Mr. MARSHALL of Illinois then concluded the speech commenced by him on yesterday. [His speech will be publised in the Appendix.] NewYork Contested Election. April 3 and 4, 1866. The House proceededto the considerationof the following resolutions reported from the ComElections: Resolved.That Hon. James Brooks is not entitled to aseat in this House as a Representativein the 39th Congress from the 8th district in air or. Reached, That William E. Dodge is entitled to a sentin thisHouse asa Representativein the 39th Congress from the 8th district in N cwYor Mr. MARSHALL said: mr. Speaker: It is very easy for gentlemen to be misled in regard to this case, even after having given some attention to it. The evidence is extremely volumine us and requires a great deal of time to read and understand it so as to get at the real bearing of the evidence and the right of the case. I must so, sir, that I have been somewhat amazed at the peech of the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. Dawns] I have heard a great manyingenious speeches and arguments in courts of justice where gentleineu had proposed in their hands very difficult cases, and at such times it is too often the practice of counsel to keep buck and out of view as far as possible the facts which would favor the adversary and bring forward and marshal with solemn gravity the evidenceoften feeble and unimportant which seems to sustain the cause they advocate. I must say, if I understand the case at all, the gentleman has in his argument here manifested quite as much ingenuity as I have ever seen practiced in a court of justice. It has been well said in regard to other matters occurring around us that we are now mak in history; and it is important for us all indivi equally in our action in our public capacity that We should so deport ourselves that here after that history may not come up in judgment against us. I know in times of strong part excitement it is exceedingly difficult for gent emen, however honest and pure they may be, to avoid being biased and influenced in contests like this by party prejudices or predilections. I do not claim formyself anyinfallibility of judgment or more candor or sincerity than I am willing to accord to all other gentlemen. But I do tear, ifl have not misunderstood the character and bearing of the testimony in this case, that the Gentfrom Massachusetts. notwithstanding his acknowledged ability and candor, has allowed himself in some manner to be carried off from the true issue in this case, and has permitted his judgment to be warped. He has dwelt upon facts which are not no evidence, and has given the testimony of witnesses excluded by the committee and this inadmissible, excluded evidence (admitted tobe inadmissible) which is before us for no purpose whatever, is manifestly that which controls the judgment of the honorable gentleman, and without which there would not be a plausible pretext for sustaining the claim of the contest ant and I cannot otherwise account for the fact that very important evidence submitted in this case, admitted to be competent evidence, has been wholly ignored and forgotten by the chairman of the committee in his discussion before the House. Before going into the evidence I wish to call the attention of the House to the difficulties under which the sitting member has labored in presenting this case to the House and to the country. The contestant being one of the money lords of the land, and the expense of a protracted contest being to him a matter of perfect indifference, has taken advantage of his position in this respect and in giving his specification of the grounds of contest. instead of stating distinctly the grounds on which he would rely in a form which would be recognized by any pleader, he has thrown together a mass of in consistent, loose suggestions, conforming in no respect with the requirements of the act of Congress in regard to contested elections, thus misleading the sitting member in regard to the issues, and harassing him by accumulating a mass of evidence upon which he did not rely. He consumerkthe time authorized by law for taking testimony to such an extent that the sitting member was not able to examine the witnesses that he desired to examine, and the evidence closed at midnight on the last night allowed to him by law, and the appeal for tur ther time to introduce additional evidence was denied him, although he had a letter from the chairman of the committee stating that evidence under such circumstances would or dinarily be admitted by the House. It is also true, and ought to he remembered by the chairman of the committee, that the Bit ting member came before the House and before the committee since the meeting of this Congress, and asked, urged, and implored that time might be extended to him that he might vpoll the district and show by positive evrdeuoe that he received the number of votes which were returned for him. But this permission was not granted. Therefore, I say, without de nying that the decision of the House and of the committee was right, that nothing can properly and fairl be inferred or presumed amst him because he did not introduce this evidence. He had no opportunity of doing so; time was de nied him for that purpose by the contestant, by the House, and by the ComElections. He furnished, as appears in the printed evidence, 2,000 names of men that he proposed to call and examine for the purpose of showing by legal evidence that he had received the number of votes returned for him, but this was not permitted and I therefore repeat that nothing can rightfully be presumed against him because he did not meet all the evidence, unsatisfactory and illegal as it was, brought on the part of the contestant. I gentleman will look at the law of Congress and the specifications of the contestant in regard to the grounds of his contest, it seems to me that there cannot be anyone who will not hold that there is a complete aadutter lhilure to comply with the act of Congress which requires that the grounds shall be definitely pointed out. This is not done, as I insist, in any single in stance. I cannot now go over them, but I imagine before we take the vote upon this question gentleman will feel called upon to loo for themselves into this matter and determine for themselves. I know it is held by many that this act of congress is not binding upon this House; that the House being ajudge of pthe election, returns, and qualifications of its own members, the law pointmgout the modes of giving notice, and of taking evidence, and everything pertaining to the matter, is merely directory, and that the House may rightfully depart from it whenever it pleases. I think this is an erroneous view of the powers and duties of this House. A court, as such, has no power oflegislation. It is the judge of causes within the limits of its jurisdiction, but cannot prescribe the form of the process, the time within which suits shall be commenced and process served, or the rules of evidence. For all this it must look to the law of the land and this House being, under the Constitution, a judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its members, has not the power to disregard the law in regard to the rules of evidence or the character of a notice of contest or the time within which it shall be given. We are to judge as other judges upon the case brought before us according to the forms of law. There is no other proper rule ofconstruction that can be given to this act of Congress and the law governing this case. I insist that this act of Congress not only furnishes a rule that ought to be binding upon us in justice, but that it is a law binding upon us as much as any law is binding upon a common court of jus tice. We are but a court in trying causes of this kind, and in determinin them we must recognize the mode of proce ure and be ov erned by the rules of evidence prescribe by the proper authorities of the country. I do not propose to dwell on this. It seems to me it is only necessary to suggest it for gentle men to see the force of it. A judge oes not prescribe the time within which asummons shall be sued out and served on a defendant. It is no part of his office. He must take the law as he finds it. He must adopt the mode of procedure prescribed by the law of the land. So in regard to this body in determining as judges upon the election, returns, and qualifications or its own members. It is also a well known rule of law thatto justify a recovery inany case asufficient ground of recovery must he distinctly and clearly set forth in the pleadings and in the 2nd place, it is necessary that the evidence shall sustain these allegations. In other words, the proofs and the allegations must correspond, and if there is a defect either in the leadings or in the evidence sustaining the a legations the case necessarily fails. If there is no case made out in the pleadings, although the evidence may be clear and conclusive, there can be no judgment given to the party asking relief. Before proceeding, I suppose it will not be improper for me to call the attention of the House to a few errors committed by the majority of the committee in regard to the facts of the case. In the majority report it is stated that there were but 4 precincts to which the contestant applied his evidence, and that the evidence of the sitting member, was confined also to those 4 districts ignoring entirely the fact that the sitting member had impeached one of the districts which had given a large majority for Mr. Dodge, the contestant, and had submitted evidence for the purpose of sustaining his allegation in regard thereto, showing that there was illegal conduct on the part of the owners which vitiated the returns so far as to furnish grounds for throwing out those re C turns altogether and if so, if the returns from that district are successfully impeached, then the sitting memberis entitled to his seat, even though the other two districts are thrown out also. Throw out the other two districts entirely, as the chairman of the committee proposes, on account of irregularity, and then throw out this one in which Mr. Dodge had a majority, and you still leave the majority in favor of the sitting member. But the fact that this district was impeached, and that evidence was brought forward for the purpose of excluding the vote, is ignored by the chairman and by the majority of the committee. There is another statement, that Mackerel ville, the 15th district, has a bad reputation in connection with the July riots. This is taken, I suppose, from the suggestion of the counsel of Mr. Dodge before the committee, for I have been unable to find any evidence to sustain the statement. Another mistake is, that Andrew Brady, the clerk of the 15th district, was a self constituted clerk. Now, it is true that his brother was 1st called as clerk and sworn, and that Andrew was substituted for him; but he was not selfice nstituted. He was accepted by the registrars and inspectors, and recognized as clerk. Mr. Hall, a Republican inspector and registrar, states in his testimony that he was appiointed as such.