While the committee investigators were making their inquiry, charges were made by the Republican organization that hundreds of pieces of mail were being distributed in the State under the frank of Senator Joseph F. Guffey, of Pennsylvania, in violation of the franking privilege, and the committee referred this complaint to the Post Office Department, whose inspectors conducted a thorough investigation and reported that the pieces of mail referred to were discovered, but that none of them had actually been sent through the mails. The material, which included frankable matter, with some political matter printed on envelopes, had been distributed to relatively few persons, but not by use of the mails. The committee took no action on this charge, except in relation to other charges concerning alleged abuse of the franking privilege, by requesting the Post Office Department to compile a complete set of laws and regulations on this subject for the future information of Senators and candidates. This report will be found on page 20.

As to expenditures, the committee found large campaign funds available for the Republican candidates, but not so large as had been alleged. Allowing for proper deductions similar to those granted by the Corrupt Practices Act, the remaining sums were not shown to be excessive. Complete receipts and expenditures reports for the party organizations in Michigan, as well as the individual candidates for United States Senator, will be found in the statistical section of this report in tabulation facing page 27, and in table on page 31, respectively.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

A complaint alleging excessive expenditures by Gov. H. Styles Bridges, Republican candidate for Senator in New Hampshire, resulted in a brief investigation which disclosed that the charges were not of serious consequence. Formal reports filed by Mr. Bridges with the committee show receipts of $9,517.13 and expenditures of $11,843.13. The State law of New Hampshire allows candidates to expend $8,000 for the nomination, and for the election $1,000. Expenses for traveling are excluded in computing the $8,000 limit, and contributions to the State committee are excluded in computing the $1,000 limit.

NEW JERSEY

A complaint filed by William H. Smathers, Democratic candidate for United States Senator in New Jersey, alleging large expenditures in behalf of Republican candidates, particularly by persons living in New York and elsewhere outside of the State of New Jersey, was investigated by the committee, in connection with other complaints from New Jersey. Supplemental complaints came from various parts of the State. One from Jersey City alleged that in Hudson County $500,000 was collected from civil-service employees and not accounted for. It alleged that young men traveled around the county and voted from 50 to 100 times on election day. Complaints from Atlantic City alleged that it was one of the most corrupt and dishonest election cities in the United States, with anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 illegal names on the registration lists of both major parties. Circulation of much questionable printed material also entered into the complaints. Mr. Glavis, chief investigator, conferred with Mr. Smathers and others concerning complaints but reported that he was unable to

obtain anything more than hearsay information concerning irregularities, except with respect to the mailing of literature, which was quite general in other States as well as in New Jersey.

OHIO

A complaint of alleged coercion and intimidation of employees in industrial plants in Ohio, particularly of the Timken plant of the Timken Roller Bearing Co. at Columbus, was filed by the committee on October 29, 1936. Investigation of this complaint disclosed that no illegal acts were perpetrated, and it was the decision of the committee at its meeting on December 15, 1936, that no further action should be taken. Officials of the Timken Roller Bearing Co. had denied any coercion or intimidation of employees, but explained to investigators that their officials had informed employees that it was to the company's advantage, and consequently to the employees' advantage, to vote the Republican ticket because of the tariff policy of the Democratic Party.

Other complaints arising in Ohio were concerned largely with two individuals who lost their positions with the Government for alleged political activity. They charged that Republicans had caused their dismissal as a part of the general program to coerce and intimidate voters and harass their leaders and speakers. The charges arose in Lowellville and Cincinnati, Ohio. After considering the complaints, and hearing one complainant in person, the committee decided that the charges related largely to situations of two individuals and not to any general corrupt efforts to influence the election of a Presidential candidate in the State, so far as the evidence showed, and therefore the committee did not have proper jurisdiction. There was no Senatorial campaign in Ohio.

PENNSYLVANIA

At a meeting of the committee on August 31, 1936, Senator Joseph F. Guffey, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. David L. Lawrence, secretary of the State of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Central Committee, laid before the committee charges of coercion and intimidation of employees in the Carnegie-Illinois steel plant at Clairton, Pa., and the Jones & Loughlin steel plant at Aliquippa, Pa. Later, similar charges were lodged against the Hy-Grade Sylvania Corporation at Emporium, Pa.; the Aero Supply Corporation, Corry, Pa.; the Duplan Silk Corporation, Hazelton, Pa.; and the Glenn Alden Coal Co., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

Extensive investigations of these charges were ordered by the committee, and investigators made several reports. In the case of the Carnegie-Illinois Steel Co., and the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., investigators for the committee obtained more than 50 affidavits which seemed to justify the charges and which indicated that workers were being approached in various ways and were being unduly influenced to register or vote the Republican ticket. Officials of the companies, however, denied that they had any part in such activities or any knowledge of same, and also denied that coercion and intimidation was the general practice among foremen and subordinates. Although a careful study was made by the committee of the information furS. Rept. 151, 75-1-2

nished in the affidavits concerning methods used to influence employees, which the committee will discuss in its supplemental report concerning legislative remedies, it was decided that no hearings would be conducted, and no punitive action taken against individuals.

A supplemental complaint of coercion and intimidation in industrial plants in Clarion, Elk, Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren Counties in Pennsylvania, located in the Twentieth Congressional District was filed with the committee at its meeting on December 15, 1936, by Mr. Lawrence. The complaint was referred to Mr. Glavis, chief investigator, who filed a report on January 4, 1937, stating that investigators had conducted inquiries at the plants of Owen-Illinois Glass Co., United Natural Gas Co., Castanea Paper Co., Smith & Horton Co., and Central Pennsylvania Lumber Co., in western Pennsylvania, but failed to substantiate any of the charges with competent evidence.

The committee thereupon dismissed the complaint from further consideration.

A complaint forwarded through the office of Governor Earle, of Pennsylvania, enclosing a letter circulated by Mr. Louis Ingram of the Ingram Richardson Manufacturing Co., Beaver Falls, Pa., which allegedly was used to influence women employees in the election, was considered by the committee, but the letter on which the complaint was based was regarded only as an expression of the employer's opinion, and not actually a case of coercion.

On Monday, August 31, 1936, the committee, at a regular meeting, heard Senator James J. Davis, Republican, of Pennsylvania, who appeared in person, and presented charges of coercion and intimidation of Works Progress Administration employees in Pennsylvania, by the Democratic organization. A telegram from John Hamilton, chairman of the Republican National Committee, containing general charges of a similar nature, was also considered by the committee at the same meeting. Senator Davis and Mr. Hamilton were both advised to present specific charges as promptly as possible, and committee investigators were ordered to begin an investigation. After some exchange of correspondence and telegrams in which general complaints were presented to the committee, specific allegations in the form of photostatic copies of affidavits broadcast by radio under Republican auspices regarding the Pennsylvania charges, were presented to the committee, and these enabled the committee to begin an intensive field investigation.

A preliminary report in connection with the Works Progress Administration charges was filed by the committee's investigator, Mr. Louis R. Glavis, on December 1, 1936, and was made public. It took up in detail the charges broadcast by radio, and presented from other sources to the committee, and concluded that on all except a few of the complaints which had not yet been investigated, no action appeared to be warranted. Complaint that individuals would be discharged, and that other Works Progress Administration employees had been discharged, were in some cases found to be erroneous. Some complaints were repudiated, and there were denials and explanations by the parties concerned. Alleged favoritism to Democratic contractors, and appointment of Democrats to Works Progress Administration administrative and relief jobs, either were not substantiated, or were found to be related only to State or county political influences and not with Federal administration of the Works Progress Admin

istration. In some instances it appeared that county and State political leaders were interested in the Democratic Party and attempted to influence voters by use of Works Progress Administration facilities, but that their activities were not condoned or encouraged by the Federal Works Progress Administration which previously had conducted a thorough investigation of its own into the charges.

The Pennsylvania situation continued to occupy the attention of the committee at subsequent meetings. Investigators were twice ordered back to the State to check up on information following the filing of their preliminary report. At a meeting of the full committee on January 4, 1936, the charges were again fully discussed, and the final report of investigators considered. It was another voluminous report of statements from individuals who allegedly were victims of intimidation or coercion, or by those who made the complaints. It included numerous papers from the files of the Works Progress Administration.

After fully considering all the evidence the committee dismissed the complaints from further consideration.

Duquesne Club, Pittsburgh.-A complaint was presented to the committee charging coercion of employees of the fashionable Duquesne Club, of Pittsburgh, with respect to their voting franchise in the election. Investigators were directed to make proper inquiry and they submitted a report to the committee on January 4, 1936, which in substance showed that a number of employees of the club had been contacted with reference to their registration and voting intentions, but that these approaches were intended only for the purpose of taking an information poll. The manager of the club reported that out of his own curiosity and initiative he directed that the poll be taken. There was no evidence of coercion, and the committee dismissed the complaint.

Twentieth Congressional District.-The committee considered complaints of irregularities in the Twentieth Congressional District of Pennsylvania with relation to the defeat of Representative D. J. Driscoll, Democratic nominee for reelection. The portion of these complaints relating to alleged industrial coercion in that area was investigated by the committee (par. 3 of this report on Pennsylvania), but charges which related entirely to the congressional race, and not to influence in the Presidential election, were held by the committee to be within the jurisdiction of the Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures in the House of Representatives, and not within the jurisdiction of the Senate committee under Senate Resolution 225 conferring authority for investigations only in Presidential, Vice Presidential, and senatorial election cases.

RHODE ISLAND

Specific charges in Rhode Island were confined to the circulation of literature by the Republican central committee. It was alleged that literature sent out over the signature of the chairman, was placed in the pay envelopes of certain companies, and was of such a nature. that it had a coercive influence upon voters. The charge was also filed with the committee that the State chairman had sent out letters soliciting funds, some of which had been directed to Works Progress Administration employees.

Investigators obtained an explanation from the State chairman relative to literature sent out by the State committee, and this explanation was considered satisfactory by the committee. Only one communication was found addressed to a Works Progress Administration worker asking for political contributions, and this was regarded by the committee as being of no consequence, inasmuch as mailing lists used by political organizations for soliciting funds might reasonably include the names of numerous persons now on relief who were formerly employed. At its meeting on November 9, 1936, the committee decided that no further action on the complaint was justified.

TENNESSEE

Mr. John Randolph Neal, defeated Republican candidate for United States Senator in Tennessee, filed a specific complaint with the committee on October 10, 1936, which in substance alleged that frauds were perpetrated in the regular August Democratic primary of 1936; and that Mr. Neal complied with all the laws of Tennessee governing such a primary, and that by reason of the fraud alleged he had filed a contest with the proper authorities of the State of Tennessee; and that the Democratic primary election board did not act to compel consideration of his contest, and that by reason thereof he was deprived of his right to have his contest heard and decided.

On the basis of this complaint alone, counsel for the committee advised that the committee would not have jurisdiction with respect to primaries. Mr. Neal was informed, however, that the Senate of the United States has constitutional power to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members, and that if he [Mr. Neal] were presenting a contest of election to the United States Senate, then the matters complained of by him might be considered, but that such consideration would doubtless devolve upon the Committee on Privileges and Elections, rather than upon the special investigating committee, and that the policy of the special committee had been fixed accordingly.

Subsequently Mr. Neal enlarged his complaint to show that particularly in Shelby County, Tenn., the Democratic organization was so controlled that corrupt acts could again be expected on election day, similar to those in the primary, and that therefore the special committee should take note of conditions there and have investigators present. An affidavit from a poll watcher stating in effect that he had been denied the right to perform his duties at the polls during the primary, was presented, together with a newspaper article concerning the situation in Shelby County, to indicate to the committee what irregularities had occurred in the primary, and what might be expected in the general election. In general, the newspaper account concerned a visit of the special senatorial investigation committee headed by Senator Nye in 1930 when similar charges arose in Shelby County. The charges and all information concerning Mr. Neal's complaint were considered at a meeting of the committee on November 9, 1936, and it was decided that the only specific charges filed with the committee were concerned with the primary election, and that Mr. Neal did not have a case for consideration unless he filed a contest with the Senate for his seat.