Mr. SHELLABARGER. If the gentleman will allow me to proceed I have no doubt he will have an opportunity to reply to my remarks if he desires. Now, I have cited 3 cases, and I challenge gentlemen to cite any case, in contravention of those, where this House has determined that when proof appears in the case that the safeguards provided by the election law have been disregar ed, the burden of proof is not thereby shifted upon the party who alleges the correctness of the election. Vll. fthese cases be notlaw, then you strike down at a blow, in matters connected with and controlling the ver sources and springs of all national power an sovereignty, every possible distinction between the observance of law and the defiance of it between fraud and purest integrity between an election conducted with the most religious observance of all the solemn enactments designed to secure the purity of the elections, and one in which every one of these enactments was not merely ignored, but ruthlessly and contemptuousl defied. Returns and certificates of elections which were conducted throughout with scrupulous observance of law, are never made any more than primafacic evidence of what was the result ofan election. Let it be decided here today, by this House, that these returns shall he just as much as that, when it is proved to the House that every rule and requirement of the law, meant to secure the purity of the election was utterly trodden down, then, indeed, you members of this House, who are the framers of the national law, will have said to the nation that you know no distinctions between the obseryance of the law and its profligate and outrageous violation and you will have sent out from this sanctuary of the nations authority a stab at the authority and sway of “the law” which may reach the nations heart, and the deadly effects of which will be potent enough to enable these Halls of the peoples sovereignty to be filled, not with the chosen representatives of that authority, but with the instruments of them who are the most experienced in the practices of villainy, most skilled in the instrumentalities of fraud, the most bold and reckless in the disregard of law, and the most debauched by the in uences of crime. Let us now see whether there was in this election the presence of such disregard of law as takes from the proceedings and returns of these 2 boards of election Officers (the registers and inspectors) which we have seen are for all the purposes of this trial blended into one, that stamp of prime facic truth which the law impresses upon the returns of officers whose proceedings appear to have been legal. 1st, it must be premised that all which has been said in this debate about the election officers being of the some polities with the contestant is, in the view the committee has taken of the case, utterly insignificant and frivolous. This is just, because that it makes no sort of difference whether the violations of law were intentional or unintentional, whether they were the results of gross ignorance and reckless inuttention to duty or came from corrupt and meditated fraud. In either case the result is the same, to wit: the gross violation oflaw, the striking down of all safe tards against illegal voting, and the loss of aigl evidence of the purity of the election; and, as a consequence of these, the withdrawal by the law of er seal, giving authenticity and egal tru to the returns of Officers, thus ignorant, reless, or fraudulent. Now, look at what occurred in this election, and see whether it is one of those from which the law withdraws her prima jacie approval and compels them who affirm its purity to prove it: 1. The law requires in express terms that the 3 registers shall meet at a place designated for holding the poll of said election on Tuesday, 3 weeks before the election, at 9 oclock a.m. (Page 21.) But they met at a place not designated; for none then was designated. 2. The law required them, in express terms, to “sit” together as a board for 2 days, if that time were necessary in order to make up the lists. (Page 22.) But they did not “ sit together at all as a board. 3, The law required, in express terms, that the reisters and sworn clerk, and no one else, should enter the names of them “entitled to vote” from the poll list of the last election. But the entries were not at all made by the board or its clerk, but sometimes by one member, sometimes by an unappointed and unsworn stranger to the law, called by courtesy a clerk, sometimes by the grocery keeper, Thompson, sometimes by his customers at the liquor store, and always in the absence of the board. Arll the names, in the main, were not taken “ from the poll list of the last general election, ” as the law expressl required, but in part from the poll list of 1 ompsons liquor customers and in part. from the fancy and memories of these customers. “ 4. The law required that these registers should be residents and voters in the district in which they are so appointed.” (Page 21, section one.) But neither one of them were such. 6. The law required that their clerk should be appointed and sworn. (Page 900, section 9.) But he who acted, and acted, too, when by himself, doing all the judicial duties of the full board, and also of the clerk, was neither appointed nor sworn. This alone avoids the whole reistry. (See Howard vs. Cooper, 2 Conteste Elections, 282.) 6. The law requires that the board should “meet at 8 oclock in the morning of the Tuesday preceding the election, and remain in session until 9 oclock p. m. of that day and the following day, for revising, correcting, and completin said lists.” (Page 24.) But sue a board never met at all; but only 2 of them ever met at this 2nd meeting. 7. The law required that this registry be made up and completed at the place designated for the election, (page 21) and that ifbe posted up in the “ room where it was made, that is at the “ room” where the election is held. (Page 24.) But it was neither made nor posted up at the “ room” where the election was held. 8. The law requires that this board at 1st meeting should sit, at most, but 2 days. (Pa e 22.) But most of the business was done on te3rd day, and at a time when even the board had no “ power” to sit to do the business. The business was dohe by the liquor seller or other outsiders on this 3rd day. 0. The law requires that the entire board should sit in “0 en" session and “hear” all persons residing in the district as to their right to vote. (Pages 24 and 25, sections 3, 4,and 5.) But no such meeting or hearing ever occurred. 10. The law requires that, at this last meeting, the said3 inspectors shall “ erase” from register the name of any person inserted therein who shall be proved, by the oaths of 2 legal voters of the district to the satisfaction of the inspectors, to be not entitled to vote. (Page 25.) and so also new names maybe inserted where pfoved to be voters. (Page 25.) But there was neither hearing, proving to satisfaction nor meeting of this board. 11. The law prohibits the vote of any man being received whose name is not on the regis ter, unless he 1st proves why he did not a pear on the day for correcting lists, and a so that he has the right to vote. (Page 26.) But such proof was required of no man, whether his name was on no list at all, or was upon this utterly worthless list. such, sir, were only some of the violations of law which entered into the making up of this registry. Now, sir, if this is a good reistry, I beg to be informed what wouldie a ho one. The disregard of law was utterly flagrant and radical. It extended to every part an stage of the proceeding, and was gross and palpable, rendering the accuracy and legality of the registry absolutely impossible. Sir, this was the registry which was used as the 1st solemn sworn and unquestionedjudgment of an election court of how York, adju dicating and deciding that every name upon it was the name of a legal voter of that district. One copy of thisjudgment was put by the laws of NewYork into the hands of each of the in spectors of the election, (section6) and it was by them “ used on election day” (section six) for the 2 purposes and to perform all the high prowers of a good registry under the laws of NewYork, to wit: (1.) To entitle every man whose name was on it (or, rather, who claimed to own one of the names upon it) to vote unless somebody should take an a peal from thatjudment of the (lie litious int is case) registers which put the name there; this appeal being taken alone by chal cage. (2.) To exclude every honest voter of the district from voting because his name was not upon a register where he had, from want of any legal meetingof the registers and of notice, nooppor tunity to have it put, unless such voter should find out where this election was being held in the stable, and should be able to prove his right to vote. Shall the law be mocked here by its being said that a registry so potent in controlling that election did not atfect the validity of the election; that it did not become a part of such election; that its illegality did not as much s oil the primafacie goodness and truth of that election as the election in Van Buren township was spoiled in the case of Howard vs. Cooperby reason of one of its inspectors being absent? (2 Contested Elections, page 282.) Here, surely, I might stop and say that every decency of the law would be outraged by holding that such a registry, and such an election, conducted upon the faith of its legality and purity, is as printafdeie good and pure and true as one conducted according to law. Now, the result to which I am brought by these considerations I will again state. It is not that there was no election held there; it is not that no voter could prove himself to have Voted there; not that no vote could be counted that was not in fact cast there; but it is that when every safeguard which the law has provided to insure accuracy, urity, and trut in the election and in the election returns has been disregarded and stricken down, then the burden of proof is devolved upon the party who maintains the purity of the election. Now, Mr. Spalter, if I am not mistaken in my understan in of the law and the facts, what I have state shows that it devolved upon the sitting member to establish the votes which he claims should properly be counted in his favor in the 15th district of the 18th word. In maintaining this ground, lain not taking any novel position; Iain taking one that is in exact harmony with every decision upon the subject matter that l have been able to 1nd in the histo of the Government. I am takin aposition which is in harmony with reason. It this position be not sound, then. as l have already suggested, you must give the same effect to returns and proceedings which have been conducted in total and flagrant violation of law as to ioceedings which are in all respects in accorance with the law, aresult which Iinsist is simply monstrous. Stopping here, sir, itdoes seem to me in all fairness that the case is made out in favor of Mr. Dodge, because upon this principle the vote of this election precinct must go rejected, for you cannot get at the truth as to what vote Was cast. But, sir, if my time Would permit, I might go much further, and show by the evidence produced before the committee what were the acts in regard to that district. There is one single fact which has been several times alluded to here and which seems to me starth ng and conclusive in its character. It was alleged yesterday that there was some difference between the size of the present 15th and 12th districts, and the size of the old 12th district; and that therefore the fi"llieS to which I now allude are not to be reied on. Mr. Speaker, that is a mistake. There is no difference; the 15th and 12th districts are identical with the old 12th district. According to the proof before the committee, the lar gest vote ever cast in what now makes u the 12th and 15th districts was 496. at in the very next year there were cast in the same district. according to the return 811 votes, while, according to the testimony, there were 200 or 300 voters who were prevented from offing their votes by the arrival of sunset. aking the medium between 200 and 300, namely, 250, and adding it to 811, we have 1, 061 persons voting in that district, when the district had never before polled half that uumberof votes. et the only pronf bearing on that subject is that there was in the district one tenement honse less than there had been the year before. Besides, air, the 2 witnesses selected by the Sitting member himself, on account of their supposed purity and integrity and their resumed amiliarity with everybody in the district, testify on cross examination, that of all the persons about whom they were asked, at least 3/4ths were missing could not be found in the district. Now, sir, in view of such facts as I have in dicated, I ask this House whether ii. will hesi State to follow what I have shown to be the in variable precedents dnring the entire history of the Government. I beg members to pause before precedents like these shall be set aside. I beg them to consider what will be the result of a proposition like this that an election conducted in any State of the Union where it appears to. the House that all the substantial requisites of precaution and safety have been disregarded, that such returns are to have itmafacie conclusiveness of a good election. "on Will have the result that there will be no difference, as I have remarked, between an election held in total disregard of the law provided a man can get the certificate, and one where the law was most sacredly observed. Nay, more, Mr. Speaker, you put a contestant every time he has been deprived of his seat by wrong or fraud into the hard position of proving a negative, of proving what it is ordinaril impossible ever to prove; and the more ski led the fraud the more inevitable the defeat of the injured contestant. He cannot, I venture to affirm in the hearing of the House, in one case in 100 prove that negative, to wit, that the sitting member did not receive such and such votes. He cannot prove by the selected instruments of the fiaud, the fraud that has stricke down his rights. Look at the spectacle presented in this case. If you adopt that rule, that an election held in disregard of the election laws is to be held as priniafacie evidence of the right of the sitting member, then you drive the injured party to a contest and you make him prove a negative. If he proves it, he proves it by the parties who committed the fraud. It was attempted in this case when Geoirhegan was presented. My friends on the other side have been eloquent in urging that no such man is worthy of credit. I beg my fellow members of the HoRep to pause on the threshold of this case. I tell you that you disport yourselves in the forge of the gods and play with live thunder when you lightly dispoae of principles which will forever control the structure of the American HoRep. Do not here today adopt a rule which will permit the HoRep to be put in a position where every man making a contest is to be called to prove by the instruments who deprived him of his seat, the men who swiu dled him, that the sitting member did not get the votes fraudulently returned. Ihere leave in part of the case. I know that my duty has been oorly discharged.