Mr. GARFIELD. By no means. I am simplygiving the reasons, to my mind, why I deSire further light upon this subject, and I think before I am through I will show in what way this light I ask for will aid as in arriving at a properdecision of this matter. I am simply stating the points of dise repancy which make it impossible for me to decide this matter now in a manner satisfactory to myself. Another thing: it is urged, as one point in dispute, that the place of election was not doti nitely settled. It is said that the place ofelection was declared by competent authority the be at “James Thompsons, No. 252 Avenue B, " whereas the election was in fact held at a stable on the premises, about 100 feet from the front where the name and number were put upon the door. Now, although that does not seem to me to be enough to vitiate election, ovlu ifitwore so, I shonld like to grounds upon which the party relics in the contest .know whether the election was held at the place designated or not. It seems to me the majority of the committee have not definitely stated that in their report. Without going furtier into a discussion of the points which have suggested themselves to my mind as I have read over this case, I willmention one very remarkable fact, upon which I hope we shall get light. It is alleged that the management of the registry and inspection was.in the hands of the party favorable to the election of the contestant, yet that, notwithstanding this fact, the other party favorin the sitting member committed so man ffau s in the management both of the inspection and the registry that the whole should be thrown out. That in itself is a very remarkable proposition onc which is not usuall made in cases of contested clections; and should be very glad to know whether it would be likely that the party having the management could be the party de frauded. It seems to me, on the face of it, a little remarkable that, with that fact before us. we should be asked to throw out the whole vote of that district as fraudulent. But, what is of more consequence still, the sum of all the allegations, as I understand, bears against the legality of the registry and the inspecting board, and not particularly against the legality of the ballots eposited in the box. Now. it would seem to me unwise and unjust on our part to throw out the votes of a large number of voters simply because some of the officers, antecedent to the election, failed to do their duty. If, as the minority claim, the statute in this case is merely direct ory, we ought to try to find out, if possible, whether there were illegal votes cast; and it so, how many, and whether the throwing out of the illegal votes would change the result and unseat the sitting member. The committee have not gene into that question at all; yet to my mind that is precisely the point upon which the decision of the case should turn. If I knew that there were enough illegal votes cast under all circumstances to unseat the sit ting member, I should, without hesitation, vote for the report of the committee. It does not appear. however, that the committee have gone into that question at all; but on antecedent grounds, on the ground of the illegality of the registry, and the illegal constitution of the inspectors board, they have thrown out the vote of the entire precinct, and thus they settle the question in favor of the contestant. Now. sir, I want the committee to go further and inquire into the legality of the votes cast going beyond the mere question of the legality of the registry a proceeding in which the voters themselves could have had no part or lot.