Mr. MARSHALL. This testimony, it will be observed, of Dean and Phelps, was not brought forward in conformity to any rule of evidence. Dean was not examined before the "OPE? tribunal. no notice had been given, an the chair man of the committee tells us that that evidence was ruled out and would not be considered by the committee. Now, it seems to me tobe a very strange fact that this evidence which was excluded, which was not before the committee, which has no more business here than if it had never existed, should be brought before the House in this manner and dwelt upon with such gravity. comlaint is made of Mr. Brooks, the sitting mom or, that lie objected to it, for I can construe the language of the report in no other way than as an intimation that by taking advantage of a mere technical objection, no way affecting the merits, he had excluded impor that evidence, which. if admitted, would have made out a strong case against him. Mr. Phelps was also introduced, who proposed to swear what Dean had told him, and the chairman tells us that that also was decided not to be proper evidence and was therefore excluded. We are therefore deprived of what might otherwise be very valuable testimony to lead us to a proper conclusion in this case. How do we know whether this evidence is valuable or not? It can only be known by looking into the evidence. Who ever before heard of a witness being excluded and not permitted to swear in court, and thou the judge retiring and asking him what he would have sworn if he had been a competent witness, and then basing his decision on that as: parts statement? it seems to me, from the reading of the report, that the chairman of the committee has icrmitted this affidavit. which is not evidence, having no business before the House and not properly referred to here. to have undue Weigfft on his mind in coming to his conclusions in this case. How do we know that Dean was a responsible witness? Who tells us so? How do we find it out unless we take histestimony, and that is admitted not to be before the House or the committee? How do we know he had made a diligent examination of the persons who had voted in this election? Why should the House be informed of a matter of [this kind that is not proven and could not be proven under the circumstances? How do we know that the contestant omitted, by mistake, to place the name of this witness in his notice to the sitting member? How do we know that the deposition was taken in the presence of Mr. Brooks and his counsel? We are informed of none of these facts properl or legitimately. It seems to me that this evideuci having been excluded, having no right to come before the committee, having no right to come before the House, it ought not so solemnly to have been stated by the chairman of the committee in making his report of the facts to the House. As I before stated, it is not customary with us in the West to exclude a witness, to decide that he is not competent to be sworn and then privately inquire of him what. he would have testified to i he had been a competent witness, and make up our judgment on his outside and exparte statement. Now, I cannot account for this proceedingin any other way than this: that the chairman of the ComElections [Mr. Dawns] having made up his mind, honestly no doubt, that Mr. Brooks ought not to be permitted to hold his seat, and that Mr. Dodge, the contestant, Ought tobe admitted in his place, has, in his examination of the case, permitted this excluded exparte affidavit to control his judgment in making up his decision. Now, this is a strange kind of proceeding, a strange kind of law. It may answer in some countries, but we are not accustomed to this kind of proceedings where I have been in the habit oip appearing before courts of justice. Some years ago, in one of the courts of Illinois, a lady filed her petition for a divorce, charging thather husband, wlfile he was a very good sort of man to hoe corn, go to mill, and attend to otherlittle matters of that kind, as a husband he was just no man at all. In the West, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we always give reliefin such cases. To establish her charge she introduced a witness, an old lady versed in such matters, and by her testimony she made out a very bad case against the defendant. The old lady was cross examined by a little gimlet cyed lawyer who worried her very much, and she got a little irritated. Finally, the lawyersaid, “Admittin thatthe defendant is not much as a husband, O you not think he would do?” “I Well, " replied the old lady, will tell you just the fact about it. I suppose he would do back yonderiu Massachusetts, where you come from, but out here in the West he wont begin to answer. Here we want men.” [Laughterg and so in regard to a proceeding of this kin. It. may answer in some places, but it seems to me that before this high court, in the trial of one of ourpeers, touching his right to hold a seathere, and bound by the established laws of the land, it cannot possibly be entitled to any consideration at our hands. We are told also, in this same extract, that Brennan and Jung were introduced by the contestant, and that their testimony corroborates to some extent what goes before. Corroborates what? Why, corroborates the testimony of deaii and Phelps; because no other witnesses have been introduced for the purpose of proving fraud in this election. Leaving out what is said about the enrollment, there is no reference to other witnesses, and the testimony of those witnesses has been excluded. N ow, who ever heard of a witness who has not been sworn, who was not permitted to testify being corroborated by some other witness who was broughton the stand? Who ever heard of a proceeing of that kind in any court of justice! A witness is excluded, is not permitted to testify; and yet some other witness is examined by the opposite party in reference to some other matter, not to oontradwt or impeach the testimony of this excluded witness. Yet it is claimed that the wit,ness excluded is corroborated, and in that way the case is made out. It seems to me that that is a most extraordinary kind of logic, unknown to the books, and having no parallel in the pradtice of any judicial tribunal on earth. But there is/another thing that is brought in as a make weight in this case. It is said that the vote in this district was unusually large, and therefore the election there must have been fraudulent. Is it an evidence of fraud that the vote at one election is much larger than at some other election? Is there any man on this floor who does not know that frequently in ordinary elections 1/2 of the voters do not go to the polls? Because there was a smaller vote in this district in 1863 than in 1864 does it follow that the voters were not there in 1863? Sir, in the gentlemans own State, the State of Massachusetts, I have no ticed the statistics of the elections, and that even in some of the important elections there the votedoes not exceed 1/2 of the number of voters which are proven by the census to reside in the State and so it is in many other States. It is only on extraordinary oc casions, when great excitement prevails, that there is anything like a full vote got out in any precinct anywhere in the U.S. But the evidence in the case explains this matter, and vindicates the correctness of the election in this district as fully and completely as anything of the kind can be explained and vindicated. On page 24 of the report, gentlemen will find acomparison between the re is try of this district, made in 1865after thise ection, and that made in the districts in which Mr. Dodge received a majority of votes, and also a corn arison of the vote in this 15th district with the vote in the Republican districts at this and other elections. This comparison shows that in those districts where Mr. Dodge received a majority, there was a much lar or falling off than in this 15th district, (in eed therewas no falling off in this district) where it is charged there must have been fraud. The registry shows that if there was fraud any where it was in the Dodge districts, and notin this 15th or Brooks district. I ask the Clerk to read the passage which I have marked in the re art of the minority. The clerk read, as follows:, "Under the newrevised regist not (act of1865) of NewYork, the registration of oughly voters wasthor reviewed and revised, and in that act the tendenc wasto out 011the foreignvote, supposedto be most y Democratic, by exacting the show of nut ruirgaidlizadteiomnapnadpse. rTshbiesfonree wtherer veigseisdtrrye. Gainsdtry by of 1865 and the vote of 1864and 1865 demonstrate, mathematically, the following facts: A CONTRAST. Democratic 15 district, Republican 30!district, 8thward. 18thward. Revised rezistry, 1865, 53) Revised rezistry, 1865, Vote in 446 Vote in 1864 Increase of registry Decrease of registry over vote. in 1865 from the vote of oflSG l. I 7 "The 1864 registryin the Democratic districtis thus demonstrated to have been correctby therevision of g1r8e6a5wt. hile the decreaseof 101ma single year throws doubt over the Republican district. ANOTHER CONTRAST Mackerelmllc (so nicknamed) and 5th avenuepolls contracted. Mackcreloillepoll 15th F havenue ll Bdd district, 81hward. m trier, 181du”ard. “ 1864. Falling off. 18 1865. Slocum.(Dem ) Barlow (Item) Total., Fallin: off. 1865. Slocum, (Dem) Barlow, (Rep). Total. 373 45 15 YiT ANOTHER CONTRAST. Democrla8t !];1511di district, Republican 21 district, ward. 18thward. I Revisedreizistr 1865, 530 Rovised registryJBffi, 588 Vote in 1864. 446 Voteiu 18M. 739 Increaseof1865reizis try over voteo11864, 84 Decrease of registry in 18.35from vote of 1864 “ Th01864registryof the Democratie district is again. hora as in contrast With the Republican district, demonstrated to becorrect and var anornna oorrrassr. Mackcrelmllc(m nicknamed) and another5th have nuepoll. 241 district 18thward, on 15th district, 182]w: ard. 5th avenue. 1864. 1864. Brooks. Falling off. I I Falling off. 230 1865. 1865. Slocum, (Dcm.). 37 For SecyState: Barlow, (Rep.). 45 Slocum, (Dem.). 1% Barlow, (B.ep.). 310 Total.;428 Total. “. 509 “There is no answering such overwhelming facts as those but by ileclaring the twogreat Dodged districttos b: las:Ifraudulent, as the Brooks districts is alleged e.