Mr. SHELLABARGER. I answer “yes” to both questions and I shall full consider their effect as I proceed, if the gentleman will just be patient. It makes the judgment so efficacious in controlling the election upon election day that if the judgmentbe in favor of the voter, and his name up ears on the list, that judgmentis conclusive of his right to vote, unless it is appealed from by somebody, and that appeal may be taken by a challenge at the time of the offer to vote. at if the decision be the other way then it is made so effectual in its power in controlling the election thatitis unlawful to permit the one to vote whom the decision is against, unless that person shall establish by legal proofs 2 thin s: (1.) Tie reason why he did not appear on the day for correcting the registry. (N NewYork Laws, age 26.) (2.) hat he is known to a householder witness to be an inhabitant of the district and giving the residence. (NewYork Laws, page 26.) 4. such being the power of a registry judgment under NewYork laws in controlling the action of the inspectors of election in conducting it, it is utterlyidleto assertthat their action is not in law made part of the election, and their due action and qualification must be as scrupulously guarded and insisted upon as must that of the inspectors of election. IV. From the foregoing propositions itfollows in law irresistibly that as the judicial judgments of the board of registers and that of the inspectors in holding the election are intermin gled and blended into and hecome, oue act, resulting by their combined force in admitting or rejecting the votes of all the people, therefore whenever it is proved that the registry judgment was from any cause wholly illegal, and also that it did enter into the election and was used in controlling it, that proof by necessity invalidates, not, mark it, the vote of any legal voter, but the primafacie correctness of the proceedings and returns of the boards of election officers whose roccedings are thus proved to be unreliable. his is by reason of their being proved destitute of the very safe guards which the law had carefully provided to make them reliable. Hence the law sets these returns and certificates based n on them aside as instruments of evidence an compels him who relies upon them to look for and produce better proof of who voted. V. hi om this it again results (or rather it is the same thing) that if this registry was wholly illegal and was used in controlling the election in the lifleenth district of the 18th ward, then that fact destroys, not the election, but only the primafacie correctness of the returns of that election, and throws upon them who allege it to have been in fact legal voting, to prove it so. This proof all the people, as well gentleman as Mr. Brooks, have the right to make and thus set u their will and choice. V. That this is not only reasonable but the law as settled by this House. I now refer the House to 1. Howard at. Cooper, 2 Contested Elections, 282. 2. Blair vs. Barrett, 2 Contested Elections, 808 and 815. 8. Coffroth and Koontz at this term, where soldiers votes were rejected, because, as the committee say in their report "Of the oight alleged asrcjected returns for Adams county, the tlrccfroiutho hospitals, namcly: Mower Cuyler and McClellan (papers 21,24.25) are by all the accout tciceaated mtiottbeedetnot biteletdootodacfneyectotvnesliyd certified. he law in relation to the certifying; simin, and rmeitnuirsntienrgin with the poll book the evidence of the ad the oath to the officersof the election sections 5 and 15 ) was wholly disregarded. See also on this no nt the caseof Blair v.Barret artletts Contested election Cases, page 315, an cases there cited.) So also in the caseofcompany 0, 202nd regiment. (paper28. where only one judge of election appears to have beena pointed or sworn, or acted.t ecommitteewere ali e unanimous in their opinion that the return was in ivnalidt.h(r section Senate and House) the 0a0w.c Gxeporeesrs, gsyarrctlqeuttirs Contested Election Cases, page282.) he returns of comzanyI, 210th regiment. (paper35, )do not show that.two of the jud cs or the clerks were sworn, accrtificate of which the law (Sections 5 and 15 )ex ressly rgguires. (Seealsocaseof Blair in. Barrett. n. ove cit. )"