call in upon us to see if they are all right on the list. Of course, in such cases, the question of domicile arises, and sometimes it is a very delicate and difficult question to decide. The legal construction is that a man's domicile is a matter of intent. In regard to that question of domicile alone we have probably on an average from one hundred to three hundred hearings prior to an election. The questions, for instance, as to when the party had moved to New York, when he came back, whether he had simply gone on a mere trip, or with the intention of abiding there, are all considerations to be taken into account in determining the rights involved.

Q. From your experience in managing the registry lists, and in helping to make them, state whether they are not as accurate and perfect as they could be made in a great city like this.-A. Under the present statute laws they are. I speak of the city of Boston.

Q. Are they as nearly as possible correspondent with the statutes of Massachusetts?-A. Yes; we try to adhere to the statute as closely as we can, and endeavor to give the citizen all the rights to which he is entitled under the law.

Q. You have heard or read the testimony of the chief supervisor. What do you know about the number of names that were checked by the supervisors last fall as those of persons not entitled to vote?—A. I judge that the list was as good a one as a body of men called supervisors, who were wholly inexperienced in the work, and knew nothing about it, could present. There are ten thousand cases in which report might be made, and as to which the complaint in but very few could be grounded in any sense of right. The question of domicile, as I was going on to say, is a very confusing one. John Smith may be assessed on the first of May in ward one, precinct one. He has an absolute right under the statute law to remove from there subsequent to the day of his assessment, and to reside in any one of the other one hundred and six precincts of the twenty-five wards or in all. Now it is quite likely that some one may go to the house of John Smith on the first of June and find it vacant. Many cases such as that were returned to us as cases of illegal registration. The complaints were absolutely and wholly thrown out simply because it is not made conditional, when the man is assessed, that he shall reside in the house in which he is assessed until the election day, but he is left entirely free to live where he chooses, provided that he votes in the ward and precinct in which he was assessed on election day. The law provides that a man shall vote in the ward and precinct in which he was assessed, and in none other. We decided in that connection many cases of men who are professional drummers of mercantile houses. A person sent to the house, upon asking if Mr. Smith lived there, would be informed that he was in Cincinnati, when the fact was merely that he was in Cincinnati temporarily on business; and in those cases the parties temporarily absent turned up on election day, proved their residences, and, where we had stricken off their names, upon an investigation and report, had their names restored to the list.

Q. Practically, in the purging of these lists were the lists that were made by the supervisors of any value to the registrars?—A. In one sense, some were of value. There is no question about it.

Q. About thirteen hundred of the names were checked off. What proportion of those checks were found by the registrars to have been correctly made?-A. I do not know that I can say.

Q. Was any large proportion of them so found?-A. I think not. I think the proportion was small. It is some months since I have given

that matter much consideration, and therefore cannot answer posi tively.

Q. You say that the number of those 1,300 not entitled to vote was small? A. Yes. Errors would occur in this way: A return would be made that a man lived, for instance, at 98 Wilberforce street, when no such man lived there, but it would be afterwards found that the number of the man's house was 96 instead of 98, and that the error had occurred in the return. On election day many men came to us and stated that they had been denied the right of voting because the numbers of their residences on the voting-list had not been correctly given. This I hold to have been a wrong upon the voter, as the law did not require that the street and number of a man's residence should be absolutely correct upon the list, though it did require that his name should be correct. The omission of an initial in his name would be sufficient to deprive the man of his vote.

Q. What is your opinion as to the number of illegal names upon the registry of last year? It has been stated here at from thirty-five hundred to five thousand names.-A. I should say that the statement was a great exaggeration. I would not admit that. I was surprised to see the statement in print. It must be a surmise at best, and I should say that it is an exaggerated surmise. If it is perfectly fair to say that there were thousands and thousands of illegal names upon that list, it is just as fair to say that there were none, as mere assertion on the one side would be entitled to the same weight as if made on the other side. I can only say that since 1874 the most constant and assiduous care and oversight have been given to the registration. We had a statute passed which gives the right to every citizen who sees a name upon that list which he knows to be that of a man who lacks the qualifications of a voter, to make complaint of that man; and as the lists are published in October, full opportunity is allowed for all names to be known.

Q. That statute is one under which any illegal name on the registrylist can be purged from the list ?-A. Yes, sir; if you see a name upon that list and know that the party whom that name represents does not possess the requisite qualifications, and you make return to us, we are by statute law obliged to summon the party complained of before us and to examine him.

Q. What number of cases were presented last year before you ?—A. I think some nine hundred altogether.

Q. They came from the supervisors?-A. Largely from them, and from the bureau of inspection. A very small number came from private parties.

Q. The bureau of inspection was a Republican organization?—A. I do not know its politics.

Q. Was it under the control of a gentleman who was connected with the Republican organization ?—A. I know that a gentleman connected with the Republican organization was interested in it; still we never question the politics of any visitor to our office, and never allow politics to be mentioned if possible.

Q. Is it necessary, from your experience with the supervision of elections, under the laws of Massachusetts, for the Federal Government to intervene with its machinery ?—A. I might answer with reference to the supervision of registration, but as to the matter of the supervision of elections, that is one with which I have nothing to do. I judge that a body of men who knew the statutes thoroughly and were thoroughly instructed as to their duties might possibly be a great help.

Q. Is it possible for the State of Massachusetts of itself to secure per

fectly honest elections?—A. I should judge that if the right sort of a statute was passed there would be an honest voting list. I hold that every statute law in aid of an honest registration should not only secure the citizen in his rights, but should be a terror to the evil-doer.

Q. What aid to you, in your judgment, was the present Federal supervision of elections, in the discharge of your duties last year?-A. It was an aid in this sense: I think that the board of registrars, since its formation, have inwardly believed that the city of Boston would be benefited by an entirely new registration. The board, individually and collectively, have tried to impress that view upon this community, though of course it is not an easy matter to do it. It was with this view that I hailed the appointment of supervisors with sincere satisfaction, because I expected that the result would be just that which has followed from it, in showing serious defects in the law, and what opportunities there are for evil-doers, if so disposed, to exercise their will in defeating, so far as they are able to defeat it, an honest election. It developed that weakness. Now, if what the supervisors did would awaken the community to an appreciation of the importance of such a statute law as would render the making of an honest voting list an easy and simple task, I judge that so far their presence has been a benefit. But I cannot say that the body of inexperienced men who acted as supervisors were of any direct benefit. With regard to registration, I should be hardly willing to say that they were specially of any valuable help. They were men the majority of whom, so far as I could see, had never known anything of registration. They did not even know the A, B, C of the statutes in reference to it. Some of them were very efficient, and did most excellent work, so far as their work itself was concerned, but their work only helped to show some of the defects of registration, all of which could be remedied by an effeetive statute law.

Q. Has there been in Boston, since your connection with official position, any organized or large system of false voting?-A. Never, to my knowledge.

Q. Has there been here, since 1878, any large or organized system of repeating?-A. Never, to my knowledge. Repeating would be a matter of which I would have no knowledge. When we turn over the lists to the election officers on the election morning, our duties in connection with the election on that day cease.

Q. Is there here, in Boston, under the laws of Massachusetts, any systematic attempt to vote upon illegal naturalization papers?—A. Not to my knowledge. We ask every person presenting a paper, first, if that is his paper; second, if it is his name; and third, if he is the person. That is all that by law we can do. He may make a false answer, but the paper is before us.

Q. The paper is always before you when examining the voter ?-A. Always. And no man ever registers without presenting his receipted tax bill.

By Mr. McDONALD :

Q. You have official information from the assessors that the persons you place upon, or suffer to remain upon, the registry are residents of the particular ward or district in which the assessment has returned them on the first day of May ?-A. Yes, sir. For instance, the paper which I have before me, we will say, is the voting list of 1879. The modus operandi is simply this. The assessor opens the page of the assessor's book, and comes to "Charles L. Wilson, No. 1 Wilberforce street." He turns to the names under "W," upon this voting list, which

is gotten up in book form, and marks beside the name on this voting list simply "A, 1." Now the proof of the correctness of that name, as it appears upon the published list, is to be found on the assessor's book, page 1, letter A-the letter indicating the line of the page of the book. There will be found our authority for the entry of the name, because the assessor has returned the name to us as that of a citizen on the first day of May, or six months before the election. That process was gone through with as to every name last year.

Q. That was gone through with in reference to taxation more partic. ularly?-A. It was gone through with in reference to taxation, and, at the same time, it furnishes the evidence of a compliance with the constitutional requirement for a six months' residence. The only evidence of that is the return of the assessor.

Q. This fact of the residence of a man in a given locality on the 1st of May is ascertained for a twofold purpose; one being in connection with the assessment of taxes, which the citizen is required to pay under your law, and the other in connection with the registry, as enabling the board of registrars to correct and complete their lists ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then any names that are added to the names thus obtained, upon the application of persons, are added by the board, after an examination of such persons or of those who present themselves as the persons-A. Yes, sir. A person presenting himself after the publication of this list, on the 1st of October, may not have been assessed this year but may have been assessed last year. We put his name on the list upon the presentation of a tax bill for either 1879 or 1878; the consti tution saying that the voter "shall have paid "a tax within two years. But, of course, there are thousands of names throughout the city that are returned to us that we do not touch. For instance, if we did not find "Charles Wilson" upon this assessor's list we crossed his name off the voting list, and he is not thereby denied his right to vote, but he must make good his right.

Q. In arriving at your data from which you make up the registry list in this way, how do the special surpervisors furnish any particular aid to the board of registrars in the performance of their work?-A. Iu this way some help was furnished: A party would be returned as residing at a certain house (the assessors making but one return), and the supervisors in going around in the month before the election go to that house and ascertain that the entire family left it on the 1st day of June, and went west or south. They, therefore, are the medium by which we receive the information that the citizen or citizens residing in that house are disqualified.

Q. That is, you learn from them that the voter in that house has gone away?-A. We learn that he has gone away, but we never would have ascertained that fact in many cases except in that manner.

Q. But that fact would have been ascertained on election day?—A. Yes.

Q. What particular advantage is it for you to learn that a man, after he has been put upon the list as a qualified voter, has moved away?— A. Because we send that list to the polls as a list of qualified voters of the ward in which that man is represented to reside, and if it contains the names of ten voters in Leadville, for instance, who have given up their residences in Leadville, those names have no right to be there.. Q. But these ten voters in Leadville may not come to vote.-A. But it holds out ten inducements for illegal voting.

Q. Would they not have to furnish a tax receipt, in each case, in order to vote, and to make the necessary proof at the polls?-A. If the warden

asks the question they would; but I do not suppose that the warden knows whether every man representing himself as John Smith, of K street, is that particular John Smith or not.

Q. Then you think that the only benefit to the registrars from these supervisors consists in what they may do in hunting up men who are away?-A. I say that would be a help. They could possibly be of some benefit in other ways.

Q. They have no official relations with you?-A. Not a particle. Q. Whatever they do, if anything, they make report of to another source and not to you?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. They were there, as far as your board was concerned, just as any other citizens were there?—A. They were behind the counter; if they chose to challenge a man who was being registered, they made their report; but if I considered the man entitled to be registered, notwithstanding that they objected to him, I registered the man, and made a note of their objection. I did not consider that under the State law they could set aside registration, though they might object to it, as we were the constituted State officers for judging of the qualifications of electors.

Q. So far as concerned persons voting for State officers, they had nothing at all to do ?—A. No, sir.

Q. But all these elections are held at the same time, all the candidates are voted for on the same ticket and before the same officers ?-A. Their objection would hold at the polls, I presume.

Q. And it would reach the votes that might be cast for officers of the State as well as for members of Congress?—A. Every vote. The voter may put in a ticket with a dozen different officers upon it, it is counted for all of them.

Q. Do you think that the presence of the 216 special deputy marshals in all, and the two supervisors at each poll, who were acting at the last election at which members of Congress were elected in this State, had any tendency at all to secure a free and fair election here?-A. I could not say that. We of the registrar's office are closely confined on election days, never leaving the office, and what is really done at the polls we do not know of.

Q. I will ask you if anything you did, so far as you know, resulted in the striking off of any registered voters who were actually illegally registered?—A. We had no complaints afterwards from those who were stricken off, though there may have been complaints from two or three; I do not remember that there were any in that connection; I should judge that if they debarred any one from the right to vote, we would have heard of it, inasmuch as the persons so debarred would have come to us for information.

Q. Did they debar any one?-A. I could not say.

Q. Did you strike off from your list any number, and, if so, what number, at the instance of or upon information furnished by the special supervisors?-A. I think the number was some thirty-five or forty; Mr. Wightman spoke of it this morning; I have forgotten the number, but it was less than fifty. That was a result of the services of the supervisors.

Q. It was less than fifty?-A. I cannot say positively. In regard to the question of deaths, I wish to say that a list is returned to us by the registrar of births and deaths of those only who die within the city limits, and of whose death he can take official notice. The death of one of the aldermen of the city was not returned to us by the registrar, for the reason that the decease occurred away from the city and no certifi