Mr. RAYMOND. I did not wish to interrupt the argument of the chairman of the committee, for what I have to say has no bearing on what he is discussing. Without entering into a Canvass of the merits of the case I am ashamed to sun I have not possessed myself with a knowle go of all the testimony in the case I desire simply to refer to one aspect of the argument of the sitting nieniber, particularly as I heard him yesterday and today; I mean that portion of his argument which may be called argumentum adinvidiam, relating personally to the contestant, to his standing, to his wealth, and to various matters which, according to the allegation of the sitting member, have been connected with this contest. I list ened with a good deal of surprise, sir, to the gentlemans remarks upon the wealth of the contestant, to his rehearsal of the amount of his income, the net income upon which he pays tax, the aggregate income upon which he does not pay tax, the amount perannum, perdiem, and 7ier karma, and so much for each moment he drew his breath. What could be the use of such enumeration as that unless to appeal to the prejudices of the House against his wealth? That, I take the liberty to say, is an unfair appeal, and one with which this case has noth in to do. venture to say there is not a man in NewYork, or in the U.S., or on the face of the earth, who knows the contestant in this case, who will for one moment pretend or suspect his possession of large wealth is to be weighed against him in this or any other scale. It has all been acquired honorably, justly, fairly, without wronging any man. After acquiring wealth inthis wayit is to his honor and something to be said rather in his praise than against him that he still has it and something still niore to his praise and honor should be the fact that he has expended it as liberally and nobly and honorably as he has acquired it. There is not a man familiar with the charities of NewYork, or the charities outside of NewYork, which seek that city as the field of operation for the recruital of their resources, who does not know the contestant in this case is the 1st man to whom they all go and the man from whom they come with the largest contributions. I do not think it was more just to reproach the contestant with the companionship attributed to him in the terrible sentence of Ciceros invective which he applies to the associates of Catiline, that the murderers, thieves, scoundrels, and rase als were all to be found, as the gentleman has with some freedom interpreted the passage, in the parlors of the contestant. Wel, sir, I erhups stretch the matter a little too far, but do not see how I can avoid the conclusion that the intention was to carry the impression that these men were in the parlors of the contestant for the same purpose and with the same motives which brought the companions of Catiline into his presence. I do him no injustice when I say he knows better than that. He knows no man ever stood in the presence of the contestant venturing to make any proposition dishonorable in any way. The sitting member will agree with me they were there for the purpose of being consulted as witnesses, and not as participants in any crime. I rose simply to protest against personal in justice done to the contestant in this case, and I do not wish to enter into any further discussion of the matter.