Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House with further extracts from this scoundi cls testimony. It fills many pages of this book. Without Geoghegan there is no evidence in this case amounting to anything at all. Without him there is no plausible pretext for charging that there was any fraud or irregularity in the election at this poll. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no member of this House ought to be turned out, or have his seat oven jeopardized in the slightest degree by the testimony of a man leprous with infamy, who, by his own acknowledgment, is a criminal of the deepest die, a man who unblushingly stands up in the face of mankind and boasts of his own infamy. It may be said he is not properly contradicted. Who would think of contradicting the testimony of such a witness? There are various ways of impeaching witnesses; one byproving a bad character, another by proving what he says to be absolute] false, and the 3rd by l cross examination, e owing by his own statement that he is utterly unworthy of credit. If you succeed in either it is unnecessary to call any other witnesses to contradict or impeach l him. If I were defending a man for murder, where even life was at stake, and such a witness as Stephen Geoghegan were brou lit upon the stand to testify, convicting hiuise f of infamy and scoundrelism as this man did, I would not bring any witness to contradict him. The l jury that would listen to the testimony of such a man would be utterly unworthy of the confidence and trust reposed in them. But it is said that another witness, Russell Myers, in some respects confirms some of the testimony of Goo egan. I will not take up the time of the House by asking the Clerk to read his testimony, but hepe each member will examine it for himself. This testimony amounts to nothing but hearsay. He went to certain places in the district and inquired of women and children for men who ha voted at this election. He did not know the persons of whom he inquired, and is unable to give us the name of one of them. This witness was well known as a detective, and as a draft had just then been ordered his inquiries alarmed the people. It was natural when he inquired oft he women whether such and such a man lived in a particular house, that they should prevaricate or say that no such person lived there. On such testimony as this, which is in fact not evidence at all in any legal sense, for the persons of whom Myers inquired, if they knew anything abontit, ought to have been called and sworn as witnesses, are the people of this district to be disfranchised and turned out without a voice and without a hearing? But I must pass on. This is all that it is necessary to say in regard to this district. This is all there isin the case. Take out this beautiful specimen of a witness, Ste hcu Geoghegan, and there is nothing left. If this House on testimony of that character will exclude this district and turn out of the House one of our poets, we will in my judvment be doing great injustice to ourselves and to the cause of truth and right. The chairman of the committee in his report says that the evidence is confined to these 4 districts impeached by Mr. Dodge, forgetting the fact that Mr. Bron s had attacked the 13th district of the 21st ward, and had shown that the canvasse rs, in violation of law, after they had commenced canvassing the votes, left the polls unguarded with all the election papers and a large number of ballets lying loose on the table, and absented themselves from the room for half an hour with a crowd standing around the place. This was in direct violation of the statute of NewYork, which declares, (volume one, Revised Statutes, page 130:) As soonas the poll of anelectionshall have been finally closed.the inspectorsof said election shall proceed to canvass the votes. such canvass shall o public, and shall not be adjournedor postponed until it shall have beenfinally completed." It was not only imprudent to leave the poll thus unguarded, but it was in direct violation of law and the chances of fraud and tinkering with the ballots were so great, that I think that the return in that district ought to be excluded. Indeed, the case made out against this district is a much stronger one than the One made out against the two Brooks districts, so strourdy assailed by the honorable chair man, an if any of them are thrown out this 13th district of the 21st ward ought to have priority in their march out of these Halls. O man can feel any assurance that a canvass thus conducted gave a true return of the vote in that district. I donot assert that these inspectors or can vassers intended fraud, but an act like that endangers the urity of the poll and at that poll the vote or Mr. Brooks and Mr. Barr combined did not run up to that on the Presidential ticket, while Mr. Dodge is returned as receiving a mnority of 258 over Brooks. It seems to me that this is a stronger case of imcacliment than an of the others. ow, if the 7th district of the 21st ward, and 15th district of the 18th ward, are excluded, and also this 13th district of the 21st ward, it still leaves Mr. Brooks with a clear majority of 165votes. This being the case it is not necessary, it seems to me, to dwell further on this case. I, at least, am very firm in my conviction that there is not even a plausible case made out against the sitting member by the evidence which has been produced. But there is another fact that this House ought to consider in this case. The contest ant, as is shown, is a man of extraordinary wealth, with an income of more than1,000 dollars perday, and he has not been very modest or arsimonious in the use of it for the or ose o forcing himself into this House. It 18s own by the evidence that some ten or 15,000 dollars at least were expended by him and his friends for the purpose (I cannot call it anything else) of corruptin the very sources of the elective franchise. [lhere it went he does not explain. Money was poured out and disappeare like water upon the sand. Who got it and in what way does not a pear. It a ears that not only Mr. odge, but a host riends of his engaged in this contest of money against brains to secure a seat in this House. In his own examination, Mr. Dodge. produced two subscription lists made by his lriends, amounting in the aggro to to $5, 120. I will submit an extract in regarelatothis money branch of the question from the minority report: se“lf The sumsof money expended byMr. Dodgehim and known to be expendedby or through him, are then admittedto be Mr. Dodge. personally. (see Congressional Globe). 1st subscription list. 2nd subscriptionlist $2.12 “But the sitting membershown and which seems all to be verified by the testimony the following expenditure: Money paid by Dodge at Legrand Cannons, (H., 41. ssoo BaBrag;ain of Cannon.Cow th r, (H., 40, 59, 1l5 (i). 2,000 Enormous (so called)p. 2.0% Amount Cowden received from Dodge, (., Payments 8500 to the 3 words.$500each. 1.500 An undise overed subscription paper fromG. B. De Forrest, (B. 4:!.). 500 An undise overed subscription paper from G. B. De Forrest, (B. 12.). Ill) An undise overed subscription paper from M. 0. Roberls. (ILAZ). 100 Paid by Cowdenvoluntarily. (13.5. 5). 615o0r m2dise overed subscriptionpapers. Exhibit No. 4, p. 320.M. 0. Roberts lending offivith 1,000. 2.210 Erhibit No. 5, p. 33).John H. Sherwoodleading off 2, 900 Total discovered. 815.5(5 "Extract from Mr. Phelps, (1)., 499.) "It wasntan expensiveplectiouat all. We would have madeit far more so if we had only known as muchaswe know now." Mr. Phel s was the lawyer and election agent of Mr. Do ge. How much more money was exended, of which we have no trace, we can onI; conjecture. but it seems to me, without chargin anything upon the contestant, that his fricii s, who are so flee to lavish their money by 1000s for the purpose of forcing him into this House from a district where there is a clear majority of 4 or 5,000 against him, by buying up another candidate, and thus dividing the vote of the adverse party; I say it seems to me that it would not be presuming a great deal to say that some of his friends at least would not hesitate to put money into the pockets of such creatures as Stephen Geoghegan, and use them to elfect the ODJQCbthey have so much at heart and I submit, with all respect, that if the House decides against Mr. rocks, and places the contestant in his seat upon the evidence that is adduced before us, it will leave a taint upon us and upon this House from which we should shrink with horror. No man is worthy to occupy the seats in these Halls, once filled by the grand characters and neat minds of our country, who is not himse f free from the taint and suspicion of corruption and dishonor. Wc ought to tell this contestant, when he comes here with such a claim and asks us to setthe returns aside, that he should come with clean hands and not with evidence like this, showing such attempts to corrupt the elective franchise and it siould be borne in mind that there is no evidence of any such corruption on the part of the sittimember, no attempt to buy his way into is House by the lavish expenditure of money nothing that shows even an improper act on his part or on the part of any person in privity with him. Therefore it seems to me we would be doing grobs injustice to ourselves and to the country to the cause of right and of justice if we should do otherwise than say to Mr. Dodge, “Go home, and when you come here again. bring a case that upon its face, at least, is honest and fair. Until you do that, this House cannot give you a seat here, or even listen with patience to a claim destitute even of plausibility, and carrying with it such potent evidence of an attempt by the claimant and his friends to poison the very fountains of the elective sys tem, and to sup the foundations of republican government.”