Mr. MARSHALL. The registry subsequent to the election, a carefully revised registry, shows a much larger vote than was given at this election, which is charged to have been fraudulent. But, sir, I am taking up too much time in discussing this district. It has been my only purpose to call the attention of the House to these facts, and I hope that members will look into the evidence for themselves. The committee also throw out the vote of the 7th district of the 21st ward. The specification is that “ sundry prsons voted for the sitting member who were not le. voters, to wit, 100 and upwar. ” This is very indefinite, and not in accordance with the law of Congress; but I will not dwell upon that. It is charged that the vote is much larger in 1864 than it was in 1863 or 1865. I refer the House to age 19 of the report, where the House will find1 a comparison similar to that which has been read, and which explains the matter to the satisfaction of any reasonable man. cos ruse or verse in run DEMOCRATICsx!n REPUBucas mariners. 78h(his Democraticc, alled 121(1Fiiflli avenue, Repubulcll Hill) district. lican) dulrtet. 1864. Brooks. 60 Brooks. Barr. Barr. Dodge. Total 389 TAMI 289 2% Fallingoff. Falling off. glif 1865. wh1865. Slocum, (Dem.) Slocum, Dem.) Barlow, (Rep). 68 Barlow, ep.) Total. TWOMOB!5TH AVENUEDISTRICTS. 18th district, (FtHi havenue) 21stward. 14:]:(5th avenue)district.% 330 491 358 Falling 081. Falling 05. mg 1865. 1865. Slocum, (Dem). Slocum, (Dem). Barlow, (Rep.). Total. Barlow, (Rein). TotaL. ANOTHER CONTRAST. Voleof 1564. Ilvwrev[sellregistry.1865. 7th (Dem.)district. 389. 367 12"1h(Rep.) district. 493. 7 Thus demonstratingthat sofor aswecanjudgeby analysis and comparisonof the poll of 1865for State ofice rsnvith the poll of 1861for Congress.the7th (Dutch Hill) district wasan honesterand juste rpoll than the 3/5th avenuewealthy districts.” There is no direct charge that there was any irregularity or fraud in the registry in this case. There is, however, an attempt to prove that illegal votes were cast; and to establish this fact, there is introduced a Witness the most extraordinary, I think, that was ever examined in any) court upon earth.Mr. Speaker there is probably no member of this House who does not know that in any great metropolitan city. like NewYork, a man who has command of a large amount of money and who is Wilhn to use it for the purpose of securing office, can nd scoundrcls who will testify to anything. I do not charge that there is any evidence that this witness when he appeared upon ther stand was bribed; but taking all the circumstances, and taking the testimony of the man himself. I say that I have no doubt in my own mind that he appeared upon the stands. bribed and perjured Witness. an that he testified with the fruits of his perjury in his pocket. I do not, however, charge that there is any proof that the contestant had knowledge of this . The evidence shows that he had numerous friends who were willing to expend money by the 1000s to secure his return from this district, and this man Stephen Geoghegan was a proper subject for anyone who was in search of a willing and useful witness. A more infamous scoundrel. according to his cum showmg, never appeared to testify on any subject. Iii order that Stephen Geoghegan may have justice doneto him he must be allowe to speak for himself. No one else could do him. complete and full justice and “ none but himsel can be his parallel.” I will ask the Clerk read the pages I have turned down. This is the evidence on which the people of this district are to be disfranchised and turned out of the House without a hearing or a voice.