Mr. DAWES. I will come to that, or will try to, though I do not know that I ever shall I hardly know where Iwas in the lineof m argument when I was last interrupted. But was endeavoring to show not only what was the practical tendency of this fraudulent registry, iit what was also the fact. Did it have any effect upon the result of that election? Was there any evidence that after all anybody but honest voters cast their votes at that election? Would it not be rather remarkable, after the registry was so prepared, with all these names put upon it by irresponsible persons, that it was done for no purpose, that nobody availed himself of the opportunity offered by this ar rangement, or that the arrangement was made without an disosition or purpose to enable anybody who claimed to be avoter to avail himself of it? It is too violent a presumption for any man who has had an experience in the investigation of election rauds to accept for a moment. But, sir, the fact is that the vote of this district was just about double upon this occasion. All the votes of the whole 12th district, a part of which became subsequently the 15th district, amounted at the last preceding election to only 496; while at this election there were polled in this part of it 446 votes, and in the other part 366, making 811 votes polled through the facilities of this fraudulent registry and one of the inspectors of the election, called by the sitting member himself, testifies that at the closing of the polls, about 250 men whom he believed to be legal voters were excluded by the arrival of sunset. If that be true, itwoul make 1, 061 votes in this district which at the last election polled only 496 votes. Now, Mr. Speaker, could there have been honestly that many legal voters, and there yet be no means of tracing them, or showing such to have been the fact? Is an addition of 600 votes in a single precinct at a single election an increase that cannot be traced in any way? The registry if it be an honest one, shows by streetand number the residence of every voter, so that after the election the tracing of every voter is only a question of time and the most rational and natural method of proceeding, when the validit and honesty of a 011 like this is questione, is to undertake after the election to trace the voters by the registry. This is the proper method to test and prove the honesty of the oil. The contestant, feelin this, employed fiir 6 weeks a man who ha been a canvasser for the city Directory, and who therefore had skill in this matter to trace to his home each man who, according to this registry, had voted. f we could have had the benefit of that mans testimony, supposing him to have been an honest, intelligent man, it would have gone far to settle this question. But, unfortunately, atleast for the contestant, the name of this man was, through a mere clerical error in copying the notice to be served upon the sittin member, omitted from the list of witnesses whose depositions were to be taken. As the law requires that the sitting member shall have ten days notice of witnesses whose de positions are to be taken, the sitting member objected, as he had the right under the law to do, to taking this mans testimony, because the ten days notice required by law had not been given. The aflidavit of this man was taken without the notice; and he was then tendered to the sitting member for cross examination, when the sitting member declined to cross examine. Therefore the contestant was without the testimony of this man. He sought to prove the same facts by another witness who had acquired his knowledge from this man; but the committee decided that that was not legal evidence. The sitting member, however, to some extent helped the contestantout of this difficulty; for he produced witnesses to prove that what was stated in this aflidavit was not true. He produced, 1st, a man who had been one of the inspectors of the election the man who tes tified that 250 legal voters did not succeed in depositin their votes, because they were still waiting when the time arrived for closing the polls. He was an officer in the Catholic church near by and was supposed to have peculiar knowledge in reference to the district. e went over this list, and there were some 20 or 30 whom he could not find anywhere, with all his knowledge. Others he thought he found, but in a way which I will illustrate. There was upon the registry a William Hubert, 651 East 16th street. This witness said that he knew a William Hubbard, on 15th street, who, he thought, must be the same man. So upon the registry was the name of John Callag an, 257 14th street. This man stated that he knew a John Allen, residing in another street at another number, and he thought this must be the same man. Again, the registry contained the name of Patrick Willing, 276 16th street. This witness thought that this must be Patrick Fanning 614 16th street. In this way he identified some 100 or more. Some 30 and more he could not identify at all. He then brought on a German resident of the district familiar with the German names on the register, and the list was handed to him to oint out and identify those who had voted, and 1 of the 1st 20, 16 lie negatived, and said they did not live where they were set down, and that they were not voters. 4 he did identify. With that lot the examination of this witness was suspended. So while the contestant was without the benefit of his witness, whom he had employed for 6 weeks, because of this clerical error, by the witnesses of the sitting member there were shown to be by positive testimony from 50 to 60 who had no residence there and then they were on] traced to others identified in the manner I have indicated; forgetting, Mr. Speaker, that the object of putting down names upon the register with a similarit of spelling was to facilitate the very fraud which is sought to be carried out at the polls by bringing a man