It appears that the sitting member, at the election in August, had a majority of seven votes over the claimant. In the scrutiny adopted by the committee, it appears that there were twenty-three illegal votes cast. Of these fifteen were for Mr. Phelps, and eight for Mr. Purple. There were two other votes, about the rejection of which the committee were equally divided. Two individuals, Enos Rowland and Lewis Lecroy, came to the polls in Peoria precinct, took the oath prescribed by the law, and wished to have their votes recorded for Mr. Purple. Two of the judges of election, making a majority of the board, rejected these two voters of their nere motion, without any evidence impugning the right of the individuals claiming the franchise. A majority of the committee are of opinion that these votes should be counted for Mr. Purple. Without enlarging upon the reasons for this opinion, your committee would only suggest that it would be unwise and dangerous, to permit judges of election from mere caprice, or any worse reason to reject votes, as by such means it would be in their power to control all elections of the people. that It was agreed between Messrs. Purple and Phelps, that each should vote for the other. Mr. Purple carried his part of the agreement into ef fect; but Mr. Phelps, from illness, was unable to attend the polls, and consequently could not vote for Mr. Purple. It is proposed now, the vote of Mr. Purple should not be counted for Mr. Phelps, and although the latter gentleman assents to this proposition, your committee do not feel authorized to reject the vote of Mr. Purple, his legal right to cast the vote not being questioned. Majority of votes on the poll books for Mr. Phelps, seven. Illegal votes cast for Mr. Purple, Two votes for Purple improperly rejected by the judges, 15 8 Majority of Mr. Purple over Mr. Phelps, two, not including the two votes about which the committee are equally divided. A majority of your committee recommend, that William J. Phelps be not considered as having a right to sit and vote in this House, and that Norman H. Purple be declared to be the representative elect from the county of Peoria, and that he take his seat in the House in lieu and stead of the said William J. Phelps, and recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That Norman H. Purple, having received a majority of all the legal votes in the county of Peoria, at the late August election, for Representative, be declared the sitting member in this House from said county. MINORITY REPORT. Mr. Hardin, from the select committee appointed to investigate the claims of N. H. Purple to a seat in the House as a Representative from the county of Peoria, made a minority report, as follows, viz: The undersigned, being a minority of the Select Committee, to which was referred the petition of N. H. Purple contesting the right of W. J. Phelps to hold a seat in this house, as a Representative from the county of Peoria, beg leave to report: That they have given the subject a most careful and thorough consideration, and regret that, in deciding upon the qualifications of persons to vote, as well as in the conclusions adopted by the majority of the committee, they are constrained wholly to differ with them. The only testimony which has been submitted to the committee is a bundle of depositions, which we feel constrained to say, are of the most imperfect, loose and unsatisfactory description; and far the largest portion of the depositions are such as would be wholly rejected as evidence in any court of Justice. According to the understanding of the testimony, entertained by the minority, there are but about eleven votes proved to be illegal, by primary and positive evidence, (by which we mean, the best evidence which could be produced to prove the fact desired.) Of these eleven votes, five voted for Phelps, and six for Purple. Thus, if we are governed by the same rules of law which prevail in courts of justice, the right of Phelps to retain his seat cannot, in our opinion for a moment, be questioned. The remaining testimony, which is by far the largest portion, consists of hearsay or secondary evidence, being statements which witnesses say they heard made since, and in many instances, weeks, months and years previous to the August election, by the voters themselves, or their fathers, brothers, and brothers-in-law; and also, recollections of family records. And this hearsay testimony is presented in a still more questionable position from the facts which appear in many of the depositions that the voters themselves, or their fathers, brothers, brothers-in-law and the family records were in Peoria county, and of course could have been brought before the persons taking the depositions, and thus enabled the parties to have presented the best evidence to prove the facts desired. Evidence of this description is not received in courts where the testimony of the person who made the statement can be had, and we think it could not be received in this case, for the same reasons which have induced courts to reject it. If this character of testimony is admitted, it will lead to the greatest uncertainty in the investigation, and will open a door for frauds of the most startling description. If such testimony is to be admitted, the seat of no member in this body will be secure, although in truth he may be fairly and honestly elected. And in contested elections, the effort will be, not to prove the largest number of illegal votes by positive testimony, but to hunt up the greatest number of rumors, as it is generally casier to prove five men to be illegal voters by hearsay, than one man by positive proof. These objections exist to the testimony taken on both sides, and in our opinion should induce the House to reject every deposition when it appears that better evidence to prove the desired fact, could be obtained than that which is given., But the minority of the committee are of the opinion, that if the whole testimony is taken together, and the same rule of construction equally applied, that it will clearly show that the sitting member, Mr. Phelps, is entitled to his seat. We will briefly advert to the facts which have led us to this conclusion: Taking the whole testimony together, the committee came to the conclusion that the votes of the following named persons were good, some of whom voted on either side, and we presume their right to vote will not be again disputed, as there was no diversity of opinion, as it respects them in the committee, to wit: John Hogg, Jr., Isaac Underhill, William C. Terry, Isaac Clayton, Michael R. Hughes, Charles B. Benson, David G. Lisk. The following named persons who voted for Phelps were decided to be illegal voters by at least seven of the committee, whose right to vote, if hearsay and secondary evidence is admitted, will most probably not be contended for, to wit: Theodore Adams, Quincy A. Jordan, R. Burlingame, Benjamin H. Bauvard, George Hillman, Myron M. Lisk, Hiram Robinson, Dexter Hood, Allen Cromlet, Matthew Ellis. The following named persons, who voted for Mr. Purple were decided by at least seven of the committee, to be illegal voters, taking all the testimony together, and it is presumed it will not be alleged that they are legal voters if all the testimony is admitted, to wit: George Almarode, Peter Decker, John Davis, Samuel Carroll, William Young, Thomas Richardson, James Murden, William Whiting, John Hillhouse,or Hillis, The right of the foliowing named persons to vote, (who voted for Phelps) could not be agreed on in the committee, to wit: Noble M. Farrington, William Adkins, George Winkler, Christopher Winkler, Horace Adams, Harris Whitaker, Robert Smith, John Martin. The right of the following named persons to vote, (who voted for Purple) could not be agreed on in the committee, to wit: James Temple, George W. Patton, |