I have read with satisfaction and admiration your exhaustive and conclusive argument in the Belknap impeachment case. It would have convinced me, if I had not been of your opinion already. In thought I doubted a little at first. My mind was soon satisfied that the narrow construction which left the accused to decide whether to abide his trial or by resignation to defeat the jurisdiction of the court could not possibly be correct. Congratulating you on your success, I am Yours sincerely DWIGHT FOSTER Honble Geo F. Hoar FROM CHARLES DEVENS, JR., ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ETC. WORCESTER May 18, '76. _My Dear Hoar_ I have just read with the greatest interest and satisfaction your speech on the jurisdiction in the impeachment case. It seems to me most able profound and convincing and I congratulate you immensely on the effort which is spoken of by all who have read it as most vigorous and successful. It could not have been better done. Yours most truly CHAS DEVENS JR FROM CHARLES ALLEN, JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. BOSTON May 18 1876 _Dear Mr. Hoar_ Thanks for your argument in the Belknap case. Massachusetts is very proud of what you have done in this case; and I, among the rest. Yours very truly CHARLES ALLEN. Hon. G. F. Hoar. CHAPTER XXVI ELECTORAL COMMISSION When the Presidential election of 1876 was over both sides claimed the victory. When the certificates of the result in the different States reached the President of the Senate, in accordance with the requirement of the Constitution and the law, it turned out that there was one majority for Hayes and Wheeler, upon the face of the returns, if the returns from the State of Oregon were construed in accordance with the Republican claim. The Governor of Oregon gave a transcript of the record and declared his opinion that it showed one of the lawful electors to have voted for Mr. Tilden. That would have given one majority for Tilden. The Republicans claimed that upon the record the election showed that all the Republican candidates for elector had been chosen in Oregon, and that they had all voted for Hayes and Wheeler. The Democrats declared that the boards authorized to ascertain and return the result of the election for Presidential electors in South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana had corruptly and unlawfully rejected votes that ought to be counted for them, and counted votes for the Republicans that ought not to be so counted; and had in that way changed the result which, if it had been correctly ascertained and reported, would have shown a Democratic majority in those three States.