken in this
regard.
Now, sir, under the laws of Pennsylvania, as every Pennsylvanian here knows,
there are two other classes of voters who may be qualified  voters under the law,
whose names do not appear upon the "taxable",  or "register's" list.'l'hose are
voters between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years; and those who have
paid a tax within the State of Pennsylvania within the. period of two years, and
have resided for the period of ten days in the election district where they tiffer to
vote.  IN ow, sir, this very point is ruled expressly in the case of Litlell vs. Robbins- -a case upon which.J think  the chairman of the Coipmi,ttee on Eeetiops Mr. 
AsHir  served as a member-and I fitid, in tie report of that case, this language:
IJUder the laws of Pennsylvania persons are entitled to vote whose names are not on that list,
(the list of taxables,) if they have been resi4enets of thie State one year.,'and ten di'ys immediately proeedirJg the eletion i the district, and have laid within two years a State or countity tax, a,;sessed'at
least ten days hetore the election.'  Citizens of the United States, also, who are letweeii the age of
twenty-one and twenty-two, who have resided within the State one year, and wvilhin the district ten
dlays. are entitled to ote, althiough they have not been assessed, or paid taxes, and their iames are not
on tile list.  Under these provisions of the law, many persons vote at every election whose Lames do
not appear on the registered lists."
"Under these provisions of law," said Mr. Await, the chairma n of this comit
tee-" Under these provisions of the law many persons vote at every election, whose
names do not appear upon the "register list''"
Now, sir, I submit, if in the case of Littell vg. Robbins, a Pennsylvania case, it
was expressly ruled by the commniittee, "that" under these provisions of the  law
many persons vote at every election, whose names do not appear upon the regiAter's
list," whether they can  be  correct now, when- they say that  these eighty three
names  must be regarded as illegal voters? Clearly, most clearly they are mistaken.
Is it too much tosuppose, that under these provisions of the law of Pennsylvania, citizens, qualified voters, should have voted in the borough of Danville; wHlo
were not upon the list of taxables, and still be legal-voters?  And are not you, the
judges, bound to regard them as legal voters until they are proved-to be otherwise?
Where is the proof    I challenge its production.
Again, the committee in the case of Littell vs. Robbins say that  the  "register
list," which the law of Pennslvania requires the assessor to take every year, is the
best evidence of the number of electors in the district, though incomplete, for the
reasons above stated.   Now, in the borough of Danville there are returned the
nailtes ot 731 voters only, while the list of "taxables'?" embraces the  names  of
1,231.   Here,. in the borough of Danville, against which  complaint is made that
this was an extraordinary vote, we see that there were 500 more persons  "prima
'-. I: t 
12
facie" entitled to vote; while in the case of Littell vs. Robbins, where there was
a much larger poll, the excess was'only 295, so that this comparison is very greatly
in our favor.
Ah, but, said the gentleman  (Mr. Asni)ryesterlay, this poll had been divided
into two districts, and there was  a greater number of votes in  1850 than in
1849-'51.   But what does that prove, sir?  Does that prove fraud?  I venture to
assert that this year there will be 300,000 more votes polled in this country  than
there was last year, and 300,000' more this year than there will be next year. And
will you disfranchise the 300,000 voters for the reason stated by the chairman of
the committee?  You cannot do that, sir.  Such a conclusion cannot be justified.
His error is too glaring for argument.
Now there'is another thing about these 83 names.  None of these men were
produced.   Not one of them.   All the evidence you have of them, is from this comparison of the lists of taxables and voters.   Now,  I want to know if the orthography of clerks is to be regarded as conclusive in this matter; that is the only evidence produced?   Here we show you 26 names-George Kinn on the list of voters,
and George King on the list of taxables.   We  show you the name of John D.
Long upon one list, with a capital lDin the:niddleofhi'name, and John Delong
upon the other list   Also, the names of 26 others,  bearing a like resemblance.
And yet, without identifying one of the 83 -complained of, they are to be regarded
as illegal voters.' 
Are these tnen to be disfranchised upon such evidence as this?  Why, sir, you
might as well deny your own identity, if you should chance to see your own name,
Mr. Speaker,  spelled Bogg on the register of one of the hotels instead of Boyd.
These things, similar mistakes, happen every day, as you and all of us know; and
may not the clerks have erred in writing down the names of the voters?
[Here the hamnimer fell.]
Mr. DUNCAN.   It is, I believe, the unanimous wish of this House to allow
the gentleman (Mr. FULLER) to proceed in his argument in this case.
Mr. LETCHER.   I objected yesterday to the chairman of the committee going
on beyond his hour, and I gave notice that I should  obiject to a departure from the
rules of the House.  I therefore feel bound to object to the gentleman's proceedin,g.
JUNE 26, 1852.
Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, having the floor, inquired of the sitting member
whether the 11 th Congressional district of Pennsylvanian was a Whig or, a Democratic district,- also in regard to the decisions of the courts of Pennsylvania relating
to the duties of inspectors, &c.
Mr. FULLER.   In reply to the interrogatory of the geiitleman from Massachusetts, I will state, that on yesterday,  the honorable contestant alleged that duringthe last ten years this, the'eleventh (congressional district'of Pennsylvania had, in
consequence of the course pursued by the Democratic paper, (the Wilkesbarre Farmer,) and the disorganizing band which I had about me, been Whig  in its politics.
All that he-says I know.  I differ from thehprablgea lwan etirely:  
He says again, "that it is not a Democratic district, and cannot be a Democratic
district, so long as these wholesale frauds are permitted to exist that have existed for
the last ten years."   Let us see if this be so.  My recollection of the history and
political character of the district and its representatives is this: From 1840 to 1844,
the eleventh district was represented by the Hon. Benjamin A,, Bidlack.  I wish to
know from my colleague (Mr. Ross) if he was a Democrat.
Mr. ROSS.   He was, sir.
Mr. FULLER.   However the contestant may have regarded him, it is certain
that Mr. Polk, upon his elevation to the Presidency, expressed his high confidence
by sending him abroad as Charge6 to New Grenada. He had been elected to Congress from this district at two successive elections, by majorities varying from 2,000
to 3,000, and was the regular Democratic nominee.   From  1844 to 1846,  that
1.11'' 
district was represented by Hon. Owen  D. Leib.   I wish to know from the same
gentleman if he was a Democrat?
Mr. ROSS.   I cannot answer the gentleman's question.   I have no personal
knowledge of Mr. Leib or his politics.
Mr. FULLER.   There are other gentlemen here who know the fact.   He  was
elected over Mr. Butler, Whig, and over another Democratic competitor, by a handsome majority.   lie was the regular Democratic nominee.   Was  the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. JONES) acquainted with Mr, Leib?
Mr. JONES.   Yes, sir, I was.
Mr. FULLER.    Was  he a Democrat?
Mr.  JONES,  He was so received here, I believe,
Mr. FULLER.   I suppose that is not a matter of doubt at all.  Hle was a very
worthy, honest, honorable, man, and a good Democrat. That brings us up to 1846,
In i846, sir, Mr. Butler, owing to his great personal popularity, and owing  to
that great storm, both of politics and the physical elements, which  swept over
Pennsylvania, was elected over Mr. Leib; and he owed  his election, in  some  den
gree, as I have understood, to the very earnest and highly-commendable efforts of,
as it was claimed, the gentleman contestant and his friends.  It was affirmed at the
next election in 1848 that ]ir, Butler had acted in bad faith, because hlie ran against
the honorwbe- contestant, (then, as now, a consistent n'atio,naol Demo'crat) becausie
the honorable contestant and his friends had secured the election of Mr. Butler over
Mr. Leib in 1846. As it is notorious throughout the District that Mr. Butler was
neverJobrgiven by the honorable contestant for this offence, he may desire to explain why. It gives me pleasure to afford him the opportunity now.
But he charged yesterday that the district had been umisrepresented for ten years
through fraud and the disorganizers.   Who committed the fraud?  Who were the
disorganizers then?  Yet he charges the tried and trite Democracy there with being
disorganized, when Mr. Butler was elected, as I am informed he has ever claimed,
through his instrumentality and that of his friends.   I wish to know, and  he  can
answer, if publicly, at Sunbury, in the presence of the supreme judges there, and
at other places, he has not made this public declaration, or if his friends have not
made it for him?  I am thus particular in referring to the matter in order to refresh
his memory in this regard, and  that I may not  nisreprent'          m or myPnoly oh
ject is to vindicate the truth oTfhistory.  Why, sir, he said on yesterday, as I understood him-such at least seemed to be his implication-that Hon. Andrew Beaumont had been elected during the ten" years named, and that he was not a Democrat. I ask Mr. Ross if he was and is not a Democrat?
Mr. ROSS.   Yes, sir, he was and is a Democrat-sound and radical.
Mr. FULLER.   But he was very much  mistaken in the time of his service.
Mr. Beaumont was elected in 183X, and remained until 1836.   At his first election
hlie was elected over two competitors-Dr. Thomas W. Mlinor, a Federalist ad
James McC,iintk, a highly-estimable Democrat.
Irh 1848, the contestant ran against Mr. Butler and Mr. Samuel P. Collings.  Mr,
Butler was elected.   Mr. Collings had received the'regular nomination from the
Democracy of Luzerne, the county in which all the candidates resided, and one
exceedingly prolific in that material.
As Mr. Collings was charged with being a spurious candidate at that election, I
sulbmit the following manifesto, published at the time in the Carbondale Democrat,
which fully vindicates his political reputation.
T IlE CO.GRESSIONAh (,ONFrRE,-NcE.-TiThe conferees selected by the Democratic Convention of
the thl,ree counties comiosi;g our (eleventhl) C(ongressonal dlistrict, met at Wilkesbarre, oi Sa'tIrday
last'le thiree conferees of Luzerue were intstructed tfor IMr Coilings; two frorn Columbia for Colonel WVeight; and Wyoming, though accordir'g to the equitable rato established by the last conference
only entitled lo oue, persiste-l in having two, who were also instructed for Colonel Wrighlt.  The ques
tion turning on the admission of the second delegate from Wyoming, and adhering to the ratio adopted
at the last contbrence. the contebrenoe split, the three Luzerne conterees unanimogsly iominated Mr.
Colilings, and the conferees from the other two counties unaniniously nominated (olonel Wright. Thus
matters stand, and we much regret that they are il such a shape.  A difficult and unl1leasant question
presents itsel to us and t  Democracy of Luzerne.  Which of the candidates shall ieceive our suffrages and support? In this county, where both are known, the ability and competelncy ot'f both candidates are universally admitted.  In this respect, to neither of these or the Whig candidate can any
exceptions be taken,  Upon other considerations the question must be decided. Now we believe that
13 
14
in this matter, the Democracy of Luizerne have a ditty to perform towa rd themselves.  If our sister
counties persist in tclaiming the righlt to select tle candidate  when it belongs to them, and also when it
belongs to s, we should like to know before we go any  further, upon  what prerogative it is liased?
This is not the firsl time the Democracy of Luzerne have  been overu-ted in'tthe same manuer by the
dictationt of Columbia.  If the decisions of our conventions,,the selections  made by them when they
ilave an undoubtel right to select, and when the candi dates  presentedl are-of indoubted Democracy,
inte,rity, and ability, are to be utterly and zanuselessly repudiatedl, andteverythi.ug reversed by the beck
of self constituted d,cttors,  we will ei her submit to it or else we wont.'  If we submit to i         ltwe wils
let others do our  vhoie business for  s,3 without going, through with useless f     ormalities  on our part; if
not, ive will endear;or, so far as in us lies. to carry out the deisiton   wn conentio ns we         n it is
proper that they should be respected', and by every principl, of eomity and reciprocity control the Congressional conference.'In this manner did the decist  nd'nomination        of the Columbia onvetion
rightfully and with or tfull acquiescence control the (ongressional question in'41.'rhe ectndidate
was not our choice; blt it was or choice that Columbia should make her owit selection and hence
our concurrence.
It wa  now o           tr ri t o make our selection; we'liave done so. and Columbia and Wyossing should
have,catified that selection.  Every princip)le of reciprocity req,uired it; our itndeviatitig adherence to
their rights and privileges in like cases required it. So palpable a disreaord of the eYcpresef     itieshes of
our Demo racy, atop so wanton an attempt to victimize one every way worthy of that partialitv, hvlich
the lele  es assemle   in or convention expressed. is without an excuse.  rhis attem1t at dictation
comes with a bad grace, in           a bal time, nd may defeat the andid ate that should  ave -receive d the uanimoals support of the Democracy of this district this fall; obut it may result in ultimate good   Oul: convention has made their cioice, the Congressional conference should have ratified it unanimously.   We
are 1ire!)ared to d. o,~ r lity. a s we conceive it, toward the Denocracy of Lazernte, in.sut)portitg heartily
the nomination of our conventon and the rights of our county."
Now, yesterday he  charged  Colonel  Best;"a DDemocrat, with  a  highly heinous
offence,  because, when a member of the  State Senate, he voted for himself.    Let
us understand the facts.   In 1847 he was elected to the State Senate.   At  the opening of the session of. 1849 there happened to be sixteen whigs and seventeen  democrats.   It was impossible that any election could be securedl or that biody organized,
unless some Democrat voted for himself, and Mr. Best, by the instructions of many
of his constituents, v)ted for himself;  but  in doing  so  he  did no more  than  the
present worthy  Democratic  Governor  of Pennsylvania  did for himself in our State
Senate on a previous occasion. I ask Mr. Ross if that is not the case.
Mr.  ROSS.    I am  not  able to answer the question, for I have no knowledge of
it.
Mr. FULI,ER.   Other gentlemen know the fact.  I know It.  I do not wish to
be  understood as complaining  of himn; he doubtless did right.   Although  not
elected, peaker, hec has- since been elected Governor, and received last year in this
contested district three thousand one hundred and ninety six majority.  He is an
accomplished gentletan,' ani possesses'      gliitdegree the confidence of his -party.
Where were the disorganizers then?  Why,  sir, at this very contested election of
which the contestant so bitterly complains of disorganizers and of fraud, a Demo.
cratic Canal Commissioner, a Democralic Auditor  General, and a  Democratic
Surveyor General received majorities varying from two thousand to three thousand
in this district.  None of THr:M were cheated.   Why, at this very election district,
at this very Danville poll of which he complains, Charles R. Buckalew, an able and
distinguished Democrat,  ran for the State Sernate; and while he received but two
votes, M'r. Wright received thirty-two at this poll; yet Mr. Buckalew was elected
by over fifteen hundred majority.   Was he cheated?  No other man seems to have
been cheated but the honorable contestant-certainly no other candidate hassever
complained.   At this election Col. Best received over thirteen hundred majority in
his own county, a highly gratifying evidence of the confidence of his neighbors.
Sir, the honorable gentleman yesterday declined to respond to what he was pleased
to denominate my personal charges.  He expressed a regret, which he felt "deeply,
keealy, and setnsibly," that I had turned this into sa — personatl contr6versy.   Hede'clined, however, lor a special reason.  He would not recriminate "out of regard for
the sitting member's father."'  I am happy to learn that one of my family has enjoyed his distinguished consideration, and he will permit me to express the hope,
that if he was withheld yesterday by the love he bore my father, that the same restraining influence will hereafter control his pen and his private conversation.
Not to be outdone in courtesy on this occasion, I desire, in all sincerity, to express
the high regard I entertain for his father.  He, too, is a "worthy, aniable, and up.
fight man."
Neither of them were public men.   They always preferred that" post of honor,
the private station;" their children have sadly degenerated.  While I do not recog
nize the propriety of introducing our ancestors to the distinguished attention of the 
15
-American Congress," still, as the honorable gentleman has done me  the courtesy
in the one case, I could do no less than return the conmpliment in the other. My
regret is that the son should, in this instance, have so widely departed from what  I
believe would have been the advice and example of his worthy sire.
But, sir, I have no desire to make this matter personal; none whatever.   I allud ed to the fact and to the circumstances of his defeat in 1848, because he had spoken
of it himself to the committee; and to do him full justice, I quoted what I supposed
to be his own version of the facts. I spoke of his behavior before thte returil judges,
because that exlibition was part of the history of the case.  Let.it all pass.  I will
be more atimiable in future. - There is another matter in regard to which I must
correct the geetleman.   He stated that the journal fru,ai which I read yesterday, was
not the leading Democratic paper in the county of Luzerne.  Now, I affirm that it
is, and amn prepared to show that, for twenity-odd years, before even his earliest
dream of Democracy, it was, and ever since has been, the leadinig Demotcralic paper
of the county.   I have the papers here showing that it has always uniformly sup ported the regular nominee of the Democratic party, and that, too, at times, if I
mistake not, when he has been engaged in their butchery.   I dislike to revive  too
many unpleasant recollections.  I will simply remind him of 1839,1844, atnd 1846;
and yet these nien-its editors-are charged with baing disorgantizers, because they
are personal friends of mine, and for no other reason in the world, that I can iunder stand.
. bl             stant  dedicated a good portion of his speech to Messrs. Han coclk anti Foley, whom he classically denominated "the nalobs of a pig iron mrill."
He informed us they had failed, and the smtoke of their furocaes was JItst disappearinr,g.  I marked with regret his look and voice of exultation.  If they have been
unsuccessful it is a public misfortune, for many an honest hard-working  tman must
be turned away whomti their energies and enterprize have furnished with profitable
emiploymenit.   Let me commend to the earnest consideration of the honorable gen man that divine precept, " forgive your enemies."   Its practice will make him more
comfortable here, and I,hope happier hereafter.
I wish to refer, very-'briefly, to a point in the argument of the  gentlemata.   He
endeavored to convey the impression that Judge Kitchen was a dishonest inet, an
unfair judge, by reading just one question and one answer, and   no more, from his
printed testimony. It was this:
"Questrin. Was or was not the electiaon tairly and honestly conducted?
"answer. After'the tickets eame in, it Was a,l fairly a',f hbh.tily-e0tetnld, as fa as't kaow.'
To  that extent he read —no futtliher, as you andt all here will remember.  Just
listen, if you please, to the questions and answers which follow immediately thereafter
Questien. Did you receive a ticket from any person that you knew was not a legal voter?
"yn"swer. We did not.
"Q. Have you any k,nowledge of atny fraud committed by any of the officers in the reception, distribution, or oung of tihe tickets?
"./. I.have  ot. I did not see anything like it."
And yet the gentleman with the book in his hand read butthe one qe   t              po- nd
'then proceeded to comiment in such latiguage as would m/itk'iis House infer that
Judge Kitchen did not mani' ly, and optenly, and decidedly declare that there was
no frauid committed.  I ask if that be fair —if thatrt be caidid'
Another thing; in order to impress this House  untavoprtbly with regard lo Judge
Kitchen, he stated a conversationi that had occurred'betweeti Judge Kitcliet and
Mr. Smith  B. Thompson, to this effect, that when  thie local question was tiffected,
they let almtst anyboty vote if he was only large einougrh; and the ii)1pression, if
not intended, was conveyed, that this cotaversati(to took place with reference to this
very ekoW 4                o-t lm't —your  imnpression, 6Mr.   Ge                       of
this House if that was not their impression?  And yet if you look to the testitony
of Smitl-I B  Thompson, you will see that that conversation occurred in 1848 —two
years before this election.  Thus are conversations loing prior) to this election lugged
in at this length of time, unfavorably to impress this House with regard to the conduct and character of this man, and the conduct and character of this election.
And now, sir, with reference to these eighty-three voters of which complaint is
made, I pro(pose fully to satisfy this House —as I think I can do-that they were
fair anid honest electors, and that Dot one  of them  has been  impeached.  Why,
you fitd upon examination that the number is reduced by the comiparisot of names
to fifty-se ven, and the only complaint which reniains against those men-because
41t., '' 
tI-one of them are produced-is, that the word "tax" does not appear after their
names on the list of voters.  That is the only complaint against them, and for that
reason, says the gentleman, they are to be regarded as illegal voters.  I have
shown that under the law of  Pennsylvania  persons resident within the State one
year, wh(, have paid State or counity taxes, whether in or out of the district, and
who are not on the register's list, are nevertheless qualified voters, if they were
residents of the district ten days before the election.  It is in evidence that in the
borough of Wilkesbarre, with a poll of four hundred and fourteen votes, there were
thirty-one  taxed voters.  The  borough of Danville polled seven  hundred  and
thirty-one votes, and the same proportion would give them fifty-seven, which is the
precise number to which we reduced these names by a comparison of lists.  And
yet it is urged that because the word "tax" does not appear, they are, therefore, to
be regarded as illegal voters.
Just listen one moment, if you please, to what the-courts of Pennsylvania  have
said on this very question.  In the case of Skerrett, irregularities of this character
were complained of, and decided by the courts. I believe the chairman of the committee thought the case was not exactly in point.   But I will satisfy him that it is.
In that case it was complained that all the directory provisions of the seventyahird
section of the law of Pennsylvania, relating to elections, had been disregarded. The
'courts decided that they were  simply directory to the officers of the election, and
that a failure to observe them cbiSd-l rt v;iate.              cle&tion.
If the courts of Pennsylvania, considering the very irregularity of which  complaint is made here, have thus regarded them, will you not, in a Pennsylvania case
depending upon the construction-of her laws, pay some respect to the decisions of
her courts?
Now, I undertake to say, that not in one township out of twenty in that district
does the word "tax" appear after the names of voters.   I hold ill my hand a certificate of five election districts, giving the contestant three hundred majority, in
which the clerk of the court certifies that hlie has carefully examined these lists, and
the word " tax" does not appear against a single name. There are four districts,
mnientioned in the evidence itself, in which the same omission appears.  It is a corn monl, an almost universal omission in Pennsylvania, and I appeal to every gentleman from Pennsylvania on this floor to say it such is not the fact.
Mr. McNAIR.   I can say that I think it is not the case in my district.
Mr. FULLER. Then, you are an exception, and I am very happy to learn that
there is one gentleman  from Pemylvania ww issetntitled to his seat.  I do not think
there is any other gentleman here who will say the sae thinig- if-therebe let-him
-speak-we will make some inquiry after our colleagues' credentials hereafter.
Now, I do not contend, nor can any Pennsylvanian here contend, that the elections in that State are held in strict and literal compliance with the law.  Why,  the
object of the directory provisions of every election law is to secure a fair expression of
the legal vote, a fair expression of the popular will; and whatever tends to narrow,
contract, or in anlly way to abridge the rights of the voters must be avoided. It would
be highly desirable that our elections should be held and conducted by our most intel ligent men-by men most familiar with the laws; but this is impossible. We must,
from the necessity of things, depend upon the common intelligence, and the com mon integrity of men Land all that we can expect or require is a substantial compliance with the law.  -Thiat there was a substantial cotnpliance in this case-that
no fraud was committed at this election, 1 do positively aver, and that upon the
most positive testimony.  That some illegal votes were given, is possibly true; but
that the result was lot changed or affected thereby, is conclusively shown.
Mr. Speaker' I bold in my hand the cer                    e        -esi,igied: byf t
return judges of the 1 —th tCongressional District.  I hold also the proclamation of
the Governor of Pennsylvania, under the broad seal of the Commonwealth. I stand
here a Jree, untranmmnelled, elected representative of the people.  I ask no  favor.
I " shall not crook the pregnant hinges of the knee that thrift may follow fawning."
I iiake no political appeals; but in my place this day I claim for my people the
constitutional right of choosing for themselves, and I demand your affirmation of
their election.
Here the hammer fell, the hour having expired.
16