Mr. PAINE. Mr. Speaker, Iwns unable to agree with either the majority or niine rit of the ComElections in this case. for the 1st time I found myself “solitary and alone" in the committee. Of course it is hardly possiblethat I am right; and nevertheless I must either vote in accordance with my own convictions or, as a mere machine, in obedience to the judgment of others. In justice, therefore, to all concerned, I ought to state, in a few words, the considerations which are decisive of my vote. The case seems to me to hinge upon the question whether the invalidity of the register of the 15th district of the 18th ward is a sufficient ground for the rejection of the official returns of the canvasseis of that district. I am of the o inion that the reister was not prepared at tie place, in the m e, at the time, or by the persons authorized by law, and was of no validity; that it was used as a register at the polls, and that few of the vote! received were accompanied by the affidavits provided for by the registry law of New 1 orlt, in cases where the names of voters are not duly registered. But I am not satisfied that these are sufficient reasons for setting aside the poll. If the official returns of this district are shown to be so essentially erroneous or fraudulent that they cannot, with the aid of whatever corrections the evidence may furnish, indicate to us the will of the voters, they are certainly to be rejected. But the contestant has not shown that persons voted here who were not lawful voters; that either the in spectors of election orcanvassers were dishonest or partial in the performance of their duties; that they were not officers as well de jure as do facto; that the election at this pre cinct was characterized by any serious irregularities on the part of the people; or that the register, with all its faults, contained the name of any person who was not a lawful voter of the district. There is testimon which tends to show that one of the 3 inspectors was not sworn until afternoon; but, if this were established beyond doubt, it would not destroy the legality of the poll or the validity of the returns. An attempt was made to prove, by the aili davit of L. C. Dean and the deposition of W. W. Phelps, that many illegal votes were received. After the affidavit. of Mr. Dean was made, the contestants counsel proposed that the counsel of the sitting member should cross examine him thereon. This offer was declined on the 2 ounds, that there had been no direct examination, and that no legal notice of the proposed examination had been given. The afli avit of Mr. Dean was excluded by the committee, because it was an affidavit and not a deposition, and because legal notice had not been given; and the deposition of Mr. Phelps on this point was rejected, because it contained only hearsay testimony. If the statements of the affidavit and deposition were before the House in a legal form, coupled with the testimony offered on the same points by the sittin member, it would be impossible for me to hold the returns of the canvassers to be a reliable expression of the will of the people of the district, or to be valid as official returns. But the aflidnvit and deposition being excluded,i am Unable to say that the invalidity of the register will require the returns to be rejected unless fortified by roof that the votes were actu ally cast by law 111voters. On the contrary, I think that, notwithstanding the register was worthless, and its worthlessness reduced the amount of proof requisite to invalidate the official returns, yet it was not of itself decisive against their validity; but the burden of proof was still on the contestant to destroy them, by showing, either that illegal votes were cast, in such numbers or under such circumstances as to render the returns valuclcss as an indication of the popular will, or that the proceedings of the inspectors of the election or canvassers were so tainted with fraud or vitiated by illegalities, as to render the returns unworthy of credit. The registry law, in the section relating to the duties of inspectors of elections, provides that no votes “ shall be received, ” if the names of the persons offering to vote are not reis tered, unless certain affidavits shall be furnished by such persons. This provision seems to refer to the power and duty of inspectors, rather than to the rights or qualifications of electors. Under that law, the register was, to a great extent, a transcript of that of the previous year; so that only new corners in the district had occasion to know whether the register was or was not made at the lawful time or place, in the lawful manner, or by the lawful persons. It will, therefore, be a very rigorous interpretation of the law which will virtually disfranchise, for the time being, the mass of Old residents of the district, for the reason that the register was, without their fault or knowledge, irregularly or fraudulently prepared, and when they appeared at the polls, not being informed ofany irre clarity or fraud, or required to furnish any affidavits, they simily complied with the actual requirements of the officers of the polls, voted, and went their way. To put the voters so completely in the power of a board of registry the terms of the statute should certainly be very clear and explicit; and the provision already cited, respecting the reception of votes, should not be forced from a more natural and obvious construction in order to attain such a result. The registry law seems to have given the inspectors the power, and to have made it their duty, to require certain affidavits in case the names of persons offering to vote were not duly registered, and to refuse the votes of such as failed to produce them when so required; but if they received votes from persons not law fully registered without demanding affidavits, it seems hardly right for us to reject these votes for want of affirmative probf that such persons were legal voters. In the case before us, if a lawful voter of the district offered his ballot, it was competent for the inspector to say that he was not lawfully registered, and, without the prescribed affidavits, could not vote, notwithstanding his name appeared on the book, which was a register not in reality, but only in name; and if he refused to furnish the affidavits the ins ectors would have incurred no legalliabil it y refusingto accept his vote. But the eo p e are concerned in the election, as we 1 as the officials and the candidates. It is not shown that the officers of the polls entertained any suspicion that the register, which up cared upon its face to be correct, had been illegally prepared by the board of registry. If a person, who was actuallya legal voter, offers his vote and his name was found on the register, and his vote thereupon received, he ought not to be afterward compelled either to lose that vote or prove allirma ely his legal qualifications and right to vote. If this is correct, it follows that all persons who, without being so regis tered, cast their votes without challenge, were pfimafacie entitled to vote, and should not be compelled to assume the burden of proving their right to do so in the absence of evidence attaching their own votes or the entire poll. It does not apar that this registry law takes the place of or dispenses with any of the other election laws in force before its enactment. It is an addition to the regulations adepted to secure the purity of elections, but not a substitute for anyone of them. It does not relieve the officers in charge of the olls of any duty imposed by law before its agotion. No man is entitled to vote by the fact that his name is on the list. Notwithstanding that fact, he must, in all other respects, stand at the polls in precisely the same attitude now as before the enactment of the regist law. He is liable to precisely the same chal enges, and if challenged must make precisely the same oaths now as before. If it has been generally true, in NewYork, that the use of a register under this law has relaxed the vigilance of the officers of the polls, prevented challenges, and tended to impairtepractical value of the other statutory provisions for the purity of elections, it has cona perversion of the act by elective officers, for which the people on ht not to pay the penalty of avirtnal temporary isfranchisement. f the registry is a substitute for the ordinary safeguards of elections, and dispenses with them, or any of them, the sooner it is itself dispensed with the better for the State of NewYork. For, in the 1st place, in a shifting city population, nothing can be more worthless as proof that a man is a resident of the election district on the day of the election, than a register completed several days before the election; in the next place, the opportunity nom inally afforded to the people to correct the list is in practice embraced by a very small fraction of the voters, because most of them find it to be as much as they are able or willing to do to attend the polls; again, since the greater portion of eVery register consists of a transcript of that of the last year, it is obvious that its preparation must involve the risk of such errors as result from the changes of the car; and, finally, the o portunities for frau are practically, althoug perhaps not theoretically, greater in the formation of the register than in the morepublic proceedings of the polls. If the official returns of this district shall be accepted, the sitting member will retain his seat. nd if the House shall reach a vote upon the reports of the majority and minority of the committee, I shall vote in favor of the sitting member. I wish to say, before I take my seat, a few words respecting the amendments which have been offered to the House. The proposition of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Ganrrsnn] contains 2 points: 1st, that the committee to whom this case shall be referred shall bear supplementary testimony respecting the legality of the votes given in this 15th district; and in the 2nd place, shall report the facts respectin the existence of a usage in the city of NewYork under the election law in force in that city, by which inspectors of the register are chosen either from within or without the election district where the register is made. Now, I have no great objection to the 1st point in the resolution, but I have serious objections to the 2nd. As I understand it, the gentlemans resolution requires the ComElections to report as to the existence of a usage which may or may not be in contravention of the positive law governing elections in that city. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that usage is in conformity with law proof of its existenc is supercrogatory, and there can be no possible object in obtaining such a report from the committee. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the Gentleman is to call for a report s owing a custom in contravention of the plain letter of the law, then I am utterly oppOsed to it, because I know now what the law was on the election day in 1864, and I know now what the law is at the present time; and I conceive that it is in opposition to all the recognized principles of law to set up a usage as op mud to a plain statute, if that usage shall be s own. If this proposition shall be adopted, and the ComElections shall be called upon to report on the subject, I shall most cheerfully perform the duty imposed upon me as a member of that committee; but if it shall appear, from this new report of the committee, that such a usage did exrst, or does today exist, it can by no possibility affect my vote in this House on the contest between these gentlemen, because I cannot see how we can permit such a usage either to contravene or to construe the plain letter of the law applicable to the case. I am opposed also to the proposition of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING] who would refer the case back to the people on the h othesis that there has been no election. I byeiieve that there has been an election, that the people have performed their duty, and it is for us to perform ours by ascertaining, if we can ascertain, what the will of the people expressed at that election was. Now, I have drawn up a proposition which I hope my friendfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] will accept as a substitute for is. If he does not accept it, then I shall embrace the 1st opportunity, if any shall be offered, to propose it. when it shall be in order, for a vote of the House. In case it shall fail, and the action of the House upon the propositions of the ntle men from Oliio [Messrs. GARFIELD and mm mo] shall not dispose of this case, then I shall vote for the sitting member. I send my resolutions to the Clerks desk to be read.