rts which I
made for that Committee. I have a right to say that I dealt
with the subjects with the same freedom from bias or prejudice
with which it would have been my duty to give to the question
if I had been sitting on the Bench of the Supreme Court of
the United States.

The case of Cessna _vs._ Myers was perhaps the most interesting
and important of those in which I made a report for the Committee.
John Cessna had served the State of Pennsylvania for several
terms. He was a very popular and eminent Republican member.
According to the returns, Myers, his adversary, had a majority
of 14. Cessna showed beyond question, and his antagonist
admitted, that more than 14 illegal votes were cast for Myers.
On the other hand Myers claimed that there were many illegal
votes cast for Cessna, the evidence of which, so far as appeared,
came to his knowledge first when introduced in the case. When
the evidence was taken Cessna claimed to have evidence that
328 illegal votes were cast for Myers, and that ten legal
votes, cast or offered for him, were rejected. On the other
hand the sitting member claimed that there were 341 votes
illegally thrown for the contestant, and of those Cessna admitted
that 81 had proved to be illegal. So the Committee were obliged
to examine by itself the evidence in regard to the right to
vote of each of several hundred persons.

The case turned finally on some very interesting questions
of the law of domicile. It appeared that a considerable
number of persons who were entitled to vote, if they were
resident of the district where they voted, were workmen employed
in the construction of a railroad. They had come from outside
the district for that purpose alone, and had no purpose of
remaining in the district after the railroad should be completed,
and meant then to get work wherever they could find it, there
or elsewhere. There were also a number of votes cast by students
who had gone to college for the purpose of getting an education,
having no design to remain there after their studies terminated.
Still another class of voters whose right was in dispute,
were the paupers abiding in the public almshouse, and maintained
in common by a considerable number of townships and parishes.
These paupers voted in the district where the almshouse was
situated, although it was not the district of their domicile or
residence when they were removed to it.

The Committee held in the case of the laborer,-