Mr. DAWES. I was calling attention to the fact that while the sitting member had excluded, by the inexorable rule of law, testimony offered by the contestant, which was most importantin its character, if true, in regard to the fraudu lent. character of this vote, excluded it because it was an aflidavit, yet unknown to the committee he has got together some affidavits and circulated them privately among members of this House and then when he had the last word he has had those affidavits read at the Clerks desk. Now, I submit it to the judgment of the House, not to that of the sitting member, to say whether or not that Was fair and right. I want to show what has been the effect of all that on the part of the sitting member. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. that the House recommit this ckaIseIto tre gommittee of Elections. Sir, it ought to be recommitted to the committee if one of 2 thin has happened: if the committee have not dea t fairly With the sitting member, or if he has not had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Now, I do not intend to say anything more in regard to whether the committee have dealt fairly with him. I But I wish to state a few things to enable the House t9 decide whether the sitting member has bad or not a full and fair opportunity to be heard, and I make the statement in the hearing of all the members of the ComElections. The committee commenced this hearing early in January last. It was a long time before they could get the sitting member to a hearing and when the committee began the hearin it was without any testimon at all on beha fof the sitting member. To their inquiry where his testimony was he gave this response: “I propose to submit this case to the committee 1st upon the testimony produced and filed by the contestant and referred to the committee. Then if you find a case against me, I will introduce new testimony and ask you to hear that.” The reply of the committee to that was. that that was not the way to try a case; that he mustquestion that is I objeet to that do not thin put in his testimony, which was then in the Capitol and within his control, but notreferred to the committee; that he must have that referred with the rest, and the whole case must be tried together. Now, I ask the House whether that was fair or not, I ask the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD] because he is the mover of this resolution to have the case again tried by the committee. I ask him as a gentleman of great experience whether it was fair for us to say to the sitting member, “We will not try this case one side at a time; put in your testimony along with that of the contest ant, and when you say you are read we will try the whole case?” Thereupon he did put in his testimony and it was printed in one of these books of evidence. Then when we again come to a hearing of the case the sitting member made a new proposition, that we should try the case upon these 2 books, and then if the committee found that he contestant had the right to the seat, the sitting member would ask time to take more testimony. The reply of the committee to him was, “That is not the way to try a case; make up your mind whether you will go to trial on this record or not; if you are ready to go to trial upon this record the committee are ready to hear you; if you are not ready then say so.” I ask the House to decide whether that was fair or not. The sitting member took a day to decide whether he would go to trial upon this testimony; at the next hearing became in and said he was ready and then it was that the committee spent weeks in hearing him and the contestant and the sitting member gave us notice that it would be May before we got through with this case. N ow, what comes from circulatin these privato affidavits hero 1 Why, the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIEI.D] after seeing these private affidavits, and hearing the declarations of the sitting member in regard to them, comes in here and offers a resolution to recommit this case to the committee, and thus enable the sit ting member to attain the very end he seeks. What was that resolution 7 “ Resolved That the testimony taken as to Hon. James Broo s berecommitted to the ComElections, with instructions to report especiallythe facts asto the custom, under the aweof New lork. of appointing inspectorsof the registry of elections not from the particular election istrlcts in which they reside; also.the factsrespecting the verification by Brooks of the votesfor Brooks in the 15 thdistrict, with power to sendfor personsand papers, and power to reinstitute judicial reexamination in said district." That Mr. Brooks do so and so; not even that the contestant be allowed an opportunity to reply to that testimony. tis proper for me to say that such is the honesty of the Gentfrom Ohio that he never can be caught in any mans trap, and when it was pointed Out to him that common justice required that the contestant should also have an ovportunity to take testimony, he immediately modified the resolution which the affidavits had prompted him to offer, and put itin such a shape as to provide that both parties should take testimony. I only submitted the original form of the resolution to show that the affidavits had tended in a certain degree to produce exactly the effect which the sitting member contemplated when he gave us notice in February that he would make us try this case over a in on new testimony.