Mr. BROOKS. Let meenll the gentlemans attention to another point. On the 4th page of the report he says that the July riots were in the 15th district of the 18th ward. Now, where is the proof of that? If the gentleman has not time now to look it up, I hope that when he comes to reply, if he does not find it, he will candidly confess it to the House. I now state, with all the solemuity of my position, that there is no such fact proven in the whole record of the testimony. The July riots were not in the 15th district of the 18th ward. The gentleman has been misled by the persistent argument before the committee oftfie counsel upon the other side, and by the proof which was submitted respect liig another district in another ward. The riots spoken of in that testimony were a mile from the 15th district of the 18th ward, in another ward and in another direction and the gentleman has confounded two different districts and two different wards, and this 15th district of the 18th ward is made to bear the burdens of the injury, out rages, riots, and disturbances elsewhere. I will not say, I dare not say, that this is done to inflame the opinions of the majority of this House, for the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts must be nttery incapable of such an act. Now I ask that, when he rises to speak, he will either verify what he has asserted, and that I know he cannot do, or as an honorable man, as a member from the old State of Massachusetts, as a lawyer, and as my judge in this case, he will correct the record he has made, and say that there were no July riots in the 15th district of the 18th ward. [Min Dawes here gave some intimation of a desire to have that part of his report read] The report states, on page 4, that this district “had a bad reputation in connection with the July riots.” Now, sir, there is no proof whatsoever of the riots having taken place in that district. There is no proof whatsoever that it had a bad reputation. The riots were not in that district nor near there, but a mile distant. Now, sir, Icall the attention of the honor able gentleman to another point in the testimony, and I do it with all kindness, for no man can comprehend so vast a mass of testimon, not even if he were paid for it. A man ought really to have a fee of $1,000 for examining and comprehending such a mass of testimony. I call the gentlemans attention to another fact. He alleges that in the 3rd district of the 21st ward the canvasser was dragged. The report says that, “in consequence of the free use of liquor, one of the inspectors, who was also a canvasser, became drugged, and fell asleep before the canvass was completed.” Now, sir, there is no proof whatsoever of that character. The nearest n roximation to it is that during the day Mr. Pfizismer, who was employed asan inspector and canvasser, became worn out with continued watchin from sunrise of one morning to sunrise ofanother , and slept a very few moments. There is no proof in the record that this canvasser was dru ed and I assume that the Gentfrom Iassachusetts. when he rises to speak, will verify the statement of the report, or will, as an honor able man, take beer the allcation. It is alleged also that Bra y, the clerk in the 15th district of the 18th ward, was a self constituted clerk; in other words, that he made himself the clerk on that occasion. Now, sir, this is shown to be incorrect by reference to the Dodge book, ages 220 and 289. This Brady SBIVP lfflse lerk with the consent of the registrars, as all of them swear. In the Dodge book, page 219, Hall admits that this clerk was sworn. Yet the committee say on the 4th page of their report that “ the entire duty of the board was discharged by the self constituted clerk, Andrew Brady.” The gentlemairfrom Massachusetts has here manifestly fallen into an error; I do not say acriminal error. It is an errorinto which any committee might fall, in view of the multiplicity of facts and the abundance of testimony which the committee have had before them. Again, the report states that Daugherty, one of the registrars, was not present. Yet in the Brooks book, page 86, owen swears that Doughert was present “pretty much all the time.” liiall states, in the Dodge book, page 220, that he is not certain that Dougherty was absent. Sir, these are important and essential facts. Yet, notwithstanding these facts, the honorable Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHELLABARGER] who Ire ret to see is not now in his place, averred tlgiatthere were frauds throughout that whole election in the 15th district of the 18th ward, when, so far as the record shows, everything wasjust and proper. Though there were irregularities, they are admitted by the honorable Gentfrom Ohio not to viff ate the election; and it is nowhere pretended in the record that these irregularities amounted to fraud. Now, sir. it has been averred in the remarks of the Gentfrom Ohio, as well as in the report, that Mr. Thompson, at whose place this registry was held, received a list of about 200 names, and that he himself entered those names upon the registry. There is in the record no proof whatsoever of this statement. The averments to this etlect are incorrect, because those who make them have not read the testimony. Let me read the testimony. Brady swears, (Dodge vs. Brooks, page 2712) " Question.Who did Mr. Thompson give thatlist o h“.;in4wer.lIe fetched it in. I think, and laid it on e“a c. brouOgimht nimi.Who did he addresshimself to whenhe it in? "Annswer. I dont know: there was both Hall and Cowcu there, the registrarsin the district, he might ha“veaddressedliimse lfto both. Question.W lint did hesay I “Answer. I dont recollect the preciselanguage. 110said there wasnamesthat he not: therewasper sonse amein and did not seetheir nameson the books and he took them down or words to that effect, I aint got it down line. There was some little objections raised. I believe. Question. Who raised the objections? iwwer.Ilall did, I " bi"ove. gILLMIl OBtlu.t you were finally told to put them on the registr list? “Allwff. cs.sir; I had to do as I was told. Queniion. I ask you if you put any nameson any of those copiesof the registrylist. exccptsuchasyou wereinstructediolpnt on by the inspectors of registry. "Annvrr. Ycs: put down names that I was not ins“tructedby themto put down. questim.Who told you to put themdown? narrcr.There was nobodythereto tell meto put themdown. “Question ljow cameyou to do it? “Answer. Well. personswould come there to get their names registered, and I would be writing there ase lerk, and I put themdown. re“g Question. Did you put any on that copy of the such asyou weretold to put on by the insiicctors of registrymr thenames of persons who came in and reipsteredthemselves whogave you their own names“ "Answer. ho, not as I know of; [am pretty sure I didnt." " Question.Did you never hear that it was a subject of great complaint in that district that you had put wrong residences opposite peoples names? “Armerr. Yes sir; I wasaccusedof that the next settingof the charter election and I deniedit point blnnlr." "guenhon. Do you know one person who was on tere on either of those registrylists who was not a l al voter in that district? Anxwer. No. sir; I was not acquainted down th“ere. Do youmeanhis namedown asa voter? tion. I ask you ifyou can name a singloper son whose name was upon that registrylist who was not a legal voterin that district? ““Amwer. Ycs. “ nection. Who? newer.My namewas on it? “ question.Can on name another? mwer. Yes, sir; there was Hall. I dontbelieve he lives in that district: he might; his namewason th"eback of the hon question.Who else? nm cr.Thats all I know of. “Question. Wero either of those names you have m“entionedon th obooksas the namesof voters? " runner.NO 511. " imuon.They were only on ase ertifyinnl amour.Yenl Mr. “ QuebttoTnh. en you dont know the nameof any personon there as a voterwho wasnot a voter of the district?. “AnswerQ. NO." Quemmi.Did you do any cheating in making up that registry? "Amie". No. sir: although I was accused of it." Now, sir, that is Brady, the Republican clerk, a witness in the case, who swears he put down the names by order of the registrars, and that, so far as he knows, the registry is correct. I trust when the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes] comes to address the House he will correct that fact on the record. I trust the honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGl lll] Will also make a correction. I regret not to see him in his seat. Oh, yes, there he is in the distance, and I am rejoiced to see him present. He charged names were entered upon the registry by Thomp son. Let him takc the testimony and do me the justice, as I know he will, as an honorable man, to say that he was mistaken in the allegations he made. I do not know the length of this Hall, but I suppose it is over 100 feet. It was on a corner lot of 100 feet, a small lot in. NewYork, where this election was held. It was proved that the stable door had a connection with the house. I put it to every member of the House, I put it to every man of common sense, whether because the election was held on one iart of this 100 feet lot, and not another ; in a stable, and not in the liquor shop, it shall be thrown out? how, the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts on page 6 of the report alleges that the testimony of Brennan corroborates the other testimony as to the fraudulent character and inaccuracy of this register. Let me read: " Queulion.Do you know of any illegal votespolled that day? ""Armcer. No, sir. " Siilmellofocrfl. NYoo, us ird;idnnoott take an illegal vote? a single one. I claim the Gentfrom Massachusetts and the Gentfrom Ohio shall not add the weight of their authority to oust me from the House Without further examination of the testimony. I refer to Brookss book, page 326: [Extract from Kearncys testimony.] PnllJiat (H wrillen cor Po114“!a, "00m toby“. rec!by Kearney. ggztlgzaiamzmm m Hanigan, Peter, No. 289Not Laniian. Peter, on E. 14thstree written by Dean. McEnrt. Bcruard, No.297 E. 14thstreet. Not No. $9 E. 14th street. Bosbee.Charlcs, No. 307 E. street, Nat Boskc, Charles. Fnuklc. Laurens, No. 301Not Faulkc, Lawrence, No. E. 14thstreet, 501 E, 14thstreet. Wirrlc. Jacob. Not Wicyel. Jacob. Williams. Aaron. Not Williams, Amer. Selotus.Thomas, No. 259 E. 17thstreet. Not No. 259E. 15th street. Hoylan, Charles, No. 255 E. 16thstreet, Not No. 255E. 10th street. Rodilwitt, Richard, Not Bedtymth. Richard. Moltack. John. Not Ratek, John. Sands. CharleS.No. 245 Avenue 13. Not No. 247 E. 15th street Clark. OwenJ. Not Clark, OwenP. McCaludan, John, No.56] E. 16th street, Not No. 26le, 16thIts oat. Gilligan, Patrick, No. 273 E. 15th street, Not NO. 276E. 16thstreet. Breardaii. Janice, No.349 E. 16th street. Not No. 549E. 14thstreet. hit Gurney llngh, Not McGurvey, Hugh. MrKcon, patrick, No. 257 E. 16thstrcct, Not No. 25le. 16th street. OConnor.Martin, Not OConnor, Mortimer. Ray, David Not on poll list. Not Coughfinbergcr, Pat ric. Conghfinhergcr, Peter, Ilines James, No. 517E. 16thstreet NotZines, James. Hunk. hIlCbilcl, so. 517 E. 16thstreet, Not No. 51le. 16thstreet. Kranno, James, Not Crane, James. Finnan, John, Not Finniizun.John. Mannin Not Manning. Dani el. Bowen, Samuel. olin, No.:22 Avenue A. Not No. 52le. 16thstreet. AICLOllllelB, ernard. Not McCorner, Barnard. Mederniol, Philip.No.2 i7 E. 15thstreet Not No. 616E. 16th"IM Madden. Jonaph, Not Madden. John. 1866.] Poll list Meworn tobyLas g; m"n cor GlamDean. Writtenin correctbyDean. Walling. Patrick. No. 276 FaEr.re 1ll6, thTshtroemeat.s, Not No. 514E. 16thstreet. No. 516Not No. 512E. 16thstreet. Not 322}E. 17thstreet. In. 10thstreet Kerns. John, No. 221iE. Not Rosier, Robert. Not Wensteer John. 17thstreet, Reslct. Robert, Not Coughl, Villiam. Not Ilene, mil Wenskcr, John, Loughly. William. Not Rentord. Michael. Not on poll list Herr, haul, Benford, Michael, Not Brithaveser, Peter. Not No. 245Avenue B. Kcisman. Thomas, Brithmcser, Pete Not Curran. John. r Bosdiu. Charles, so. 212 Avenue A, Comnn.John, Nallcy. JameS.No. 278 Avenue B. Not No. 273Avenue B. Herr, Chris., Not Ilene. Chris. Preston. Hugh. Not Ruston. Hugh. Daily, Dayld. Not Dailcy, Daniel. Burns. Owen, No.2.5le. 15thstreet. Not No.%6 Avenue B. Riley. John. No. 154Ave nue B, Not No. m Avenue B. Pinkerton.James, No.268 Avpnue B, Not NO. Zfit AVenue 13. Garvrn, Dennis, No. 266Not Garom, D., No.2t}$Av Avenue B, enus B. Hepyer, Alexander, No. lavenue, Not No. 242AvenueB. Kaull and rew. Not Carll, and rew. Kaunon.Willmm. No.512 E street, Not No. 210Avenue A. appleivitz, 11ichat 1. Not Afpulcrty, Michael. Killieber. John, ho. M2 Avenue A, Not No. 23Avenue A. Cofllcc. Chas, hot Copler, Chas. Lander. William, No.222 Avenue, Not No. 282Avenue A. v Propts. Adam. No. 238Not Propts. Abram, he. Avenue. 21lavenueA. Segler. Baltzar. Not Segler Ballyar. Turnleyer, Fred, Not on poll list. Brennan. Patrick, No. Not Bauman, P., No. 222 55Avenue A. venueA. Sehere, Adam. Not Rurr. Adam. I have thus gone through and proved by Kearncys testimony that some 60 odd voters were misspelled, either accidentally by Dean, or by design, in order thus to throw me out of my seat. [Mr. Bnoous here read at length B. 3, 011, the testimony of Frederick Jung, a German, whose name in English is pronounced " Young, ” to show by this Jung that German names could not be rightly written upon English registers, and that Deans names on the poll list. were not the real names of the Germans who really voted. “Zines” was formed into “ Hines, " “Charles Boxberg” into “Charles Boske, ” “Wicrle” into “ Wicrd, " “ Zeigler” into “Zeiler, ” " Emil. Heine” into “Herr, ” “Rant” into “Itoot.”] It is almost impossible for an American to pronounce many German names; hence they may be transformed into almost anything on the poll list. A German, Blum, was asked if he knew “Jung, ” written “ Young" on the poll list, and he said, as we pronounced it, "I do not know such a man, ” though that very “Jung, ” pronounced “Young, ” was living in his house. Now, I shall perhaps exhaust the patience of this House if I go on with the whole 24 names in Jungs testimony, ofwhom the Gentfrom Massachusetts says but 4 could be found, whereas the whole 24 are found, or accounted for by errors on the poll list, or in the brief submitted in debate by me to the committee, but not read, not even examined when an opinion was made up in this case. These errors are constantly and necessarily recurring from the fact that Americans were registering German names and Germans were registering American or English names. A man with a certain name could not be found with an English pronunciation, while there have been real men, well known, as renounced in German. Pass the resolution, then , submitted by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] and order a new investigation, and I will bring up these Germans who will pronounce the names in their own native tongue, and show that they do exist, and that they also had a right to vote on election day. I do not, however, blame the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mia Dawes, ] except for not reading the testimony when he was acting as my judge. I do think, however, that he on ht to have taken the trouble at least tor cud the riefofa fellow member of Congress whom he was going to condemn, more especially when he was holding me responsible for the orthography and phonography of almost ever German. Norwegian, or Swede, in the 15th district of the 18th ward. I appeal, then, to the Gentfrom Massachusetts, as the Representative from that commonwealth, not to oust a member because he may not like his political opinions. because he may have party prejudices against him. I appeal to him not to disfranc ise 200,000 people of the city of newYork because of any passion or prejudice or indisposition to examine tairlya long case like this. He should remember he is acting as a judge, notas a prosecuting officer in this case. But I am not done. I now call his attention to the following names, which he has entirely ignored. They prove the names, residence, and voters there, whom his silence at least allege not to exist; whose testimony, evidently, he has never seen: Nnnes of Voterspracenin the testimony. John A. Morse hnmer, eB. 206, provesnames John M. Cormick. B. 50, provesnames CharlesBoyle. provesnames ax Blum. 13 Ienat Waismnn, B. James M. Lainey. (B Barnard Daiton, Thomase ahcy. 160.provesnames. 158.)provesnames 2 160,; provesnames. 161. Proves names. CharlesDoxherg, E 159,; provesnames. Philip MeDermott. 20. provesnames. Total names. Here I have shown 58 names corroborating Brennan to that extent; names of actual voters that are utterly ignored by the majority of the committee in their report, and treated as if they never existed; and then there were 26 other names corroborated of men voting by atlidavit. The man who votes by affidavit, I wish the House to understand, is a man whose name is not registered, but who can vote if he is not registered, provided he is 1st sworn, and provided, in the 2nd place, he brings a.house holder to swear that he is a bona fide voter. There were 26 of these, and yet in the report of the honorable gentleman they are all i nored throughout, as well as the testimony of he 58 affidavit names, 26 proven names, 58 in all, as since corroborated, are they not, by Brennan throughout. From the extent of their testimony it wasquite impossible for the ComElections to do justice to it all, if they had even tried, and do justice also to the dozen other cases that are before them. The gentleman cannot deny the fact that after the committee ordered me to make a brief, which cost me ten days of the hardest labor of my life, 18 hours every day, in hunting up of 100s of names which were necessary to compile that brief, it was submitted to the ComElections at ten oclock on Monday mornin, when they had another case before them, an they could not have looked at it on that Monday, while the House was in session, and the only possible attention the gentleman could have given to it was on Tuesday, for on Wednesdayin the committee, in the morning. this case was decided against me, notwithstanding the great luborl had spent in collating the names from that precinct. Is that the way to form an opinion, and to make up a case? His own opinion, it was evident, was made up before he called for the brief or even read the testimony of this case, and his opinion became the opinion of his party portion of the commit tee, save the honorable Gentfrom Wisconsin. who examined the case. The gentleman, I see, has noted the fact that I said he had a prejudice, a party prejudice it alone can be, against me. I came to that conclusion when on the printine r of the testimony of this case he addressed this Iiouse in a style and language which did not seem to me civil, certainly not parliamentary, and so unlike the honorable gentleman that I hardly knew what had inspire such bad feeling on his part. He accused me of trifling with the ComElections, as ifI would trifle with the men who are to be judges of my right to a seat on this floor! He accused me of lackes, he almost insinuated though he did not directly declare it thatI held back the testimony in order to tamper with the report! Now, I do not mean to insinuate that the honorable gentleman is not a just man. I am in duty bound to think he is. His honesty I have vouched for and yet the same human passions that move all men doubtless inspire the Gentfrom Massachusetts in his examination of this case; and such as led him to his extraordinary remarks upon the printing of the testimony in this case. I ask at his hands now a reexamination of facts he has never taken the trouble to read; and with the exposure of facts here submitted today. have I notaright, as a member of congress, to demand it? I put it to the gentleman and to his associates, members from Massachusetts, that old Commonwealth in which I was born, that they do not oust a man who has already a seat in this House without an examination and a trial. If I had been arrested for some crime, if I had been indicted, if I had been guilty of fraud in the election, if I had spent enormous sum of money, and been convicted in a court, offrauds. the Gentleman would have looked at my brief and record of these names a lnn er time than he gave to the consideration 0t this report and hard, hard in deed, it is to be tried. condemned, and executed, without even having your judges listen to the testimony in your case. The Gentfrom Massachusetts and the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Suanunmoen] made a point against me that there was a great. increase of the vote in these two new districts, 12th and 15th of the 18th ward from 496to 811 in one year from theyeer 1863 to the subsequent yearf1864. I call attention to the fact that this 15th district was a new district, as new and fresh as any district on the rairies of Iowa, Minnesota, Dakota, or Nebraska. It was a new settlement of new people. No inconsiderable portion of it was a.promontory built out into the East river and occupied by laboring men, with a large gas house having 500 men in it, as 18proved by the tee timony and I call attention to the tact that the old district was not large enough to poll ali the votes, and hence a new district, the 15th, was created from necessity and if there is nothingin all that. I call the attention of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] to the fact that in the 2nd district of the 18th ward there was an increase in nearly the same proportion. That district gave 462 for Dodge and 199for Brooks. 1n the year 1863 it cast 485 votes, and in 1864 it cost 754. Now, by the rule of proportion which I was taught and practiced as a schoolmaster in NewEngland. if 485 gives 764, what will 496 give? and I find the result is 756, or nearly the increase in the 15th district. What re ly can be made to that? Here the 2nd district, 18th ward, was a Dodge district; the 15th district, 18th ward, a Brooks district. Is it to be disfranchised for that? It is well known that in 1863 there was a comparative lull throughout the whole country as regards polities very little excitement. The vote in the State of NewYork fell off nearly 1/2 some 175,000 decrease, I think while in 1864. in the presidential election, when all parties were marshaled in fullest array, when the sailors in the public service voted, though absent from home, and when the soldiers in the field voted, it is a notorious fact that there was a full vote. The votes everywhere increased, but they increased no more in proportion in these 12th and 15th districts of the 18th ward than in several of the districts where Mr. Dodge had a majority in the 18th and 21st wards. The proortionate increase was nearly the same in all ose districts. I call the attention of the Gentfrom Ohio (Mr. SHELLABARGER] to this fact, and ask him to verify it, and then do me justice in presenting it to the consideration of his friends on that side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I know these things are tedious to the} House, and I am sorry to trouble the House with them. But thereis no other way for an outoastlike me to obtain justice from the party in power but by appealing to them for justice. I know they will give it to me if they will only study the case until they can comprehend and understand it. I have reliance upon that side of the House; and I am addressing my argu meats mainly to that justice, for justice alone do I demand of them and having submitted these few facts, I will drop the consideration of that subject in order to proceed to others that demand my attention. The point to which I wish now to especially call the attention of this House, and more particularly the attention of my honorable collea es from the State of NewYork, is the utter vioation in this case of the statutes of NewYork by the contestant and his friends the statutes against bribery and corruption. The laws of the State of NewYork, and I trust it is so in other States, are very rigid against the employment of money in elections, except solely or the purposes of printing, or for bringing sick and infirm voters to the polls. The honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. Diwssi} and the honorable Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHELLABABGEB] whose attention was called to those laws against bribery in the elections, in the argument, and the law was also set forth in my brief, have not given those statutes the least possible attention. Now, how is that? Why was that? The honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SusanaBARGERf was pleased to address this House with all the power of his lo c, with all his influence, and pwith all the euence he can array, and to ask what would c the consequences if the people of this country permitted irregularities li e those which he alleged existed1 in the 15th district of the 18th W8!. Now, I ask him here. what more dangerous, alarming, terrible precedent can be set than to allow a man with the enormous income which I have proved this contestant to possess, or to allow his friends to use it so as to control pecuniarily the district in which he may live, or any other district in which he may choose to exert the influence of his money. The custom is but little known in this country I hope, though it is well known in England. The nobility and at capitalists of England, espociall of London, are in the habit of buying up whole boroughs and thus destroying the perfect right of representation. This practice has never before been introduced into this country; or if it has been introduced, it has never before been made a matter of record until this case arose. Now, I have proved from the contestants own confessions, in his remarks of February 2, as delivered before this House and published in the Daily Globe, that he spent $6,000 or some sum not exceeding that, it was not quite up to that sum of his own money, an he drew forth from his pocket on his examination, when this testimony was taken, the two subscription papers which I hold in my hand, having in them $5,000 more, making over $11,000 in all, which came from him and some of his friends Now, I have proved from the record that he and his friends spent over $15,000, and I charge here, with the fullest belief in the fact, that he spent 1000s and 1000s of dollars beyond that. But if it were only $6,000, or if it were only $4,000, what right had the contestant to use these vast sums of money to procure an election to this House? Or if he does thus procure an election to this House, what right has he to come here, reeking all over with fraud and corruption, and attempt to turn me out upon charges of corruption and fraud? I so. to him, “You, sir, who charge others with fraud, ought to come before the Representatives of the people with clean hands and a pure heart. at your hands are soiled with corruption; you have shaken hands with porjurers and scoundrels; your parlors have been des ecrated by the presence of the vilest of men; our ussosiations have been with men who iave never entered my house or m domicile and yet you come here, in the all of the Representatives of the people, and allege fraud against me 1" For this expenditure of $6,000, or of $15,000 as I allege, has been made for purposes of cor ruption which the Representatives of the people here will never sanction; or if they do sanction it here, it will never be sanctioned elsewhere. Now, I might enter into an analysis of the names upon these subscription papers, if I considered it worth while. I could go through the whole record and show the motives which rompted these contributions. But I will not O it; let them go for what they are worth. Now, does the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Dawns] know that Mr. Dodge had no connection with the expenditure of this money? If he says so, then I call the attention of the House to the testimon of Mr. Cowden, on page 48 of the Broo 5 book. When asked who suggested that he should act as treasurer, he said: "Mr. Cannon nucleated that I should act astreas urer: I Dodge only acted as Treasurer for such moneyasMr. but in my hands for cirtain purposes. I did not collect one single dollar: did not ask a man for a dollar for Mr. Dodges election. Mr. Dodgesaid. Hera is a.campaign to be carried on, and money is wanted; sou have had someeiperiencoin the matter: Just O what everyou would do for yourself!" and yet I am to be told that Mr. Dodge had no connection with this great expenditure of money! Now I call attention, with something of pain and something of reluctance, to another matter. I am not a member of a church;I deeply re et that I am not. I have not made any proession of religion whatever. I often ray in my inner heart, and before my ques c 050 in death I hope I may be so change that I may be sure of entering the portals of heaven. But I am now no professor ofreligion; I never set myself above other men; I am no better than they, and yet, as the poet Hood says, "I sometimeskneel upon the sod, Elfin1d pauper“ 800to God. But the contestant in this case is a professor of reli on; a member of the church. He is one wh0 reads the commandments, among which is this: “Remember thou the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” He is bound to live up to every one of his professions. Yet he comes in here and charges me with frauds, while he and his agents have been guilty of acts to which I will call the attention of the House. I shall show that a vile bargain, a corru t bar in, was made by this treasurer of Mr. odgae, this Elliot C. Cowden, and by another man, Le Grand B. Cannon, both of them, I regret to say, members of a church in the city of NewYork, with the Tammany Hall democratic candidate; consorting with Democrats, notwithstanding his horror of them, and that, too, on the Sabbath day. I shall show by this record here that on a Sunday they drove a hard bar sin, and were nearly successful in accomplising the purpose for which that was made. on Mr. Cowden was under examination, and I will read as follows: 5!”. “ Quemon.Mr. Cannon has testified that the intervwiaesw, you and he hadwith Mr. Barr at your house he thinks the Sand beforethe election. Does that agreewith your recollection? Answer. I should think it was longer. I should think a week beforethe election zstill I " cannotsay. Question.That was the Interview at which you ag“reedto giveMr. Barr $2,000? war. It musthave been. Quemon.Tho election wason Tuesday, the8th 7 Answer. I paid him on the 7th; then very likely it “ Melwtoans.tNhoewd, adyibdeMforr.eB, oanrrSusnodmaey to your house on unday by appointment? I “Anmer. am not quite surethat hedid not come to my house 3 times; he called at the door once h eoamo once by appointment, and oncenot. I asked him to come; said, “Let me see you agaiu. He came to my dooroneeveningfor the purpose of inducing Mr. Dodges friends to induce him to withdraw on the ground that it wasa democratie distnct, and that ho ( arr) could be elected: than I said. I havegot some friends hereto night and if you camcomeand see me when we can talk about it. I did not like to throw cold water up op him at once; he cameto see meat my roqnost; I think he same 3 times. Question. Now, I recur again to my former question, which you did not answer, whetherthe meeting at yo ur house the Sunday beforethe eloction wasby appointment? "Anmer. It is very difficult to say whether it was or not: I know I told him that I was generallyat home in the evening. when he came the 1st time and that I should he lad to seehim at any time. I cannot tell you whether I askedhim to comethat Sunday ornot; but I know I told him if he had anything particular to say. he would almost alwaysfind me at ome In the evening. “ Question.Beforehe came therethat Sunday ovening, did you mention to Mr. Cannon that Mr. Barr was to bethere 7 “Anuocr. It appearsto me I did; that I though the wo“uld be thore. Qlliltflfin.Then itmust have beenby appointment that Mr. Barr comethere! “Anmer. It was by appointment.sofar asMr. Can non-wase oncernod, t ink; I met him almbst every day darild he saw somethingof Mr. Barr almostasoften as i. " There is the fact of the establishment of a: bargain made on the Sabbath day, the “ Lords day, ” as they call it in NewEngland;abar gain driven with the Democratic candidate to esp in the field for $2,000; a bargain made on the Lords day, and the money paid by a NewEngland man through his friends, he being a ggrofessor of reli ion. at he says, “ did not make the bargain; I did not drive that bar in." He cuts oose from his friends Cowen and Cannon, and throws them overboard. “I did not make the bargain; sinners they are, I admit, to make bargains on Sunday; I had nothing to do With it; did not know it until a week or more after the election.” 7 Now, let us see what connectionhe With the bargain. We had Mr. Dodge as a Witness on the stand. Here is his testimony on this su“bject: quealion. When was your last payment to Mr. Cannon on account of the electiop? “Anmer. I did not pay anything to Mr. Cannon 0100 t “ 1mon“e.lectionday. " How muchwas that? numer 5,000 dollars. Ho returned ms, after election I “ think. 360. “ AQnumeaetrt.onF or what purpose was that? I dont know: it was someexpensesfor carriages.for hack hire; he said hemight want it in the course of the day. Question.When wasyour last payment to Mr. Cowden?. Amwer. I have not the date; but my impremnon is that it wassome 3 or 4 weeks after election. QueulirmA.nd the amount? Amer. It wasexactly $2,000." “Exactly $2,000 I" Exactly the amount a eed upon in this bargain to c paid to keep H; Barr in the field. “ alion.Was any statementmade at that time for what purpose that $2.000 was? "Alum". rfie wrote me that ho had a bill to and that Mr. Cannon had stated that fundshad pu“t in my hands. Question.Do youknowwhetherthat $2!!!) was for any special purpose I. " Almner. Have hemdnaccit was to pay511.Barr. Quemon.Did you know that at the time. " Amer. Inspected it, but didnt knowit." 9 fl. asu 8! been ism] Well, suppose he did not know it at the time it was ai, but knew it afterward. It was a Sabbat daysbargain; made upon the Lords day. When he provided money to pay the bargpin, did he not ratif and indorse the bar n When he and shall appear before e eternal Ruler of the universe, to have an account of our stewardships on earth, oes he expect thus to ese ape from that injunction of the commandments, “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, ” by saying, “I had nothing to do with the bargain that Cannon and Cowden made on the Sabbath day; I only paid the moue some time after the election; although I pai exactly $2,000, and suspected what it was wanted for?” Does he suppose that the Almighty Ruler of the universe will elevate him, though a professor of religion, to a higher heaven than that to which I shall attain? Does he expect in his profession of religion to be a better man than I am, who have never made any professions?