polling place into coercing and intimidating the public, and causing a complete break-down of law enforcement and making a mockery of the sanctity of the ballot.

If Casey and Hague are sincere in their statements, then they are the only two people in Jersey City who do not know of the corruption, violence, and intimidation at the polls last Tuesday.

And Mr. Ferguson further said (p. 937, vol. 5):

Senator TOBEY. You ended that statement with this remark: "The only way to have an honest election in Hudson County is with the militia."

The WITNESS. They had an honest election in 1936. Of course, some of the statements that a man makes when he is under pressure, as I said before, I am not prone to make wild and rash statements, but when you are kicked all over the lot you probably say some things that are in your mind that you might not say at other times.

That this was not a sample of all elections in Hudson County was also stated by Mr. Ferguson. He said:

Question. Has it been your opinion, Mr. Ferguson, that elections in Hudson County have been fair elections in the past few years?

Answer. I'll answer that question, that the elections in Hudson County are erratic. In the election of 1936, when we had the President and Senators running, I think it was one of the finest and one of the cleanest and one of the quietest elections that anyone could expect, or that anyone could want. To my knowledge there was no intimidation, there was no rough stuff at the polls. I went around a number of the polls myself I went around during the day, and everything was perfectly quiet. At night I went around and they were counting the ballots one by one.

I remember going into a polling place directly opposite city hall-I don't remember the number of the district and ward-and the judge was reading the names out, and when I came in he said, "Ferguson, do you want to do this job? You can read the names out." And that was the way that election was conducted. Question. That was 1936?

Answer. That was 1936. And 1937 was the most hectic election I every saw in my life (pp. 932-933, vol. 5).

Question. What I was talking about, Mr. Ferguson, was the matter of intimidation, violence, supression of votes, force-that picture did not exist in 1936, 1938, and 1939?

Answer. No, no; it did not (p. 1041, vol. 5).

Examination by Senator MILTON:

Question. Mr. Ferguson, in testifying this morning you referred to the 1936 election as having been a fine election.

Answer. That is perfectly correct.

Question. Yes. You said the 1937 general election was a hectic one.

Answer. Yes. * * *

Question. The 1938 general election you weren't asked about. Perhaps we got into one of our free-for-all discussions and got off the trail.

to say about that one?

What have you

Answer. The 1938 election was very quiet and clean and there was very little disturbance of any description, and I don't think we heard of any cases of intimidation. I think we had a perfect mark on the 1938 election.

Question. That is the election in which

Answer. Senator Barbour was elected.

Question. Senator Barbour was elected. Bring us down to date, now. The 1939 election.

Answer. There was no trouble in the 1939 election.

Question. So that out of the past four general elections three of them have been free from trouble, free from intimidation and no complaints, generally speaking, of any kind?

Answer. That is perfectly correct (pp. 1038-1039, vol. 5).

298119-41-6

One instance in the testimony of Mr. Ferguson is perhaps worth quoting:

By Mr. DAVIS:

Question. Do you happen to recall, Mr. Ferguson, if it was that election, in that district where the doctors and nurses were being given assistance, that one of the State assemblymen, Mr. Goldberg, had some difficulties that night? Answer. Oh, no; I will tell you about Mr. Goldberg.

Question. Well, is it a different

Answer. Mr. Goldberg was a former assemblyman from the State of New Jersey. In fact, he was the author of the famous Goldberg bill, which was the first bill to endeavor to consolidate these two offices. He wanted to be a deputy. I was delighted to appoint him a deputy. I sent him over to a district in Hoboken, a district in Hoboken that was usually very quiet, but that I thought needed watching. Well, he was at that district for about 2 hours, probably 21⁄2 hours, when he called me on the telephone and he said, "Say, Ferguson, I want to be where there is some excitement. It is dead here in this district. Can't you deputize me somewhere down in Jersey City?"

I said, "Sure, come on up, and I'll deputize you all right."

So I sent him down to the first district in the first ward in Jersey City, and I think he had been down there 10 or 15 minutes, when I got a call that he had got a bat in the eye and a bust in the nose, so I went

The CHAIRMAN. He got what he was looking for?

By Mr. DAVIS:

Question. You sent him to the right place, in other words.

Answer. I went down there and saw him, and there wasn't much that I could do. I saw his condition, and I said, "Well, won't you make some complaint? Won't you pick out the man that assaulted you and have him arrested?" And he said, "If you don't mind, I want to get back to Newark as fast as I can." That was the last I saw of Mr. Goldberg (pp. 937-6-7, vol. 5).

SOUTH JERSEY

Complaint was filed with the committee by taxpayers and voters of Ocean County, N. J., requesting an investigation of election frauds and irregularities in Ocean County. Informal requests were also made for the investigation of election frauds and irregularities in other counties in southern New Jersey.

Investigators from your committee spent some 2 weeks in an inadequate investigation of the complaints relating to counties in the southern part of New Jersey and the subcommittee for 2 days held hearings devoted to the production of evidence in reference to the election. matters in such counties.

As in the hearings in Hudson County no evidence of irregularities or frauds or as to campaign contributions or expenditures for the 1940 campaign was presented to the subcommittee. There was produced evidence showing fraudulent voting in elections prior to 1940 in several counties in southern New Jersey.

There was also a copy of a decision of the Cape May circuit court. setting forth in great detail election frauds in the 1936 general election, which frauds were of such extent that the election of the Republican candidate for the New Jersey Senate, Mr. William C. Hunt, was declared to be void.

Evidence was also presented of voting in these counties by summer residents who are in fact citizens and legal voters in the State of Pennsylvania. It was asserted by some witnesses that in Ocean County voting in such county by summer residents who were legal residents of another State but had summer homes there resulted in reduced assessments on their property for purposes of taxation.

Another witness testified that his assessment was raised to penalize him for opposing in election matters the local Republican political organization.

CONCLUSION

While no evidence of any consequence was presented to the subcommittee at its hearings in Newark, N. J., as to campaign contributions or expenditures in either the primary or general election in 1940, and while no evidence as to fraud or irregularities was presented in reference to this election, and while the powers of the committee were limited to an investigation of matters relating to the 1940 election, the committee in view of the representations made by counsel for the committee, other interested parties and investigations made by its investigators under their direction, took extensive evidence in reference to fraud, irregularities, intimidations, and controversies in a number of elections preceding that of 1940. While the frauds and irregularities so considered by the committee were not shown to be connected with or to have had any relationship to or effect upon the 1940 election, the committee has felt that the foregoing summary of the scope of its investigation should be set forth in its report.

Most of the frauds and irregularities disclosed in the committee's investigation consisted of violations of the statutes of New Jersey and the punishment, correction, or prevention of such fraudulent or irregular practices must be sought in State rather than Federal action.

It should be said that the representatives of each of the political organizations who appeared before the subcommittee indicated an earnest desire to prevent election frauds when perpetrated by or for the benefit of the opposing party.

After the adjournment of the hearings of the subcommittee in Newark, N. J., a further hearing in reference to New Jersey election matters was conducted by the full committee at the office of the committee in the Senate Office Building in Washington, D. C. Chairman of the committee, the Honorable Guy M. Gillette, presided. At this hearing there was submitted to the committee, as had been theretofore requested by the subcommittee, pay rolls of Hudson County and of Jersey City for a period of 1 month. The county and city officials asked that the pay rolls be returned to them as soon as possible as they constituted official records and were needed in the respective offices from which they were produced. The original records were left with Senator Tobey at his request for his examination with the understanding that the respective officials would file with the committee copies of these pay rolls. No further proceeding in reference to these pay rolls was had before the committee.

Campaign expenditure reports of the Honorable Warren Barbour and the Honorable James D. Cromwell, respective candidates for the United States Senate in the 1940 election, from the files of the Secretary of the Senate were submitted to and examined by the committee. These reports showed the receipts and expenditures by these candidates respectively, as summarized in the appendixes of this report.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY MR. ADAMS

As the report of the committee deals at various points not only with primary elections but with registration system and other details of local and State election laws, I feel it necessary to state that in my opinion these matters were not within the scope of the authority of the committee even if within the scope of congressional power.

There have been criticisms of the Newberry case (256 U. S. 232), but it is the statement of the law today and should be recognized by a Senate committee.

Regardless of the power of the committee or of the Congress over the details of local and State election laws, it is wise that Congress leave their regulation to the States.

Election and registration machinery affect more directly local and State elections than national. Opinion, customs, conditions, and experience differ from State to State. These laws should be fitted to local needs and conditions. Congress cannot pass a multitude of differing laws applicable to different States and to different situations within the same State. Congress can only pass general laws. Efforts on the part of Congress to prescribe election and registration machinery for the several States would be justly resented.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This committee is the first special Senate committee for the investigation of campaign expenditures and matters relative thereto, appointed since the enactment into law of the Federal statutes popularly known as the Hatch acts, and special attention was, therefore, given to complaints of alleged violations of the spirit or letter of these provisions.

A similar committee appointed in the Senate in connection with the campaign of 1938, made a valuable report which reflected practices of coercion and abuse in connection with the organizations and officials disbursing or supervising the disbursement of Federal relief funds. This report of abuses was undoubtedly a major factor in influencing the introduction and enactment of the Hatch acts.

This special committee is pleased to report that of all of the hundreds of complaints laid before the committee relative to the campaign of 1940, not one complaint was made relative to this type of official coercion of the voters, or of misapplication of Federal relief funds. But the Hatch acts wrote into the Federal law certain new provisions designed to limit the amounts of campaign expenditures which could properly be made by political committees or by any one individual contributor.

A large part of the committee's work was in connection with making an investigation of campaign expenditures alleged to have been made in violation of these new statutory limitations. Through its agents and through committee hearings, the committee secured a vast amount of evidence showing the expenditures by political committees, and also by individuals, far in excess of the statutory limitations, as is fully established by the detailed charts filed with this report. In most instances there appeared serious question as to whether these expenditures so made were in actual violation of the letter of the law.

In October 1940 the Attorney General of the United States appointed a special assistant to make specific inquiry into this field of alleged violation of Federal statutes in connection with the 1940 campaign and some weeks later a special grand jury was convened by Justice Wheat of the District of Columbia District Court for this express purpose.

The Special Committee at the beginning of its work, recognizing that it had no powers or duties of prosecution, adopted the policy of making available to Federal or State prosecuting authorities, all the factual material secured through its agents or in its work which might be utilized by institution of proper suits for alleged violation. Pursuant to this policy the Special Committee turned over to the special assistant attorney general and to the special grand jury all of the committee records, reports, and material in connection with campaign expenditures and through its agents and its members cooperated in every way with the Department of Justice in presenting evidence of alleged violation of Federal law during the 1940 campaign.