Mr. FARNSWORTH. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine that point. The facts which [ have enumerated are that these registers did not reside in the election district, that possibly the clerk who acted was not sworn, and that possibly some men who were registered were not properly qualified to be registered. I say, then, in reply to the gentlemans question, that in my opinion all these facts )ut together do not even vitiate the registry. 11 think that these registers, whether they do or do not reside within the election district, are in fact officers of the law until you turn them out, and their acts as to 3rd persons are legal. If a person whois isqualified on or the constitution of a State to hold the office of judge by reason of non-age, alienage, or any other disqualification be appointed and commissioned as judge, his a judications are valid to all intents and purposes until he is ousted. Suppose that the law requires that the judge shal be a resident of a particular circuit, and suppose that a person not a resident of that circuit is appointed and commissioned and enters upon the discharge of his duties I ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Min Seo FIELD] whether, in a collateral proceeding, the decisions of that judge can bequestioned because of his disqualification? The gentleman concedes that they cannot. Then Iask whether, in a collateral proceeding, the acts of these registers can be questioned on the ground that they were not residents of a particular district. Then, again, if they were not all present all of the time, they did all of them certify to the registry, and that was their judvment. Suppose their clcrk was not sworn, that amounts to nothing. Can ou question the judgment of a court because the clerk who keeps the record was not properly sworn or qualified? and if some names were entered upon the registry who were not voters, does that vitiate the registry? If so, you will never have a legal reister made, for it is human to err. It seems to me not. I may be wrong. If I am right, however, in this regard, then thisquestion whether they were residents of the district or not cuts but a small figure in this case, and it is unnecessary that the motion of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] should be adopted to send the committee back to inquire what is the practice there. I believe the State of NewYork has since that election provided that registers may not be residents of the election district, but shall be residents of the assembly district, thus showing the people of NewYork do not regard it as important that the registers should be actual residents of the election district. wcll, sir, it is claimed in reference to the 15th district I am now speakinv of the reports, and not the charges, because the charges are so confused that it would be difficult to make an issue n on them it is claimed by the report that frau s were perpetrated in receiving votes at the polls. The only witness referred to in the majority report to sustain this charge was Dean and another, both of whose depositions have been ruled out by this committee. Then there is no proofin this case on behalf of the contestant that there was any fraud. It is claimed that the fact of so many more votes being polled in this recinct than were polled the year before is evidence of fraud, yet the testimony shows that at the next registration of voters there were over and above this very poll some 200 legal voters, showing that the next year there were 200 more voters than voted at the election under consideration. It seems to me that is sufficient to dispose of that The committee, pooiwnet.ver, say that the sitting member has by witnesses introduced by himself, shown that men voted in this precinct who were not legal and qualified voters. I do not so consider the testimony. All I can make out of it is that a presumption is raised that some men voted in this district who were not regal voters. Indeed, it is hardly a presumption, but it is a kind of probability from negative testimony. Witnesses swearing, when called upon to designate and identify voters, that such and such voters they could not iden tify. They failed to identify some of the voters, and that is all. It raises scarcely a presumption. There may have been illegal votes polled at. that election. Now, I might sto here. If the House comes to the conclusion that the returns of this clection district should not be discarded, it. ends the question; for even if you diseard the other, it leaves Mr. Brooks a plurality and entitled to his seat. Therefore, I will take up but little time in discussing the other. I believe, sir, there is no complaint made that the registration was not fair. The charge with reference to the 7th district by the contestant is, “that sundry persons voted for Brooks not legal voters, to wit, 100 and upward.” He offers to sustain this by 2 witnesses. A portion of the testimony has been read by the clerk at the suggestion of my colleague, [Mr. MARSHALL] I refer to the testimony of Stephen Geoghegan. The majority of the committee, while saying in their reJort that this man was particcps crimin is, and by his own confession so much of a rascal that his testimony should not be regarded as worthy of credit, still throughout the report constantly refer to his testimony. I have read this testimony over, a most nauseous dose. He is a man covered over with filth and rasenlity from head to foot; 21.man who has shown himself to be a rascal all the way from NewOrleans to NewYork; a notorious fighter, liar, and rase al. While my friends are talking about Democratic inspectors at this election, they should bear in mind that the majority of the registers and inspectors and a majority of the clerks were not Democrats, and to “give the devil his due." If there was fraud committed at this election by the registers or inspectors it was perpetrated by our own and not by the other party. I understand that the State of NewYork adopts a rule something like this and it is a very good one, and one that I would recommend to my colleague from the Chicago district, Mr. WENTwoarn] In a strong Democratic district they put in a majority of officers of the Republican party, and in a strong Republican district they put in a majority of the Democratic party; thus setting men of the opposition party to watch the polls. So it was in this election; and if frauds were perpetrated they were perpetrated by reisters and inspectors of the party in the minority in that district. But in this case I understand that Mr. Brooks had no party, that the officers were none of them Brooks men, but all Barr and Dodge men. Mr. Brooks was running as an independent candidate. Under the laws of the State of NewYork, votes are not necessarily received at the poll because they are registered. A man is just us liable to have his vote challenged there as in States where there is no registry. Challengers attend the polls as elsewhere that is, outside challengers, and not inspectors merely and they have the same right as if there were no registry. was commenting on the testimony of this man Geoghegan. He swears that the reason why he trumed up this story for the resumption is that anything he said wat 0. ie; he admits he told the voters lies, and that he ran the risk of the penitentiary in carrying on this business he swears that the remou why he became informant and witness in this case was. that he kept open shop on the day of election for certain individuals, not at their reuest, but because he took it into his head to do so, and that Mr. Stewart, who was runnin for city jud c on the republican ticket, ha come around and settled the bill, but that Mr. Brooks had not the manliness to come tb his shop the next day and pay his bill. He thought that was not “honor between gentlemen!” “He could not bu his goods for nothing” meaning his whis y and when he spent his goods still meaning whisky at the polls on election day, honor required that the candidate for whom he treated s iould come around the next day and pay up. Mr. Brooks did not do that, and so when he found Myers going about the districtto ascertain the residences of voters in behalf of Mr. Dodge, Geoghcgan tells him this story, and is then produced as a witness in behalf of the contestant in the case.