Show A SQUELCHER I the Case of Campbell vs Cannon Reply of Hon George Q Cannon to A 0 Campbells Protest I Which the Underpinning i Knocked From the Ambitions Friscoite old Facts and Insurmountable Law for thu Executivi Con sideratlon and Guidance The Certificate Must be Given toM to-M Cannon To nis Excellency Eli E Murray Goternof of the Territory o Utah SirIn reply to the communication communica-tion of Allen G Campbell Eeq in which be protests against the issue ota ot-a certificate of election to me a delegate dele-gate of the Territory of Utah in the Fortyseventh Congress of the United States and demands the issue of the certificate to himself I respectfully submit the following statement The grounds on which Mr Camp bell bases his protest and demand I are areI That as canvassing officers tbe Governor and Secretary have power to go behind the returns and ascertain from eitrintio evidence the candidate number of votes legally cast for each 2 That there is no evidence tending tend-ing to disprove his qualifications for tbe office of delegate t Congress 3 That there is no evidence tend jog to disprove the qualifications of tbe 1857 electors who voted for him alien 4 That I am an unnaturalized 5 That being snob I am not eligible to the office of delegate in Congress and that my ineligibility rssulting from alienage is aggravated by polygamy which he think is incompatible in-compatible with citizsnship and inconsistent I in-consistent with an honest oath of allegiance to the Constitution oi the United States 6 That all of the 18568 voles cast for me at tbe late election are therefore there-fore void and are to be excluded from the canvass 7 That as a consequence the certificate cer-tificate of election is to be delivered by the canvassers to him and not tome to-me 8 That the females in the territory terri-tory who claimed the right to vote outnumbered all the votes polled at the late election 9 That it must be taken for granted that all votes cast by females were cast for me 10 Tdat the territorial legislation nhich extends the right of suffrage to females is void 1 That i i therefore impossible to determine without proof that the 18568 votes cast for me included more legal votes than the 1357 votes can for him 12 Tbat the votes of he females have vitiated the election With your excellency permission 1 will answer these several propositions proposi-tions in their order 1 The process of reasoning by which Mr Campbell reaches the conclusion con-clusion that the Governor and Secretary Secre-tary as canvassing officers have power to go behind the return and to ascertain from oitrineio proofs tbe number of votes cast for each candidate is first t be considered He refers to the following proviiiona of the Compiled Laws of Utah 2i Immediately upon receiving the electoral returns of any precinct the cwunty clerk and probate judgo or in his absence one of tho selectmen shall unreal un-real the list and ballot box and count and compare the votes with the names on the Let and mike a brief abstract oft of-t o offices and names voted f jr and tbe number of votes each person received ihe ballot box shall then be returned and the votes and list preserved for reference in caso the election of any person shall be contotcd 24 When all the returns and abstracts ab-stracts aro made the clerk shall forthwith mtkn a general abstract and post it up in his office and forward to the Secretary of the Territ ry I certified copy of the names of the persons voted for and the number of votes each has received for territorial offices and furnish each person bvirg the highest number rotes fur his com election ty and precinct offices a certificate of 2 so Eon as all tho returns are ro ceivcd the Secretary in tbe presence of tbe Governor shall unseal and examine them and furnish to each person having thi highest number of votes for any territorial ter-ritorial offica a certificate of election He thinks that because these statutory statu-tory provisions do not in express terms require the canvassers to give the certificate to the person shown by the returns to have the highest number of legal votes they by implication im-plication do require them to give it to the person who whatever the returns may show did in fact receive the highest number of legal votes I that this duty necessarily implies the power to employ suitable means to ascertain who received the highest number of legal votes and that therefore Governor and Secretary as canvassers have the right to resort to extraneous evidence to ascertain the real facts in this cage He seeks to forty his conclusion by the following citation from page 52 of Cuehinga Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies There can be no doubt that in those branches wherein the law has marked out a definite line it i ministerial huts hut-s regards the two material branches of deeidinir upon tho capucity or incapacity I of cnndida < or upon the qusliEcatioi B or disqualifications electors the subject Ebjc requires come investigation but if the te returning officer be fully apprised of s mio notorious disqualification whether of a candidate or of an elector tuch as their being minors or claiming in the riot of property which clearly does not entitle them to the privilege he i so far a judicial officer as to prevent their voting or being returned In judicial decisions of this country when the point is adverted ad-verted to it seems to be considered that the functions of returning officers are chiefly judicial in their character I respectfully submit that each and every step in this reasoning is erroneous and that the conclusion reached ia absolutely destitute ot warrant in law The provisions of sections 23 21 and 2 of the statutes of Utah confer upon the Governor and Secretary as canvassing officers no judicial power to go bebind the returns for the purpose of ascertaining ascertain-ing the number of votes cast for any candidate I is made their duty to ascertain whom the returns show to have received the highest number of votes and to give the certificate to him Tbe only judicial or quasi judicial power vested in them is to determine whether the papers before them purporting fo be returns are returns made in substantial conformity con-formity t the law I they decide that the papers are such return they must embrace their showing in the official canvass I they decide that they are not such returns they must exclude them from the canvass I Tbe precinct judges of elections in this Territory make no returns beyond I the mere transmission to the county clerk of the sealed ballotbox and list of electors They are not precinct canvassers They do not return to the county clerks the number of votes cast for each candidate They only return the ballots and the pollliats Upon the county clerks and probate I judges or selectmen ia i imposed too duty ef canvassing the votes in the first instance by counting the ballots and comparing their number with the number of names on tbe palllists und preparing statements of the offices and names voted for and tbe number of votes cast for each candidate candi-date The votes and list are not sent to the Secretary of the Territory but remain in charge of tbe clerks The law makes BO provision for any in spection ol the ballots or of the poll lists by the Governor or Secretary before their canvasa is completed and thi certificates delivered to tbe sue cesefnl candidates I places nothing beforo the Governor and Secretary except a certified copy of the names of the persons voted for and the number of votea cast for each I the law requires them not merely to ascertain as-certain the number of votes ehown by the clerks returns to have been received re-ceived by each candidate but the number of vtes shown by the ballots and polllists and by extrinsic proof to have been legally cast for each candidatethat is to say not merely to canvass the clerks return but to canvass the votes themselves and determine de-termine their legality then the law is an outrage not only on tbe Governor and Secretary who are compelled to make bricks without straw but on the candidates whose rights are to be adjudicated by officers from whom tbe law deliberately withholds with-holds the means essential to correct adjudications This would be a most I scandalous condition of the territorial law i it really existed But finch is nct the law of Utah The question now under consideration considera-tion has been adjudicated many time by judicial and legislative tribunal in the United States upon statutory provisions substantially like these embraced I em-braced in sections 23 21 and 2 of tbe Law of Utah I bas never bcon decided in faver of Mr Camp bell Mr McCrary in his Laws of Elections section 82 correctly elates the rule established by the concurrent con-current authority of these decisions to be that tbe canvassers must receive re-ceive and count the votes as shown by the returns and they cannot go behind be-hind the returns for any purpose and this necessarily implies that when a paper is presented as a return and there is a question as to whether it is a return or not they must decide that question from what appears upon the face f of tbe paper isel1 Under statutory provisions similar to those of Utah tbe supremo court of Miesouri held that the powers 01 > the canvassers were restricted to tbe determination of tbe result Ehown b > tbe returns The following is the provision of tho Missouri statute The secretary of stae in tho presence of the governor shall proceed to open the returns and to cast up the vtes given for all candidates for any office and shall give to the person having the highest cumber of votes for members of Con gross from each district ctrtificatea of election under his hand with the seal of the state affixed thcroo In State vs Stscrp 44 Me 224 tbe court held Hero is no discretion given no power to pass upon and adjudge who ther vots aro legal or illegal but the simple ministerial min-isterial i duty to cast up and to award tho certificate to the person having the highest high-est number of votes Tie New York election law of April 17 1822 provides that the inspector in-spector appointed for that purpose Shall in person deliver to tho said clerk at the office or to his deputy or t the keeper of the said office a trun copy of the said statement ot votes and thereupon the bard of canvaSsers shall proceed to calculate and ascertain the wholo number of vote which shall be given at such election in thu siid count for the several persons who shall be vote for as governor lieutenantgov ernor senators and reproswiutives in the Congreis of tbe United States or sn many of Ihl aid officers as shlt be voted for and shall get down in writing the name of to several candidates so voted for at any such election for any of the afficus aforesaid and the number of votes in words writttin at full length which shall be given for any such candidates at any such election in the said county and shall certify the same to be a trus copy I of the votes given in said county In the case of The People er Van 81cl 4 Cow 323 which was deci ded in February 1825 under the foregoing statutory provision the court said The duties of the canvassers are min isterial Th y are required to attend nt the clerks office and calculate and ascertain ascer-tain tho whole number of votES given at any election and certify the came to baa true canvass This is not a judicial act bu merely ministerial They have no power to controvert the votes of the electors elec-tors I ie provided in section 25 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois 1S5G that the clerk ol the county commissioners commis-sioners court taking to hIs assistance two justices of toe paaco of his county Shall proceed to open tho returns and make abstracts of the votes in tho f ilow ing manner C And i shall be the duty of the said clerk of the county commissioners court immediately to make out a certificate of election to each of the persons having the highest number of votes The case of The People w Head 25 I 327 the court held This contest under our statute is an original proceeding instituted by tho contestant con-testant for the purpose of trying thsi legality le-gality of the election and not of the cn vats It goes behi d the canvass and purges the election itself 1 I he < ourt in tr > ing it is not confined t the pollhook as turned but i can go behind these and inquire by proof detiors whether be votes or any of ihem we o illegal But the canvassers have no right to do this Theirs is a mere mechanical or rather Mrithmetical duty They may probb judge whether tho returns are in du form but after that they om only canvass can-vass the Totes cast for too several candidates candi-dates and declare the result Section 95 chapter 6 of the Revised Re-vised Stalutta of Wisconsin 1849 is in these words wors Whenever it shall satisfactorily appaar that any person has received a plurality of legal votrs cast at any election f r any office the cauva sers shall give t such person a certificate of election notwithstanding notwith-standing the provisions law may not have been fully complied with in noticing or conducting the election or canvassing the returns of votes so that the real will of the people may not bo defeated by any informality Under this statute it was hold by the supreme court of Wisconsin in Attorney General t ct Buratow 4 Wis 775 as follow Whether it would hava been competent compe-tent for the legislature under the constitution consti-tution which delegates all ol the judicial power of the state to tho courts of tne state to give t the board of state can vatscrs judicial autbjrity ti settle and adjudicate rights of this nature it is not I necessary to inquire Toes have not given them any such power Their duties are strictly ministerial They are to add up and ascertin by calculation the numoer ot votes given for any office They have do discretion t hear and take proof as to fraud even i morally certain cer-tain that monstrous frauds have been perpetrat The ninety fifth section of this statute gives them no such power The Revised Statutes of Michigan 1 t for 1846 po 51 contains the following provision J p The said board of canvassers when formed ss aforesaid shail proceed t ex amino the statements received by the secretary of state of the votes given in the several counties and make countie a state mont of the whole number of votes given for tee office of representative in each I congressional district which shall show I the names of the persons t whom such I votes shall have been given for said office and tho whole number of votes given t each The said canvassers shall certify Euch statement to bo correct and subscribe their names thereto and they shall thereupon determine what persons have been by the greatest number of vote duly elected to such offices and make and subscribe on such statement a certificate of such determination and deliver de-liver tho suc tha secretary of stale Under this statutory provision the supreme court of the state in the case of Tne People at Van Glare 1 Mich 335 said In a republican government where the exercise official power is but a derivative deriva-tive from the people through the medium of the ballot it would be a monstrous doctrine that would subject the public will and tbe public voice thus expressed t be defeated by either the ignorance or the corruption of aboard ot canvassers Tho duties of these boards are simply ministerial Their whole duty consists in ascertaining who are elected and in preserving the evidences of such election I is provided on page 77 of the Revised Statutes of Maine for 1841 aa tallows The returns from each town and plantation plan-tation shall be delivered into the office of the clerk of tbe county commissioners on or before the first day ot tbe meeting of said commissioner next after the said month of September t be by them opened and jmparcd with the like 1 returns re-turns from the several towns and plantations planta-tions in cued count or registry district and the person having a majority of the rotes shall be declared registrar of deeds fur said county or registry district The supreme court of Maine in Bacon vs York County Commissioners Commission-ers 2j Me 493 a case which arose under this statue held The canvassers had no power to go beyond be-yond tho returns of the selectmen and town clerks and receive other evidence and determine therefrom that the town meeting was nut properly called and for that cause reject the votes of that town In OFarrall w Colby 2 Minn 186 a case decided under similar statutory provisions the court held Wo cannot therefore resist the conclusion con-clusion that the duties of the clerk of the board of supervisors in receiving and opening election returns in canvassing and estimating the votes and in giving cert fcnte of election are purely ministerial minis-terial and that no judicial or discretionary discretion-ary powers are confercd upon him or tbe board of canvas r except perhaps so far as to determine whether the returns are spurious or genuine or polled at established tablished precincts and in ascertaining from the returns themselves for whom the votes were intended Tbe supreme court of Indiana under un-der a similar statute in the case of Brower vs OBrien 2 Carter Ind 430 held With regard to this point it may be observed ttiattho du io of both the board of canvissera and tho clerK in making the statement urn purely ministerial It is i not within their province t consider any questions rotating to the validity ot the election held or of the votes received by the parties voted for Tnoy are simply sim-ply to cast up the votes given for each person from the proper eleclin docu melt and to declre tbe perrons who upon the fees of thee documents appear to havo received thu highest number of votes voted for given duly elcced to the offices The paragraph quoted from Mr Cusbinga work shows upou its face that the returning officer who is said to ba so ir 1 judicial officer as to prevent their votinj or baing returned re-turned is a judge of the election as well as a returning officer I Mr Gushing refers to mere canvassers his statement that iu the judicial deci aions of this country their functions > ire held to be chiefly judicial is an inexcusable blunder 2 Mr CampDoHo next proposition proposi-tion is that there is no evidence tending to impeach his qualifications tor the office of delegate in Congress That tbo returns present m such evi deuce la probable and i i tho returns on their face disclose nothing to im peach bis qualifications it is quite immaterial to inquire now whether Mr Campbell is i or id i not eligible to ho office which he seeks The House ot Representative is the only tribunal empowered to adjudicate that question ques-tion I the Governor and Secretary find from tae return trat he i selected s-elected they must award the certifi cato to him whatever proofs cutsiJe > f the returns may or may not be attainable to impeach his eligibility before the House ot Representatives Such pro3fj cannot be used in this canvass 3 The same answer h to be made to the assertion tuut there is no evidence evi-dence tending to impeach the qualifications quali-fications ot the 11357 doctors who voted for Mr Campbell Whatever evidence may exist on this point outside out-side of the returns it oinnol be con didered by tbe Governor or Secretary in this proceeding it can only be considered con-sidered by the House of Representatives Representa-tives of tbo United States 4 Mr Campbells next assertion 13 that I am an unnaturalized foreigner for-eigner This presents a question of fit upon which tbe retarns to be 1Dasaj by hits Governor and Secre wry probably furnish no evidence beyond be-yond she presumption to be drawn Irom those returns that the elector performed their duty according to Uw and therefore that tbe candidates candi-dates for whom they voted have all tao legil l quilificAtions for office whatever they may bf I tbere be I any proofs attainable tending to overthrow over-throw this presumption and to show tbst I am nn unikittinilzed foreigner and therefore rftstuutc of the rHtute necessary neces-sary qudhfkatijn of citizenship it ia i obviously incompetent for the can visaing board to obeaiml Ibe return and catchier such prools Toe only tribunal which has power t do eo in tnia case is tbo Homo of Representatives Representa-tives of the United Sister TOt diflerenca between tho dutie of tbe precinct election nib ers and those of the canmsssra is very great The precinct election officers are judges of election In the first in stance it devolves upon them to judge of the qualifications of electors insubordination in-subordination to tbo provisions ot law regulating their dutio j but i never devolves upon any canvasser to judge of the qualifications of elector unless by virtue of express and I will add most extraordinary and dangerous statutory provisions i Only in a few exceptional cases have any such indefensible provisions been made by statute in tho United States The Houso of ileprezentativea is by the Constitution made tbe judge ot tbe election return and qtialifi cations of its m inhere This power of tin House does not exclude tbe power of thu judges of election to act within their stttutor authority as judges of the qualifications of eleo tore nor does it exclude the power ot canvassers to act judges of the returns re-turns presented to them to bf canvassed eo far as to determine whether they arc or are not returns substantially conforming to the law Bot I does exclude tbe power of precinct officers to judge of the qualifications qual-ifications of candidate and it excludes cludes toe power of canvassers to judge either of the qualifications of electors or of the qualifications of candidates I also coders upon the rlouee the power to decide on all points including the qualifications of centers and the legal sufficiency oft of-t A prscmct return pI I respectfully submit therefore I that the Governor and Secretary have I j I no power to go bsnicd the returns to ascertain whether I am or am not an unnatnralized icreigner This disposes i dis-poses of the point But then the fact ia that on the 7th day of December 1854 by a judgment judg-ment of a court of competent jurisdiction juris-diction I was duly naturalized according ac-cording knowe to law as Mr Campbell well i In the case of Sprat n Spralt 4 Pet 393 Chief Justice Marshall said The varioiu nets upon the subject submit the decision of tbo right of aliens to admission a citizens to courts of record receive testimony to cord They are to receive teshmo1Y compare it with the law and t judge 0 n both law and fact This judgment is entered ou recrd as the judgment of entere curt It seems to u if it bo In legal form to close all inquiry and like every other judgment to bo complete evidence of its own validity In Campbell vs Gordon 6 Oranch 176 the Supreme Court of the Unite States held It is true that this requisite good moral character to his admission is not stated in the certificate but it is the opinion of this court that the court of Suffolk must have been satisfied as to the character of the applicant or otherwise a certificate that the oath prescribed by law had been taken would not have been granted The oath when taken confers upon him tho rights of a citizen and amounts to a judgment judg-ment of the court of his admission to those rights I is therefore the unanimous unani-mous opinion of tho court that William Comic was duly naturalized If now it were competent for the Houso itself in a contested case t reverse or vacate this judgment and to declare that I am an unnaluralized foreigner it would not be competent for the Governor and Secretary acting act-ing as canvassers to do this The notion that any jurisdiction to reverse or vacate that judgment for mistake i or fraud or on any other grounds is vested is the canvassing officers in this case is too preposterous to admit of any comment from me But in the case of Baskin vs Cannon in the 44th Congress this precise objection to my eligibility was urged before the committee of elections of tbe House and was overruled by the unanimous vote of the committee on the ground I that the judgment of the First District Court ol Utah on this point was conclusive con-clusive and I retained my seat in tbe House Not only is there no legal ground for a question of my eligibility by the territorial canvassers or even by tbe House of Representatives itself based on the ground of alienagebnt though duob ineligibility could be a lawful ground of action by the committee or the House it would not BB Mr Campbell supposes be aggravated by polygamy i that could also be added as a factor in the adjudication For in tbe case of Maxwell vs Cannon in tbe Fortythird Congress Smiths Digest 188 it was unanimously held by tbe committee with the concnr currence of tbe House that the only qualifications or disqualifications of delegates were those prescrbed by the Constitution for representatives and that polygamy was not a disqualification fication for a seat in the House of Representatives of the United States 5 Mr Campbells filth proposition is that mv alleged want of citizenship renders me ineligible to the office of delegate in Congress I concede for the sake of the argument that an unnaturalizad foreigner ought to be ineligible to tbe office of delegate from Utah just as he is ineligible to the office of representative in Congress Con-gress I make this concession not because I am certain that the proposition propo-sition is founded in the Constitution or in the law but because it eeems to mo to be founded in common sense Tbe Constitution provides neither for the qualifications of tbe office of delegate dele-gate in Congress nor for the office i sell The law accords to every territory terri-tory the right to send a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States Rev State sec 1862 I prescribes the qualification of citizenship for the delegates from Washington Idaho and Montana Rev Stats eec 1906 but for the delegates from no other territory Whether in the face of the constitu constu tional provisions that the House hal be composed of members ohcien every second year Ly the people of the u veral tatesU art 7 sec 2j that each House shall be the judge of the election returns and Qualification Qualifi-cation of its members art 7 sec 5 ant that each House may determine deter-mine the rules of its proceduje art 7 sec 5 tbe law creating the office ol delegate would or would not have any valiJity as against a rule of the Houso excluding from the or all territorial delegates or any other persona not constitutional members or officers of the House I admit for the purposes rf thia argument that so long as delegates shall be received in conformity with the provisions of the statute it will be within the ower of the House and also its duty practically to recognize and enforce this qualification of citizenship whether prescribed by law or not But it is an insult t the Governor and Secretary to suggest that they are capable of such an unwarrantable unwarrant-able invasion of jurisdiction of the courts and of the House of Represent atives as t attempt to incorporate a an element into their canvass in this case a decision adverse to my eligi bility based on a reversal or vacation vacaton of the judgment by which I was naturalized nat-uralized G7 The next two propositions of pp03iions Mr Campbell may be conveniently considered together He asserts that by reason of my alleged ineligibility aleged all the 18558 voles cast for me at tbe late election are void and are t be excluded from the canvass and that as a consequence the certificate of election is to be given to him and not to me I will cite without dis cuesion the authorities bv whinh tha doctrine involved in these propositions j proposi-tions has been repudiated aa often ua it has appeared in the Senate or io the House Tbe case of Smith vs Brown 2 Bart 395 h the leading case in the House of Representatives I was reported re-ported from the committee on eleo lions by the chairman Mr Dawta on the 28tb ot January 1868 His exhaustive discussion on tbe subject appears on pages 402405 of the second volume of Bartlett Contested Election Cases Ho refers to the case of Ramsey cs Smith Clark Hall 23 argued by Mr Madison in the House at the first session of the First Congress and to the caseo of Albert Gillatin in tbo Senate in 1793 Philip Barton Jtpy in tho House In 1807 John Riley in the Housa in 1824 182 James Shields in the Senate in 1849 and John Young Brown in the House in 1859 He also reviews the Eng lish authorities and the opinion expressed ex-pressed in Cushiuga tn atise which is cited by Mr Campbell and be cloaca the discussion declaring that The law of the British Parliament I Pdrlament in this particular bas never been adopted in this country and is wholly wboly inapplicable to the syetem of govern ment under which we live In the subsequent case of Zeigler vs Rice this precise question was decided de-cided as follows Thus it wilf be saen that according to acoring the coctestees own statement ha had entered into an agreement to recruit for the rebel army was on hU way to carry out ully his understanding when he was captured and claimed capture protection as a protecton rebel officer when ofcer captured The com mittee are well satUfid that the acts of fe conteitea were well understood hv the voters or said district at the time the cqnteitee was voted for but do not agree contestant that M 8 coatestea was in eligible the candidate who waa eligible is entitled to the seat 2 BaT ellblo S1 i gTha committee ommitee accordingly recommended recom-mended 1 resolution unseating Mr Rice and declaring the seat vacant but the Heuie refused even to evit Mr Rice On ihe contrary by the adoption of a substitute for the committees cm mittees resolution without I mitee8 resolatoD wihout a di Ito I vision Mr Rice was declared entitled to the seat The proceedings may be found on page 5447 vol 80 of the Congressional Globe In the Fortieth Congress Simeon Lorley of South Carolina Pierce M B Young and Nelson Tilt of Gnorgis and Roderick R Butler of Tennessee and in the Fortyfirst Congress Francis E Shober of North Carolina members I mem-bers of the House were relieved ol their disabilities long alter their election and yet when ao relieved were admitted to their stats in the Home All were ineligible wuec chosen but in neither case was the seat given t J competitor nor the elccttion even declared void In the case of Joseph C Abbott in the Senate Fortyiecond Congress the doctrine now asserted by Mr Campbell was fully considered and was repudiated by the Senate There has not been and probably will not be in this country another diecu ion of the subject to exhaustive aa that which was had in this case Tbe English authorities were all presented and very few i any American decisions whether judicial or parliamentary escaped the scrutiny or the oeuntori who submitted the report of the committee com-mittee and the views of the minority which are printed together in Senate Report No 58 Fortysecond Congress second session In tbe case ol Maxwell vs Cannon decided in the Fortythird Congress the same question was raised and the committee and House without a division rejected the doctrine now asserted by Mr Campbell 8 In reply to Mr Campbells assertion that the females in the Territory Ter-ritory who claimed the right to vote outnumbered all the votes polled at the late election I respectfully submit sub-mit in the first place that this alleged al-leged fact probably does not appe ron r-on the face of the returns and in the next place that i it be a lact capable of substantiation by extraneous ex-traneous proof and at tbe same time entitled to weight in any aspect of this case the only tribunal invested with power to ascertain the fact and use it as a basis of judicial action is the Houso of Representatives of the United States 9 Mr Campbell asserts that it must be taken for granted that all votes cast by females were cast for me On this point also Mr Camp bell is i mistaken If this is not shown by tbe returns sue canvassers can neither presume it nor permit Mr Campbel to attempt to prove it before be-fore them by extrinsio evidence nor can they consider the fact when to proven II he shall contest my seat in the next Congress and shall deem the mode in which the females voted moe material to any issue in the contest be will learn that the House will not presume what he asserts on this point t be true but will compel him to prove i I 10 rr Campbell aeaerti that the territorial legislation which extends the right of suffrage to females is Tiid bscauto it attempts to confer tbo privilege by I special net on different and easier terms of qualification than those required by exulti general laws applicable to the other sex thus violating tbe rule of uniformity II this assertion be true it can have no bearing upon tbo action of tbe canvassers can-vassers who have no power to look beyond the returns for the parp ee ot ascertaining whether females voted how many voted or for whom they voted but only upon the action of the Houao of Representatives Repre-sentatives in i a contest or under I protest before that tribunal It ia not 1 recepsitv of my case therefore that I shall vindicate the act conferring con-ferring upon women the elective franchise approved February 12 1870 11 The next proposition i of Mr Campbell if i that proIo il in view of tha premise impossible to determine without proof that the 18568 vote cast for me included more legal voted than the 1357 votes cast for him This involves 1 singular misconcep tion oi tbe effect of thEse returns and of the relation sustained relaton ustaintd to hem by the Governor and Secretary aa canvassing can-vassing officers Mr Campbell BS gcrta the presumption t be that the votea returned fa me were illegal votea and that they are not to be canvassed for me in the absence of affirmative proof dthir the returns hawing that they were in fact legal votes Tbe absurdity of this steer lion is not even mitigated by a conception that the same preemption arises as t votes cast for him The rule dots not in his judgment work both way The truth however on this point ia very manifest The pre kl sumption is that all vales shown by returns legal in form to have been cast for him for c or me wtra so cast and were lawfully cast This pre emption is not conclusive on tbe I House in 1 contest duly prosecuted It may be overcome by extrinsic proof But it ia i conclusive on the canvassing officers and cannot before them be overcome by proofs outside of the returns i the returns are regu far and legal 12 Mr Campbells last point is bat the votes of tbe women have vitiated be election by rendering render-ing it impossible to determine without proof that the pretended majority for Mr Campbell does not consist of such votes I This is a most remarkable view of tbe law to be entertained by an aspirant to a seat in Concrete No board of canvassers can ever be absolutely certain that the majority of any candidate does not consist 01 illegal votes without extrinsic proof which is not merely presumptive but absolutely conclusive But the absence ab-sence of euch conclusive proof does not make the election void I iB an impossibility that any county returns should furnish conclusive proof of the legality of any votes j he proof which these returns aflord f not conclusive but presumptive Upon this presumptive proof the canvassers must act Tbey can resort to no other I ig i for them conclusive They must award the credentials to the candidate shown by the returns to bare been elected In the House I the case is different Tbe House may in a case ol contest or of proteet inquire into and pies upon the tit e to the seat but even in tbe Home the credentials will be presumptive evidence of title and will bp decisive ol the case unless overcome by counter coun-ter proof The House itself will not in the absence ot contest require conclusive con-clusive proof And in a contested case a preponderance of proof will be decisive whether the proof be or be not conclusive If the House in a contested case shall find that ol my 18563 votes 17 212 were illegal whether cast by women or by men and that of Mr Campbells 1357 none were illegal the election will not be rendered void but the seat will be awarded to Mr Campbell But if the House shall not find that so many illegal votes were cast for me it will confirm my title to the seat whatever asier lions Mr Campbell may KB fit to make in impeachment ol that title Of the question presented in this branch el Mr Campbells protest the Governor and Secretary as canvassers canvass-ers have noshadow of june diction Having answered all the propoai Lions upon which Mr Campbell bases his protest a uinst an award of the certificate of election Io me and his demand of an award of the certificate of election to himself I respectfully submit that a returned majority of 37211 votes in a total vote ol 19925 gives me a title to the credential which cannot ba overridden by the Governor under any of the pretext suggested by Mr Campbell without the grossest violation ol law and of official duty dntyGEORGE GEORGE Q CANNON Washington BC Dec 301880 |