The undersigned are unable to concur in the conclusion arrived at by the majority of the committee. We feel confident, from an examination of the evidence, that Mr. Brooks was duly elected as a representative in the present Congress, and is entitled to retain the seat he now holds. It will not be denied that the sitting member, having obtained the proper return and certificate of election, is prima facie entitled to retain the seat, and that the burden of proof is thrown upon the contestant to show, by a clear preponderance of testimony, that he received a majority of the legal votes cast, and is for that cause entitled to be received and recognized as the duly elected member of his district. On no other ground, on any recognized principles of law or equity, would this House be justified in expelling a member duly returned as elected, and giving his seat to the party contesting.

With all due respect to the majority of the committee, we respectfully ask that the members of this house will examine the evidence for themselves; and we feel great confidence in making the assertion that this evidence not only fails to show that Mr. Dodge, the contestant, is entitled to the seat, but that it shows most conclusively that he has no honest or just claim thereto. On the contrary, we assert that if Mr. Dodge had been duly returned as elected, it would be the duty of the House, upon the evidence laid before it, in vindication of the purity of elections and of its own character and honor, to turn him out without hesitation, and send him back to his home branded with the most emphatic condemnation of the House. To give a man a seat here by a vote of this body who, by the most lavish and shameless use of money, has endeavored to defeat a fair and honest expression of the electors of his district, and to corrupt the very fountains of the elective system, would fix a stain upon the House itself which neither time nor repentance could easily eradicate.

It is proper here to remark that the evidence in the case is very voluminous, and with the briefs filed make up about one thousand pages of printed matter. The evidence is contained in two volumes, (Miscellaneous Doc. No. 7, parts 1 and 2;) the first containing the evidence on the part of Mr. Dodge, and the second the evidence taken by Mr. Brooks. The first is referred to in this report as D., and the second as B.

The irregularities charged, if they existed, are not shown to have been produced by the procurement or connivance of Mr. Brooks, or to have inured in any way to his benefit. In all the districts assailed by the contestant, a clear majority of the officers of the election (including registers and inspectors) were his own party friends, while none of them are shown to have been the personal or partisan friends of Mr. Brooks. In all the vast array of evidence there is no proof whatever that illegal votes were given or returned for the sitting member. Vast sums of money were used in the most shameless and scandalous manner to control the election by direct and indirect bribery; but this was done by the contestant or his friends, and not by Mr. Brooks. There is no attempt by proof, to show any wrong or fraud on the part of the sitting member. There is no pretence that Mr. Dodge could, under any possible circumstances, obtain a majority of the votes of the district he claims to represent. It is, indeed, admitted that he would, upon a fair vote, fall short of a majority by several thousand votes. If, under all these circumstances, this house gives him the seat he claims, it will only prove, as we think, that we are living in most extraordinary times, where the ordinary results cannot be relied upon from any stated premises. We repeat that, if there were irregularities, they were not produced by the connivance or procurement of Mr. Brooks. If there were frauds and bribery, they are chargeable exclusively to Mr. Dodge and his agents; and the principle is too well settled that a man can in no case take advantage of his own wrong, and that in all cases a party asking relief must be able to come into court with clean hands.

SEVENTH DISTRICT, TWENTY-FIRST WARD.

The allegation here is, (D. 3, specification 10:)

"That sundry persons voted for Mr. Brooks who were not legal voters or residents in the district, viz., one hundred and upwards."

The act of Congress (1st section, statute of 1851) regulating notice as to the contest of elections reads, in conclusion, thus:

"And in such notice shall specify particularly the grounds upon which he, the contestant, relies in the contest."

The sitting member at the start protested against the illegality of such a notice, (B. 2,) and argued throughout that its generality was not only in violation of the statute, but of such a nature that it could not be traversed, save by a denial as "sundry" broad as the sundries alleged; thus substituting in lieu of a plea "a stump speech on both sides." The object of the act of Congress forbidding such sundry generalities, and prescribing therefor a particularity, was to prevent a surprise upon the sitting member, (Leib's case, C. T. E., p. 165,) and not to give uneasiness to a sitting member upon slight grounds, (Varnum's case, C. T. E., p. 272.) Courts acting upon contested elections require the parties complaining to specify, because otherwise they would be converted into a mere election board, (Littell vs. Robbins, C. T. E., Bartlett, 138.) It is obvious that in a contested case like this, where the contestant is a man of immense wealth, who it is proven has lavished large sums illegally upon the election, a sitting member, unless equally wealthy, has no chance of meeting him in a contest, if, after the election, the election can all be gone over again under some of the forms and protection of the State law, under the pretence of such a "sundry" notice as to sundry persons, "one hundred and upwards." The Committee of Elections, and through their chairman, Mr. Dawes, (Kline vs. Verre, Bartlett, p. 383,) is emphatically committed not only against these generalities, but against this particular word "sundries," in the notice. The chairman there remarked:

"The common law pleading, 'you did, and I did'nt,' would have every element of 'particularity' in it, which is contained in such a specification. The only precedent under existing laws approaching this in vagueness and generality, which has come under the notice of the committee, is that of Vallandigham vs. Campbell. But there is this to distinguish that from the present one. In that case the sitting member took no exception to the notice of contest for want of particularity when served upon him, as in his reply thereto; but, on the other hand, filed his own answer in the same general terms. * * *. Whatever might have been the opinion of that Congress as to the sufficiency of these specifications, it might well have been held in that case, indeed it could not have been held otherwise, that any such defect in specification or answer had been waived by the parties. But in the present case (Brooks?) there could be no waiver. The exception to the sufficiency of the notice was taken at the earliest practicable moment (by Brooks,) (and) it was also renewed at the taking the testimony, and at every stage of the hearing."

The whole reasoning of the chairman of the committee, and all his legal citations. (p. 384,) go to show that such a "sundry" allegation as this is in utter violation of the statute, while they earnetsly [sic] put the contestant upon guard in a solemn warning.

"The committee," says the chairman, "have not felt at liberty to pass over this entire disregard of well-settled rules and statute enactments without notice, lest proceedings like these should grow into PRECEDENTS, and parties to contests should hereafter meet committees, not for the purpose of trying prepared and definite issues, but for the purpose of making vague and uncertain complaints, and indulging in endless and unsatisfactory discussions.

The majority of the committee now propose to disfranchise, under the "sundry" notice, the whole district where the official result was thus declared—

Brooks. | Barr. | Dodge.

160 | 158 | 71

though the contestant, in his preliminary brief of things proven, expressed an apparent satisfaction if but thirty votes were thrown out!

"I claim to have proven," said that brief, "that the registry, poll, and canvass of the seventh district of the Twenty-first ward were so tainted with illegality and fraud that the will of the legal voters thereof cannot be ascertained, and the official returns must be rejected; or, if not rejected, that your official poll in that district must be diminished by thirty illegal votes, so proven by me."

The majority of the committee have not listened to the suggestion of only 30, but would disfranchise 389 voters in all.

It is admitted, in this district, that the registration and reception of the votes were by political friends of the contestant. The board of registration and of inspection stood thus:

Registers. Inspectors.

2 Republicans. 2 Republicans.

1 Democrat. 1 Democrat.

The registry clerk was a republican. All these officers were sworn officers, and there is no allegation or proof to the contrary. The two republican registers, Taylor and Pendrall, were not called by the contestant, as witnesses, to impeach the registry, while the democratic register swears "there was no irregular or improper conduct—the register united in the certificate we ALL signed." Nor were the two republican inspectors of the election brought up as witnesses by the contestant, though it was fully in his power, while the sitting member brought up the democratic inspector (Farrell) to swear "every thing was done according to law." The republican poll clerk (Beekman) swears "he was there all day, and that the election was conducted in order, and that he did not see anything out of the way." (B. 303.)

Now, here is an election where 389 voters—(500 or 600 on the registry)—(B. 228)—are thrown out, though verified, and sworn to, by four republican officers and two democrats—the republicans having the control and government of the votes in this ratio of two to one! It is needless to say that the sworn officers of an election, regularly and legally appointed, cannot be thus perjured but by the most overwhelming testimony. The whole burden of proof is on the contestant that all his political friends and enemies were perjurers. There was no allegation in the notice that they were perjured, or to be proven to be perjured; but, on the contrary, constant use was made of one of these officers (Warren S. Taylor) as a drummer, or runner, in this contest, active and energetic for the contestant, Mr. Dodge. (D. 117, 128.)

The only attempt made to fasten this "perjury" upon the officers of the election comes from two persons: the first, an outlaw by the name of Stephen Geoghegan; and the next, a man named Russell Myers, alias "Butch" Myers, a so-called "government detective" or spy, who, in order to show voters did not live in the district, inquired, when the draft for the war was pending, mainly among the women—the wives, sisters, or daughters of the husbands, brothers, or fathers to be drafted! Well known among those whom he was espying, both in his antecedents and presents, of course he could get no information if in honest pursuit of it; while the proof is, that he purposely ignored the existence of some of the most prominent men in the district, such as Colonel Austin, (B., 238,) and of soldiers who gallantly fought in our army; one of them (Kelly, B., 293) pronouncing him a "perjurer." Names entered upon the poll list such as McLarney, he insisted upon finding, though McAlarney was the real name. The sitting member has furnished a most laborious and careful analysis of every name which Myers alleges to be "unknown" or "unfound," save five, in a list of one hundred and nine; thus:

On Myers's list ...... 109

Accounted for, as proven by the sitting member ...... 104

Leaving only ...... 5

Which is wonderful, considering that the search was made, months and months after the election.

The other witness to disfranchise this district is Stephen Geoghegan, an outlaw by his evidence, (D., 449,) utterly unworthy of the least attention, save what the report of the majority may attach to it. Geoghegan is pronounced by the contestant, Mr. Dodge, (B., 147,) to have a character "desperate," "unscrupulous," and "sunk," and is shown to be (B., 283) a "bruiser," a "rough," "that no respectable man would have anything to do with." Mr. Phelps, the counsel for Mr. Dodge, before Judge Brady, (the sitting judge before whom this evidence was taken,) swears (D., 493:)

"If Geoghegan had not acted in our interests I should think it were right, that he should he indicted and punished."

John M. Tracy, in detail, (B., 235,) disposes of all Geoghegan's testimony. The sitting member in his brief (pp. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) has set name against name and confuted every word Geoghegan or Myers uttered as to votes for "dead men," "substitutes," or "fraudulent names." Tracy was deprived of the power of adding to his testimony at midnight, when by law the time for taking testimony closed, though Brooks begged for this additional time, which Dodge refused, (B., 318.)

This seventh district, Twenty-first ward, is on the East river, and is a district mainly made up of blasters, or boatmen, or workmen, and in order to verify the truth and accuracy of the vote, the sitting member thus contrasted it with three Fifth avenue districts, the richer districts on the other side of the ward.

CONTRAST OF VOTES IN THE DEMOCRATIC AND THE REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS.

7th (this dem., called Dutch Hill) district.

1864. | 1865.

Brooks ...... 160 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 221

Barr ...... 158 | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 68

Dodge ...... 71 | —

Total ...... 389 | Total ...... 289

289

Falling off ...... 100 from 1864 to 1865.

12th (Fifth avenue, rep.) district.

1864. | 1865.

Brooks ...... 155 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 122

Barr ...... 28 | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 168

Dodge ...... 310 |

Total ...... 493 | Total ...... 290

290

Falling off ...... 203 from 1864 to 1865.

TWO MORE FIFTH AVENUE DISTRICTS.

13th district, (Fifth avenue,) 21st ward.

1864. | 1865.

Brooks ...... 134 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 141

Barr ...... 27 | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 289

Dodge ...... 394 |

Total ...... 555 | Total ...... 430

430

Falling off ...... 125 from 1864 to 1865.

14th (Fifth avenue) district.

1864. | 1865.

Brooks ...... 135 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 142

Barr ...... 26 | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 216

Dodge ...... 330 |

Total ...... 491 | Total ...... 358

358

Falling off ...... 133 from 1864 to 1865.

ANOTHER CONTRAST.

Vote of 1864. [New revised registry—1865.

Seventh (dem.) district ....... 389 ...... 367

Twelfth (rep.) district ...... 493 ...... 337

Thus demonstrating that so far as we can judge by analyses and comparison of the poll of 1865 for State officers, with the poll of 1864 for Congress, the seventh (Dutch Hill) district was an honester and juster poll than the three Fifth avenue wealthy districts.

The minority of the committee, under this statement of facts, cannot well imagine a greater injustice than the disfranchisement of these 389 voters, while richer districts, in a worse apparent position, are allowed their full vote, especially the thirteenth, which the sitting member contests upon the specified ground of abandonment by the canvassers of the ballot-boxes pending the canvass. To do this is substantially to say, labor and poverty must not vote, and capital and property alone shall elect members of Congress.

But is it possible that lawyers, in the House or on the committee, can accept as legal testimony such indirect witnesses as Geoghegan and Myers, as to the fact whether or not some voter lived on this side of the street or that, this number or that, when the voter himself could have been called as a witness, or some party professing to know, or that some Stev. Geoghegan (D., 409) should swear away, through Myers, the existence of this man or that, without any effort save through this Myers to find the missing man?

All of Myers's testimony, or nearly all, is of this character. Even Geoghegan disproves Myers, (Frank Bradley, D., 243,) while Tracy throughout cuts up his testimony root and branch. Pronounced "a perjurer" by Kelly and another (B., 293, 294,) is not the legal maxim applicable to Myers throughout—Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus? When Myers got his information from women and children, (D., 402,) "women entirely," no effort was made to bring up the women! Not one was notified and summoned to appear! Is it possible that an old member of Congress, in a district which is anti-republican by thousands, can thus be sworn off from the floor of the House, not even by women and children in their own persons, but through Myers or Geoghegan, as one or the other distils his information for the committee of Congress through his own crucible or still? Why were not the women and children themselves brought up in lieu of Myers and Geoghegan? Such "hearsay" evidence is of the most objectionable and weakest character.

FIFTEENTH DISTRICT, EIGHTEENTH WARD.

The twelfth allegation of the contestant is—

"That the 15th district was not legally created and established," (with a general averment of frauds.)

But not specifying the 15th district of the 18th ward, and thus leaving the sitting member to guess that was the district meant. In all the other allegations of the contestant the ward where the district is contested is specified. Objection was taken to this at the start, (B., 3,) and persisted in throughout, and the sitting member did not know what district was meant till contestant, a very few days before the closing of the testimony, disclosed what he meant.

The allegation further is—not what the majority of the committee give the contestant the disfranchisement of the whole district—but—

"That of these votes there cast for you, ONE-THIRD and upwards were given by persons not qualified to vote."

The vote stood—

Brooks. | Barr. | Dodge. | Total.

221 | 168 | 57 | 446

The majority of the committee throw out 446 votes, when the contestant specifics in his claim that only "one-third and upwards" of the Brooks votes, viz: 74, or about 74. The contestant thus is happy in having a better case made out for him than he made out for himself in his pleadings, for the whole district is disfranchised by one fell swoop! 446 men are annihilated at once, where the victor claims, "killed and wounded," only 72 and upwards!

This district is an East river district, where the great gas-works of New York are located, (D., 214, B., 124,) a sort of promontory projecting into the East river and surrounded on two sides by water, where schooners, sloops, barges, and water-craft of all kinds abound, full of men whose real habitations are in their boats. A district like this, full of workingmen, naturally changeable in the residences of its voters, was pounced upon by the contestant to disfranchise, (only in part, however,) and a person was "secured" (D., 501,) by the name of Las Casas Dean, who starts doubts of his own sincerity by swearing (D., 502)—

"That deponent is a man of religious principle."

The result of Dean's being thus "regularly secured" (D. 502) and paid, (D., 502,) was that in a district of 446 votes, he alleged he found:

Non-residents ...... 163

Vacant lots ...... 44

Dead ...... 3

Total ...... 210

While the majority of the committee find, or seem to find, 446—the whole number of non-residents, or, on vacant lots, or dead! Dean's six weeks' hunt, under pay, kills off in the district only 210, while the committee dispatch 446! The contestant's start of one-third and upwards, 74, Dean increased to 210, while the committee, more happy in discovery than either Mr. Dodge himself, or Mr. Dean, make out a far better case for the contestant than he or his employé made out for themselves!

This Las Casas Dean, it is in evidence, was never "noticed," as the act of Congress requires, to appear before the examining Judge Brady, (D., 365.) His testimony comes all through Mr. Phelps, the counsel for Mr. Dodge, before the contestant, and is all "hearsay." Dean tells Phelps, and Phelps swears, Dean told him, and Dean swears he (Dean) was told, even "by the children" in the district, (D., 502,) that these children did not know some of the voters. The evidence thus comes to us through three or four sieves: 1st, women and children and others in the district; 2d, Dean; 3d, Phelps; and none of them could be even examined by the sitting member, for Phelps knew nothing but what Dean told him, and Dean knew nothing but what others told him. None of the original sources of testimony, the real live people in the district, or the women or the children, were summoned or subpoenaed as witnesses! Mrs. Boyle, Mrs. Patrick Sullivan, and Mrs. Finnerty, (D., 504,) told Dean some things; but none of these Mesdames were summoned as witnesses, none of the children, even, ever turned up, to attempt to make something of this very novel and more extraordinary mode of extinguishing 446 votes in one of the populous districts of New York. Mr. Phelps, the counsel for Mr. Dodge, after carefully keeping Dean and his affidavit in the back ground till the night of March 29, 1865, (the time for taking all testimony then closing, April 3, in four days only,) then offered to put him (Dean) upon the stand! The ingenuity of the counsel was superb! The legal time for giving notice had expired, and four days only were left for Brooks to hand in his testimony, while Dean was furnishing him with a list of two hundred and ten names to employ his whole time! Brooks had two thousand witnesses then to examine, and desired to poll the whole district, (see names, B., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 318,) and the ingenious counsel having then demonstrated against every district that had gone for Brooks in his seventeen allegations, (D., 4,) would divert him from defence of them all by this sudden raid upon this Fifteenth! Against this system of guerilla tactics, Mr. Anthon, counsel for Mr. Brooks, protested, (D., 365,) as an evident means of fraud on the part of the contestant. The whole of this hearsay, illegal proceeding is unmatched in the chicanery of contested elections. The testimony, the affidavit of Dean, is not legally, then, worth the paper it is written on. (1 Greenleaf on Evidence; Chief Justice Marshall, 7 Cranch, et passim.) But nevertheless the sitting member in his brief has carefully and most laboriously analyzed and investigated this test of Las Casas Dean's two hundred and ten names, and, wonderful to say, he has been able, some eighteen months after the election, to show one hundred and eighty-nine of them as proven to be living human beings, in actual residences, or, as not in any way disproven by the affidavit of Dean. (Sec brief, 38.) Such a trace of voters in a laboring city district, after such a lapse of time, is unparalleled in the searches for voters in contested elections.

It cannot be, then, that the majority of the committee rely upon the affidavit of Dean's two hundred and ten names to disfranchise four hundred and forty-six voters! Upon what, then, do they rely?

The officers of the election were republican two to one, thus:

Registers. | Inspectors.

Republicans ...... 2 | Republicans ...... 2

Democrat ...... 1 | Democrat ...... 1

This fact is admitted by the chairman of the committee, and is proven (D., 211, B., 82.) And here it may be remarked that it is an admitted fact that in all the odd districts, such as this, the fifteenth, (and the seventh of the Twenty-first ward,) the registers and inspectors of election stand as two republican to one democrat, while it is shown by Hardy and Ely (B., 259, 260, 181, 182) that Brooks, not acting in either the republican or democratic organizations, had not a single officer of the election appointed as friendly to him. These officers were equally divided among the Tammany Hall democrats and the republicans, organizations both unfriendly to Brooks. Hence, what chance of fraud for Brooks? Or why disfranchise all his 221 voters, when it is attempted to prove no fraud, that may not have been a Dodge or a Barr as well as a Brooks fraud?

It was attempted, however, and for the first time, in committee, to establish as fact that the registers did not reside in the particular election district of the fifteenth, while it is admitted, they reside in the election assembly district. It is not proven specifically that all do not reside in the particular election district, nor is it alleged in the specification, (D., 3,) where the allegations are very broad. It is averred also that the clerk was "not sworn nor appointed." But it is not averred or specified, as the act of Congress requires, if such were to be made an issue, that the register did not reside in the particular fifteenth election district. Hence, under that act of Congress, no such issue can be made at this late day, and no such issue was ever presented to the sitting member to traverse.

No greater injustice (a sense of comity to the committee alone forbids us to say no greater outrage) could be committed than throwing out 221 Brooks voters only because of an alleged informality in the appointment of registers in, and over, a thorough democratic district, these registers being republican, and their appointment being made by a republican party organization. Decency, honor, every just impulse, forbid us to say republican registers were purposely appointed by the republican party, residents out of the fifteenth district, deliberately to disfranchise the district. No such conspiracy against the rights of man ever entered the heads of the republican supervisors of New York, who appointed them. The discovery of the mode of disfranchisement was not even made by the eager contestant, in his seventeen counts of allegation. The invention was due to the refreshing, suggesting, and inspiring air of Washington.

But fortunately the law and the decisions of the courts of law in New York, and of the court of appeals there, forbid the contestant to avail himself of such an alleged informality. The statute, it is true, requires the registers "to be residents and voters in the district in which they are appointed," but in what district? The election assembly district, not the particular fifteenth district of the Eighteenth ward. The statute creates a board to be known—

"As the board of registry for the election district in which they are appointed;"

But avoids the use of the word "election" in adding:

"To be residents and voters in the district in which they are appointed."

It is believed to have been the popular construction of the law, and practice under it, to select registers from the assembly district, and not from the particular election district, leaving both parties to pick out their keenest men in the whole assembly district to act as inspectors of registry. It is not in direct evidence—the question of residence or non-residence of the registers not having been raised in the specification of the contestant—that in several of the Dodge election districts, two to one of the registers, were not residents of the district, which in all gave him 1,500 or more votes, but it is, in the indirect evidence of the official report (1864, vol. 2) of the board of supervisors, where the names of all the registers are given, and in the New York Directory, that two to one of the registers, that created the registration, in some of these districts, were not actual residents in them, though residents of the assembly election district. All these facts might, and probably would, have been shown in the evidence, if the question of residence had been raised in the pleadings of the contestant.

That such was the custom, and the popular construction of the act, is obvious from the subsequent explanatory statute of 1865 (chapter 740, p. 1463) recognizing and adopting the custom. The act is as follows:

"No person shall be eligible to be, nor shall he be appointed inspector of registry and elections, or canvasser for any election district of the city and county of New York or city of Brooklyn, unless he shall be a qualified voter within the assembly district in which such election district is situated, and liable to any duty in courts of record therein, nor unless he can read, write, and speak the English language understandingly, but such person shall not be required to be a resident or voter in the election district for which he shall be appointed."

This law was probably enacted to remove all doubts as to the construction of the old act, and to add statute sanction to the common custom. All the registers of this, the fifteenth district, were residents of the assembly district, and acted de facto, in good faith under the law, or, if not under all the forms of the law, under the color of law, and their action was accepted and ratified without comment or cavil by the city board of canvassers, the State board, upon all the tickets, electoral, gubernatorial, judicial, assembly, sheriff, county clerk, &c. No keen eye but that of the contestant, and his only when illuminated in Washington, ever before then detected any flaw.

But admitting all that is claimed in regard to the proper construction of the statute of New York, it is but directory, and a departure from its provision does not vitiate the election. The leading case on this question, The People vs. Cook, 4 Selden R., p. 84, with the authorities there cited, settles this question conclusively. It is there held that "the neglect of the inspectors to take any oath would not vitiate the election, although it might subject those officers to an indictment," and "that the acts of public officers, being in, by color of an election or appointment, are valid so far as the public is concerned." The whole object of the election law's is to secure as far as practicable a full and fair expression of the will of the electors. To reject the whole votes because the officers of election fail to comply with every prescribed regulation would be, as was remarked by one of the learned judges in New York, to place a higher value on the statute regulation than on the right of suffrage itself. It is further held in the same case, People vs. Cook, that the time prescribed for the adjournment of the poll is merely directory, and that "where the statute requires that the inspectors shall appoint two clerks who shall take the constitutional oath, this is directory." If no clerks can be procured, the inspectors must perform the duty of clerks. The election must not fail. And the failure of clerks to take the oath will not render their acts void. "The occasional interference of more inspectors than three does not prejudice the return, since the whole election was conducted by inspectors who were at least such de facto." "An officer de facto is one who comes into office by color of a legal appointment or election. His acts in that capacity are as valid, so far as the public is concerned, as the acts of an officer de jure. His title cannot be inquired into collaterally." The authorities upon this point are numerous and uniform. Guided by these principles, we feel constrained to insist that no irregularities are proven in this case that ought in the least to taint or vitiate the election or returns so as to affect the rights of the sitting member.

But as the law settles the legality of the vote in the district, so settle facts, irresistible and overwhelming. Under the new revised registry act (act of 1865) of New York the registration of voters was thoroughly reviewed and revised, and in that act, the tendency was to cut off the foreign vote, supposed to be mostly democratic, by exacting the show of naturalization papers before the registry, and by other rigid demands. This new revised registry of 1865 and the vote of 1864 and 1865 demonstrate, mathematically, the following facts:

A CONTRAST.

Democratic—15th district, 18th ward.

Revised registry, (1865) ...... 530

Vote in 1864 ...... 416

Increase of registry over vote ...... 84

Republican—3d district, 18th ward.

Revised registry, (1865) ...... 658

Vote in 1864 ...... 765

Decrease of registry in 1865 from the vote of 1864 ...... 107

The 1864 registry in the democratic district is thus demonstrated to have been correct by the revision of 1865, while the decrease of 107 in a single year throws great doubt over the republican district.

ANOTHER CONTRAST.

"Mackerelville (so nicknamed) and Fifth avenue polls contrasted.

"Mackerelville" poll—15th district, 18th ward.

1864. | 1865.

Brooks ...... 221 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 373

Barr ...... 168. | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 45

Dodge ...... 57

Total ...... 446 | Total ...... 428

428

Falling off ...... 18 in "Mackerelville."

Fifth avenue poll—3d district, 18th ward.

1864. | 1865.

Brooks ...... 192 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 206

Barr ...... 62 | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 357

Dodge ...... 511 |

Total ...... 765 | Total ...... 563

563

Falling off ...... 202 in Fifth avenue.

YET ANOTHER CONTRAST.

Democrat—15th district, 18th ward.

Revised registry, (1865) ...... 530

Vote in 1864 ...... 446

Increase of 1865 registry over vote of 1864 ...... 84

Republican—2d district, 18th ward.

Revised registry of 1865 ...... 583

Vote in 1864 ...... 739

Decrease of registry in 1865 from vote of 1864 ...... 156

The 1864 registry of the democratic district is here again, as in contrast with the republican district, demonstrated to be correct.

AND YET ANOTHER CONTRAST.

"Mackerelville" (so nicknamed) and another Fifth avenue poll.

15th district, 18th ward.

1864. | 1865.

Brooks ...... 221 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 373

Barr ...... 168 | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 45

Dodge ...... 57 |

Total ...... 446 | Total ...... 428

428

Falling off ...... 18

2d district, 18th ward, on Fifth avenue.

1864. | 1865.

Barr ...... 70 | For sec'y of state:

Brooks ...... 199 | Slocum, (dem.) ...... 199

Dodge ...... 462 | Barlow, (rep.) ...... 310

Scattering ...... 8 |

Total ...... 739 | Total ...... 509

509

Falling off in '65 from '64 ...... 230

There is no answering such overwhelming facts as these but by declaring the two great Dodge districts to be as "fraudulent," as the Brooks district is alleged to be.

It is alleged that as this district was set off from the 12th, its near neighbor, its vote was excessive, because the old 12th, in 1863, gave but 496 votes; whereas, in 1864, the two districts gave 863 in all. The new district, the 15th, as represented on the map, has a territory over three times greater than the old 12th, and a new territory in which population was, naturally, all the while increasing, with two of its four boundary lines on navigable water, were lined with water-craft of all kinds, full of legal voters, whose only domicile was there. It is alleged that no new buildings have been put up to hold this increase of population, but is proven (B., 126) that 500 men are employed in the gasworks there, most of whom, doubtless, live in the vicinage; and it is proven, too, these gas men "sometimes sleep there," entitling them to a vote there; some stone-yards have tenements in the rear occupied by families. Such new districts in great cities, as in new settlements in the west, often have mere shanties for men to live in—up one day, and down another. It is proven, too, (D., 214,) "voters came out of tenement houses in large numbers." It is proven, too, (D., 181,) that in such like districts "a great many slept in coal-bins that voted." It is proven also that when the polls closed, with 700 names on the register, (D., 216,) the line of voters was full to vote; when, under the law, in the short days of November, the ballot-box was shut up, "a full line of voters were shut out," (D., 216,) (B., 122,) 600 votes could have been legally taken, instead of only 446, and that 80 democrats were kept out, (B., 123.)

It is alleged, too, this was the headquarters of the July rioters, for which there was not one word of proof in the citation therefor. (D., pp. 119, 368; Dodge’s brief.) It is alleged that the district was not legally created, fully and officially refuted, (B., 129,) and admitted. (D., 537.) The official verification of the New York records of the common council demonstrates the legality of the creation of the district. (B., 129, 130.) It is alleged that one of the republican registers, Dougherty, "appears—then disappears forever." It is proven, (D., 224, 225,) all the registers acted together; all certified. (D., 223; B., 83.) "I did not," swears the democratic register, Cowan—and how could he, in the minority, as he was two to one?—"enter any name in the absence of Mr. Dougherty, register," or Mr. Brady, (republican clerk.) (B., 93, 96.) "Mr. Dougherty was present pretty much all the time, except second session." (B., 86.) Mr. Cowan, the democrat, was not there all the while. (D., 67.) Mr. Hall was there most all last session. (D., 67.)

Extract from Alderman Hardy. (B., 263, 264.)

"Question. Is it not the practice to add the names of persons who do not appear in person and give their names to be registered? Answer. Some do and some do not register such persons.

"Question. What is the general practice? Answer. I suppose it is to add them.

"Question. Suppose that names were brought in and vouched for by persons known to the inspectors of registry as respectable inhabitants of the district; is it the practice to register them or not? Answer. That is according as they can make their certificate. If they are satisfied that the persons whose names are so made known to them are voters, they are required to add the names, that they may make a true certificate.

"Question. Do you think that an inspector of registry could properly make that certificate, if he had omitted to include the name of a person who was vouched for to him by a well-known and respectable elector of the district? Answer. I don't think he could.

"Question. I want you to state whether the inspectors of registry are generally all present during the whole of each session. Answer. Almost universally they are not.

"Question. What is the general rule that prevails in regard to taking names in the absence of inspectors of registry? Answer. Where they leave one or two in attendance they generally make an arrangement that all names shall be taken on slips of paper, and when they meet in the evening they add these names in the presence of the full board; most of the names added are taken at the second session; as a general thing they are not added at the first session."

It is alleged that the acting clerk (Brady) in this district was not sworn. This negative is not proven. Hall (republican register) swears, (D., 219,) "I think he was sworn." Mr. Brady was appointed by the republican register, voted for Lincoln for President, and voted against Brooks, (D., 269-67.) He swears again, (D., 271:)

"I am pretty sure I did not put any on the registry list except such as I was told to put on by the inspectors of registry, or the names of persons who came in and registered themselves."

Extract from Brady, 273.

"Question. Then you don’t know the name of a person in the district who you knew was not a legal voter in the district? Answer. No, sir."

There is no law making it imperative for the board of registry to appoint any clerk. They may do, if they please, all the work themselves. The language of the act is, (New York election law, p. 28:)

"The same board may, if necessary, on the day or days of the making a correction of such lists, appoint a clerk to assist them in the discharge of the duties required by this act."

May, if necessary, or may not, if not necessary! If Brady was not sworn, was he appointed? Hall, republican register, asks, (D., 220,) "An appointment is a man generally sworn, isn't it?" The presumption is, that he was sworn; but whether sworn or not, the case of the "People vs. Cook" shows that such a failure in a mere clerk or scrivener for the registers, cannot disfranchise a district. The real question is, was the registry correct? and Hall, the republican register, swears it was, though a very unwilling witness, because of his desire to serve Mr. Dodge in this contest. (D., 220.)

Extract from Hall, (D., 222.)

"Answer. I generally came there about 4 o'clock and stayed there until 9, all the time.

"Question. Did you enter any names on the registry that you believed not to be names of legal voters in that district? Answer. I can't tell; I can't answer that; I don't know the names of many in that district.

"Question. Did you enter the name of any man knowing him not to be a legal voter in that district?—any one that you knew was an illegal voter? Answer. That's a question I can't answer, because I can't tell who the men were that lived in that district.

"(Question repeated.) Answer. Well, I don't think I did."

An effort is made to show that the register entered in mass a great many names, and that only one-quarter of those whose names were registered appeared personally. The laws of New York required no such personal presence to be registered. In a new district like this the law especially provides.

Extract from New York election law, p. 23.

"In case a new election district shall be formed, the said inspectors shall enter on the list the names of such persons entitled to vote in the new election district, whose names appear upon the poll-list of the last general election held in the district, or districts, from which said new election district is formed."

The duty was imperative to enter, without personal presence, the names of all the old voters, in the new 15th—three times as large a territory, as the map shows, of the old 12th district, from which it was taken.

An attempt is then made to show that James Thompson handed in a large number of names, which he had a right to do, and to vouch for, it ever being optional with the registers to receive them or not. Thompson confirms Hall and Cowan, registers, (B., 297:)

"I entered no name upon the book of registry of the district; I kept them till the board of registry met, and handed them to the registers. They set them down on the book. Persons that I knew pretty well."

And the registers did not do this hastily, but after due deliberation.—(B., 297.) An attempt is made by W. B. Chase, one of the republican inspectors, to show that his associate republican inspector, Thomas J. Hall, was not sworn in till "about an hour" after the opening of the polls.—(D., 378.) This Chase figures so disgracefully in a church scene, in being the tool of the outlaw Geoghegan to introduce two Peter Funk "voters" (Coughlin and McLaughlin) upon the stage, (B., 146 and 147, and D., 379, 386, 387, 388, and D., 462, 463, 464,) that it is hard to say whether Geoghegan or himself is most to be credited. If, noscitur a sociis is as good in law as in life, Chase is no more to be credited than Geoghegan; but Chase was only "informed" when Briggs, the supervisor, swore Hall in! Hall himself was never summoned as a witness by the contestant. All we know of him is that he swore, the day of the election, to do his whole duty. This indefatigable Chase again discovers that his democratic associate, Brennan, did not produce his "credentials." Did Chase produce his? Brennan himself was upon the stand, (D., 122) but counsel for contestant made no question of his right, from the start, to act as such inspector. The evidence shows Brennan to have been appointed by the supervisors, and Chase must have known it from the start.

The greatest injustice was shown all day to the democratic voters in this district by the indefensible conduct of this Chase in delaying the voters. Thompson swears, (B., 300.) This district had a registry of over 700, polled only for congressmen, 446, (official return.) "I knew a great many whom we did not register, and who were legal voters."— (B., 300.)

"Question. (B., 298.) Was the entire vote of the district polled on that day? Answer. No, sir; there were close to 400 votes lost.

"Question. How many were waiting at the closing of the polls for an opportunity to vote? Answer. I think there were close to 200.

"Question. What do you consider would be the legal vote of the district? Answer. I consider 800 or upwards."

Extract from Brennan, (B., 122.)

"Answer. Chase and Hall were republicans.

"Question. Did they take the management and control of the election? Answer. Chase was chairman of the board.

"Question. How was the voting in relation to rapidity? Answer. Very slow, in consequence of Mr. Chase. In the morning the polls were not opened until ten minutes after the time, in consequence of waiting for Mr. Hall; Mr. Chase proposed to wait for Hall, and I remonstrated with him, and went on myself and opened the polls.

"Question. Then, how did the voting proceed during the day? Answer. Very slow, in consequence of the many questions asked by Mr. Chase, and a great deal of trouble he caused.

"Question. Were any votes challenged that day? Answer. Mr. Chase challenged many himself.

"Question. Did Mr. Chase insist upon putting oaths and delaying such voters, notwithstanding he had no right by law to challenge any vote? Answer. He did so.

"Question. Were votes rejected that day by the inspectors? Answer. Mr. Chase rejected a great many, in consequence of wrong numbers; the voters were willing to swear, if they had seen the original copy of the registry, their residences were put down right, but on the election day they were found to be wrong.

"Question. And their votes were rejected? Answer. Mr. Chase rejected those.

"Question. How many votes were left out? Answer. I should judge eighty votes, in consequence of wrong numbers."

Extract from Brennan, (B., 126.)

"Question. You think Mr. Chase intended to delay the election? Answer. Yes, sir.

"Question. Why? Answer. From his every action in keeping men so long and asking so many useless questions."

Extract from Brennan, (B., 128.)

"Question. How did Mr. Chase find the names? Answer. Very slowly, sir.

"Question. He was chairman of the board, and kept the registry list also? Answer. Yes. sir.

* * * * * * * *

"Question. As chairman, it was his duty to distribute the ballots to the other inspectors? Answer. Yes, sir."

"Question. And in addition, he undertook to find the names on the registry? Answer. Yes, sir. I remonstrated against his doing both, but was overruled by the other inspectors."

Extract from Thompson, (D., 298.)

"Question. Was the entire vote of the district polled that day? Answer. No, sir; there was close to four hundred votes lost.

"Question. How many were waiting at the closing of the polls for an opportunity to vote? Answer. I think there were close to two hundred.

"Question. What do you consider would be the legal vote of this district? Answer. I consider eight hundred or upwards."

The population of the district.—Extract from Brennan, (B., 12.)

"Question. You think there are as many as five hundred men employed in the gas-works? Answer. I cannot swear to the number employed there. I know that in the neighborhood we have a society that numbers seven hundred, a greater portion of whom work in that district, and I judge from that.

"Question. Do they all sleep in the gas-works? Answer. Sometimes they work off and on, and sometimes sleep there.

"Question. Do they all live in this fifteenth district? Answer. All of them. I will state, in relation to these gas-works, that some of the men are on in the daytime and some on in the night, and they must have residences."

See Cowden (B., 273) on tenement houses and population. Eight hundred and thirty-six tenement houses are in the Eighteenth ward. "These houses have four or five to twenty or more families in them." Fifty men, voters all, are allowed, by law, to bunk in one engine-house. (Pickett, B. 271.)

Extract from Dimond, (B., 75.)

"Question. Have you had opportunities to form an opinion as to the increase of population in this city during the past year or two, and the effect which such increase, if there has been an increase, and the increase in rents, have had in causing people to live in closer quarters, and in more crowded apartments? Answer. I have had the opportunity of any ordinary individual—that is, ordinarily engaged in business. I should say that the high prices of rents and other things would tend very materially to crowd people together.

"Question. Has there been an increase in the price of rents? Answer. Yes, sir; I have experienced that.

"Question. You are a master mechanic and employ laboring men, and you hear them talk in your shop, and you know the opinions and views which prevail among them. From the observation that you have had in such ways, what is your opinion in regard to tenements being more difficult to procure than formerly, and in respect to poor people living more closely together than formerly? Answer. There is a much greater demand for tenements than there has been in former years. There has not been the same amount of buildings erected to supply the ordinary demand, and it has tended very materially to crowd tenements, more particularly in consequence of the high price of rents; rents went up from forty to fifty per cent. on tenement property."

MONEY IN ELECTIONS—THE LAW ON BRIBERY.

The New York statutes are very explicit in forbidding the use of money in elections for anything but printing votes, hand-bills, and other papers, or for conveying sick, poor, and infirm voters to the polls. The entertainment even of electors is forbidden, or promise to pay for entertainment, or the furnishing of money to any person to procure attendance at the polls, or engaging to pay money to compensate persons. (1 vol. R. S., p. 144.) Nothing can be made more explicit than that statute. The fuller words of the law are (R. S., vol. 1, title 7, sec. 4)—

"If any person shall by BRIBERY, menace, or other corrupt means, or device whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, attempt to influence any elector of this State in giving his vote or ballot, or deter him from giving the same, or disturb or hinder him in the free exercise of the right of suffrage at any election within the State, and shall thereof be convicted, such person so offending and convicted shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined or imprisoned according to the discretion of the court before which such conviction shall be had, such fine in no case to exceed five hundred dollars, nor such imprisonment one year."

The sixth specification of the sitting member against the contestant is (B., 4)—

"That, in violation of the law of the State, you used in the election large sums of money yourself, or your agents and friends, for bribery and frauds, and corruptly purchased votes, or voters to vote for you, or, when that could not be done, to vote for T. J. Barr."

The best proof of this is the evidence of Mr. Dodge himself and one of his counsel in the case, Mr. Phelps. The latter gentleman, in the closest confidence of Mr. Dodge, swears:

Extract from Phelps, Dodge's counsel, (D., 499.)

"Question. What do you know as to the expense of the election to Mr. Dodge? Answer. Of the gross amount of the expenditure to which he was put for election purposes I have no idea, except that it was very small considering the size of the district.

"Question. You have no idea what the amount was? Answer. No, sir; except that I would be pretty sure that it wasn't $15,000, and wasn't $12,000—wasn't $10,000, I think; I don't think it was as much as $10,000."

Mr. Dodge himself, in his remarks before the House, upon the printing of the testimony in the case, admitted substantially his own personal expenditure to be about $6,000. (See Congressional Globe of February 3.)

Extract from Dodge, (B., 143.)

"Question. Can you tell me what amount of money you disbursed for your election purposes?

"Answer. I can't possibly. I did not spend half as much as I expected I should.

"Question. Can you give me the figures within a thousand dollars? Answer. My impression, from the best data I can get at, is that it was somewhere from four to five thousand dollars in all.

"Question. Is that independent of the contributions of your friends? Answer. Yes, sir.

"Question. Give me your best impression as to what amount of money was used by your friends for your election purposes?"

In answer to which Mr. Dodge submitted the following two subscription papers, the only two in his possession:

EXHIBIT No. 4.

The undersigned agree to contribute the sum set opposite their respective names to aid in the election of William E. Dodge, esq., to Congress from the 8th congressional district. And we will pay the amount so contributed to John H. Sherwood, William H. Lee, and Legrand B. Cannon, as finance committee:

Marshal O. Roberts, paid J. H. S ...... $1,000

Edward Learned, paid ...... 250

A.W. Griswold, paid to J. H. S ...... 100

Henry J. Stewart, Nov. 18. 1864, paid ...... 250

H. & J. W. Coggill, paid W. C ...... 100

John A. Livingston, (B. H. & L. paid A. L.) paid. ...... 100

David Dowes, paid ...... 100

Evermore, Clews & Co., paid ...... 100

Morris Ketchum, paid J. H. S ...... 100

Mr. Shiffilen, paid to J. H. S ...... 50

Cortland Palmer, paid to J. H. S ...... 50

2,200

EXHIBIT No. 5.

The friends of William E. Dodge, esq., take pleasure in contributing the amount set opposite their names to aid in his election to Congress. And we will pay said sum or amount to John H. Sherwood, William H. Lee, and Legrand B. Cannon, to be used for said purpose:

John H. Sherwood, 12 East 40 st., paid ...... $100

John J. Phelps, paid ...... 100

Sackett, Belcher & Co., paid ...... 100

Lee, Blin A Co., paid ...... 100

George Bliss, paid ...... 100

E. T. Tefft, paid ...... 100

Lathrop & Luddington, paid ...... 100

A. R. Eno, paid ...... 100

I. & J. Stuart & Co., paid ...... 100

Levi P. Morton, paid ...... 100

D. Willis Janies, paid ...... 100

Legrand B. Cannon, paid ...... 100

J. N. Phelps, paid ...... 100

Norman White, paid ...... 100

Morris Ketchum, paid ...... 100

Samuel B. Scheffelin, paid ...... 100

O. D. F. Grant, paid ...... 100

George R. D. Fant, paid ...... 100

George Griswold, paid ...... 100

W. W. De Forest, paid ...... 100

David Hoadley and friend, paid ...... 100

U. A. Murdoch, D. G. B. C., paid ...... 100

E. D. Morgan, D. G. B. C., paid ...... 200

A friend ...... 500

2,900

The sums of money expended by Mr. Dodge himself, and known to be expended by or through him, are then admitted to be—

Mr. Dodge, personally, (see Congressional Globe) $6,000

First subscription list 2,220

Second subscription list 2,900

11,120

But the sitting member shows—and which seems all to be verified by the testimony—the following expenditure:

Money paid by Dodge at Legrand Cannon's, (B., 41) ...... $500

Bargain of Cannon, Cowden, and Dodge with Barr, (B., 40, 59, 145-6, ...... 2,000

Enormous (so-called) "printing bill," (B., 46) ...... 2,008

Amount Cowden received from Dodge, (B., 48) ...... 3,500

Payments to the three wards, $500 each ...... 1,500

An undiscovered subscription paper from G. B. Do Forrest, (B., 42) ...... 500

An undiscovered subscription paper from G. B. De Forrest, (B., 42) ...... 100

An undiscovered subscription paper from M. O. Roberts, (B., 42) ...... 100

Paid by Cowden voluntarily, (B., 55) ...... $150 or 200

Two discovered subscription papers.

Exhibit No. 4, p. 320, M. O. Roberts leading off with $1,000 ...... 2,200

Exhibit No. 5, p. 320, John H. Sherwood leading off ...... 2,900

Total discovered ...... 15,508

Extract from Mr. Phelps, (D., 499.)

"IT WASN'T AN EXPENSIVE ELECTION AT ALL. WE WOULD HAVE MADE IT FAR MORE SO IF WE HAD ONLY KNOWN AS MUCH AS WE KNOW NOW."

Extract from Legrand Cannon, (B., 31.)

"Question. What was said at these meetings held at the junction of Fifth avenue and Broadway on the subject of finances?

"Answer. The general tone of it was to have SUFFICIENT MONEY TO CARRY MR. DODGE IN as the successful candidate, and to beat Mr. Brooks."

The expenditures of these great sums of money by a contestant of immense wealth is astonishing to members from the rural districts. They would not only buy farm after farm in the west, homestead after homestead, but of themselves alone be "riches" to the sturdy farmer and mechanic and laborer of the country. We have never before known of such expenditures on an election, save among the wealthy landed aristocracy of England, or, among London capitalists, who go down into the country to buy rotten boroughs for a seat in Parliament.

It is all something novel to country members here, whose election expenses seldom run over one or two hundred dollars, and often are but fifty dollars. We doubt whether a boroughmonger in England ever sold a people there at such cost as Mr. Dodge and his friends paid to carry this district. No calamity could well be greater to the American people than in any way to countenance the purchase of seats in Congress by such expenditures of money. If it is not frowned upon now when first here attempted, or if this precedent of corruption and bribery be established, the happy possessors of our immense national debt will soon be buying their way into Congress, and not only regulate the taxation of Congress to pay themselves, but also the rates of interest they are to be paid by the sweat and labor of the land. But there can be no two opinions in ethics or in politics on the enormity of the crime in this use of money, while the law of New York clearly and emphatically pronounces it a misdemeanor, and sentences the guilty party—not to a seat in the House of Representatives.

VIOLATION OF THE SABBATH BY CONTESTANT AND FRIENDS.

And what aggravates this misdemeanor is, the specification (B, 4) that a corrupt bargain was made with the Tammany Hall candidate, T. J. Barr, against Mr. Brooks, to give him (Barr) two thousand dollars, and that bargain was made upon the Sabbath day, and of which, thus made, the contestant himself became cognizant! (B., 166, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57.)

Extract from Legrand Cannon, (B., 35.)

"After a long negotiation with Mr. Barr, we asked him how much money it required for him to man the polls, provide boxes for ticket distributors, &c., and he said an election in this district would cost about $5,000; I think it was something of that kind. We then proposed, if it was necesary [sic], to furnish him $2,000—Mr. Cowdin and myself.

"Question. What further was said? Answer. Mr. Barr considered that matter for some time, thinking, he said, that it might be sufficient; he would make all the attempt he could, and we agreed to furnish that amount if it was necessary, and if he was elected we agreed to give him a thousand dollars more."

Extract from Elliot C. Cowdin, (B.,47.)

"Question. Did you pay him, Barr? Answer. I paid him two thousand dollars.

"Question. On that occasion? Answer. Yes, sir.

"Question. When he came to your store? Answer. Yes, sir.

"Question. In what did you pay him. Answer. In bank bills."

From Cowdin, (B., .54.)

"Question. About what time was it that Mr. Barr saw you on the day that you paid him this money? Answer. I should think in the middle of the day.

"Question. What time was the interview on Sunday? Answer. It was after church; whether in the morning or in the evening I do not remember; if my memory serves me right, he came on Sunday about dinner-time, and I had some friends to dinner, and he said that he would come again, and he came in the evening; I think it was something like that, but I cannot remember now.

"Question. Something like the evening? Answer. I think in the evening."

From Cowdin, (B. 59.)

"Question. You paid Mr. Barr two thousand dollars? Answer. Yes, sir.

"Question. And you received from Mr. Dodge two thousand dollars? Answer. I received just two thousand dollars; it so happened that it was the same amount.

"Question. Was the two thousand dollars received by you from Mr. Dodge for any other purpose than to reimburse you the two thousand dollars you had paid Mr. Barr? Answer. Well, I will not say it was for that purpose directly.

"Question. I ask if it was for any other purpose? Answer. Not so far as I am concerned, it was not."

Mr. Cowden denies, however, that Mr. Dodge was then cognizant of the Sabbath day contract. "It was a month after election before he could have known anything about it."

Extract from Mr. Dodge's testimony, (B., 16(5.)

"Question. When was your last payment to Mr. Cannon on account of the election? Answer. I didn’t pay anything to Mr. Cannon except on election day.

"Question. How much was that? Answer. Five thousand dollars. (Mr. Dodge said in committee this was a mistake, and should be five hundred dollars.) He returned me, after election, I think, three hundred and sixty dollars.

"Question. For what purpose was that? Answer. I don't know; it was some expenses for carriages—for hack-hire; he said he might want it in the course of the day.

"Question. When was your last payment to Mr. Cowden? Answer. I have not the date; but my impression is that it was some three or four weeks after election.

"Question. And the amount? Answer. IT WAS EXACTLY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.

"Question. Was any statement made at that time for what purpose that two thousand dollars was? Answer. He wrote me that he had a bill to pay, and that Mr. Cannon had stated that funds had been put in my hands.

"Question. Do you know whether that two thousand dollars was for any special purpose? Answer. I have heard since it was to pay Mr. Barr.

"Question. Did you know that at the time? Answer. I SUSPECTED IT, BUT DIDN'T KNOW IT."

It is obvious here that Mr. Dodge knew of the Barr-Cannon-Cowden Sabbath-day contract, and that his $2,000 ratified and indorsed it. The contestant in this case, who is crying out "fraud," "fraud," against the sitting member, comes before the House, then, not with clean hands as the law requires, but as guilty of a high misdemeanor under the statutes of New York, and as a breaker of the Sabbath—the Sunday statutes of New York, (see R. S., art. 8, secs. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,) as well as the statutes of most of the States of this Union, and, above all, of one of the ten commandments:

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT, TWENTY-FIRST WARD.

The sitting member moved to strike out this district in consequence of the violation of the election law by the canvassers. The vote was:

Dodge. | Brooks. | Barr.

394. | 136. | 27.

The law is, (vol. 1, R. S., page 130:)

"As soon as the poll of an election shall have been finally closed, the inspectors of said election shall proceed to canvass the votes. Such canvass shall be public, and shall not be adjourned or postponed until it shall have been finally completed."

The canvassers in this district were Mr. White, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Fox. D. W. Clarke, a lawyer, (B., 18,) swears that White and Baker, about nine or ten o'clock p. m., got up and walked over to Parker's, a liquor store, nearly opposite, where they tarried from a half to a whole hour, and no canvasser was left behind to watch the ballot-boxes. "Ballots were lying around on the table," (B., 19,) fifty in number. Mr. Clarke expressed the opinion then to Senator Connolly, his companion—

"That they had no right to go away; that it has against the law, and that they were liable to have the district thrown out."

"Frauds (adds Mr. Clark) could have been undoubtedly committed in their absence. (B., 21.)

Senator Connolly (B., 97) confirms all this testimony of Mr. Clarke. The Congress ticket, he swears, had not been counted when the canvassers left. Ignatius Fox, the third canvasser, (B., 294,) swears he went with the two other canvassers, White and Baker, to Parker's to get refreshments; "they were gone twenty minutes;" "the poll-room was full of people;" a policeman and two or three other citizens were left within the enclosure where the ballots were. Fox thinks the congressional ticket had been counted before they went out, but no final count had been made, "simply counted in tens." A liquor store was within fifty feet of the place, where liquor was sold all day.

The law was here clearly and palpably violated by the adjournment and postponement of the canvass, while the canvassers were gone out across a broad avenue to drink and eat; and there was no security for the congressional ballot-box though counted in stacks of tens or uncounted. Because of his absence, it is alleged and specified (B., 4) that the vote was made unnaturally to count thus:

McClellan ...... 185 | Lincoln ...... 376

Brooks ...... 134 | Dodge ...... 394

Dodge thus 18 ahead of Abraham Lincoln, and Brooks and Barr combined 24 behind McClellan.

Now, every legal exaction which would throw out the seventh district, Twenty-first ward, or the fifteenth district, Eighteenth ward, would, a fortiori, throw out the thirteenth district Twenty-first ward, because there, in that most critical period of an election, the law was palpably broken by the wilful absence of the canvassers from the ballot-boxes, left in the custody, not only of strangers to the law, but of persons unknown. Correct the return, then, by throwing out these three districts, and the result would be thus:

Brooks. Dodge.

7th district, 21st ward ...... 160 71

15th district, 18th ward ...... 221 57

13th district, 21st ward ...... 134 394

515 522

Brooks's official majority is 148, from which deduct 7 votes lost in three districts thrown out, and the result would be 141 majority for Brooks.

All of which is respectfully submitted, with the following resolution:

That William E. Dodge is not entitled to a seat in the House as a representative in the 39th Congress from the eighth district in New York.

S. S. MARSHALL.

WILLIAM RADFORD.

• Minority Report on the Contested Election of Dodge vs. Brooks (introduced on 1866-03-25 00:00:00 - CREATE - e680437) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1866-03-25 00:00:00 - REPORT_PROPOSAL - e680438) [view current proposal at this moment]