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. 3d Session. No. 41. NEW YORK ELECTION FRAUDS. MARCH 1, 1869.-Laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 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 1 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, 9198, 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. 66 cate a single republican, and as to him the witness says he never got acquainted with him well enough to speak to him until three or four days before the election for governor, (November 3,) and is certain of the fact that he never had any conversation with him until two or three days before the election. The evidence shows that in consequence of the requirement in the constitution of New York that men must be citizens for ten days before they can vote, the courts ceased naturalizing October 23. There was but a single republican naturalization office in New York, and it is creditable to the integrity of its managers that they kept a record of the names of all persons naturalized, with the names of witnesses, all produced before the committee, yet no fraud on the naturalization laws as to these has been shown in any single instance. THE CHARACTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC EVIDENCE. The enormous democratic election frauds stood so strangely in contrast with the integrity of purpose which marked the conduct of the republicans of New York city that it is perhaps not strange that unscrupulous men would attempt to impose on the committee witnesses willing to commit perjury in an effort to injure those who aided in exposing frauds. A feeble effort of this sort is found in the introduction of George B. Gifford and Henry Darling, the purport of whose statements is that John H. White sent a messenger to them to meet him at the Union League Club, in pursuance of which they met him on the sidewalk, when he offered to pay them liberally for swearing to an affidavit to be drawn by him charging frauds of which they had no knowledge on the democratic party. 2 The character of these witnesses may be inferred from the evidence of Gifford, as follows: 5703. Q. Did you intimate to your friend, Darling, that there was any money in it?—A. No, sir. did not know whether there was or not. 5704. Q. Was there nothing said about money?-A. Not on the first evening. I told him, after I came away from there, that if they wanted anybody to commit a fraud we might as well make something out of it as not. 5704. Q. How were you to make anything out of it?-A. I thought we might come down here and make some statement that would not amount to anything, and then get them to pay us for it. Gifford had been in a republican organization in the 21st ward, and his name had been struck from the rolls; and ready for revenge, he had a conversation with Banker, deputy of the notorious sheriff, O'Brien, and then he was ready to testify. 4 6 The pretended "messenger" is a myth, who is not produced. Gifford is contradicted as to a statement of fact by Christopher Pulman.5 Judge White, himself a citizen of long standing, one of the most honorable of the legal profession in the city, pronounces the whole story a fabrication without any show of truth, and he was not at the place at the time when the alleged interview is said to have occurred. A still more feeble movement is made by the evidence of a man passing under different assumed names, Lawrence Farrell alias William Pearce, to show not that testimony was improperly procured, but that an effort was made to do so. The evidence itself" fails to prove any such effort, and it is otherwise abundantly shown that none such was made.3 'Evidence, 7364. 2Evidence, 5139-5162. Evidence, 5149. 4Evidence, 5161. 5 Evidence, 6719. 6 Evidence, 4779. 7 Evidence, 653? 8 Evidence, 6629-6648. Yet, in "the views of the minority," in the absence of any more reliable means of attack, this is dignified into an important topic of consideration as "attempted bribery by Union League officers," when it only proves the perjury of democratic witnesses, and gives the means of estimating the value of other evidence, of which this is a fair specimen. 66 Some evidence was taken, it would seem, for the purpose of proving repeating in the interest of the republican party. There were but a few witnesses, all of a class, who appeared at one time, and who seem to have been a gang somehow imposed on the committee, whose demeanor on the witness' stand and whose character could inspire neither credence nor respect. It is a fact that there is no evidence of any kind that any republican was engaged in false registering in the interest of the republican party, and without false registering there could be no repeating. This itself would be an almost conclusive answer to any charges made on evidence so destitute of credit, and so unreliable as that adduced.. The evidence of "repeating" in the interest of the democratic party is established by proof of the seizure of the books of some of the repeaters and by numerous witnesses who are entirely reliable, including election officers and others. STANLEY AND WILKES. Evidence has been taken with a view to draw from it an inference that Florence Scannel, who was a democrat, had a conversation with Marcus Cicero Stanley, in company with George Wilkes, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, a week before the November election, in which it was agreed that Scannel should register a number of names and leave them unvoted for republicans to vote on in consideration that Scannel should bave two republican canvassers for the purpose of making a fraudulent canvass or count of votes against the republicans at the December election. It is sufficiently proved that Scannel procured false registration in the interest of the democratic party, but there is no evidence of a single republican vote being cast on any one of his falsely-registered names.5 1 O'Brien, 5486; contradicted by Murray, 5510. 2 Fox, 6969; contradicted, 9171. McCarthy, 6971; see evidence, 7246, to impeach. Volmer, 6973. Loftus, 6978; see evidence, 7246 and 9171, to impeach. Allen, 6980; contradicted evidence, page 657 and 9171. Doherty, 6981; contradicted evidence, page 657, 9171. Costello. 6937. Clark, 6939. Glennon, 6941; see 6942, 6944, 9171, 9184 and 9198. Roone, 6943; see 6942, 6944 and 6982. Glennon and Roone contradict each other, 6942 and 6944. 3 Scannel, 5754; contradicted, 7055, 5595. Scannel. 8472; but see 9196, 5595. Gorrey, 6168; see 5595, 7055, 5595. Ferguson, 6097; contradicted, 6163; see 3196, 3258. Ferguson is a clerk to one of Sheriff O'Brien's deputies. McGowan, 5576; see 5595. McGowan is another clerk in the sheriff's office, and re-registered under a false name-6092, 6091. O'Brien, 5486; contradicted, 5510, 5595. Jones, 5867; contradicted, 5915; see 6093, 5595. Hogan, 5648; contradicted, 5689. Stanley contradicts these witnesses, 7055; see 6089. Wilkes was in Europe and his evidence could not be procured, 6846, 7062. It is not probable that Stanley would engage in republican frauds when he voted in November for the democratic candidate for governor and mayor, 7066. + Evidence, 5767, 68. 5 And it is abundantly shown that there was no purpose to have republican votes cast on any of these false registries. Stanley testifies 7078. Q. State if Scannel made any request about getting canvassers appointed in his interest? A. He handed me two names upon a paper, one of which, I believe, was Gorrey. I took the names and went to Mr. Mannierre, one of the police commissioners. These men were not appointed. Scannel gave me The story is incredible that republicans would agree to procure the appointment of canvassers to make a fraudulent canvass for democrats. And the alleged interview and arrangement is effectually disproved by its inherent improbability, the contradictory character of the evidence in support of it, and by direct proof of its falsity.' There is no pretence that this evidence in any way implicates any republican organization, officer, candidate or citizen having its interests specially in charge. These charges are of a character similar to others which signally failed, were utterly incredible, or were completely disproved.2 COLONEL WILLIAM P. WOOD. The minority of the committee, referring to certain gentlemen of high character for integrity, and their services in ferreting out the democratic frauds, say: 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. Howard T. Marston is not a member of the League, is a democrat, who made speeches for his party during the last presidential election, but he is a gentleman upon whose integrity there rests no taint or suspicion. William P. Wood is not a member of the League, and had no employment from it, nor did the officers of the League, or the committee, know that he had discovered material witnesses until they were produced. He is a detective, who has so far shared the confidence of the administration of Andrew Johnson as to be retained in its service. The minority of the committee criticise his mode of obtaining testimony. The minority, as well as the majority, were furnished, in many instances, with memoranda of what witnesses knew, and this could only be procured from the witnesses themselves. The memoranda furnished to the majority were always open to the inspection of the whole committee when desired, while the minority did not always deem it advisable to extend the same privilege to the majority.1 these two names upon a paper, and requested that I would have them appointed as canvassers, with the promise that if I did so a number of men whom he had registered should not vote. I asked him his object. He said he wanted the canvassers for his election in December as assistant aldermen. He wanted the Tammany Hall nomination, which had been refused him, and then he wanted to run on an independent ticket. I presented those names to Mr. Mannierre. He declined to appoint them, upon the ground that they were indicted in Philadelphia, having been carried there by Scannel to vote at the October election. I returned to Scannel with that message from Mr. Mannierre, and he said, in his familiar way: "Boss, you must get me out of this thing, because I have got to go to Philadelphia every spring to buy horses." By Mr. Ross: 7079. Q. What benefit was to accrue to the republican party from this arrangement? A. He was to vote for the republican assemblyman in that district, to beat Jim Irwin, whom he had previously shot in a bar-room fight. The object seems to have been to prevent Scannel from voting on all the false registries he had made. 5561, 5792-97. 1 McGowan, 5575: “It is utterly incredible that republicans would go to clerk's in Sheriff O'Brien's office." See 5510. Donohue, 5628; contradicted, 5645. Sullivan's, 5603; contradicted, 5626. 2The evidence, page 625, shows the testimony of John Glennon, who was called by Mr. Ross, as follows: I was not summoned to come here. I was asked to come here by a man named Greene, who owns the bar-room in the opera-house on Fourteenth street; I do not know his politics. The paper now produced to me, containing my statement, was written in a little office across the street, close by the sheriff's office. It was written about two hours ago. Jacob Roone was there. I do not know anything about Cook. I got nothing for going there, and no promise of anything. The chairman offered to prove the handwriting of the memorandum. Mr. Ross objected, and withdrew the memorandum, saying that it was his private only shown it through courtesy. See 6942-6944. per and that he had |