have been found as not being double entries but the individual entries of bona fide voters; so the difference between the prothonotary's voters list is 178 and the ballots returned is 31. In other words the ballots returned are 181 and the names in the prothonotary's voters list is 178. However, the number of names in the ballot-box list is 181 and the names checked in the voting check list are 181. So there is no excess in that division and the same thing applies in all of the divisions of that ward excepting two and in those two the greatest excess is two. This illustration we contend is ample to disprove the allegation of this specification. As we have said in the other specifications time has not been sufficient to permit us to secure illustrations in greater number.

SPECIFICATION NO. 9

"In 527 divisions, 4,064 more votes were returned as cast than were checked in the registers."

It is charged that in 13 divisions of the first ward this excess of votes over voters checked is 63. We have made a hurried check of both the voters check lists, the ballot check lists, and the lists of voters and have accounted for 60 of the alleged 63 excess in this ward.

In the second division of this ward 255 votes were returned and it is charged only 247 names were checked. Our investigation shows 255 names checked in the ballot check list and 255 names listed in the prothonotary's voters' list. This recheck shows that of the 13 divisions against which charges were made a complete investigation establishes no error at all in 11 of these divisions.

In order that the committee may know how such a gross misrepresentation could be made without a thorough check-up of all the records involved in the election we desire to call attention to the following:

In the nineteenth ward, sixth division, a total of 244 votes were returned and there were 244 names on both the prothonotary and the box list of voters. In the voters' check list 243 names were checked and but 238 names were checked in the ballot check list. Our investigation shows the name of Anna Dees checked in the ballot check and not on the voters' check list. Six names appear checked on the voters' check list that are not checked on the ballot check list. We add one name, therefore, to the voters' check list and get 244 voters and add the 6 names to the ballot check list and get the required 244 properly checked voters.

Again in the twentieth ward, twenty-second division-3 names are checked on the voters' check list that are not on the ballot check list and 7 names are checked on the ballot check list that are not checked on the voters' check list. All are regularly registered voters and by crediting the checks to the proper lists we get a perfect record.

There is no question, in our opinion, that if a proper review of all the records could be made, the alleged discrepancies would be reduced to a minimum.

SPECIFICATION NO. 10

"That in 395 divisions the number of ballots cast exceeded the number of voters listed."

This specification is practically of the same purport as specification No. 8. It is charged an excess of 25 ballots existed in 14 divisions of the first ward.

By a complete comparison of the two check lists and the ballot check lists this alleged discrepancy is shown not to exist. Here the alleged multiple entry of voters, which has already been discredited, affects the records in some of the divisions but our recheck establishes the fact that the entire excess of 25 has been accounted for.

We repeat here that a thorough investigation will show this charge is just as false as the preceding specifications. As an illustration of our contention we refer to the first division of the first ward in which there were 181 ballots in the box. The number of names in the prothonotary's voters list was 175, the alleged difference being 6, but the count of the names in the prothonotary's voters list has been cut down by 3 charged as entered twice, it having been shown already that there was no double entry in this division, the 3 charged as double entries become proper and the difference is therefore reduced from 6 to 3, so that the names properly in the prothonotary's voters list should be 178. On the ballot check list 179 names have been checked but on the list of voters in the ballot box 181 names have been entered so that there is no discrepancy. In the third division of the same ward there were 272 ballots and there were 271 names in the prothonotary's voters list, the alleged difference being 1. But the count of the

names in the prothonotary's voters list has been cut down by 1 charged as entered twice. This double entry having been established to be proper, the difference is zero. Also there were 272 names in the voters list found in the box and there were 272 names checked in the voting check list. In the 14 divisions of the first ward it was charged that there was an excess of ballots over the voters listed. We have accounted for the entire 25 in these 14 divisions. Of course our investigation has not covered 395 divisions, but we have covered the 14 divisions in one ward and have absolutely discredited the allegation. Upon a proper checking it is submitted that the same result would be found in 395 divisions. It was an absolute impossibility to check the records in 395 districts in eight days.

SPECIFICATION NO. 11

"In 669 divisions number of ballots cast exceeded number of voters listed." This specification is practically the same as Specification No. 9 where a recheck will show the charge to be utterly unfounded. It is charged in 14 divisions of the first ward that there was an excess of 69 ballots. Our hurried survey has accounted for all but two of these ballots and again we assert that the charges are false and not founded upon any fact. It is respectfully submitted that we have shown sufficient energy and effort to convince the committee that with ample time we could prove to the satisfaction of 'the committee that no such discrepancies as charged in this specification exist.

SPECIFICATION NO. 12

"In 38 divisions large groups of names were recorded as voting in alphabetical order."

This statement is not an accurate statement of the fact. An observation of the divisions and books in which it is said that the alphabetical listing occurs will prove that in many instances it was necessary to eliminate names in the chronological order in order to still insist upon the charge of alphabetical voting. For instance, in the eighth division of the second ward, the list begins with G and goes to L and then there is a jump from L to R, and in the same division there is a list beginning with B and going to H and then the list jumps to R. In the nineteenth division of the second ward, the list on page 4, line 5, begins with C and then among the C's there is a P and then the list goes to M and then jumps to T. Again in the tenth division of the thirteenth ward, page 8, the list begins with B, and then there are two C's and a G and then a J, followed by an H, then lower in the list there is a name beginning with S immediately followed by a name beginning with R. In the eleventh division of the thirteenth ward, page 9, beginning line 10, we find a name beginning with A entered between a C and a D, and again in the same list we find a D following an F, and again in the same list a P following a Q and an R following a T. In the twentyfifth division of the twenty-second ward, page 9, we find a P between D and H, and again in the eighteenth division of the twenty-sixth ward, we find a V between a W and T, and in the same list we find three L's following an S, which three L's are followed by a K, which in turn is followed by a J, and the balance of that list will manifest no alphabetical listing. In the eleventh division of the forty-eighth ward, groups 3, page 17, the listing is of names beginning with the following letters: D, G, L, M, P, and W.

Numerous instances of which the foregoing are typical, can be shown to the committee and the charge of alphabetical listing ceases to have any weight. There is one in particular, however, which we desire to direct to the attention of the committee and that is the eleventh division of the thirty-sixth ward. In that division both clerks went to the trouble of indexing alphabetically their lists of voters book and consequently all the voters whose name began with a similar letter appeared in the same list, indexed under the same alphabetical letter. It happens, however, that even under those conditions the two books entitled "List of Voters" are not precisely the same in their entries, and as a further check, in this division the names on the lists of voters are not in the same sequence as the same names appear in the registration books. Furthermore, it was charged by the representative of the special committee that the entire list of voters in this division, namely, 336 were all in alphabetical order on the prothonotary's list of voters. Such a statement, without the explanation which we have attempted to here make, manifests again the unwillingness to give this committee the whole truth. At the risk of repetition, we respectfully assert, that the indications of a lack of desire to convey the entire truth to this committee give rise to the inference that those who have furnished the com

mittee with the information were animated with a desire to report only matters which, in their prejudiced mind, might influence the committee against Mr. Vare. Furthermore, the mere appearance of voters names in alphabetical order, with no further evidence, will prove absolutely nothing. Had the investigators for the committee been desirous of presenting the entire truth they would have endeavored to present evidence that the voters whose names appear in alphabetical order did not actually vote but that some other person voted for them. In the actual trial of a case in court they would have been obliged to have called as witnesses the persons whose names appeared in such order and prove by them that the alphabetical listing was indicative of fraud. They have failed to even attempt to prove that these persons did not vote, and in addition thereto, they can not prove whether or not these persons voted for or against Mr. Vare. They have assumed, however, that everyone listed in the alphabetical order voted for Mr. Vare. In addition to these contentions, it is respectfully submitted that there is nothing vitally wrong with alphabetical listing. It is true that the act of assembly stipulates that the name of each voter shall be entered by the clerks in the List of Voters as he votes. It has frequently happened, and it will continue to occur in large cities like Philadelphia, that many of the polls are not fully manned at 7 o'clock in the morning. There have been instances where the election board did not appear and a substitute board was chosen immediately outside the polling place on the morning of election. Then again, there have been and will be many instances in which only the judge of the election is present at 7 o'clock in the morning and he has found a large number of citizens desirous of casting their ballots and he has taken the responsibility upon himself of opening the poll and allowing these people to vote. Under circumstances such as these, it would be impossible to follow the act of assembly in all its particulars. One man or two men can not give the ballot to the voter and check his name in both lists of voters and consequently the lists of voters would not be kept, but a cneck would be made on either the ballot check list or the voting check list and when the proper officials came to conduct the election they would then make the necessary entries and checks to comply with the actual conditions. Those having any experience in the conduct of elections in Philadelphia know that in some polling places the voters come in groups of varying sizes, and when they come in groups, their names are not written in the lists of voters, nor are they always checked on the registration book. At some time during the day when there is no one desiring to vote, the inspectors and the clerks make comparison of the entries in their books and then the books are made to correspond to each other. In doing so there is no fraud, no desire or intention to deceive the public or to corrupt the election. It is rather an honest attempt to comply with the law and to complete the records of that division so that the work of that particular election board may be scrutinized and found to be correct.

When the polls close, it is the duty of the election officers to see that the ballot check list, the voting check list and the lists of voters correspond, and then a comparison is made and if there is a discrepancy in any two or more of these records, the discrepancy is corrected, and this can happen only by writing names in the list of voters or by checking in the registration books and this is done before. the ballot box is opened. This charge is one of those straws grasped at by those seeking any means of support. To charge alphabetical listing a fraud is to confess the weakness of their case. It is also submitted that the two books entitled "List of Voters" will not correspond precisely in the alleged listing, which would mean that one clerk performed his duty at times and the other one did not.

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that without the evidence as hereinbefore urged and with the complete answer to some of the alleged alphabetical lists, and with the explanation of the conditions which bring about such alleged alphabetical listings, we believe this committee will not rest its decision upon such vulnerable testimony or charges.

SPECIFICATION NO. 13

Over 5,000 names in the voters' lists were erased and altered."

In view of the actual facts this charge is contemptible. It is a mean attempt to reflect upon the illiteracy of the clerks who probably found themselves incapable of spelling many names of voters. Had the investigators of this committee been desirous of seeking and finding the truth they would not have stopped with the examination of one list of voters. Those in charge knew that there was also a list of voters in the ballot boxes and under the resolution of the United States

Senate the special committee had the right of access to the contents of those ballot boxes. When desiring to base a charge of fraud upon alterations and erasures of names in one book, they should have made certain that the other book contained the same evidence. Upon receiving the letter of January 14, and having failed to receive any identification of divisions to which the charges related, representatives of Mr. Vare started to investigate for themselves practically every division in the city of Philadelphia, or a total of 1,500. Industry, application, expedition, have been the purpose of the investigators for Mr. Vare and the results obtained in the short space of eight days are almost marvelous. A comparison of the prothonotary's list of voters with the list of voters contained in the ballot box shows that in almost every instance the book in the ballot box contained no such alterations and erasures. In furtherance of our answer to this charge, we call attention to the tenth division of the thirtieth ward—in the prothonotary's list of voters name No. 87 was William D. Ridgeway, which had been erased and rewritten, but an examination showed that William D. Ridgeway had originally been written on that line. An examination of the list of voters in the ballot box showed on line No. 87 the name of William D. Ridgeway without any alterations or erasures.

Then we have a reversal of the situation. In the book contained in the ballot box in the tenth division of the thirtieth ward, No. 78, we find the name of Ward, Lillian, and the name Lillian had been rewritten, but in the prothonotary's list of voters on line No. 78 the same name appears without any alterations or erasures. Again we say that many instances can be cited and we are quite confident that every name referred to in this charge can be satisfactorily explained.

SPECIFICATION NO. 14

"In more than 100 boxes ballots were found which had never been folded, or at least were so folded that they could not have passed through the slot in the ballot box."

An examination of the reports made by the investigators for the special committee shows that in 17 divisions it was claimed there was 1 such ballot; in 22 divisions it was claimed there were 2 such ballots; in 16 divisions there were 3 such alleged ballots; in 7 divisions there were 4 such ballots; and in 3 divisions there were 5 such ballots, while in 28 divisions there were more than 5 such ballots, or a total of 469 ballots in all that were claimed to be not properly folded.

Each and every one of the ballots said not to contain the necessary folds was marked for Mr. Vare. It is respectfully submitted that those passing judgment on this question protested ballots before the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and at no time did any of them protest a single ballot for lack of folds which bore a mark for Mr. Wilson. Supervisors and observers for Mr. Vare declined to protest ballots on the grounds of absence of folds or creases, excepting perhaps in one instance where there were two ballots, and this protest, in all probability, was made by one of the Vare observers who was not thoroughly familiar with election processes. Whether or not these ballots contained fold marks is a matter strictly of opinion and judgment. Observers for Mr. Vare contended frequently throughout the examination of ballots before the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections that the ballots protested for lack of creases did actually show marks of having been creased, and so declared at the time. It is our contention, based upon observation of the ballots as they came from the ballot boxes, that there was not a single ballot contained in any of those ballot boxes which was not deposited in the ballot box in accordance with the law. As one illustration, while the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections was holding a meeting in Philadelphia, taking testimony in the contest proceedings, a witness, James Morrow, called for Mr. Vare in contradiction of some testimony given by the contestant, was presented with ballots from the fifth division of the first ward, which ballots had been protested for lack of creases, and he was asked to indicate how those particular ballots could have gotten into the ballot box in his division. First of all he took the ballots, and, holding them up so that all might see, he pointed out the lines and markings left by the folding of the ballot as it was placed in the ballot box. In addition thereto, some of the ballots so presented and so protested for lack of creases manifested not only marks of having been folded, but there were so many marks that it indicated that ballots had been crumpled as well as folded. He furthermore gave a physical demonstration of how the ballots might be placed in the ballot box without creasing. There is nothing in

the law which requires the ballot to be creased. It need only be folded, and there is no particular method of folding prescribed.

Therefore, before this committee can declare as a fact that any ballots bore the evidence of not having been legitimately placed in the ballot boxes, they should make their own observation of these ballots, and we further submit that this committee could not, under present conditions, decide this question because these very ballots are now in protest before the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and were this committee to find as a fact that these ballots had not been folded, it would necessarily embarrass the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections in its consideration of the protest of these ballots. Therefore, we earnestly urge upon this committee that this latter thought be given consideration, if not because of the arguments advanced by Mr. Vare, then out of respect to the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

SPECIFICATION NO. 15

"Groups of five or more ballots were found where it was apparent that the lawful mark of the voter had been erased and another mark inserted."

This is denied. It is respectfully submitted that the examinations conducted by the clerks and others for the committee having been shown to be so erroneous, this committee would not be justified in accepting the charge in this accusation as verity. Many, if not all, of the ballots are either under protest or segregated in the proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, which committee has not as yet pronounced judgment on the same. Who has shown or proven that the lawful mark of the voter has been erased and another mark inserted? Under the law of the State of Pennsylvania such ballots containing merely erasures have been held to be valid. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the highest court of appeal in the State, in the case of Pfaff v. Bacon, 249 Pennsylvania State Reports, page 97, has held that such an erasure did not invalidate the ballot and was merely an indication that the voter had changed his mind after making the first mark, and made the erasure and then voted according to his choice.

If we are to be judged according to the law of our country, then this charge needs no further answer and this specification should and must be ignored by this committee.

This is borne out by the fact that not only were there ballots for Mr. Vare containing erasures, but there were also ballots for Mr. Wilson containing erasures. There were ballots in which the mark for Mr. Vare had been erased and a mark placed after the name of Mr. Wilson. Who can say that the voter did not make a mistake in marking the ballot for United States Senator and discovering his mistake changed his ballot and marked it as he desired?

SPECIFICATION NO. 16

"In many divisions large numbers of ballots were marked by single persons or by a group of persons.'

It is respectfully submitted that this charge can not, by the widest stretch of the imagination, be sustained. There is no expert in the world who is sufficiently competent to show that cross marks consisting of two strokes of the writing instrument were made by the same person. The handwriting expert who had been employed by this committee can not do it. His theory of examination of questioned documents is such that he must, of necessity, in accordance with the truth, state that he would require more than two strokes of a writing instrument made in the same general direction in order to pass upon the question of the maker of the marks. In addition thereto the ballots in Philadelphia are marked by a grease crayon, which would not give to the mark any separate and distinct characteristic but all of them would bear practically the same indications. The crayon wears considerably with each stroke and every stroke after the first one would have certain differences which might be observable under a microscope; and as the crayon wears it becomes more difficult to identify cross marks made by such a writing instrument.

Furthermore, even if it were possible to identify the cross marks as having been made by a definite person, and even though there were on the records in this proceeding admission by a definite person that he had made many of the marks, it would still not be evidence of fraud and in fact would be in accordance with the law. The election laws of the State of Pennsylvania at the time of this election permitted the marking of ballots by anyone upon the request of the