8. On election day no supervisor will, under any circumstances, be allowed, while within the polling-place, to electioneer or engage in any political discussion; or to have any ballots within the polling-place at any time save when offering his own vote. Electioneering, canvassing, or what is generally designated as "outside work," is no part of his duty, and it will not in any wise be tolerated. No declaration of the result, and no statement of the condition of the polls, of the number of votes cast, or of names checked, or of the name of any one who has or has not voted, shall be made by any supervisor, until the polls are closed.

The chief supervisor has made such arrangements that any misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of any supervisor will be surely reported to him. The attention of each supervisor is particularly called to the following:

Act of February 28th, 1871.

"SECT. 11. And be it further enacted, That whoever shall be appointed a supervisor of election, or a special deputy marshal, under the provisions of this act, and shall take the oath of office as such supervisor of election, or such special deputy marshal, who shall thereafter neglect or refuse, without good and lawful excuse, to perform and discharge fully the duties, obligations and requirements of such office, until the expiration of the term for which he was appointed, shall not only be subject to removal from office with loss of all pay or emoluments, but shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months, nor more than one year, or by fine of not less than two hundred dollars, and not exceeding tive hundred dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment, and shall pay the costs of prosecution."

The law of the State of Massachusetts relating to the "duty of ward officers when right to vote is challenged ” is quoted for your guidance.

[CHAPTER 206.]

AN ACT in amendment of an act relating to elections.

"Be it enacted, etc., as follows: SECT. 1. Whenever, in any election in a city, the right of any person offering to vote is challenged for any cause recognized by existing laws, it shall be the duty of the warden or presiding officer to require the name and residence of the person so offering to vote to be written upon the ballot so offered and challenged either by himself or some person in his behalf, and the warden or presiding officer shall add thereto the name of the person challenging the same, and the cause assigned therefor, before such ballot shall be received; and if such ballot shall be offered sealed, the writing as aforesaid may be upon the envelope covering the same, and the warden or other presiding officer, in the presence of the clerk and at least one inspector, shall mark and designate such ballot, by writing thereon the name of the person by whom it was cast, before it is counted; and, at the close of the election, the same shall be returned to the envelope in which it was deposited: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to permit ward officers to receive any vote which, by existing laws, they are required to refuse."

9. Deputy marshals must not be allowed behind the rails, unless to take the place of supervisor prevented by any reason from discharging his duties. Should such an instance occur, the deputy marshal called should belong to a different political party from the supervisor on duty.

10. If any supervisor shall not be allowed to exercise and discharge fully and freely each and every duty, obligation, and power conferred on him, it is his duty promptly to report the same to the chief supervisor.

11. Supervisors in discharging their duties should be careful not to do anything offensively, and at all times to remember that the sole object of the law, under which they hold office, is to preserve the purity of the election, with justice and fairness towards all persons and parties.

12. No compensation will be made to any supervisor, unless he returns all his books, papers, and voting lists to the chief supervisor.

Chief Supervisor of Election for the District of Massachusetts.

The WITNESS. I would now like to state the mode which I adopted in making appointments of supervisors. I applied to the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican city committees for lists of such persons

as they, or the political parties which they represented, desired to have selected for those positions. Upon receiving those lists from the chairmen of the several committees, I required each applicant to file an ap plication in his own handwriting and over his own signature upon a printed form which I had prepared for the purpose, and a copy of which I now submit. The list of Democratic applicants was submitted to the Republican chairman, the list of Republican applicants was submitted to the Democratic chairman, and, with one exception, each acquiesced in the appointments of the other. In the only instance in which objection was made, no charge was preferred against the person selected as supervisor, but the Democratic chairman simply said he would be obliged to me if I would not appoint the man. As there seemed to be so general harmony, I did not appoint the man, and they had another Republican or Democrat, as the case may have been, substituted in his place.

[The form of application above referred to is as follows:]

BOSTON,

TO HENRY L. HALLETT, Chief Supervisor of Elections:
SIR: I hereby apply for appointment as a supervisor of election in the
cinct of the ward, in the city of
reside at No.

years.

street, in the

My business is that of a

My nativity is

1878.

voting pre

years of age, and

ward, in said city. I have resided in said city

I am [married or single]

My political faith and opinions are those now held by the

street, in the city of

party.

Respecting my fitness for the position desired, I refer to the following persons:

I certify that I am a citizen of the United States, and of the State of Massachusetts; that I am able to read and write the English language, and that the written portion of this paper is all in my handwriting, and that I have, myself, read the whole of application, and know its contents, and the facts herein sated respecting myself are

NOTE-The applicant must fill in this application in his own handwriting and personally present it to the chief supervisor, at No. 140 Tremont street, Boston, room 8.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You obtained the list of the registry, in the first place, from whom?-A. From the office of the city registrars of voters.

Q. Where did you send that registry list -A. I prepared for each precinct two books similar to the one that I now show you, each containing a copy of the precinct registry, and furnished one of those to each of the two supervisors. I gave them verbal instructions, in addition to the instructions of the printed circular, to scrutinize every name upon the list. If they personally knew or upon inquiry had reason to believe that the name of a man was correct and was properly on the list, they were to check it. If they had any doubt in regard to a name and could not get reliable information as to the qualifications of the man whom it purported to represent, they were to go to that man's place of residence,

see him personally, and ascertain whether the name had been properly placed upon the list or not. It was not until the 23d of October, about fourteen days before the election, that the supervisors were all appointed, and therefore but a very brief period of time was allowed me in which to do the work required to be done. For that reason I do not consider that the work was thoroughly done by me, but I will say that it was done as well as it could have been done in the short time afforded for the purpose.

Q. Did these lists come back to you with checks set opposite the names of suspected persons ?-A. No, sir; my instructions to the supervisors required them to write in the margins of the books any informa tion they might receive concerning the names that they thought were not right. They were to copy that into their reports to me, and these reports were to be brought or sent to me on the following day. Then I went over the list with them in regard to that, and if satisfied that a name objected to was all right, that the objection was not a good one, I said nothing about it; otherwise I put it upon the list of names to be investigated by the deputy marshals, as I have stated.

Q. Did both of the supervisors of the locality, or but one, act with you in canvassing these lists?-A. I knew no distinction between the two supervisors and treated both alike; in fact, I did not know the politics of either as they came before me-that I only knew by the color of the books.

Q. State in how many instances the names of persons on this list were returned to you by the supervisors as defective or as those of persons whose right to vote was doubtful.-A. The aggregate was between twelve and thirteen hundred. That was the number of cases reported to me by the supervisors as those of men concerning whom they had their doubts, whether the names were properly upon the lists. Those in. cluded cases of deaths, removals from the State, non-residence, and the like. (Producing and exhibiting a batch of papers.) These are the reports that were made to me by the supervisors. They show the form in which they came to me. They would be handed to me as a general rule by each supervisor, when I would go over each name with him and with a blue pencil make the marks that you see there--the letter "d" being intended to indicate that the man opposite to whose name it appears is dead, the letter "c" meaning that the party is marked for challenge on the day of the election. Of the twelve or thirteen hundred names which were reported to me, nine hundred and some odd were marked for challenge on the day of election, these being persons concerning whom I had some doubts as to their being residents and against whom the proof, while not such as to warrant the issuing of a warrant of arrest, was sufficient to justify the marking of their names on the voting list for challenge.

Q. You say there were 900 and some odd of those names after the marshals had made their examination, do you?-A. When this list was handed to me I would take off each name as I have stated, put it upon a slip of paper, call in a deputy marshal, and tell him to investigate the case to which I called his attention and to report to me. These directions were given orally, and upon examining that report, when made, I marked the man for arrest or for challenge, or drew my pencil through it, to indicate that nothing was to be done about it.

Q. Did you in any instance state to the supervisor who returned it that the list was not satisfactory ?-A. I had occasion to reprimand several supervisors for not properly performing their duty, for not accomplishing as much work as I thought they ought to have accomplished.

Q. Was that in regard to the lists?-A. In regard to some of them, yes. I want to bear testimony to the faithful way in which a large majority of the supervisors performed their duty. Both sides, irrespective of party, seemed to enter into the business with a great deal of heartiness and alacrity; but, of course, in so large a number there were exceptions. Of the whole 212, there were some 18 or 15 who were lazy and indolent, and did not perform their duty heartily.

Q. That fact you gathered from the lists when they reported to you? -A. I gathered that from the lists when, as to certain lists, no imperfections were reported and as to others, in similar localities, they would report many doubtful or questionable names.

Q. Where the supervisor's report was not satisfactory to you, did you take it as it had been made or did you order him to re examine it ?—A. I ordered him to re-examine it, to go over the list again.

Q. Did you point out in his district specific cases of men whom you suspected to be illegal voters?—A. I did not make any specific charges. Q. Then your opinion was based solely upon the assumption that there had not been enough of names checked ?—A. That was my idea. Q. Of that class there were how many cases?-A. One or two men, I think, almost wholly neglected their duty, and from that up to the number I have stated they did their work with more or less indifference, but the number of these was very small as compared to the whole number of men employed.

Q. What amount of pay did each of these supervisors draw?—A. The chief supervisor has nothing to do with the pay of the supervisors. Under the orders of Judge Lowell, I think that most of them received pay for six days' service. They were paid by the United States marshal. Q. Was not their period of service computed by you?-A. In the first instance, I endeavored to arrange what I thought would be a fair compensation for the supervisors, as the marshal said he would not make payment except upon a certificate from me. My estimate of the work that I thought they had performed was based upon the number of days for which they had been employed. They were dissatisfied with my estimate. I did not see fit to change it, and they went before the court, when Judge Lowell, under a special order of court, fixed their pay.

Q. You put it too low, did you?-A. They thought so.

Q. How many days did you allow them?-A. Four, five, and six days, according to the amount of work that I thought they had done. I have now here the books of the supervisors, with the reports which they made to me, these showing the number of names reported upon in each case. Upon these I based my estimate of the amount of work which they had done. Prior to the election, public registration was had at different dates, covering a period of ten days, in fifteen or seventeen different places in the city of Boston. Four of those days had passed before the appointments of the supervisors were made. For each of those 15 or 17 localities I appointed one Democratic and one Republican supervisor, who were in attendance upon the public registration for six days, and in addition to that were required to verify their books. These supervisors, some 30 or 34 in number, were each allowed ten days' pay. The rest were, by order of court, allowed six days, being required to make affidavit and give the specific days which they had served. The chief supervisor's election account is a distinct account. It has not yet been settled.

Q. Give the sum total of the account rendered.-A. It is $2,726.49 ; that is, the election account.

Q. While the registration was being made up, the lists of voters being scanned and the arrangements for the election in progress, did the political committees of the city or either of them have access to your records or know what you were doing?-A. No, sir; not that I know of. I was ready at all times to answer questions from either party as to any matters concerning which it was proper for them to be informed.

Q. Did either party have access to your lists of voters for the purpose of scanning the names of those who were suspected of a purpose to vote illegally?-A. Not so far as I was concerned, but it was very easy for the Republican or the Democratic supervisor to show his list to others of his party.

Q. I speak of it with reference to the records of your office.-A. Neither party attempted in any way to control or interfere with my movements in any direction.

Q. And had no access to your records, so far as you know?—A. They could have had no access to them; no, sir.

By Mr. BLAIR:

Q. You were appointed supervisor for the district of Massachusetts, in 1872-A. I was.

Q. Do you exercise functions as supervisor elsewhere than in the city of Boston?-A. I acted at the last election for Lowell and Cambridge also.

Q. Supervisors were appointed for the city of Cambridge ?—A Supervisors of voting were appointed for that city.

Q. No requests were made from there for marshals?-A. No requests were made for marshals in Cambridge; the request from there was to have the voting, not the registration of voters, scrutinized. In 1872, 1874, and 1876, application was made to the court to have the voting scrutinized, and it was not until 1878 that application was made to have the registration scrutinized.

Q. Has either political party ever found any fault with your method of administering the law and discharging your duties as supervisor, so far as you know?-A. So far as I know, no, sir.

Q. No complaint has reached you?-A. No complaint has reached me from any source.

Q. On the contrary, is it not true that both parties have expressed great satisfaction with the manner in which you have discharged your duties?-A. They have kindly done so. It was my intetion to be impartial.

Q. I will ask the question whether you consider yourself as an active political partisan in any sense?-A. In no sense, because I have no affiliation with either party. I have considered myself as out of politics since 1863.

Q. You have already indicated that applications were formally made for a supervision of the voting lists. Under the law there were then two methods of procedure, one for the appointment of supervisors with reference to the voting alone, and the other, as I understand it, having reference to the appointment of marshals. Please to explain those methods.-A. The law allows the appointment of supervisors of registration and supervisors of voting, either separately or together. Formerly the supervisors of voting were the only ones who were appointed.

Q. State how and upon whose request the machinery of the election law was set in operation in the general election of November, 1878, giv