Mr. FARNSWORTH. Well, as to that, I do not know as much, perhaps, as the gentleman. who says he has lived in the city of NewYork. I am inclined to think, however, that if the fact was known it would be found that while most of the whisky shops are engaged by the Democrats, the Republicans have an equal share at least in the lager beer saloons. Another witness introduced by the contestant is Myers. It seems that this man had been a deputy provost marshal in NewYork, and he went about the district asking if A, B, C, and D lived in this or that shanty, or at this or that place. It appears from the testimony of one Iracy, who was, I believe, one of the inspectors or canvassers, that he (Tracy) followed Myers about, and that he ascertained that the people in the district were afraid when Myers came around inquirin where they lived that he was after them for t to draft. So when he inquired of a woman, for instance, w“hether Tom McLaughlin lived there she said No; Tom has been dead these 2 years. But when Tracy came around, afterward, they explained why they misled Myers, that knowing him to be a deputy marshal they were afraid he was after drafting them. It appears from the testimony of Tracy, who was an old resident in the district, havinglived there upward of 20 years, that a very large number of those whom Myers could not find, and who he swore did not reside in the district, were found and identified by Tracy. One swears negatively that he could not find them, and the other positively that he did find them. In many cases Myerss list was imperfect; he had got the names wronglyspelt, and in some instances he had the wrong number and wrong street. Tracy corrected this, and found the men that Myers could not. 1 do not say that the evidence shows that Tracy found every body, but it does show that he found many of the men that Myers swears did not live in the district. This simply leaves in the case of this district, as in the case of the 15th district, a presumption more or less strong that there were some men who voted at that election who were not qualified., I do not understand that a single witness whose name appeared on the poll list came before the officers in this case and swore that he was not a voter. I do not understand that anybody who attended that election, with the exception of Geoghegan, swears that he saw anyone vote who was not a voter. I think he is the only witness who swears that anybody voted who was not entitled to vote. But he swears at wholesale. He says, when asked how many of those illegal voters voted for Mr. Brooks, “I guess, may be, I reckon about 30.” and in answer to the very next interrogatory he swears positively that there were 30, and that he gave many of them tickets and again, shortl afterward, he swears that he gave them all tic ets to vote and yet the majority of this committee in their report are constantly referring to the 30 illegal ballots in that district as traced to the vote for Brooks. After admitting that this man is not worthy of credit, they talk about subtracting these 30 votes from the majority for Mr. Brooks, when there is no corroborating evidence or circumstance, nothing but the bare statement of this miserable fellow upon which to base the fact. Now, sir, I want to know if it becomes the HoRep to unseat a member 11 on such testimony as this. But I will not ctain the House longer. There is a great mass of testimony in this case which I have not read. I have read the testimony referredto in the report, and a portion of the rest. That is all that I suppose necessary. I have not examined particularly the testimony in regard to the other precincts that are referred to. because the charges are not sustained in reference to them. I will, however mention the counter charge of the sitting member with reference to one of the other precincts. The roof shows that in another district where Do ge received a large majority, the canvassers, before they had completed their work, left the canvassers room. went across the street for refreshments, and were gone about an hour, leaving the ballots lying on the table and persons present about tie room. lam inclined to think thatvif we had had a fact like that occurring in a district that gave a majority for Brooks. my friendfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes] would have used it with terrible effect. There is no proof that there was any tampering with the votes in the absence of the canvassers, or that any of the ballots were stolen or missing. Nobody cliarges any such thing. But common prudence requires that the canvassers shall not leave their ballots lying about loosely on the table with persons present in the room while they go away. t furnishes an opportunity for tampering with the vote, for stutling the ballot boxes, and for adding or subtracting ballots. I do not pretend that there was any such thing done in that case. I only state the fact and so. that if such a thing had occurred in one of the districts where Brooks had a large majority, we should have heard the voice of the eloquent chairinan of the committee [Mr. Dawns] ringing in denunciation of so gross a violation of the duty of canvassers. Let us do in this case as I hope we do in eve other case. I shall certainly try to do my duty in the light of whatever information I may obtain in these cases, whether a man is politically my friend or my foe, whether he votes with me or against me. So far aspersons are concerned I shall act blindlyin regard to all such considerations. I shall act precisel as I would if I were sitting upon the bone as a judge, and was called upon to de cide a case between a Republican and a Dem ocrat who appeared before me as parties litigant. It is none of my business what their polities are and if I could admit for a moment that my judgment would be warped from what my conse ience tells me my duty is in the case, I should blush from the crown of my head to my heels. Now, considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that a case is not made out here which justifies the House in unseating the sitting member and putting the contestant in his place.