[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[M. Summaries of Election Contests, 1931-72]
[Â§ 54. Eightieth Congress, 1947-48]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1177-1189]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
               M. SUMMARIES OF ELECTION CONTESTS, 1931-72
 
Sec. 54. Eightieth Congress, 1947-48

Sec. 54.1 Lowe v Davis

    On Apr. 27, 1948, Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, submitted the 
unanimous report (13) of the Committee on House 
Administration in the contested election case of Lowe v Davis, from the 
Fifth Congressional District of Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Rept. No. 1823, 94 Cong. Rec. 4922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 25, 1947, the House had considered by unanimous consent and 
agreed to a resolution (H. Res. 337) (14) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of the 
    Eightieth Congress, testimony and papers received by the Clerk of 
    the House in any contested-election case shall be transmitted by 
    the Clerk to the Speaker for reference to the Committee on House 
    Administration in the same manner as though such adjournment or 
    recess had not occurred: Provided, That any such testimony and 
    papers referred by the Speaker shall be printed as House documents 
    of the next succeeding session of the Congress. (Emphasis 
    supplied.)

[[Page 1178]]

    On July 25, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, by unanimous 
consent offered another resolution by direction of the Committee on 
House Administration (H. Res. 338): (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournments or recesses of 
    the first session of the Eightieth Congress, the Committee on House 
    Administration is authorized to continue its investigation in the 
    contested-election cases of Mankin against Davis, Lowe against 
    Davis, and Wilson against Granger. For the purpose of making such 
    investigations the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is 
    authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times 
    and places within the United States, whether the House is in 
    session, has recesses, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, 
    and to require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and 
    testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
    record, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as 
    it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature 
    of the chairman of the committee or any member of the committee 
    designated by him, and may be served by any person designated by 
    such chairman or member.

    House Resolution 338 was agreed to by voice vote and without 
debate.
    Thereupon, Mr. LeCompte offered the following privileged resolution 
(16) from the Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 
339) to implement House Resolution 338, which had previously been 
agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the expenses of the investigations to be 
    conducted pursuant to House Resolution 338, by the Committee on 
    House Administration, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to 
    exceed $5,000, including expenditures for the employment of 
    investigators, attorneys, and clerical, stenographic, and other 
    assistants, shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House 
    on vouchers authorized by such committee or subcommittee, signed by 
    the chairman of such committee, or subcommittee, and approved by 
    the Committee on House Administration.

    House Resolution 339 was agreed to by voice vote and without 
debate.
    On July 26, 1947, the House had adjourned to Jan. 6, 1948, but had 
been convened by proclamation of the President on Nov. 17, 1947, a 
continuation of the first session of the 80th Congress. The question of 
whether this reconvening of the Congress was to be considered a 
continuation of the existing session or a special or additional session 
arose in connection with the effective date of certain amendments to 
the rules of civil procedure in the courts, which amendments were to 
take effect three months subsequent to the adjournment of the first 
regular session of the Congress. The 

[[Page 1179]]

Senate adopted as controlling a memorandum of the Federal Law Section, 
Library of Congress, to the effect that where Congress adjourns to a 
day certain--not sine die--and is convened earlier by proclamation of 
the President, such convening is a continuation of the existing 
session and not a special or additional session.


    On Nov. 17, the Speaker took from the Speaker's table and referred 
to the Committee on House Administration a letter from the Clerk 
(17) transmitting the required papers (absent contestee's 
brief). The Speaker did not lay the communication before the House, but 
did order it printed as a House document (H. Doc. No. 434) of the first 
session of the 80th Congress. (Neither the Congressional Record, p. 
10613, nor the Journal, p. 771, indicate, however, that the 
communication had been ordered printed by the Speaker.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Doc. No. 434, 93 Cong. Rec. 10613, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee report indicated that the committee had held full 
hearings on Mar. 17, 1948, and had given consideration to contestee's 
brief, which had not been filed within 30 days after reception of a 
copy of contestant's brief, as required by 2 USC Sec. 223. The summary 
report recommended that the contest be dismissed ``as lacking in 
merit.''
    The debate on House Resolution 552,(18) which dismissed 
the accompanying contest of Mankin v Davis on Apr. 27, 1948, indicated 
that contestant was disputing the method by which contestee had been 
nominated in the primary election. Contestee had been selected as his 
party's nominee under Georgia state law, which prescribed use of the 
``county unit system.'' Contestant in this case had not been a 
candidate in the general election. Presumably, as in the later case of 
Lowe v Davis (Sec. 56.3, infra) in the 82d Congress, contestant had 
been a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the primary election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 4902, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 27, 1948, Mr. LeCompte called up House Resolution 553 
(19) as privileged, which provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the election contest of Wyman C. Lowe, 
    contestant, against James C. Davis, contestee, Fifth Congressional 
    District of Georgia, be dismissed and that the said James C. Davis 
    is entitled to his seat as a Representative of said District and 
    State.

Whereupon the resolution was agreed to without debate and without a 
record vote, thereby dis-



[[Page 1180]]

missing the contest and holding contestee entitled to his seat.

Sec. 54.2 Mankin v Davis

    On July 25, 1947, the House, in the first session of the 80th 
Congress, considered by unanimous consent and agreed to the following 
resolution (H. Res. 337),(20) offered by Mr. Ralph A. 
Gamble, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of the 
    Eightieth Congress, testimony and papers received by the Clerk of 
    the House in any contested-election case shall be transmitted by 
    the Clerk to the Speaker for reference to the Committee on House 
    Administration in the same manner as though such adjournment or 
    recess had not occurred: Provided, That any such testimony and 
    papers referred by the Speaker shall be printed as House documents 
    of the next succeeding session of the Congress. [Emphasis 
    supplied.]

    On July 25, 1947, Mr. Gamble, by unanimous consent offered another 
resolution by direction of the Committee on House Administration (H. 
Res. 338): (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournments or recesses of 
    the first session of the Eightieth Congress, the Committee on House 
    Administration is authorized to continue its investigation in the 
    contested-election cases of Mankin against Davis, Lowe against 
    Davis, and Wilson against Granger. For the purpose of making such 
    investigations the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is 
    authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times 
    and places within the United States, whether the House is in 
    session, has recesses, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and 
    to require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony 
    of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, 
    correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as it deems 
    necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the 
    chairman of the committee or any member of the committee designated 
    by him, and may be served by any person designated by such chairman 
    or member.

House Resolution 338 was agreed to by voice vote and without debate.

    Thereupon, Mr. LeCompte offered the following privileged resolution 
from the Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 339) (2) 
to implement House Resolution 338 which had previously been agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the expenses of the investigations to be 
    conducted pursuant to House Resolution 338, by the Committee on 
    House Administration, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to 
    exceed $5,000, including expenditures for the employment of 
    investigators, attorneys, and clerical, stenographic, and other 
    assistants, shall be 


[[Page 1181]]

    paid out of the contingent fund of the House on vouchers 
    authorized by such committee or subcommittee, signed by the 
    chairman of such committee, or subcommittee, and approved by 
    the Committee on House Administration.

    On July 26, 1947, the House had adjourned to Jan. 6, 1948, but had 
been convened by proclamation of the President on Nov. 17, 1947, which 
session was consid


ered a continuation of the first session of the 80th Congress.
    The question of whether this reconvening of the Congress resulting 
from the Presidential proclamation was to be considered a continuation 
of the existing session or a special or additional session arose in 
connection with the effective date of certain amendments to the rules 
of civil procedure in the courts, which amendments were to take effect 
three months subsequent to the adjournment of the first regular session 
of the Congress. The Senate adopted as controlling a memorandum of the 
Federal Law Section, Library of Congress, to the effect that where 
Congress adjourns to a day certain--not sine die--and is convened 
earlier by proclamation of the President, such convening is a 
continuation of the existing session and not a special or additional 
session.
    On Nov. 17, the Speaker took from the Speaker's table and referred 
to the Committee on House Administration a letter from the Clerk 
(3) transmitting the required papers (absent contestee's 
brief). The Speaker did not lay the communication before the House, but 
did order it printed as a House document (H. Doc. No. 433) of the first 
session of the 80th Congress. (Neither the Congressional Record, p. 
10613, nor the Journal, p. 771, indicate, however, that the 
communication had been ordered printed by the Speaker.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Doc. No. 443, 93 Cong. Rec. 10613, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee report indicated that the committee had held full 
hearings in the contest, and had given consideration to contestee's 
brief, which had not been filed within 30 days after reception of a 
copy of contestant's brief, as required by 2 USC Sec. 223. The summary 
report recommended that the contest be dismissed ``as lacking in 
merit.''
    House Resolution 552 (4) was called up as privileged by 
Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, on Apr. 27, 1948, accompanied by the 
unanimous reports (5) of the Committee on House 
Administration 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 4902, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 374.
 5. H. Rept. No. 1823, 94 Cong. Rec. 4922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1182]]

submitted by Mr. LeCompte on that date. The debate which 
ensued indicated that contestant was disputing the method by which 
contestee had been nominated in the primary election. Contestant had 
not herself been a candidate in the general election. Contestee had 
been selected as his party's nominee under Georgia State law which 
required use of the ``county unit system'' (6) (presumably 
whereby each county of the district was accorded one vote, 
determined by the majority of votes cast therein, and the nominee is 
thereafter determined by the majority of the county votes cast). Mr. 
LeCompte contended that unless the House desired to invalidate the 
state election laws as they pertained to this election, the House 
should adopt House Resolution 552. Accordingly the House agreed to 
House Resolution 552 without further debate and without a record 
vote and thereby dismissed the contest and declared contestee 
entitled to his seat:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 4902, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the election contest of Helen Douglas Mankin, 
    contestant, against James C. Davis, contestee, Fifth Congressional 
    District of Georgia, be dismissed and that the said James C. Davis 
    is entitled to his seat as a Representative of said District and 
    State.

    Note: Syllabi for Mankin v Davis may be found herein at Sec. 6.11 
(items transmitted by Clerk); Sec. 24.1 (contestee's failure to make 
timely answer); Sec. 43.2 (form of report).

Sec. 54.3 Michael v Smith

    On Apr. 22, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from 
the Clerk (7) of the House transmitting copies of the notice 
of contestant and the reply thereto in the contest of Michael v Smith 
from the Eighth Congressional District of Virginia. The Clerk's letter 
stated that no testimony had been taken by either party within the time 
permitted by law. The contestant had filed with his notice of contest a 
copy of the court record of a suit which had been initiated by 
contestant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Virginia to determine certain legal issues raised by the election of 
Nov. 5, 1946. On Apr. 22, 1947, the Speaker referred to the Committee 
on House Administration the Clerk's letter, and ordered it printed, 
together with the accompanying papers mentioned above, as a House 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Doc. No. 213, 93 Cong. Rec. 3800, 3827, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 281, 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contestant alleged in his brief that the election had not been 

[[Page 1183]]

conducted in conformity with the 14th and 15th amendments to the United 
States Constitution, in that state law imposed a poll tax and required 
certain registration forms in violation thereof, which requirements, 
furthermore, were not applied uniformly to all citizens. Contestee in 
his answer alleged that contestant had no standing to contest the 
election, as he conceded having been defeated by 7,513 votes and 
that his only contention presented strictly a legal question to be 
decided in court, which question had been decided contrary to 
contestant's position. No testimony was transmitted to the House.
    On July 26, 1947, the Clerk transmitted contestee's motion to 
dismiss (8) the contest to the Speaker, who laid the Clerk's 
communication before the House, referred it to the Committee on House 
Administration, and ordered it printed with the accompanying motion to 
dismiss. On that same day Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, submitted 
the unanimous report (9) from the Committee on House 
Administration, which summary report also provided for disposition of 
the election contests of Roberts v Douglas (14th Congressional District 
of California) and Woodward v O'Brien (Sixth Congressional District of 
Illinois). The report recited that no testimony in behalf of 
contestants had been taken during the time prescribed by law in any of 
the contests, and recommended that notices of intention to contest the 
elections of contestees be dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Doc. No. 418, 93 Cong. Rec. 10522, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 714.
 9. H. Rept. No. 1106, 93 Cong. Rec. 10523, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 716, 746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gamble called up House Resolution 345 (10) on July 
26, 1947, which was agreed to by the House without debate and by voice 
vote, and which--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the election contest of Harold C. Woodward, 
    contestant, against Thomas J. O'Brien, contestee, Sixth 
    Congressional District of Illinois, be dismissed, and that the said 
    Thomas J. O'Brien is entitled to his seat as a Representative of 
    said district and State; and be it further
        Resolved, That the election contest of Frederick M. Roberts, 
    contestant, against Helen Gahagan Douglas, contestee, Fourteenth 
    Congressional District of California, be dismissed and that the 
    said Helen Gahagan Douglas is entitled to her seat as a 
    Representative of said district and State; and be it further
        Resolved, That the election contest of Lawrence Michael, 
    contestant, against 


[[Page 1184]]

    Howard W. Smith, contestee, Eighth Congressional District of the 
    State of Virginia, be dismissed, and that the said Howard W. Smith 
    is entitled to his seat as a Representative of said district and 
    State.

Sec. 54.4 Roberts v Douglas

    On July 25, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from 
the Clerk (11) which related that neither party had taken 
testimony during the time prescribed by law and that the contest of 
Roberts v Douglas, from the 14th Congressional District of California, 
appeared abated. The Clerk's letter, together with copies of 
contestant's notice of contest and contestee's motion to dismiss with a 
copy of her attorney's letter in support thereof, were referred to the 
Committee on House Administration by the Speaker and ordered printed 
with those accompanying papers as a House document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Doc. No. 416, 93 Cong. Rec. 10211, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 710, 711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contestant's notice recited only that--

        Contest of your right to hold said seat is entered upon the 
    grounds of failure to meet residence requirements under both the 
    Constitution of the United States and of the State of California.
        Additional grounds for contest of your right to hold said 
    congressional seat is to be found in many fraudulent practices 
    alleged in the election of November 5, 1946, which justify 
    congressional investigation.

    Contestee in her motion to dismiss claimed (1) that contestant had 
not instituted a valid contest, as the statute (2 USC Sec. 201) and 
House precedents required contestant to ``specify particularly the 
grounds upon which he relies in the contest,'' i.e., the notice stated 
no facts which contestee could either admit or deny in an answer; and 
(2) contestant had taken no testimony within the 90 days permitted to 
support his notice of contest.
    On the following day, July 26, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New 
York, submitted the unanimous report (12) from the Committee 
on House Administration, which summary report also provided for 
disposition of the election contests of Woodward v O'Brien (Sixth 
Congressional District of Illinois) and Michael v Smith (Eighth 
Congressional District of Virginia). [H. Rept. No. 11061.] The report 
stated that no testimony in behalf of contestants had been taken during 
the time prescribed by law in any of the contests, and recommended that 
notices of intention to contest the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 10523, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716, 746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1185]]

elections of contestees be dismissed.

    Mr. Gamble called up House Resolution 345 (13) on July 
26, 1947, which was agreed to by the House without debate and by voice 
vote, and which----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the election contest of Harold C. Woodward, 
    contestant,
    against Thomas J. O'Brien, contestee, Sixth Congressional District 
    of Illinois, be dismissed, and that the said Thomas J. O'Brien is 
    entitled to his seat as a Representative of said district and 
    State; and be it further
        Resolved, That the election contest of Frederick M. Roberts, 
    contestant, against Helen Gahagan Douglas, contestee, Fourteenth 
    Congressional District of California, be dismissed and that the 
    said Helen Gahagan Douglas is entitled to her seat as a 
    Representative of said district and State; and be it further
        Resolved, That the election contest of Lawrence Michael, 
    contestant, against Howard W. Smith, contestee, Eighth 
    Congressional District of the State of Virginia, be dismissed, and 
    that the said Howard W. Smith is entitled to his seat as a 
    Representative of said district and State.

    Note: Syllabi for Roberts v Douglas may be found herein at Sec. 6.7 
(items transmitted by Clerk); Sec. 13.8 (failure to specify grounds 
relied upon by contestant); Sec. 22.3 (failure to state grounds with 
particularity); Sec. 27.4 (dismissal for failure to take testimony 
within statutory period); Sec. 44.3 (form of resolution disposing of 
contest).

Sec. 54.5 Wilson v Granger

    On June 17, 1948 (Calendar Day June 18), Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of 
Iowa, submitted the report (14) to accompany House 
Resolution 692 from the (Committee on House Administration in the 
contested election case of Wilson v Granger from the First 
Congressional District of Utah. The contest had been presented to the 
House on Feb. 12, 1948, when the Clerk had transmitted to the Speaker a 
letter (15) accompanied by the required testimony and 
papers, which letter the Speaker pro tempore (16) had on 
that date ]aid before the House and referred to the committee. The 
Clerk's letter, which was not ordered printed as a House document, 
provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Rept. No. 2418, 94 Cong. Rec. 8964, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 709, 713.
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 1276, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 118.
16. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sir: The Clerk has received from Frank W. Otterstrom, the 
    officer before whom testimony was taken in the contested-election 
    case of David J. Wilson against Walter K. Granger, for a seat in 
    the Eightieth Congress from the First Congressional District of the 
    State of Utah, letters dated January 

[[Page 1186]]

    10, February 3, and February 6, 1948, with reference to the 
    transmission of testimony and exhibits in the aforesaid case.
        The letters from this officer, together with the two express 
    packages, the airmail package, and exhibit No. 109 referred to 
    therein, as well as copies of all other papers heretofore filed 
    with the Clerk relating to this case, are transmitted to the House 
    for its action.

    On July 25, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, offered two 
privileged resolutions by direction of the Committee on House 
Administration.(17) The first, House Resolution 337 which 
was agreed to by voice vote and without debate, provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of the 
    Eightieth Congress, testimony and papers received by the Clerk of 
    the House in any contested-election case shall be transmitted by 
    the Clerk to the Speaker for reference to the Committee on House 
    Administration in the same manner as though such adjournment or 
    recess had not occurred: Provided, That, any such testimony and 
    papers referred by the Speaker shall be printed as House documents 
    of the next succeeding session of the Congress.

Mr. Gamble then offered House Resolution 338 which was also agreed to 
by voice vote and without debate, and which provided:

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournments or recesses of 
    the first session of the Eightieth Congress, the Committee on House 
    Administration is authorized to continue its investigation in the 
    contested-election cases of Mankin against Davis, Lowe against 
    Davis, and Wilson against Granger. For the purpose of making such 
    investigations the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is 
    authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times 
    and places within the United States, whether the House is in 
    session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and 
    to require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony 
    of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, 
    correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as it deems 
    necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the 
    chairman of the committee or any member of the committee designated 
    by him, and may be served by any person designated by such chairman 
    or member.

    Thereupon, Mr. LeCompte reported (18) and called up the 
following privileged resolution (19) from the Committee on 
House Administration (H. Res. 339) to implement House Resolution 338, 
which had previously been agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Rept. No. 1089, 93 Cong. Rec. 10283, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 698.
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the expenses of the investigations to be 
    conducted pursuant to House Resolution 338, by the 


[[Page 1187]]

    Committee on House Administration, acting as a whole or by 
    subcommittee, not to exceed $5,000, including expenditures for 
    the employment of investigators, attorneys, and clerical, 
    stenographic, and other assistants, shall be paid out of the 
    contingent fund of the House on vouchers authorized by such 
    committee or subcommittee, signed by the chairman of such 
    committee, or subcommittee, and approved by the Committee on 
    House Administration.

House Resolution 339 was agreed to by voice vote and without debate.


    The committee report acknowledged ``numerous and widespread errors 
and irregularities in many parts of the district, which revealed a lack 
of knowledge of the law and a failure to enforce properly the 
registration and election statutes by those charged with that duty.'' 
The committee found that the correct result of the election was not 
affected by the irregularities shown. The minority report, signed by 
four members of the committee, claimed that contestant should be 
seated, due to various voting-law violations, which would nullify the 
total votes of various precincts and thereby overturn the 104-vote 
majority received by contestee. Specifically, the minority claimed that 
state laws prohibiting transportation of voters to places of 
registration and confining registration to certain hours and by certain 
officials were violated ``in all of the populous counties in the 
district.''
    The delay of over a year by the parties in filing the required 
papers with the Clerk as provided by statute is explained merely by the 
statement in the report that ``the extensions of time heretofore 
granted in this contest by the Committee on House Administration are 
hereby authorized and approved.''
    House Resolution 692 (20) was called up as privileged by 
Mr. LeCompte and agreed to after a short statement by him, without 
further debate, on June 19, 1948. The resolution, adopted by voice 
vote, provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 9184, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the election contest of David J. Wilson, 
    contestant, against Walter K. Granger, contestee, First 
    Congressional District of Utah, be dismissed, and that the said 
    Walter K. Granger is entitled to his seat as a Representative of 
    said district and State.

    Note: Syllabi for Wilson v Granger may be found herein at Sec. 5.12 
(continuing investigations by elections committee); Sec. 10.12 
(distinction between mandatory and directory laws); Sec. 27.14 
(subsequent authorization for informal extension of time); Sec. 35.3 
(burden 

[[Page 1188]]

of showing results of election would be changed); Sec. 45.1 
(payments from contingent fund).

Sec. 54.6 Woodward v O'Brien

    On Feb. 27, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from 
the Clerk (1) of the House transmitting (1) a copy of the 
notice of contest growing out of the election held Nov. 5, 1946, in the 
Sixth Congressional District of Illinois, and (2) a letter from the 
contestant, Harold C. Woodward, stating that contestee had not answered 
the notice of contest filed with him within the time prescribed by 2 
USC Sec. 202, and requesting that all allegations contained in the 
notice be considered as admitted by contestee and that a default be 
entered against contestee by the House. As stated in the Clerk's 
letter--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Doc. No. 156, 93 Cong. Rec. 1517, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 
        159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Since the letter of the contestant (item 2) requests the Clerk 
    to refer this matter to the House of Representatives for 
    appropriate action, and further, since the question raised by the 
    contestant in this communication will have to be decided by the 
    House itself, the Clerk is transmitting these communications 
    herewith for consideration by the appropriate committee.

    The Clerk's letter was referred by the Speaker to the Committee on 
House Administration on Feb. 28, 1947, and ordered printed as a House 
document to contain the papers itemized above.
    Contestant's notice recited that the 13,076-vote majority which had 
been certified for contestee had been determined by election judges and 
clerks who improperly counted and reported the votes, or improperly 
certified the election results. Contestant's notice set forth 17 
particular forms of error which he alleged would, if corrected, 
establish 20,000 votes for him.
    On July 11, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter 
(2) from the Clerk transmitting a motion by contestee to 
dismiss the contest, which motion recited that contestee had, on Mar. 
5, filed an answer to contestant's notice (though not within the time 
required by statute), that more than 90 days had elapsed since such 
answer, during which time no testimony had been taken by contestant. 
The Speaker referred the Clerk's letter to the committee and ordered it 
printed to include the motion to dismiss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Doc. No. 400, 93 Cong. Rec. 8756, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 
        575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 26, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, submitted the 
unanimous report (3) from the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 10523, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716, 746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1189]]

Committee on House Administration in the contests of Woodward v 
O'Brien, which summary report also provided for disposition of 
the election contests of Roberts v Douglas (14th Congressional 
District of California), and Michael v Smith (Eighth Congressional 
District of Virginia). [H. Rept. No. 1106.] The report recited 
that no testimony in behalf of contestants had been taken during the 
time prescribed by law in any of the contests, and recommended that 
notices of intention to contest the elections of contestees be dismissed.

    Mr. Gamble called up House Resolution 345 (4) on July 
26, 1947, which was agreed to by the House without debate and by voice 
vote, and which--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the election contest of Harold C. Woodward, 
    contestant, against Thomas J. O'Brien, contestee, Sixth 
    Congressional District of Illinois, be dismissed, and that the said 
    Thomas J. O'Brien is entitled to his seat as a Representative of 
    said district and State; and be it further
        Resolved, That the election contest of Frederick M. Roberts, 
    contestant, against Helen Gahagan Douglas, contestee, Fourteenth 
    Congressional District of California, be dismissed and that the 
    said Helen Gahagan Douglas is entitled to her seat as a 
    Representative of said district and State; and be it further
        Resolved, That the election contest of Lawrence Michael, 
    contestant, against Howard W. Smith, contestee, Eighth 
    Congressional District of the State of Virginia, be dismissed, and 
    that the said Howard W. Smith is entitled to his seat as a 
    Representative of said district and State.

    Note: Syllabi for Woodward v O'Brien may be found herein at 
Sec. 5.6 (committee power to dismiss election contests); Sec. 23.2 
(motion for default judgment); Sec. 27.5 (dismissal of contests for 
failure to take testimony within statutory period); Sec. 43.1 (form of 
committee report).