THE WIG AND THE JIMMY:
A LEAF IN THE
POLITICAL HISTORY OP NEW YORK.
etAUlur vilium vivilque legendoS
PRICE, TWENTY-F1YE CENTS.

NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR;
1869.Production Note
Cornell University Library produced this
volume to replace the irreparably
deteriorated original. It was scanned using
Xerox software and equipment at 600 dots per
inch resolution and compressed prior to
storage using CCITT Group 4 compression. The
digital data were used to create Cornell's
replacement volume on paper that meets the
ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The production of
this volume was supported in part by the New
York State Program for the Conservation and
Preservation of Library Research Materials
and the Xerox Corporation. Digital file
copyright by Cornell University Library
1993.THE WIG AND THE JIMMY:
OB,
A LEAF IN THE
POLITICAL HISTORY OP NEW YORK.
* ‘AMur vilmm vivitque tegcjido.
Entered according to Act ot Congress in the year 1888, by
EUGENE J. POST,
Is the Clerk’s office of the District Court of tiie United States for the District of New Jersey,
2s EW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.
1869.]PREFACE
At the instance of the Union League Club of New York the House oi
Representatives, on the 14th day of December, 1868, appointed a Committee ol
seven to investigate alleged frauds in the Presidential Election of 1863 in the State
of New York. Such Committee entered at once upon the discharge of its onerous
duties and held sessions in New York City, Peckskill, Kingston, Rondout, Troy,
Rochester, Middletown, Port Jervis, Montgomery, Hamptonburg, Newburg and
Goshen in the State of New York, and Washington, D. C. The testimony taken
by it while very voluminous in extent, covering nearly nine hundred printed pages,
tvas of a directness and importance rarely obtained in similar investigations and
necessitated a report of great length and explicitness. Owing to these and other
causes it was not until about a week prior to the expiration of the term of the
Fortieth Congress that the Committee was able to submit the result of its labors to
the House, which at so late a period in the session could take no action upon the
bills reported or recommendations made. The large expense attending the printing
and binding of the report and testimony led the House Committee on Printing to
deem it unwise to publish more than two thousand copies, a number so small as to
allow each Member of Congress but four volumes. Unfortunately, the press was
unable, owing to the length of the report, to give- little more than a hastily pre-
pared telegraphic abstract of the Committee’s conclusions. Thus, from causes
inherent in the very nature and extent of the work, the circulation and publicity
which its importance demanded were estopped, and the legislation which the neces-
sities of the case required was delayed. Knowing that no correct, true or intelli-
gent idea of the facts is prevalent, and believing that only through a general and
wide spread knowledge of the illegal and partially successful attempt of the
Democracy of New York to thrust minority candidates — both State and
National—into places of power and trust, can the American peopl become
acquainted with the dangers through which they have passed, or be prepared to
protect themselves in the future against the machinations of evil and designing
men, the following pages, narrating in a brief and comprehensive form the more
important facts sworn to before the Committee, have been prepared.
Without malice, with no motive other than a desire to see perpetuated the
institutions of our country, and in the full realization of Bacon’s charge that
“ men’s reputations are tender things and ought to be like Christ’s coat, without
scam,” has this pamphlet been written, in good faith, believing the statements
contained therein to be true. Confident that the interests of society, good
order and puregovernment will beadvanced by its publication, it is respectfully
submitted for the earnest consideration of a thoughtful public in every portion
of our national domain.
THE AUTHOR.CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
An incident whielt transpired during tlie Spring of 1864 in one of
the Southern cities convinced the writer, who was an eje witness, that
the fear of exposure Mid the dread of public opinion were the most
wholesome and effective means of punishing and preventing evil.
A woman of some thirtj years of age was captured one evening
shortly after dark, endeavoring to run the lines of the army. A care-
ful search of her person bemg made, four large bags were found
beneath her under garments, suspended from her waist. The contents
were mixed—being letters, shoes, thread, needles and quinine.
A young offieer on the staff of the Commanding General of the
Department, to whom the captured property was forwarded for ex-
amination, succeeded the same night in finding and arresting a young
woman of high social standing and personal accomplishments as the
author of a most unwomanly letter found among this intercepted mail,
containing information sought to be eonveyed to the enemy, of certain
movements about to be made by the Feaeral forces. The letter was
addressed to a lover in the Rebel army, and written in the closest pos-
sible manner upon eight pages of French note paper. The sojourn in
the neighborhood of the “ cursed Yankees” was deplored and regretted,
in that Southern girls had been found quite willing to flirt and coquette
with the “vandals,” and in instances had so far degraded them-
selves as to form life partnerships. Miscegenation was cliscussed with
much gusto as purely of Northern origin. Four pages, were devoted
to a minute and detailed rehearsal of private gossip and scandal respect-
* ing her more conservative or politic neighbors, who so far recognized
the situation as to act under the belief that a Union soldier might be a
gentleman. Details, so far as she had been able to gather, respecting
an expedition about to move upon the rebel capitol, were added as her
mite to aid the cause of secession. The information imparted that a
letter, which would not have been taken from the Post Office save for
the belief that it came from the South under flag of truce, had been
recently received from her aunt in Cincinnati, who wrote that two
cousins had both served in the Union army, and one had “ died fight-
ing bravely for his country at Chattanooga.” And finally, as calcu-
lated to specially commend her to the affections of her lover, was
added, “ and I am glad he is dead, fighting in such a cause;” while a
©losing prayer was uttered that he whom the Almighty had for some
unknown reason seen fit to afflict the South with, in the person of Gen-
eral Butler, “may never die a natural death, or he gathered home to
his fathers, but may suffer all the torture possible for mortal man
to endure.”
The facts being reported to the Commander of the Department, that
officer directed the immediate release of the author of the letter and
return to her home ; and, as a punishment for her offense and a warn- .4
ing to others, ordered that the communication be published in the
official papers, signed with her full name and address, and an appenda-
tory statement that all future transgressors of the law requiring mes-
sages across the lines to be sent under flag of truce would be similarly
dealt with. Mark the result. A spontaneous and universal outburst
of popular indignation followed, which but for the firm yet merciful
hand of military rule, would, regardless of the sex of the offender, have
visited her with condign and summary punishment, while the innocent
members of the families of a mother and brother were openly insulted
and threatened with personal violence. Indeed, so lasting and deep
was the popular feeling that total social ostracism and seclusion became
obligatory upon the transgressor, and from that hour until the close of
the war no communication of any character was known to clandestinely
leave the city, while the flag of truce mail for the South from that
locality increased the following week to more than two-thirds its former
proportions, and so continued.
So that it is seen that what danger of capture, trial by military com-
mission, long imprisonment and risk of life itself had theretofore been
unable to prevent, was at once brought to an end by mere dread of
publicity and fear of the scorn and contempt of society.
In the belief that known facts are oftentimes the most powerful
weapons of offense or defense ; that rogues and villains fear exposure;
that the arousing of public opinion against any species of crime is the
most effective means of thwarting, if not preventing it; and that
quick, decisive, yet unremitting warfare should be waged until desired
results are attained, we enter upon the work of detailing the history of
the election frauds in [New York in 1868, the character of the
leaders and more active participants therein, and their connection
therewith.
During the month of October, 1868, and within a few hours of the
State election in Pennsylvania, when both of the great political parties
in that commonwealth were bending all their energies to win success,
there left the City of New York in the interests of the Democratic
party a large number of gamblers, roughs and professional scoundrels
of every description, prominent among whom was a member of the
Common Council. These gentry on arriving in Philadelphia at once
took an active interest in the struggle, and on the day of election were
found voting illegally in the several wards and precincts. Subsequently,
many of them were indicted by the Grand Jury of Philadelphia for
their offences, but before warrants were issued they had hied to their
respective homes in the more hospitable City of New York. Believ-
ing “ an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure,” the Quaker City
authorities did not follow the matter vigorously, preferring to hold over
them the indictments as security for future good conduct than to risk
their trial by jury during the exciting hours of a Presidential election
then close at hand.
The experiment on behalf of the Democracy had been far from un-
successful, and emboldened and encouraged thereby it was determined
to carry it out on a larger scale in November in their own strongholds
of political power where Grand Juries, Courts and Judges would not
or dared not interfere therewith. The programme as accomplished was
as shrewd, comprehensive and bold as wicked, illegal and villainous.5
The main features were the employment of repeaters and the whole-
sale issue of fraudulent certificates of naturalization. The details em-
bodied,
First—A wicked, confessedly untrue and libellous proclamation from
the Mayor of the City of New York, the Democratic candidate for
Governor.
Second—A secret circular issued from the rooms of the Democratic
State Committee requesting telegraphic estimates of the majorities in
the several towns and cities in the State, to be sent to Wm. M. Tweed,
at Tammany Hall, at the minute of closing the polls.
Third—Instructions from A. Oakey Hall, then District Attorney
and Secretary of the Democratic Executive Committee, now Mayor of
the City of Hew York, to all Democratic canvassers in the city, to
u prolong the count as far as possible,” whereby the leaders, knowing
the estimated majorities against them in the “ State,” had it within
their power, by means of fraudulent canvassing, altered returns and
ballot-box stuffing—most if not all of which were employed—to over-
ride and defeat the popular will; and
Fourth—The swearing in by James O’Brien, Sheriff of the County
of Hew York, himself an ex-inmate of the Penitentiary, of some two
thousand special deputies—an unusual and unnecessary proceeding—
most of whom, judging from the history, antecedents and behaviour ot
those known to us, were thieves, and other disreputable characters,
whose principal occupation appears to have been to protect, aid and
abet fraudulent voting, and annoy, threaten and arrest honest and faith-
ful election officers and peaceable law-abiding citizens.
It is not proposed, however, to here consider these details, but to
confine ourselves to the two prominent and distinctive measures pre-
viously mentioned.
CHAPTER II.
REPEATING.
This form of fraud is first referred to in the annals of our Hational
politics, in a report of the Judiciary Committee of the United States
Senate appointed to investigate the frauds in the Presidential election
of 1844, when it was proven to have been practiced, although to a limit-
ed extent. Since then it has been comparatively unknown. The fol-
lowers of St. Tammany, after nearly a quarter of a century, revived it
in 1868, when its novelty, nature and modus operandi seem to have
peculiarly attracted the attention of both rank and file.
A repeater is one, who, without right and against law, makes a busi-
ness of registering or voting, or both. As in bounty jumping and de-
sertion, occupations quite familiar to most repeaters, the number of
times a registry or vote may be repeated in a single day depends largely6
upon the nerve of the man engaged. And a moment’s reflection upon
the fact that during the War hundreds of men, with the knowledge
that an ignominious death would follow detection, hesitated not to en-
list, receive bounty and desert more than a half score of times, must con-
vince the most doubting mind that the same elass would from innate
depravity, if no other reason was found, engage in a work so full of ex-
citement and adventure as “ repeating,” especially when practically in-
formed by an honorable Justice of the Supreme Court, as will be hereafter
seen, that although arrested in the very commission of the erime neither
conviction nor punishment would follow. The proof of repeating is
sufficiently abundant to fully justify the report of the Congressional
Committee which thoroughly investigated the facts, that if it had devoted
its entire time for three months to this matter alone, “ it would not have
been possible to ascertain or take testimony to prove the number of per*
sons who voted more than onoe” in the City of New York, and that the
character of the evidence fully proved the fact that 64 an organized system
was perfected and carried into effect by members of the Democratic
party to register many thousands ot names, fictitious or assumed, and
then to vote on them by hundreds of persons voting from two to forty
times each day for the Democratic candidates.”
The instances given below, while convincing the reader of the accura-
cy of these opinions, will illustrate the manner in which the work was
carried on and the character of the men and means employed therein.
William H. Greene, *' 1	1 1 " Seventh Precinct
Sixth District of the Seventh Ward during the first two days of re-
gistration. On one of those days he observed a gang of men, several of
whom were known to him by name, and all of whom he knew had no
residence in the district, register themselves from the houses of Wm. M.
Tweed (Grand Sachem of Tammany Hall, State Senator, Deputy
Street Commissioner and Supervisor), Patrick H. Keenan Coroner of
the City and County of New York), and Edward J. Shandley (Police
Justice). Most of them were registered without objection on the part of
any one, but some few being challenged promptly took the statutory
oaths and compelled the registration of their names. The character of
these repeaters may be learned from Greene, who has stated under oath
that most of them were u thieves who have several aliases,” while u the
leader of the gang who registered from Coroner Keenan’s house, as
Henry J. Lawrence, is an Englishman, known by the name of Charles
Wilson, alias ‘Nibbs’ or 4 Nibbsey,’ a celebrated pickpocket who has
stolen fortunes, but somehow or other always slips through and is never
prosecuted.” On the opposite page may be seen a copy of the likeness
of this favorite of the judicial and political ring as it appears in the
Rogues’ Gallery at Police Headquarters. An unwillingness to leave his
counterpart exhibited itself to such an extent when sitting tor his pho-
tograph, that two stalwart members of the force were compelled to
steady his head and control his facial expression.
Another of this gang, by name Patsey Nolan, alias John Reilly,
was a notorious thief, since arrested for stealing a diamond pin. For-
tunately we are able to trace these worthy Democrats still further.
Late at night on Friday the 30th of October, when but a day of registry
remained, Inspector George W. Walling, one ol the most earnest and
Police, was one of the
of registry of theCHAS. WILSON, alias HENRY J. LAWRENCE, alias "NIBBSEY"
Pickpocketjmcl Repeater.7
faithful officers of the Metropolitan force, learned that a gang of repeat-
ers under the leadership of William Yarley, alias “ Reddy the Black-
smith” (so called from the color of his hair and his former occupation),
well-known as the proprietor of a low drinking saloon on Chatham
Street, the headquarters of one of the worst gangs of thieves and cut
throats known to the police, had been engaged in registering from a
house on Catherine Street, and proposed the following day changing
its rendezvous to No. 29 East Broadway, and resuming operations.
For the purpose of verifying his information, Walling, early on Satur-
day morning, the 31st, accompanied by six officers in citizens dress, pro-
ceeded to the locality named and spent several hours in patiently
watching the suspected house. Shortly before two o’clock, P. M., signs
of activity were manifest and the detectives observed a number of men
leave the house and proceed to the place of registry of the First district
of the Seventh Ward. From there they returned to East Broadway,
and shortly reappearing proceeded to another place of registry in an
adjoining district. Satisfied now of the work these men were engaged
in, Walling allowed them to return to their rendezvous, when he at
once made a descent, drove in and captured a posted watcher before he
eould give an alarm, arrested the entire gang—eight in all—and seized
their book. The men were taken at once to Police Headquarters and
incarcerated, and the book turned over to the Superintendent.
An examination and comparison of this book with the original regis-
ters for the 1st, 3d, 4th, 6th and 7th districts of the Seventh Ward,
established the startling fact that these eight men had registered one
hundred and sixty-one fictitious or assumed names, assigning as resi-
dences fifty-five different houses in East Broadway, Henry, Market,
Monroe and Division Streets, and that they were a part of the same
gang of repeaters observed by Officer Greene on the first or second
day of registration, registering from the houses of Tweed, Keenan
and Shanaley. Convinced that “ Reddy the Blacksmith,” althoughnofc
with these repeaters when arrested, was one of their number, Walling
went at once to his saloon. Not finding him in, he searched the place
and seized another book similar in size and appearance to the one pre-
viously obtained, containing some sixty additional names with the
number of a house and street opposite each, which names were sub-
sequently ascertained to be mainly registered in the 8th District of the
Sixth and 4th District of the SeventhWards. The similarity existing
in the assumed names found in the two books thus obtained, and other
strong circumstantial evidence renders it quite certain that the
latter book was also the property of the arrested eight, thus making two
hundred and twenty fraudulent and illegal registrations accomplished
by this gang.
Of the character of these repeaters, Wailing confirmed Officer Greene,
in that one of them he “ knew very well by reputation as a pickpocket,
while Detective Irving stated that another was a deputy of Sheriff
O’Brien, from whom was taken at headquarters “ his shield, and also
some coders of arrest found on his person.
And now reader, mark well how faithfully Tammany protects its
supporters and adherents at the expense of law, justice and good order. '
Between six and seven o’clock in tiie evening of the day of arrest, Wm.j
F. Ilowe, well-known as a criminal lawyer and Democrat, appeared at8
Headquarters and served upon Detective Irving, the officer in charge,
a writ of habeas corpus directing the bodies of the eight to be brought
“ before the Honorable George G. Barnard, Justice of our Supreme
Court, at the office of paid Justice Barnard, Ho. 23 West Twenty-first
Street, in the City of Hew York, this 31st day of October, 1868, at 7
o’clock in the evening.’'
In compliance with the requirements of the writ, no time being
allowed for a return thereto and none being made, the men were forth-
with taken by Detectives Irving and Coyle to Judge Barnard’s resi-
dence. Arriving there at about 9 o’clock, Coyle remained on the side-
walk with the prisoners, while Irving went into the house where he
found Mi*. Howe, who took from him the writ, endorsed thereon “The
prisoners being charged with no offence on the annexed return, I order
them discharged, October 31st, 1868,” and handed it to a servant girl
who took it up stairs to Judge Barnard’s room, and soon came down
with the Judge’s signature attached to it, obtained as she stated from
* the J udge, who had gone to bed. Thereupon the prisoners were dis-
charged.
It is worthy of note that no notice of the issue or hearing of the writ
was served upon the District Attorney as the representative of the
people, which notice so distinguished a Democrat as Judge MeCunn
has testified he thought a Judge “ bound by law to give to the District
Attorney of his county; the statute requires it,” and which the then
District Attorney, A. Oakey Hall, has sworn, “ should be preliminary
to the hearing, and it is a misdemea/nor for a judge to hear a writ with-
out notice to the party interested.”
The arrest of these repeaters was serviceable in that it prevented
them from continuing operations during the afternoon and evening,
while the discharge was instructive in affording definite information as
to the precise locality of “ the office of said Justice Barnard, Ho. 23 West
Twenty-first Street,” where as we are informed in “ The Ermine in
the Bing,” the judicial robes of this eminent and high minded magis-
trate are at times “ endued for the occasion when at his utmost alti-
tudes.” The prisoners in the custody of an officer were on the sidewalk,
their counsel and the officer served with the writ, were in the hallway,
the writ itself with no return thereon was in the hands of a servant girl,
and the Chief “Justice of our Supreme Court” was transacting chamber
business in his bed.
The result was, First: Discharge of the prisoners and some sixty
fraudulent and illegal votes polled on the names by them registered.
Second: A feeling of security on the part of thousands of employed re-
peaters whereby, to obtain for themselves the promised pecuniary or
other reward,*tneir exertions were redoubled to illegally swell the De-
mocratic majority in the City.
But lest it be charged that an extreme case has been instanced, let us
examine another.
During the sittings of the Congressional Committee in Hew York, in
January last, an Attorney of the Supreme Court, who at the -time of
election was an Inspector in the 5th District of the 18th Ward, testified
before it, that very late in the evenings of the days for registration,
there came to the Board of which he was a member, in groups of fourWILLIAM VARLEY, ALIAS “ REDDY THE BLACKSMITH.*5,
Pickpocket, Thief and Democratic “ Regulator-" (See Appendix.)9
or firs, as applicants for registration, a large number of young men of
from 21 to 25 years of age. These groups were usually led by one
Florence Scannell, an ex-member of the Common Council, and a
somewhat notorious character. Each of these men being challenged,
sworn and examined, stated that he resided at the Compton House, a
-combination of rum hole, restaurant and cheap lodging house on the
comer of Third Avenue and Twenty-fourth Street, of which Fagin and
Scannell, both of whom were Deputy Sheriffs, and the latter a brother
of Florence, were the proprietors. Further questioning elicited from
several the information that “ they slept there (the Compton House)
two or three nights out of the week, and the rest of the time slept
with their mistresses.” Deeming this matter worthy of investigation,
Florence Scannell was brought before the Committee and sworn.
Being examined, he admitted having employed some thirty men to
register names, but stated that he could not tell where they registered
for the reason that they had registered from 150 to 200 names, and from
“ almost every house in the district.” That on the day of election he
had engaged some twenty men who had voted on about one hundred of
those registered names. Believing he was stating only so much of his
operations as he chose and concealing the rest, the original registry
book of his district was obtained, when the Compton House alone was
found to have 152 names registered therefrom, while the poll book
showed that ninety four votes had been cast from that house, twenty-
seven of which were never registered.
The registry book being exhibited to Scannell, and also to one Mc-
Glade, bar tender of the Compton House, the two swore that they only
knew thirty-nine of the one hundred and seventy-nine names registered
and voted therefrom, and some of this small number were not residents
of the house.
Of the thirty-nine known to them, but twenty-seven voted, and seven
of these illegally—six not being registered. So that under Democratic
manipulation there were registered from this single house one hundred
and fourteen fraudulent names and seventy four fraudulent and illegal
votes polled.
How an endeavor to so alter the present registry law as to render it
easy in the future to discover, thwart and almost wholly prevent any
similar attempt was opposed by the Democratic members of the last
Legislature, and after the passage of the bill by the Republicans, was
strangled by the veto of a Democratic Governor who held his seat
solely by means of these and similar fraudulent votes will be seen
hereafter.
Yet still another instance, for the field is large and profitable.
A young man, addicted for years to the dangerous yet fascinating
and fashionable sin of gambling, but otherwise of good character, was
engaged during the latter part of October by Peter Horton, brother of
the notorious Michael Horton, State Senator from the Fifth Senatorial
District and Alderman from the Eighth Ward, to join a gang of
repeaters operating in the Fourteenth, Eighth and Sixth Wards.
The instructions given were “ to register as often as possible on the
two last registry days.” Having served his country well and faithfully
for some eight years in the marine corps and regular army, and being
u inclined to the side of order and good government,” our young friend10
failed reporting to Norton during the day of the 30 th of October. In the
evening he repaired to the liquor store of Peter Mitchell, present Demo-
cratic Member of Assembly, then a candidate, on the corner ofBleecker
an d Greene Streets, where he found congregated some forty repeaters.
Excusing himself for absence during the day, he was ordered to report
the next morning at 7 o’clock, whereupon he left and related the facts
to the Superintendent of Police and several prominent citizens. The
result was the receipt from them of instructions to join the repeaters, and
in the character of a detective learn all possible of their operations.
Accordingly on the morning of the 31st he reported at Mitchell’s, but,
found only one of the gang, David Sommers by name, present, who
claimed to be Peter Norton’s lieutenant. Taking a drink with Som-
mers who stated that Peter had been up all night with the boys, and was
then sleeping, the two visited Peter Burns at his saloon, No. 69 East
Houston Street, who gave them each slips of paper bearing a name and
residence written thereon. Under these names they registered in the
Second District of the Fourteenth Ward, Sommers swearing in his re-
gistry. Shortly after three others of the gang joined them, and the five
registered in the Second and Third Districts of the Eighth Ward. At
the latter place the party was still further augmented in number and
visited the First District of the Eighth Ward where they registered as
from 84 Greene Street, the residence of Peter Mitchell. Sommers and
our detective then called at Peter Norton’s, and arousing him, the three
joined the others at Mitchell’s saloon where they found Senator Norton
and Mitchell. Some 25 or 30 slips with names and residences on
which to register were then furnished by the two Nortons and Mitch-
ell, and the information imparted that the occupants of the houses from
which they were to register understood the matter, and would answer
satisfactorily any inquiries which might be made by the police or others.
The strength of the gang constantly increasing, they were then divided
into parties numbering from four to twelve each, and dismissed in dif-
ferent directions. Attached to a party of five was our detective, and
after registering in Varick Street they returned to Mitchell’s where
Peter Norton transferred the detective to a party of twelve, bound for
the Sixth Ward. Walking rapidly, this crowd soon arrived at No. 44
Bowery, known as “Cuddy’s Hotei,” where they found E l ward Cuddy,
present member of the Board of Aldermen from the Sixth Ward. This,
worthy at once produced a book containing some hundreds of names,
and residences, and from behind his bar handed, or passed over his
shoulder to each man a small card or slip bearing a name and residence
taken from his book. Thus supplied, the party left and registered in the
Ninth District of the Sixth Ward as from 60 and 70 Mott Street and
62 Bayard Street, some being compelled to swear in their registry. This
completed the day’s work, and our detective returned to Mitchell’s
where he was directed by Peter Norton to call upon him for his reward*
and not fail to be on hand on the day of election. It may be added,
for statements made by confederates to each other are good and admis-
sible evidence, that it was staf^l to our detective that they had done
better than is here set forth on the previous day, and since election
several of them have boasted of registering and voting from twenty to
twenty-five times each. All the facts just stated were fully estab-
lished under oath by this amateur detective who produced before the11
Congressional Committee as coroborative evidence, original notes
secretly made by him at the time of the occurrences and some of the
identical slips furnished him. An examination of the original registers
for the districts mentioned, not only showed every name given by him
to be registered as he stated, thus completely confirming him, but also
evidenced the fact that from every house of which this crowd of repeaters
represented themselves residents, there was a large registration, while
from inquiries at the several places and other proof it was established
that such registration was in excess of the actual number of legal
voters resident, from 6 to 27 names in the different houses.
These are but samples of hundreds of instances which might be given.
We could readily detail how men repeatedly registered in the same Elec-
tion District with no other or further attempt at disguise than the
changing of their hats, caps and coats on the public street, and almost
within sight of the registrars: how in some districts an examination of
the registry was made and the names of the persons legally registered
who had not voted were copied and passed to outside parties, where-
upon repeaters assuming such .names voted thereon; and how inspec-
tors, challengers and others who endeavored to prevent these and simi-
lar scenes were threatened, assaulted and arrested; but neither the fact
that repeating was practiced by the Democratic party on a most
gigantic scale, nor the intricate, subtle or varied means employed to-
accomplish its illegal purposes would be more clearly comprehended.
The cases narrated must suffice.
Yet, we cannot refrain from anticipating the question each reader
will undoubtedly ask. Was there no repeating in the interests of the Re-
publican party in the City of Hew York ? The answer is, that while
there were doubtless individual instances, there was no attempt made in
that direction, either organized and general or by any of its leaders or
candidates so far as is known. And while the Congressional Committee,
two of whom were Democrats—and one, the lion. M. C. Kerr, of In-
diana, the candidate of his party for the Speakership of the House of
Representatives—was in being from the 14th of December, 1868, to the
4th of March, 1869, and held sessions in Hew York for one third of
that time, it is a remarkable and honorable fact in the language of the
Committee’s supplemental report “ that there is no evidence of any
hmd that any republican was engaged in false registering in the in-
terest of the republicanparty, and without false registering there could
he no repeating.”
CHAPTER III
THE ISSUE AND U3E OF FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION.
In treating of this subject, but two matters seem essentially worthy
of consideration, viz : the extent of the issue, and the men and means*
employed in the work. And as Courts in a number of the ri ver and12
central counties of the State were parties to this form of fraud to quite
as great an extent comparatively as some of those in the City of New
York, we propose in our examination to divide the subject, discussing
first
The Naturalization Fraud# in New York City.
That we may judge of the number of fraudulent certificates issued
in the City of New York, let us glance for a moment at the statistics
of former years and the preparations made for naturalization in 1868.
Judge Daly of the Court of Common Pleas, in his exhaustive and able
article upon naturalization in Vol. xii of the New American Cyclo-
paedia, states that in ten years from 1850 to 1859 inclusive, there were
naturalized in the City of New York over 60,000 aliens.
For the eight years from 1860 to 1867, inclusive, the total number
was 70,604:. The total number of Naturalizations in New York City
for each year from 1856 to 1867, inclusive—a period of twelve years,
was:—
Year.	Wo.	Year.	Wo.
1856, Presidential		....16,493 *	1862		... 2,414
1857			.... 8,991	1863...			... 2,633
1858			.... 6,769	1864, Presidential...	...12,171
1859				.... 7,636	1865				... 7,428
1S60, Presidential		....13,556	1866...			...13,023
1861			.... 3,903	1867			...15,476
a total average of 9,207 per annum. This was the work of two Courts,
viz: the Superior and Court of Common Pleas. The Supreme Court
in the First Judicial District had never to this time in the history of
the State naturalized a person. Notwithstanding the fact that the
yearly average of naturalizations had been but about 9,000; that the
greatest number naturalized in a single year never reached 16,500;
that three years had elapsed since the close of the war in which 35,927
aliens had been made citizens, a yearly average of 11,975, or an excess
of 3,000 per year above the annual average for twelve years; that the
addition of such excess to the diminished numbers naturalized in 1862,
1863 and 1864 would preserve the ratio, and account for those who
from fear of being drafted had refrained from applying during those
years of the war; that the rebellion had reduced the alien population
of New York City, many of whom enlisted, were killed, died from
disease, or after the war found homes elsewhere ; and, finally, that the
yearly average of emigration from and including 1847 to 1860—a period
of thirteen years—had been 197,435, while for the four years from 1860
to 1863 inclusive—and none who arrived subsequently could be legally
naturalized in 1868—the yearly average of alien arrivals had been but
100,962, or an annual loss of one-lialf, yet orders were early in Septem-
ber passed along the Democratic line to prepare on a gigantic scale for
the naturalization of aliens during the coming month. The Supreme
Court also determined for the first time to engage in the work of
making citizens. In accordance with this known determination, there
were printed for the use of the Courts on the days below named the
following number of blanks :18
Date.
Oct.
2
3
8
15
16
Superior Court.
No, applications. No, certificates.
10,000
10,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
Date.
Sept. 16
44 19
Oct. 6
44 12
44 13
44 15
44 16
44 19
44 20
44 22
Supremb Court.
No. applications. No. certificates.
10,000
10,000
25.000
5,000
10.000
5.000
5.000
5~6oo
9.000
~5’ooo
5.000
Yo’ooo
10,000
or a total of 30,000 applications and 30,000 certificates for the Superior
Court, and 75,000 applications and 39,000 certificates for the amateur
Court (Supreme).
The Court of Common Pleas, which save for a year or two previous
had done the larger share of the work of naturalization, did but little
in 1868, its total number for the year being 3,145, of which 1,645 were
in October. Justice requires the further statement that there was no
evidence whatever of any fraud in this Court, although all its Judges
were elected as Democrats, while proof was abundant that the duty
entrusted to it of making citizens of the United States was discharged
throughout with marked propriety and dignity.
In the Supreme and Superior Courts only were frauds proven. To
what extent we will now consider. The following table was sworn to
as being the daily number of applications for naturalization on file in
the Supreme Court Clerk’s office for 1868.
1868-	—October 6:			 6	1868-	—October 16			721
U	October 7		...... 8	U	October 17				633
U	October 8			379	u	October 19				955
u	October 9			668	u	October 20			944
u	October 10			7171	«	October 21			773
u	October 12			723	u	October 22			675
u	October 13			901	u	October 23 _			587
u	October 14			523			
ii	October 15			857		Total			10,070
But these applications do not show the number of naturalizations
granted by this Court, although they should so do. They simply show
that for 10,070 certificates issued there are a corresponding number of
papers purporting to be applications, on file. Let us examine a
moment in detail. The 10,070 certificates admittedly issued (there are
known to be 10,093 applications, pretended or otherwise, on file), is
but 1,070 in excess of the number of blank certificates printed for use
by this Court on the 16th of September—three weeks before it
naturalized a man—and is 4,000 less than the number on hand on the
6th day of October when it begun operations, although (25,000) twenty-
five thousand additional were subsequently printed by order of the
Clerk, and 10,000 of these within forty-eight hours of the time when
the Court ceased to naturalize.
As Charles E. Loew, Clerk of the County and ex-officio Clerk of
the Supreme Court, testified that these blanks were “never given out,”
and that certificates of naturalization were 44 to be given out only by.14
the Clerk on the order of the Court ” the inquiry as to whether the re-
maining 28,930 blank certificates shown to be printed were in the custody
of the Clerk of the Court to whom they were delivered was deemeu
mportant and pertinent.
An actual count of the number on hand was therefore required,
when the Assistant Deputy Clerk who made the count certified that
1,862 only remained, leaving the large number of 27,068 blanks miss-
ing and unaccounted for in any way.
We find, then, an admitted issue by this Court of 10,070 certificates
of naturalization in sixteen days, or 10,054 in fourteen days—work not
really beginning until October 8th—a daily average of 718. Beyond
this is a clearly proven, but on the part of the Court, a concealed, issue
of what extent it is impossible to precisely state. Evidence abounds
to sustain the position taken by the Congressional Committee that
27,068, the whole number of missing blanks, is the correct amount.
In the Superior Court a singular state of affairs was found to exist.
Being required to furnish the committee with the number of natural-
izations in that Court in the year 1868, and the daily issue for the
month of October, Owen E. Westlake, a clerk, on the 28th of Decem-
ber, swore to the following statement:
1868-	—January..,.			 81	1868-	—October 9th		....1,760
	February			100	U	October 10 th	_		....1,653
C6	March				105	a	October 12th		....1,856
«	April			140	a	October 13th		....1,868
<»	May			108	u	October 14th.,....	....2,109
a	June			102	«	October 15th... -.	....1,420
u	July				140	<(	October 16th		...1,112
iC	August				195	a	October 17 th		.... 840
«	September			032	(£	October 19th		...1,026
u	October 1st				 580	6i	October 20th...		...1,004
a	October 2d			 745	£6	October 21st.... .	.... 861
«	October 3d			 840	a	October 22d		... 911
<<	October 5th			1,425	XX	October 23d			...1,024
u	October 6th			1,721	U	November					... 41
u	October 7th			1,630		December				... 24
a	October 8th			1,842			
a total of 27,§97 for the year, or 26,226 in twenty days in the month
of October, a daily average of 1,311. On the 2d of January, 1869,
Joseph Meeks, the Deputy Clerk, swore “ that the figures of Westlake
were derived from an actual countand on the 14th of the same
month officially certified the total for the year 1868 to be as above
stated, which certificate was presented the Committee, under oath, by
Adam Gillespie, assistant naturalization clerk. If evidence is worth
anything, surely this should be sufficient to establish the facts testified
to. The Committee having meanwhile appointed a clerk—an attorney
of the Supreme Court—to count and examine the applications on file
in the Clerk’s office for the month of October, was not a little surprised
to learn from him, under oath, on the 25th of January, 1869, that but
about 18,000 papers had been produoed for his inspection, and he was
informed that these were all there were. Here was a discrepancy of
eight thousand for a single month, and the loss apparently made since15
the number was so positively sworn to from “ an actual count.” Fear-
ing the result of this exposure, Adam Gillespie, aforementioned, and
others, were hastened to Washington to explain away this startling ex-
hibit. Quite naturally their statements then made, that the first ex-
hibit submitted and so positively testified to was a mere estimate and
not the “ actual count” required and sworn to be, were far from satis-
factory, as testimony obtained from other sources concerning the man-
ner in which most of the naturalizations in this Court were made,
strongly corroborated the accuracy of the original figures.
As then stated the daily naturalizations for the month of October
were—
1868-	—October 1				 426	1868-	—October 13		...1,384
u	October 2			 723	a	October 14		... 1,569 ... 934
ti	October 3				 785	u	October 15			
a	October 5			1,363	a	October 16		... 581
a	October 6			1,272	(6	October 17		 .	... 418
.<	October 7			1,415	u	October 19.,,,		... 709
«	October 8			1,133	«	October 20		... 517
a	October 9			 877	«	October 21			... 428
u	October 10			 804	a	October 22		... 459
u	October 12			,2,017		October 23		... 618
a total of 18,482, a daily average of* 921, or 7,794 less than previously
sworn to, while the Committee’s Clerk between the time of these two
H counts” by the Court officers could find but 17,915 applications, or
8,311 less than appeared by the first exhibit of the Court Clerks, and
517 less than was shown by the second. But supposing true this last
“ count” of the Court officials, the admitted naturalizations in the
several Courts in New York city alone for the year 1868 were—
Common Pleas...............3,145 In October alone.............1,645
Superior Court..............20,103	“	u ............ 18,432
Supreme “ .................10,070	“	“	......10,070
or a total of 33,318, nearly four times the average of former years, and
more than twice as many as ever before, while two courts, in an average
of eighteen days sittings 'each, in addition to discharging their ordinary
duties, granted 28,502 certificates, or more than eighty-two per cent,
of the whole yearly number. Adding the 27,068 missing blanks as
the concealed issue of the Supreme Court, we have a total naturaliza-
tion for 1868 in New York city of 60,386, which the evidence taken,
and much not obtained but readily to be had, shows to be the more
accurate and probable amount. And even this, it should be remem-
bered, is without taking into account the 8,311 additional certificates
sworn and certified to by three officers of the Superior Court as granted
by that Court in October.
Fortunately there is no question as to who were the leaders in this
bold* and illegal work, for pre-eminently at its head and front must
necessarily be the Judges who took part therein. In the Supreme
Court no member of the bench but George G. Barnard naturalized a
single individual. His position is consequently easily determined. In
the Superior Court five Judges at times naturalized, viz.: John H.
McCunn, Samuel B. Garvin, Samuel Jones, John M. Barbour and An-
thony L. Bobertson, now deceased. All the evidence agrees that far16
the greater portion of the work was done by Judge McCunn, while
the gentleman who examined nearly 18,0Q0 of the applications on file
in that Court testified, “ I should think about eight-ninths,” or more
than (15,000) fifteen thousand, “ bore his initials.” We cheerfully add*
that of all the Superior Court Judges he alone is impeached by the
testimony taken. These two then, George G. Barnard of the Supreme
and John H. McCunn of the Superior Court, are originally the guilty
parties. The story is credited and credible, though from its nature
difficult to substantiate, that the exertions of both in this matter were
demanded by Tammany as the price of renomination to their respective
positions. Certain it is that Judge Barnard was at the time a candid*
ate of his party for re-election, while it is well understood that Judge
McCunn, nominated to his present seat on the bench by Mozart Hall,
is pledged a renomination this fall by Tammany.
The Supreme Court was for naturalization purposes open solely at
night, generally from 7 to 10 o’clock, but occasionally somewhat
later. The Superior Court, save upon two or three occasions, was
open for this work only during the day, while as a rule Judge McCunn
naturalized but in the afternoon. In les3 than four hours in the
Supreme Court and six in the Superior most of this illegal work was
done, certificates of naturalization being admittedly granted at a daily
average of 718 in the former and 921 in the latter, while as many as-
955 were confessedly issued upon one occasion in the Supreme in about
four hours, and 2,017 in the Superior in a portion of one day and
evening, mainly by Judge McCunn. How strangely in view of these
facts does *it sound to read from a report made to the House of Repre-
sentatives in 1844, of the circumstances attending the impeachment
and removal of Benjamin C. Elliot, Judge of the City Court of Lafay-
ette, by the Senate of Louisiana sitting as a high Court of impeachment*
that “ it further appeared that nearly four hundred of these certificates*
(of naturalization) were issued in one day. It seems to your committee
impossible that this could have been legally done.” If the granting of
“ nearly four hundred” certificates of naturalization in 1844 brought
impeachment and removal upon the offending Judge, it is an easy
matter to determine the least punishment demanded for those who in
1868, in a few hours, admittedly granted twice and thrice—aye, nearly
four times that number. As time is an important element in determin-
ing the character of this work, it should not be lightly passed over.
We have said that in the Court of Common Pleas naturalization waa
honestly conducted. Let us now ascertain the time required to make
a citizen and the manner of procedure in that Court, that the con-
trast between it and the Supreme and Superior may be more apparent.
Judge John R. Brady, who for thirteen years has served honorably and
faithfully upon the Common Pleas’ bench, has testified, “ the process,
has been to have parties appear before the Judge in open Court,” and
the time required to naturalize a man “ depends very much upon the
intelligence of the witness. Sometimes it has been done in from three
to five minutes ; sometimes it has taken more ; sometimes I have held
cases for reflection for half an hour, or an hour, or an hour and a half.’*
Mr. Jarvis, Clerk of this Court, testifying on this subject, said, fi The
action of the Court alone would take probably about five minutes*
There were many cases where I knew the Court to be twenty minutesIT
in the examination of a witness, and then to reject the applicant.” In.
response to the direct question as to why more naturalizations were
granted in the other Courts and less in his in 1868, the same witness
replied, “ I cannot state any reason; I may have an impression. I
don’t think we naturalized them rapidly enough” At the rate stated
from twelve to fifteen certificates were granted per hour in the Common
Pleas. Who can doubt the correctness of Mr. Jarvis’ impression on
reflecting that in the Supreme Court admittance was not only refused
citizens, attorneys and reporters, but that when present they were
at times forcibly ejected; tnat in the same Court the admitted natural-
izations must at times have been granted at an average of more than
three per minute • and that Judge McCunn, of the Superior Court,,
has himself testified he could naturalize two persons a minute ; while
in practice he must have done even better than that ? The Congres-
sional Committee, a majority of whom were lawyers, and some of
whom had served upon the bench, thought as a rule “ a Judge could
not actually and properly naturalize over twelve in an. hour”—thr*
average in the Court of Common Pleas. He who taking into coi|^
eideration these facts does not clearly comprehend why for the firjjj
time the Supreme Court was compelled to take part in naturalization |
who does not fully understand the extensive preparations early made
by the Supreme and Superior Courts for this work; and finally, who
does not in the subsequent illegal and fraudulent practices of these
Courts perceive the strongest evidences of a preconceived plan and con-
spiracy on the part of the Democracy to issue, circulate and employ
for purposes of illegal registration and voting thousands of fraudulent
certificates of naturalization, is either a knave or a fool. Such as he
would not be convinced were “ one to rise from the dead.” Yet
another fact, and one which conclusively establishes the fraudulent
nature of a large number of the certificates admittedly granted, is the
great proportion of “ minor applications.” By law if an alien arrives
in this country before the age of eighteen he is entitled, if a resident:
for five years, to be naturalized upon reaching twenty-one, without
having two years prior to application declared nis “ intentions.” Of
the 10,070 certificates admittedly issued by the Supreme Court, all but
382, or more them ninety-six per cent, were issued upon these “ minor
applications,” while of the 18,000 papers examined in the Superior
Court 14,000, or eighty per cent., were of the same character. In tha
Court of Common Jrleas about fifty per cent, only of those naturalized
were “minors.” The efficient aid which the use of these “minor
applications” would render in dispensing with the production of a cer*
tincate of previously declared intentions was never lost sight of by tha
conspirators, while the astounding number of baby applicants seems in.
no wise to have disturbed the equanimity of our immaculate, dis-
interested and honest Judges—McCunn and Barnard.
But the essential aid rendered by these Judges need not be further
detailed. It was mainly comprised in one or more of the following
criminal derelictions of duty :
I. Hasty and incomplete examination of applicants and witnesses.
H. Total neglect at times to examine the one class or the other.18
III.	Through negligence* imposition which might easily have been
guarded against, or direct complicity, the issue of certificates
m the names of persons who never appeared in Court, applied
therefor, produced a witness or took an oath.
IV.	Similar issue of certificates to applicants, person^ of assumed or
fictitious names and others, upon the oath of residence and
moral character of persons of assumed and fictitious names, or of
known criminals and persons of immoral character.
V.	Similar issue of certificates based upon “ minor applications”
when the persons to whom such certificates issued were known
or could readily have been ascertained to be un entitled there-
to on such applications.	*
VI.	Total neglect or refusal to commit known disreputable persons
and others whose business it was for a pecuniary or other
consideration to act as witnesses and who in such capacity
repeatedly appeared before them.
YII. The conducting of naturalization proceedings in a secret man-
ner, by causing citizens and others to be denied admission to
the Court-room, or ejected therefrom when observed.
As auxiliaries in the plot of procuring and furnishing fraudulent
certificates were numerous offices under the control of Tammany Hall,
or its Committees, and the several Democratic Ward organizations.
Also an improvised office in the basement of the City Hall. In most
if not in all these places applications were given out and filled up, pro-
fessional witnesses employed or permitted, and illegal and fraudulent
certificates procured from the Courts and distributed, given away or
sold. Some of the Democratic candidates and many then office
holders, either secretly or openly countenanced and aided these or simi-
lar-establishments or engaged in outside operations of a like character
on their own responsibility. ’W ithout attempting to detail the many
methods adopted to secure naturalization certificates on the part ot
speculators, politicians, thieves and repeaters, we shall instance a case
or two illustrative of hundreds which might be recited, and in the ap-
pendix name the more prominent characters with a statement of their
efforts.
A young man, whom for obvious reasons we shall designate as
Henry, formerly an attache of the city press, being out of employment
during the month of September and observing signs of activity in the
neighborhood of the City Hall, determined to engage for himself in the
work of procuring naturalization certificates. Having a large ac-
quaintance in the 20th Ward, he made arrangements that the names
of persons for whom certificates were desired should be left at a
liquor store in 32d Street. Establishing himself at a lager beer saloon
in Chatham Street, in close proximity to the Courts, with a stock in
trade consisting of an ink bottle, a few pens and a number of blank ap-
plications obtained from the offices of the County Clerk and Democra-
tic Committee, this was briefly his mode of doing business.
Receiving each night at his up town headquarters such names as had
been left for him during the day, he would on the following morning fill
up his blank applications, sign them as witness with his own or a ficti-
tious or assumed name, or procure others to so sign, and when neces-
sary, would in a similar manner sign both as applicant and witness*JAMES MYERS, ALIAS MULLEN.
Till Tapper and Special Deputy Sheriff. (See Appendix.)19
During the day or evening he would present these papers to the Courts,
sometimes with and sometimes without the company of the applicant.
In this manner appearing on occasions as witness, at other times as ap-
plicant, and when necessary, as both applicant and witness, Henry has
testified he procured more than six hundred eer tificates. These he
furnished to different parties, receiving for his services from one to five
dollars from each.
It may be added that Henry has further testified to seeing “as many
as one hundred” men “ called up by Judge Barnard,” and sworn in a
batch, while other witnesses swore before the Congressional Committee
to the same effect, one stating that he saw oaths administered by Judge
Barnard to batches of men numbering “ from one hundred to about two
hundred, and I remember one occasion when I counted over one hundred
and eighty in a batch. There would be four or five batches varying
from one hundred and ten to two hundred in number, averaging about
one hundred and forty or one hundred and fifty, got through ly Judge
Barnard in each hourP
A man somewhat actively connected with the Democratic party and
for years an office holder under Democratic Judges, through a simple
desire to do his best to swell the Democratic vote, procured the assist-
ance of two young friends and together the trio prepared and filled up
mainly with fictitious or assumed names, some seventy-five applications.
These were handed to John B. McKean, Clerk in Judge Barnard’s
Court, on two occasions and certificates in the names of such parties
received on the following days, no person having appeared in Court
therefor, or been sworn either as applicant or witness. Most of these
papers were subsequently furnished repeaters and others to aid them in
registering and voting. The writer sometime since had placed in his
hands several of these particular certificates, together with a number of
others issued by the Supreme and Superior Courts in the various modes
related herein. In instances he has the affidavits of those whose names
they bear, detailing the facts relative to their obtaining possession thereof.
A single other fact and we pass to the consideration of affairs in the
State. It was sworn to before the Congressional Committee, that con-
tracts were made by two brothers, whose sole business was appearing
as professional witnesses, for the delivery of certificates in Kings and Or-
ange Counties, N. Y., and the States of Connecticut and New Jersey,
for fifty cents each. Some of these certificates were obtained by em-
ploying eight or ten men who under assumed names repeatedly appeared
in court and swore themselves through. Others were received direct
from the hands of the court clerk, no one appearing cither as applicant
or witness. Under these circumstances it behooves all in the Counties
and States named (and elsewhere, for the writer believes many were
sent to Pennsylvania), who would protect the purity of the ballot box,
to closely scan in the future all certificates presented and purporting
to have been issued by these Courts in 1868. No one should be allow-
ed to register or vote thereon without at least being challenged, sworn
and thoroughly examined.
Naturalization Frauds in the State outside of New York City.
The Committee, while not having time to make an extended tour
through tho State, visited every county where they had information20
naturalization frauds had been perpetrated. These embraced West-
chester, Orange, Dutchess, Rensselaer, Livingston and Monroe. In all
of these gross frands were proven but generally of a character different
from those committed in New York City. In almost every case the
certificates issued in these counties, amounting in the aggregate to
about six thousand are totally null and void, having been issued without
authority or warrant of law in any respect. As a rule no court was
held, and no Judge was present. The pretended natralizations were
made by County Clerks, their assistants, deputies, and in instances, acting
assistants. Not a single certificate so granted is worth the paper it is
written upon, and no person should be allowed to register or vote there-
on. In Westchester, Orange and Dutchess, a large number of certifi-
cates were found, purporting to have been obtained from the Supreme
and Superior Courts of New York City. In the main these were sent
to some prominent democrat who delivered them to the parties whose
names they bore or placed them where they could be readily obtained
by such persons. Very few of those who thus received certificates ap-
plied therefor, appeared in court or were sworn.
The great length of this chapter precludes any further or more
elaborate statement, while the points given, if carefully noted, may
prove of service in future elections. A single copy of the evidence
taken by the Committee, can at least, be obtained by some wide-awake
and energetic citizen, from his member of Congress, the details and
extent oi the frauds learned therefrom, and a plan devised to prevent
the injurious use of these certificates.
But our history would be incomplete were we to omit to state the
stricking fact that in every county where frauds in naturalization were
found to have prevailed, the Judges and County Clerks or those who
granted the certificates were Democrats. Not a single illegal or frau-
dulent certificate was proven to have been issued in a county where the
Judges and Clerks were Republicans or by an officer of that political
faith. The writer has no comments to make.
The facts are stated, the record is made and the truth alone has been
written. The reader must draw his own conclusions, and in the future
when called upon to exercise the right of sufferage, let him with the
light before him act conscientiously upon his own convictions of right,
and justice, and his duty to himself and his country.

CHAPTER IT.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE AMD REMEDIES PROPOSED.
No candid reader of the foregoing chapters can fail to comprehend
that unless measures of the most positive character be taken to prevent
in the future a repetition of scenes so disgraceful, illegal and criminal, as
are there recited, the days of a Republican form of government in our
country are already numbered. Based as our government is upon the
fundamental idea of popular suffrage and the rule of majorities, if a21
few men, or a party, with the intent to defeat and subvert the will of
the people and aggrandize office and power to themselves, can secretly
concoct, boldly plan, and successfully execute on the grandest scale
the most dangerous and criminal schemes of fraud; can escape all pun-
ishment for their offences, and whenever, and as often as the occasion
shall in their opinion seem to demand it, can perpetrate anew their
nefarious operations with the aid derivable from the fraudulent instru-
ments previously obtained, then, indeed, are American institutions a
failure, and revolution, anarchy and ruin sure to follow.
We have no desire to be considered an alarmist. But no sane man,
in view of what has been shown to have transpired in Hew fork, and
with the knowledge that courts in California and Pennsylvania also
engaged in issuing fraudulent certificates of naturalization to no incon-
siderable extent, can doubt that the effort was seriously made by or
on behalf of the Democratic party to carry the last Presidential election
by fraud.
And if the certificates so issued cannot, or are not to be treate d as
other than legal and valid, what is to prevent in the future one or
more courts in each State, or county if deemed necessary, engaging in
similar attempts ? Or again, if two courts in Hew York can, in an
average period of less than three weeks, issue some 60,000 certificates
of citizenship upon which votes may be cast, what is to hinder those
courts in a period of a few short months from granting such a number
of naturalizations as would make the attempt to elect national officers
of a political faith other than Democratic as futile and useless as it now
is in the metropolis of the nation to endeavor to place a Republican in
the Mayor’s chair ?
Let none be deceived by the thought that such certificates could
not be used on the day of election. From 1845 to 1865 the
average per centum of votes cast in the State of Hew York,
as compared with the actual number of voters, was less than
77 per cent. The average in Presidential years, from 1848 to
1864 inclusive, was 87.19 per cent. In 1868 this average in the State,
owing to frauds, was ninety-two (92) per cent., while in the city of Hew
York the per centage was one hundred and eight (108). In other
words, the number of votes cast in the city of Hew York at the Presi-
dential election of 1868 was, as compared with the actual number of
voters therein, more than twenty per cent, in excess of the average in
the State at any previous Presidential election, sixteen per cent, more
than the average in the State at the same election—although, as a rule,
more votes proportionately are polled in the country than in the city—
and eight per cent. more than the whole number of voters in the city,
supposing every such person to have voted.*
The frauds we have shown lost the Republican party Hew York and'
Hew Jersey with their forty electoral votes, nearly one seventh of the
whole number of the electoral college and one-half of the official
strength of the Democracy in that body. What then is to be done?
It is idle to talk of punishing repeaters and others when Judges of our
highest courts are themselves the most wilful and flagrant violators of
the law. Hot a man has been placed on trial in Hew York city by the
State officials for a violation of the election laws at the election of 1868,
* Calculations based upon census of 1865.22
though hundreds of such criminals are well known to the authorities.
But this is the rule, thoroughly established and well understood, with
hardly an exception known. The probabilities of conviction or punish-
ment we are wholly relieved from considering. Indeed, a Grand Jury
mainly composed of prominent Tammany politicians, evidently selected
for the purpose, and which assembled shortly after the election, with
the cry of frauds on the elective franchise ringing m their ears upon
every side, could find nothing in that direction worthy of injuiry, but
devoted their time to a Paul Pry endeavor to ascertain what, if any
amounts of money Republicans had contributed towards the expenses
of the canvas. And when, as has been testified to by a gentleman
summoned before them, the direct offer to furnish proof of frauds in
the election was made them by him, one of the jurymen “ re-
plied that I (he) was not called for that purpose: that if they needed
me (him) they would let me (him) know.” The advantages and privi-
leges enjoyed by, and the protection afforded to the adherents of Tam-
many, who for the benefit of the Democratic party engage in any form
of illegal work which depraved ingenuity can devise, or wicked and
abandoned characters perpetrate, could not be more forcibly shown.
But one remedy remains—legislation. Congress can and must enact
such laws as will prevent the recurrence of extensive frauds in repeat-
ing canvassing, etc., at future elections for President and Members of
Congress. The present naturalization laws, embraced as they are in a
number of statutes, should be repealed, and a general act, with eveiy
section carefully considered and explicitly expressed, should be passed.
But nowhere is this more fully appreciated than at Washington. The
only troublesome question has been as to what courts and officers
shall exercise the power of making citizens. Probably not less than
twenty bills on the subject of naturalization were introduced in the two
houses at the last Session of the Fortieth Congress. That the matter
was not acted upon at that time was solely because it was thought the
wisest and safest course to await the report of the Committee investi-
gating the frauds in New York. When that was received, as stated in
the preface, no time remained. There will be, however, no unneces-
sary delay at the coming session, and one of the plans below mentioned
will certainly be adopted.
I.	The power to naturalize will be confined to the Circuit Court and
District Courts of the United States, and the highest court of record in
each State, or
II.	Such power will be conferred only upon the United States Courts,
Commissioners in Bankruptcy, and where necessary officers to be ap-
pointed by the President, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States, to hold office during life or good behavior, and be
known as Commissioners of Naturalization.
In either case the illegal action of judges, officers and clerks will be
more closely guarded against than heretofore, and all derelictions of
duty will be made punishable in the United States Courts. In the
opinion of the writer the second method would be preferable,
and the only objection which has ever, so far as his information
extends, been maae thereto, viz.: that it creates new officers, should
weigh but little against the advantages and results derivable from its
adoption. It is known to more nearly meet the views of the members23
of Congress from the Eastern and Middle States than any other. As
originally proposed the measure restricted the right to naturalize to the
United States Courts and the Commissioners in Bankruptcy. In this
shape the Southern and Western members were strongly opposed
thereto, such courts and officers being less numerous in their section
of country than with us. The addition of the section providing for
the appointment of Commissioners of Naturalization, who should liold
court for the purpose of naturalizing in each county in their districts
in each month, obviated this otherwise serious objection.
Among other measures tending to prevent and punish frauds upon'
the elective franchise wThich will be strongly urged, are bills
drawn by the Hon. Win. Lawrence, of Ohio, Chairman of the Com-
mittee which investigated the New York frauds, providing methods
of punishing repeating, false registering, illegal voting, and fraudulent
canvassing at elections for President and. Members of Congress ; requir-
ing Congressional Elections to be held on the same day throughout the
Union ; 'and providing measures whereby a Presidential election may
be contested. Thus much we are promised from the National legisla-
ture.
Let us now consider what, if anything, has been done or remains to
be done by the State of New York. The last Legislature passed and
the Governor signed a bill affixing penalties for any attempt to register
or vote upon naturalization certificates known to be illegally issued or
fraudulently procured. Beyond this the State could not go so far as
preventing the future use of such certificates is concerned.
A bill to provide and punish frauds in canvassing was unfortunately
not passed. The fact may be partially attributed to the resignation of
the Hon. J. C. Bancroft Davis—now Assistant Secretary of State at
Washington—who had the bill in charge. This bill should receive
early attention from the next Legislature.
But the most important measure remains to be considered. Early
in April, 1869, the attorneys who had represented the Election
Committees of the Union League Club of New York in the Congres-
sional investigation, and whose attention had been specially directed to
every detail of the frauds, reported that if a few simple yet important
amendments were made 1o the existing registry laws the opportunities
for illegal conduct and action would be greatly lessened.
They were instructed at once to prepare and submit a bill embodying
the proposed changes, to have it speedily presented in both branches of
the State Legislature, and to urge its passage.
Acting under such orders a bul was drawn, and on the 10th of April
introduced in the Senate by the Hon. A. W. Palmer, and on the 16th
of the same month offered in the Assembly by the Hon. N. B. La Ban.
By hard work this bill was got through the latter body on the 4th
of May, and passed the Senate two days later, and withiti a few
hours of the final adjournment of the Legislature. Every Democrat in
both houses strenuously opposed it for no apparent reason, save that it
was what it purported to be, a bill “ to ascertain by proper proofs the
citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage.” Bv the State
Constitution, all bills which having passed the Legislature shall not be
returned by the Governor within ten days after presentation, become
laws without his signature, unless the Legislature by adjourning shall24
have prevented such return: in such ease they are dead. As the
Legislature adjourned so soon after the passage of the act under dis-
cussion, it was feared by the advocates of the measure that the Gov-
ernor, who it was never supposed would sign the bill, would carefully
refrain from making public his objections thereto.
Most happily were they disappointed. On the 16th of May, Gov-
ernor Hoffman sent the bill to the office of the Secretary of State
without his signature, and with a singular lack of political sagacity ac-
companied the same with the following statement of his reasons for
disapproving the measure.
In my annual message I took tho ground that “ there should be one Registry law
for the whole State, imposing equal conditions and restrictions everywhere, and it should
be the aim thereof to secure to every citizen his right of suffrage free from intimidation,
Corruption, or onerous exactions.”
This bill not only makes regulations for the cities *f New York and Brooklyn,
differing from those which it applies to the other parts of the State, but it contains pro-
visions likely to deprive honest voters of their rights, and to impede the free exercise of
the suffrage.
Section 3 of the original Registry law, as amended by chapter 813 of tho laws of 1866,
provides that the meeting of the inspectors for final revision of the registry lists shall bo
held on Friday preceding the election, and that they shall, “on that day add to said
lists tho name of any voter who would on the first Tuesday of November be entitled to
vote.”
Section 3 of this bill abolishes the Friday meeting, and substitutes another day as
the day of final revision, and does not re-ennact, as applicable to the substituted day, or
any other, this provision for adding the names of those who, not then entitled to vote,
would nevertheless be so entitled on the day of election, by having meantime come of
age. The law as it would stand, if this bill were approved, would exclude this class of
persons from a constitutional right
■ Section 4 of the bill provides that if one inspector choose not to declare a man’s name
to be on the list, his voice shall not be received, or, if received by the Board of Inspect-
ors, such vote shall not be counted in any subsequent “legislative or judicial scrutiny”
of the election. The bill provides only that a special list be kept of the persons whoso
votes shall be received under such circumstances, but it is obvious that to make tho
the provision that the vote shall not be afterward counted effectual, not only the
voter but his ballot must be identified.
This could only be done by marking tbe ballot, and although the law does not
authorize this to be done, yet the practice of doing so would be apt t© grow up. To do
this would violate the secrecy of the ballot. As the existing election law requires
that all ballots for any officer by whomsoever cast, shall be deposited in the one box
provided for such ballots, it is plain there is no other way of carrying the provision
into effect, except by marking the ballot or compelling the voter, in the subsequent
scrutiny to reveal how he voted. Both these i-iethods would be in violation of every
elector’s right to vote by secret ballot.	John T. Hoffman.
With the Governor’s objections before us, let us examine the provi-
sions of the bill and review the statements of the veto.
In considering the bill we shall note the changes which it would
have made in the existing laws and the occasion therefor. ‘The
first section simply substituted Tuesday four weeks for Tuesday three
weeks before the day of election as the time for the first meeting
of the Boards of .Registry. The second section provided a new method
of registering which, while simple and easy of execution, could but
prove of incalculable benefit in the prevention of fraud. Under the
existing law the inspectors register the names of the voters alphabeti-
cally, according to their respective surnames, so as to show in one col-
umn the names in full, and in another column the residences. By the
plan proposed, the names of the voters in each house would be regis-
tered under the number of the house and street in which they reside.JOSEPH (alias LAWRENCE)1FARKELL, alias WM. PIERCE.
Burglar, etc., etc. (See Appendix.)25
As now conducted, it is evident that it is beyond the power of the
inspector, without a long and tedious search through every letter of the
alphabet and on every page of his register, to ascertain who or what
number of persons have registered from any given house. Yet this is
information he should be able to obtain at a glance. The election dis-
tricts in New York city seldom, if ever, exceed three or four blocks in
extent—some are but two—and there is rarely a district of which at
least one of the inspectors is not a resident, or personally acquainted
with most of the legal voters; nevertheless, the fact is notorious that
from the very necessities of the case and the occasion, men are often
times illegally registered, frequently a large number, from the resi-
dences of persons well known to the inspectors, whose attention is first
drawn to the fact after the close of registration, when the evil is done
and the remedy substantially gone. If, however, the mode suggested
had been adopted, the moment an address was given, as the inspectors
turned to place on the registry the electors name, the house by street
and number would he brought prominently to the attention of at least
some one of the Board, who would remember its precise locality, who
owned, who resided there, and whether it was a private residence,,
boarding house, hotel or tenement. In short, an opportunity for the
detection of fraud would be presented, which under the present law
does not exist.
The third section provided that registration should close on the
second Monday preceding the day of the general election. This would
allow six working days to intervene, whereas under the existing law
there is but one. The justice and propriety of this change must be evi-
dent to all when it is remembered that in most of the cities of our State*
especially in New York where were registered last fall over one hun-
dred and seventy thousand names, nearly one-half of the entire registry
is made up on the last day or days, while under the existing law no
opportunity is afforded for scrutinizing and verifying the lists, canvas-
sing the several districts, preparing challenge books, and otherwise en-
deavoring to secure a fair and honest expression of the public will, pre-
vent the polling of illegal votes, and provide for the arrest of those who«
would violate the laws and usurp or destroy the rights and liberties of
the people. Bad and designing men have simply to refrain from regis-
tering until late in the afternoon or evening of the Saturday preceding
the day of election (Tuesday) when within sixty hours thereafter—forty
of which are either sacred to religion or devoted to rest—they are able
to vote without fear of detection, and against the will of the lawful
electors to place in positions of honor, trust and profit, executive, legis-
lative and judicial officers.
The more important features of the fourth section provided that two*
inspectors of different political faith, should each have sole charge of
the registry on the day of election, for the purpose of checking the
names of those who voted, and that a uniform mark should be used a&
such check. Also prohibited the receiving of any vote until the said
two inspectors should have found and declared the elector’s name to be
on the register. The objects aimed at by these provisions were all
attempted to be covered by section six of the act of 1865, but the more
thorough detail of this bill and the addition of a clause requiring any
violation thereof to be noted in writing in the inspectors’ books, and26
making suck violation a misdemeanor punishable by heavy fine or long
imprisonment, or both, would, it was believed, secure a more perfect
compliance with the law on the part of its officers. It is well known that
n large number of votes have been received at every election without
time being allowed the single inspector, who, under the present law, is
placed in charge of the check copy of the register, to ascertain if the
parties offering to vote were registered, while it is equally notorious
that hundreds of votes were polled in the city of Hew 1 ork at the elec-
tion last November—and this must have been with the aid and conni-
vance of said check inspector—who were never registered.
By the change proposed no one inspector or clerk could connive at
the commission of fraud so deliberate and destructive as this, and the
honor of the State as well as the general welfare would seem to demand
that the opportunity should not be afforded. It will be observed, that,
by the system of checking proposed, the check registers would show not
only the number registered but the number of votes polled and the
names of the voters, thus uniting in one book a registry and poll
list, and affording a means of detecting fraud on the part of poll
clerks or canvassers. To illustrate; it wras testified to before the
Congressional Committee that at the November election in the
third district of the Fourth Ward of New York, during the absence of
one of the poll clerks, his associate copied fom the register list in the
hands of an inspector eighty-five (85) names which he added to both of
the poll lists without the knowledge of the other clerk. When the
canvassers took possession this number of votes was dropped among the
ballots as they were turned from the boxes upon the table and counted
in the return made, yet under the existing law no means are provided
for the detection of so skillful a fraud.
The fifth and last section provided for the inspection of all registers
and poll lists without charge, by any elector. This is substantially the
present law, the amendment being merely adding the poll lists not now
•open to examination.
Let us now examine the Governor’s objections to this seemingly just
and necessary bill. They may be briefly stated :
I.	Because the bill made u regulations for the cities of New York
and Brooklyn, differing from those which it applied to the other parts
of the State.”
II.	Because it contained a provisions likely to deprive honest voters
of their rights, and to impede the free exercise of the suffrage.”
There is a reference by the Governor to a portion of his Annual Mes-
sage, in which he advocated a registry law for the whole State, but it is
evidently not spoken of as a reason for declining to sign this bill, so
that the two heads given cover his objections. The first is a statement
of fact. The second of opinion solely. The former is true; the latter,
as we shall show, is without foundation. But while admitting the
charge of differing regulations for the Cities of New York and Brooklyn
—and such differences have always existed, and must necessarily con-
tinue to exist—we are at a loss to know which ot such differences the
Governor disapproved of, for he,utterly fails to designate it. Possibly
all were distasteful, and so his language 'would imply, yet it is difficult
to se why he sh ould disapprove of an additional day being allowed
residents of New York and Brooklyn in which to register, or object to
the Boards of Registry in those cities being compelled to hold sessions27
an hour earlier and two hours later than in the other portions of the
State. Nor does it seem possible that he conld have objected to a
single additional copy of the registry being made in the City of New
York, for the purpose of being filed in the office of the Bureau of Elec-
tions, or the requirement that the mark which inspectors must make in
their check registers opposite the name of every person voting, should
in New York and Brooklyn be similar to a letter V.
Indeed, we are confident no one will for a moment pretend to believe
that the Chief Magistrate of the State of New York refused to sign
this bill in consequence of these differences- Yet every provision
making regulations for the cities of New York and Brooklyn differing
from those applicable to the remainder of the State which are not spe-
cially included by the Governor as falling under his second objection
has been mentioned save one.
The exception consists in the requirement that in every district in
New York and Brooklyn, two inspectors, one of each political faith,
shall each have on the day of election the sole charge of a copy of the
registry for the purpose of checking the names of such persons as vote.
No change in this respect was made in the remaining districts of the
State, the existing law directing one inspector to keep such copy, but
not preventing two from so doing if they chose. It would hardly seem
that this simple provision could have caused the Governor to withhold
his signature, but doubtless it did, and a reason for such belief can be
readily given. Prior to the year 1868, acting under the existing law,
the Democratic Board of Supervisors of Kings County, who had the
appointment of all election officers, had uniformly followed the prac-
tice of the Republican Board of Police Commissioners in New York,
and divided such appointments equally between the two political
parties. At the election in 1868, when Hoffman was the candidate of his
party for Governor, the Democratic majority in this Board of Supervisors,
acting if we may judge from its proceedings under a preconceived and
fixed plan, held a quasi secret session, and appointed the election offi-
cers. Their selections being made known, it was found that with
hardly an exception, every inspector of registry and elections was a
Democrat. The same condition of affairs would have existed in New
York had the Democracy had a majority of the Board of Police Com-
missioners. The section of the bill last noticed, in providing for the
checking of the registry by two inspectors, and requiring each to be of
different political faith, would have prevented the repetition in the
future of any such proceeding, and always secured the minority one
out of the four inspectors.
The honest and fair minded of all parties will not only believe the
provision eminently wise and proper, but somewhat less than just.
The Governor, grateful to his party for their conduct and course, could
only regard it as an objection to the bill and a hindrance to future par*
tisan action on behalf of himself and his political friends.
But we pass to the consideration of the second and last objection.
The bill, says the Governor, “ contains provisions likely to deprive hon-
est voters of their right, and to impede the free exercise of the suffrage.”
Fortunately, these provisions are designated by the Governor, and his
views thereof expressed at length, wherefore we may examine them both
and see not only if the fact be so, but if his arguments are correct.28
first says that by chapter 812 of the laws of 1866, the Friday proceed-
ing the election was designated for the meeting of the inspectors to
finally revise the registry lists, and that said inspectors were by that law
required “ on that day to add to said lists the name of any voter who would
on the first Tuesday of November be entitled to vote.” That the words
are correctly quoted by the Governor no one will dispute. He adds that
section 3 of the bill under discussion amends so much of chapter 812 as
fixes the Friday before election for final revision by substituting the
“ Tuesday, one week preceding the day of the general election” as the
time for such revision. This is true, and the Governor makes no ob-
jection to the change. Proceeding, he says this bill “ does not re-enact
as applicable to the substituted day, or any other, this provision for ad-
ding the names of those who not then entitled to vote, would, neverthe-
less, be so entitled on the day of election by having meantime come of
age.” Again correct. But adds the Governor: “ the law as it would
stand, if this bill wTere approved, would exclude this class of persons
from a constitutional right.” Here we beg leave to differ with our
Chief Magistrate. Only so much of the law of 1866 would have been
changed by this bill as was expressly amended. All that wTas not
altered would have remained in force. Now, as this bill only changed
“the Friday preceding the election,” as the day of final revision, to the
“ Tuesday, one week before the election,” the remainder of the section
providing for the registration of the class referred to by the Governor
would have remained as operative as before. It is painful to think
that the Governor allowed his party zeal to so affect both his
mind and his official action as to cause him to wholly overlook
bo apparent a fact. But again. The law of 1866 seems to have
been worded with the very change proposed in this bill in view.
After fixing a day for the revision of the registry, it reads:
“And they (the inspectors) shall then revise the said lists and shall
on that day add the names of those who would be legal voters on
the day of election.” Whether the words “ then” and “ that day” refer
only to the day named, “Friday,” or are to be considered more general
and to mean the day of revision, may be somewhat questioned.
The writer believes the latter is the true application. But grant that the
Governor’s assumption is correct, and the Friday before the election is
the day indicated. Immediately following in the same section we read:
“But in making such addition on that day, (Friday the Governor says,
and for argument’s sake we admit it,) or any prior day” the inspectors
shall conform to the requirements of the other provisions of the registry
laws prescribing their duties. If the interpretation of the Chief Magis-
trate is correct, we should be pleased to know what the words “ or any
prior day were inserted for.”
Do they not clearly imply that another day prior to Friday preced-
ing the election, may be named for the revision of the list, and that
u then,” and “ on ” that day—the day of revision—the names of certain
persons shall be added ? We so think, and with the knowledge that the
Dill objected to by the Governor designated a “ prior day” for such revi-
sion, and the well known rule of law and parliamentary usage that
whatever of a law is not repealed by a subsequent act remains alive
and of legal effect, it is exceedingly difficult to believe the class of per-
sons spoken of by the Governor would or could be excluded “from a
constitutional right.”29
The next provision, which the Governor thinks “likely to impede the
free exercise of the suffrage ” is contained in section four of this bill. He
6tates it as follows: “ That if one inspector choose not to declare a
man’s name to be on the list, his vote shall not be received, or if received
by the Board of inspectors, such vote shall not be counted in any sub-
sequent legislative or judicial scrutiny of the election.” The Governor
is here a little unfortunate in his language. What the section under
discussion did require may be learned by referring back to the foot of
page 25, where it is fully set forth. The existing law declares, “ Nor shall
the name of any person be placed or retained on such register without
the concurrence of three of the four inspectors.” It also provides that no
vote shall be received save from a person found to be previously registered,
wherefore it follows that no person can vote unless three of the inspectors
consent thereto. As well might the Governor say that under that law
“ the free exercise of the suffrage ” is impeded, because if two inspec-
tors choose not to place a man’s name on the list, his vote can not be
received. Yet no difficulty was found in 1868 in registering 170,222
names, and polling 156,060 votes in New York city. The necessity for
the objectionable provision has been fully shown, and it is only
needed to direct attention to the heavy penalties attached to the refu-
sal or neglect of any officer of election "to properly discharge his duties,
and which were never before a part of any registry act, for all to under-
stand how trifling and untenable is the Governor’s position. To that
portion of the section requiring a list to be kept of all votes received
contrary to the provisions of the bill, and forbidding that any such
voces should be counted in any “ legislative or judicial scrutiny,” the
Governor also objects, and quite naturally. For while the existing and
all prior laws have contained in the very words of this bill the prohibi-
tory portion of the clause, the requiring of a list of such illegal votes to
be kept, would greatly aid a contestant who believed himself wrong-
fully kept from his rights, and prove beneficial in preventing fraudu-
lent voting and connivance thereat on the part of election officers. The
Governor attempts, at the close of “ his objections,” to argue for a
secret ballot, apparently forgetful that by the State Constitution and
the decision of the Court of Appeals, all voting is and must be by
secret ballot. The pretense, that in order to throw out any il-
legal vote in the event of a “ legislative or judicial scrutiny,”
it would be necessary (although the bill “ does not authorize this
to be done,” the Governor says) to mark the ballot is so fool-
ish, shallow and untrue, as to be unworthy of notice. With hardly
an exception, not a legislative session, state or national, has been
held for the last quarter of a century, without seats therein being con-
tested, committees appointed, evidence taken, and the knowledge as to
Aow, when and where an elector voted, obtained with comparatively
little difficulty. But the Governor, having never served in a legislative
body, and being still in the hands of his party trainers may have been
ignorant of such fact, and innocently unaware of the rule of such bodies
governing testimony and witnesses. We must, therefore, forbear all
further discussion of the subject, for 66 where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly
to be wise ” was truthfully written long years ago.APPENDIX.
“REDDY THE BLACKSMITH/’
William Varley. alias “ Reddy the Blacksmith,”
How an inmate of the Tombs, awaiting trial for
the robbery ©f one Lawrence Graham, of New
Jersey, who was enticed into his saloon in th©
cellar of No. 7 Chatham Square, is a villain of the
deepest dye. He is 35 years of age, 5 feet 7 3-4
inches high—light complexion, with red hair and
known to the police as a pickpocket, and a thief,
large sandy moustache. Although very well
he has always managed to escape punishment,
for the reason that his valuable political services
during the time of elections m manipulating
votes and voters in the 4th and 7th Wards, could
not be dispensed with by Tammany Whether
he will be similarly fortunate this time is a ques-
tion, the settlement of which is anxiously awaited
by the public. The cut presented on a preceding
page is from a picture for which * Reddy” sat
a short time since.
Following the example of many illustrious
predecessors “Reddy” rejoices in being the
chief or leader of a gang or tribe which does him
honor by bearing his name. It eems hardly
necessary to add that “ Reddy’s” followers pos-
sess a name and charader similar to their leader,
although generally less widely known. The
writer notlong since came into possession of an
authentic list of members of “ The William Var-
ley Associatioa,” and takes pleasure in being
able to make their names public. They are:
William Varley, alias “ Reddy the Blacksmith.”
Y^illiam Johnson,
Allen Martin, (?;
Charles Taylor.
William Manning,
Mathew Bannan,
James Moore,
Patrick Nolan, alias * * John Reilly,”
James Walker,
John Finn,
Michael Cobey, alias Henry Williams, alias
Charles Grant,
Richard Hayes,
William Brown,
Wall Walsh,
David Callahan,
Thomas Osborn,
William Burton.
Thomas Yarley, brother of “ Reddy,”
George Knowles,
Chari es Wilson, alias Henry J. Lawrence, alias
“ Nibbs,”
Lawrence Fitzgerald.
Michael Yarley, brother of “ Reddy,” alias
Chas. Anderson.
The following is a literal copy of an original
letter received by “Reddy” from a confederate
Incarcerated in the Tombs for theft. The origi-
nal is now in the possession of the writer. As
Illustrative of the nature of the transactions of
"Reddy” and his gang it is inserted.
December 93th.
friend Wm. Varley, will von Be so kind to send
me Borack By some one if you cant come to see
me yourself one Dollar and a bit of chuck for I am
starving and perishing with cold, friend general
it his not much I ask and you know if I get away
you would have it—I geus you no that. Tom
Davis was in here to see some one. I geus Dan
Noble But passing my cell I called Tom and they
stopt talking to me what I was in for and I told
them and then ask me do go to down Reddys
and I sayed yes. he then asked me how you was
getting on and I told him von was Doing good
and then Dan and him ask Did send me anything.
I told I Did no Dont you would if you knew
where i was. old general this fust i ever ask and I
hope you wont Deny me it will not Break you nor
make you. Give best wishes to your Wife Emma
my Best friend, nay respects to tom and Mickey.
tell Emma if I get away she would have tha
pleasure wearing one. she knows that.
I am in my own name Michael Sullivan, cell 991
third tier, old general you do that for me and it
will be luck to you for you and Emma his the
only tow friends i have. I gens sing sing this
time. But never mind, ash for Breakfast and &
shower Bath for supper. But they cant served
me worst than I have Been, so no more at present
from your well wisher. Borack for god sake Do*
it for I shall croak here with cold.
PATRICK H. KEENAN.
This gentleman is a Coroner of the City and
County of New York. We have on page six:
referred to a gang of repeaters registering from
his residence and given the portrait of the leader
of the gang. Coroner Keenan being examined
under oath by the Congressional Committee tes-
tified that hut “three males” over 21 years of
age resided in his house, himself, James Ryan
and Denis O’Neil. The names of ten other per-
sons, among which was that of Robert A. Jones*
who had illegally registered therefrom, were
then read to him and the question put him, if 1m
knew men of those names. The reply was, “ I
do not.” The officer who saw the registrations
made testified that he knew Robert A. Jones*
and that said Jones “ goes (went) to Keenan’s^
house a good deal, but he does (did) not live,
there.” When th© writer first noticed this dis-
crepancy in the testimony he endeavored to be-
lieve that it was possible for Jones to visit Kee-
nan’s house considerably and Keenan not know1
him, as it might be that Jones visited Ryan or
O’Neil, though the latter is Keenan’s brother-in-
law. Since then the author has received certain,
evidence which convinces him that the Coroner-
did know Robert A. Jones when he swore on tlm
31st of December, 1868, he did not. That each
reader may judge for himself whether the fact is:
not so, the following paper, a copy of the original
in the possession of the writer is appended.
New York, Oct. 27, 1868.
Sir:—A meeting of the P. H. Keenan Asso-
ciation will be held at No. 29 East Broadway, on
Saturday evening, the 31st inst., at eight o’clock.
Your punctual attendance is requested.
R. A. Jones, President.
E. N. Lappet, Secretary.
It should be remembered that 29 East Broad-
way, where this meeting of the Keenan Associa-
tion was called for, was where Walling arrested
the repeaters and seized their hook. (See pagn
six.) The evening, October 31st., was the
night Judge Barnard discharged said repeaters.
(See page seven,) and the hour for the meeting’
eight o’clock, was one hour after the time men-
tioned in the writ of habeas corpus procured by
Counsellor Ilowe for the appearance of the re-
peaters at Judge Barnard’s house. (See page
eight.) A singular state of affairs certainly*
but it must not be assumed that the arrested eight
were anxious to attend the meeting of the P. H.
Keenan Association. The writer has, however,
an opinion upon the subject. Each reader will,
form his own.
JOSEPH FARRELL.
The portrait of this man as it appears in the-*
Rogue’s Gallery at Police Headquarters has been
heretofore given. He is also known by the
aliases of Lawrence Farrell and William Peirce.
He is about 19 yeara of age, 5 feet 111-2 inches in
height, of light complexion, and a burgtar by oc-
cupation. tinder the name of Lawrence Farrell’
he was brought before the Congressional Com-
mittee by one of the Democ atic members. His
direct examination, was very brief, and eiic tedndv31
information, but upon being subjected to a severe
cross-questioning ne testified that he could fur-
nish “a thousand persons” who had repeated at
the Presidential election. His statement unsup-
ported would be utterly worthless, but taken m
connection with his admission that on the night
before the election he was at the Jackson Club
rooms, where Sheriff O’Brien was present, and a
“lot of men” were congregated renders it prob-
able that in this matter Farrell told the truth.
JAMES AND PATRICK GOFF.
These two brothers are the men referred to on
another page, as being engaged before the courts in
obtaining fraudulent naturalization certificates.
It was testified to before the Congressional Com-
mittee that an examination of the records on file
in the Clerk’s office ®f the Supreme and Superior
Courts showed that these two individuals were
accepted as witnesses to the residence and “good
moral character” of six hundred and sizty-six
(666) applicants. Of this number they appeared
in the Supreme Court five hundred and twenty-
two times and in the Superior one hundred and
forty-four. Of the 2T,068 certificates in the
Supreme Court unaccounted for there is no
method of ascertaining how many were obtained
by these men. That it was a very large number
there can be no doubt as it was sworn before the
Committee that one of them was seen to have in
his possession last Fall, in the opinion of the
witness, “over four thousand” naturalization
papers.
That the public may fully comprehend the char-
acter of the witnesses which satisfied Judges Bar-
nard and McCunn as to the qualifications and
“ good moral character” of applicants for citizen-
ship it is only necessary to add that the brothers
Goff are well known disreputable and criminal
characters. A member of the police force testi-
fied before the Committee that he had arrested
both of them; that James was “ a professional
thief f and that within forty-eight hours of the
close of naturalization proceedings in the courts
“James was arrested for stealing a gold wa ch
and chain and two diamond rings.” Of course
they escape punishment.
JAMES O’BRIEN.
_This individual is ;the Sheriff of the County of
New York. He is about 29 years of age, some 5
feet 7 inches in height, of light complexion, smooth
fece and stout build. His early life was passed in
the employ of a stonecutter. When about 18 he
was a rested, indicted and eonvicted “ of riot and
assault and battery.” Judge Barnard, then Re-
corder, sentenced him to “ six months” imprison-
ment “in the Penitentiary of the City of New
York,” but he was pardoned by the Governor be-
fore the expiration of his term. He has since
served as a member of the Common Council and
for some two years past as Sheriff. We have
heretofore referred to the characters of those who
surrounded him and enj>ry his confidence, and
shall hereafter notice others of his more promis-
ing and trusted satellites. It was established
before the Congressinal Committee that on the
night before the election there assembled at the
rooms of tho Jackson Club—an as-ociation of
which the Sheriff is a prominent and active mem-
ber-some two or three hundred men. That a
large number of those men remained there ail
night, and before daybreak on the following
morning were piloted to what they were informed
and believed was the Sheriff’s residence where
breakfast was furnished them. Their hunger
being satisfied they were shortly started out, and
furnished from the Club House and elsewhere
with names and residences upon which they
voted throughout the day in the most reckless
and extravagant manner. The Sheriff being ex-
amined as to these matters admitted his connec-
tion with the Jackson Club: that he was present
at the Club rooms the night before election; that
a large number of men were there at that time;
and that on election morning he kept “ open
honse from five to six o’clock” and breakfasted ft
considerable number of men.
DAVID MYERS,
alias David Mullen, is a Till Tapper, about 25 yeara
of age and 5 feet 61-2 inches high. The t cut we
have published is engraved from a photograph in
the Rogue’s Gallery. He was arrested on the 28th
of November, 1868, together with two other dis-
reputable characters, on suspicion of Grand lar-
ceny, but on examination before a magistrate was
discharged. On the person of one of the men was
found a warrant appointing David Mull en a special
Deputy Sheriff to assist in preserving the public
peace at the time of the election.
Patrick McCaffrey.
This man was formerly a special Deputy Sheriff*
Quite naturally he was found largely engaged in
procuring fraudulent naturalization certificates*
It has been testified that his name appears as a-
witness two hundred and fifty-one times in the
Supreme Court, and npon two hundred and fifty-
two applications in the Superior. A total offtv$
hundred and two persons known to him to be of
“ good moral character” and entitled to natural-
ization.
JOHN MORAN.
During the time when the Supreme and Supe-
rior Courts were engaged in naturalization this
man was one of the most active and earnest parti-
cipants in the work of obtaining fraudulent certi-
ficates. It was testified to before the Committee
that in the Supreme Court he appeared by the.
records to have been a witness for four hundred
and fifty-five (455) applicants, and in the Superior
for two hundred ana ninety-nine (299), or a total of
seven hundred and fifty four (754) persons. Or
these orte hundred and twelve in a single day in
the Supreme Court. A most excellent witness as
to qualifications and “good moral character.’*
For some reason shortly after the election he en-
tered the emp oy of the Sheriff, and for conniving*
at the escape of a noted bond robber placed in liia
custody for delivery at the State Prison, was sub-
sequently convicted and sentenced to imprison-
ment in Sing Sing, where he is supposed now
to be.
FLORENCE SCANNEL
is a man of about 5 feet 6 in height, light com-
plexion and stout build, with a cnestal and mus-
cular development such as the writer never saw
equalled. He is about 23 years of age, a butcher
by trade, and the owner of one or more valuable
stands in West Washington Market. His osten-
sible business is styled by him as “horse trad-
ing,” though the police, who are thoroughly ac-
quainted with the details, designate it by a nanio
more in accord with its real nature. During the
war Scarmel was largely interested in faro tanks
in Washington and Alexandria, and, as we are in-
formed and believe, now “ runs a small game” in
Fourth aveuue, near Twenty-seventh street*
which nets him a monthly income of some
$1,600. His education is somewhat limited, but
enables him to read print quite readily and write
his name in a very fair hand, but it is with difficul-
ty he can read the most ordinary words when writ-
ten. lie is exceedingly popular with ih»
“b’hoys,” and prides himself on a reputation of
being a teetotaller. In polilcs Scannel is an un-
adulterated Democrat of unbounded pluck and
rare political strength. He was chosen to a seat
in tho Board of Couneilmen in 1866. As wili bo.
Been on page nine, bcannel was examined ae
a witness before the Congressional Committee.
His appearance and manner were striking and
peculiar.
At the close of the examination being informed
that he might go he turned to the Committee aad32
in his blandest tones said : “ Well gentlemen, I
bid yon good day. I have no doubt we shall
meet again, for I’m coming down there to Con-
gress some day. You may iust bet your livus I
am.” His belief and prediction were speedily
verified, although not in the manner threatened,
for having in response to a question of the Com-
mittee refused to answer, adding “ I would rather
go to the Tombs all my life than do it ,” he was
arrested, brought before the bar of the House of
Representatives and directed to answer the ques-
tion. Still refusing, claiming that he had forgot
ten the desired fkcts, he wa9 fined the cost of his
arrest (some $75) and incarcerated in default of
payment. Preferring to enact the role of a mar-
tyr t o paying the fine he was fiimished quarters
In the bttcfmeut ef the Capitol for some five
weeks, and until the adjournment of Congress.
JOHN T. HOFFMAN.
On the 3 st of October, the day on which In-
spector VValliqg arrested the repeaters and seized
their books, and the day on which Judge Barnard
illegally released those repeaters, the then Maypr
of the city of New York, now Governor, and pros-
pective Democratic candidate for $jie Presidency
issued a proclamation. He charged I. that “gross
and unfounded charges of fraud are being made *
♦ against those high in authority.” II. That
** threats are made against naturalized citizens,
and the authority of tne judges and the seal of the
Supreme Court is defied. ” III. “ A grand j ury of
ihe United States Court summoned through the
agency of those who are in this scheme has, as I
have been informed, been induced without that
preliminary examination which is usual, and
which is afforded by law for the protection of
character to find in great haste and secrecy bills
of indictment against divers persons f r the pur-
pose openly avowed of intimidating them in the
discharge of their public duties.’7 IV. “The
United States Marshal * * has assumed to
himself the power and duty of appointing swarms
of special deputies to take their place at the polls
to threaten and awe the electors of the State of
New York in the exercise of their high privilege
of casting their votes for the chief officers of tne
nation and the State.” These several acts the
Mayor proceeded to say were done “ for two
purposes.”
“First. To conceal and cover their own sehemes
©f fraud which they hope to consummate by the
aid of untried or unpardoned criminals.
Second. So to excite the masses of people in
this city who are opposed to them as to lead
them into acts of disorder and violent resist-
ance.”
Mr. Hoffman was called before the Congres-
sional Committee and being sworn was very
severely examined upon eaeh of these points. The
writer never saw a more pitiable spectacle than
the Mayor presented at that time. But our read-
ers may judge thereof for themselves. Not a
single charge contained in the proclamation could
the Mayor sustain in any way. He swore that
it “was common report based on the statements
of many individuals,” <fec.. that threats were
made against naturalized citizens, but stated that
he could not mention the names of a single per-
son who made such a statement. He swore that
“ it was announced in many of the papers,” &c.,
** that the registrars * * * had a right to go
behind the certificates of naturalization" * * *
to deny the validity of them, to examine into
their genuineness or irregularity, and to refuse
to register, if in their judgment they thought
proper so to do,” but that he could not furnish a
reference to any such newspaper. He swore that
he “ had no knowledge” of the issue of fraudulent
naturalization papers, atihough “ such charges
were made in the papers,” and that he took no
steps to ascertain the correctness of such charges.
In reference to the third charge of his proclama-
tion he swore that it was so “ generally under-
stood in the city,” although he could not give the
name of “any person” who so stated, ana he did
not believe the United States grand jury “ had
been summoned or procured to be summoned in
any other than the legal and nsual way ” or that
the indictments found by it “ were found without
the examination that is usual by grand juries in
that court.” He swore in reference to his fourth
charge that it was so “ generally understood,’*
but that he took no steps to ascertain from any
official source whether it was true or not. Mar-
shal Murray testified that he did not appoint a sin-
gle deputy. In reference to the first purpose for
which he charged these things were attempted*
the Mayor swore that he had “merely the
statements made to me (him) by confidential
friends and the District Attorney m reference to
Theodore Allen for whose arrest a bench warrant
had been issued which the police “would not ex-
ecute.” There were others he believed men-
tioned by the District Attorney, but their names
were not given him, and he took no steps te
ascertain their number. He swore that he sup-
posed he had evidence that republicans were en-
gaged in schemes of fraud, because they held cer-
tain secret meetings, and for the reason that “it:
was very well understood that immense sums ot
money were being contributed by very wealthy
men, candidates for office and others.” This an<|
this only was the purport of the Mayor’s jus-
tification for his wicked and lying proclamation.
It speaks for itself in every particular, save the
reference to Theodore Allen. Let us therefore
ascertain the facts in that matter.
Mr. A. Oakey Hall, then District Attorney being
examined as to the information given Mayor
Hoffman by him in this matter, testified that he
knew of but a single case. That it was not Theo-
dore Allen but one Wesley Allen for whose arrest
the bench warraut had issued. That said war-
rant “was out three weeks before the election*
and was never executed until after the election,
although the man was in the city, and I, (Dist.
Attorney Hall) could have arrested him at any
moment.”
It would seem therefore that the “ untried or
pardoned criminals” charged by the Mayor as
about to be used by the Republicans to conceal
and cover their own schemes of fraud, consisted
of one individual, Wesley Allen who was in no
manner charged to be or ever to have been a Re-
publican to any extent or in any measure whatso-
ever. Capt, Mills to whom the bench warrant
was delivered, and who in the language of the
District Attorney is “a high minded, incor-
ruptible, splendid police captain” was next
examined. He testified that late in October he
received from the District Attorney a bench war-
rant for the arrest of Wesley Allen, with positive
instructions to let no one know that he had such
warrant. That acting under such orders he made
every possible exertion to find Allen, even visi-
ting Brooklyn “ and other places where he fre-
quented” for that purpose. That he communi-,
cated the fact of his having the warrant to no
“living soul,” not even to his own sergeants or
the police superintendent, but that it was not.
until the 16th of November that he was able to
find Wesley Allen, when he at once arrested him.
Thus it will be seen that in every respect Capt.
Mills performed his whole duty. It may not be
uninteresting to our readers to add that Capt.
Mills further stated, and this will show the foroe
of Mayor Hoffman’s charge as to pardoned
criminals, “ that Wesley Alien was a notorious
thief,” who had twice been to State’s Prison, but
that his second term had been shortened by a par-
don granted by Governor Fenton, upon the appli-
cation of District Attorney Hall and others. And
that Mr. Hall had himself stated to him this was
the fact, and that he (Hall) was “ satisfied Allen
was not” guilty of the crime for which he was
sentenced - and still further—upon arresting Allen
he was turned over to the District Attorney and
incarcerated in the Tombs for abeut a month,
“when he was set at liberty.”THE WIG AND THE JIMMY:
on,
A LEAF IN THE
POLITICAL HISTORY OF NEW YORK.
This work is a concise and accurate statement of the gross frauds on the
elective franchise penetrated by or on behalf of the Democratic party in
the State of New York at the Presidential election of 1868 as the same
were ascertained by a Committee of the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States. As its title would imply the wicked and
illegal conduct of the Judges and Thieves who aided, abetted or participa-
ted in the conspiracy is fully considered. The reasons which prevented
action by the Fortieth Congress upon the report of the Committee, the
remedies proposed and bills sure to become laws at the coming session of
the Forty-first Congress, the amended registry bill passed by the last
State Legislature, and the reasons of the Governor for refusing to sign
such bill are each and all fully detailed and carefully discussed.
A short appendix descriptive of some of the more active conspirators
abounds in interesting and startling facts.
The following extracts from letters received by the author from the
members of the Congressional Committee who investigated the facts,
establish the accuracy of the work and its value as a means of affording,
reliable information upon the subjects treated of:
[From the Hon. Wm. Lawrence of Ohio, Chairman.]
“Your work is much needed to enable the American people to become acquainted
with the dangers through which they have passed, and to provide adequate remedies to
prevent their recurrence in the future. * * * rEhe certainty of exposure of men
guilty of frauds is one of the great auxiliaries by which the public indignation may be
aroused. Your work supplies the needed expose to call into useful exercise the law-
making power and the force of public opinion.”
[From the Hon. Henry L. Dawes of Mass]
“ As far as I have been able to examine the advance sheets of your work, they seem
to be very full and accurate. Unless the nation awakes to the magnitude and enormity
of the gigantic frauds by which it was attempted to deluge the ballot box in New York
in 1868, and has the courage to apply the remedy in season, the forms of an election
will soon be of little or no use. I bid you God speed in disseminating this in-
formation.”
[From the Hon. Austin Blair of Mich.']
“ I think your work cannot fail to do good. In fact I am glad to see any effort to
arouse the people to a sense of the great enormity of the frauds upon the elective fran-
chise which seem to have grown into an organized system in New York, and to be
spreading into other cities.”
FOR SALE EVERY WHERE.
JPYrtICE.
SINGLE COPIES.............................25 CENTS
On all ordeys for Fifty Copies and upwards to one address, a liberal discount
will be allowed. Address Box 4924, New York Post Office.