is no contestant of my claim to this seat. The claim, I understand, is simply disputed, not contested. These popular demonstrations of loyalty and desire of representation, and these expressions in favor of my admission as a representative extend through a period of seven months, from the 28th of November up to the 2d of May, and this continued unanimity of the voters would seem to indicate that if the regular day of election had fallen upon any day certain within that period, that their suffrages would have been given with the same unanimity for myself. It would seem to indicate that no one of these elections was a snap judgment, that the unanimity of voting was not accidental, and that it would have been the same upon any other day which might have been the legal day of election. I submit, therefore, that these elections are equivalent to an election, at which the same number of votes might have been cast, which should have been held on a day which was either regularly named by the statute or which might be specially appointed by the State executive or ordered by Congress.

If part of the formalities prescribed by the election statute of a State may be dispensed with, why not others which are no more substantial or essential to a valid election? If requirements of mode may be dispensed with, why not the prescription of a day? The Constitution of the United States contemplates the immediate filling of vacancies which may occur in the delegation from any State. The "executive authority" is required by that supreme law of the land to order special elections to supply such vacancies.

It is not necessary, where a vacancy occurs by death, resignation, or treason, and there is commotion or disturbance in a district so that an election cannot be held upon the regular day, that the electors should wait until the regular day comes around again. The Constitution contemplates an earlier election and the immediate filling of a vacancy, and requires the executive authority of a State to order an election to fill a vacancy. In this instance it is not pretended that the governor of the State, as the repository of the executive authority, ordered any election. It is not contended that the gov ernor has done his duty. It is contended, however, that the people have done theirs; and it is respectfully submitted to the committee that the default of the governor, the treacherous depository of this authority, should not disfranchise the people; that since the executive authority is primarily and finally in the people, in default of the governor it reverts to them, and they have the right to hold an election. All that is pretended here is that this action of the people is spontaneous.

Of course I do not undertake to say that I had no participation whatever in the canvass. Every candidate is supposed to do that, and to have some interest in the matter. Upon such default of the governor the spontaneous action of the people thus attempted to be disfranchised should be recognized as valid. Their action should be legalized by Congress, so far as there is anything lacking in matters of mere forms; and informalities and irregularities should be corrected, so as to do substantially justice to the citizens.

This case is somewhat a matter of equity towards this people. It

has been impossible for them to procure a strict compliance with the forms of law; but they so complied as far as it was possible to do so. Certain preliminaries, which could not have been had on account of the disloyalty of the governor, are lacking. For that the people are not responsible; and I would submit that if the substance of an elec tion is in this case-if these people have voted in good faith, with a fair understanding, without intimidation, without any false inducement, if they have voted fairly and freely, then the election has as much in it as if the same number of votes had been thrown upon any regular day. Mr. Clements, of Tennessee, a State which had seceded, and in which the governor had issued no writ of election for members of Congress, was admitted to a seat in the House upon a spontaneous election of the people. The circumstances that the voting in that case was done upon the regular day named in the statute is surely a matter of no such controlling or decisive consequence as to make that election valid, while the absence of that circumstance in the present case is a fatal omission.

Mr. Lowe, of California, was admitted to a seat in the House upon an election held antecedently to the creation of the seat. So far as strict statutory requirements are concerned this election was not valid at the time it was held, but acquired validity by the subsequent action of Congress. It is a matter of frequent occurrence that the irregular proceedings of towns and other corporations are legalized by acts of the State legislature. If there was ever a case where such action should be had, the present claim of these loyal men is certainly entitled to similar generous consideration.

Representation is the characteristic of republican government, and without it such government becomes a mockery or a sham. The declaration of our revolutionary fathers, "no taxation without representation," has become an acknowledged political truism. The constituents of this claimant affirm their willingness to bear their proportionate share of the burdens of the government. They desire. reciprocally, the exercises of their right to share in the legislation of the government. That legislation vitally affects their interests; and they, in common with all other loyal, national citizens in the seceded States, have a vastly larger stake in the results of congressional action than do the people of the North.

The objection to admitting a claimant to a seat on the ground that he did not receive a majority, but only a small fraction, of all the votes usually cast in the district has already been disposed of by the deliberate action of the house in admitting several gentlemen who received but a small vote. One was the case of Mr. Segar, who received a little over one-sixteenth of the votes usually cast in that district, and for whom there was not such unanimous expression as was made in my favor, and against whom, in fact, there was a strong adverse expression. In my case I received a majority of all the votes of those who have thus far purged themselves of the rebellion by taking the oath of allegiance to the United States. I claim that the rebel citizens of that or any other district are not entitled to vote until after they have purged themselves of their supposed complicity

with the rebellion, arising out of the fact of their residence there during the period of the rebellion, and that they must practically be considered as no citizens at all, but as political minors at present. All of the persons who participated in the voting in my case, to whom I have called your attention, have taken the oath of allegiance to the government. They all did it voluntarily and they all did it as long ago as the 30th of August last. So that they have purged themselves entirely of all supposed complicity with rebellion, and should be considered as loyal citizens and qualified electors, while those who have not so purged themselves cannot, perhaps, properly be considered as having any right to interfere, and none of them have interfered or interposed any objection so far.

Certificates of election are not held to be an essential and indispensable part of an election. In peaceful times their absence could not be overlooked, but when in a period of disturbance and commotion they are impossible to be obtained, they ought certainly to be dispensed with.

The will of the people is the substantial thing. Adequate evidence of this will is all that should be exacted. All beyond or beside this is but external and accessory.

Question. There are three several elections referred to in the memorials to Congress; one on the 28th of November, 1861, and two in January following. In what counties were those elections held? Answer. In Hyde county. There was no voting in any other county than Hyde.

Question. In no case ?

Answer. Not that I am aware of. Hyde is a large county, extending for many miles along the coast. Those men are the most loyal in the State of North Carolina. They have had no participation whatever in the rebellion. They have been isolated from the main land. They had no more to do with the rebellion than the people of the West Indies.

Question. Were any of these elections held elsewhere?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. The entire expression of opinion in your behalf was on the islands belonging to Hyde county?

Answer. Not all of it. There were some meetings held at Bay River, in Craven county, and elsewhere, in which resolutions approving of my election were passed.

of?

Question. There was no voting except upon the islands?

Answer. That is all.

Question. What islands are embraced within the region you speak

Answer. They are called "Banks."

Question. At how many places were those expressions of opinion. in your behalf had?

Answer. At all the precincts in Hyde county which are located on Cape Hatteras banks.

Question. Give their names.

Answer. Chickamacomico, Kinnekeet, Trent, and Hatteras.

Question. Were those expressions of opinion in your behalf made upon any particular day?

Answer. They were made on different days.

Question. Name the days upon which they were made?

Answer. The 28th of November and the 16th and 30th of January last.

Question. Have there been any such expressions since the 30th of January?

Answer. There have been; one by the proceedings of a meeting held at Bay River on the 2d of May last, and again by a memorial signed by citizens of Carteret county, recommending my admission to a seat.

Question. At any other time or place were there any expressions of opinion in your behalf except those you have named?

Answer. None that I am positively aware of.

Question. How many voters, in the aggregate, have thus expressed their opinion in your behalf?

Answer. I suppose about 450.

Question. Can you locate them at the different points you have mentioned?

Answer. About 300 at Cape Hatteras Banks.

Question. At what precincts?

Answer. Sixty-two at Trent precinct; 71 at Hatteras; 90 at Kinnekeet; and 51 at Chickamacomico, all on the 28th of November last. Afterwards at Chickamacomico, on the 16th of January, there were 81 votes polled; that was 30 more than were polled at the previous election; and on the 30th of January voting was done at Trent, Hatteras, and Kinnekeet.

Question. How many votes at each place?

Answer. I do not know, as I never received the returns. They were given to General Williams, who lost or mislaid them. The only return he could find was the one for Chickamacomico, though he had received the others. But it is very easy to return duplicates of them, I suppose.

Question. State the number of voters who have expressed a desire, since the 18th of December last, to have you represent them in Congress?

Answer. Although I have not received the returns, I believe the voting on the 16th and 30th of January last, at Cape Hatteras Banks, was fully as extensive as it was on the 28th of November preceding. Question. Have you any evidence to present to the committee of the votes cast since the 18th of December last?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Be kind enough to present now all the evidence you have of the expression of sentiment, since the 18th of December last, in favor of your coming here as a representative?

Answer. In the first place, there are the four memorials contained in Mis. Doc. No. 53, of the House.

Question. Besides the expression of opinion contained in that document, what else have you?

Answer. In that same document there is also a poll-list of the eighty-one votes cast at Chickamacomico, on the 16th day of January, 1862.

Question. What else have you?

Answer. A memorial signed by thirty citizens of Carteret county, of which you have a copy before the committee.

Question. When was that expression of opinion given in Carteret county?

Answer. It was handed to the editor of the Newburn Progress about the 14th of May, and he told me it was left there by some citizens of the county.

Question. Have you any personal knowledge of the time when this memorial was obtained from them?

Answer. I believe it was only a few days previous to the time it was handed to me.

Question. How did you learn that?

Answer. The editor of the Progress told me so.

Question. Have you any other evidence of it?

Answer. I have not.

Question. What is the name of that editor?

Answer. George Mills Joy, of the 25th Massachusetts regiment. Question. What is his business?

Answer. He is a sergeant of the 25th regiment Massachusetts volunteers. He was detailed from the regiment to edit the paper. Question. Have you any other evidence of expression of opinion. since the 18th of December?

Answer. The other evidence is the proceedings of a meeting held at Bay River.

Question. Where is that?

Answer. It was presented to the House on the second day of June, 1862, and was that day referred to the committee. Question. Have you anything else?

Answer. Nothing that I think of at present.

Question. On how many different days were these expressions of opinion given?

Answer. On the 16th and 30th of January, the 2d of May, and in the latter part of April or first of May, while the memorial from Carteret county was being signed.

Question. Was there any attempt upon the part of the voters to conform to law in the expression of their opinions?

Answer. There was an attempt to conform to law in the elections they held.

Question. In what manner did they give that expression?

Answer. By coming to the polls-by having two, and in some cases three freeholders, sworn by magistrates, to receive the votes in the usual form, and with perfect regularity.

Question. What notice was given that such an election was about to be held?

Answer. A notice was given at a meeting which was held at Cape Hatteras some ten days previous; the proceedings of which meeting