Mr. DAWES. Because the committee who have studied this case, or who certainly on ht to have done it, have made a report on it, ud that 2 of their number are unable to agree with them, the gentlemen from Ohio is unwill in to vote unti that discrepancy is removed. 70w, let us see what he says are the points of difference between the members of the committee. One of them is this: that the committee say that the vote in the old 12th district is about half as much again as the vote in the 12th and 15th districts combined; and the area of the 15th district is 3 or 4 times as large as that of the 12th district. Well, now, instead of looking into the book to see which is right, the gent cman insists upon it that we must take the case back to settle that question. If he had turned to the book for one moment, he would have seen that the 15th district was taken out of the old 12th district a single page of the testimony would have settled that fact. But my friend says that he cannot vote until that discre ancy is reconciled, until we show that a part of a thing is not 3 times as large as the whole. The gentleman says, further, that this is a most remarkable statement upon the 1st page of the report: “ If eachwerestripped ofcverything but that which could properl be called a “particular specification of the noun s upon which the part relies in the oontest.very little would be left in eit ier. The contestant however, confined his roofs to the allegations ntiectingfour precincts on numcly, 13th district of the 18 thward. 15th district of the 18th ward, 3rd district of the 21st wamnnd the 7th district of the 21st My friend read that much; why could he not, with that candor which becomes and adorns his character, have read further, as follows? “In the opinion of the committee, there is contained in the several allegations of the contestant respectingthesefour precincts a distinct allegation of iraud in the election, and error In the return, sufficiently s ccific to require an answer from the sit ting mom or, and to form the basis of a fair trial of the factsinvolved in the issuesthus made up." But, Mr. Speaker, my friendfrom Ohio revealed another thin to which I wish to call the attention of the case. He spoke of the inspectors of election not residin in the district. He said the sitting member declares that thatis general throu bout the city of NewYork; that he so declar in the debate yesterday. Now, sir, I do not find any such statement of the sitting member, that he had so declared in debate, or that he had affidavits to that effect. I made diligent inquiry, and it more to pass that I ascertained that the sittin member had procured affidnvits secretly, uu nown to the committee. After he had procured the rejection by the committee of the affidavit of Dean about the residence of his voters, he himself procured affidavits, and carried them secretly around among the members of thi House, and it was not until be caused them to be read at the Clerks desk, that the ComElections could derive any benefit from them whatever. They were taken not only without notice, but without knowledge on the part of the contestant. My friendfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. Puma] who is a fair and candid and true man, states in his speech, which 1 hold in my hand, that if the aflidavit of Dean could have been used as evidence before the ComElections, he would have been obliged to vote for the contestant. I ask him to take notice that the sitting member here yesterday supported his case by aflidavits of which the committee never had the slightest knowledge. I submit to him, therefore, whether the way is not clear for him to look into the allidnvit of Les Casns Dean, and come to the conclusion, legally, as I believe he has already done morally, that this seat belongs to the contestant. The sitting membet has waived, by his proceedings here in the presence of the House, all further claim to have the atlidavit of Las Casas Dean excluded.