VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

Mr. KERR, from the minority of the Committee on New York Election Frauds, submits their views.

The minority of the committee being wholly unable to concur with the majority either in their assumptions of authority, statements of facts, or conclusions upon the law and evidence, respectfully submit the following report:

It is unquestionably true that irregularities, frauds, and outrages have been committed in connection with the conduct of elections ever since elective governments were organized amongst men. They are great evils, and interpose great obstacles to the success of representative and republican governments; they demand the co-operation of all men, and the most unpartisan and vigilant care of legislators to prevent them; they have more or less attended upon elections in all parts of our country; they seem to arise out of the imperfections in human nature and laws, and were never yet successfully overcome by any people, or under any past or present condition of civilization.

A manifest excess of zeal on the part of the majority seems to have persuaded them that the world has been to some extent a stranger to such things until the last general election in New York. It may not be improper for us, therefore, to remark that the history of popular elections in ours and every other country, and the records of this house in connection with contested elections, supply deplorable evidences of the wickedness, lawlessness, and corruptions of men and society, and of high officers of government in such matters-important and vital as they are to the well-being of society and government. It is not alone in New York that such conduct has characterized elections. The dominant party in this house have, in their disposition of many contested elections, set examples of most questionable character to be followed by the people. It is conspicuously unjust for the majority to intimate or assume that such wrongs and crimes disgrace the members of the democratic party alone. This investigation has elicited disgusting evidences of the demoralization and criminality of individual members of both political parties.

The history of elections throughout our country since the predominance in it of the present republican party furnishes numerous and stupendous examples of lawlessness and frauds in the interests of that party. The conduct of elections by them in the city of New York, in the State of Ohio, in the State, and especially at Indianapolis, the capital, of Indiana, in Kentucky, Missouri, and many other States, during and since the late war, has been in the highest degree dishonorable to them and to our country, and subversive of the great aim of representative institutions. The freedom and purity of elections were many times utterly destroyed; and unauthorized persons in very great numbers, and many times whole companies and regiments of soldiers, were, in defiance of law, voted, and voted repeatedly in their interests, and elections were thus controlled.

It appears to be the judgment of the majority that the remedy for these great evils can only come from Congress, and need not be expected to originate in or be provided by the States of the Union. We fear the experience of the country cannot justify concurrence in their opinion.

Congress has exercised undisputed authority in this District (of Columbia) for many years, and supreme and irresistible, but in our judgment usurped, power in many States of the south; but the conduct and incidents of popular elections in these several places affords no reliable or encouraging evidence of improvement or reform under federal supervision. The body of electors in these places, under congressional tutelage, appears to have been depreciated very materially in the essential elements of good citizenship. Their elections bring us innumerable evidences and examples of violence, corruption, confusion, lawlessness, and anarchy. We trust the people will give solemn consideration to this great subject before they consent to commit these vital interests to the regulation and jurisdiction of the federal government.

Before we proceed to the presentation in detail of the facts and our conclusions in reference to the late elections in New York, we must submit, for the better understanding of this matter, a few general facts, the significance of which will need no suggestions from us.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTROL NEW YORK.

Let it not be forgotten that, for many years past, the State of New York has been under the control of the republican party. Its laws for the government of the State at large, and of all its cities, and for the regulation of all its elections, were either enacted by that party or were subject to its unrestricted control, for amendment, repeal, or reformation. If, therefore, they are defective, the fault is theirs, and they should be held responsible for the evil results which have followed.

It is true the city of New York has been democratic for several years; but it is also true, and it is an impressive fact in this investigation, that it was and is the policy of the republican party to deny to and divest the city of New York of the great fundamental right of municipal selfgovernment. This has been very effectually done by that party, and there have been created by it several "boards" and "commissions," invested with most important powers and jurisdiction, and relieved of all responsibility or subordination to the city or the people of the city in the discharge of their duties. The powers thus wrongfully taken from the city embrace the exclusive control of all elections, and of the entire police force of the city. All election officers are appointed and removed, and all police officers are appointed and removed solely by one of these boards, called the "Metropolitan Board of Police." The result of this transfer of power from its rightful possessors has not been promotive of the good order, good government, or honor of that great city.

Let it also be remembered that the election officers to conduct all elections are constituted, as stated by Hon. A. Oakey Hall, present mayor of the city, in his testimony:

The police board at the designated period, in anticipation of the November election, are charged with the duty of naming four inspectors of the registry and of election, the individuals being charged with the two duties in the 340 districts of this city; the persons so named execute both duties. They care for the registry and they take the votes. The police board are also charged with the duty of appointing, in time for the election, two poll-clerks at each election district, and two canvassers at each election district. The poll-clerks assist the inspectors in their duty, and also the canvassers. There is no law, that I am aware of, establishing that the four inspectors or the two canvassers shall be equally divided between the two political parties, but such has been the usage. It is made the duty, by the police act, of the superintendent to detail ou election day at least one policeman at each poll in each election district. There is usually, however, one officer inside the poll and one outside. 2946. Q. How was it during the last general election?-A. All this machinery which I have described was in operation, so far as I know, and I visited during the election day more than 100 polling places personally.

2947. Q. Was this machinery, so organized and constituted, the only machinery for the

protection of the election and of the poll against frauds or unlawful conduct of any kind?— A. It was the only legal machinery, but not the only practical machinery. The practical machinery consisted of each party furnishing at each poll a challenger, and each party more or less appointing a committee to conduct the poll and to take charge of the expected illegal voting. It was generally done by the local candidates, or supposed to be done by the local candidates or their friends.

2948. Q Do you know of any interruption on the part of any officer of the legal force to which you have referred to the organization of that sort of voluntary force?—Ă. I do not, except what I have read in the public prints.

2949. Q. Do you know of any other force, lawful or unlawful, being organized for the purpose of protecting the polls on election day by anybody?-A. I have already stated that the two political parties had agents there.

Under such an organization of election and police officers, aided by other officers, challengers, committees, and such political machinery as is usually supplied by the voluntary action of parties, it would seem almost impossible that very extensive frauds could be successfully practiced in the interests of either party, at least without the consent and co-operation of both; and wherever great frauds were in fact committed upon the ballot-box or the registry, the testimony strongly tends to show that this was the case.

ORIGIN AND MOTIVES OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

This committee was called into being by this house in compliance with a memorial from the Union League of New York. There was no contest pending to render it proper or necessary. It is not confined in its scope or purposes to investigations into the conduct of congressional elections, or elections for electors for President and Vice-President, but extends to all elections for all kinds of officers of the State of New York at the November election in 1868. This involves an assertion of jurisdiction that does not rightfully exist in this house.

The League, a few days after that election, in order to make a basis for their "memorial," employed several attorneys to work up the case and discover evidence necessary to give it some support. These lawyers are John A. Foster, Samuel J. Glassey, John H. White, and John I. Davenport. The latter is also the clerk of this committee. These gentlemen are all earnest partisans of the League. They were all continued in the service of the League, after the memorial was presented, to aid the majority of this committee in procuring, organizing, disciplining, and in some cases paying for such testimony as has been taken by them. See testimony, pp. 114, 118, 183, 227, 352, 472, 597, 604.

Besides these gentlemen, it also appears in evidence that Howard T. Marston and George Bliss, jr., attorneys, William P. Wood, a United States detective, and other members of the League, were employed in the same business. Their talents, ingenuity, and industry were expended in efforts only to promote the interests of the League in a purely partisan

sense.

In addition to all these, the League placed at the service of the majority of the committee an indefinite number of messengers to serve their process and do the bidding of the officers of the committee and of the other attorneys and agents of the League. The country, the House, and all impartial and just-minded men may readily infer from these facts the spirit, intent, interested and partisan motives which have served the majority of the committee, and have presided over the preparation of this case for the League.

How well calculated these facts are to defeat and pervert the high and honorable object, and to destroy utterly the fairness and judicial character of such an investigation as this no man of intelligence can for a

moment fail to see. These interested agents have expended boundless industry to discover, or to secure men to swear to, frauds, or alleged frauds, committed in all parts of the State by democrats, but none to discover or make proof of frauds committed anywhere by republicans. The truth of this statement is amply and significantly vindicated upon almost every page of the testimony taken by the committee. The majority in their report appear to have been unable to resist or rebuke this partisan animus, and, with respect, we submit that it uniformly colors and discredits their conclusions.

THE REPUBLICAN SUBORNATION OFFICE IN JERSEY CITY AND WILLIAM P. WOOD.

This man seems, during the labors of this committee in New York, to have wholly forgotten his obligations and duties as a hired detective in the service of the treasury of the United States. He organized an office in Jersey City, in Taylor's Hotel, in room No. 18, with a corps of short-hand reporters, all undoubtedly in the employment and under the pay of the League, to which his agents in New York in the like service sent numerous persons, fished up from the sinks and cesspools of demoralization, vice, and crime in that great city, who were there and by him and his assistants examined; induced by promises of protection from punishment and of pecuniary reward to make statements of one kind or another, which were there written down, and then sent back to New York and handed to the committee as the basis or guide for the chairman in the examination of the witnesses. Numerous witnesses, both republicans and democrats, testify that these persons, the general class, were the most debased of common criminals in the city of New York. Their testimony on almost every page and line bears the most ample and fatal ear-marks and indicia of falsehood and viciousness. It is the most solemn conviction of the undersigned that a large majority of the witnesses whose testimony was taken by the committee were totally unworthy, upon any principle of law or rational conduct, of belief or respect.

We give the following examples and illustrations of the business done at Mr. Wood's office in Jersey City:

Louis Campbell testifies, at page 560, as follows:

* *

At the time I made the statement at Taylor's Hotel in Jersey City I was what you may call drunk. Whiskey was bought for me and I was made drunk. I was plied with liquor before the statement was made. It was represented to me that nothing would be done about it, and when I got back to New York I got $10 in money for going over and making this statement.

6038. Q. What statement are you referring to now?-A. The statement, they say, is here that I made in New Jersey.

6039. Q. When did you go over to make a statement in New Jersey ?-A. I was over in New Jersey on Saturday.

Michael Edwards testifies, at page 572, as follows:

6228. I gave my name here as George Nelson. What I testified to the other day was that I went to a place in Wooster street and Crosby and voted several times, and it was an untruth.

6229. Q. What you swore to the other day was an untruth ?-A. An untruth. I was told I would get paid for it, and receive the sum of $10-$5 for making a statement in Jersey City, and $5 for the statement here.

John Keating testifies, at page 578, as follows:

6313. Question. State if you know of any combination or conspiracy in this city or in Brooklyn organized with a view to induce persons to give false testimony before this committee in relation to repeating; if so, state what you know about it.-Answer. I was pass