Mr. DAWES. The gentleman can present whatever testimony he pleases when he comes to address the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has a very artful theory about the pronunciation and s elling of German names, but it does not reac the case I have stated. Here in a list of 20 names; a German familiar with the district swears that 16 of them do not reside there and it does not matter whether you call them Zung or Young or anything else. But his theory was made to apply to another part of the district. We have the fact that there has been a de parture from the law in every respect. We have the fact of departures of such a character asto taint the voting. We have the fact that the law an s that a vote shall not be received by the officers unless it conforms to the provisions of the law. It also a pears that the vote was swollen to double what it was before, and that while both had the opportunity of tracing to their homes every living voter in the district the contestant alone soughtto do that. It also appears that tesitting member, in attempting to contradict the testimony of the contestant to see whether these men lived where they were registered, himself proved there were these men I have shown who adno legal hab itation in the district. It is for the House to say whether it will take the returns under these circumstances as evidence of honest votes. In the matter of disfranchising an honest voter, in the matter of depriving the sitting member or the contestant of the vote of a single man, and in the matter of taking as evidence that such a.vote has been cast, the current of authority in this House and everywhere else is unbroken on this point. There is no conflict and never has been. It was sometimes held, as it wash the Gentfrom Pennsylvania in the ise ussion of another case, that you are required to set aside not only the return but everything else. It has sanction in courts of law as well as in the opinion of the Gentfrom Pennsylva uiia as announced here the other day. But the committee have not felt called upon to go out side of the precedents which the ComElections have heretofore sanctioned in their reports, and which have been sustained by the House. They have simply said that this return made up in this fraudulent manner, with evidence not only that the officers composing the board were illegally appointed, and the board illegal, but also that the last meeting of the board was held not at the place appointed by law, so that nobod could go there. The E ace of voting was at ames Thom sons, No. 52 Avenue B, and the meeting oi2 the board was actually held at another place. The Kill itself was not held at the place designate by law, though it was held somewhere in the neigh borhood. So that we are called upon to do one of 2 things: to disregard all of these provisions of law, to take this return, made without conformity to any provision of law, of a poll held at a place not designated according to law, as the true return; or we are to set it aside and tell these parties to call up their witnesses to show how they voted, and if they voted legally to count their votes, as was done in another district in this case. Now, one of 2 things must be done; it cannot be halved; there is no intermediate position to be taken. You must take the returns as they are, forget or overlook all their errors, and pronounce by your decision here as unnecessary all these provisions of law thrown by the statutes of NewYork around the ballot box, one provision of law being that no vote shall be received but in conformity with the statute, or else you must take the course adopted by the committee, and say to these parties, we will not take a return based upon such a proceeding as this, but we will count every vote which you may prove to have been legal and that was the course of the committee in this case. I must hurry on to another of these precincts, that of the 7th district of the 21st ward. In reference to that district the testimony shows that the whole vote cast for member of Congress was, for Mr. Brooks. 160; Mr. Barr, 168; Mr. Dodge. 71; in all 389. There were cast for presidential electors 400 votes. Now, this was a peculiar district in its phys ical condition. It is what is called “Dutch Hill;” a district not laid out in streets or numbered, but covered with shantics, built upon other mens lands. These shanties were of the frailest character, “ and treated in the market as personal property, selling for from ten to 15 dollars each. Into thls district were crewded all these voters. It was very difficult in makin;r out the registry to put down anything likc street and number and if it was desired to cheat and deceive it was very easy to do so in this district. In the year before, 1863, the vote of this district was 2.02; in 1864 it was 400. Now, when a district of this character doubled its vote in the course of a single car, it would be natural to inquire where those votes came from, and if they were given by honest voters, where they IQSlitCll; also, whether you could double the voting capacity of such a small district as this without showing wherethey resided, without showing some increase of the number of habitations, some influx of population, some new families, some new faces, some new presence out. of which you could double the vote of this district. But on the contrary, it is testified to that not only were there no new habitations put up in that district during the year precedin this congressional election, but very many of the little abitations of the year before had been wiped out, removed, the number reduced. So that there was no chance of any increase of bona fide residents there from new comers. Nobody was able to be found to testif to any new presence in the district, any new amilies anywhere in it. The question then arose, how were they able to doub. the vote in this small district? Well, the matter was revealed by one of the parties who turned States evidence. His testimony is referred to by book and page in the report of the majority of the committee, and the name of the wllness is Geogliegan. He and a comrade of his named Tracy had, in the common parlance of the day, for many years controlled that dist: ict, and in the interest of their particular party friends had dealt out the votes of the district as they pleased, and with such success as they were prompted to secure by their zeal and interest in particular elections. Getting into some diflicu ty with his comrade the day after the election in the adjustment of some matters pertaining to it, Geoghcgan came for ward and made a disclosure of the way and manner in which the thing was done. The thing was managed by takin the regis try from ear to year and putting it bodily into the new registry, preserving the name of every man that had ever been on it, whether he had died or moved away in the mean time, and adding just as many names as they pleased of their friends there and elsewhere. In that way they made out the registry to suit themselves. Then when election day came, by arrangements made beforehand, men were brought forward, whom the witness culled “ substitutes, ” who voted upon these names, and then went away and were never heard of afterwards. That being the fact in reference to this district, the whole matter is explained, and only shows that the fraud is of such a characterthat it has no limit except in the time, capacity, and genius of those who carried it out. Geoghegan himself stated that at least 30 of the names upon which substitutes were voted were the names. some of persons who had been dead from 6 months to 2 years, and some of persons who had moved out of the district. Ho testifies that he himself voted for the sitting member; and he named others, among them his comrade, who voted in the same way; in many instances giving the name of the man who voted, but of course always taking care of his friends and not telling their present whereabouts and from this single witness testimony was obtained of 65 fraudulent votes, those of substitutes voting on the names on the registry thus made up for the district. the contestant then employed a man in this district, as in the other, to take this poll list and trace every voter to his house and habitation and find him if he could. For this purpose be employed a responsible man, a U.S.btates deputy marshal, who had served in the Army, and who had occupied positions of responsibility and of trust for agreat manyyears, so that there could be no question at all as to his integrity. This man be employed for nearly 6 weeks, and the result of his investigation is here in this book; for the contestant fortunately did not lose his testimony. With all his ability, this deputy marshal was unable to find any where iu this district 10. of these men. Now, he corroborates in his testimony the statements of this pariiceps crimims, Geoghc gan. For the committee admit the correctness of the rule claimed by the sitting member, that Geoghcgan being a party to this fraud his testimony should not be taken without corroboration and it is a little curious that in companing the testimony of this U.S. deputy marshal, Russell Myers, with the testimony of Geoghegan, it will be found that he corrobo rates him in regard to 23 of the names in Geo ghegans table, and testifies to some 88 names besides. So thabGeoghcgan, who isa party to the fraud, is corroborated to that extent by the testimony of Myers. Geogbegan is also further corroborated by the testimony of his copartner in this matter, Tracy, who was produced upon the stand by the sitting member, for the purpose of tracing these votes, by reason of his ianiiliarity with the district and his knowledge of the voters. In all his testimony he does not contradict Geoghegan as to but one or perhaps 2 of the persons named by him. Hpe then takes up the list of Myers, the one who was employed by the contestant for 6 weeks to canvass this district and corrects it by striking out the name of every person known to Tracy to be a voter in the district, although he traces out many of them in the manner adopted in the other district, by some imagined similarity of sound in the name, though he resides in some other place. That list is thus reduced to 65 names. which added to the other list makes 109 illegal voters in this small district alone. But there is another point in which Tracy also corroborates Geogliegan. According to Geoghcgans statement, Tracy is the part who was joined with him in this matter. But 1 racy, although called by the sitting member, is not even asked by him whether Geogheganls story is true. But at the end of the examination, afterit was all over, after the time had expired, the sitting member asks for further time to examine certain witnesses, and among others he names this Tracy, whom he desires to examine further. He states what he desires to examine hiin upon; but it is not to ascertain whether Geoghcgan told the truth or not in regard to this arrangement with Tracy, but merely to ascertain whether he voted for him or for Barr, so that the man who of all others knew whether Geoghegan was telling the truth or not, was called by the sitting member, and was examined by him about everything else, but the sitting member failed to ask him whether Geoghegans story was true. If the story of Geo gliegan be true, if the story of Russell Myers be true, if the story of Tracy, his own witness, be true, then out of these 389 votes 116 were fraudulent. Then arises the question, what will you do with the poll when you know more than one in 4 of the votes is fraudulent? You cannot tell for whom the fraudulent votes were cast, except the 30 which, if Geoghegan is to be believed, were cast for the sitting member. If 30 be deducted from the votes of the sitting member, 86 fraudulent votes still remain unaccounted for. They were cast either for the sitting member, the contestant, or Mr. Barr. There is no means of telling for whom they were cast. Shall we count the whole poll, 3 honest votes to one fraudulent or shall we say, “This fraud, like frauds we have had in cases coining before us heretofore, so taints the bal lot box that, having no means by which it can be purged, we cannot tell what the truth is; we cannot tell for which of these 3 candidates those 86 votes were cast; and we do not propose to counta oll in which one 4th of all the votes are shown to be fraudulent?” Besides, the throwing out of this vote does not alter the result, while it goes farto show that the conclusions as to the other polls are correct. Under these circumstances, the committee were of opinion that, following the precedents which they have adopted, and which have been sanctioned by the House, they must reject this 011. With the rejection of these 2 pollst ere is a majority of 105 votes for the contestant. If you omit this last poll altogether, there is a majority of 16. If you deduct the 30 votes which, if Geoghegan is to be believed, were cast for the sittin member, that increases the majority to 46. Ihe committee, coming to this conclusion, entertain no doubt that they have given effect to every legal vote cast in that district. They have tendered to the parties the opportunity to show every legal vote cast, if they will show for whom the votes were cast.