and thereby makes illiteracy a legitimate ground for challenge during registration proceedings.

Despite this mandatory provision of the State laws, whenever a Democratic challenger assigned such a ground for challenge of the right of an elector to be registered almost invariably the presiding registrar would ignore the challenge and, where necessary to prevent its efficacy, he would instruct the assistant registrars to make no entry on the registration records. In fact, as previously stated, entries on the registration records almost uniformly failed to show the entry of challenge grounds, or decision thereon. This fact was stated by witnesses and also was found by the committee investigators who reported that additional entries on these records were inaccurate and incomplete when first inspected; however, subsequently and prior to the election some of these records were corrected.

* *

Registration entries.-Section 1714 of the election laws of the State of Delaware provides in considerable detail the manner of making entries as to the "nativity" and "age" of the elector seeking to register. The entry may be merely "over 21" if the applicant was 21 or more at the time of registration, or “21 on giving the day, month, and year when the applicant will reach majority, if under 21 at the time of registration. As to "nativity" the laws require the "State, Territory, or country" in which the applicant was born. It seems obvious that the intention of the State legislature was to enter the most detailed location of nativity known by the applicant. However, by direction of the registrars "U. S. A." only was entered for all births in this country.

The Department of Elections for New Castle County actually was run by its secretary, Thomas E. Peeney, who was not a member but an employee of the department. This secretary instructed the Republican registration officials prior to the first 1940 registration day at the Republican Wilmington headquarters. When asked why Democratic registration officials were not also instructed, this witness merely replied that he had never been asked to do so. When further asked if he did not think it would be in the interest of impartiality to instruct all registration officials, Peeney agreed that it would be a good idea.

Although there was insufficient affirmative evidence to establish it as a fact, it was intimated by witnesses at the hearing and during the preliminary investigation that the foregoing two entries in the "age" and "nativity" columns were intended to obscure the identity of the applicants for registration and make more difficult their identification when voting on election day. At least the loose manner of entries had such an effect and "phantom" voters could not be so readily detected when they appear to exercise the voting franchise. Efforts to secure detailed information as to the character of instructions of the election department secretary to some of the registration officials were not very successful and about all that could be established was that they had been instructed as to the proper performance of their duties.

Chapter 57, Revised Code, or section 1745 to section 1768, inclusive, which was enacted by the Delaware State Legislature in 1939, created the Department of Elections for New Castle County and specified the names and tenures of office of the original members of the department in the legislation itself. Democratic members of the State legislature opposed this measure; the Democratic Governor vetoed the bill and it was again passed over that veto. The law is now being challenged on constitutional grounds in the State courts of Delaware. One of the grounds of objection is that it does not establish uniform procedure throughout the State; i. e., the Department of Elections for New Castle County has the power of appointing all registration officials in that county whereas the Governor has the appointive power in the balance of the State.

During the hearing and in the course of the preliminary investigation it was pointed out that certain aspects of the complaints did not involve actual violations of law and that other aspects involved violations of Delaware State laws. However, at the same time, emphasis was placed upon the fact that the creation of inaccurate or improper registration rolls preclude a fair election even of members of the State legislature which could correct the evils found to exist in the State laws. Furthermore attention was directed to the fact that Federal officers, including candidates for President, Vice President, and United States Senators and Representatives, all are elected by voters from the registration rolls about which complaints were made.

Method of sample checking.—A triple test of the accuracy of certain portions of the registration list was made during the preliminary investigation and was brought out in the hearing before the subcommittee in the form of testimony by one of the special committee investigators. Names of persons alleged to have

been improperly registered and which were so checked applied to only 2 of the 148 election districts of Wilmington. This check was insufficient to form the basis for appraising this type of registration irregularity as a practice, but it was asserted repeatedly by witnesses that similar conditions would be found to exist in other election districts which were not subjected to such triple check, variously estimated at from 20 to 40 districts of the total 148.

The names in these two election districts were checked in the following manner: The registration records were first examined to ascertain that the names on the list given to investigators were on the official rolls. Secondly, having found these names on such records, personal calls were made by investigators at the given address for each person on the list and inquiries made at the address and in the neighborhood as to whether or not the person in fact lived at the address specified. Where unsatisfactory information was received in the neighborhood an official letter on the stationery of the special committee was sent to each such person inviting him to call at the Federal Building, Wilmington, for an interview with investigators.

In the third election district of the first ward, 94 letters were mailed to persons on the list. Twenty persons came to the Federal Building and established their right to be on the registration rolls. Sixty-five of the letters were returned by the post office, marked "Not Found" at address given. Twenty-nine brought no response whatsoever.

In the second election district of the first ward, 130 letters were sent out and 5 persons called to establish their right to be on the rolls. Eighty-eight letters were returned marked "Not Found" and 37 brought no response at all.

When the foregoing triple check failed to disclose any information as to the listed persons it was the opinion of the subcommittee that 153 names constituted prima facie evidence of illegally registered persons on the rolls in these two districts in Wilmington.

It should be explained that 228 names of persons registered in the third district of the first ward, out of an approximate total registration of 450 in 1940, and 242 out of a total of about 825 in the second district of the first ward, were subjected In the latter district, for example, the names were all those to this triple check. registered in one block, the district being two blocks wide by four blocks long. Accordingly, it is only a sampling of the accuracy of the registration rolls in Wilmington. The special committee is not a prosecuting agency nor has it any power of indictment. Its purpose and function is fact-finding exclusively. The facts found by the sampling process have been made available to the United The scope of the cross-section check can be States Department of Justice. enlarged by the Justice Department which has positive powers of prosecution. A particularly flagrant instance of such illegal registration was found at a cheap hotel or "flophouse" located at 113 Shipley Street, in the third district of the first ward. Originally there were 65 names of persons listed as voters at that address; duplications were discovered which reduced the number to 36. The proprietor of this "flophouse" signed a statement in the Federal Building at Wilmington that not more than 5 persons, including himself and family, had lived at 113 Shipley Street long enough to be entitled to register from that address.

Prior to the election on November 5, 1940, appeals were taken from decisions of the registrars allowing persons who had been challenged to be registered; such appeals included a number of persons from this flophouse.

INVESTIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL TO HEARING

Subsequent to the hearing on October 1, investigators were in intermittent touch with the situation at Wilmington, being present there prior to and on the final registration day, October 19, 1940, and on election day, November 5, 1940. Grand jury proceedings were instituted by the United States attorney at On the first day of the grand jury Wilmington, commencing in October 1940, to inquire into alleged registration irregularities and related political activities. proceedings committee investigators were subpenaed to appear and testify before that body and every assistance possible was given to the Department of Justice through committee agents and records.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) That the registration rolls of the city of Wilmington contained names of persons not entitled to exercise the voting franchise;

(2) That the Department of Elections for New Castle County by provisions of the Delaware State election laws has power to appoint all registration officials

and to select all polling places in New Castle County, including the city of Wilmington, whereas such powers in the remaining counties are given to the Governor of the State of Delaware;

(3) That the State law creating the Department of Elections for New Castle County has been challenged on a Delaware State constitutional basis and that the case is now pending in the courts of that State;

(4) That the original members of the Department of Elections for New Castle County together with their varying tenures of office were designated specifically in the State law creating the election department;

(5) That the State election laws permit the appointment by the elections department of a Republican presiding registrar with magisterial powers in each of the 148 election districts of the city of Wilmington;

(6) That during the registration proceedings each such registrar generally acts alone for the board of registration composed of himself and two assistant registrars, the latter two officials rarely having any voice in decisions affecting registration of voters;

(7) That unauthorized persons frequently are permitted by the registrar to be in the polling place during registration proceedings and are not ejected by him as required by law;

(8) That in many instances Democratic challengers with legitimate credentials from their party officials were not permitted by the registrars to enter the polling place, to remain therein, or to function as permitted by law;

(9) That in numerous instances Democratic challengers were ejected, or threatened with ejection, when they attempted to exercise their lawful functions;

(10) That on various occasions Republican ward officials, who recommended the appointment of the registrars in their wards, were allowed to enter the polling places, to remain therein and, in many instances, to direct the course of the registration proceedings, including the ejection of Democratic challengers;

(11) That inaccurate or incorrect entries are made on the registration records by the assistant registrars at the direction of the presiding registrar despite objections of Democratic challengers, who thereby are ignored or rendered ineffectual; (12) That generally during registration proceedings the grounds of challenge were limited to two grounds: "Bribery" and "the person seeking to register is not the person he purports to be," whereas the Delaware State election laws contemplate a much wider scope for challenge during the registration proceedings.

8. PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS IN VARIOUS STATES

Complaints were also received by the special committee with respect to the conduct of primary campaigns in a number of different States. All of these complaints with an apparent justification were investigated by agents of the committee.

These complaints involved such matters as excessive expenditures on behalf of individual candidates for nomination for a Federal office or on behalf of a "slate" including a Federal office, compulsory contribution to primary campaign funds, and other primary voting irregularities. The allegations as to compulsory contributions involved Work Projects Administration employees, State employees, and a labor union.

The investigation by the special committee disclosed a practice in certain States of requiring compulsory contributions by State employees to general and specific campaign funds. In two instances such contributions were used in connection with campaigns for nomination and election of United States Senators. In other instances such funds were used principally for the support of candidates for State offices or for the "State ticket" of a party including Federal officials.

In response to allegations of compulsory contributions by State employees it was repeatedly urged on the committee that there was no Federal jurisdiction in such matters.

In such a situation the committee might recommend to State legislatures in general and specifically where applicable the adoption of State legislation patterned on the Federal Hatch Act. At least, Federal agencies such as this special committee, should have access to records of these transactions in order to ascertain if any such expenditures were made. The records should be kept so that expenditures in behalf of candidates for Federal offices should be separate from expenditures on behalf of candidates for State offices.

In other words, there exists a basis for Federal legislation concerning such matters wherein a Federal official is being nominated or elected. Each of the complaints embraced within this section involved one or more aspects of a primary campaign in a particular State. In the case of Newberry v. United States (256 U. S. 232 (1921)) the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional a section of a 1911 Federal Corrupt Practices Act limiting the amount of money which could be contributed to or spent by a candidate for nomination as United States Representative or as United States Senator. Mr. Justice McReynolds in that opinion stated that although the Congress. had a power to regulate the manner of holding elections, such power did not confer authority on the Congress to control party primaries or conventions for designating candidates. He said that the exercise of such power would "interfere with purely domestic affairs of the State and infringe upon liberties reserved to the people."

It should be noted that this decision of the Supreme Court denying Federal jurisdiction in the matter of primaries did not deal with registration of voters which is a step in the exercise of the voting franchise sometimes taken by the elector prior to the primary and sometimes thereafter. There was nothing in the decision to indicate that Federal jurisdiction would be denied in connection with the general election.

In a report concerning primary campaign expenditures prepared by Senator Clyde M. Reed the Newberry decision was cited. The question was raised by Senator Reed as to whether or not that decision would be controlling today in the light of subsequent decisions of the United States Court such as its interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution. It was also questioned as to whether or not there might be some modification of the judicial reasoning as applied to present-day conditions.

Irrespective of the future position of the Supreme Court in sustaining, modifying, or overruling the doctrine of the Newberry case the special committee calls to the attention of the Senate its interest in the conduct of primary elections and in registration of voters in the several States for whatever consideration and study appropriate. standing committees of the Senate may deem advisable and proper in the circumstances.

(1) Missouri.

(A) EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURES

In a complaint to the special committee, it was alleged that improper methods had been used by Missouri State officials and their subordinates. Employees of State agencies were said to have been compelled to contribute to Gov. Floyd C. Stark's campaign fund for Democratic nomination as United States Senator. An investigation of this complaint was ordered by the committee.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Investigators reported that it had been a custom in previous years for all State employees in Missouri to contribute 2 percent of their annual salaries to the general Democratic State campaign fund, and that all persons accepting employment in a State agency expected to make such a contribution. It was also indicated that this contribution had been made by State employees in 1940.

In addition to these contributions employees were asked to contribute to Governor Stark's senatorial campaign fund. This request was made by R. Waldo Holt, commissioner of finance of the State of Missouri, who was a representative of the Governor. Heads of departments were notified that they were expected to solicit their employees for contributions to this fund.

While the investigation failed to disclose any concrete instances wherein any State official threatened an employee with dismissal for failure to contribute to this fund, the evidence clearly shows that this thought was clearly conveyed to employees generally. In fact, it was stated with extreme frankness by some employees that contributions had been made against their will and that such contributions were considered to have been a protection against loss of their jobs.

SECOND COMPLAINT

A telegram was received by the special committee from the director general of the Truman campaign committee calling attention of the special committee to a statement issued by Gov. Floyd C. Stark that a large slush fund was being raised by Senator Harry S. Truman in connection with his campaign for nomination as United States Senator from Missouri. This telegram was sent by the director general as a formal request for investigation.

Neither Governor Stark nor his campaign manager revealed to investigators any support for the accusation except a rumor that Work Projects Administration project employees had been solicited for campaign contributions. It also was stated that a citizen of Neosho, Mo., had solicited contributions from census enumerators in that vicinity.

An investigation by committee agents failed to disclose that any Work Projects Administration employees had been solicited by anyone ever, the Neosho citizen in question for campaign contribution ils from a few former census enuhad solicited fund State employees at that time. merators. Thes wed by a committee investigator. Several of those ire was not used in connection These interviews