the contrary, with the approval and concurrence of a very large majority of the people, and without the effective opposition of any of them. The law of the State providing for the election of members of Congress on the 23d of May was regarded and treated by the governor, sheriffs, commissioners, and other officerscharged with the duty of seeing it carried into effect, with the exception at most of those of a single election precinct, as suspended, and for the time being as practically repealed. This course of the election officers appears to have been adopted and pursued without remonstrance or objection from any considerable number of the people of the 7th congressional district. The great body of the people in the district seem to have acted upon the belief that on the 23d of May there was no law in force in the State which would enable them, if so disposed, to elect a member of Congress, nor was there any evidence before the committee that any very considerable number, if they had had the power, would have had the inclination to exercise it. Such being the state of the district, it is a question well worthy of grave consideration whether its political condition was such that any election for a member of Congress at that time should be held legally valid either under the law of Virginia, or of the United States, even were the evidence of such election clothed with all the ordinary forms of law.

This state of public sentiment in the district and its political condition appear to have been fully understood and appreciated by the incumbent. He seems, notwithstanding, to have been very unwilling that the benefit of representation in Congress should be abandoned, without at least an effort on his part to save it. His personal solicitations to other gentlemen to become candidates, the repulses he met with from them, the mode in which his own name was brought before the people, the difficulties he encountered, his persistent efforts, and the unusual, not to say abnormal, manner of conducting the election he recommended, are, we have no reason to doubt, as truly as graphically stated in his memorial and address to the people of the district, from which we quote as follows:

Immediately after the adjournment of the Richmond convention I went to Alexandria and called upon Hon. George W. Brent, who was a member of that body, (and elected by a very large majority as a Union candidate,) and requested him to announce himself as a candidate for Congress. He peremptorily refused. I then called upon Lewis McKenzie, esq., to take this position. He also declined. I then wrote a card announcing myself as a candidate, and again visited Alexandria with a view to its publication in the Gazette, a paper of large circulation in the seventh district, then published in that city. The editor of the Gazette promised to publish the announcement until the day of election, but failed to redeem his promise. Having waited for the fulfilment of the promise a reasonable time, I announced myself a candidate in two papers of this city-the Republican and Star-and also issued a circular addressed to the people, of which the following is a copy:

"ADDRESS.

"FALLS CHURCH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, May 15, 1861. "On Friday last I visited Alexandria, and placed the subjoined announcement in the hands of the editor of the Gazette, who promised to publish the same if I would omit the portion contained in brackets. I consented to this change, but the promise has not been kept:

"I hereby offer myself as a candidate for election to represent you in the next (37th) Congress of the United States, upon the basis of the maintenance of the Union. [The recent convention at Richmond, called without authority, and usurping all authority, has undertaken to set aside the supreme law of the land in reference to elections to Congress.-Acts 1852-'53, ch. 3, § 7, p. 4.] As, therefore, in most of the precincts throughout the district no poll will be opened for members of Congress, I call upon Union men to open side polls, and preserve the evidence of the wishes of the people, a copy of which may be transmitted to me, at Falls Church, Fairfax county, or to Hon. John W. Forney, clerk of the House of Representatives, at Washington.

"CHARLES H. UPTON.""

It was claimed by the incumbent that, in pursuance of his recommendation, "side polls" were opened for those wishing to vote for him at five different voting precincts in the district, at which he received in the aggregate ninetyfive votes. Certain documents were submitted to the committee, containing lists of the names of the persons said to have so voted, as evidence of his claim to have the benefit of these votes. These documents were merely the lists of names of certain persons subscribed to written statements reciting or referring to the fact that no regular polls had been opened for member of Congress; that they had been deprived of the opportunity to vote or been deterred by threats, and they therefore voted for the incumbent. It was very evident to the committee that the votes claimed to have been so cast at these "side polls" were not cast in conformity with any law at that time or heretofore in force in Virginia for the election of candidates to Congress; they were not given at the place of voting in the precinct, nor received by any election officer, nor certified or authenticated by any magistrate, or commissioner, or conductor of an election, nor proved by the oath of any witness. The incumbent himself did not seem to insist with very much confidence upon his right to have the benefit of the votes above referred to, but appeared to rely, for the proof of the legality of his election, mainly upon certain votes supposed to have been cast for him at an election precinct called Ball's Crossroads, in the county of Alexandria.

The time for the election of members of the 37th Congress was fixed on the 4th Thursday of May last, by an act of the legislature of Virginia passed in the year 1853. An election was held on the same day throughout the State for senators and delegates to the State legislature. The committee subjoin below a complete copy of the document submitted to them as the poll-book kept at Ball's Crossroads, and which, as has been before stated, was mainly relied on by the incumbent as proof of his claim:

Poll for delegates to the house of delegates, and other officers, Thursday, May

Poll for delegates to the house of delegates. &c.—Continued.

This day personally appeared before me, a justice of the peace in and for said county, H. S. Wunder, Wesley Carline, H. W. Febry, Richard Southern, commissioners appointed to superintend an election to be held at Ball's Crossroads, in said county, on the 23d day of May, 1861, for a State senator and member of the house of delegates, and made oath that they would faithfully execute the office of commissioners.

Given under my hand this 23d day of May, 1861.

JOHN R. JOHNSON, J. P.

1 1

COUNTY OF ALEXANDRIA, to wit:

This day personally appeared before me, a justice of the peace in and for the said county, Noah Drummond, conductor appointed to conduct the election to be held at Ball's Crossroads, in said county, on the 23d day of May, 1861, for a member of the house of delegates and a State senator, and made oath that in conducting the said election he would not attempt to influence the vote of any one, or be guilty of partiality for any candidate or person voted for, and as far as depends on him he would make a true return of the result of the election according to law.

Given under my hand this 23d day of May, 1861.

JOHN R. JOHNSON, J. P.

COUNTY OF ALEXANDRIA, to wit:

This day W. B. Lacy personally appeared before me, conductor of election at Ball's Crossroads, in said county, and made oath that in the election about to be held at Ball's Crossroads, in said county, he would record the votes for the candidates faithfully and impartially. Given under my hand this 23d day of May, 1861.

ALEXANDRIA COUNTY:

NOAH DRUMMOND,

Conductor of Election at Ball's Crossroads.

Having carefully examined the above and the within transcript, from the poll-book of the conductor of the election held at Ball's Crossroads on the 23d day of May, ultimo, I hereby certify that the comparison shows the same to be a correct copy. Given under my hand this 1st day of July, 1861.

H. S. WUNDER, J. P.

On the face of this document it appears that ten votes were cast at that precinct for the incumbent, and fifty-one for State senator and delegates. Below the schedule of votes, or on the back of it, there purports to be indorsed the oath of the commissioners, of the conductor, and of the recorder or writer of the election. Below these there is the certificate of a magistrate, of the date of July 1, 1861, that he had examined this document and compared it with the pollbook of the election held at Ball's Crossroads on the 23d day of May, and that he found it to be a correct copy. The foregoing is all the testimony (if it can be called testimony) adduced before the committee that the incumbent received ten, or any other number of votes, at Ball's Crossroads.

The only witnesses called by him to testify in respect to the election held at that precinct were Richard Southern, a commissioner, and Noah Drummond, the conductor, but neither of these witnesses testifies that ten or any other number of votes were cast for the incumbent. The testimony of Richard Southern upon this point is as follows:

Question. Were you one of the commissioners for holding the election at Ball's Crossroads on the 23d day of May last?

Answer. I was.

Question. Was the poll opened there for a member of Congress?

Answer. Not by the order of the governor of Virginia. There was a poll opened there for a member of Congress, by the conductor and four of the commissioners.

Question. Were there armed men present, belonging to the army of Virginia, endeavoring to prevent the opening of the polls?

Answer. There were armed men, but they did not prevent the opening of the polls. There was one officer came into the room, and looked upon the poll-book, and saw your name upon the margin for member of Congress, and I heard him say that if he could get a sight of Upton he be d-d if he should ever take a seat in Congress.'

A part of that of Noah Drummond as below:

RICHARD SOUTHERN.

Question. (By S. F. Beach.) What has been the average vote for several years past at Ball's Crossroads?

Answer. From ninety to one hundred and forty-two. The latter was the heaviest vote I have known there.

Question. (By same.) Was there an election on the day mentioned for State senator and delegates?

Answer. There was.

Question. Was the usual and average vote cast for those candidates? Answer. There were a little upward of a hundred votes cast. There were seventy-nine Union votes and thirty-one secession votes.

Question. (By same.) Were the polls opened on that day on the question of ratifying the ordnance of secession?

Answer. Such polls were opened.

It will be observed that the witness, Drummond, states that at the election in question, 79 Union votes and 31 secession votes were cast for State senator and delegates, making in all one hundred and ten. But it will be seen that in the document produced by the incumbent as the poll-book of that election, only fifty-one votes were cast for those officers. It necessarily follows, if Drummond's testimony is reliable, that the document produced by the incumbent is not a copy of the poll-book kept at Ball's Crossroads on the 23d of May, and therefore it could have no weight as testimony even if authenticated in due form of law.

That it was not authenticated in due form, or in such manner as to make its contents evidence for any purpose, will abundantly appear by reference to the election laws of Virginia. The law of that State provides that the county court shall, biennially, appoint five freeholders commissioners of election for each place of voting in the county, any two of whom, together with another officer called the conductor, are authorized to hold the election. After the polls are closed the correctness of the poll-book is required to be certified by the commissioners and conductor. It is then made the duty of these officers within five days after the commencement of the election to report and deliver the poll-book so certified to the officer conducting the election, at the court-house in the same county. In the case of a congressional election, these last-named officers in the several counties in the district meet, canvass the poll-books, make out a certificate of the result, one of which is transmitted to the governor. On the receipt of this certificate the governor issues his proclamation declaring the successful candidate elected.

At the time of this election, as we have seen, the governor of Virginia was in open rebellion against the United States, and there can be but little doubt that most if not all the sheriffs and conductors of the elections at the several courthouses in the district, if not in active rebellion, were disloyal. Such being the fact, it would have been impracticable for the incumbent to have procured the ordinary evidence of the number of votes he might have received as required by the law of Virginia, whatever that number might have.been. This case would then have come within the reason of the principle held by this house at its present session in the case of Andrew J. Clemens, from the 4th district of Tennessee. But in that case the evidence satisfied the committee that from 1,500 to 2,000 legal votes were cast for the successful candidate, and that these votes, at least in one entire county, were duly and legally authenticated by the certificates of the officers conducting the primary elections in the county, and also legally returned by the sheriff.

But in the matter of the election at Ball's Crossroads, not only was no return made to the sheriff or conductor of the election at the court-house, in Alexandria county, but the result of the election was in no manner certified, authenticated, or proved by the officers conducting the election at that precinct, or in any other mode known to the law. The testimony shows that the election, on the 23d of May, was held at that precinct by four commissioners and a conductor, and under the law of Virginia the poll-book should have been certified by all of them. But there is not only no evidence that it was certified by either of these officers, but no reason shown why it should not have been, if the result of the election was such as it is claimed by the incumbent.

In view of the foregoing facts, the committee are constrained to come to the conclusion that the incumbent has produced no evidence, which, either under