ignorance as to what the proceeding was which they had gone through. Many of them were still unable to read or write English; many of them were unable to read or write at all. One of them had sent to his house a copy of one of the Mayor's proclamations in 1870 relating to the census. He got a certificate in 1868, but thought that was his first paper, and subsequently, when he received the proclamation, he kept them together, believing that the latter was his naturalization paper. These naturalization papers were frequently sent to the residences of persons, and were marked with compliments of the Democratic brethren. I have here an original envelope which was sent out in this way marked "With the compliments of Coroner Woltman." In addition to the list I furnished the other day of persons whose names were used in the courts as witnesses are those of Richard Croker, Joel O. Stevens, J. Campbell and Stephen O'Brien.

There were ordered and printed for the Supreme Court on September 16. 1868, 10,000 blank applications and 9,000 certificates; three days afterward, although they never naturalized a single person until October 5, 10,000 new applications were ordered and printed. On the 5th, when they had naturalized only two persons, 25,000 more blank applications and 5,000 more blank certificates; on the 12th of October, 5,000 applications and 5,000 certificates more; on the 13th, 10,000 more applications; on the 15th, 10,000 more certificates; on tho 11th, 5,000 more applications; on the 19th, 5,000 more applications; on the 20th, 10,000 more certificates, and on the 22d, the last day they had in which to naturalize, 5,000 more applications. That was in the Supreme Court alone.

that

Senator Blair-I think you stated that it was only in year that the Supreme Court naturalized at all? Mr. Davenport-I have so testified,

Senator Blair-State whether or not Judge Barnard, who presided over this court and accomplished these things, was himself a candidate for re-election that year?

Mr. Davenport-He was.

tween the years 1873 and 1875; for, as it stands to-day, there was no white man in the United States who could be naturalized by law in the period between those years. The courts were ignorant of the fact that the statutes for the naturalization of white aliens had been repealed, and went on naturalizing men as before. The statute that had existed down to 1873 was repealed by the passage of the Revised Statutes, which provided only for the naturalization of persons of African descent. In 1875 the fact was brought before the notice of Congress, and the words "and white aliens" were reinserted; but they neglected to legalize the naturalization of persons who had become naturalized in the intervening period. The fact was brought to the notice of the present Congress in the session of 1879, but I presume they have been too much engaged in investigations to notice it. It may be that some one may want to act arbitrarily in these cases at some future day; therefore I should like to see the question provided for.

Third-The adoption of some amendment of the naturalization laws which will forever prevent courts sitting for the naturalization of aliens from entertaining the application of more than one person seeking to be admitted as a citizen at one and the same time, or to receive evidence from more than one person before the court at the same time.

Fourth-I suggest the enactment of some provision, whereby in one of the departments of Government at Washington there shall be established a National bureau to record the naturalization of citizens; at which bureau every court authorized to admit to citizenship shall be required to certify under its seal and under the hands of its clerk, the name, age, place of birth, time of arrival in the United States, and the port or place of arrival, with the several places of residence in this country, and the actual place of abode of each person who shall have been admitted by such court to citizenship. Now, in the case of such cities as Boston and Chicago-especially of Chicago, where the great fire destroyed all the records-if there had been such a bureau at Washington, there would have been no difficulty in estab

The perjurers could not be punished!-lishing the fact of previous intentions of naturalizaBut the Statute of 1870 reaches and deters them—Hence the Democratic Fight in Congress to abolish or modify election laws.

I want to call your attention, he continued, to the fact that there was no statute of the United States under which any of the persons swearing to these naturalization papers could be punished for perjury, as the use of affidavits in naturalization proceedings is wholly unauthorized. In the case of Sweetman, who was indicted for swearing to just such affidavits as these, and was convicted in the Court below, on certiorari, to the Court of Oyer and Terminer, the conviction was reversed, upon the ground that if it was perjury it was within the United States and not the State Courts. The United State Courts have no statute under which such perjury could be punished. This was generally known.

Senator Blair-Therefore these persons supposed they could make these statements with impunity. Will you state what was done to rectify this state of things?

Mr. Davenport-The statute of 1870, under which these arrests were made, covers the use of these fraudulent certificates which had been issued previously, and makes it an offense to use them or to be possessed of them. The provisions of the statute were published, and became a matter of common knowledge in the State.

Commissioner Davenport suggests how the election laws might be greatly improved in various ways-Gives his reasons for such changes.

With reference to other changes that might be suggested in the law, I would ask,

First-The enactment of some provision extending to those who have received honorable discharge from the navy the same provisions which are granted to men who are honorably discharged from the army. Second-The passage of an act legalizing the naturalizations made throughout the United States be

tion. It certainly seems anomalous that the Government of the United States, which alone has the power of granting citizenship, should not have the means of knowing who its citizens are, and who are made so by virtue of its laws. There are questions constantly coming from abroad, where the rights of persons claiming citizenship under naturalization papers are brought into question. The files of the Department of State for twelve years are full of complaints from Ministers abroad, of almost every country, relative to the loose manner in which naturalization in this country has been carried on, and relative to the fraudulent papers which they have found abroad. If the committee will obtain the correspondence between Bancroft Davis and Mr. Evarts in 1877 they will find therein many facts and particulars of the difficulties with foreign Governments under which our Ministers abroad labor. Mr. Davis, in one dispatch, says that out of fifty cases of naturalization brought before him in a short time, six of them were found to have been granted on fraudulent certificates. The files of the Department of State will show cases of men released from the army in foreign countries, on certificates of naturalization from America, in which our Ministers certify that such men were never out of those countries, and that the certificates were sent them from here. As touching the case of fire in a city, I suggest that the proposed bureau at Washington might reissue the certificates which it is proved on good evidence were lost in this way.

Fifth-The enactment of some provision by which certificates of citizenship can be made uniform throughout the United States, the engraving or printalteration. I have spoken of the system which has ing to be of such character as best tends to prevent prevailed in this State of erasing the name of a certificate and inserting another. I also believe that some provision should be enacted by means of which naturalization proceedings shall stop or cease for a period of, say six months, immediately prior to the election; or a system by which a naturalization certificate should for a period of six months be open and liable to attack. Much fraud would in this way be prevented, as we have seen from statistics that the naturalization proceedings in these courts were almost entirely confined to the few days before election, when it is done,

and to some extent necessarily done, in a hasty and hurried manner, even when done at its best. I would sooner, so far as I am personally concerned, lengthen the period of residence, with such safeguards as I have suggested, rather than that there should be no safeguards against frauds, as at present.

about sixty out of the 220 names were voted upon. This repeating was practised to such an extent that about 25,000 fraudulent votes were cast in this county alone in the November election of 1868. Many arrests were made at the instigation of the Republicans, but the prisoners were discharged largely.

Mr. Davenport continued his statements to show the More specimen frauds—Repeating gangs— effect of the national laws which were passed in 1870, One gang of seven Democratic pick-laws came into operation, the number of votes was often giving long lists of figures showing that before these pockets registers 220 names !—Arrested by Davenport-Freed by Judge Barnard at once!

Senator Blair-Will you state what measures you have taken to prevent these frauds, and the practical working of the election laws here, and any facts that may be of use to the committee in view of further legislation?

Mr. Davenport-If there is any abuse of the election laws ever heard of that did not take place here in 1868, I do not know of it. False registration, false voting, false canvassing, were here going on throughout the city; this, together with the fact that the entire criminal power was in the hands of one party, which believed itself so strongly entrenched by means of its frauds that it could not be dislodged. As a specimen, take the year 1868-and I refer to that year simply because it may be said that these matters reached their culmination very largely at that time-there was at that time a gang of seven men engaged in repeating registrations, and who did so repeat at the election of that year 220 names. The leader of that gang is there. [Producing a portrait.] He registered under the name of Henry J. Lawrence. He is an Englishman known as Charles Wilson, alias "Nibbs," or "Nibsey," and was a well known pickpocket. This picture was obtained from the Rogues' Gallery, at Police Headquarters. The registration was done most openly by this gang, its members registering under well known names, such as William M. Tweed, Patrick H. Keenan, then coroner, and others. I have here one of the original books used by them in their repeating operations, containing the names of persons whose names they gave. We obtained the book in this way: We had evidence that they were engaged in repeating, and Superintendent, then Inspector, Walling watched the men. I secured this book, and caught them in the act. He found that they were a portion of what was known as "Reddy the Blacksmith's" gang, and by an immediate descent on Reddy's place obtained another book. On comparing the names in these two books with those registered we found that 220 of them had been registered. It was on the 31st of October that these men were arrested. On the evening of that day a writ of habeas corpus was served on the person having them in custody, the writ reading, "Before the Hon. George Barnard, Justice of the Supreme Court, or the office of such Justice, No. 23 West Twenty-third street, in the City of New York, this 31st day of October, 1868, at 7 o'clock in the evening." No time was allowed for the return of the writ, and no return was made to it.

How Judge Barnard did the dirty business -60 of the 220 votes in this case voted upon!—25,000 fraudulent votes cast by "Repeaters !"-The number of votes often exceed entire population-Large Republican gains since the national election laws were enacted.

One offi

The men were taken to Barnard's house. cer with the men remained on the sidewalk, and the writ was taken from the officer at the door of the house by William F. Howe, who was counsel for the men. He, in the hallway, as testified to, wrote upon the writ, "The prisoners being charged with no offense, I order them discharged. October 31, 1868." The writ so indorsed was sent up-stairs to Judge Barnard's room, and he attached his signature thereto. Upon such orders prisoners were discharged. I called attention to the fact that it was in violation of the statutes of this State, which require that notice shall be given to the District Attorney preliminary to the hearing of a writ, and which makes it a misdemeanor for a judge to hear a writ without such notice being given. The result was that the prisoners were immediately discharged, and

in excess of the whole male population. He also showed the large Republican gains in a number of the wards of the city, a result directly traceable to the operation of the national laws.

A list of 4000 cases of fraudulent naturalization put in evidence-More, if they want them-Enough to fill a bushe; basket or an entire set of “The Congressional Globe!"

Mr. Davenport, continuing, said that in 1868 he received a communication from Secretary Fish in regard to a number of Cubans who had been unlawfully naturalized. With the communication were two cards, one from the chairman of a Democratic organization in an Assembly district, directing the person to whom it was addressed to see the bearer naturalized; and another marked with blue ink, which color signified that the applicant could not understand English. Mr. Davenport then produced the papers called for at the morning session, and read a long list of persons who had been naturalized in 1868, to which were added sworn statements of the persons mentioned, which showed that they were not entitled to naturalization papers and that such papers were often given them at their own house and even on the sidewalks of the street. Many who went up to the City Hall had not declared their intentions and had never before seen the witness who was supposed to identify them. Some hundreds of these names had been read. Senator McDonald asked if the whole list could not be put in evidence without reading. Senator Blair said there were about 4,000 of the cases, and it was very interesting reading matter. Still, if the committee was tired of it, he would submit to the list being put in after about a score more specimen cases had been read. To these specimen cases Senator McDonald did not object, although he showed signs of impatience at the continuance of the reading of this Democratic black list.

I have between 3,000 and 4,000 of these depositions, observed Mr. Davenport, among which are hundreds who had never declared their intentions, others who took no witnesses with them, and several hundred who had declared their intentions and received their full certificates the same year. I might go on with information of this kind for several days.

Senator Blair-How many bushels of papers have you in regard to these frauds?

Mr. Davenport (smiling)-I scarcely know. I believe I have enough matter to fill an entire set of The Congressional Globe.

Senator McDonald-Are these cases that you have now furnished to the committee in addition to those you furnished to the committee some time ago? Mr. Davenport-They are.

Cross-examination of Mr. Davenport by
Senator McDonald.

Senator McDonald then cross-examined the witness relative to his official position, asking when he was appointed to it, what were its duties, how many warrants he had issued in regard to election frauds, and how many convictions followed. In his testimony Mr. Davenport replied that in 1870, among the convictions were Terence Quin, two years; John McLaughlin, two years (the latter was a leading member of Tammany Hall at the time); Lucius M. Sawyer, William Berks and others. The warrants issued in 1878 embraced all the naturalization papers issued in 1868; the warrants issued in previous years did not do so.

Senator McDonald-What objection did you take to the certificate of Antonio Kurchell, against whom you took a warrant ?

Mr. Davenport-It is stated on the warrant itself— for using a certain certificate of citizenship, know

Senator Blair-I will put it in this way: I would not A-I procured evidence in regard to the naturaliza-like it to be understood that the case rests entirely on tion going on in the Courts in 1876, and it resulted in Mr. Davenport, and if we can go further I would like to the conviction, as I have shown, of a number of per- know how it can be done. Can you give us a list of sons engaged in fraudulent processes at that time. I these additional witnesses, Mr. Davenport? have no money to do much. What I have done has been on my own credit and on money borrowed. Senator Wallace.-Oh, Brother Blair will vote to refund it to you, and I shall vote against it.

Senator Blair then took the witness up and elicited the following:

"How many such applications (for citizenship) | tached a declaration of previous intention bearing the came before him in October, 1868, it would be impos- date of November 21, 1866, the naturalization paper sible to say. Not a single person was during that being issued on October 14, 1868. This did not show time admitted to citizenship improperly in his a clear two years from the date of the declaration of Court." intention, but the witness answered that he could not account for the discrepancy. The case of Gottfried Schoenhut was similar; his papers were granted within thirteen days of the proper period. The witness said the chairman had suggested, on the previous day, that this might have arisen from the fact that both the declaration of intention and the application were made in the month of October, but in different years. did not accept this suggestion, and could not account in any way for having signed such illegal documents. Case of Charles de Secha-More illegalities -"Cannot account for them.”

I was elected for a term of six years, in the Fall of 1864, I think it was, I was not re-elected. I do not remember naturalizing anybody in 1868. I do not wish to swear that I naturalized nobody that year. I am not aware that exception is taken to the naturalization papers of October, 1868, only. Things were as formally, regu.arly, and judicially conducted in that year as usual, as far as my knowledge and belief are concerned. If an admission of citizenship had been granted by me one month prior to the requirement of the law it would be an illegal certificate. If I issued that (on being handed to him) it was a mistake. It is not a very extraordinary thing to make mistakes. They occur as frequently in judicial as in other matters. I believe there was as much care taken in all these cases as was supposed to be necessary.

Senator Blair produced a certificate where the applicant had been in the country but two years, and asked how he made such a mistake as to grant that, there being no counsel present to misrepresent the state of things. Judge Jones replied:

"I suppose it was a miscalculation. I always made the calculations myself, and did not leave it to a clerk.'

"

He admits rapid work by himself as well as Judge Barnard, which might account for the mistake in that one case.

Senator Blair said there was a large number of these mistakes made by Judge Jones, and he should ask leave to recall the witness when the papers containing these miscalculations had been brought into the room. In the meantime he cross-examined the witness upon other points. Judge Jones knew Judge Barnard was naturalizing a large number of persons because he had seen him. He was in his court room several times, and saw a crowd there waiting for naturalization papers. The proceedings were carried on with considerable rapidity,

Q.-More so than in your court! A.- I do not think there was any difference, except that he is a more rapid man than I am.

Q.-He did business in masses, in brigades, and whole armies? A.-I cannot say that. I have seen a hundred or so in his room, and I suppose he naturalized them in two hours. To examine the applicant, examine the witness, examine the papers and order judgment in those cases used to occupy me not more than two

minutes.

Q.-If you worked thus rapidly it would account for your mistake in this certificate? A.-I suppose so. Q.-But if you made fifty or one hundred of such mistakes, would it account for them, too? A.-I cannot say.

He admits another “mistake” in the papers of James R. Jones.

Upon the following day, July 21, 1880, ex-Judge Jones having taken the stand, Senator Blair informed him that he was to be examined upon a number of applications for naturalization passed upon by him as a Judge of the Superior Court in 1868, which the minority of the committee was unable to produce on the previous day, To this Senator McDonald made no objection, and the examination proceeded. Among the first of the applications for naturalization put in was that of James R. James. The witness identified the paper as having been passed by him in September. 1868, when there was little doing in the courts. The same person appeared to have signed as applicant and as witness, but Judge Jones believed that two different persons were sworn before him. There was undoubtedly some mistake in the papers, he said. Cases of John McLean and Gottfried Schoenhut-Cannot account for having signed such illegal documents.

His attention was next called by Senator Blair to the naturalization papers of John McLean, which had at

He

The paper of Charles de Secha showed that he had renounced allegiance to "the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" in one declaration, and to "the King of United Italy" in the other. The witness could not explain it. It was his practice to make the oath of citizenship before the oath of allegiance was taken Robert Walsh was naturalized before the witness or September 23, 1868, on his previous declaration dated May 3, 1867. The witness could not account for it except that something might have distracted his at tention when reckoning up the dates. It was certainly an illegal certificate.

Case of Louis Peters-A badly mixed up paper-Thinks him guilty of perjury.

The naturalization paper of Louis Peters was her handed to the witness, "I appear to have natural ized this man," he said, "on the 13th September of of- I cannot say what year.'

Senator Blair-There was no year that month?
Witness-Well, sir, I cannot say.

Senator Blair-I called your attention to the fac that there seems to have been no renunciation of al legiance.

Witness-That seems to be omitted. Oh, no; here i is on the outside: King of Germany."

Q.-That appears to have been the signature of your clerk. "James M. Sweeney, King of Denmark." Did he ever pretend to that position? A.-Oh, no, sir.

Q.-The body of the certificate seems to indicate a renunciation of allegiance to Queen Victoria. A.-My judgment is that the applicant in that case must have been guilty of perjury.

Senator Blair-That is your opinion, but don't seek to impose it on anybody else unless you are sure that Clerk Sweeney did not write the whole of it,

Case of Henry Roth-An unsigned paper-
More admissions.

The certificate of Henry Roth was next put in. The witness said: "He does not seem to have signed this. Senator Blair-And yet he was admitted by you to citizenship.

Witness-Yes, sir. Probably I signed it and gave it to the applicant to sign at another desk.

Q. Is that a safe way of doing business? A.-I would prefer some other way.

Case of R. Rebenklan—Unsigned Jurats—
Gross ignorance of a judge.

On the paper of R. Rebenklan were four jurats, not one of which was signed by the clerk. The witness said he could not account for it. He did not know that the statute went to the extent of providing that all these renunciations of allegiance and assumptions of new allegiance were to be made a matter of record before naturalization could take place. He did not see that it followed from this that he was naturalizing in ignorance of the statutes.

"Cannot account" for a lot of other bogus naturalization papers issued by him Senator McDonald comes to the rescue, and the investigation suddenly closes.

The paper of Joshua Fushingham was next put in, and the witness admitted having naturalized him on October 12, 1868, upon a previous declaration attached

R

t

to it, dated May 13, 1868. He could not account for | boards were Democrats, and the third was a the discrepancy. Similar papers in the names of Patrick Mulveny, Charles Herbst, Hartman Gerhardt person designated as a Republican by the and others, were put in evidence. In all of them there chairman of the Democratic State Committee, were discrepancies, principally in the dates. The and in nearly every case against the protest witness did not attempt to account for them. There of the Republicans of the respective counties. were other papers to be produced, but Senator McDonald objected to any being brought forward except those put in evidence on the preceding evening.

Senator Blair said the understanding was that the witness was to be cross-examined upon the whole of the papers issued by him that the minority was able to produce.

Senator McDonald replied that the chairman (Senator Wallace) was unwilling to continue the investigation, and the committee then adjourned, and concluded to take no more such damaging testimony.

PART X.

The Great Tissue Ballot and other

The polling officers all Democrats. The county managers appointed all the managers of the polls, and Democrats were appointed at all the precincts in the State. The election was, therefore, exclusively in the hands of the Democrats, and the frauds committed by the precinct managers were connived at or approved by the county managers.

Republican precincts abolished, and no facilities for voting in many large and populous districts.

Frauds of 1878 in South Caro- the precincts of the State, by largely reducing The legislature at the same time reorganized lina - Wholesale Expulsion of the number in all the Republican counties, Republican Legislators - No and usually locating those retained as remotePolling Places in Republican ly as possible from the populous neighborDistricts – Democratic Polling twenty or thirty miles to vote. One third of hoods, so as to compel the colored voters to go Officers—U. S. Supervisors Ob- the precincts in the city of Charleston were structed-25,000 bogus names abolished, making it utterly impossible for all In Saint added to Poll List ?-More Tissue the voters to get in their ballots. Andrew's parish, five of the six precincts were Ballots than fraudulent names ! abolished, and the one retained was the -59 voted in one voting ticket! smallest of the six, being located on an island - Thousands of Republican to which there was no regular ferry from the votes destroyed – Evidence of main land. In Christ Church parish, three Democratic precincts in the interior of the parish were complicity - The abolished, leaving a space of thirty-two miles law enabling the shameful thing between the two that were left at the extremto be done. ities. A new one was established within a mile of one of these, which was in a Democratic district. The Democrats of one end of the parish had two precincts, while the much more numerous Republicans of all the rest of the parish had but one. The same dishonest discrimination prevailed all over the State, and thousands of persons could not vote for lack of opportunity; yet by the returns of many districts the number of votes was greatly increased, the increase being always Democratic.

The result of the election in South Carolina in 1878 was a great surprise to the country. The Democratic State and Congressional tickets were elected by enormous majorities, and counties which had always given Republican majorities of thousands, returned much larger Democratic majorities.

The fraud inaugurated by legislation. The explanation of this great change was found in the fact that the legislature, made Democratic in 1877 by the illegal expulsion of all the members from Charleston county, had abolished the usual and measurably fair custom of allowing one member of the minority on the board of precinct canvassers, and placed all the power in the hands of Democrats; so that in all the State there was not one inspector, judge, or clerk of the election who was a Republican; and then established such regulations as, by the facilities afforded for the commission of frauds, would most strongly tempt bitter partisans to use them.

Home rule obliterated in Republican counties.

The Governor was "authorized and empowered" by the Act of March 22, 1878, "to appoint boards of election for each county," on which both political parties should be represented. Two out of three members of these

Tissue ballots placed in the ballot boxes

before the voting began-Few voted but many counted.

The proposed use of tissue ballots was revealed, or foreseen, in Charleston, and an attempt was made to prevent it by warning the public by means of handbills posted on the walls and fences; but the Democrats followed the bill posters and tore the notices down as fast as they were put up, and most of the persons who were about the polls all day (except at one precinct where the stuffing was done openly and defiantly) did not know of the existence of such ballots until the counting began in the evening, when it was found that the boxes were full of them.

Secrecy of the conspirators.

Nearly all the leading Republicans of the State who were before the Senate Investigat