Mr. MARSHALL. If the honorable gentle man declines to answer I must endeavor to get along without the information. As a matter of course the gentleman must.elect for himself asto whether he will answer or not. I will have no opportunity to reply to him hereafter, and it certainly would be more fair for him to let me know now what evidence he relies upon to make out this charge. But he declines to do so, and Imust submit. I have examined the evidence and can see no shadow of proof to show fraud in the making of this register. Who committed it? 3 of the 4 members of the board were Republican, partisans of the contestant. The 3 inspectors and the clerk make up the 4 members of the board, 3 being Republicans, artisans of Mr. Dodge, the contestant, and the 4th was an appointee of Tammany Hall, which organization was running Mr. arr in opposition also to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks did not have a single friend on that board. How could a board constituted of his political enemies be supposed toperpetrate a fraud in his behalf? Can this House come to such a conclusion unless we have some positive evidence? I do not think such a thing was ever before heard of. Sacha conspiracy by a mans opponentsto perpetrate a fraud to secure his election may be possible, but it is so highly improbable that without overwhelming and conclusive testimony no man can credit it for a moment. The honorable gentleman on yesterday, in answer to an interrogatory which i propounded to him in regard to a question of law, drew a Veryingenious distinction. He admitted that the law was, that the acts of an officer defacto were binding upon all parties just as much as if he was an officer do jure; but, said be, this aplies only to a case where the officer was du y qualified having personally no legal disqualifications to hol the officc, but there was some defect or omission in the appointment. But that where the person was disqualified for holding the office, as in this case not a resi dent of the election district, he could not be an officer either defacto or de jurc, and that his acts as such, though regularly appoiuted, would be absolutely void. This is in substance the position taken. I deny that that is law, and I ask the gentleman to produce any authority or decision sustaining such nposition. Will he tell this House that ifa foreigner in that district, who had not been naturalized for the length of time required by law to make him an elector, had been honestly (and by mistake) appointed by the proper authorities, had entered upon “c ise harge of the duties, had made out the registry in regular form according to law, and sworn to and certified it, that he would not be recognized as an officer defacto, and that his acts would be utterly null and void, and that as the result of this innocent mistake, made by parties acting in good faith. the whole district would be disfrauchised? I repeat. this is not the law, and I believe that no authority can be found for any such position. The Constitution requires that a member of this House shall be 25 years of age, and shall be a citizen of the U.S. Now, suppose a man is elected to this House without this qualification, is sworn in, takes his seat, and upon some important measure ives the casting vote by which it becomes a aw. Will the Gentfrom Massachusetts [ML Dawns] tell this House that such person is not a member de facto, and that his act is not binding upon the public just as fully as the act of any other member of this House? In the State of Illinois, by a constitutional provision, a man to be qualified for the position of judge of one of our courts must be at least 30 years of age. Supose a man who is but 29 is elected, to that office, is commissioned, enters upon the duties of the office, tries causes and renders decisions upon them; will the honorable Gentfrom as sachusetts tell this House that.such judgments are not just as binding upon the parties as if he were of the age proscribed? e is an officer do ado, and, according to all decisions and all nut crities on the subject. his acts are just as bindin upon the parties and upon the public as if e were fully qualified to hold the office. There is, I think, no authority and no reason for the distinction which the honorable gentleman makes. These officers, not partisans of Mr. Brooks, were a pointed in good faith; they entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office, and the parties and the public are just as much bound by their aetsas if they were residents, all of them, of the election district. This, Mr. Speaker, seems so clear to me, and I think will be so clear to every member of the House, that I will not dwell further upon it. Well, what other evidence is there in this case I Take away this attack upon the regis try and the whole case falls as against the 6fteenth district. It all depends upon that. There is no plausible pretext for excluding the poll if that fails. It is true the chairman of the committee in his report and in his speech refers to some other matters to which I will call the at tention of the House for a moment. When the evidence was nearly closed it appears that the contestantintroduced an afidavit, not a deposition taken according to the forms of law, but an affidavit taken before a notary public, and brought it before the judge who was takin evidence and asked that it might be re ceived. no notice having been given oft heintention of the party to ta c this evidence. It is stated in the report that the deposition of this man was taken in the presence of the sitting member and his attorney. But no do iosition was taken, and I ask the chairman oft ie committee, in his concluding remarks. to tell the House where he finds any evidence that such a deposition was taken or that the evidence was taken in any way in the presence of the sitting ifncmber and his counse. such was not the Mt. There is some complaint made. apparently, in the report that the sitting member did not allow that to be received as evidence. This I atlidnvit has appended to it a list of some 200 names of voters that Dean professed to, have made search for. This information was l based on the unsworn statements of others, and, was at best but mere hearsay. It was not legal Jevidence, and would have been roected in any I court of justice and besides. the time had, nearly expired, and this was evidentlyatrap to l throw Mr. Brooks off his guard and put him on I a wild hunt for two or 300 men, when l his time was already nearly exhausted, and the contestant was refusin him further time for examining witnesses. iir. Brooks would have done gross injustice to himself, to his constitquents, and to the cause of justice if he had not objected to the admission of this billegal e1: parts statement. Now, I ask gentlemen who have this report to turn to page 6 thereof, and I will request the Clerk to read what I have marked.