If Colonel Wood deserves criticism for producing witnesses, the censure should extend to those whose industry procured some of the numerous witnesses called by the minority.

That some of the witnesses produced by Colonel Wood were men of bad character is indisputable,' but they are, in many respects, corroborated, and the proof of fraud does not rest alone nor mainly on their evidence, but is established fully, independently of it.2

WHO RESPONSIBLE FOR FRAUDS.

The minority of the committee in their "views" say:

We invite especial attention to the important fact, which we desire to emphasize, that it is not, in our entire record, satisfactorily shown by credible or unimpeached testimony, that any one or more clerks, judges, or other officers of any of the courts, was, with knowledge, directly or indirectly a party to or participant in a single one of these frauds.

How far this may be a correct deduction from the evidence will appear from its examination and from the report already made.

On this subject the following evidence may be appropriate

H. M. CLAPP sworn:

I am a police officer attached to the 5th precinct of the 5th ward. I knew James Murphy. I had occasion to arrest him on the 14th of October, at 64 o'clock p. m., for attempting to register illegally at the 8th election district, 5th ward; I took him to the station-house before the captain, who detained him until the morning, and then took him before Judge Dowling, who ordered me to take the prisoner to the superior court before Judge McCunn, where the prisoner had received his papers. I stated the circumstances to the judge. He ordered me to take the prisoner into an adjoining room. He shortly followed, and swore the prisoner. The judge said to him, "What is your name?" Said he, "James Murphy." "Where do you live?" "63 Watt street. "Where did you get this paper?" It was a full naturalization paper. He had never declared his intention He said, "I got it at the Vanderbilt House." Who gave it to you?" "One Marshal Murphy." "What did you do with the paper then?" said the judge. "I took it down to the court the next day." Who went with you?" " Nobody." "How did you get the paper, then ?" "I got it in this room, I believe." The judge then turned to me, and said, "Officer, this man is under the influence of liquor." I told the judge it was not so; that the man had been locked up all night, and had had nothing to drink since I arrested him. "Well, then," says he, "he must be insane. You will take the prisoner back to Judge Dowling, and the paper with my compliments, and tell the judge to discharge him, and keep the paper." I returned to the Tombs police court before Justice Dowling and delivered the message of Judge McCunn. I will state that after I got out of the superior court room, I was called back by a messenger, who stated that Judge McCunn wanted to see me. He said, "I understand you are in the habit of questioning parties who come to register." I said, "Yes, sir." He then remarked, "Don't you do it any more.' said "I will under orders." He replied, "If you do I will punish you." Said I, Very well, I will suffer the consequences." He then said, "I will give you consequences." I then left the superior court room and went to the Tombs.3

PROPRIETY OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND ITS SCOPE.

I

Any attempt to divert public attention from the real facts and frauds proved, by a discussion of collateral and immaterial issues, must always betray the weakness and failure of a bad defence. And this will be especially so if the discussion of collateral issues is full of errors of fact and erroneous deductions. The minority in their views say:

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.

The "memorial" was not from the "Union League of New York,” but "the Union League Club," a totally distinct organization. Then again there was, and is, a contest pending over the election of one or more rep

1 See evidence, 6271, 6313, 6170, 6228, 5954, 4285, 7274.

2 See report of committee, xlv; see Evidence, 7274.

3. See evidence, 9292.

resentatives in Congress, if that is deemed of any importance. Again the "views" say:

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 minority, nevertheless, discuss the wisdom of the State laws of New York, election frauds in other States, and the policy of congressional legislation on other subjects.

But the resolution under which the committee was appointed, and the investigation by it, is confined in its scope and purpose to "irregularities and frauds alleged to have occurred in the city and State of New York affecting the recent election for representatives to Congress and electors of President and Vice-President," and it does NOT "extend to all elections for all kinds of officers of the State."

These grave errors in the outset are not calculated to inspire confidence in the accuracy of other portions of the "views."

THE FACILITIES FOR INVESTIGATION.

The minority proceed to say:

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.

Even this cannot change the facts proved, or remedy the failure of defence. Messengers residing in the city served process without expense to the government, and the minority had the benefit of their services and of messengers furnished in like manner by their political friends.

The minority had every advantage of the official power and influence of the city to aid them.

The minority proceed:

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.

The motives which served the majority are no more important than those which served the minority, and cannot change inexorable facts or convert vice into virtue or fraud into duty. The motive to expose fraud is much more credible than that which commits it or screnes it from exposure. It is due to the Union League Club to say there is no evidence to impugn the motives of any member of it, unless an honest purpose to detect and prevent fraud deserves censure.

THE REMEDIES.

The minority of the committee say, in reference to election fraudsIt 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.

The minority have evidently prepared their "views" without mature consideration, for this assertion that "it appears to be the judgment of the majority" "that the remedy for these great evils can ONLY come from Congress" is made with a printed copy of the majority report in their hands, declaring that it is the duty of Congress to ascertain

When irregularities or fraud exist in the election of its members, so that the people, apprised of evils, may avert them in the future by personal vigilance, by making and enforcing proper legislative provisions in the STATES, and, above all, so that Congress shall apply remedies by adequate laws efficiently enforced.

The minority say:

PERSONS OF FOREIGN BIRTH.

It is undoubtedly fair to assume that a spirit of hostility to persons of foreign birth, and of opposition to their free admission to the enjoyment of citizenship and suffrage, had much to do in the origin and conduct of this investigation.

It is unjust to the committee to "assume" that which is unsustained by fact, reason, or evidence, but is contradicted by the opinions expressed in the report.

THE CENSUS OF 1865.

The minority attack the correctness of the census of 1865 by a comparison with the census of 1860. The census of 1860 was notoriously too great, as it is liable to be where officers are paid by the number of persons reported, while the loss of population by the war justifies the integrity of the officers who made and of the evidence which shows the census of 1865 to be correct. But the deductions of the committee do not rest alone nor mainly on that census.

The minority say:

FRAUDS IN PHILADELPHIA.

As Philadelphia gave a majority for Grant we have no outcry about its large vote. Perhaps it would be well to have a committee of investigation, as this committee would not allow the minority to introduce evidence that republican "repeaters were sent from New York to Philadelphia.

The committee might well be satisfied to limit their duties to the State required by the resolution under which they were acting. Since it has been stated in Congress by a responsible member1 that one of the leading democrats of New York, now under arrest by authority of this house, is indicted for illegal voting in Philadelphia, the suggestion of the minority in favor of a committee is entitled to the most respecful consideration.

THE LEAGUE AGAIN.

The minority are pleased to refer to "the numerous and vigilant scavengers of the League," though no mention is made of Sheriff O'Brien's deputies who hovered around the door of the committee-room and in the building where its sessions were held, arresting some of the witnesses soon after released for want of evidence to justify the arrest, and thus intimidating witnesses, until, with the approval of the whole committee, they were directed to retire from the building.

WHY ILLEGAL VOTING NOT PUNISHED.

The minority, referring to election frauds, say:

The officers in the practical government of the city of New York who could be most effective to restrain or punish these wicked men are the officers of elections and of the police. If these were honest, vigilant, and faithful, and would co-operate to that end, these crimes could, in a very great degree, be prevented. Let it be remembered here that all these officers are appointed under republican auspices.

And this is preceded in another portion of these "views" by a caption, "The republican party control New York."

As a question of law neither officers of election nor of the police have power "to punish these wicked men."

'Judge Kelly, in House of Representatives. And see evidence of Stanley, 7078.

The Metropolitan Police board is equally divided politically; at least half the election officers are democrats and a majority of the police force.2 The officer whose duty it is to prepare indictments, and the courts whose judges try, or whose duty it is to try offenders, are all of the democratic faith. How perfectly secure from all punishment are the men guilty of election frauds has already been shown.

THE FACILITIES FOR INVESTIGATION AGAIN.

The minority, in concluding their views, say:

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. This cannot affect the force of the material facts proved, and the committee will not assume that it is offered as an apology for any failure to prove frauds as against republicans, or to vindicate democrats whose guilt is so palpable. The committee sat in New York from December 21 to January 14, inclusive, and evidence was subsequently taken in Washington. During all that time the minority had process for every witness they asked, the means of its service either by their own chosen messengers or those of the committee, and the right to examine their witnesses fully has never been denied. A sub-committee met on the 6th of February in New York city, and at other times elsewhere in the State, it is believed with equal facilities for the production of witnesses alike for the majority and minority; and evidence taken February 2, by Mr. Ross alone, with no one to cross-examine, was permitted to go on record. In New York city, in the nature of things, every advantage would be on the side of the democratic minority.3

For the great purpose of devising some means to prevent frauds, it is comparatively of little importance what men or what parties are responsible for them. Every just government is bound to ascertain their existence and apply the proper remedy. While the minority do not unite in any of the measures recommended in the hope of effecting a reform, they do not present any which would seem to remedy acknowledged evils. The evidence is submitted to the House with the deductions which have been drawn from it all, and the remedial measures suggested to prevent frauds and irregularities in the election of representation to Congress and electors of President and Vice President. If these shall contribute to secure a free, full, fair, and honest exercise of the elective franchise, the anxious and arduous labors of the committee will aid in accomplishing the purposes of the founders of the republic, and lasting benefits will accrue to mankind.

1 Evidence, 317, 562, 568, 1236, 2739, 6675.

2 See chapter V, former report, p. 53.

3 The original report of the committee was made to the House February 23. Part II of the report was printed and furnished to all the members of the committee, including Messrs. Kerr and Ross, February 13, and Part I was printed and furnished in like manner February 20. The views of the minority" were not furnished to the chairman, or any member of the majority of the committee, and were only seen some days after they had been presented in the House and printed.

This and the original report were written in the press of business. currente calamo, without any opportunity for revisiou.

JOURNAL

Of the Select Committee of the House of Representatives to investigate alleged frauds in the election in the State of New York.

This committee was appointed by the House of Representatives on the 14th of December, 1868, as appears from the following official report of the proceedings published in the Globe of December 15th:

FRAUDULENT VOTING IN NEW YORK,

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I present under the rule a memorial of the Union League club of New York, in reference to fraudulent voting in the city and State of New York; and I ask consent to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the memorial from the Union League club of New York be printed, and that a select committee of seven be appointed to investigate the irregularities and frauds therein alleged to have occurred in the city and State of New York affecting the recent election for representatives to Congress and electors for President and Vice-President, and report thereon to this house; and that the said committee may hold sessions in the State of New York and elsewhere by a quorum or by sub-committees of such number as the committee shall delegate; and that they have power to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths to witnesses, and to employ a clerk and messenger, with such stenographic assistance as they shall find necessary.

Mr. WOOD. I object to the introduction of the resolution.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I move to suspend the rules, that the resolution may be introduced and agreed to at this time.

Mr. WOOD. If the gentleman from Ohio will give us an opportunity to have a few words of discussion upon this resolution I will withdraw all objection so far as I am concerned. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I insist on my motion.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would inquire of the gentleman from Ohio whether the election referred to is not now being investigated under the authority of the people of New York?

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. A respectable portion of the people of New York have sent here a memorial asking the adoption of this resolution. If the gentleman will examine the memorial he will find in it abundant evidence that it is presented in good faith.

The SPEAKER. The motion to suspend the rules is not debatable except by unanimous

consent.

Mr. CHANLER. I object to debate.

Mr. BROOKS. Does the memorial of the Union League Club accompany this resolution? The SPEAKER. It does.

Mr. BROOKS. Let us hear it read.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I should like to have it read. Let it be read by unanimous

consent.

The SPEAKER. In order that the memorial may be read the gentleman from Ohio must first waive his motion to suspend the rules. The gentleman from New York has the right under the rule to have this memorial read, but the motion to suspend the rules covers that and all other rules.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I do not object to the reading of the memorial, and I will waive the motion to suspend the rules for the present so that the memorial may be read, provided that at the conclusion of the reading the motion can be resumed.

Mr. BROOKS. What I wish to suggest to the gentleman from Ohio is this: that when a partisan body makes an ex parte representation it is but fair that the representatives of the city and State of New York upon this floor should have an opportunity to reply to this memorial. I do not think there should be any objection to that.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. The reading of the memorial was called for by gentlemen on the other side of the house. If this investigation be had there will be abundant opportunity afforded to gentlemen for reply to this memorial. Both sides of the question can be examined into.

Mr. BROOKS. What I wish to suggest further is, that the Union League of New York city contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to carry the States of Ohio and Indiana. I would like to know whether the whole country is to be investigated, and whether we are to know the amount of money given by the Union League of New York to carry Ohio and Indiana.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I object to the reading of the memorial.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I should like to have the gentleman from New York tell us what has become of Helmbold's subscription.

Mr. ROBINSON. I rise to a parliamentary question. I ask, if it be in order, for a division of the resolution. The last resolution provides for one man to have the run of the hotels, subjecting the government to heavy expenses.