Mr. BROOKS continued: mr. Speaker: I have come over to my old seat, the seat I occupied in the last Congress, and I desire to call the attention of the members of the ComElections to somethings which they have reported. Before doing so, however, I ask the attention of the House to the construction of the committee. It is compOsed of 7 Republicans and only two Democrats. Let me call the attention of the House to the fact that there are 6 lawers upon one side and but one on the other. on. by Mr. Rauronn, who is a member of the committee a man abundantl adapted from his practical business knowle go for a position on the ComCommerce or the ComNavAffrs or the comPostOffice has been selected to adjudicate upon a legal matter. I do not complain of the way in which The SPEAKER has organized the committees. I know that he meant to do right, and that he had but little material in the paucity of the Democratic number here for the construction of commit tees; and I take pleasure in here paying in tribute to the fairness and impartiality wi which he has presided over all uni deliberations. What I wish to take notice of, however, is the political construction of the bench of judges 7 to two. I do not mean to complain of the action of the ComElections or its honorable chairman. I have taken occasion to exress my confidence in his honesty and upri tness, and I trust he will continue to deserve the compliment; but it has been my impression ever since the discussion in the case of Bruce vs. Loan that, beaten there, he has relied upon the party majority and never means to report against his party again. The House overruled his decision in that case, not withstanding he advocated and maintained it with great vigor and great force. The impression made upon his mind has never been favor able to his imartiality since and when Peall the attention of the House to some facts which I will now submit, with all due respect for that committee, I hope the other si e of the House will again overrule the decision of this committee, and not hold that decision to be binding upon the House if the facts of the case do not sustain it. Perhaps no more complicated election case was ever submitted to the HoRep than this. There are nearly a ousaud pages of printed matter to be read. It is impossible for anyone man, unless he is dee ly interested in it all, to read the whole of at testimony. I have heard of but one man on that side of the House who has read the whole of it throughout from be inning to end; and hence when I say that the chairman of the committee has not read the testimony and I am sure when I call his attention to the facts to which I will now refer, he will agree that he has not read it throughout then he owes it to me and to the House to reconsider the judgment which he has submitted to the House. On the 1st page of their report. the majority of the committee say: "The contestant, however, confined his proofs to the allegationsaffectin 4 recinctsonl, namely. 13th district of t to rig iteenth war. 15th district of the 18th ward. 3rd district of the 21st ward and the 7th district of the 21st ward. That is true. "And the sittin memberconfinedhisown prooftn a reply to that o eredby the contestantin relation to these precincts. It thereforebecameunnecessary for the committeeto examinefurther the other alle gationson the oneside and the other." That is not true and now I ask the chair man of the committee, and I hope he will not avail himself of his parliamentary privilege of silence not to answer the question, is not that statement an error? On the contrary, did I not in my specification at the beginning, and also at some length in my brief, call the attention of the committee to the 13th district of the 21st ward, to which the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] called his attention yesterday 3 Yet the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Dawns]g has omitted in his report to give the least attention whatsoever to it. Nmy, I would be happy to hear him upon that subject.