Registration standing alone would be meaningless, an empty act and one devoid of significance. Its importance is derived from the completion of the exercise of the voting franchise; that is, actually depositing the ballot in the polling booth. The second or intermediate step is the casting of the vote at the primary election. And the same registration rolls are used both for the primary and the general elections.

Insofar as any official of a State or any subdivision of the State is elected through the use of these registration rolls there is no color of jurisdiction on behalf of the Federal Government. It neither has the power to punish nor the right to inquire into facts surrounding a local operation subject to the powers of a sovereign State of the Union.

The foregoing scope of local jurisdiction was urged upon the special committee and had the most careful consideration in connection with complaints as to registration irregularities which were filed with the committee during the 1940 political campaign. In elaborating upon the original complaints the committee and its investigators were told by the complainants and by other interested persons that local situations within these States had developed to a point where citizens of the States had become powerless to remedy recognized evils growing out of registration and related irregularities.

Through devious manipulation of various State laws including the, registration statutes, there had been created in several of the States "political machines. The dominant factors in these political machines had acquired an increasingly effective control of campaigns, elections, and general political activities in their own States, for not only was the course of the elections directed by the machine heads but the conduct of the elected officials after assuming office was subject to the desires of the machine organization.

In the absence of widespread changes of political thought throughout the State or Nation these machines have become practically selfperpetuating. It was generally understood that the first step toward removing the evils was to change the personnel of State officials. However, these State officials were said to be part and parcel of the machine and subject to the control of the machine heads while in many instances the machine heads and the elected officials were the same persons. And, chronologically, the machinery of election control started with the preparation of the registration rolls.

It so happens, however, that State officials are not the only officials elected through the medium of the registration rolls. Federal officials also are elected by the persons whose names appear on the registration rolls. Every 2 years throughout the country all Members of the United States House of Representatives are elected and onethird of the Members of the United States Senate are also chosen as well as the President and the Vice President of the United States, the latter two being elected every 4 years. And all of these Federal officials are selected through the use of the same registration rolls. There is already on the statute books some Federal legislation, but it is hardly adequate to meet the existing situation. Apart from the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 and the Hatch Act of 1940, Federal legislation practically is limited to "conspiracy" charges under section 51 of the United States Criminal Code. Conspiracy indictments are intricate and extremely difficult to sustain; and the two other Federal laws, while serving the valuable purpose of eliminating

certain aspects of the situation, probably will fall short and fail to reach the core of the evils represented by "machine control" in the various States.

Any election, primary or general, can be no more honest than the registration from which it is held. If the registration rolls in any State are "padded" or prepared with the aid of improper practices, then it follows that the election of Federal officials where such registration rolls are improperly used, will not be an accurate reflection of the wishes of the electorate.

Under the provisions of Senate Resolution 212, the special committee believed it was authorized as a matter of public interest to investigate the complaints made to it regarding registration irregularities in the several States.

Furthermore, one of the principal purposes for which the special committee was created was to make a study in aid of remedial legislation should the present Federal laws prove to be inadequate to meet the existing evils of the situation.

(B) ILLINOIS

A general complaint was received from the Better Government Association of Chicago, alleging a probability that intimidation, coercion, vote buying, and other corrupt political activities would prevail in the 1940 election campaign.

Time did not permit a preliminary investigation. Therefore, a subcommittee composed of Senators Hill (chairman) and Reed was designated to hold hearings on the subject matter of the foregoing complaint. Accordingly, hearings were conducted in Chicago on October 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 26, 1940. The subcommittee made its report to the full committee on January 3, 1941, which was accepted. Its report follows:

REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 3, 1941. To the Special Committee Investigating Campaign Funds, 1940, United States Senate: Your subcommittee appointed to hold hearings on the subject matter of the complaint made on October 12, 1940, by the president of the Better Government Association of Chicago, wishes to report:

A telegraphic complaint dated October 12, 1940, was received by the chairman from the Better Government Association of Chicago, Robert L. Hunter, president, charging that general election results would be likely to be determined by intimidation, coercion, vote buying, and vote stealing, in a number of politically corrupt wards in Chicago, despite efforts of the election commissioners and civic organizations seeking to insure honest elections.

INVESTIGATION

No preliminary investigation of the charges was made. However, the chairman appointed a subcommittee to sit in Chicago, composed of Senator Lister Hill (chairman) and Senator Clyde M. Reed. Hearings were scheduled to open on October 16, 1940.

PREHEARING CONFERENCE

In the absence of the subcommittee chairman, Senator Reed arranged to meet with representatives from the various civic organizations at the Palmer House in Chicago. A conference was held on October 16 with Senator Reed presiding. Representatives of various civic organizations were called upon to submit information concerning the nature of irregularities which had come to their attention. They were also requested to arrange for the appearance of witnesses who would

be competent to testify as to conditions prevailing during Chicago campaigns. It was explained by Senator Reed that the success of the subcommittee hearings would depend upon the cooperation of the various civic groups as well as that of persons having knowledge of election machinery in Chicago and its functioning.

HEARINGS

Hearings were formally opened on October 17, 1940. Senator Lister Hill presided as chairman.

Election machinery.—The testimony of County Judge Edmund K. Jarecki, who was invited to appear before the subcommittee, and who supervises the work of the election commission, provides a description of the election machinery in Chicago. A brief summary of his testimony follows:

Cook County has a population of over 4,000,000, of which approximately 1,900,000 vote. There are 3,848 election precincts which are supervised by 3 election commissioners appointed by the county jduge. The election commissioners appoint 19,250 election judges and clerks for each election. These judges and clerks are drawn equally from the 2 major political parties. Names of applicants for these positions are checked with the State bureau of identification for possible criminal records. Selections are made from those best qualified and recommendations are then made to the county court, approval of which is required by law. After confirmation judges and clerks become officials of the county court and, as such, may be tried for any official misconduct in open court without written pleadings, on oral testimony. Several such trials have been held in each election year since 1922, when the present county judge began his first term.

The law requires that two registration forms be executed by each voter; one is retained in the central files of the election commission and the other is placed in precinct binders used at the polls on election days. In addition, the commission issues to each registered voter a personal identification card. New cards are issued to record changes in name or address. Identification cards must at all times conform with registration forms on file. Subsequent to each general registration the commission appoints a canvasser for each precinct, who checks the voting lists by means of a house-to-house canvass. Unofficial canvasses by civic organizations are also conducted. If satisfactory identification is not made, suspect notices are mailed requiring the voters to show cause why their names should not be stricken from the voting list.

Upon completion of the challenging of registrants by suspect notices, and otherwise, a final official voting list is prepared, copies of which are sent to the respective polling places.

The changes made in registration records between June

and October 8, 1940,

numbered 583,319. These changes were caused by persons not being found at the given addresses, persons unable to prove eligibility, and for other reasons such as moving to new addresses, changes in name due to marriage, etc.

At the polls on election day persons intending to vote are required to execute a ballot application. To establish identity of the voter the election official compares the signature thereon with the registration form in the precinct binder. If the binder card is missing the person is permitted to vote provided his name is on the official voting list and if two residents of that precinct make sworn affidavit that he is eligible.

In the 1940 preelection canvass 130,000 suspect notices were issued.

A majority

of this number, however, furnished satisfactory proof of eligibility and were allowed to vote.

Recital of types of fraud. In addition to the testimony of Judge Jarecki, other witnesses testified that despite the adequacy of governing statutes and the enforcement machinery provided, illegal and fraudulent practices do exist. These are most frequently attributed to collusion between members of the two major political parties who serve as judges and clerks in precincts.

Many witnesses were presented by the Better Government Association and other civic organizations interested in election activities in the city of Chicago. In their testimony these witnesses recited specific instances of intimidation, coercion, fraudulent registration, and voting; payments to voters in sums ranging from 25 cents to $20; distribution of liquor to influence voters; use of other considerations to influence voters; cash payments to police officers by political workers at polling places; ejection by election officials of police officers from polling places; control of votes of city-owned flophouse residents by administration in power regardless of party; and other varied types of fraudulent practices.

The testimony indicated that physical intimidation of voters in Chicago has been superseded by more subtle methods of controlling voters. Most prevalent among these are chain balloting, assistance to voters, and forgery of ballot applications.

Chain balloting.-Chain balloting is a process whereby through various means an unmarked ballot gets into the hands of a political worker on or before election day. This worker marks the ballot to suit his own purposes, then gives it to a voter. The voter after having applied in the usual way for a ballot in a polling place enters the voting booth, pockets the clean ballot, and then deposits in the ballot box the ballot which has been marked for him. He returns to the political worker with the clean ballot and is then paid for following instructions. This process is repeated in an unbroken chain throughout election day.

Assistance to voters.-Illinois law states specifically that those who are blind, illiterate, or unable to read English, are entitled to assistance in voting from election officials. It is required that an official of each party enter the voting booth with the voter who is entitled to assistance. Persons not in the above-described categories are not entitled to assistance in voting. Testimony indicates, however, that through collusion of the election officials voters not entitled to assistance are accompanied into voting booths by officials who observe or direct the marking of their ballots. According to the testimony this irregular practice is widespread in Chicago.

Forgery of applications for ballots.-The testimony also indicates that names of eligible voters are forged on ballot applications at polling places, and as a result of such forgeries many votes are cast.

The testimony before the subcommittee indicates that existing statutes provide sufficient penalties for fraudulent or illegal activities in connection with elections in Chicago, but the election commission is greatly handicapped in enforcing the law in certain precincts, due to the numerical preponderance of one party. This condition is now being improved by the activities of many civic organizations which are interested in promoting clean elections in Chicago.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Throughout the testimony no suggestion was made that conditions in Chicago could be improved by Federal legislation. It was conceded by a majority of witnesses that the problem in Chicago is one of enforcement rather than lack of regulatory measures;

(2) It was indicated, however, that the most effective deterrent to vote frauds and illegal practices in the past has been criminal prosecutions. In this connection, the witnesses were in accord that Federal court prosecutions would be a substantial step toward the elimination of fraud;

(3) In an effort to ascertain the extent of familiarity of the Department of Justice regarding election irregularities in Chicago, the subcommittee conferred with Maurice Milligan, special assistant to the attorney general in charge of election fraud cases, and Albert Woll, United States district attorney in Chicago. At this conference the testimony presented at the hearings was reviewed and the Chicago situation discussed. It was decided that the record of the hearings should be made available to the United States district attorney. Mr. Milligan informed the subcommittee that it was his intention to study the situation in Chicago, and if the facts warranted calling a special grand jury, that such action would be taken.

When all witnesses who desired to testify before the subcommittee had been heard, the hearings were adjourned and copies of the records of the hearings were furnished to the United States district attorney in Chicago.

LISTER HILL, Chairman.
CLYDE REED.

(c) PENNSYLVANIA

Widespread complaints and press accounts of registration irregularities in Philadelphia came to the attention of the special committee. The committee authorized an investigation which lasted for about 2 weeks and consisted exclusively of a background study of registration machinery and conditions in Philadelphia. When the investigation reached the point where committee agents were to ascertain the extent to which alleged irregularities actually existed, a Federal grand

jury inquiry into the subject matter was instituted in Philadelphia. Thereupon the investigation by the special committee was discontinued pending the outcome of the grand jury proceedings.

No subcommittee was appointed in connection with this complaint and no hearings were held at any time.

COMPLAINT

In a complaint to the special committee it was alleged that there were 200,000 improperly registered persons in Philadelphia. Feature writer David G. Wittels, of the Philadelphia Record, made a similar charge in a series of articles concerning Philadelphia registration rolls.

On the basis of a sampling cross-section check by complainants, it was estimated that out of approximately 1,000,000 voters in Philadelphia, "1 out of 5," or 200,000, were illegal registrants.

INVESTIGATION

Agents of the special committee made a preliminary investigation consisting of a comprehensive background study of the political conditions affecting registration of voters in Philadelphia. At this point the United States attorney at Philadelphia called a grand jury to inquire into the matter. It therefore was decided to suspend investigation by the special committee to await the outcome of the grand-jury proceedings.

Registration machinery. The alleged registration irregularities emanated from a Pennsylvania State law entitled "First Class City Permanent Registration Act, approved March 30, 1937." Prior to the enactment of this law electors registered annually in Philadelphia. In an effort to eliminate recognized evils of this system, permanent registration was adopted. Among evils sought to be eliminated was that of building and perpetuating political machines. It was hoped that permanent registration would be more economical and would more accurately reflect the names of persons entitled to exercise the voting franchise in Philadelphia.

Political figures of both parties objected to permanent registration and claimed that the law was impracticable. They asserted that the cure for registration ills was a return to annual registration. However, sponsors of permanent registration attributed the difficulties encountered in the administration of the law to the personnel of the Philadelphia Registration Commission, claiming they were incompetent and that what was needed was not new legislation but new personnel under some merit system.

Under permanent registration it was believed that, once a city-wide list of electors had been created, it would be foolproof and a minimum effort would be necessary to keep abreast of changes or additions to the list. An elector automatically lost his voting franchise if he failed to exercise it during 4 consecutive years. The commission was obliged to canvass the registration rolls once in 4 years and have a corps of inspectors to make intermittent checks on the accurancy of the rolls.

Three sets of registration records were kept by the commission: First, the district register, which was the most important and the one sent to the polls for use on election day; second, the register, a city-wide list of electors; and, third, the street list register, from which