Mr. MARSHALL. Daniel Brady was 1st appointed, but declined to act, and then An drew Brady was substituted in his place. Heis no more a self constituted clerk than is any other clerk appointed by the ins caters to act in such cases. You might as we l say that all clerks are self constituted. Andrew Brady was just as much a clerk of election as was anyone; and if there was an omission to qualify him we have the decision of the supreme court of the State of NewYork, in the case of The People vs. Cook, 4 Selden, that such an omission does not vitiate the ballot. If he was apointed clerk, and acted as such, he was an o cer de facto, and the omission to swear him is no round for attacking and defeating the ballot. Vhy is the fact brought forward with such so lemnity that Andrew Brady was a selfconstitnted clerk, and acted through a fraud? I say that in this 15th district there is no evidence of fraud, either in the conduct of the clerk or the registrars, Or any other officers, in making up the register, or on the day of election. There is not one particle of legal evidence of fraud there, of any evidence that would convict any man of any offense on earth before any court and yet we have it very solemnly paraded before as that. Andrew Brady was a self constituted clerk and acted fraudulently. Yet he testifies that he was a Republican, and not in the interest of Mr. Brooks, and at that.election cast his vote in favor of Mr. Lincoln and that was the case with the majority of the officers of election on that day; they were the partisans of Mr. Dodge, the contestant and yet we have this brought forward here in the most solemn manner in order to show that Mr. Brooks and his friends were guilty of such frauds that this whole district should be disfranchised. Imust say, with all respect for gentlemen, and raising no question about the fairness and impartiality of any member of this House, thht such an enormity was never before attempted to be perpetrated in a legislative body as would be that of giving the contestant a seat in this House upon the evidence adduced. Now, I want to call the attention of legal gentlemen from NewYork to what I am about to say. The chairman of the ComElections misapprehends entirely the character of the board of registry. He calls them a board of judges, and from the manner in which he discussed that point you would be led to think that every elector in the district was compelled to go before this board and apply to have his name registered; and if objection is made he must produce evidence of his right to vote there, and that the board of registry have no power to not until that is done. Now, I insist {hat this is an erroneous construction of the aw. We have precisely such a law as this in the State of Illinois; and yet no man in that.whole State ever dreamed of giving such a construction to it. I have never been before a board of registry in my life; nor do any of myneigh here ever think of going before them. The board assemble at the time prescribed by law, and names and information are furnished to them by anyone. The board examine each name, and if satisfied that it is the name of a legal voter, they register it. It makes no difference how or from whom they obtain the names. What matters it in this case if this bar keeper did put down names on his account books of such as he thought were legal voters, and furnish them at the proper time to the board of registry? Were they placed it on the registry without the consent of the regular board“! certainly not. Some of these registrars were ab sent a part of the time; they did not remain there a lday; butthey came back and examined the register, approved it, and certified it according to the forms of law. I know not what may be the practice in other districts in NewYork; but I know that in Illinois, where the law is almost precisely similar, the voters of the district rarely think of looking over the registry to see whether their names are there or not. If they happen to do so and find their names omitted, they can at the 2nd meeting, one week before the election, ask that their names be put upon the register; and it is done. The members of the board do not sit there as a court; and it is not absolutely required that a majority of them shall remain there all day. There is nothing in the law forbidding anyone of them from absenting himself for awhile, and on his return looking over the list to satisfy himself as to its correctness. At most to do so is but an irregularity, and cannot operate to make the register a nullity. Is there any evidence that anybody, by their action, was de prived of the opportunity to have his name registered? Certainly no wrong was done unless some one was injured; and there is no roof that the right of any man to vote was jeopardized by the conduct of the board. I ask gentlemen from NewYork, all of whom must be affected by the construction to be placed upon this act, whether they are willing to sanction the construction contended for by the chairman of the committee, the result of which would be, that if the officers whose duty it is to appoint a place for holding the election fail to do so until the time fixed by law for the meeting of the registr board, or any officer of election fails in the discharge of his duty, all the voters of the district must be disfrnnchised. If it is so, then the vote or the district must be thrown out without any further evidence. If it does not have that effect, then the matter ought not to be thrown in here as a make weight, because it is entitled to no consideration whatever. There is another fact urged as affecting the validity of the poll. The inspectors or regisv trars were not residents of the election district. The law is somewhat vague in regard to that, but it seems to me that the law does require that the registrars shall be residents of the election district; I mean the law as it stood at that time. But the people of NewYork, many of them at least, and there will be further evidence on this point adduced before the House, understood the law to refer to the Assembly district, and the Legislature has since passed an act which is now in force, and which I imagine is an adoption of the popular construction, declaring that the registrar shall reside in the Asembly district and need not reside in the election district. That is the law as it now stands in the State of NewYork, and the old law was so construed and acted upon in many of the districts of the city, those in which Mr. Dodge obtained a majority, as well as in this district which is thus impeached. The evidence will be exhibited to the House that in some of the election districts in which Mr. Dodge received a majority the registrars were not residents thereof. Mr. Speaker, I think I have, without dwelling further upon it, made it sufficiently clear to all who favor me with their attention that the chairman of the committee has been mistaken in the construction of the registry law of NewYork, and that there was no expectation on the part of the framers thereof, and such is not e practice under it, for the board to sit as a court, that all electors are to appear before them, and that they must decide upon evidence adduced as to the right of each to vote. There is no such practice. They are to use any means within their power, from recol lection, from the copy oftelast register, or any other means within their knowledge, for making out a list. If they can be satisfied upon their oaths that it is a true register, this is all that can be required. If they know of an elector who lives in the district, although he maybe 1,000 miles from home, it is their duty to return him. Another statement is that the election was not hold at the place designated. I hold, sir, if that were true, yet unless somebody had been misled and deprived of the right of voting that. would not affect the election in any way whatever. Suppose that the house designated had been burned down, or that the owner of the place had seen proper to refuse to allow the election to be he dtere, are the people, then, not to be represented? such is not the proper construction of the law, and such construction would not, I think, he placed upon it by any lawyer on the earth who calmly and maturely considered the question. What are the facts in regard to this place of election? The place designated was “at James Thompsons.” This James Thompson was the proprictor of a liquor store on a corner let 100 feet in length, I believe. The election was not held in his store, but on another part of the lot designated by some as a stable. It was in a public place and frontingon the street, notin the liquor store, but it was held at “James Thompsons, " and on the lot designated and even if it should be held that there was a slight deviation from the point designated it is clear that no legal voter was thereby misled or prevented from casting his vote. There is another statement in the report that a canvasser in one of the districts was drugged and fell asleep during the canvass of the votes. It is not claimed that this district should be thrown out. Then why is this stated? Is it with the expectation of producing the imression that Mr. Brooks had been around rug ging the officers of election? Where is there any evidence of the drugging of anybody? I have examined the testimony of this can vasser himself, who was a lie publican, and a supporter of Mr. Dod e, and he testifies that. he was not drugged; that he remained awake all the time that he was engaged in canvassing the oll all da, and until 2 or 3 oclock in t a night. e says that he did at very much wearied, but that he remained awoke during the time. If there is any evidence that he was dragged I have been unable to find it, although I know that it was suggested by theingenious counsel for Mr. Dodge before the committee. I am afraid the honorable chair man of the committee, in drawing up his re port, has forgotten the real evidence, and has adopted as facts and confounded with the evidence the statements of the counsel of Mr. Dodge. Is this one of the make weights iu the case, separately amounting to nothin, but which, when brought together, and para ed in solemn array before the House, may produce some effect upon the minds of gentlemen who cannot take time to read the evidence for themselves? I know, sir, that there was no improper intention on the part of the chairman of the committee, but having come to the conclusion that Mr. Dodge is entitled to the seat, he has entered into the argument of the case with that. feeling with which counsel generally enter into the argument of causes which they desire to gain. Having 1st made n his mind that he is right, he has brought orward arguments which he thinks will produce that conviction in the minds of others. It is natural that he should do so; but standing here with different convictions, believing that there is no legal evidence in the case that would authorize the House to unseat Mr. Brooks, much less to give the seat to the contestant, I think it. my duty to bring to the attention of the House this discrepancy between the evidence in the case and the allegations in the report of the committee. The object of all election laws is to facilitate, not to defeat elections. Registry laws are but directory for that purpose, and cannot be held to be more sacred or of more importance than the sacred right of the elector to cast his vote. It will never do to place a higher value on stat utory regulations than on the right of suffrage itself. he whole object of a registry law is, not to throw obstacles around the right of the elector to vote, but to allow him to come untrammeled to the polls, and cast his vote in such manner as to secure approper reflexof the sentiment of the In presenting geopIe. the law bearin upon cases of this kind, I am afraid I shall to e u too much of the time of the House, but the law is very clear. In the State of NewYork, for instance, the State from which this contest comes, in the leading case of The People vs. Cook, 4 Seldens Reports, the court sustain ever position that I take. I will read a paragrap or two. The court referring to the decision in the court below says: “ The learnedjudgedecided.in his direction to the jury. that the votesgivenin the western district of the 1st word of the city of Buffalo were properly can vassedand allowed to Mr. Welch. notmt standin the inspectorstook the oath of office upon a boo called Wattss Psalms and Hymns, and not upon the Gospels.” To this the defendants counsel excepted. The court says: "This exception is not well taken. for tworeasons 1st, the neglect of the inspector: or clerks, totake any oath would not have Vitiated the election. It subjected those adieu. to anindictment. Was willful." The court refers to quite a number of cases to show that a failure on the part of the officers to take the oath, although it is an indictable offense in them, does not vitiate or allect the election; and then further remarks that “Thesohand numrous other cases, showthat the actsofpu lie officorsbeingin by colorof an election, or aigiaiiintmenat, revalid, so far as the public is concern " Again: hi“mffhethsetaotuattch, requires that the inspectors, after shall appoint two clerks. who shall take the constitutional oath. Thll is directory. If no clerks can be procured the election is not to fail. The inspector: must perform the dot which ordinarily is devolved upon the clerks. he failure of the clerks to take the path did not rendortheir acts veid. The occasional interference of moreinspectors than 3 does not prejudice the return. since the whole election wase onducted by inspectorswhowere at least such (lefucw and for the most of the time by those who weresuchdejure." and again: “An olfieorileado is one who comesinto office by color of a legal appointment or election. Ilis actsin that capacity are as valid so far as the public are concerned. As the acts of anofficerdcjure. His titloean not be inquired into collaterally. The doctrine on this subjectwill be found in the following cases.” Citing a number of adjudicated cases. Now, this case of The People vs. Cook settles [the question of law in dispute here. I intended to refer to some other adjudicated cases; I am afraid of taking u too much time, but they are in entire accorance with the views I have taken. I will refer to Carpenters case, 2 Parsons Select Cases, page 631), where the principles oflaw bearing upon queslions of this kind are discussed by the court. The tendency of the law and of a] the decisions isthat tech nicalities of this kind shall not be allowed to firevail against the voice of the people. In the a“rpenter ease the court says: Very soonafterthe passage of the law, giving this ictoyurt authority to hearand udjudgeupon the valid of the electionof county officers, questionsof this character presented themselves to our attention. We sawan fclt thatwe were called to assumea new and delicate urisdlction, which if notexorcised with prudenee an circumspection, would involve thoeourt in the heat and excitement of every contested election inign tahllecsouuenhtyt.o a felt t a necessityof assim other legal proceedings. We demandedof the parties loskmg to impeachan election return preciseness and exactitude of allcation; refusin to recognizeall general chur cs. I iid we confirm the petitionerstothe specific urgesmade. Refusing to pornntthem.underthe pretenseof a precise allegation to cater into apothar experimental attack on an election return, with the hopeof find in something in it which might affect its validity. a requiredthat ii petition. contestingan election return. should be a thing, complete and orfoct in iintsgelf. settingforth preciseallegations, an contain allegaaltl.ion nese aensdsary statements to showthat if such statementsweretrue.the electionof the returped candidatemust, of course, be vacated. othingloss than this, wedeemed, was due to a thing so solemn as an election return, which is the embodimentot the popular will. the expressionof the sovereign powerof the only sovereign known to our Constitution t.htohsee epleeocptiloen. sAwwearere equally the witchitiozeunr s lglves bound by solemn oath: to the faithful execution of their duties. we felt that the fundamental mum; of by the Luv that all actspurporting to bedone individuals ilelimo exercising such legalauthority, O to be presumedto be done rightly. applied to hem With the some forco as it higher would beto us by a tribunal. Hence wedemanded, as is always demandedwhen the actions and doings of judicial, or semi udioial oillcers areimpeached, even forinfor mality. muchmore for fraud. that those who make such an assault must be prepared not only to statein what ozactwny these officers have violatedtheirduty. but that they have violated such duty in a mannerso as to nullify the electionof the individual apparently chosen by the people. Itcuoh olllcerswerechargedwith offense s against tgo law IDCUDilllqllllfian election, if it was charged that they lliltl omitte to perform certain directory duties required by law, We said they merit it, and Oughtto receivepunishmentfor the offenso, but the pooples ho not be punished forths defaults of their agents. that becausefrom “faithfulness or i ranee, officershad disobey oilor negocted the ileglu atory mandates of the electionlaw n co ductin tchleection. that this misconduct lhouldnot isfrane ice peopleof the couptywho had not participatedin nor sanctioned their illegiil acts. We sawthat by so dom. insteadofpunishing anoffice rfor violating the nice on law. woshould d ufranehise the jieoplo of a dpirsintrciciptl.ed Thpiasrtwiseaenosutold not but seewoul invite unto detect an honest macjoormity mbitysiuned hirueficte, nwshcisienhotrhdeeyr could not overcomeby direct, moans." I might cite a number of cases to the same effeet, and will refer gentlemen who wish to examine the law in regard to this matter to Sker ritts Housein the same volume, where this subject is very fully discussed. We are departing from all the principles of law if we allow more infor mality, if we allow neglect or i orance on the part of officers, to defeat the will of the electors of the district, and to put in here a man who was not ehoeen by a majority nor by a plurality of the people of the district, to represent them here. Look at former elections, and look at subsequent elections in this district. They show that the votes were very largely against the views of the manwho now claims the seat, and there can be no honest pretense that Mr. Dodge could under any circumstances haVe received a greater vote than Mr. Brooks at that election. There is no such pretense. There can be no honest pretense that Mr. Dodge received a majority or a plurality of the legal vote of that district. But upon a more technical objection it is proposed to throw out election districts, the effect of which will be to leave Mr. Dodge with an apparent majority. I will turn now to the 15th district of the 18th ward, and I will dwell some little time upon that, because the case turns mainly upon it. If the House holds the poll of that district to be a void poll, and one that we cannot receive, then, under the hypothesis of the ComElections, Mr. Brooks is not on titled to retain his seat. I hold, however, that even in that case, the proper result would not be to place Mr. Dodge in a seat to which he was never elected, but to send the case back to the people. Now, what are the specifications in regard to this 15th district of the 18th ward? Inasmuch as the case turns principally upon this district, I call the attention of the House to the fact that there is no charge by the contestant that there was any fraud or i larit in the 15th district of the eightoeuig wa There is no charge in the pleadin that in the 15th district of the 18 t ward there was any fraud, or any irregularity of any character. The specification is that there were illegalities “in the 15th district” without naming any ward.