Mr.GARFIELD. I desire to occupy the attention of the House for a few moments. I have always voted, with perhaps a single exception, with the majority of the ComElections in the cases that they have reported to the House and it is with agreat deal offics itancy thatI differ with the ComElections now. Indeed, I do not say that I differ With them entirely in their conclusion, but I say this much: after a very careful reading of the majority report as well as the report of the minority, I am unwdling to vote to sustain either of them, as the case now stands before the House. New, I will ask attention to 2 or 3 points to show the reason why I am unwilling to vote to sustain either report, and why I desire further investigation tobe adbefore final action is taken upon this subject. There is a single sentence on the 1st page of the report of the majority which, it seems to me, ought to decide this matter at once. It is this: " Ifoaoh allegation and pleading of the 2 parti were stripped of everything but that which could properly O called a partioular specification of the very little would be left for cither. Now, it seems to me that is a very imcontent statement for the ComElections to start out with. They say that if the propositions of both parties were stripped of all verbiage, very little would be left to either and yet the committee go on to decide that enough is left to unseat one gentleman, and put t to other in his place. Then there are some discrepancies between the reports of the majority and the minority of the committee. In the report of the majority it is stated that only 4 districts are reported as doubtful and contested. Those 4 districts are named, and it is declared that those 4 districts only are in the contest. Yet the sitting member sets forth in his report as well as in his pleadings here that there is another districtin which the election was fraudulent, and on 4 different pa es, at 4 different places in the printed boo of evidence, testimony is introduced to prove that one other precinct in one ward of the city was fraudulent in its election, and yet the majority of the committee declare that only 4 precincts were brought into the contest at all. They have entirely ignored one voting precinct which the sittinw member alleges was fraudulent, and in rega to which he brings forward proof to sustain his statement. It seems to me that is an omission too remarkable to be passed over without notice. I am unwilling to vote to unseat any man here when the report of the committee neglects even to remark upon an allegation set forth in regular form. with proof submitted, whether good or bad I do not know, to sustain it. Now, one thin more: this whole case prae tically turns on the settlement of the question in relation to the 15th district of the 18th ward; for if the report of the majority be accepted in all other particulars and rejected in respect to that district, it still does not unseat Mr. Brooks. There are so many remark able collisions between the reports of the majority and the minority that I am unwilliu to act until some of them are cleared away or instance, in the very beginning of their report the majority allege that this 15th district of the 18th ward is only a part of the original 12th district and from that fact they proceed to argue that there being a large vote there. it must be. that the vote was fraudulent; the vote in the present 15th district being a little larger than the vote was in the old 12th district before the 15th district, as it is claimed, was taken from it. Now, the minority of the committee report that not only is the present 15th district not a fragment of the 0dtwelfth district, but that new territory was added to the extent ofihrcc times the area of the old 12th district. Now, this very remarkable discrepancy ought to be settled before the House is called upon to act on this question.