Robert Costello testifies at page 624.

6937. I voted at the last presidential election seven or eight times. I voted the Grant and Griswold ticket. I voted at the 8th district, 15th ward. There was a whole crowd of us going around-about 20. They all voted the same ticket. They voted about as many times as I did.

John Clark testifies same page.

6939. I voted at the last presidential election. I voted for Grant and Griswold. I voted five times at least in the several districts of the 8th ward. I was short of money at the time and could not find any easier way of getting money. I was with a gang of seven or eight. They voted as I did. I cannot tell how many times they voted. I voted in Greene street, Thompson street, and Renwick street.

Cornelius Doherty testifies at page 632.

6981. I voted eight or nine times at the last presidential election; I voted in Perry street, Washington street, Hudson street, twice in Prince street, in Fourth street, near Jay, in Crosby street, Greene street, and Spring street; I voted for Griswold; I voted the full republican ticket; I guess there were 20 or 22 in the gang; they all voted the same ticket; some of them voted 18 or 20 times; I left in the afternoon at 2 o'clock; I voted once under the name of Williams; that is the only name I can recollect; I was promised $25 for voting, but I did not get it.

John Glennon testifies at page 625:

6941. I voted at the last presidential election. I voted the republican ticket. Several of my friends came around saying that money could be made easy, and that no one would know anything about it. I voted in the 15th, 9th, and 16th wards. I do not know how many times I voted-eight or nine times. There were about a dozen in the party with me. I only know one of them. I think his name is Frost. He handed me the republican ticket

to use.

Peter Loftus testifies at page 632:

6978. I voted three times at the last presidential election; I voted the republican ticket; there may have been five or six in the gang; they were all repeaters; they voted the same ticket that I did; I voted in the 4th district of the 8th ward, in Grand street; that is my proper district; I voted in the 1st district, in Greene street, and in the 6th, in Prince street. The names were furnished to me through other hands; I cannot recollect the names. I was paid $8; I cannot say who paid it to me.

Charles McCarthy testifies at page 631:

6971. I voted at the last presidential election in this city between seven and eight times; I voted the republican ticket. There were as many as a dozen with me; they all voted the same ticket; I voted in the 4th district of the 8th ward, in the 1st distrret, and in fact in pretty nearly all the districts of the ward. I voted once on my own name, once in the name of Jeremiah Sullivan, once in the name of Charles O'Conner; the other names I do not recollect.

Jacob Rome testifies at page 625:

6943. I voted at the last presidential election nine or ten times, in the 8th and 15th wards; I voted the republican ticket; I voted on different names; they were furnished on slips of paper; I do not know who gave them to me. There were some 15 or 20 in the party. I cannot say how many times they voted. I suppose they voted as often as I did; perhaps more. It was the republican party that we were trying to help.

Paul Volmer testifies at page 631:

6973. I voted four times at the last presidential election, in the 15th ward; I do not recollect the places I voted the republican ticket; I got $10 for it; I was intoxicated at the time. There were about ten of us in company; they all voted the republican ticket; the others voted as often as I did, and perhaps oftener.

This concludes a review of the testimony of 40 witnesses, all, or nearly all who testified on the subjects of "repeaters" and "repeating," and the minority of the committee feel that they can confidently appeal to the calm and deliberate judgment of the House in support of the position assumed by them at the outset, that no considerable number of fraudulent votes are proven to have been actually cast at the election in New York city last November, and that there was nothing extraordinary in the number that were in fact cast at that election.

H. Rep. Com. 31-10

GOVERNOR HOFFMAN AND MAYOR HALL.

These distinguished gentlemen do not escape the criticism of the majority. But they are so well known in their personal and official characters to the citizens of New York, and their official conduct during the late elections were so entirely free from fault, that we shall allude to them but briefly. During the canvass prior to the November election, Governor Hoffman was mayor of New York. The contest was exceedingly earnest and attended with unusual excitement. Under date of October 31, 1868, upon knowledge and information concerning the purposes of certain republican leaders in connection with the election to take place three days afterwards, which gave him great apprehensions for the peace and order of the city, he issued an official proclamation, designed to secure and preserve the public peace, and to deter unscrupulous men from its disturbance or the violation of the election laws. That proclamation had no other purpose, and it tended very greatly to promote the end in view. The circumstances and information upon which it was issued are very fully stated by Mr. Hoffman in his testimony, at page 99. That testimony is too lengthy for quotation in this report, and any attempt to abbreviate it would impair its force and completeness. It is therefore merely referred to. The high character and personal purity of Mr. Hoffman, both as a citizen and magistrate, are in no degree affected by anything elicited in this investigation.

The majority, in their report, assail the conduct of Hon. A. Oakey Hall, at present mayor of New York, and secretary of the democratic State committee of New York during the recent presidential campaign. The two prominent allegations against Mr. Hall, are predicated upon the fact that he was one of a committee who signed a call for a meeting of the democratic canvassers of the city of New York, on the Sunday preceding the election in November, at Tammany Hall. And that he was the author of a certain circular purporting to emanate from the chairman of the democratic State committee, (Hon. Samuel J. Tilden,) calling upon democrats throughout the State to forward the result of the election in their several districts to Tammany Hall as soon as possible after it was made known in said districts. This circular was marked "confidential," and that word, in the opinion of the majority, was of dreadful import in such a connection. It is assumed first, by the majority, that the meeting of canvassers at "Tammany" was for an illegal object, and that the suggestions, or rather recommendations, of that "mysterious" circular explain that object, which, according to the partisan construction given it by the majority, was none other than this: That the aforesaid canvassers were fully advised of the alleged design of the author of said circular, and that in pursuance of said design they (the canvassers) should count the ballots as slowly as possible, in order that time might be afforded to ascertain how the State (outside the city) had voted; and if the result was unfavorable to the democracy, a sufficient number of republican votes cast in the city might be thrown out, or else changed to democratic votes.

That this assumption is not true in point of fact, we need only refer to other portions of the report of the majority, wherein it is substantially alleged that the democrats, by a well-organized system of "repeating" in the city, had taken care beforehand not to be defeated, and testimony is quoted by the majority to show that this system was generally carried out.

Mr. Hall, however, (page 327,) explains the real objects of the meeting at "Tammany," the Sunday preceding the election, as follows:

The main object of the meeting was to consult as to the effect of naturalization certificates. The meeting occupied, I should think, about an hour. Another reason of the meeting was

to say that instructions would be prepared for the inspectors and sent to them. The year before a pamphlet instructing them as to their duties was distributed by the board of police to each inspector and canvasser, by order of the board, and was prepared by one of the commissioners, one of the clerks, and myself, who am counsel to the police board. This year the board, in its discretion, agreed not to distribute them. The republican party reprinted the same thing in substance, with some amendments taking different views on some matters. and we reprinted it exactly without changing it, and with a preface. We thought to have got it in time to have distributed it at that meeting, but it was not ready and had to be sent through the post office.

And now in regard to that "circular" of awful import.

At page 335 Mr. Hall swears:

3557. Q. Your object, then, was to get the returns from the country before they got the returns from New York?-A. No; our object was to prevent their getting the New York vote; it was nothing to us to get their vote, except as we opened the wires and made them send their vote.

3558. Q. The effect of it, then, was that you would get the vote from the country before they could get the vote from the city?-A. That would be one effect.

3559 Q. Was there a change in that respect from the practice of former years ?-A. No, sir; no change in the practice, except to some extent. I have been an inspector myself; and a great many inpectors would always canvass each name on the electoral ticket. Some would do so because there are always bets as to who shall run highest on the ticket, and who shall run the lowest. We had another object in this, and that was we thought the vote would be rather close, and that we might elect some of our electors and might not elect others. The tickets are not always correctly printed. It often happens that two or three names are left off the ticket, and it would not do, therefore, to count each ticket as having upon it 33 names, when it might only have 30 or 31.

The discussions in other parts of this report of other questions arising in this investigation and of the evidence in connection therewith, conclusively show that the assumptions of the majority in reference to the intentions of Mr. Hall, are utterly baseless and visionary. In order to accomplish any such fraud as that alleged to have been contemplated by Mr. Hall, each and every canvasser in a majority of the districts of the city would have had to acquiesce therein, and when we recall the fact which appears in a dozen places in the testimony, that these canvassers are appointed by the police authorities, with especial reference to the equal representation of both parties on these boards in every district, it is impossible to see how any such fraud could be consummated unless the majority of the committee are willing to admit that the members of the republican party are as corrupt as they represent those of the democratic party in New York to be.

The attempt of a majority to create a suspicion that the object of the State committee in thus seeking to obtain an early report from the country districts was an improper one, by introducing in that connection the name of Colonel Samuel North, who they say, "during the war had been arrested and tried by the military authorities for making false votes under the soldiers' voting law," is an unwarrantable and unjustifiable assault upon that gentleman.

There is no record of his conviction for any such offence, and without it he stands as guiltless before the law and the country as any member of the committee or of the House. Besides, every member of the committee, and every intelligent man in the country, is well aware that the history of the political and personal outrages committed by the republican party during the war furnishes no example of a more cruel, unjustifiable, or tyrannical arrest and imprisonment of a private citizen without the slightest regard to personal liberty or the forms of law, than that of Colonel North.

CONCLUSION.

There are many other questions of minor importance which arise out of this investigation, which it would be proper for us briefly to consider, but the time allowed us for the preparation of any report was so short and insufficient that we were compelled to omit further reference to them. The majority in their report devote a great deal of space to the consideration of certain proposed remedies for the defects in existing naturalization laws, and the prevention of the evils complained of. These propositions are radical and complicated in their nature. The minority are unable to concur in any of them as single and distinct propositions. The extent to which we do concur in any of them is sufficiently indicated in former parts of this report. We therefore defer their further consideration until they shall have been proposed for enactment by Congress. It is eminently due to the cause of truth, and justice to ourselves demands that we shall state in conclusion, that the minority, during the entire investigation, possessed extremely unequal facilities for either the procurement of witnesses or the taking of testimony before the committee. Otherwise, we say with profound conviction of its truth, that we could, by proper rebutting and contradicting testimony, have triumphantly answered and destroyed the material basis upon which the majority rest their grave assumptions of a democratic conspiracy to perpetrate frauds and carry elections. Indeed, these assumptions, after the most ex parte investigation, find no decent or substantial support in our record.

M. C. KERR.

L. W. ROSS.

Mr. WILLIAM LAWRENCE, from the Select Committee on Alleged New York Election Frauds, submitted the following

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT.1

[The numbers in this report refer to the numbers of questions and answers in the volume of evidence.]

The Select Committee on Alleged New York Election Frauds report: That it is deemed proper to present the conclusions of the committee on some topics not considered in the former report, and to state some additional facts pertinent to the investigations ordered by the House. So far as remedial.legislation by Congress is concerned, it can make but little difference what political party may have been guilty of frauds, for the fact of their existence and their character more especially points out the necessity of appropriate remedies.

It is nevertheless due to the truth of history that great public wrongs should be traced to the proper source, and that has already been done as to the New York election frauds.

NO REPUBLICAN FRAUDS.

There is certainly no evidence to implicate any republican organization in fraud, nor to show any general or systematic plan by the republican party, or by members of it, to violate the election laws.

Frauds upon a great and extended scale could not be accomplished by any political party through its party machinery without the knowledge, sanction, or connivance of some of its prominent leaders.

As against the republican party there is not only no evidence of such frauds, but the meagre efforts to show complicity in isolated cases has not risen to the dignity of proof.

It may be proper to notice some of the evidence on this subject.

NATURALIZATION.

But a single witness attempted to make any charge deserving notice as to naturalization frauds by any republican in New York city. It is quite evident he was engaged in naturalization frauds for the democratic politicians, for he says he signed his "name as a witness in all these cases at No. 1 Centre street, and in the basement of the old City Hall, where the sheriff's office was." Both of these places were notoriously managed in the interest of the democratic party. He only attempts to impli

The evidence recently printed shows facts on several subjects, as follows: Registering illegally and "repeating."-Evidence, 9133, 9166, 9167, 9169, 9185, 9186. Illegal naturalizations.-Evidence, 9136, 9137, 9153, 9156, 9160, 9162, 9165, 9167, 9169, 9172, proves 4,000 illegal certificates-9174, 9193, 9313.

Immunity for election frauds-Discharge of parties arrested.-Evidence, 9136, 9150, 9165. Obstructions thrown in the way of investigation.-Evidence, pages 842, 847.

Delay in canvassing-Evidence, 9158, 9246.

Ballot-box stuffing.-Evidence, 9184.

Number of naturalizations in supreme court.—Confirmation of the original count, as sworn to by Webster, Gillespie, and Meeks, 9186. Terrorism.--Evidence, 9189.