The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1866-04-05

sttute BY inserting in lieu thereof the following:
Rssoiped, That the testimony taken as 10 Mr.
Brooks be recommitted to the Committee OF Eleo-
tons, with instructions 10 report especially the
faots as to the custom under the laws Of New York
Of appointing inspectors Of the registry Of election
not from persons residing In the election dstrict
also the facts respecting the verihcation by Mr.
Brooks Of the votes given for him In the fifteenth
district Of the eighteenth ward with power to send
for perons and papers, DO.
Mr.. spalding, Of Ohio, gave notice that he would
In Of the rejection Of the resolution offered by
Mr.. Garfield, Offer as a substitute for the resolu.
lions reported by the committee, q resolution de.
claring that neither the sitting member nor the
contestant were duly elected and that the seat for
the eighth district Of New York 10 vacant.
Mr. Schenck, Of Ohio, remarked that the resolu-
tiOn which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. spalding)
proposed to offer was quite unnecessary, inasmuch
as gentlemen could accomplish the object aimed at
BY the resolution BY voting aye on the FIRST resolu
that Mr. Brooks Is not entitled to q seat in the
House, and By voting on the second resolution
reported by the committee, which declares that Mr..
Dodge IL entitled to the said seat.
Mr. Garfield, Of Ohio, then proceeded to advo-
vate the resolution which he had offered recommit-
ting the case TO the Committee on Elections. He
said that he had always hitherto voted in these
election cases In favor OF sustaining the views of
the majority OF the Committee on Elections, and
In this case, while he did not disagree totally with
tne conciuslons hrrlNeu AZ Dy the committee, yet,
after carefully reading the reports that had been
presented BY the majority and the minority, he
must say that he was not willing 10 vote either
way. He thought that II was most significant
admission on the part Of the committee that, 'if
the testimony adduoed on both sides were stripped
Of all irrelevant matter, Very htts rouH remain."
AFTER the admission that the Investigation had
ELECTED livery little" to throw light upon the con-
test he thought II little singular that the com.
mittse should 90 on to Gust the sitting member
and to admit the contestant. He continued his
remarks at some length, arguing that the case
called for further investigation.
Mr.. Farnsworth, Of Illinois, was also unwilling
TO concur in the report Of the committee. He had
endeayored In this, As he had always done in pre-
vious election cases, to examine and thoroughly
understand the matter In dispute II seemed to
him from a review Of the evidence that IL there
was any fraud In the election there was not n par
ticle Of proof that Mr.. Brooks had in any manner
participated In or even been oogniEant Of such
fraud. 1t was not even shown that Mr. Brooks had
used or authorized or countenanced the use Of
money to secure his election while on the other
hand II seemed to him very clear from the evidence
that Mr.. Dodge had used-or that his friends, with
his knowledge and approval, had used-large sums
Of money In the canvass. Ho cited tho evidence to
be paid to Mr.. Barr, the Tammany candidate, the
sum Of two thousand dollars to induce him to run
In order that the opposition to the Republican
ticket might be divided and declared that, taking
into consideration the whole mass Of the evidence
which had been presented, and laying aside all
personal and party feeling, he was Of opinion that
case was not made out here which would Justify
US In ousting the sitting member.
At the conclusion Of Mr.. Farnsworths remarks
the further consideration Of the subject was post.
poned until to morrow, and the House dispensed
with the evening session and adjourned