802 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 28,

persons who were non-residents, and of one minor were re-
ceived and counted for the said Duke; that in the count of
the ballots taken in the Second Election District, two votes
which were cast for the contestant, Wilson, were considered
as a double ticket and thrown out of the count; that in said
count one more vote was given to Duke than he actually re-
ceived, and that therefore, in the aggregate, the said Duke
only received one thousand and thirty-seven votes, being four
votes less than the contestant received.

In answer to this, the sitting member shows that three
votes, which were illegal, were cast Cor the contestant—two
of such illegal votes being cast by minors—and the remaining
one by a party who was non-resident; and further claims that
the returns made by the Judges of the 2nd district were coirect.

It will be shown by an examination of the testimony that
all the votes claimed to have been cast illegally were east by
persons whose names appeared on the list of registered voters.
This applies to both the contestant and the sitting member.

Whilst it may be competent for the Senate in the case of
a contested election, to go behind the returns of the Judges,
and even the registered lists, yet your Committee are of the
opinion that it should never be done except upon the strong-
est and most indisputable testimony. They, therefore, in
regard to the matter of receiving illegal votes at such election,
have not been willing to receive any but documentary evi-
dence. They t ave, therefore, admitted only the testimony
in regard to this point, of the certificates from the Clerks
of the Circuit Court, as to the conviction of five persons who
are alleged to have voted for Duke, the sitting member.

As to the matter, therefore, of the ballots for both contest-
ant and sitting member, from the proof before them, your
Committee are of the opinion that Duke and Wilson received
the same number of legal votes.

The contestant in this case, however, sets up a claim that
two ballots which were received in the Second Election Dis-
trict, and which were by the Judges adjudged to be one
double ballot, were in fact two ballots, ami that they were
cast for him, and that one vote more was counted to Duke
than he actually received.

Your Committee, after a most thorough and searching ex.-
aminotion of the testimony, cannot find that the claim thus
set up is sustained, or at least so clearly established as to war-
rant them in admitting the contestant to a seat in this body.

There is, however, in the mind of your Committee, so much
doubt as to the claim that the only solution of it is to refer
the whole matter back to the people of Calvert county, and
they therefore submit the following resolution: