an indeterminate amount was expended which may not have been included in the candidate's report to this committee. These expenditures were made by individuals supporting the Davis candidacy and it was not established that the candidate had knowledge of them.

(2) Maryland.

COMPLAINT

Complaints were received by the special committee from several sources alleging excessive expenditures on behalf of Howard Bruce, Democratic candidate for nomination in the Maryland senatorial primary campaign.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

An examination of records of the expenditures of Democratic candidates for United States Senator in the Maryland primary campaign disclosed the following:

Howard Bruce, who opposed the incumbent, Senator George L. Radcliffe, in the primary campaign, reported to the committee the expenditure of $97,400.59 divided as follows: Five thousand six hundred and fifty dollars was by John L. Machall, personal treasurer for Mr. Bruce; $86,409.53 was expended by the Senate Campaign Committee through Mr. Charles H. Soloson, Jr., treasurer, and $5,331.06 was reported as bills incurred but unpaid.

The report submitted for the same primary campaign in behalf of the successful contestant, Senator George L. Radcliffe, listed expenditures made or incurred in behalf of his candidacy in the sum of $120,241.63, of which sum $14,557 was expended by J. Howard Murray, treasurer and political agent for George L. Radcliffe; $82,651.79 by Charles H. McComas, treasurer for George L. Radcliffe, primary campaign for United States Senate, and $23,032.84 was listed as bills incurred but unpaid.

The Maryland law covering primary expenditures for candidacies envisions disbursements through political committees, regular and special, through personal treasurers or political agents, and also by the candidates themselves, with certain specific exemptions and limitations on certain expenditures by candidates.

Investigators reported that records of receipts and expenditures maintained by managers of both Democratic candidates for the senatorial nomination apparently were accurate and complete.

Charges of coercion of voters by State officials and employees were investigated but could not be sustained by any affirmative evidence. Charges that persons were promised employment or other consideration in order to influence their support for individual candidates were called to the attention of committee agents. Investigations of these charges disclosed that, if such promises were made, they were without the knowledge of either of the senatorial candidates. (3) West Virginia.

changed, pressure was used or other inducements were employed which, if true, would not be compatible with fair and honest elections.

Requests for assistance.-Any elector of Philadelphia is authorized by the law to secure "assistance" if necessary when registering on voting. The obvious purpose of the provision is to enable illiterate or otherwise incapacitated electors to exercise the voting franchise. On the triplicate registration records which must be signed by the elector when he registers there is space for an entry requesting assistance and the reason it is necessary.

Illiteracy is the principal ground for assistance although this privilege also was abused in other ways. If arrangements had been made to "buy a vote" and the purchaser wished to know how such person cast his ballot one important step was necessary. The voter could report a sore thumb or other physical incapacity to the registration commission. Thereafter the voter could have "assistance" and election officials at the polls could enter the polling place and assist the voter when casting his ballot. If this election official knew of the arrangement to purchase the vote actual knowledge of the transaction could be transmitted to the buyer.

The estimate given to investigators as to the extent of requests for assistance was 10 to a district. Since there are 1,316 districts this means more than 13,000 requests for assistance are made annually.

It was through the medium of one or more of the foregoing methods or by outright fraudulent and illegal registrations in the first place that the registration rolls of Philadelphia were alleged to have been padded to the extent of 200,000 “phantom voters."

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS

On October 19 investigators received from feature writer Wittels of the Philadelphia Record a substantial number of instances of illegal registration about which nothing had been published in his paper. Two days later when investigators were ready to make use of the background knowledge they had acquired by checking these alleged illegal registrations, the United States attorney at Philadelphia announced the opening of a Federal grand jury session to consider alleged illegal registration and related activities.

Inasmuch as the special committee is a fact-finding organization without powers of prosecution, it was decided to suspend its investigation. The grand jury has the power to indiet and if prosecution proved to be justified, persons guilty of registration misconduct could be punished more effectively in this manner.

The United States district attorney of Philadelphia, Pa., requested any information which could be made available by the special committee. During the investigation by the committee and subsequent to its completion, the committee made available to the United States district attorney for use in grand jury proceedings evidence assembled by committee investigators.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) That permanent registration under the First Class City Permanent Registration Act of March 30, 1937, failed to win widespread public approval during 3 years of administration under Democratic and under Republican control;

(2) That there is a conflict of opinion as to whether or not the act of 1937 is workable under any conditions;

(3) That there is a substantial body of opinion which believes that the act of 1937 is workable but that its administration has been strongly partisan;

(4) That persons sharing the foregoing belief desire new membership for the registration commission with new personnel operating under a merit system;

(5) That informed and interested persons believe with a fair degree. of unanimity that the principal difficulties encountered in administering the act of 1937 involve filing of removal cards for changes of address of electors, petitions to strike improper names from the registration rolls, withdrawal of names of deceased electors, changes of party affiliation of electors, requests for assistance by electors. (6) That there is a widespread belief that 1 out of 5 names on the Philadelphia registration rolls is improperly on those records or, in other words, that there are 200,000 "phantom voters" on those rolls; (7) That there was ample ground to justify an inquiry into the extent to which registration misconduct had occurred in Philadelphia and as to how far the 1-out-of-5 charge could be supported by affirmative evidence.

(D) DELAWARE

A considerable number of specific instances of registration irregularity in Wilmington, Del. were called to the attention of the special committee. An investigation was conducted which lasted for a period of about 6 weeks.

Pursuant to the investigation a subcommittee was appointed by the special committee for the purpose of holding a hearing on the subject matter of the investigation. The subcommittee was composed of Senators Lister Hill and Clyde Reed.

The hearing lasted for 1 day only and was recessed subject to recall by the chairman.

REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE

WASHINGTON, D. C., January —, 1941. To the Special Committee investigating Campaign Funds, 1940, United States Senate:

Your subcommittee, appointed to hold hearings on the complaint by the secretary of the Democratic Wilmington City Committee concerning registration irregularities in Wilmington, Del., wishes to report:

The complaint was in three sections each part pertaining to a definite aspect of registration activity in Wilmington.

Part I consists of instances of registration irregularities or misconduct during the 1940 registration period.

Part II consisted of lists of names of alleged improperly registered persons in two election districts.

Part III contained a list of alleged "pay-off men" for several wards.

The charge as to pay-off men was not supported by any factual evidence either in the course of the investigation or during the hearing on the complaint by the subcommittee. Accordingly, this report will consider only parts I and II of the complaint.

INVESTIGATION

The preliminary inquiry consumed a period of 6 weeks during which time investigators for the committee examined material and interviewed persons believed to have information or knowledge as to registration activities upon which the complaint was based.

298119-41-4

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

In other words, there exists a basis for Federal legislation concerning ch matters wherein a Federal official is being nominated or elected. Each of the complaints embraced within this section involved one. 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 ourt of the United States declared unconstitutional a section of a 1911 Federal Corrupt Practices Act limiting the amount of money. "hich could be contributed to or spent by a candidate for nomination s United States Representative or as United States Senator. Mr. Justice McReynolds in that opinion stated that although the Congress nad 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 sustain-✔ ing, 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.