Mr. DAWES. The committee make no such claim. If in friend had been attentive to what has already been said he would have learned that that fact of itself and alone is not regarded as evidence of fraud. But that taken with other thinfls is one of the links in the chain of evidence that proves there was fraud and if my friend cares to look over this book of contested election cases, I will suggest to him to read the case of Blair vs. Barrett, and see what is said there, and what use the committee made of that very kind of evidence in that case, and what the House did in conclusion of the case. Now, I want the attentionof my friend to this statement. You cannot double the vote in a little district that you can build a fence around in an hour you cannot double the vote in such a district in a single year without being able to find some traces of it. You cannot double the vote in a single precinct in the city of NewYork without being able to find some traces of it. There will be some new house built, some new family, some new resident in the district. The cannot vote without being residents of the district. Now, how was it in regard to this district in which the vote was doubled in a single year? Not only was there no new habitation erected in the district, but some of the old ones had been pulled down. There was no new family in this district known to any of those parties; there was no evidence that there was any new comer in the district and the evidence of one of the inspectors of the board of registry was that the register had been incorrectly made, by the clerk purposely puttin down wrong numbers and wrong streets and there is evidence that the men could not be found at those numbers and on those streets, who were recorded as havm voted on these streets and numbers. There is evidence that, to a large extent and %. in this Nmen who were acquainted with the district , i its residents, and who went around from house to house, were unable to find these voters any where. There is evidence that one of these parties attempted, while the other did not, to test the registry by a canvass of the district; and the evidence of the man who made the canvass was excluded on the motion of the sit ting member, because it was in the form of an aflidavit the contents of which have never been before the committee in any way.