Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, I shall strive to condense what I have to say in this case as much as I can, and to that end have written down part of my remarks. I shall confine m remarks to the facts and law applicable to the 15th district of the 18th ward. I leaveto others to discuss the other points of contest. That I may avoid all discussion of matters not essential to the right determination of the case I will admit, for the sake of shortening the argument, and only for that sake, the following: 1. That the registers who acted in this district were officers defacto, and able to act for the public, provided their action be substan tially in conformity with law. 2. That a good election can be held in NewYork where there is no register or only a fraudulent one. 3. That a good vote can be cast by one who is in fact an elector, but who was neitherregis tered nor proved at the polls to be a legal voter. 4. That every law which the majority of the committee find to have been violated in this case was only directory in the matter in which it was violated. Now, I maintain that if you grant each of the foregoing propositions, still. upon the facts and law of this case the contestant, Mr. Dodge, is clearly entitled to his seat. I shall, for the most art, content myself with naked statements of propositions of law and fact, and if there is to be elaboration of argument, I shall leave that to the very able chairman of the committee, who has been charged by the committee with the management of the contest in the House. I now state some general legal propositions preparatory to the cnsideration ot the facts of the case., I. Where by reason of the ross negligence or by reason of the fraud of the officers of the election or even from accident, it has become impossible to find out the truth from the election returns, then the 01] must at least primafacie, be rejected, and, if the poll is valid at all it must be shown by other proofs than the returns so defective. In Blair vs. Barrett, (2 Contested Elections, 315) this House nfiirmed by its action the doctrine that if it should appear that the election officers were not sworn that fact shifts the burden of proving the votes from the sitting member to the contestant. In the caseof Drapervs. Johnson, decided long ago in the 22nd congress, the House decided that where it appears that the otheer conducting the election was not sworn, the effect of that proof was to throw. the burden of proof upon the party claiming the vote.” (2 Contested Elections, 315. I also refer to 2 Contested Elections, 282, to rejection of the Van Buren township vote.) H. I next assert that acts of registers in NewYork are judicial in HI. their nature. The registry, in contemplation of law, enters into and forms part of the election proceeding and therefore the same rules of law cOntrol the qualification and organization of this board as of the election board. This is because: 1. The registry must be at each election poll each inspector must have one list and “use l it in deciding on the electors right to vote, and each name must be “checked ” on the regis try as they vote. (NewYork Laws, page 26, section 6. ) 2. Because the election law makes the finding and judgment of the board of registers to be present upon and at the election, and expressly gives to it then and there the legal force, value, and effect of onejudgment of one election tribunal; and makes its presence effica consas one solemn sworn ndgment ofacourt in authorizing the vote. (l NewYork Election Laws, age 26, section 6. )