i'jMU I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/chicagovotingmacOOillirich 1 1^-tr*fE OF CONTENTS. Page Report to General Assembly 3 Index of Witnesses. Examination " Direct Cross Amos Miller 1 4 Morris Emerson 6 7 Isaac N. Powell ' 10 U Abel A. Bach 12 15 Thomas F. Judge 17 None JohBi, D. Cannon 19 21 Howard S. Taylor 31 157 William L. Abbott 263 266 Paul M. Chamberlain 271 27S William Wooley 296 301 Clarence E. Depuy 309 334 George O. Olson 367 369 O. A. Leutwiler 378 384 Frank Kelper 394 Thomas A. Boyer 415 None J. P. Townsend 419 None Frank Keiper (resumes stand) 421 421 Charles II. Kellerman 437 468 Anthony Czarneckl 474 Clarence E. Depuy (resumes staud) 507 508 James S. Keeley 532 535 Oscar Hewitt 530 None E. S. Beck 537 None Charles Gotthart 539 None George E. Brennan 549 None Edward E. Marriott 550 565 E. A. Keppler 567 568 R. D. Bemiss 578 580 James Hamlin 581 581 R. F. Graham 581 581 I-incoln Weaver 582 582 Berry Lillard 582 582 William Anderson 583 583 Albert Pierce ., 583 583 William J. Hamlin 583 583 Jacob Gilbert 584 584 A. S. Ford 584 584 E. H. Ford 584 585 ivil80434 u Theodore Thomas '. 585 585 Leo Lasky 586 586 George T. S. Brown 587 587 Charles Bergstroiii 587 588 John Branlett 588 589 James LaGraza 589 589 James Duncan 589 None H. B. Meinhardt 589 590 Anthony Czarnecki 590 None Harry E. Hoff 591 593 Theodore DePalma 599 599 Charles Stumpff 599 599 Lawrence F. King 599 None Michael F. McMahon 636 638 J. J. Muldowney 639 None Lawrence F. King (resumes stand) 639 649 J. F. Cleary 650 650 Richard A. Sliields 651 651 Slartha E. Abt 651 652 Frank Murphy 652 652 Custer L. Hampton 653 654 William Fisher 654 654 William B. Cassldy 655 655 Lawrence F. King (resumes stand) None 656 H. E. Wallace 657 None' Bernard McMahon 657 658 Carlton R. Dart 658 658 W. H. Clark 659 None William M. Spencer 660 None C. Otto Brocker 662 None Herman C. Schultz 662 None Charles D. Boyd 664 None Charles A. Kuhn 664 665 Frauk Kelper (resumes stand) 666 None Susan L. Jenks 666 667 Lawrence F. King (resumes stand) None 667 Harry E. Hotf (resumes stand) None 667 John S. Burns 668 None I,awrence F. King (resumes stand) 669 None Perry Lillard (recalled) 669 None William Anderson (recalled) 669 None Theodore Thomas (recalled) 669 None Leo Lasky (recalled) 669 None Bernard J. Mahony 670 None James J. Muldowney (recalled) 670 071 John D. Harris 671 673 m Narrative Index. Page Testimony of Amos Miller 1-6 Methods of examination by State Commission 3 Empire voting macliine can be manipulated by judges, clerks and others 4 Machines were examined with reference to primary elections 5 Testimony of Morris Emerson 6-9 State Commission approved every voting machine submitted, except one 6 Methods of examination 6 Custodian could manipulate Empire voting machine freely 7 •* Voting machines impracticable under j)resent primary law 8 Testimony of Isaac N. Powell 10-12 Previous board finds voting machines defective, and rejects all 11 Testimony of Abel A. Bach 12-17 Examination and rejection of machines by previous board 13 Suggestions by previous board as to requirements of suitable vot- ing machine 13-14 Defects of Empirfe voting machine 15-16 Testimony of Thomas F. Judge 17-18 No saving in use of voting machines 17 Experts certify machine did not come within the law 18 Testimony of John D. Cannon 19-30 Ample time for bids given by old board 19 All bids voluntarily withdrawn by companies 19 Rejection of all machines submitted 20 Familiar with Australian ballot 21 Experts advised against purchase 22 Defects of Empire machine pointed out 22 New Jersey rejects voting machines 24 Previous board confers with city in regard to finances 25 Fraudulent manipulations of Eniiiire voting machine 27 Newspaper men invited to inspect voting machines 28 Voting machines were rejected after experimental use 29 Chicago Examiner had advance information regarding purchase of voting machines 30 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor 31-263 Chief clerk of Election Connnission ordered to write to voting ma- chine companies 31 Concerning voting machine sjiecificatlons 32 Experimental use of voting machines 33 Commissioner Czarneeki asks for time to study specifications 35 Concerning minutes of Board of Election Commissioners 36 iv Limited time allowed for bids 41 Commissioner Ozarnecki asks for time extension 43 Protests of voting machine companies ; placed on file 44-46 Protest of Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 47-55 Failure to confer with city authorities 47 Contrasted action of previous commission 48 Previous reports point out defects In voting machines, and offer suggestions 49-50 Objections to large initial purchase 51 Conference with city authorities urged 54 Protest of Bureau of Public Efficiency placed on file ; no official in- quiry made 56 Witness' view of Supreme Court decision 58 Financing the purchase of 1,000 voting machines 62 Witness makes voting machine speech at the City Club 63 Requirements of Voting Macliine Law 66 Protest of Winslow Voting Machine Company 68 Protest of Ergy Register Company 71 Protest of American Voting Machine Company of Boston 73 Protest of Caulkins Voting Machine Company 74 Letter from American Voting Machine Company of Wooster, Ohio. 75 Letter of Eugene Gregory 76 Protest of International Voting Machine Company 80 Report of voting machine experts to Judge Owens 81-87 Commissioner Czarneckl moves for additional test 87-88 Commissioner moves to limit machine purchase 89 Commissioner moves to confer with city authorities 90 Commissioner Czarnecki moves to remedy defects before purchasing machines 91 Commissioner Czarnecki moves for public examination of voting ma- chines 92 Did Election Commission's experts examine a rejected machine?. ... 96 Section 18 of specifications not complied with 98 Protest of L. R. Winslow 100 Voting machine number missing from report of Owens' experts. . 106 Letter of .\merican Standard Voting Machine Company 108 Protest of Winslow Voting Machine Company 109 Protest of International Voting Machine Company Ill Commissioner Czarnecki moves to hear protests 113 Commissioner Czarnecki moves to limit time of delivery of voting machines 114 Commissioner Czarnecki moves for deposit by Empire Company.. 115 Second report of Judge Owens' experts 118 Commissioner Czarnecki moves for sample of Empire machine. . . . 119 Taylor resolution for contract with Empire Voting Machine Company 122 Contract with the Empire Company 125 Suggested methods of payment for voting machines 131 Commissioner Czamecki refused time to read Empire voting ma- chine contract 131 Commissioner CzarneclJl comments on the voting machine proceed- ings " 134-135 Taylor, resolution for contract with Empire Company, carried.... 137 Commissioner Czarnecki moves to submit contract to people 139 Commissioner Czamecki and the voting machine specifications .... 144 Commissioner Czamecki states his objections to voting machine contract 140-147 City authorities notified after contract made 149 Witness' view of Supreme Court decision 153 •• Report of Grand Jury of November, 1908 160 Witness makes synopsis of reports of experts of former board .... 170 Reports of former experts offered in evidence 174-237 Objections raised in reports were considered by witness 237-238 Witness knew of use of voting machines In other states 239 Hartford, Conn., report on voting machines read by witness 240 New Hampshire and the voting machine 245 Witness' view of protest of Bureau of Public Efficiency 249 Witness thought Czarnecki's purpose was to defeat voting machine purchase 255 Witness knew Charles A. Walsh of the Chicago Examiner 257 Witness talked with A. M. Lawrence about voting machines 258 Testimony of William L. Abbott 263 Acted as one of Judge Owens' experts 263 Found that Empire voting machine complied with law 263 Ordinary voter cannot vote .split ticket in one minute 264 The voting machine and the primary law 265 Report of experts pointed out defects and recommended changes . . 266 Witness preferred machine with party lever 267 Witness favored a limited number of Inspections by election judges 268 Testimony of Paul M. Chamberlain 271 Acted as one of Judge Owens' experts 271 Experts concluded Empire machine complied with law 271 Views of witness on "minute voting" 272 Experts' report calls attention to absence of party lever on Em- pire machine 273 Disadvantages of party key 274 Experts' report undated and serial number of Empire machine ex- amined not given 275 Blue prints 277 Witness knew Mr. Wheelock, attorney for Empire Company 279 Witness inspects machines election day 285 Further expert services of witness 290-294 Testimony of William Wooley 296 Acted as one of Judge Owens' experts 296 Primary ballot could not be voted in a minute 297 Witness cannot remember number of Empire machine examined by experts 299 Disadvantages of party key 299 Witness thought defects shown by report would be corrected 300 Frauds possible by custodian 300 Thinks machine complies with law but cannot be voted in a minute 307 Testimony of Clarence E. Depuy , 309 Previous employment as expert on voting machines 309 Examines Empire machine for present investigation 311 Some frauds possible on Empire machines 312 Fraudulent manipulation of machine demonstrated 313 The "angle steel" and the rubber band frauds 314 Secrecy of machine ballot not secure 315 Wrong setting of counters 316 Manipulation of question lockout 317 Duplication of keys 318 Members of Committee cast experimental votes 319 Machine counters may be set above or below zero 321 Otlier frauds possible by custodian 322 Cumulative voting attachment 323 Fraudulent setting of attachment 324 Cannot be detected by judges 325 Unlawful vote east on machine at hearing 326 Defective voting on voting machine 329-330 Witness makes a duplicate voting machine key 331 Advantages of "printing" voting machine 333 Form of Empire machine an aid to fraud 337 Witness has never seen a feasible voting machine 341 Former voting machine reports of witness reviewed 324-346 Empire voting machine not adapted to Chicago conditions 347 Ix)ss of votes in voting split ticket 351 The Empire machine and the law's requirements 353 Average voter cannot vote in a minute 356 Mechanical limit to group voting 357 Frauds by custodian or judges 360-361 Suggested improvements in voting machines 366 Testimony of George O. Olson 367 Previous examinations of voting machines 367 Frauds possible on Empire machine 368 Favors party lever ; its advantages 369 Reviews former report on Empire machine 370-373 Empire machine not large enough for Chicago 373 vll Defects of Independent paper roll on Empire machine 373 Primary lever and proposition lockout too small 376 Testimony of O. A. I^eutwiler ' Previous examinations of voting machines 378 Examines Empire machine for legislative committee 379 Describes frauds possible on Empire machine 380 Failure to record vote totals ^ Primary lever too small Empire is not a good voting machine 384 Witness reviews previous reports on voting machines 384 Defects in Empire machine pointed out 386 OQO Witness favors a party lever Empire machine can be set fraudulently 389 . If custodian, witness could falsify elections 390 * Means of doing this in Empire machine 391 Difficulty of detection Empire machine examined by witness did not comply with state 393 law Testimonv of Frank Helper (attoniey for Empire Voting Machine Com- ' 394 pany) Objections to "printing" machines 396 Objections to party lever The party lever and cumulative voting 399 No advantage in limiting inspections by judges 400 Empire machine in primary elections 403 Paper zero fraud easily detected 404 Empire machine meets Illinois law 40o 1912 primary ballot requires two machines 406 Voting machine not mentioned in primary law 411-412 Witness helped write Chicago voting machine contract 414 Testimony of Thomas A. Boyer 41a Witness visits Ottumwa and receives so-called Duke statement 415 Witness hands Duke statement to Mr. Butts, Chairman of the Com- mittee ^^^ Testimony of J. P. Townsend ^^^ H. AV Barr and N. L. Arrison of Ottumwa at Grand Pacific Hotel . . 419 Testimony of Frank Keiper (resumed) 421 A broken seal gives chance of fraud 421 Witness knows H. W. Barr, Agent for Empire Company 422 Knows Carl F. Ix)mb, President 423 Witness cannot name Empire's stockholders 427 Witness estimates factory cost of Empire at between $400 and .$500 431 Witness votes in one minute and sixteen seconds, and again In 33 seconds ■- 432-433 Mistakes are made In experimental voting on Empire machine 434 The Committee appoints a sub-committee to visit Ottumwa, Iowa.. 4.S5 vUl The report of the sub-conimittee 436 Mr. Frank Walker appears as personal attorney for A. M. Law- rence 437 Mr. McEwen, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Walker oppose the introduction of the Duke statement 437 Objections are sustained for the present 437 Testimony of Charles H. Kellermann 437 Voting machine matter first discussed by Election Commission in January or Februarj-, 1911 438 Witne.ss visits factory of Triumph Voting Machine Company 439 Makes no report of visit 440 Witness believes Chief Clerk Stuart prepared specifications 442 Witness remembers protest of Bureau of Public Efficiency 443 Witness had limited knowledge of voting machines 444 Thought voting machines intended for primaries 445 Meeting specifications was "companies' business" 446 Considered 25 days ample time for bids 447 Mr. Frank Walker produces Marriott affidavit and explains his posi- tion 448-452 Commissioner Czarnecki asks extension of time for bids 453 Communicatdons from voting machine companies ; filed 454 Protest of Bureau of Public Efficiency received : filed 455 Time of bids extended eight days 456 Commissioner Czarnecki makes motions 457 Further protests received from voting machine companies ; file:! .... 458 Further motions by Commissioner Czahiecki 460 No public examination of voting machines 4<31 Bine print packages unopened 462 One-minute voting requirement Ignored 463 Section 18 of specifications ignored 464 Commissioner Czarneekl's motions ignored 465 Notice sent city after purchase of voting machines 466 Companies' certified checks deposited 470 Mr. Wheelock, attorney for Empire Compan.v, thought 25 days ample time for bids 474 Witness learned afterwards, Wheelock was attorney for Empire Company 474 Testimony of Anthony Czarnecki 474 Republican and minority member of Election Commission 474 Witness moves for changes in specifications ; no second 476 Short time allowed for bids, witness asks extension ; no second .... 477 Disposition made by Commission of protests received 478 Commissioner Taylor moves to purchase 1000 voting machines.... 480 Witness asks for public exhibition 481 Witness certifies that blue prints were unopened 482 Mr. S. E. Thomason makes a request In which Mr. Walker Joins. . 483 The Duke statement and the Marriott alTidavit admitted in evidence 484 The Marriott affidavit 485 The Duke statement 488 Testimony of Anthony Czarnecki (resumed) : Witness moves to rescind the Taylor resolution 492 Report of Owens' experts gives no serial number of Empire machine examined 403 Taylor purchase resolution adopted 494 Witness afforded no opportunity to study million-dollar contract. . 495 Witness' objections to Empire machine 498 Empire macliine not suited to Chicago 499 "Tying up" of voting machines in election contests ."00-501 •'voting machines have not reduced election expenses 502 Testimony of Clarence E. Depuy (recalled) 503 Experiments on voting machine ",04-507 Testimony of Anthony Czarnecki (resumed) : Newspaper articles about voting machines 508-525 Causes of witness' opposition to voting machine purchase 525-530 Grand Jury report of November, 1908, not read by Commission 531 Testimony of James S. Keeley 532 Only meeting with H. W. Barr .532 Tribune favored voting machines, but not voting machine deal 535 Testimony of Oscar Hewitt 536 H. W. Barr asked to be introduced to Mr. Keeley, after securing voting machine contract 537 Testimony of E. S. Beck 537 Mr. Barr and Mr. Lausterer, of the Empire Company, visit the Tribune office 537 Neither knew Mr. Keeley 538 Testimony of Charles Gotthart 539 Mr. Gray, of Ottumwa, contradicts Marriott affidavit 530 Mr. Arrison, of Ottumwa, contradicts Marriott affidavit 541 Judge Moon, of Ottumwa, contradicts Marriott affidavit 543 Why Arrison and Duke avoided Chicago 545, 547-8 Mr. Gray is paid his Empire Company money 546 Mr. Arrlson's money is safe in Judge Moon's hands 540 Testimony of George E. Brennan 549 Witness contradicts Marriott affidavit; was never in Ottumwa ,549-550 Testimony of Edward E. Marriott 550 Witness' previous employments 550-551 Visits Ottumwa 551 Witness contradicts Judge Moon's statements 552 Witness fails to verify statements 553-556 Witness misquoted, makes no comment 557 Arrison visits Cliicago by appointment with Walsh 559-560 A\Tiat witness heard in Ottumwa about the Dulie statement and other matters 561-563 AVitness prepares his affidavit 564 Witness understood Mckler, Arrison and Gray were Empire sales- men 565 Testimony of E. A. Keppler '. 566 Witness photographs Empire machine examined by Owens' experts 567 Serial niiral)er of Empire machine under 4000 567 Photograph taken after votiijg machine contract made 568 Affidavit of John Gray of Ottumwa 570-571 A'arioHS Ottumwa communications 571-576 Statement by Chairman Butts regarding Marriott affidavit 576 Referendum vote on voting machines 577-578 Testimony of R. D. Bemiss (former agent for Empire Company) 578 Empire Company changes expense account methods 579 "To assistance' in landing order, so much" 580 Voters from 20th precinct, First Ward, testify 581-589 A witness from the 24th precinct, First Ward 589 Testimony of Anthony Czarneeki (recalled) 590 Voting machine minutes of Chicago Board of Election Commission- ers introduced 590 Voting machine rec-ount record of Rinaker-Hoyne-Cunnea contest. .590-591 Testimony of Harry E. Hoff, custodian of voting machines 591 Witness knows nothing about changing of seals on voting machines. . 591 Describes preparation of machines for elections and use in elec- tions 592-595 Thinks seals on voting machines unnecessary 596 Witness' opinion of defective machine voting in First Ward 597 Thinks frauds by wire clips, etc., not practical 598 Witnesses from 24th precinct, First Ward, testify 599 Testimony of Ijawrence P. King '. 599 Record of seal changes on voting machines between election and recount 600-607 Record of discrepancies in election returns 608-611 The A. M. Lawrence affidavit G12 Testimony of Lawrence F. King (resumed) : Record of discrepancies in election returns continued 613-635 Commission asked for no explanation of discrepancies 632 Testimony of Michael F. McMahon 636 Witness makes record of condition of voting machines seals at re- count 636-638 Testimony of J. J. Miildowney 639 Judges instructed to put seals on machines at close of election. . . . C39 Testimony of Lawrence F. King (recalled) 639 Defective judges' certificates 639-649 Testimony of Joseph F. Cleary 650 Testimony of Richard A. Shields 651 Electrical worlvers use voting machines 651 Testimony of Martha E. Abt. 651 Washington Park Civic League uses voting machine 651 Testimony of Frank Murphy, contract clerk, Department of Public Works 652 Time allowed for bids in the department 652 Testimony of Custer L. Hampton 653 J^lectrlcal Workers Union uses voting machine / . . 654 Testimony of William Fisher 654 Stationary Firemen's Union uses voting machine 654 Testimony of William B. Cassidy 655-658 Testimony of H. E. AVallaee 655-658 Testimony of Bernard McMahon 655-658 Experience of Municipal Pension Fund Association with voting ma- chine 655-658 Testimony of Carlton R. Dart 658 Time for Sanitarj- District bids 658 Testimony of W. H. Clark: Time given for bids by State Board of Administration 659-660 Testimony of William M. Spencer, of Indianapolis 660 Voting machines in Indiana 661 Testimony of C. Otto Brocker, Milwaukee 662 Voting machines in Milwaukee 662 Testimony of H. C. Schultz, Milwaukee 663 Voting machines in Milwaukee 663 Testimony of Charles D. Boyd, Milwaukee 664 Voting machines in Milwaukee 664 Testimony of Charles A. Kuhn 064 Voting machine demonstrations 665-666 Testimony of Susan L. Jenks 666 Experimental voting on voting machine 667 Testimony of John S. Bums 668 Seals furnished to Judges of election to replace broken seals 668 Various witnesses show how they voted on machine, election day 669-670 Testimony of John D. Harris, South Bend, Indiana 671 Empire machine in South Bend 672 Litigation over South Bend contract 674 Frauds by custodian 675 Empire machine loses forty-one votes 677 xU Appendix. Official Reports of State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners, State of New Jersey G79-737 Voting Machine Specifications, issued by Chicago Board of Election Commissioners 638-745 Articles of Incorporation, List of Stoclcholders, etc., of Empire Voting Machine Company 746-754 House Joint Resolution No. 23 of the Forty-Eighth General Assembly. .755-776 Index of Subjects. Investigation of voting machines by the State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners 1-9 Investigation of voting machines by former Chicago Board of Election Commissioners 10-30 Investigation of voting machines by present Chicago Board of Election Commissioners 31-482, 590 Protests regarding voting machine investigation and purchase received by Chicago Board of Election Commissioners 44-46, 47-55, 68-75, 80, 100, 108, 109, 111, 114, 115, 454, 455, 458 Motions made by Commissioner Czarneclsl 35, 43, 88; 89, 00, 91, 92, 113, 114, 115, 119, 131, 139, 144, 146-7. 457, 460, 485, 492 The Ottumwa sub-committee 435, 436, 485, 488, 570, 571, 571-6 Exhibits and matters read into record : Newspaper articles 93, 99, 510-525 Taylor resolution for contract with Empire Voting Machine Company 122 Contract with Empire Voting Machine Company 125 Notice sent to city authorities 149 Report of Grand Jury, November, 1908 160 Synopsis of reports of former experts 170 Reports of former experts 174-237 Hartford, Connecticut, voting machine report 240 New Jersey voting machine report 245 Report of Ottumwa sub-committee 436 Affidavit of Edward E. Marriott 485 L. L. Dulse statement 488 John Gray (Ottumwa) affidavit 570 Ottumwa communications '. 571-576 Referendum vote on voting machines 577 Record of seal changes on voting machines 600-607 Record of discrepancies in election returns from voting machines . . 608-625 Affidavit of A. M. Lawrence 612 Record of condition of voting machine seals at time of recount 636-638 zUl Appendix. Official report of New Jersey State Board of Voting Machine Com- missioners 679-737 Voting mactiine specifications issued by Clilcago Board of Election Commissioners 638-745 Articles of incorporation, list of stockholders, etc., Empire Vot- ing Machine Co 746-754 House Joint Resolution No. 23 of Forty-Eighth General Assembly . 755-776 Peoria, Illinois, June 11th, Nineteen Fifteen, To the Honorable, the 49th General Assembly: Gentlemen : I have the honor to present, on behalf of the Illinois Legis- lative Voting Machine Investigation Committee, authorized and created under the provisions of House Joint Resolution #23 of the 48th General Assembly, a final report contained in ^our volumes of evidence, four volumes containing the aibstract of such evidence with exhibits, and the final report and recommendations of said Committee, all of which is signed by a majority of the committee and most respectfully submitted for your consideration. This Committee was unable to report at an earlier date in the session because of the following facts: — The appropriation of $10,000.00 was exhausted before it finished its hearings. The Citizens Association of Cliicago advanced $2500.00 to the Committee to finish its hearings and have the abstract of the testimony typewritten. The abstract was prepared in short-hand immediately after the hearings, but funds for transcribing it into typewriting were not forthcoming for nearly one year. In view of the fact that the 49th General Assembly would be expected to con- sider the report by the Committee, it was deemed advisable to have the abstract of testimony printed so that each member of the General Assembly might have a copy, as well as each member of the Committee. The printed abstract comprises about 800 pages. The funds for printing were guaranteed by the Citizens Association of Chicago early in May, 1915, and the typewritten abstract was in the hands of the printer within an hour after arrangements had been made for pay- ment. The estimated cost is about $2500.00. The work has been pushed with all possible speed to have the abstract for consideration by your Honorable Body. The statement that Counsel for Committee drafted the report is misleading. The Chairman discussed with Counsel the testimony and the facts elicited by the evidence. The framing of the report was prepared along the lines outlined by the Chairman. The report contains undisputed facts as a reading of the abstract and the evidence will show. Regarding the publication of the report in the Chicago papers on June 2nd, 1915, a copy of the report for each committeeman was put into a package, sealed and sent to Springfield by express. The reports received by the reporters were obtained from members of this Committee and tele- graphed to Chicago, as the slightest inquiry would show. The criticism of the motives of the members who signed the majority report is unworthy of the members who signed the minority report. Such criticism is unusual, and unparliamentary in minority reports or decisions and in this report is without foundation in fact. I deem it fair to the majority of the Committee, its Counsel and myself, to make this statement. Respectfully submitted, Lucas I. Butts, Chairman. REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE AP- POINTED UNDER JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23, OF THE FORTY-EIGHTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY. The Forty-Eighth General Assembly of Illinois, by House Joint Resolution No. 23, offered in the House of Representa- tives by Hon. Lucas I. Butts, April 9, 1913, directed an in- vestigation by a Legislative Committee "of the official con- duct and acts of tlie State Board of Voting Machine Com- missioners, the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, and any and all of the official conduct and acts of, all of the election officers of the City of Chicago and the County of Cook, in whatsoever capacity heretofore or now employed"; and further, empowered the committee "to make searching investigation and exhaustive examination into the contract entered into between the Board of Election Commis- sioners of the City of Chicago, or its agents, and the Empire Voting Machine Company, its agents, etc."; and further empowered the committee "to make searching investigation and exhaustive examination into the organization, creation, incorporation, or establishment of the Empire Voting Ma- chine Company, for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of its stockholders, officers, owners, trustees, agents, heirs, as- signs or receivers"; and also "searching investigation and exhaustive examination into the workings, mechanism, effi- ciency, quality, material, manufacture, cost and sale price of the Empire Voting Machine," and into "any and all matters of whatsoever nature referred to in the foregoing preamble and in this resolution proper. ' ' To carry on the proposed investigation, a committee of twelve, six members of the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives, was created and the following were appointed members of the committee : Senators F. C. Camp- bell ; Richard J. Barr ; J. M. Chamberlin, Jr. ; Stephen D. Canaday ; Frank A. Landee ; Willis R. Shaw ; and Repre- sentatives Lucas I. Butts ; Ferdinand A. Garesche ; J. H. Jayne; Robert S. Jones; R. J. Kasserman; and Edward J. King. The committee was organized by the appointment of Hon. Lucas I. Butts as Chairman, and Hon. F. C. Campbell as Secretary of the Committee. The committee selected as counsel for the committee, Hon, Charles S. Deneen. At the public hearings of the committee there appeared Hon. Willard M. McEwen, representing Hon. John E. Owens, Judge of the County Court of Cook County; Mr. Charles H. Mitchell, attorney for the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, representing the Election Commis- sioners ; The public hearings began on July 22d, 1913. The general powers of investigation conferred upon the committee by the resolution of your honorable body were very broad, specific attention, however, being directed by the resolution to the purchase of voting machines from the Empire Voting Machine Company by the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago. Whilst, therefore, the investigation was by no means confined to this subject, the matters investigated related in the main to the following: 1. The proceedings of the former Board of Election Com- missioners in relation to the proposed purchase of voting machines for the City of Chicago. 2. Tlie proceedings of the present Board of Election Com- missioners leading up to the adoption of the Empire voting machine. 3. The circumstances surrounding the making of the con.- tract for the purchase by the City of Chicago of 1,000 voting machines from the Empire Voting Machine Company. 4. The fulfillment by the Empire Voting Machines pur- chased of the requirements of the State Voting Machine Law and the primary and general election laws of Illinois. 5. The mechanical efficiency of the Empire voting ma- chine and its susceptibility to fraudulent manipulation. 6. The adaptability of the Empire voting machine to the meeting of election conditions in the City of Chicago. 7. Experience in the actual use of Empire voting ma- chines in the City of Chicago in the general election of Novem- ber, 1912. 8. The trustworthiness of the record of the Empire voting machines of the votes cast in the precincts in which they were used at that election. The public hearings of the legislative committee were held in the assembly rooms of the County Commissioners of Cook County. Shortly prior to the first of these hearings, the Chairman and some of the members of the committee accom- panied by counsel for the committee, visited the warehouse in which the voting machines were stored and by permission of the Board of Election Commissioners secured one of the voting machines for examination by experts employed by the committee for that purpose. This machine was set up in a room at the Hotel La Salle, and for nearly three weeks was under examination by these experts who later appeared as witnesses before the committee and testified as to the result of their examination. In addition to this, and also preliminary to the public hearings, counsel for the committee secured from the Board of Election Commissioners a copy of the minutes of the Board of Election Commissioners relating to their investi- gation of voting machines and their selection and subsequent purchase of the Empire voting machines, and the Election Commissioners, who were all called as witnesses before the qpmmittee, were examined exhaustively upon this official rec- ord of their proceedings. The minutes themselves were also introduced in evidence and form a part of the record of the Legislative investigation. Both the minutes and the testimony at the hearings regard- ing the adoption of the Empire voting machines by the Chi- cago Board of Election Commissioners, revealed a radical difference of opinion between the members of the Board of Election Commissioners in regard to almost every step which led up to the purchase of the Empire voting machines ; though both the minutes and testimony also showed that originally all the members of the Commission were agreed upon the wisdom of an examination of voting machines with a view to their purchase and use by the City of Chicago, provided a safe, efficient, and suitable voting machine should be found. This original agreement is shown generally by the testi- mony of all the election commissioners, Messrs. Kellermann, Taylor and Czarnecki and specifically by the minutes, from which the following is quoted from the March 4, 1911, meeting of the commissioners, the first meeting at which the voting machine matter was taken up: "Commissioner Taylor then moved that this Board open up competition of all existing voting machine manufacturing companies for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is a practical and efficient voting machine which could be installed in the election precincts in the City of Chicago under the jurisdiction of this Board, and that the chief clerk be directed to send out a letter to all the different companies manufacturing such machines inviting them to participate in the competition." Commissioner Czarnecki seconded this motion which was then carried. At the March 24th meeting of the Board, the second meet- 6 ing at which the voting machine question was considered, it was moved by Commissioner Czarnecki, that any voting ma- chine company be permitted to install voting machines in pre- cincts to be designated by the Board, simply for experimental purposes, as a preliminary move with a view to "starting an agitation which will probably lead to further procedure later on." This motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and carried unanimously. As appears from the minutes of the meeting of March 25th, when representatives of some of the voting machine com- panies objected to the installation of voting machines on such short notice on the ground that they were not prepared to install them, it was stated by Commissioner Czarnecki and Commissioner Taylor that both motions contemplated a sub- sequent public investigation of voting machines by the Board of Election Commissioners and that no weight would be attached to the results of the preliminary use of voting ma- chines at the forthcoming election, and a motion to this effect was made by Commissioner Czarnecki and unanimously car- ried. The policy of installing voting machines at the election for experimental purposes and the investigation of voting ma- chines with a view to their purchase was therefore favored at the outset by all the Election Commissioners. The opposi- "tion subsequently shown by Commissioner Czarnecki to the action of the Election Commissioners in connection with the voting machine matter, had nothing whatever to do with the question of the purchase of voting machines per se. It had to do solely with the methods employed by the majority of the Board of Election Commissioners in: 1. The preparation of the specifications. 2. The terms of the specifications. 3. The time allowed for filing bids. 4. The disposition made by the Board of Protests re- ceived from voting machine companies regarding the specifi- cations and the time for filing bids. 5. The conduct of the investigation of voting machines by the experts employed by Judge Owens and the Board of Election Commissioners. 6. The report of the experts. 7. The disposition made by the Board of Election Com- missioners of protests against the report filed by voting ma- chine companies and the protests of the Bureau of Public Efficiency and others concerning the proceedings of the Board in regard to the purchase of voting machines. 8. The adoption of the Empire voting machines by the Board of Election Commissioners upon the report of the experts. 9. The making of the contract with the Empire Voting Ma- chine Company. 10. The terms of the contract. 11. The failure of the Board of Election Commissioners to confer with the municipal authorities of the Citv of Chicago on the question of financing the purchase of voting machines, prior to entering into the contract. ^ The opposition of Commissioner Czarnecki to the Board's proceedings in the voting machine matter first appeared in the meeting of the Board of April 24th. At that meeting, Chief Clerk Stuart stated that "it was time to take some action upon voting machine specifications" and announced that with Attorney Mitchell he had prepared a draft of speci- fications which he desired to submit to the Board. Commis- sioner Czarnecki then urged "that the consideration and reading be deferred" and that "time be given to every com- missioner to study the draft." This motion received no second. At the next meeting of the Board, two days later. Chief Clerk Stuart again produced his draft of the specifications which was then submitted to the Board. The specifications called for the purchase of 1400 voting machines. This was later changed to 1200 on motion of Commissioner Taylor. Commissioner Czarnecki then moved that the date for filing bids be made August 1, 1911; whereupon Commissioner Taylor moved that it be made May 22, 1911. The latter date was adopted by the votes of Commissioners Kellerman and Taylor, Commissioner Czarnecki voting "nay." The draft of specifications, therefore, was submitted for the first time to the consideration of the commissioners at the meeting of April 26, 1911, and the date fixed upon for the filing of bids. May 22d, was but '25 days from that date. The date suggested by Commissioner Czarnecki for filing bids was three months from the date at which the draft of speci- fications was first under consideration by the Board. A previ- ous investigation of voting machines by the former Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago had been made in 1909, when the specifications were dated January 15, 1909, and the time for filing bids was fixed at September 35, 1909, nine months later. 8 At the meeting of April 27, 1911, Chief Clerk Stuart an- nounced that the specifications had been published and bids advertised for in the public press, and that copies of the specifications had been sent to all voting machine companies whose addresses were ascertainable. So strongly did Commissioner Czarnecki disapprove of the terms of the specifications that he refused to sign them as commissioner and did so only officially as secretary of the Board under the compulsion of the order of the majority of the Board. Immediately after the receipt of the specifications by voting machine companies, communications were received from them by the Board of Election Commissioners protesting against the terms of the specifications, and especially against the short time allowed for the filing of bids. A typical protest of this character is that of the American Voting Machine Company of Boston, Massachusetts, dated May 12, 1911, and submitted to the Board by Commissioner Czarnecki at the meeting of May 15th, from which the following is quoted: "In view of the fact that your proposal did not reach our company until the 10th inst., and owing to the limited time of only 12 days in which to submit a sample which meets all the requirements of your city, and the approval of the Illinois Board of Voting Machine Examiners, this company respectfully petitions your honorable board to extend the time limit for submitting our machine to June 30th, 1911." Similar protests were received from the Ergy Eegister Company ; the Caulkins Voting Machine Company, the Amer- ican Voting Machine Company of Wooster; the Hoosier Voting Machine Company, and other companies. At the same meeting of the Board protests against the specifications were also received from the Winslow Voting Ma- chine Company, and the Hoosier Voting Machine Company, and at the next meeting, May 23d, 1911, a communication was received from the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, dated May 20th, 1911, criticising the action of the Board of Election Commissioners in reference to the investigation and purchase of voting machines. In this communication the whole subject matter is gone into so thoroughly that it is here quoted in full: May 20th, 1911. To the Board of Election Commissioners, of the City of Chi- cago : GENTLEMElSf : By direction of the Board of. Trustees of the Chicago Bu- reau of Public Efficiency, I am transmitting herewith a re- port on the proposed purchase of voting machines by the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago. As stated in the report itself, the inquiry on which the re- port is based was undertaken when it was learned through public advertisement that bids were to be opened on May 22 for 1,200 voting machines. This work is in line with the gen- eral purpose of the Bureau of Public Efficiency to make stud- ies of the expenditures of the local governing bodies and to furnish the public with exact information and constructive suggestion relative thereto. The Judge of the County Court and the members of the Board of Election Commissioners and its officers and em- ployes have been most cordial in affording to representatives of this Bureau opportunity to secure information on the sub- ject under consideration. This report is offered not in a spirit of hostile criticism, but in the hope that it may be of suggestive value to the Board of Election and of benefit to the taxpaying public. Respectfully submitted, Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, Herbert R. Sands, Director. Keport on the Proposed Purchase of Voting Machines by the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago. On April 27th, 1911, the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago advertised for bids for voting ma- chines, the bids to be opened May 22. The advertisement calls for bids on 1,200 machines with delivery as follows : Not to exceed 200 within four months of the date of signing the contract ; not to exceed 300 more within nine months ; the balance and final installment within twenty-one months from the date of signing the contract. The Board of Election Com- missioners reserves the right to take a less number of ma- chines at the same rate and to require the delivery of addi- tional machines at a price no higher than that named in the original contract. 10 The amount of money involved in this transaction, if the number of voting machines named in the specifications should be purchased, presumably would be in excess of $1,000,000. No well-defined plan for financing the proposition seems to have been formulated, but inquiry on the part of represen- tatives of the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency disclosed the fact that neither the Comptroller of the City nor the finance committee of the City Council had been consulted upon the matter of providing funds for the purchase of voting ma- chines. Bidders themselves are asked to name the terms and conditions of payment, particularized as to the method, time, amount, interest, etc. Further inquiry of election officials and others by members of the staff of this bureau disclosed that the successful bidder would be expected to take in payment for voting machines purchased, evidences of indebtedness to be issued by the Board of Election Commissioners, with the approval of the County Judge, to be payable by the City of Chicago, but failed to develop what the character of such evidences of indebted- ness would be, the form thereof, or what provisions were to be made for liquidating the same as they matured. In view of this somewhat anomalous situation, the Bureau of Public Efficiency has made as full an inquiry into the sub- ject as the limited time prior to the opening of bids would permit, the results and conclusions of that inquiry are set forth herein. The General Assembly of Illinois in 1903 passed a law au- thorizing the use of voting machines in this State. By the terms of the act, election officials are authorized to submit to the voters of specified civil divisions of the State the propo- sition to adopt, a voting machine or voting machines. When the people vote affirmatively upon such propositions the proper election officials may lease or purchase voting ma- chines. "The requirements which must be met by the voting machine adopted are laid down with considerable par- ticularity in the act and provision is made for a board of voting machine commissioners, consisting of the Sec- retary of the State and of two other persons, who shall be mechanical experts, to be appointed by the Governor. No machine may be purchased without the certification of this state board of voting machine commissioners that it meets the requirements of the statute. On November 4th, 1904, the general proposition to adopt voting machines was submitted to the electors of 11 Chicago and was approved by a vote of 229,557 for, 27,081 against. Prior to that time some experimental use had been made of machines placed on trial in a few selected precincts and immediately thereafter the Board of Election Commissioners took steps looking to the pur- chase of voting machines. Bids were asked and opened on three different occasions. November 21, 1904, the Board called for bids on such number of machines as might be necessary to equip the polling places under its supervision. The following July all the bids submitted under this call were withdrawn and the manufacturers agreed to submit machines for ex- perimental use. At the fall election of 1905 and again in ' the April, 1907, election, machines were so used. The City Council having appropriated $100,000 in the 1907 budget, advertised for bids for furnishing machines to that amount, the Board to have the right to make pur- chase for any part thereof. The bids received in re- sponse to this advertisement were opened October 31, 1907, and purchase thereunder deferred, pendinj^ the examinations of the machines by the Board's experts. These tests were commenced immediately and continued until March 23, 1908, when the Board decided not to pur- chase at that time. (Pending this decision the City Coun- cil again in the 1908 budget appropriated $100,000 for the purchase of machines.) Serious objection to the me- chanical construction of the machines was assigned aa the reason for rejecting the bids. January 15, 1909, the Board again advertised for bids to be opened September 15th of that year. It was pro- posed to purchase machines to such an amount, not to ex- ceed $100,000, as the Board might determine. In re- sponse to this call four machines were offered in compe- tition, the names of the machines and the prices bid being as follows : Empire, $925, with primary attachment, $50 additional. Willix, $1,050. Triumph, $900, with instruction model, $925. AVinslow, $900. After these machines had been tested by experts the Board rejected all the bids and in so doing rendered a decision which was in part as follows : As in the previous investigation, the machines were thoroughly inspected and tested by three mechanical ex- perts at the instance of the Board. Their detailed re- 12 ports show that while substantial improvements have been made within the past year, yet there are still re- maining such defects in the mechanical arrangements of all the machines submitted as to preclude their practical use in this city. This Board is of the opinion that among the many nec- essary essentials required by the specifications none is of greater importance than that which requires a ma- chine to record the vote in strict compliance with the law, and absolutely prevent a person voting for more candi- dates than there are officers to be elected. A machine which can be so manipulated as to permit a voter to vote for more candidates than the law permits is fatally defective and its use would only be productive of protest and costly litigation. Each machine is found to be seriously defective and their purchase at this time impracticable; therefore, all bids will be rejected. The defect in each machine will be shown to the rep- resentative of that machine. This Board in response to an overwhelming vote on the proposition has faithfully tried to find a satisfactory voting machine. Our etforts so far have been in vain. We do not know when we will advertise again for bids, if at all, but we desire to purchase voting machines as soon as one that is satisfactory is presented. Therefore, we desire to announce that if any time after the first day of December, 1909, any one believes that he or they have a voting machine that will answer our pur- poses, we invite you to bring it to the Board and the same will be inspected. It seems to us that this will be a proper time again to give all the suggestions we are able to in reference to the kind of a machine that the Board wants to buy. ^ First. The machine must allow voting in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. Second. The machine must prevent any voting not in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. Third. It must be accurate, positive and incapable of fraudulent manipulation. Fourth. We want as small a machine as is practicable. Fifth. We want as light a machine as practicable. Sixth. And, taking all the foregoing into considera- tion, we want as cheap a machine as possible. 13 Seventh. When such a machine is presented to us a purchase will be made. ' In response to the foregoing invitation, during the spring and summer of 1910 three machines were sub- mitted and were examined by mechanical experts em- ployed by the Board. None of these machines received the unqualified endorsement of the experts. Although many improvements had been effected in the interim, it was the opinion of these men that it was not then advisable to purchase a large number of machines and that improvements were to be looked for in the fu- ture. The machines on which the mechanical detail had been more satisfactorily worked out were said to be large, heavy, difficult to handle and store and not easily set up and adjusted — in this connection affording oppor- tunities for careless or dishonest officials to nullify the operation of the machine. Early in the present year the new Board of Election Commissioners that came into office last December took up for consideration the subject of the purchase of vot- ing machines. On April 27th, as stated at the outset of this report, the Board decided to advertise for bids for 1,200 voting machines, the bids to be opened on May 22nd. Prior specifications had limited the bids for ma- chines to the number that could be secured for $100,000. There are numerous objections to the purchase on one order of so large a number of voting machines as 1,200. According to the experts who have made examinations heretofore for the Board of Election Commissioners, the voting machine is still in somewhat of an experimental state and substantial improvements may be looked for in the future. The Chicago situation presents unusual obstacles to the successful use of voting machines. Among these are the long ballot made necessary by the large number of offices to be filled at some elections ; the group voting for cer- tain offices, such as judges and county commissioners; and the system of cumulative voting for members of the lower House of the General Assembly, which is peculiar to Illinois. The fact that women may vote for Univer- sity Trustees but not for other officers requires a re- strictive device that introduces additional complications. The long ballot necessitates the use, in Chicago, of a larger and heavier machine than is required in other cities that have adopted voting machines. The size and 14 weight of the machine causes it to present problems of transportation, of storing and of setting up in the voting booth. There are special complexities due to the use of the voting machine at a primary election at which nom- inations are to be made for a large number of offices. Aside from the mechanical operation of the machine itself there are other elements of uncertainty connected with the use of voting machines than for experimentation and caution. It cannot be told until the actual trial is made how rapidly the voting can be done by machine, even assuming the mechanism to operate perfectly so far as all except the human element is concerned. This Bu- reau learns that in Minneapolis, where voting machines are in use, the voting has been so much slower than an- ticipated that it has been found necessary to install two machines to a precinct of 600 voters, instead of one. The Illinois law contemplated a single machine to a precinct of 600 voters. Then there are problems of transporta- tion and storage and the proper setting of the machines in the booths. Three of those machines will make a truckload and it will require at least three men to handle one. Skilled persons will be required to set them up when taken from the storage room to the voting booth. It would seem that the Board of Election Commissioners ought to acquire experience in handling 50 or 100 ma- chines before undertaking the burden of managing 1,200. This experience, moreover, should be in connection with the most trying elections such as the primary of April, 1912, and the election of the following November, when the long ballot must be voted. The voting machine law contemplates that following the adoption of machines the number of voters to a pre- cinct will be doubled and the number of precincts thus reduced by half. The statute directs the rearrangement of precincts so that each precinct shall contain approxi- mately 600 voters. On the basis of the present registra- tion, this would give only 705 precincts. As there is supposed to be but one machine to a precinct with pos- sibly an extra machine to a ward for emergency pur- poses, it is hard to see why more than 750 machines at the outside should be needed if the requirements of the statute are to be followed. One of the chief arguments in favor of voting machines is that they will bring about a substantial decrease in the cost of holding elections. 15 Unless this contemplated reduction in the number of precincts is made, the desired saving will not be effected. The financial aspect of this affair also calls for serious consideration. The Board of Election Commissioners, with respect to finances, occupies a somewhat anomalous position. Under the law some of its expenses must be paid by the County of Cook, others by the City of Chi- cago. The Board claims, and probably rightly, so far as ordinary expenses are concerned, that it has the power to incur liabilities, for the payment of which provision must be made by the City or County, as the case may be. The Board appears to assume, and perhaps rightly, that this power to incur indebtedness in the name of the City, without the consent of its officers, is broad enough to include the purchase of voting machines to the amount of $1,000,000 or more. The manner in which this obligation is to be provided for is not clear. The financial officers of the City have been in no way consulted in the matter, and it evidently is the intention of tlie Election Commissioners to issue ii;^ payment evidences of indebtedness in some form which shall be payable by the City. Whatever power there is to do so (except as to warrants issued by the County Judge under the City Election Law) is to be found in Section 5 of Voting Machine Law, which is as follows: 'The local authorities, on the adoption and lease or purchase of a voting machine or voting machines, may provide for the payment therefor in such manner as may be deemed for the best interest of the city, village, in- corporated town or county. They may for that purpose make leases, issue bonds, certificates of indebtedness or other obligations, which shall be a charge on the city, village, incorporated town or county. S\ich bonds, cer- tificates or other obligations may be issued with or with- out interest, payable at such times or time as the au- thorities may determine, but shall not be issued or sold at less than par.' So far as investigators for this Bureau have been able to learn there are in the records of the office of the Elec- tion Commissioners no written legal opinions covering this point, nor has it been passed upon by the courts. For the purpose of this discussion, however, the legal power of the Board of Election Commissioners to issue without conference with the city authorities evidences of indebtedness which the city must pay, is a matter of less 16 moment than the wisdom of the course. With reference to ordinary expenditures the Board, while holding that it is not bound in law to request appropriations from the City Council, does go through the form of stating its wants to that body and of having appropriations made for it, as is done for other departments of the city gov- ernments. This is the course which the Board ought to pursue. Any other procedure would tend to demoralize the finances of the city. The power conferred by law upon the Election Commissioners to compel the city to pay its expenses was not intended for arbitrary or wlaim- sical use, but only as a safeguard to prevent a contu- macious city government from interfering with the elec- tion processes by wantonly refusing to make appropria- tions for the necessary expenses thereof. If this is the correct view with respect to ordinary ex- penditures involving comparatively small amounts, the same reasoning, of course, would apply with still greater force to the proposition to incur obligations of large amounts for extraordinary purposes, such as the pur- chase of voting machines. Public opinion should demand that the Board of Election Commissioners confer with the financial officers of the city prior to the incurring of obligations of $1,000,000 or even for $100,000, the amount which the prior Board planned to spend for voting ma- chines. The prior Board did, as a matter of fact, twice secure Council appropriations for $100,000 for the pur- chase of voting machines, in advance of the opening of bids, which appropriations were not drawn upon because the machines were not actually purchased. Action by the City Council in advance, whether necessary in law or not, is essential from the viewpoint of public economy. Evidences of indebtedness issued by the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners, without previous council approval, would occupy such a novel status that they would of necessity have to carry a higher rate of interest to enable them to sell at par. The city can borrow for about four per cent. Obligations of the Board of Election Commis- sioners presumably would carry a rate at least one per cent, higher, and one per cent, on $1,000,000 amounts to $10,000 a year, a sum worth saving. Not only should the financial officers of the city be consulted in advance of the issuances of such evidences of indebtedness, but they ought to be consulted in advance of the advertise- ment for bids. For certainty as to the plans for payment 17 might be a factor with bidders in fixing the prices quoted ; the more definite and clear the arrangement for prompt payment the lower the price. In reply to what has been stated herein it may be said that the JBoard of Election Commissioners, while it has called for bids on 1,200 machines, might not decide to purchase that number. It has the right under the speci- fications to take a smaller number than 1,200, or to re- ject all the bids. The requirement that every bidder must submit with his bid a certified check for 5 per cent. of the amount of the bid in all probability means a check for approximately $50,000. This sum might be so large _,as to deter some bidders. If it be not the plan to purchase * 1,200 machines, the amount of the deposit should be less. The requirement as to the delivery of the ma- chines, in case an order for 1,200 is placed, would also seem to be so severe that strict compliance with the speci- fications in this respect would be out of the question for most bidders, if not all. The main conclusions reached as the result of this in- quiry may be summarized as follows : 1st. The number of voting machines to be purchased in the near future should be limited to one hundred at the most; and the purchase of a greater number of ma- chines should be postponed until after trial at the pri- maries of April, 1912, and at the election of November, 1912, of such limited number of machines. 2nd. The Board of Election Commissioners should seek to secure the co-operation of the financial authori- ties of the city in advance of action looking to the pur- chase of voting machines, whatever the amount involved. In offering these suggestions, the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency wishes to be understood as in nowise hostile to the adoption of voting machines. It merely urges the policy of experimentation and caution which it believes is demanded by ordinary business prudence, in view of the difficulties and uncertainties of the situa- tion, which are greater for Chicago than for any other city in the land." Upon presenting these communications to the Board, Com- missioner Czarnecki moved that the protests be taken up for consideration and disposed of at the following meetings of the Board. His motions received no second. Commissioner Taylor moved that these communications be placed on file and his motion was carried by the votes of Commissioners 18 Taylor and Kellermann; Commissioner Czarnecki voting ''nay." None of these protests received further considera- tion of any kind. Commissioner Czarnecki thereupon moved that the bids be not opened until Thursday and that notice be given the com- panies of a two months ' extension of time for filing bids. Com- missioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. On mo- tion of Commissioner Taylor the meeting adjourned. Commissioner Czarnecki further moved that "this Board now resolve, in view of Section 6 [of the specifications] which authorized the Board to purchase any number of the full num- ber of machines that are purchased be the first installment of one-tenth of the 1,200 and that we do not purchase any more until that one-tenth is tested and tried out at the primaries of 1912." Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second and the opening of bids was proceeded with. After the opening of bids, three experts were selected by the Board of Election Commissioners to examine voting ma- chines submitted. These experts later made their report dated June 20th, 1911. It is a report on "the actual and rela- tive merits of certain voting machines which the Board of Election Commissioners have received proposals for." The relative and qualified character of the recommendations made by tlie experts as well as the general character of their re- port may be seen from the following extracts from the report on the Empire voting machine : "Because of the absence of the party-lever which in other machines operates each of the individual keys of that party, split voting must be done by pulling down individually the keys wliich represent the candidates to be voted for, and this on a 70-key board will scarcely be done within one minute 's time permitted to each voter in the voting booth. It also makes it necessary to add the ballot cast on the party-key to these on the individual key. The Empire has no provision to restrict the number of inspections or the number of times which the judges of election may have access to the counters." The experts report possibilities of fraud on the Empire ma- chine as: "Possibility of fraud by judge, wrong setting of counters. Fraud by custodian; same. Provision for three inspections; none." The experts ' report further states : "Provision for a prescribed and limited number of inspections of counters by election judges before and after the hours of voting, your experts consider highly desirable. Provision for limiting the number of inspec- tions by judges is made in the International machine and the Winslow machine, but is not provided in the Triumph or the Empire." Concluding their report, the experts say: "Taking the machines as submitted and allowing for such changes as manufacturers would doubtless be glad to make if requested, your commission gives them the following relative rating for general adaptability to your purpose." Having called the attention of the Board of Election Com- missioners to the various defects mentioned, the experts then find that the Empire voting machine is the best of the ma- chines submitted for their investigation. It was upon this recommendation that both the subsequent purchase of voting machines by the Board of Election Com- missioners of the City of Chicago and the opposition thereto by Commissioner Czarnecki was largely predicated. The meeting of the Board on June 30th, 1911, Commissioner Czarnecki moved, in view of the silence of the experts' report concerning the adaptability of the Empire machine to group voting, "that the adaptability of the machine in that regard be tested before proceeding further in the voting machine matter." Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. Commissioner Taylor observed that since the report was silent upon group-voting device, they "had found no objec- tion thereto." Commissioner Taylor therefore moved "that this Board do at once proceed to arrange for the purchase of 1,000 voting machines." Commissioner Czarnecki thereupon renewed his motion to limit the first purchase of voting machines to 120. Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. Commissioner Czarnecki moved that the attorney for the Board be required to furnish an opinion with reference to financing the purchase of voting machines. Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. The attorney for the Board then stated that he furnished an opinion to the court and that it would be delivered to the Board in due time. 20 Commissioner Czarnecki then renewed Ms motion that the Board of Election Commissioners confer with "the city offi- cials in charge of Chicago's finances, namely, the Mayor, City Treasurer, City Comptroller, Chairman of the Finance Com- mittee, and the Corporation Counsel, as to the method of financing the purchase of voting machines before any action is taken definitely by this Board." Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. Commissioner Czarnecki moved: ' ' I move that the Empire Voting Machine Company be ordered to produce before this Board a machine which will have the objections of weight, cumbersomeness, lack of restriction of inspections, the inability of the voter casting a straight party vote to see any indications as to the names of the candidates he votes for or against, of the absence of the party-lever, the absence of any printed record of the counters before and after the voting takes place, the absence of the grand total of both straight and individual vote at the close of an election, and other im- perfections cured and corrected before the question of passing upon its merits or awarding the contract to that company is resolved upon." Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. Commissioner Czarnecki moved for "the public inspection of all voting machines provided for in Section 18 of the specifications, at which the bidder will be required to have present a person competent to demonstrate in every particular the operation of the ma- chine offered in bid." Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. Commissioner Czarnecki moved "that before the purchase of 1,000 voting machines in- volving large expenditure to be proceeded with, the ques- tion of such purchase be submitted to the people." Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. Commissioner Taylor's motion to proceed with the pur- chase of 1,000 voting machines was then seconded by Com- missioner Kellermann and carried by the votes of Commis- sioners Kellermann and Taylor; Commissioner Czarnecki voting "nay." Protests against the award of the experts and the making of the contract with the Empire Company and a demand for the return of checks were then received from Winslow Voting Machine Company, the Triumph Voting Machine Company and the International Voting Machine Company. 21 Mr. Hall, of the International Voting Machine Company, also called attention to the fact that "all drawings, instruc- tions, data and information to the Board, in sealed packages, were returned unopened with the seals unbroken to the com- pany. ' ' Mr. Winslow, of the Winslow Voting Machine Company, stated that "his packages of drawings, plans, information, printed data, had not been opened from the time he turned it over to the Board of Election Commissioners, and that the seal thereon was unbroken, and that he protested against such ignoring of the specifications." Dr. Taylor suggested that if the companies desired to pre- sent a protest they do so in writing. Commissioner Czarnecki submitted written protests from the Triumph Voting Machine Company, the International Voting Machine Company, and the Winslow Voting Machine Company. Commissioner Taylor thereupon moved that these protests be placed on file. Commissioner Czarnecki moved "that the Board rescind its action with reference to notifying the Empire Voting Machine Company that the Board is ready to enter into a contract" and that "the three companies complaining and protesting have an opportunity to reply to the experts' report; and that the entire subject may be reopened and begun anew." Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. Conmiissioner Taylor moved that the protests be placed on file, which motion was seconded by Commissioner Kellermann and passed by a vote of two to one ; Commissioner Czarnecki voting "nay." Other motions were then submitted by Commissioner Czar- necki, providing for a final test of the Empire voting ma- chine before acceptance, and requiring a deposit of $25,000 to guarantee the production of a sample machine with 9-party columns, 70 keys, by the Empire Company by October 23d, 1911. Commissioner Czarnecki 's motions received no second. Mr. Winslow, of the Winslow Voting Machine Company, then addressed the commission and asked Commissioner Kel- lermann : "Chairman Kellermann, do you know of any public examinations held under Section 18 of the specifica- tions?" To which question Chairman Kellermann answered: "I know of none." Mr. Hall, of the International Voting Machine Company, •IS protested against the failure to have a public examination as provided by_ Section 18. He characterized the report of the experts as libelous and unfair and declared that the matter would be carried to the courts by his company. At the meeting of July 21st, 1911, Commissioner Czarnecki submitted and read the following communication from the experts appointed by Judge Owens: "Honorable John E. Owens, Judge of the County Court, County Building, Chicago, Illinois. Sie: Your commission of experts which formerly inspected and reported on the four voting machines for which the Board of Election Commissioners received bids, having since examined a 70-key, 9-party machine built by the Empire Voting Machine Company, and finds as follows : The 70-key, 9-party machine differs from the 50-key, 7-party machine in the following particulars : The 70-key, 9-party machines are provided with a re- leasing lever attachment which must be thrown before it is possible to operate the individual candidate keys. The 50-key, 7-party Empire voting machine formerly examined did not have this releasing lever attachment, and we are told that the 70-key, 9-party machine which the Empire Voting Machine Company proposes to fur- nish will not have the attachment, which attachment your commission considers undesirable. In the 70-key, 9-party machine, provision for inde- pendent voting by written ballots on the paper roll is identical with the arrangement on the 50-key, 7-party machines, except that in the 70-key, 9-party machines the slots in the casing, through which the voter obtains ac-. cess to the paper roll are one-half inch shorter than they are in the 50-key, 7-party machines; also the shaft on which the roll of paper is carried, is provided with a re- lease attachment so that when the machine is used for exhibition the roll may be disconnected. Your commission recommends that slots of ample length for independent voting be provided and that the releasing attachment on the shaft which carries the paper roll be omitted, thus making the design of the 70-key, 9-party machine conform in this respect to the design of the 50-key, 7-party machine formerly examined. Your commission finds that the mechanical principles 23 of the Empire voting machine are applicable to a ma- chine of 70 keys, or 100 keys, or of double that number. Your commission did not jiave facilities for weighing the machine and therefore is unable to state of its own knowledge what the weight actually is. Respectfully submitted, W. L. Abbott, Paul M. Chamberlain, William Wooley." In view of the defects found and qualified approval given to the Empire machine in this report, Commissioner Czar- necki moved that in view of defects in the 9-party, 70-key sam- ple voting machine, namely, the releasing lever attachment, which the experts declared to be undesirable; and the slots for independent voting, which the experts considered too small; and in view of the fact that the Empire Voting Ma- chine Company still had more than two months in which to furnish a sample voting machine in all respects the same as the machines to be purchased by the City of Chicago, the Board of Election Commissioners defer further action until such sample voting machine was actually submitted to the Board of Election Commissioners. Commissioner Czarnecki's motion received no second. Commissioner Taylor thereupon offered a resolution de- claring "any two members of this Board, together with the Chief Clerk of this Board, are hereby authorized and in- structed to execute and deliver a written contract" to the Empire Voting Machine Company for the purchase of 1,000 voting machines at the aggregate price of $942,500. A copy of the contract with the Empire Voting Machine Company was attached to this resolution, copies of which were then furnished to the commissioners and the contract read aloud by the attorney for the Board. Commissioner Czarnecki then stated that this was the first time he had seen the contract, and asked for time to read and consider it with a view to offering amendments such as a penalizing clause and other matters which were missing from the contract as dra"v\Ti. Commissioner Taylor objected to the delay. T]!ommissioner Kellermann then put Commissioner Tay- lor's motion for the approval of the contract, which was car- ried by a vote of two to one ; Commissioner Czarnecki voting "nay." The above matters taken from the minutes of the proceed- 24 ings of the Board of Election Commissioners, disclose the circumstances surrounding the investigations and purchase of voting machines by the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, so far as they appear in its official record. They justify the statement made at the beginning of this report that the opposition displayed in the meetings of the Board of Election Commissioners by Conmiissioner Czarnecki had nothing whatever to do with the merits of vot- ing machines. A reading of the communication of the Bureau of Public Efficiency; of the newspaper comments, some of which were introduced into the records of this investigation, and of the protests filed by the voting machine companies with the Board of Election Commissioners ; also shows that tlie opposition to the voting machine investigation and purchase did not arise from any opposition to the use of voting machines at Chicago elections or the purchase of voting machines by the City of Chicago, but rested upon substantial grounds of objection to the methods adopted by the Chicago Board of Election Com- missioners in regard to the purchase of Empire voting ma- chines. The unfavorable impression as to the course adopted in the purchase of Empire voting machines created by an exam- ination of the minutes of the Board of Election Commis- sioners, was in no way changed or modified, but was much strengthened by the testimony received at the hearing before the legislative committee. The testimony of the State Board of Voting Machine Examiners, by members of the former Board of Election Commissioners, by members of the present Board of Election Commissioners and the other testimony offered concferning the purchase and use of voting machines in the City of Chicago was decidedly adverse and strongly discredited the course followed by the Board of Election Com- missioners. It is true that the two members of the State Commission of Voting Machine Examiners testified that they had certified that the Empire machine "complied with the state law." But this certificate had been given by the State Board to every voting machine submitted to it, except one, an incomplete ma- chine, and was of no value in determining the practical ques- tions presented to the Chicago Board of Election Commis- sioners when they came to consider the purchase of voting ma- chines for use in the City of Chicago. Moreover, both mem- bers of the State Board of Voting Machine Examiners also testified at the hearing before the committee that the Em- 25 pire voting machine was subject to fraudulent manipulation by the custodian and by the judges of election, and one of them, Morris Emerson, stated that he thought voting ma- chines impracticable "under the present primary law." The investigations made by the former Board of Election Commissioners had led uniformly to the same conclusions by the Board. The reports made by the experts employed by the former Board had been unfavorable to voting ma- chines and had been accompanied by recommendations that they be not purchased by the City of Chicago. The result of all the investigations made had been rejection by the former Board of Election Commissioners of all machines submitted. To the same unfavorable effect as the reports of the experts employed in previous investigations, was the testimony of the experts employed by the legislative committee, Messrs. Clarence E. Depuy, connected with the Lewis Institute, and in charge of the department of machine design; George O. Olson, president of the Fort Dearborn Manufacturing Com- pany, and O. A. Leutweiler, teacher at the University of Illi- nois, in the department of mechanical engineering. All of these experts had been employed by the former Board of Chicago Election Commissioners and had previously examined the machines submitted to the present Board. They had also made thorough examination of the machine furnished to the legislative committee by the Chicago Board of Elec- tion Commissioners, and their testimony is, in part, a re- sume of that examination and of their findings therein. Their examination of the voting machine and their testimony on tne hearing showed that the Empire voting machine is not only unsuited to meet election conditions in the City of Chicago, but is subject to various forms of fraudulent manipulation by the custodian, by the judges of election, and by the voters using the machine. An Empire voting machine was present in the room in which the hearings were conducted and upon this machine these experts undertook to demonstrate the frauds to which they had discovered the Empire voting machine was sus- ceptible. By the use of an "angle steel," that is, a thin piece of steel bent at an angle, placed in the slide for independent voting, and which remained undetected, despite the most searching examination by members of the committee who had been notified in advance that the machine had been tam- pered with, the operation of the slide and its use by the voter were prevented. It was shoAvn that judges of election, by inspection of the 26 counters before and after a voter had cast his vote could see how the voter had voted, destroying the secrecy of the bal- lot ; and that by repeated inspection of the counters the judges could tell how the election was going in any precinct. In this connection, it must be remembered that one of the defects in the Empire voting machine pointed out by Judge Owens' commission of experts was "unlimited inspection by judges" and that the report recommended that this defect be remedied. It was shown that the custodian, when setting up the ma- chine for use at elections, could set the counters of a candi- date for any office a number of votes ahead and the counters of his opponents a similar number behind, and by use of paper "zeros" pasted over the figures on the counter-wheels prevent discovery of the fraud by the election judges and that the mere operation of the machine in the election would des- troy all evidence of the fraud. It was shown that by a wire clip, or a rubber band, the operation of the voting keys could be interfered with or pre- vented, so as to prevent the recording of votes for the candi- date whose voting key had been tampered with. In short, the examination made by the experts employed by the legislative committee showed the Empire machine to be so susceptible to fraudulent manipulation, especially by the custodian, that one of them. Prof. 0. A. Leutweiler, tes- tified (printed abstract page 390) that, if custodian, he could falsify any election. Moreover, regardless of its special defects and great sus- ceptibility to fraudulent manipulation, the experts employed by the committee agreed that the Empire voting machine is not of a type adapted to meet Chicago election conditions. The great number of candidates at primary election; the re- strictions on women voters; the cumulative voting system, peculiar to Illinois ; present difficulties all but insuperable to this type of voting machine. One of the experts went so far as to say that any voting machine which requires the voter to monopolize the machine during the casting of his ballot cannot meet Chicago election conditions because the average voter will take too long a time to vote. Our Supreme Court has already decided in the case of People, ex rel Hull, vs. Taylor, et al, 257 Ills, page 192, in an opinion handed down December 17, 1912, that the average voter cannot vote upon the Empire voting machine in a min- ute. This was clearly shown, also, by the experimental voting at the hearing of the committee. 27 Many of the defects pointed out in the testimony of the experts, employed by the committee, have, for the sake of brevity, not been described, but can be found by reference to the abstract of testimony accompanving this report, at pages 309 to 393. Opposition to the voting machine proceedings of the Chi- cago Board of Election Commissioners was, therefore, not only practically the unanimous opposition of all who had given the voting machine and Chicago election conditions adequate or serious consideration, but it was an opposition thoroughly fortified with facts. This was the situation in the voting machine matter, when the question of entering into a contract with the Empire Vot- ing Machine Company for the purchase of 1,000 voting ma- chines came before the Chicago Board of Election Commis- sioners for consideration. As before stated, the contract was submitted to the Chi- cago Board of Election Commissioners at its meeting of July 21st, 1911, and Commissioner Taylor at once moved for its adoption and asked for authority to execute it. It will be remembered that the last report of the Election Commis- sioners' experts had called attention to a number of defects and suggested certain changes in the Empire voting machine. In view of this there was excellent reason for the following motion made by Commissioner Czarnecki at the meeting at which the contract was. submitted : "Commissioner Czarnecki: Let's get this thing clear; does this resolution adopt and approve this contract? Commissioner Taylor: Yes, and I want the authority of the majority of the Board to execute this contract. Commissioner Czarnecki: Is it out of order to study over this contract with the view to offering amendment to it! This is the first time I have seen the contract. There are things that I might submit that would meet with your approval. There is a penalizing clause, and there are other things that are missing. Surely, gentle- men, you will give me sufficient time for that. I ask it and I move it." This motion of Commissioner Czarnecki received no second and he was not afforded time to consider the contract or to offer amendments. In face of this strong opposition to the purchase of voting machines, inside and outside of the commission, the majority members of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners proceeded to make a contract with the Empire Voting Ma- 28 chine Company for the purchase of 1,000 voting machines at a cost of $942,500. Contrast this action with that of the former Board of Election Commissioners in regard to the financial side of the voting machine question. That Board had conferred in advance with the city authorities with re- gard to the financing of their contemplated purchase of vot- ing machines, if a suitable machine should be found, and had asked for an appropriation of $100,000 to cover any initial purchase that might be made. As all machines were rejected, this appropriation was never used. This action of the former Board had been brought espec- ially to the attention of the present Board of Election Com- missioners and among the suggestions offered by those who criticized the course of the commission in regard to the pur- chase of voting machines — a suggestion strongly urged in the communication of the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency and also, in the form of a. motion, by Commissioner Czarnecki — was that the initial purchase of voting machines should be limited to 100 or 120 instead of the 1,000 called for by the proposed contract. Not only this, but the specifications sent out to bidders by the commission itself provided that the Board of Election Commissioners might, if it desired, purchase a smaller num- ber of machines than 1,200, the number of machines men- tioned in the specifications. No attention was paid to these suggestions by the Board of Election Commissioners and the motion of Commissioner Czarnecki, like its predecessors, received no second. The further suggestion that the Board of Election Com- missioners confer with the city authorities regarding the financing of the voting machine purchase, also offered by the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency and presented in the form of a motion by Commissioner Czarnecki, met the same fate and the contract for the purchase of 1,000 Empire voting machines was executed by the Chicago Board of Election Com- missioners and the Empire Voting Machine Company and the delivery of voting machines by the company to the City of Chicago was begun. In the meantime, other matters, which became the subject of investigation by the legislative committee, had come to the knowledge of some of the members of the Illinois Gen- eral Assembly. These matters related to the methods em- ployed by the agent of the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany in securing the contract for the purchase of Empire voting machines by the City of Chicago. It appeared that 29 this agent, a man named H. W. Barr, had also acted as agent for the Empire Company in its negotiations with the authori- ties of Wapello County, Iowa, for the purchase of voting machines by that county. On Decoration Day, 1913, Hon. Thomas A. Boyer, a member of the Illinois General Assembly, while visiting relatives at Washington, Iowa, met Hon. L. L. Duke, former city attorney of Ottumwa, Iowa, which is sit- uated in Wapello County. Upon learning that Mr. Boyer was a member of the Illinois General Assembly, Mr. Duke inquired of him whether he knew Mr. Butts, Chairman of this legislative committee, who, a short time previously had introduced House Joint Resolution 23 under which this com- mittee has conducted its investigations. Mr. Boyer told Mr. Duke that he knew Mr. Butts very well, whereupon Mr. Duke said, "I am interested in this investigation that I hear is started." "I am attorney for three Ottumwa men, who have a claim for $1,500 against the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany, and I am trying to collect it." "I believe I can collect it, maybe, through a little publicity." Thereupon Mr. Duke handed to Mr. Boyer the statement which was subsequently produced before this committee and became a part of the rec- ord of its proceedings and known as "the Duke statement." The Duke statement is a typewritten paper, unsigned, but purporting by its text to be the statement of "the three Ot- tumwa men" for whom Mr. Duke was attorney; namely, Thomas W. Pickler, former Mayor of Ottumwa; John W. Gray, former chief of police of Ottumwa; and Newton L. Arrison, former city clerk of Ottumwa. The Duke statement thus received by Mr. Boyer, Mr. Boyer took with him to Springfield when the Illinois General As- sembly resumed its sessions and there made it known to Rep- resentative David E. Shanahan, and subsequently gave it to Mr. Butts, chairman of the Legislative Committee, who turned it over to Mr. Charles S. Deneen after his appoint- ment as counsel for the committee. In view of the contents of the Duke statement, the Legis- lative Committee made every possible effort to secure the attendance of Messrs. Pickler, Gray and Arrison as wit- nesses at the hearings of the committee. Notwithstanding these efforts, however, in which the chairman of the commit- tee and its counsel went so far as to offer in behalf of the committee to take up the Empire Company contract with these persons and to reimburse them for their expense in coming to Chicago to testify before the Committee, their at- tendance at the Chicago hearings could not be secured. 30 After the failure of these efforts, the Duke statement was offered in evidence by counsel for the committee. Its intro- duction was objected to by Messrs. Willard M. McEwen, ap- pearing for Hon. John E. Owens, and Charles H. Mitchell, appearing for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. The committee sustained their objection to its introduction at the time, but reserved for future consideration the question of its possible introduction at a later time. The securing of the testimony of Messrs. Pickler, Gray and Arrison was deemed of such importance by the commit- tee, that in a further effort to secure it, a sub-committee was appointed to visit Ottumwa, Iowa, and induce them to testify there if possible. The sub-committee visited Ottumwa on Aug- ust 11th, 1913, but these witnesses refused to testify before it, and the sub-committee so reported to the legislative com- mittee on August 13th, 1913. Thereupon counsel for. the committee again offered the Duke statement in evidence and its admission was again ob- jected to by Messrs. McEwen and Mitchell and also by Mr. Frank Walker who for the first time appeared before the committee as "personal attorney for Andrew M. Lawrence." After taking the matter under advisement, the committee announced that for the present the objections to the intro- duction of the Duke statement were sustained, "With the right, however, to permit the matter to go into evidence at any time in the future." Upon the convening of the committee for its meeting of August 14th, 1913, Mr. Frank Walker, personal attorney for Andrew M. Lawrence, again appeared before the commit- tee and asked permission to bring a matter to the atten- tion of the committee. Permission being given, Mr. Walker produced an affidavit made by Edward E. Marriott, a re- porter for the Chicago Examiner, which he submitted for consideration by the committee in connection with its con- sideration of the possible future admission of the Duke state- ment. The committee received the affidavit, but for the pres- ent it was not read or introduced in evidence. At the session of the committee of August 15th, 1913, Mr. S. E. Thomason appeared before the committee and asked permission to make a statement. Permission being granted, Mr. Thomason, who appeared as representative of Mr. James Keeley, manager of the Chicago Tribune, stated that it had been brought to the knowledge of Mr. Keeley that the com- mittee had under consideration the question of the admis- sibility of the Duke statement and the Marriott affidavit and 31 that in behalf of the Chicago Tribune he desired to request that the committee admit both and that both be made the subject of the fullest inquiry. Mr. Walker thereupon joined in the request. Mr. McEwen, while insisting upon his ob- jection to the legal admissibility of the document, stated that ''If these gentlemen want to try out another issue that is their business, not mine, and I will endeavor to remain quiet while they do it." Mr. Mitchell renewed his objection. The Marriott affidavit and the Duke statement were thereupon read into evidence, as follows : State op Illinois I CouxTY OF Cook ( I, Edward E. Marriott, of the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois, being duly sworn, on oath state: That I was in Ottumwa, Iowa, on August 8th, 9th, 11th, and 12th, 1913, and there had interviews with John W. Gray, Thomas H. Piekler, Newton L. Arrison, Lloyd L. Duke, Charles A. Walsh, Edwin G. Moon and others, in relation to a statement made by said Duke and given, by him, to H. A. Boyer, of Illinois, and offered in evidence before the Butts Legislative Investigation Committee, in Chicago. Said John W. Gray, who was formerly Chief of Police of Ottumwa, Iowa, told me that one day in the winter of 1911- 12 H. W. Barr, agent for the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany, was at the Ballingall Hotel in Ottumwa, Iowa, and had told him said Gray, Thomas H. Piekler, former Mayor of Ottumwa, and Newton L. Arrison, former City Clerk, the real facts connected with said voting machine contract in Chicago, purporting to be given in said statement given by Duke to Boyer. Gray said to me: "Barr was in the Ballingall Hotel, and Piekler, Arri- son and I were with him, trying to get him to pay us money which was due from him to us on a contract for services which we had rendered in introducing Barr to Charles A. Walsh, of Ottumwa, and getting Walsh to help the Empire Company in Chicago. Barr told us that he had paid big money to get the contract but that the big mistake he had made was not to give fifty thousand dollars to Jim Keeley, publisher of the Tribune. Barr said, 'Jim Keeley demanded fifty thousand dollars, but we refused to pay him. If he had 32 got that there wouki not have been any of this trouble with the voting machine contract. The Tribune and the others papers had always been for voting machines and they would never have thought of fighting the con- tract if the Tribune had not started trouble when we refiised Keeley's demand for fifty thousand dollars.' Charles S. Deneen and other big politicians are trying hard to get Pickler, Arrison and me to testify, so as to hurt Lawrence, politically, in Chicago. When Governor Deneen came here last Sunday night. Newt Arrison and I got word from him to be at the depot and we got there before the 11 :20 train from Omaha got in. ■ Deneen had been in Omaha and had seen Pickler, but he could not get Pickler to testify in the way he wanted so he wired us to meet him. Deneen tried every way to get me and Arrison to testify against A. M. Lawrence. He tried to get us to back up the statements made in the paper given by Duke to Boyer. Deneen said he understood we claimed a thousand dollars from Barr, but he offered to assume the thousand dollar contract made by the Empire Vot- ing Machine Company, and pay us that thousand dollars and another thousand dollars, too, as well as all our ex- penses. He told us, 'If you fellows will tell the whole story like it is in that Duke statement we will have enough to drive Andy Lawrence out of Chicago.' Deneen and Butts put up a thousand dollars in a Nat- ional bank for us, to induce us to do what he asked. My name is mentioned in the papers as being one of those referred to by Duke in the statement he gave to Boyer, but I tell you that I never went to Chicago on the voting machine contract and never saw Andrew M. Law- rence in my life. Lloyd L. Duke's statement is full of lies. He is a crooked lawyer and has betrayed the in- terests of Arrison, Pickler and myself, who were his clients. He ought to be disbarred and we will try to have him disbarred. He gave out this lying statement after he knew our legitimate business claim against Barr had been settled." In interviews which I had with said Newton L. Arrison at the Hotel Ballingall and the Hotel Laclede and elsewhere in Ottumwa, said Arrisan said to me: "I was the one of us three who went to Chicago in January, 1911, to see Charley Walsh and get him to help H. W. Barr on the voting machine contract, but it's a big lie for Duke to say, or imply, in his statement given 33 to Boyer, that I know anything about Andrew M. Law- rence getting a hundred thousand dollars or any other amount. I never saw Andrew M. Lawrence in Chicago, in 1911, when I went there to introduce Barr to Walsh, and I never spoke to A. M. Lawrence about the voting machine matter. I have not seen him at all for more than three years. I hate Andy Lawrence worse than poison and would like to send him to hell if I could do it without harming my friend Barr. If it wasn't for my friendship for Barr and my love of fair play, I could hardly resist the offers of big money that are made by Deneen and others to any of us fellows who will go to Chicago and back up the things put forth in that paper that Duke gave to Boyer. Big money is being offered us and all sorts of induce- ments. If you knew of the work done here in Ottumwa this last week, by George E. Brennan of the Roger Sulli- van crowd, to get us to go against Lawrence, you would go up in the air. No one should believe Duke's statement. He has shown himself in his true colors by giving out an un- signed, unsworn statement, telling about our claim, after it had been settled, though he was too cowardly to put our names in the statement. If there is any way of get- ting him disbarred, we will do it. He ought to be dis- barred. ' ' I had several interviews with former Judge Elwin G. Moon, counsel for H. W. Barr of the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany', and member of the law firm of Gilmore & Moon. These interviews were had in Gilmore & Moon's offices, on Main Street, Ottumwa, Iowa, on August 9th and 11th. Moon said to me: "Newton L. Arrison and J. W. Gray have each and severally told me the same story, to the effect that H. W. Barr, agent for the Empire Voting Machine Company, told them in his room, at the Hotel Ballingall, Ottumwa, one night in the winter of 1911-12, that it would cost him a big sum to get the Chicago voting machine contract for the Empire Company. H. W. Barr had told the same story to me and to my law partner, Merrill C. Gilmore, in our office in Ottumwa. Barr said to us, 'The mistake we made was when-w^e re- fused to give Jim Keeley, of the Tribune, the fifty tliou- 34 sand he asked and then we would not have had this fight against the Empire voting machine contract in Chicago. ' I have a thousand dollars in my possession, given me by the Empire Voting Machine Company, to be turned over to Pickler, Arrison and Gray, in payment for their services to Barr. Their claim against Barr is all set- tled, and Lloyd L. Duke's statement is all wrong. Charles S. Deneen was in Ottumwa last Sunday night making strenuous efforts to get Arrison and Gray to go to Chicago and back up statements made by Duke in re- gard to Lawrence and Barr in the voting machine con- tract. Deneen told Arrison and Gray that if they would testify in Chicago he, Deneen, would assume the one thousand dollar payment promised by the Empire Com- pany, and pay them lots of money besides. Deneen, Butts and the other politicians have fifteen thousand dollars to spend to get the testimony, and a few thousands more. . He also told them that, if they would back up Duke 's state- ment it would be all he needed to drive A. M. Lawrence out of Chicago." Charles A. Walsh, of Ottumwa, whose name is mentioned in the statement given by Duke to Boyer, said to me : "In December, J.911, I promised Arrison, Gray and Pickler that I would help them to get H. W. Barr intro- duced at the Chicago Election Commissioners' office, where he wished to apply for a voting machine contract. Arrison came from Ottumwa to Chicago, in January, 1911, and took me to the Grand Pacific Hotel where I met Barr. Afterwards I introduced Barr to Chief Clerk Stuart of the election board. Barr wanted me to intro- duce him to Andrew M. Lawrence and I asked Mr. Law- rence if he would meet Barr. Mr. Lawrence asked me, 'Who is Barr! ' I answered that he was a representative of one of the companies that manufacture voting ma- chines and was seeking to place an order in Chicago. Mr. Lawrence replied that he would not see any of the voting machine men or have anything to do with them. On two or three subsequent occasions, when Barr later asked me to approach A. M. Lawrence and arrange for an interview, Mr. Lawrence again positively and em- phatically refused to meet Barr. Barr and Lawrence were never together in my presence at any time, and to my knowledge, Barr never met Lawrence. This statement, given by Duke to Boyer, is part of a political plot and is full of lies. If any money was paid 35 by the Empire Company it was not to Lawrence. Barr told me that Anthony Czarnecki sent several messengers to him, Barr, at different times, saying that, if Czarnecki were taken care of in a money way, the fight against the Empire Company would be ended." (Signed) Edward E. Marriott. Subscribed and s\vorn to before me this 13th day of Aug- ust, 1913. (Signed) E. J. Bangs, (notarial seal) Notary Public. My commission expires January 18, 1914. The Duke Statement. "We have lived in Ottumwa for thirty-five years, fifty years, and fifty-five years, respectively. That we first became acquainted with H. W. Barr of the Empire Voting Machine Company about four or five years ago. That after this time an attempt was made to sell Wapello County voting machines and the deal would have been made had it not been for a protest on the part of the citizens of this city going in a delegation to the Board of Supervisors of Wapello County. About two years ago H. W. Barr of the Empire Vot- ing Machine Company stated that he believed that he could sell his voting machines to the City of Chicago, provided he could secure influence with the Hearst-Harri- son people and especially if he could secure the influence of Andy Lawrence. He said he was satisfied that unless he could get in contact with and acquainted with Law- rence and the Hearst people he could not make the deal. We informed him that we believed we knew how he could get acquainted, the deal might be accomplished through Charles Walsh, who at that time was connected with the Hearst people. Barr stated that in the event he was able to make a contract he would pay us fifteen hundred dollars. In January we selected one of our number and we and Barr agreed that it would perhaps be best for only one of us to go to Chicago. After the consultation with us in Ottumwa, H. W. Barr wired me from Chicago to come to Chicago the next day. I think it was on January 7th, on Tuesday or Wednesday, I went to Chicago. Barr met me at the Union Station 36 and we went to the Examiner office and I walked into the Examiner office while Barr went to the Grand Pacific Hotel. I went into the Examiner office for the purpose of getting Charles Walsh and after a short time Walsh and I went to the Grand Pacific Hotel. I then introduced H. W. Barr to Walsh. We stayed there all afternoon talking about the best method to proceed to get the ma- chine i^laced in the City of Chicago. Walsh said he would get Barr in connection with Andy Lawrence and other prominent men in the Hearst aggregation. Walsh took us to the Election Commissioners' office and introduced us. Before leaving Chicago, I asked Barr if I had accom- plished what he expected of me. Barr said yes, I had delivered the goods and done more than he had expected and that he was satisfied. It was in the following fall, sometime, that Barr came to Ottumwa to try to reopen the matter concerning the sale of machines to Wapello County. He said he would now tell us about how he managed to get the contract for the sale of the machines in Chi- cago. He said it had cost him a great deal more money than he had expected. He and Walsh had a number of meetings every day for several days and which finally resulted in a meeting with Andy Lawrence. Barr then set forth his proposition with regard to the sale of the machines. For some time, Barr stated, they could not get together or come to an understanding with Lawrence. Finally, Barr said, we made out a list of expenditures necessary in order to make the deal and placed it before Lawrence. It was a list of the amounts that would have to be paid to different parties for their influence to consummate the deal. Walsh was on the list for fourteen thousand dol- lars, and Lawrence for eighty-five thousand dollars, as I remember the amounts. The list was then revised by Lawrence. He came to Walsh's name and the fourteen thousand dollars and stated to Walsh that he wanted to know why Walsh was to have that amount of money, that Walsh could not deliver anything. Walsh then said, 'Put the fourteen thousand over in the Lawrence column.' When the list was finally completed, Lawrence was to have one hundred and five thousand dollars. Barr said that the deal had cost him something like two hun- dred thousand dollars to place the machine in Chicago. 37 Barr said he had already drawn out about one hundred and eighty thousand dollars from Chicago and that he had paid out more than that. He said he also had to fix up some matters with the Gray Wolves in order to keep them quiet. He said he was going to ask his com- pany to make a further appropriation of ten thousand dollars to take care of some additional claims. Further facts will be given later and each of the details with reference to exact dates and corroborating circum- stances will also be given. ' ' It appears from the testimony of J. P. Townsend, hotel manager of the Grand Pacific Hotel, Chicago, that the records of that hotel show that on January 11, 1911, Newton Arrison of Ottumwa had a room at that hotel which was charged to and paid for by Mr. H. W. Barr, whom the witness knew as agent for the Empire Voting Machine Company. It also appears from the testimony that Mr. Charles A. Walsh of Ottumwa, mentioned in the Duke statement, as connected with the Chicago Examiner, was a member of the political organization known as the Independence League, later the Independent Party, which was supported by the Chicago Examiner ; that Commissioner Howard S. Taylor had been a writer of articles for the Chicago Examiner before his appointment as election commissioner upon the recommen- dation of Mr. Andrew M. Lawrence and had also been nat- ional committeeman and later candidate for United States Senator of the Independent Party; that Charles H. Mitchell, attorney for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, was candidate for State's Attorney of the Independence League, the predecessor of the Independent Party, and had been intimately associated with Commissioner Howard S. Taylor, Mr. Charles A. Walsh and Mr. Andrew M. Lawrence ; and that Mr. William H. Stuart, chief clerk of the Board of Election Commissioners, had been employed by the Chicago Examiner before his appointment to that office. At the session of the committee of August 19th, 1913, Mr. James Keeley of the Chicago Tribune appeared and testified that he did not know Mr. H. W. Barr; that he had met him but once, in the office of the Chicago Tribune, and then, with- out knowing that it was Mr. Barr, or who Mr. Barr was; that this meeting was subsequent to the making of the Chi- cago voting machine contract ; and that he had never had any conversation with Mr. Barr regarding the payment of $50,000 or any other sum of money in connection with the Chicago voting machine contract as related in the Marriott affidavit. 38 At the same hearing, Mr. Oscar Hewitt, reporter for the Chicago Tribune, also testified that after the passage of the resolution for the making of the Chicago contract, Mr. Barr sought an introduction through him to Mr. Keeley. Mr. E. S. Beck, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, testified corroborating in all respects Mr. Keeley 's testimony with relation to his own interview with Mr. Barr. Mr. Charles Gotthart, reporter for the Chicago Tribune, testified that he had visited Ottumwa from August 15th to August 18th, 1913, and had interviewed various persons re- garding statements contained in the Marriott affidavit; that Mr. Gray had stated to him that he had never known there was such a man as Mr. Keeley until he saw the fact stated in the Marriott affidavit and that the Marriott affidavit was "a pack of lies;" that Mr. Arrison denied the statement at- tributed to him in the Marriott affidavit that big offers of money had been made to him, Pickler, and Gary to come to Chicago and back up the Duke statement, and stated that all he told Marriott was that Mr. Deneen and Mr. Butts had offered to take up the Empire Machine Company contract and to pay their expenses if they would come to Chicago to testify; that Gray told the witness that he had received his money from the Empire Voting Machine Company; and that Arrison told the witness he had not received his money, say- ing "no, it is over there for me. It is safe in Judge Moon's hands. ' ' Mr. George E. Brennan contradicted in every particular the matters relating to him contained in the Marriott affidavit and stated that he had never been in Ottumwa, Iowa. Communications enclosing copies of the Marriott affidavit were sent by the committee to Mr. Merrill C. Gillmore, Ot- tumwa, Iowa, and to Hon. E. C. Moon of Ottumwa, and they were invited to appear as witnesses before the committee in reference to the matters set forth in the Marriott affidavit, and a statement was received from Judge Moon contradicting seriatim the statements attributed to him in the Marriott affidavit. Telegrams were also sent to Mr. L. L. Duke, Mr. John W. Gray, Mr. Newton L. Arrison and to Mr. Thomas W. Pickler inviting them to appear and testify in regard to the Marriott affidavit. None of these persons appeared, but a letter was received from Mr. Pickler, addressed to Mr. Deneen and stating that "so far as I am concerned, you never intimated anything regarding paying us any money only for the con- tract and the telephone expense." 39 The chairman of the committee, Mr. Butts, also made a statement regarding the Marriott affidavit, which was read into the record as follows: "The statements in the affidavit tiled with the com- mittee by Edward E. Marriott are false in so far as they relate to Mr. Deneen and myself. The facts are, when it was learned that a written contract between the Em- pire Voting Machine Company and Messrs. Thomas H. Pickler, Newton L. Arrison, and John W. Gray had been executed for $1,000, it was determined that Mr. Deneen and myself should interview the witnesses and ascertain whether or not they would be willing to assign the writ- ten contract to the investigating committee for face value. I deemed it wise that the investigating committee pur- chase this contract in behalf of the State of Illinois so that suit might be instituted on it and in that way an opportunity secured to take depositions in other states in reference to the subject matter of the contract. Mr. Pickler favored an assignment of the contract. Messrs. Arrison and Gray desired to consult together and communicate with Mr. Pickler before giving their decision. Later, Mr. Pickler stated over the long distance telephone that the money had been paid and the contract was taken up at Ottumwa. Our negotiations terminated, therefore, necessarily. These are all the facts. No money was put in any national bank and no money was offered to witnesses save their expenses and the face value of the contract." Mr. R. D. Bemiss, a former agent for the Empire Voting Machine Company, was also called as a witness before the committee and testified in regard to the expense accounts of agents of that company, that at one time the company paid the agents a salary and in addition whatever amounts were paid for outside assistance by such agents; that these additional amounts for assistance were paid upon statements made by the agent to the company ; but that later this method was abandoned and the agent was paid his salary and a com- mission of $135 for each machine sold; that the management of the Empire Voting Machine Company thought "that it was better to have a stipulated sum paid each agent and that ended the whole transaction and nothing would appear on the books of the company except the fact that the agent had made the sale, his salary and expense account, and then, in addition to these items, the $135 per machine." Witness had talked with H. W. Barr, the Empire Company agent 40 who had sold machines to the City of Chicago, and that Barr said $135 was not enough for Chicago. In a general way, the foregoing summarizes the facts con- stituting the proceedings leading up to the making of the contract with the Empire Voting Machine Company so far as the committee was able to elicit them. As already stated, all of the Ottumwa witnesses refused to appear before the committee. Besides this, no response of any kind was secured to the repeated communications sent by the committee and its counsel to the Empire Voting Machine Company and its president, Mr. Carl F. Lomb, and its agent, Mr. H. "W. Barr. Immediately previous to the opening of this investigation, the committee was informed that Mr. H. W. Barr lived in Chicago at 5559 Washington Avenue, and a summons was issued by the committee to be served upon him at that ad- dress. Every attempt of the Sergeant-at-arms to serve it was without success and the committee was informed that Mr. Barr had left the city. During the hearings one representative of the Empire Vot- ing Machine Company, Mr. Prank Keiper, patent attorney for the company, did appear before the committee and was ex- amined as a witness. He, however, knew nothing about the facts of the Chicago voting machine purchase. He stated that im- mediately before leaving his home in Rochester, New York, for the hearing, he had been visited by Mr. H. W. Barr, for whom a subpoena had been issued by this committee, but that neither' one mentioned the subject of the voting machine investigation, nor did Mr. Barr inform Mr. Keiper whether he intended to appear before the committee as a witness. Mr. Keiper also knew Mr. Carl F. Lomb very well, but had never heard Mr. Lomb say whether or not he intended to appear as a witness before the legislative committee. Mr. Keiper was also unable to name the stockholders or directors of the Empire Voting Machine Company. Mr. Keiper 's testimony was of a general character. It had no special relation to and threw no light upon the subject of the Chicago investigation of voting ma- chine, the Chicago contract, or the Chicago purchase of voting machines, except that the witness estimated the cost of pro- ducing such a machine as Chicago purchased at from $400 to $500 exclusive of overhead charges; that he admitted that such a machine was not large enough to hold the Chicago primary ballot of 1912, remarking, however, that the voting machine is not mentioned in the Illinois primary law ; and that in his opinion the fraudulent manipulation of voting machines 41 demonstrated at the hearing did not constitute a practical objection to the Empire voting machine. Under the contract made with the Empire Voting Machine Company, 500 voting machines have been delivered to the City of Chicago and have been used in Chicago elections ; and the subsequent investigations of the committee relate mainly to the use of these voting machines in Chicago elections and the manner in which they have stood the test of meeting Chi- cago election conditions. This phase of the investigation was intended to supplement the testimony of the experts employed by the committee re- garding possible frauds on the Empire voting machine, and the experiments in fraudulent manipulation and fraudulent restriction of the machine demonstrated by them before the committee, by testimony showing some practical experience in the actual use of voting machines in Chicago. Information had come to counsel for the committee that certain voters in the 20th precinct of the First Ward, who had voted at the general election of 1912 upon the voting ma- chine, had been deprived of their votes for candidates for the office of State's Attorney in that election. The voting machine returns from the 20th precinct of the First Ward showed the following votes for candidates for the office of State's Attorney: Einaker, Republican, 1; Hoyne, Democrat, 42; Haight, Progressive, 0; Cunnea, Socialist, 0; Hill, Pro- hibitionist, 0. Seventeen witnesses from the precinct ap- peared before the committee and testified, that twelve of them voted for Einaker, Republican; four of them for Cunnea, So- cialist; three of them for Haight, Progressive. It was with a view to the subsequent introduction of this testimony and with knowledge of the facts that voters in this precinct had failed to have their votes recorded by the voting machine for the candidates of their choice for State's Attor- ney, that the experiment of setting the counters of one candi- date a number of votes above and another an equal number below "zero" and concealing the mis-setting by paper zeros pasted over the counter-wheels was introduced and demon- strated before the Commission. Wliether the experiment fur- nishes the true explanation of the loss of votes at the election of 1912 shown by the testimony of these witnesses is, of course, a question; but the loss of votes in this precinct was a fact and a fact which the fraudulent manipulation of the voting machine counters demonstrated by the experiment would ex- plain. In any event, the voting machine was shown to be susceptible to fraudulent manipulation, in direct contraven- 42 tion of the State Voting Machine Law, which provides that the voting machine shall be "provided with a lock or locks by the use of which any movement of the registering mechan- ism is absolutely prevented so that it cannot he tampered with or manipulated for any fraudulent purpose." Other experiments, both by witnesses, bystanders, and mem- bers of the committee showed conclusively that the average voter cannot vote a split ticket on the voting machine in one minute, as required by the voting machine law ; a fact which was also shown by the testimony of members of the State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners; by the testimony of Mr. Keiper, attorney for the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany, and by the testimony of other witnesses at the hearing. Further evidence of defective or fraudulent use of the ma- chine, of a wholesale character, was supplied by the testimony of Mr. Lawrence F. King, special custodian appointed by the court to have official charge and custody of the returns of the general election of 1912 and of the recount, of those re- turns in the Hoyne, Einaker, Cunnea contest over the office of State's Attorney of Cook County, and by that of other witnesses who testified in regard to changes of voting seals between the close of the election of 1912 and the opening of the voting machines for the recount. As an illustration of the changing of seals between the election and the recount, reference is made to the changes read by Witness King from the record of election returns made by the judges of election and the record of the recount taken from the voting machines, the complete record of which covers many pages of the testimony taken at the hearing and to its tabulation which takes up seven pages of the printed ab- stract of record. To understand the significance of these changes in voting machine seals, it is necessai'y to know that judges of election in voting machine precincts are furnished by the election commissioners with a seal which they are instructed to place on the voting lever of the machine used by them at the close of the election and to make a record of the number of such seal in the election certificates returned by them. Each of these seals bears the stamp of the Board of Election Com- missioners and its number is recorded in the office of the cus- todian of voting machines when the machine is sent out to the election precinct. After the election of 1912, the voting machines used in that election were returned thus sealed and locked in their cases to the voting machine storage warehouse and placed in the 43 custody of the custodian in charge of voting machines who testified that the machines were not again opened, or even removed from the locked voting machine cases, until they were opened by the order of court to take off the recount figures in the Hoyne-Rinaker-Cunea contest. "When they were thus opened, it was found that no less than 107 of the seals placed upon the voting machines by the election judges at the close of the election were no longer on the machines and that other seals had been substituted for them. No explanation of the substitution of seals was given b'y the Board of Election Commissioners, as appears from the following testimony of Commissioner Czarnecki, page 632 of the printed abstract) : ' ' Mr. Czarnecki : The seal number read off. by Mr. Muldowney is the number of the seal we found on the machine at the time of the recount. If a new seal was put on, we noted it and the number. The supposition was that the seal put on by the judges was left until the State's Attorney contest. The original seals were placed on by the judges in the presence of the clerks, policemen, watchers, and so forth, and the new seals were found on the day of the contest by the com- missioners, their clerks and assistants and representa- tives of the contestants, Cunnea, Rinaker and Hoyne." No explanation of this state of affairs was asked for by the Board of Election Commissioners. The following is quoted from the same page of the printed abstract: "Mr. McEwen (to Mr. Czarnecki) : Did you ever ask any of the judges or clerks to explain the discrepancy? Mr. Czarnecki: No, sir, we did not." Similar voluminous testimony given by Mr. Lawrence F. King regarding discrepancies in voting machine election re- turns will be found at pages 608 to 625 printed abstract of records, and in the testimony of Mr. Michael F. McMahon, pages 636 to 638, printed abstract of record. Conclusions. The conclusions reached by this committee from the evi- dence submitted to it are : 1. That the testimony of the experts employed by this committee and the experiments conducted by them in the pres- ence of the committee at the hearings, as well as the testi- mony of other witnesses, show that the voting machines pur- chased by the City of Chicago are susceptible to fraudulent 44 manipulation by the custodian, by the judges of election, and by the voters. That the experiments showing possible mani- pulation by the voters, this committee does not consider so serious a sourse of practical fraud in elections conducted with voting machines as those possible by judges of election and by the custodian of voting machines; especially the lat- ter. The voting machines are in the sole care and custody of the custodian during the period of preparation of the voting machines for use in election. Means of fraudulent manipula- tion of voting machines during this time were clearly pointed out by the experts. After the elections the voting machines again pass into the custody of the custodian, affording abun- dant opportunity for the destruction of any evidence of fraud- ulent manipulation, had any been practiced. The integrity of voting machines is not, in the opinion of this committee, sufficiently safeguarded by mechanical or other methods of protection against fraud. 2. That the testimony with regard to the substitution of seals showed wholesale violations of the law as well as of the rules of the Board of Election Commissioners in the elec- tion of 1912. The Voting Machine Law provides that after the judges of election have taken off the record of the votes cast on voting machines, "thereafter the machines shall re- main locked for a period of at least thirty days unless other- wise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction." As be- fore stated, the judges of election in voting machine precincts were directed by the Board of Election Commissioners to seal the voting-lever of the machine at the close of the elec- tion with a numbered seal provided for the purpose and place and lock the voting machine in its place. Nevertheless, the evidence showed that these voting machine cases had been unlocked, the machines removed from their cases, the seals broken open and other seals substituted for them. The fear of the law was not enough to prevent these wholesale viol- ations, nor was the watchfulness of the Board of Election Commissioners sufficient to detect them. There was an all but total absence of protection of the integrity of the ballot in the voting machine districts. 3. The discrepancies between the returns of elections from voting machine precincts as shown by the judges' certificates, and the returns taken directly from the machines at the time of the recount, is another example of the failure of the voting machine to guard the integrity of the ballot. In regard to this failure it may be said that the discrepancies were attri- butable, not to the voting machine, but to the neglect of the 45 judges and clerks of election. This may be true, but one of the defects of the Empire Voting Machine, pointed out in the hearing before the committee was that it did not sufficiently exclude errors by the * ' human element. ' ' Among these oppor- tunities for error, the necessity for taking off separately and subsequently adding the split vote and the straight vote, made necessary in the Empire voting machine by the absence of a party-lever, was one of the most important. It should have been of great, if not of controlling importance in determining the question of purchasing the Empire voting machine. 4. The failure of judges of election in voting machine pre- cincts to fill out their election certificates, also showed that the voting machine is not sufficiently safeguarded against the carelessness or dishonesty of election officials, and that in the hands of careless or dishonest officials the voting machine furnishes absolutely no protection to the integrity of the rec- ord of votes cast or against the fraudulent manipulation of the voting machine by judges, clerks, custodians or anybody who has access to the machines. 5. The evidence taken at the hearing showed that the Em- pire voting machine was not capable of accommodating the Chicago primary ballot. A fact of such vital importance in the consideration of the question of purchasing voting ma- chines for the City of Chicago, should have been ascertained by the Election Commissioners before any contract was en- tered into with the Empire Company and should have been decisive against the purchase of Empire voting machines. 6. The evidence at the hearings, both the testimony of witnesses and the experiments conducted on the voting ma- chine, showed that the average voter cannot vote a split ticket on the Empire voting machine in one minute, as provided in the Illinois Voting Machine Law, which requires "that each voter can understandingly and within the jjeriod of one min- ute, cast his vote for all candidates of his choice." In this connection it must be remembered that the experts employed by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and Judge Owens to investigate voting machines had, in their report on the Empire voting machine, called special atten- tion to the fact that "Because of the absence of a party lever, which, in other machines operates each of the individual keys of that party, split voting with the Empire must be done by pulling down individually the keys which represent the can- didates to be voted for, and this, on a 70-key board will scarcely be done within one minute's time permitted to the voter in the voting booth." 46 It may also be recalled that subsequent to the purchase of the Empire voting machine, the Supreme Court of Illinois, in its decision already cited, found "As a matter of fact, we find that the machine does not comply with the law in en- abling the voter understandingly to cast his vote in one min- ute." The fact of the machine's non-compliance with this pro- vision of the State Voting Machine Law was known to the Election Commissioners. It had been brought to their atten- tion officially in the report made to them by the experts em- ployed by themselves. It was of itself sufficient to decide the question whether Empire voting machines should be pur- chased by the Board of Election Commissioners for use in Chicago elections. The ignoring of this fact was an instance of gross official carelessness and of disregard of the ordinary principles of business prudence which might very properly be denominated a serious disregard of official duty. 7. Failure to give due consideration to the reports of previous investigations of voting machines by the former Chicago Election Commissioners, was another serious in- stance of lack of proper caution on the part of the Board of Election Commissioners in its consideration of the voting ma- chine question. The uniform rejection of voting machines Avhich had followed the prolonged investigations of the pre- vious Board should have counseled extreme caution and ought to have been matter for the most thorough discussion by the present Board, instead of being absolutely ignored as shown by the minutes of its proceedings in the voting machine mat- ter, as well as by the testimony of the Commissioners given at the hearings before the legislative committee. 8. The failure and refusal of the Chicago Board of Elec- tion Commissioners to confer with the authorities of the City of Chicago regarding the financing of the proposed purchase of voting machines, in advance of entering into the contract with the Empire Company, which is all the more remarkable when contrasted with the action of the former Board, is an- other instance of official carelessness justly deserving criti- cism, if not condemnation. 9. The neglect of the obvious precaution, dictated by con- siderations of business caution as well as official prudence, to limit the initial purchase to a comparatively small number of machines and to put machines thus purchased to a de- cisive test in Chicago elections, both primary and general, cannot easily be reconciled with a proper regard for the in- 47 terests of the City of Chicago or the safeguarding of its elec- tions. Recommendations. 1. That the contract made by the Chicago Board of Elec- tion Commissioners with the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany should be cancelled. 2. In view of the evidence submitted and the experiments demonstrated before the committee, the committee believes that the Illinois Voting Machine Law should be repealed or amended. Lucas I. Butts, Chairman. RoBEKT S. Jones, J. H. Jayne, R. J. Barr, F. A. Landee, John M. Chamberlin, Edward J. King. Report or Portion of the Members of the Legislative Vot- ing Machine Investigation Committee, this Report Being Concurred In by Senators Canaday, Campbell and Shaw AND Representatives Garesche and Kasserman. The committee appointed under House Joint Resolution No. 23, of the 48th General Assembly, consisted of : Rep. Lucas I. Butts, Peoria, Chairman. Sen. P. C. Campbell, Xenia, Secretary. Sen. Richard J. Barr, Joliet. Sen. J. M. Chamberlin, Jr., East St. Louis. Sen. Stephen D. Canaday, Hillsboro. Sen. Willis R. Shaw, Decatur. Sen. Frank A. Landee, Moline. Rep. Ferdinand A. Garesche, Madison. Rep. J. H. Jayne, Monmouth. Rep. Robert S. Jones, Flora. Rep. Edward J. King, Galesburg. Rep. John Kasserman, Newton. Pursuant to the resolution the committee met in Spring- field June 30, 1913, and organized by electing Lucas I. Butts, Chairman, and F. C. Campbell, Secretary. At a meeting in Chicago on about July 8, 1913, ex-Governor Charles S. De- neen was selected as attorney for the committee, and at the 48 public hearings thereafter held Hon. W. M. McEwen, of Chi- cago, appeared as attorney for Judge Owens and Hon. Charles H. Mitchell as attorney for the Board of Election Commissioners in the City of Chicago. The taking of testimony was begun on July 22, 1913, and continued from time to time and concluded on April 28, 1914. In all about thirty days were spent and about 3,800 typewrit- ten pages of testimony taken, many witnesses being exam- ined. At the time the hearings were closed at Chicago on April 28, 1914, it was arranged that briefs and arguments should be made by the respective attorneys and mailed to the mem- bers of the. committee within six weeks and the committee was then to meet and decide upon what report was to be made to the Legislature. No brief and argument was submitted to the members of the committee, and the committee was never convened until Tuesday, June 1, 1915, the members being notified by wire of that meeting on Saturday, May 29, 1915. Several members of tlie committee were so unsophisti- cated as to think the committee itself was empowered to de- cide on the kind of report which should be made and that when the decision was reached the attorney for the committee should draft the report accordingly. Instead, however, the members found when the meeting of June 1, 1915, was con- vened that a report, including findings, conclusions and rec- ommendations had already been drafted by the attorney for the committee and the members of tlie committee were asked simply to sign their names to the report — perhaps a useless formality — as no reason was given why their signatures were required to a report in which they had no part in preparing. The full membership of the committee was not present at this meeting and a majority of those present favored delay- ing the making of a report until such time as would permit them to give the matter attention and consideration. At the suggestion of the Chairman, however, who explained that members of the committee not now members of the legisla- ture, had been notified of the meeting, were on their way to Springfield and would arrive sometime during the day or night of June first, the meeting was adjourned until the fol- lowing morning at eight o'clock. At this meeting a motion to postpone consideration of the matter until Thursday, June 10, 1915, at eight o'clock P. M. prevailed. Against this mo- tion the attorney for the committee argued that the legislature might adjourn in the meantime, and that as it was necessary to report to this session of the legislature the report should 49 be made at once, apparently forgetting that a full year had elapsed since the time the committee had arranged to have its meeting to give a report consideration. Notwithstanding this action of the committee in postponing consideration of the matter, the newspapers had been fur- nished with copies of the report prep8red ny the attorney for the committee and the conclusions and recommendation con- tained in that report were published in the Chicago dailies on June 2, 1915. Just why the attorney for the committee felt called upon to usurp the functions of the committee in making findings, conclusions and recommendations for it, and also in giving them to the newspapers at the time he did, is perhaps explained because a judicial election was to be held in Chicago on June 7, 1915, at which some of the electors might be influenced for or against some of the candidates. At the hearings of the committee the minutes of the Board of Election Commissioners covering a period of several months were introduced in evidence and in addition to the minutes of the Commissioners were severally interrogated as to what occurred at the meetings of the Board. The Board was composed of Charles H. Kellerman, Chairman; Anthony Czarnecki, Secretary, and Howard S. Taylor. The testimony as to the minutes showed they were at first kept on loose sheets by the Secretary and not finally transferred into the minute book and there formally approved until several months after the meetings had been held. Notwithstanding this there was no question raised as to the accuracy of the minutes. Kellerman and Taylor favored the contract made with the Empire Voting Machine Company for 1,000 voting machines, and Czarnecki opposed it. The testimony showed that Czarnecki was a writer for one of the Chicago dailies during the time the contract was under consideration and furnished "copy" covering the different steps taken during that time. No hint of any kind or character as to any fraud or inten- tional wrongdoing on the part of either of the above named Board of Election Commissioners at any time, appears in evidence. The contract for the purchase was let in the usual manner of letting contracts for the purchase of supplies. Specifications were printed and bids were advertised for on those specifications and copies of the specifications v/ere mailed to all voting^machine companies, and all others known to be interested. Twenty-six days were given for the filing of bids and this time was extended about two weeks at the request of bidders. Further extension was made and it was 50 about ninety days after the adoption of the specifications until the contrafct was signed. As to the question of business judgment in the purchase of the machines we might doubt whether this committee or the legislature would have anything to do, as payment for the machines must be made by the City of Chicago and not by the State. However, the report prepared by the attorney for the committee deals at some length with this question and the objections generally to the machine, so we think it proper to mention our views thereon in this report. As bearing upon these matters we quote from the report of the special grand jury empanelled by the Hon. Henry V. Freeman, November 4, 1908, to investigate misdemeanors and crimes committed in the primary election August 8, 1908, the report appearing in the typewritten record, pages 708 to 718, as follows : "We find and so report that no confidence can be placed in the reported results in favor of or against any candidate for a party nomination at said election and yet that election cost the taxpayers of Chicago fully $75,000.00. Fraudulent registration, leading to fraudulent voting; repeating by platoons by men who were voted first for one party then for other party candidates at the same precincts; voting names of absentees, non-residents, in- sane and dead men, accepting false affidavits on behalf of disqualified voters, known to the judges to be so; numerous and flagrant perjuries by party voters to en- able them to cast illegal votes ; taking votes from non- registered voters without affidavits in support of such votes ; fraudulent writing of names on the poll books and putting ballots in the boxes to correspond ; keeping upon the registers names of men who had removed from the respective precincts and voting them; voting the same name more than once at the same precinct ; disfranchising voters by permitting their names to be voted by others ; marking ballots after the boxes were opened; handing voters ballots already marked for certain candidates; marking ballots for voters against their wishes and so putting ballots into the ballot box; intimidating voters and compelling them to vote for candidates contrary to their wishes ; strangers and police officers being per- mitted to handle ballots after the boxes were opened, so as to permit of fraudulent marking of ballots were proven before us and are by no means all of the devices which we have reason to believe were resorted to in vio- 51 lation of every provision of the election law intended for the security of the voter, the sanctity of the ballot and the accuracy of the result and to defeat the will of the people as expressed by the lawful votes, cast at said election. From the facts coming' to our knowledge we express serious doubt whether there has been any honest general election or city election in Chicago for years past. * * * Therefore, to reduce the opportunity for errors, pre- vent frauds, lessen the cost, secure the prompt announce- ment of the result of an election and prevent the holding back of announcement of results in one ward in order to defeat some candidate who has a lead in other wards, we recommend that satisfactory voting machines should be purchased and installed at each precinct at the earliest practical moment." The report of W. L. Abbott, Paul M. Chamberlain and Wil- liam W. Wooley, appointed by County Judge John E. Owens, for the purpose of reporting on voting machines, appears at pages 469 to 480 of the typewritten record and shows that four machines were submitted to them for inspection, namely, the Triumph, Empire, International and Winslow. Of the Empire they say: "The machine fulfills the requirements of the State law. * * * The Empire is, in the opinion of your ex- perts, reasonably well protected against possibilities of fraud. * * * Your commission believes that the vot- ing machine art has been developed to a point where ma- chines may be installed in Chicago with safety and econ- omy and that such installation shall be the means of greatly minimizing possibility of fraud at the polls." Their report rates the machines as follows : Empire. Triumph. International. Winslow. ■ Criticism is made that the specifications asked that blue- prints be furnished some of which remained unopened. The testimony was that this item of the specifications, like most of the others, had been copied from the specifications pre- pared by a former Board of Election Commissioners, which were prepared at a time when the machines themselves were not in existence and the blueprints were needed in their place. During the time the matter was under consideration in 1911, however, all of the companies expecting to bid on the con- 52 tract had samples of their machines submitted, thus making the blueprints useless. On the question of Empire voting machines we beg to quote from the report of Prof. C. E. Depuy to the Board of Election Commissioners under date of October 12, 1908, page 799 of the typewritten record : "Empire Machine. The material, workmanship and general design are very satisfactory." Also from his report of July 1, 1910, page 846 of typewrit- ten record : "Empire Machine. The material, workmanship and general design are of the same excellent character as shown in the machine previously exhibited; and I be. lieve that this machine would be durable and reliable in action. * * * The device for controlling the number of bars by each party in a primary election is very simple and effective. It accomplishes the end desired without in any way in- terfering with the accuracy or ease of manipulation of the machine for other purposes. * * * The machine presented I believe will receive and re- cord votes in an election accurately and quickly, after the machine is adjusted and the voters have received the proper instruction, and this will simplify the work of judges and clerks in securing correct returns." We quote from the report of Prof. George 0. Olson to the Board of Election Commissioners under date of March 10, 1908, page 795 of typewritten record : "In answering question 18, 'From your examination and study of the several voting machines, are they, in your opinion, sufficiently perfected so that you would ad- vise the Board to purchase any one of them at this time,' my answer is 'Yes; from a mechanical standpoint only.' " Also from his report appearing at page 797 of the t}rpe- written record: "U. S. Standard Voting Machine" (predecessor of Empire) : "This machine is a very practical machine in every way and certain conditions which I criticised in my last report have been successfully overcome." Also from his report dated October 11, 1909, page 816 of typewritten record: "Empire Voting Machine: The material used in the construction of this machine could not, in my opinion, be improved on, and the outside finish is fine. The work- manship is first class. I wish to call special attention to 53 the high grade of work on the counters and counter hold- ers. It is in my opinion very high-grade work." He uses practically the same language in his report of July 14, 1910, but states in that report that the machine is too heavy and for that reason advises against buying the ma- chine. We quote from the report of Prof. O. A. Leutwiler to the Board of Election Commissioners under date of October 15, 1909, on the Empire, Triumph, Willet and Winslow machines, the report beginning on page 822 of the typewritten record: "Empire Voting Machine: The general design of this machine is probably the best of any machine the writer examined. * * * q^i^Q machine is amply protected against fraudulent manipulation by the judges in that it is locked by several separate locks and keys, thus per- mitting the keys to be divided between the judges. This means that at least two parties are represented when the machine is being prepared for voting. The same .remarks apply when the polls are closed and the count is being taken off." Prof. Depuy, Olson and Leutwiler were the expert wit- nesses employed by the committee to show that the Empire was not a practical machine and because of this we wish to quote very briefly from their testimony: C. E. Depuy, page 1435 typewritten record: "Never saw better machine than Empire." Page 1513 typewritten rec- ord: "Use of angle iron would naturally occasion complaint from voter." On pages 1528, 1529 and 1530 of typewritten record to spe- cific questions covering every requirement of the Illinois vot- ing machine law as to whether the Empire complied with them he answered in the affirmative as to all except the one in re- gard to voting within one minute and as to that his reply was : "That I have a question about." Page 1541 typewritten record: "Q. Whenever machine is properly adjusted it can- not be beaten! A. I have never found a way of doing it." Page 1542 typewritten record: "Q. Can you make that machine vote for more men than it is adjusted for? A. No, sir. Q. Can you go to that machine now and make it vote for more men than it is adjusted for! A. No, sir, it will work as it is adjusted. 54 Q. Then taking into consideration the fact of the hu- man element, the machine is infallible as it stands, is it not? A. The mechanism is very satisfactory and I have never found it to work wrong. Q. Nor to be capable of being worked wrong? A. Unless it is set wrong." Page 1590 typewritten record: ''Q. Now on the subject of this being the best ma- chine of the type, or of any type, do you say you have seen a better machine than this? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever seen one that is as good? A. No, I think not." George 0. Olson, page 1665 of typewritten record: ' ' Q. Will the machine do what it is set to do ? A. Yes, sir." Page 1667: "Q. You think that because of the necessity of the custodian adjusting and setting this machine and because he may do it falsely and wrongfully that the machine ought to be rejected? A. No, I don't think the machine ought to be rejected for that particular reason." C. A. Leutwiler, page 1767 of typewritten record : "Q. But if it is set properly the machine will do what it ought to do? A. Yes." Page 1772: "Q. Did you ever examine a better machine than this Empire machine exhibited this year? A. No, I don't think I have. Q. Did you ever examine one that was as good? A. No, I don 't think I have. ' ' The above seems to show conclusively that not only was the Empire the best voting machine to be had at the time the contract for the purchase of the machine was entered into, but that it was a practical and efficient machine. That this is the case is further shown by the fact as testified to by Anthony Czarnecki, page 2558 of typewritten record, that in the spring of 1913 about 130 of the machines were used in precincts in Chicago where no paper ballots were provided, and that there was no complaint from the voters either that they were not able to vote within one minute, or otherwise. On page 2559 he testified that no complaints came to the 55 Board of Election Commissioners about difficulty in deliver- ing the machines to the precincts, and that there was no con- test in that election involving any of the precincts where the machines were used. The use of these machines without com- plaint in this election seems to answer fully the objections of Profs. Depuy, Olson and Leutwiler that the machine was too heavy to be practicable. On this question the testimony shows the machines weigh about one thousand pounds and are so arranged that three men handle them with expediency, they being conveyed from the storage room to the precincts and back in loads of from three to five each. That Anthony Czar- necki had no doubt of the practicability of the machine, and that he opposed the letting of the contract either for news- paper purposes or because he thought it inadvisable to pur- chase so many machines at one time, is indicated by his mo- tion appearing on page 2534, typewritten record, from min- utes of Board of Election Commissioners of June 30, 1911, page 136: "I hereby renew my motion upon which no action has been taken up to date, and now move to limit the first purchase of voting machines to 120." That the people of Chicago favored the installation of vot- ing machines was evidenced by the referendum election on that question, the vote being, yeas 229,577, and the nays 27,081, as show^n on page 2872 of the typewritten record. Considerable time of the committee was taken up in show- ing that many of the machines used in the 1912 election either had no seals or that the seals were broken or loose, or that the records of the seals did not correspond. The seals re- ferred to were frail, self-locking, thin metal seals, comparing with those used to seal doors of box cars. They were num- bered, the numbers having been stamped in them and they were used over the curtain lever of the voting machine. The curtain lever is a lever attached to the voting lever of the machine, and it automatically closes the curtains behind the voter when the voting lever is thrown by him to release the voting keys, thus making the casting of his ballot secret ; and when the voting lever is thrown back by the voter to register Ms vote the curtain lever automatically throws back the cur- tains permitting the voter to retire from the machine. This curtain lever is folded back against the machine proper when the machine is boxed for shipment to or from the warehouses, and it was to hold the curtain lever in place while the ma- chine was boxed that the seals referred to were used. They had no part whatever in protecting the integrity of the ma- 56 chine notwithstanding the attempt of the attorney for the committee to make it appear so in the report he drafted and in conclusion two thereof. The seals were not required to be used in the voting machine law. Because of their frailty many of them were unintentionally locked or otherwise de- stroyed by the election officials during the conduct of the election before the close of the polls, or they were destroyed in removing the machine at the close of election. They were too easily destroyed to be practical and were not used in the later election in which machines were used. An ordinary twine cord would have answered the purpose of the seal and in many instances where the seals had been destroyed cords were used. The voting lever, to which the curtain lever is attached and over which the seals were placed in the 1912 election, is pro- tected by a lock, locked with a key, and the lever could not have been moved without unlocking that lock. There is a further and complete check and protection against voting after the returns have been taken from the machine by the election officials at the close of the election. This check is the protective counter. This protective counter is incased in the machine and no one can obtain access to it. It runs from zero to one million and then automatically sets itself at zero again. The number it shows is taken by the election officials at the opening of the polls and again at closing, thus showing the number of votes cast. This protective counter would show without fail if the voting lever of the machine were thrown by any one after the polls had closed and its record taken by the election officials, and it is not possible to record a vote on the machine wdthout doing so by the use of the voting lever. As stated, the fact that many of the frail seals over the curtain levers of machines were not intact when the machines were opened later at the warehouse, did not indicate that the machines had been tampered with. They could not have been tampered with by the use of the curtain or voting lever with- out the protective counter showing it. This was well known to the attorney for the committee, and notwithstanding this he devoted all of conclusion 2, and pages 77 to 80 of the type- written report he prepared for the committee, to this matter. We quote from his report as follows : "Further evidence of defective or fraudulent use of the machine, of a wholesale character was supplied by the testimony of Mr. Lawrence F. King, special custodian appointed by the court to have official charge and cus- 57 tody of the returns of the general election of 1912, and of the recount of those returns in the Hoyne-Rinaker- Cunnea contest over the office of State's Attorney of Cook County, and by that of other witnesses who testi- fied in regard to changes of voting machine seals be- tween the close of election and the opening of the voting machines for recount. * * * When they were thus opened it was found that no less than 107 of the seals placed upon the voting machines by the election judges at the close of election were no longer on the machines and that other seals had been substituted for them. « * « No explanation of this state of affairs was asked for by the Board of Election Commissioners. The following is quoted from the same page of the printed abstract: 'Mr. McEwen (to Mr. Czarnecki) : Did you ask any of the judges or clerks to explain the discrepancy. Mr. Czarnecki: No, sir, we did not.' " Now it seems to us that this question and answer does fur- nish an explanation in that even Mr. Czarnecki, who as one of the Board of Election Commissioners was directly inter- ested in the matter, thought so little of the fact that the seal numbers did not correspond he never even made a single in- quiry in regard to it. The probabilities are that in most of the cases where the record of the seal numbers did not cor- respond, the judges of election did not correctly read the seal numbers, the numbers as above stated, being stamped in the seals. However the difference may have occurred, there is not a single word of testimony in the entire record in this case that a single one of the 107 machines where the seal numbers did not correspond had been opened after being closed by the election officials, and not a single word of testi- mony in the record that a single vote had been changed on a single one of the machines, and not a single word of testi- mony that notwithstanding the seal numbers did not cor- respond, the judge who tried the Hoyne-Rinaker-Cunnea con- test did not count the votes from those machines in that con- test. Because of these matters it seems to us that the attorney for the committee is deliberately trying to mislead those who may read the report he prepared when he states that "fur- ther evidence of defective or fraudulent use of the machine, of a wholesale character was supplied by Lawrence P. King," etc. About one-half of the report prepared by the attorney for 5» the committee related to the objections made to the contract made by the Board of Election Commissioners with the Em- pire Voting Machine Company, including those of Mr. Czar- necki, the minority member of the Board, and the protests filed by other voting machine companies, and the other one- half to what is known as the Duke statement and the con- troversies arising over it. We have already shown that in our opinion no proof of any fraud or intentional wrong- doing of any kind by the Board of Election Commissioners appears in the record. The so-called Duke statement is iden- tified and fathered as follows: Thomas A. Boyer, a citizen of Illinois, visited his father at Washington, Iowa, a point about 30 miles from Ottumwa, on May 30, 1913. While there Boyer and Duke were introduced, supposedly in a casual meeting. Duke stated to Boyer that he represented three men who had a contested claim in the sum of $1,500 against the Empire Voting Machine Company, which he could not col- lect, but which he might collect if he could get some pub- licity for the claim. It later transpired that settlement of the claim had been made by way of compromise by entering into a written contract for the payment of one thousand dol- lars on certain contingencies, the contract having been en- tered into on May 24, 1913, a few days prior to the time of the Boyer-Duke introduction. The Duke statement was sup- posed to have been written by Duke and delivered to Boyer and purported to quote the three men interested in the claim against the Empire Voting Machine Company. The statement was not signed by any one; it did not contain the name of Duke ; it did not contain the name of either of the parties it purported to quote; its nearest identification appears in the opening sentence of the statement which is : " We have lived in Ottumwa for thirty-five years, fifty years and fifty-five years respectively." Surely this is not sufficient to fix responsibility for the con- tents of the statement on any one at all. It could be nothing but hearsay several times removed. The committee very properly refused to consider the statement. The rulings thereon, however, announced by the Chairman were to the effect the statement might be admitted later, and as the state- ment reflected on a certain citizen of Chicago, an affidavit was made by one Edward E. Marriott quoting the three Iowa par- ties as denying the matter contained in the Duke statement, the affidavit also reflecting on certain citizens, particularly one, of Chicago. The Marriott affidavit was submitted to the committee to be held with the so-called Duke statement and 59 to be considered if a later ruling of the Committee should admit that statement. When the contents of the affidavit be- came known the attorney for the Chicago citizen therein par- ticularly named, appeared before the committee and asked that both the Duke statement and the Marriott affidavit be admitted in the record. The attorney representing the citi- zen reflected on in the Duke statement also requested the com- mittee to admit both papers in the record. There was not a quorum of the committee in attendance at the meeting when the requests were made for the admission of both papers and a majority of those present decided, in view of the request of the attorneys representing the two citizens reflected on, to admit both the Duke statement and the Marriott affidavit in the record. Neither of these papers had any bearing in any way on any matter properly before the committee, and neither should have been admitted in the record or considered by the committee as there was not a word of evidence in the record in any way connecting either of the parties against whom re- flections were cast with the Board of Election Commissioners, who made the contract for the voting machines, or any mem- ber thereof. Notwithstanding this there was much time of the committee taken up by the attorneys arguing the matter and all of the typewritten report prepared by the attorney for the committee from page 49 to 71 is devoted to the Mar- riott affidavit and Duke statement, and the controversies aris- ing over them.. From this it would seem that the attorney for the committee thinks that the reflections cast in those pa- pers should receive the widest publicity possible, even though as stated, neither of them should have been admitted in the record or given consideration by the committee. Eeference is made in the report prepared by the attorney for the committee to seventeen witnesses called before the committee from the 20th precinct of the First ward, it being sought to prove by them by their oral testimony that the ma- chine must not have correctly recorded their votes. These witnesses were all or practically all of a low order of men- tality and in view of that fact and their demeanor while tes- tifying no serious consideration could be given their testi- mony as against the undisputed evidence of the experts em- ployed by the committee that they had never seen the mech- anism of the machine fail of proper action. The statement from conclusion one: "That the experi- ments showing possible manipulation by the voters this com- mittee does not consider so serious a source of practical fraud in elections conducted with voting machines as those pos- 60 sible by the judges of election and by the custodian of voting machines especially the latter ' ' ; indicates that the voter, even in the opinion of the attorney for the committee, has but little or no opportunity to practice fraud on the machine. For the election officials to do so would necessitate collusion among all of them and the watchers and others present at the polling place as well. The machine is provided with five locks, only three of which are in the control of the election officials. The other two give access to that part of the machine where the machine is so set or arranged for each separate election as to permit of voting only for the candidates in that election, all other voting keys on the machine being locked. The two keys giving access to this portion of the machine are known as the custodian's keys and kept by him. They are not sent out with the machine so the judges of election never have ac- cess to that portion of the machine and cannot set or arrange the machine for fraudulent voting. Every fraud the election officials can commit on the machine they can more readily commit on the paper ballot during the progress of the elec- tion, and in addition thereto they have the opportunities for fraud with the paper ballots during the counting of the bal- lots which is absolutely foreclosed to them by the machine. ■ This leaves the possibilities of fraud being committed on the machine to the custodian. While we think the possibili- ties of fraud by the custodian were safeguarded against by the Board of Election Commissioners in the elections where the machines were used, and while there was not a single word of evidence anywhere in the record that any machine used in any election had been wrongfully or fraudulently set by the custodian, still we think to allay the suspicion that might arise in the minds of the citizens, and to prevent the possibility of a corrupt custodian from fraudulently setting the machines we suggest that provision be made by the Board of Election Commissioners for representatives of the different political parties to be present while the machines are being prepared for the election, and the keys to that part of the machine then be returned to the Election Commissioner's office to be held by them during the election and for not less than ten days thereafter. This would allay any suspicion the voter might have as to the setting of the machine. Conclusion two relates to "seals" to which we have above referred, and conclusions tliree and four seek by inference to place the shortcomings of election officials on the machine. We deny that the machine should be charged with such short- comings. Conclusion five relates to the machine with reference to 61 primary elections. The machine purchased contains 630 vot- ing keys and will take care of primary elections where there are fewer than 630 candidates but will not take care of pri- maries where there are more than that number of candidates. Conclusion six relates to the provision of the law requiring the machine to be so constructed as to permit the voter to cast his vote in one minute. With reference to this matter we wish to say that in our opinion in a general election having as many candidates as the election in the fall of 1912, the ordinary voter would likely not be able to vote a split ticket within one minute and therefore recommend to the legislature that the voting machine law be amended in this regard as provided in House Bill No. 981, introduced by Representative Ferdinand A. Garesche on June 3, 1915. Conclusion 7 seeks to say that the Board of Election Com- missioners in making the contract to purchase the machines did not give due consideration to reports of previous investi- gations of voting machines. This charge, we think, is not borne out by the proof in the record. In all previous admin- istrations after the adoption of the Voting Machine law there was an insistent and persistent demand on the part of the people and especially of the daily newspapers that voting machines be installed in Chicago and that action to that end be taken at the earliest possible moment. Every objection to the Empire machine pointed out by those who examined it for the Board of Election Commissioners in 1910, except the one of weight, which objection experience has shown is not a serious one, had been overcome in the Empire submitted in 1911. What reason caused the great change of sentiment in re- gard to voting machines among the Chicago newspapers fol- lowing the year 1910 does not definitely appear in the record but the answer may be found in the fact that a change of ad^ ministration occurred. Conclusion 8 charges the Board of Election Commission- ers with: official carelessness justly deserving criticism if not condemnation ; because of the method of financing the pur- chase of the machines. The Board is charged by law with the purchase of election supplies and the voting machine law au- thorizes the method of financing pursued. We again repeat that there is not one word of evidence in the record showing any fraudulent or intentional wrong-doing on the part of the Board or any member thereof in the purchase of the machines and we prefer neither to condemn nor commend their action in making the purchase, preferring at this time to let the experi- ence of succeeding years prove whether their action showed bad business judgment or good business judgment. 62 Observations. The change from the paper ballot to the machine is a great one, and one for which the people must be educated. The change is, we think, greater than was the change from the old system of voting to that of voting under the Australian bal- lot law and it will be recalled that that change brought mis- givings to many of the voters as to the advisability of the change. Because of the necessity of educating the voters to the use of the machine, machines should be loaned to and their use encouraged by clubs, lodges and other organiza- tions in the election of their officers and such other elections for which the machines may be used. We think that when educated to the use of the machine, it will be preferred by the voter to the Australian ballot, just as the latter is now preferred to the former system of voting. The experience in the spring election of 1913 where 130 machines were used in precincts where no paper ballots were used, and where no contest resulted, and where no question of the accuracy and integrity of the machines arose, we think, suggests the proper method of educating the people to the practical use of the machine. That in such elections as do not have an extremely large number of candidates the machines should be used without the use of paper ballots, and in the elections where there are an extremely large number of can- didates, paper ballots should be provided, as well as ma- chines, as was done in the 1912 election. Experience, we think, will demonstrate that the machine will permit of vot- ing at the rate of one or more per minute and thus eventually permit a discontinuance of the use of paper ballots in pre- cincts where machines are used even in elections having an extremely large number of candidates and also permit a re- duction in the number of precincts where they are used. Because of the ease, rapidity and accuracy of taking from the machines the result of the election at the close of the polls, in contrast with the long and tedious method of count- ing the paper ballots, and the opportunities for fraud during the same, the use of the machines should be encouraged as rapidly as the education of the people in their use will permit. Eespectfuly submitted, S. D. Canaday, F. C. Campbell, W. R. Shaw, John Kassekman, F. A. Gaeesche. ABSTRACT of PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE VOTING MACHINE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE VOLUME L Page of Record. Amos Miller: 2-3 Besides at Hillsboro, Illinois; Democratic member and secretary of the State Board of Voting Machine Commis- sioners appointed in 1903 by Governor Yates; served 5 since appointment to date. Produces copy of minutes of Board which is admitted subject to verification. Witness thinks he has examined thirteen or fourteen machines. 6 Board a/pproved every machine examined by it except one 7 incomplete machine of which witness does not recall the name. 8-9 Witness gives list of voting machines examined by Com- mission of which he was a member, including : Winslow Voting Machine, examined February 13, 1904. National Voting Machine, no date. Universal Voting Machine, examined March 10, 1904. \ 2 Testimony of Amos Miller. United States Standard Voting Macliine, examined June 7, 1904. National Voting Machine, examined September 28, 1905. Dean Ballot Machine, examined October 10, 1905. Triumph Voting Machine, examined same date. Columbia Voting Machine, examined same date. Wilcox Voting Machine, examined October 21, 1907. American Vote Eegister, examined January 25, 1908. 10 Empire Voting Machine, examined March 20, 1911. A number of Empire Voting Machines "I think twen- ty," "of the same make as the one examined March 28th, 1911, examined March 20th." Q. Were those twenty machines Empire Voting Ma- chines, or United States Standard Machines submitted by the Empire Company? A. ' I understood they were Empire Voting Machines. 11 Witness understands the twenty machines were ma- chines to be put on exhibition or test in the City of Chi- cago at the following election. The machines were ex- amined in the City of Chicago at the barn of the American Express Company, 538 Seber street. The twenty machines were examined for one fee, in addition to the fee for ex- amination of the Empire Machine on March 20th. Three machines of the twenty were rolled out of the box. "We looked them over, not particularly, but cas- ually, to see that they were of the same type as the one 12 that we examined on the 20th. They were very heavy. We noticed the box was stamped 'Empire Voting Machine Number so-and-so'; and what we were doing then was merely perfunctory as I understood it, and really unnec- essary, but that is not for me to decide that it was not. So we counted the number of boxes that were endorsed, took hold of them and tried to roll them around and found they were as heavy as the others. They had the Empire Voting Machine name on them, and the number on the box." From the examination made the w-itness cannot state positively that they were Empire and not United States Voting Machines that were then examined. The three ex- amined were evidently the same as the one examined on March 20th. We issued a certificate as to the twenty. 13 December 18, 1911, examined a voting machine of the Examination of Empire Voting Machines. 3 Empire Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, New York, No. 4362. Witness thinks that some of the Chicago Election Commissioners Avere present at the examination. Remembers Mr. Judge ; does not remember the names of the other two. Witness thinks the attorney for the Elec- 14 tion Commissioners, thinks Wheelock is the name, was 15 also present. Did not liave any mechanical expert assist in the examination. His best recollection is that the State Board spent three hours examining the Empire Voting 16 Machine. That was the first time an Empire machine was 17 examined, which it seems was on March 20th, 1911. 18 Witness does not recall that an Empire Voting Machine had been examined in 1909. "I find this minute on .• the night of June 28th, 1911. 'Empire Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, New York, request the Board to examine twenty machines, the same known as the United States Voting Machine, a type of which machine was ex- amined by the Board June 7, 1904, being No. 1828.' " 20 Empire Voting Machine (No. 4071) examined March 20th, 1911, was a nine-party, 70-key machine, according to witness' best recollection. Examination was not at- tended by any other officials than Election Commission- 21 ers, nor by representatives of any civic bodies. Demon- strators of the machines examined were present. Board examined restricting devices, restricting number of can- didates voter could vote, for grouping candidates, such as Legislative, Sanitary District, County Commissioners and Judges. Did not examine machine with reference to Primary Law devices. 22 Tested machines by voting upon it and looked through back part and front part of machines. Examined ma- chine as to possibilities of manipulation and concluded 23 that, "It was safe in the hands of honest people." "But does not believe you could hardly keep them from man- ipulating any machine, or collusion — where there was col- lusion a custodian, if dishonest, could manipulate it." Judges could manipulate machine if dishonest. Witness does not think voter would have time to manipulate it 24 Did not make any inquiry into how custodian or judges, or voters could manipulate machine. 4 Witness' Views of Empire Voting Machine. Cross-Examination hy Mr. Mitchell. 25 Witness concluded that Empire Machine fulfilled re- quirements of Illinois Voting Machine Law, and he be- lieved his associates on the State Board of Voting Ma- chine Examiners signed a statement to that effect. 26 Machine could be manipulated by dishonest judges, clerks, and voters ; so could the Australian Ballot System. 28 Cross-Examination hy Mr. McEwen. The reports made by witness and Mr. Emerson were filed with the Secretary of State. In making examina- tion of machines had in view whether they complied with the requirements of statute. Witness was not influenced 30 by Election Commissioners in making reports ; it -was his own independent judgment. 31-2-3 Witness identifies as documents concerning which he testifies two certificates of State Board of Election Com- missioners for Empire Voting Machines, 4071, exatained March 20th, 1911, and 4362, examined December 18, 1911. 33 Witness does not recall that Voting Machine Commis- sioners made examination in reference to primary elec- tions, but after reading certificate stating that the In- spector of Elections may so set the machine that the voter can vote only for the candidates of the party with -which he has declared aifiliation, says they must have made ex- amination of the machine in reference to primary elec- tions. Documents identified as Owens' Exhibits 1 and 2 of this date, and at the request of the Chairman marked, 34 "0.1, and 0.2, 7-22-1913." Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. 34 State Board examined voting machine especially with reference to one minute voting requirement and witness understood the provision of the statute for precincts of 600 voters. Witness said and says the average voter could read the questions and vote a straight or split ticket in one minute. Does not recall examining machine in ref- 35 erence to primaries. Witness presumes that custodian could manipulate machine without knowledge of judges or clerks. The voter could hardly do it in a minute, but that depends upon the voter "how smart he w^as." "The re- Testimony of Amos Miller. 5 mark would apply to anyone who could get access to it and wanted to do it." 37 State Board, in examining places for voting for inde- pendent candidates, did not test whether one could write 29 names in the space allotted. 39 Witness thinks that examination of one machine of a type is sufficient examination to cover all machines of that type ; thinks that is the law. 41 Witness was informed that the Election Commission- ers said that the twenty machines must be examined, additional to the ones already examined by the State 42 Board. One fee was paid for the twenty machines. Senator Lajs^dee. Q. Now, you stated, in giving the . machines you examined the first time, the Empire Vot- ing Machine, that the second time you made an exami- nation, it was a Standard, at the request of the Empire. Then the Empire had two machines, you examined one at one time and one at another, but they were different types of machines? A. Well, United States Standard. Q. Yes, the Standard once and the Empire; first the Empire and then the Standard, so that the second exami- nation you made at the request of the Empire was not of the same machine, it was of a different machine, it was of a different machine, wasn't it? A. It was of the same type, as I understand it. 43 The witness will not undertake to say that it was the same type at this late day. Mr. McEwEN. The testimony of the witness shows that the first examination of the Standard was June 7, 1904. In March, 1911, a request was made to examine an Empire and in the witness' note he states that it was the same type as the United States Standard, but the wit- ness examined it as an Empire. 44 Mr. Denebx. The fact is that 166 Standard Ma- chines were used in the election of April 4th. 45 The witness says the first examination of Empire Vot- ing Machines was March 20th, 1911; March 28th exam- ined the twenty and in December following examined an- other Empire* Machine. "A. Well, on the 28th of March, which is between the times that we have examined those other two Empire Voting Machines, we examined the twenty machines and the minutes states that the Board examined twenty machines, the same known as 6 Testimony of Morris Emerson. United States Voting Machines, the type of machine which was examined by the Board June 7th, 1904." 49 Morris Embrsox: Lives at Lincoln, Illinois. Has been a newspaper man 37 years, all his life. Has published and edited news- papers at Albion, Mt. Vernon and Lincoln, Illinois. Ap- 50 pointed member of Voting Machine Commission 1903 and served ever since. Thinks he examined about twelve to fifteen machines in that time and approved all but one. All examinations made in Chicago at the office of the Board of Election Commissioners, with one exception; that was the last examination of the Empire Voting Ma- chine. 51 The Election Commissioners were present but did not take part in the examination. Some examinations took half a day; some all day. Didn't take machines apart. Examined restricting devices, lock-outs, group voting, and women's voting. The only time primary elections 52 were mentioned to the State Board of Voting Machine Examiners until the last examination, was "just pre- vious to the adoption of the primary law in this state." The examination was made in March and the primaries came off the following April, 1911. 53 The Board never took machines apart. Did not have any expert sent for by the Election Commission to as- sist them. Demonstrators of the machines were pres- ent who demonstrated the features of machines and the Board tested them afterwards in voting. Thinks Judge Miller and himself voted on the machine when the demon- strators were not present. The State Board was shown the keys to the doors in the back of the machine and was "told that one key Avas to be placed in the hands of the 54 Democratic judge and the other key in the hands of the Republican judge." The lower key was controlled by the custodian, not by the judges and clerks. The State Board examined the mechanism behind the lower door con- trolled by the custodian. Witness could not see how any one individual could manipulate machine. Q. Well, the custodian could easily do it, couldn't he? A. What do you mean by the custodian, when the elec- tion is in progress? Q. No, the custodian at the storage house. A. The Voting Machine Defects and Limitations. 7 presumption is that the machine is to be set by the judges after it is placed in the booth. Q. That is it. A. Yes, when you put the machine up, it is the duty of the judges, the judges, to see that the 55 machine is set properly and registers in counting and everything is all right. Q. You were examined on the law, I think. They have no key to the lower door; they have nothing to do with putting up the restricting devices; the judges are spe- cially prohibited by law. A. If that is the case — Q. I don't want to let the answer stand without call- ing your attention to that. A. If that is the case, any- body could manipulate the machine. Q. The custodian could! A. Yes, anybody could. 5^ The judges could not turn the wheels from the rear, 57 only from the front. The judges could not set the ma- chine to register fraudulently or fail to register. The custodian could. The machine could be set so that the voter could vote for five candidates or any number; just according to how it is set. 58 "We never made an examination on them (primary elections). I suggested at the time, referring to the time at the examination just previous to the primary election, that I did not think a machine could be manufactured to meet the demands of the primary in this state; that it would be entirely too cumbersome." Cross-Examination by Mr'. McEwen. Q. You made and signed the reports, copies of which have been produced here, wherein you stated that the Em- pire machine could lock out and confine a voter to vot- ing his party candidate? A. Yes. Q. Did the Empire Machine do that? A. Yes. 59 Q. Let me direct your attention; this portion is the same in each of the reports, one in March and one also in December. "We also find that the machine complies with the Illinois law relating to the use of machines at primaries and that it can be so set by the Inspector of Elections that the voter can vote only for the candidates of the party with whom he has announced his affiliation, even though more than one party appears thereon." A. It could be, if you make the machine big enough, there is no question about what it could be made, but to do so it would be cumbersome. 8 Testimony of Morris Emerson. 60 In making the statement I had in mind the immense primary ballot in Cook County at that particular time. The State Board certificate simply covers this, that the machine could be extended and you could vote 500 on the machine. The machine could be set so that more than three votes could be cast for candidates for the Legislature. 61 If the machine is wrongly set by the custodian, the person who inspects the machine could discover it. Manipulation would require the use of three keys and the connivance of three persons, the custodian and the Democratic and Eepublican judges of election. 62 If the custodian locked the key for one candidate, for instance, the State's Attorney, the voter could discover that it was locked. 63 The State Board examined voting machines with ref- erence to the requirements of the Illinois law and hon- estly believed, and their best judgment was, that the ma- chines did comply with the Illinois law. VOLUME II. Afternoon Session, July 22d, 1913. 71 MoERis Emeeson (continued) : Witness thought that judges had access to the lower rear door and that idea entered into his judgment in pass- ing upon the machine. Now, witness thinks it impossible for judges to adjust restrictive part of machine without 72 custodian. Judges would have to have keys to the entire machine, the custodian's key, the Democratic judge's key, and the Republican's judge's key. The machine could be set so that the voter, at the time of the election, could vote for candidates of his own party and of some other party or parties at the same time. The independent voter, 74 who desired to write names in the slides, might not be able to vote in ten minutes. Witness thinks that the objection to the size of the machine, in primaries, would apply to all machines ; believes voting machines would be impracticable in a primary under our present law. 76 Mr. McEwEN. Q. Do you think that the tendency of elections in the matter of voting at primaries is that we Testimony of Morris Emerson. 9 will have a larger number of candidates in the future or less number! Mr. Deneen. I object to that. The Chairman. I did not get that. Mr. McEwEN. I am asking him in regard to the tend- ency of increase or decrease in the number of names to be voted at primaries, whether the tendency is to increase or decrease, or remain as it is. In considering a voting machine, necessarily the element of the future would en- ter into its practicability and desirability for purchase. I want to get at Mr. Emerson's ideas as to whether or not the machine, any machine, could be used. 78 A. "Well, we certified to the Secretary of State that that machine would meet the requirements of the primary- law and I say that yet, but, as I said, I would accompany it with the statement that it will be so cumbersome and so large that it would embarrass a voter so that he would hardly know how to operate the machine; he would get lost, he would get in a maze of keys there, and names, and would lose him, but I think that the machine is best adapted to where there is a short ticket and fewer names. I • think the machine is very desirable in any election where you can have — where there is no cumulative vot- 79 ing. Cumulative voting is a bad thing on the machine; it is hard for a man to divide up his vote if he wants to vote for someone not on the ballot, which he has a right to do under our law" — etc. "As between the machines and cumulative voting, I would abolish cumulative voting. 81 "I think the number of straight ballots would be de- creased on the machines, because a man would be in a hurry to vote." 82 The witness thinks that the ordinary election shows 70 per cent, scratched and 30 per cent, straight votes. 83 The interlocking primary device on the machine is con- 84 trolled by the judges. The voter can protest if the judges lock him out of his party ticket, and can leave the ma- 85 chine for that purpose without voting. The Voting Ma- chine Commissioners never passed any machine as to primaries except that it could be made to meet the pur- poses of the primary. The primary switch was on the 86 Empire Machine when the Voting Machine Commission- ers examined it and it was shown to them. It is left on the machines at the regular elections. The same switch is used to lock out women voting on anything but Uni- versity Trustees. 10 Testimony of Isaac N. Powell. 89 Isaac N. Powell: Eesides 6826 Bennett avenue, Chicago. Was appointed Chief Clerk of the Board of Election Commissioners in May, 1895, and served in that office continuously from December, 1894, until March, 1909. 90 The voting machine matter was called to the attention of the Board about 1904. One voting machine was used in the following spring elections and another in the fall election. After the question had been voted on in the fall of 1904 witness thinks the Board of Election Com- 91 missioners advertised for bids. The Board delayed ac- tion until the Supreme Court passed on the question whether the voting machine was valid. Witness thinks in 1905 the Board received some tentative bids which the witness thinks were returned without being opened. In 1905 about a dozen machines were used in the April election and a number in the fall election; also in the spring election of 1906, or 1907, 37 machines were used. 92 The first appropriation (of $100,000) for voting ma- chines was made by the City Council in 1907. The Board advertised for bids to be opened Olctober 31st, 1907. These were all finally rejected. Q. What was done after the bids were opened with ref- erence to examining machines? A. We advertised for bids along in the summer, about July, along about the 10th or 15th of July, and on the 31st of October, or about then, the Board opened the bids and took charge of the machines that had been submitted in accordance with the bids and turned them over to the experts that had been employed by the Board; and they also used them in a number of exhibitions that were held there for the pur- pose of judges and clerks of election and citizens gener- ally that wanted to vote on them. The experts were C. E. Depuy of the Lewis Institute; Mr. Leutweiler of the University of Illinois, and Mr. Ol- son of the Fort Dearborn Machine Company. They were also examined by officials of the Board ; not by experts. 9'3 The public, members of different clubs in town and public officials were invited to inspect the machines and two days were set apart for examination by Election Officials. The examinations occupied 40 or 50 days, and- the companies were then given 40 days' time to satisfy Examination and Rejection of Voting Machines. 11 the Board's idea of a practical macliine and they came back in March. The bids were all reject'^d. 94 About January 15, 1909, the Election Commissioners advertised for bids and the time for opening bids was set for September. An appropriation of flOO,000 was again made by the City Council. Witness appeared be- fore the Finance Committee in the interest of the appro- priation and did not ask for more than $100,000. Wit- ness was not connected with the office when the bids were opened on September 15, 1909. Had left the office in March. 95 The southern terminus of the Election Commissioners' jurisdiction is 138th street, about Hegewisch, about 15 or 16 miles from the Cliicago courthouse. The northern terminus is Devon avenue, about 10 miles from the court- bouse ; the western terminus about 6 or 8 miles from the courthouse. The territory extends about 28 miles north and south and 6 to 8 miles east and west. Chicago aver- ages about four elections each year. Cr OSS-Examination by Mr. McEwen. 97 United Standard machines were used in different tests in 1904 and 1905 in the spring. In the fall, United States Standard, the Dean, the Columbia, the Winslow, the In- ternational, and the Triumph, and also the Ball machine. About six machines j3ut in bids in answer to the adver- tisement. 98 Witness examined some machines himself and heard discussions in the meetings of the Election Commission- ers. On some machines they could vote for more people than the law permitted, and in other cases they could not vote for candidates the law permitted them to vote for. All the machines were in this condition to a more or less extent. 99 Witness does not remember doing it on the United States Standard Machine. 100 . Mr. McEwen reads from an article written by the wit- ness : "The writer has yet to see any machine that would permit a voter to spoil his ballot in any particular. It is true, the machines will not require a voter to vote for all the candidates for whom he is entitled to vote, but it will permit him to vote for more candidates for the office than the law permits and thereby lose his vote as to that office." 12 Testimony of Isaac N. Powell. The witness said in the article that the machine reduced opportunities for dishonesty. Witness had no knowledge of machines except in this community. 102 The machine is subject to the dishonesty of men. Wit- 103 ness would not make some of the statements in the maga- zine article as strong now as when he wrote it, because of later experience and experiments of experts. The ar- ticle stated Chicago would save $76,000 a year, but wit- ness now thinks the statement would need revision. Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. 105 When the article was written, machines had not been adopted and had been used in only one or two precincts. The article did not favor any specific machine. 107 _ At the time of writing the article, witness did not have in mind the territory over wiiich voting machines would be hauled. Weight and size of machine would make a big difference in this regard. 108 Witness, as Chief Clerk of Election Board, prepared specifications principally; the Board and the witness col- laborated. They were approved by the Board. The pres- ent Empire Machine had not been originated when the witness left the Board. The Empire was a combination of other machines. 109 The witness thinks he was there when the combination was made. Abel A. Bach : 6005 La Salle street. Now connected with the Fire Marshal's office. Became election commissioner in 1905 and served until December, 1910. The Board called for 110 bids on voting machines and companies submitted bids, witness thinks, in 1908. In 1907 Election Commissioners placed machines in certain precincts for experimental purposes; thinks between twenty and thirty machines. 112 Bids were called for by commissioners in 1907 and were opened about March, 1908. Bids had been opened in October, 1907, and rejected March 23, 1908. Between these dates the election commissioners had a public in- vestigation of all voting machines and had three experts examine them. Professor Depuy, Professor Leutweiler and Mr. Olson. At the Public Investigation the competi- Rejection of Voting Machines by Former Commission. 13 tors examined rival machines. The competitors were not allowed to go inside the rival machines, but were allowed to ask questions and demonstrate and "Beat it if they could." The result was all machines were rejected. 113 Bids were again called for January 15, 1909. These were opened September 15, 1909. An appropriation of $100,000, all that was asked for, was made by the City Council. Machines examined, witness thinks, were the Triumph, the Wilcox, Empire, and the Winslow. Bids opened September 15, 1909, were rejected because the reports from the Board's experts were against the ma- 114 chine. Invitations were issued by the Board of Election Commissioners to the judges and clerks after we got • through our examination and we instracted the secretary of the Board to notify the newspapers. There were quite a few objections; the machines were not considered re- 115 liable. Too cumbersome, too heavy, too large. The ex- pense of delivering back and forth was too great. The Board issued a statement at the time it ruled rejecting all machines which was read into the record: "As in the previous investigation, the machines were thoroughly inspected and tested by three mechanical ex- perts at the instance of the Board. Their detailed re- ports show that, while substantial improvements have been made within the past year, yet there are still remain- ing such defects in the mechanical arrangements of all the machines submitted as to preclude their practical use in this city. "This Board is of the opinion that, among the many necessary essentials required by the specifications, none is of greater importance than that which requires a ma- chine to record the vote in strict compliance with the law, and absolutely prevent a person voting for more candi- dates than there are officers to be elected. "A machine which can be so manipulated as to permit a voter to vote for more candidates than the law permits, is fatally defective and its use would only be productive of protest and costly litigation. "Each machine is found to be seriously defective and their purchase at this time impracticable; therefore, all bids will be rejected. "The defect in each machine will be shown to the rep- resentative of that machine. "This Board, in response to an ovenvhelming vote on 14 Former Commission Defines Voting Machine Requirements. the proposition, lias faithfully tried to find a satisfactory voting machine. Our efforts so far have been in vaiii. We do not know when we will advertise again for bids, if at all, but we desire to purchase voting machines as soon as one that is satisfactory is presented. "Therefore, we desire to announce that if, any time after the 1st day of December, 1909, anyone believes that he or they have a voting machine that will answer our purposes, we invite you to bring it to the Board and the same will be inspected. "It seems to us that this will be a proper time again to give all the suggestions we are able to in reference to the kind of a machine that the Board wants to buy. ' 'First. The machine must allow voting in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. "Second. The machine must x^revent any voting not in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. "Third. It must be accurate, positive, and incapable of fraudulent manipulation. "Fourth. We want as small a machine as is prac- ticable. "Fifth. We want as light a machine as practicable. "Sixth. And, taking all the foregoing into considera- tion, we want as cheap a machine as possible. ' ' Seventh. When such a machine is presented to us, a purchase will be made." 116 Witness has been in the house-moving and teaming business, and took into account the weight and transpor- 117 tation of machines in considering this. Also the cost of printing ballots for the machine and under the Australian system. Also the question of possibility of tampering with machine; and the Board found, from public demon- stration and what experts said, that they could be tam- pered with. Different machines had certain good qualities, and a combination was suggested by the Election Commis- sioners. 119 The Empire machine was created out of the Dean, Co- lumbia, Standard and Empire after the fall of 1909. This new machine was submitted to the Election Commission- ers and was also rejected, on the reports of the Board's experts, for practically tlie same reasons. The witness, on several occasions, tried to vote on the 120 Empire Machine. Once, shortly before the election of November, 1912. Found he could vote 3J votes for Kep- Defects of Empire Voting Machine. 15 resentative. When the machines were on the floor of the Election Commissioners' room, the employe would call 121 attention and say, "I could vote 11 votes for County Election Commissioners," and "I could do so and so." Witness said that machines will be adjusted before elec- tion and paid no further attention. The Election Com- missioners kept 20 or 30 or more expert mechanics at the rooms to go from precinct to precinct to repair ma- chines that got out of order, and automobiles to carrj'" them to the polling places. 122 In using machines for experimental purposes, witness thinks ballot boxes were kept at the polling places so the voter could take his choice. The Election Commissioners asked for not more than $100,000 and were given to un- derstand they could have more if they needed it. Only $100,000 was appropriated. 12.3 Cross-Examination by Mr. McEwen. The witness voted 3i votes three or four days before election day. Didn't try to do it election day, but voted a ballot. 124 The machine was probably not adjusted when the wit- ness voted 3J votes. 125 The Board advertised twice for bids. The witness is 127 somewhat of a machinist. The Board accepted the views of the three experts. The experts made written reports which were examined by the witness. 129 Bids were asked for by the Election Commissioners 130 October 31, but opened in March, 1908. The next bids were September 15, 1909. The Election Commissioners employed the same experts as before. The Empire was under consideration in both examinations. The witness thinks that the first time the Standard was the favored machine and the last time the Empire was the favored machine. 131 Witness thinks all experts reported it would not be safe to purchase machines. Witness has no feeling against Election Commissioners because of circumstances of his removal from office of Election Commissioner. Has 132 not any particular love for the Judge. And has some liti- gation growing out of his removal. Witness is not ma- chinist enough to have a judgment upon the limit of light- ness of voting machines. Witness does not think that a 16 Testimony of Abel A. Bach. voting machine of the same weight and size is practicable in Chicago. 136 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mitchell. The machine the witness cast 3i votes on for Repre- sentative was a machine the Election Commissioners had in the third precinct of the 35th ward. Presumes it was the Empire. Many people were present. Witness could not give the date. 138 The witness also voted experimentally for 11 County Commissioners. Ten was the legal number. Doesn't re- member on what machine. Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. Witness was not a member of the Board of Election Commissioners, or judge or clerk of election, or Avorker, when he cast 3| votes for Representative. 139 The witness voted almost all the machines that were submitted. The witness was removed from office by Judge 142 Owens. "We were called into the office of Owens, Judge Owens' office, and there he told us that he was glad to meet us, and he said, 'You fellows are all right and I have nothing against you, but the people elected me County Judge and I would like to appoint your successors. ' Mr. Hudson said, 'Your Honor, I have two years to serve and I have — I don't know that I have done anything that you would want my removal for, my resignation.' He said, 'This is politics,' and he said, 'A man that can't be a good loser has no business in the game.' The next morn- ing at 11 o'clock we got word that charges had been pre- ferred and heard at 10." 143 Doctor Taylor was the witness' successor. "Mr. Deneen. Q. You got word at eleven! What did you do then ! What did you do ! "A. We adjourned until the afternoon, and later on in the afternoon we were unprepared to go on, you know; he practically placed us under arrest and kept us in the custody of the court, and about nine o'clock he removed us. " Senator Babe. Q. Nine o'clock at night! "A. I think between seven and nine he removed us from office. "The Ch.\irman. Q. At night! Testimony of Abel A. Bach. 17 "A. Yes. "Q. In custody of the court. What do you mean by that? Explain so that the Committee understands you. A. He said that Mr. Bach and Mr. Hudson will remain in the custody of the court, and during that time he sent a man over and seized their office and took charge of the office. ' ' 149 The witness does not think the machine has been im- proved since the last time it was before the Board, when he was Election Commissioner. "It is the same machine, as I remember it." 150 The witness' case on removal was appealed to the Ap- pellate Court and Judge Owens ' decision affirmed ; and to the Supreme Court, which held it had no jurisdiction. ' The circumstances of removal have given the witness some feeling, but not against his successor. 151 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. When witness was Election Commissioner, Chicago had 1,329 precincts. The Board also exercised jurisdiction over the Town of Cicero. Invitations were sent out by the Board to all judges and clerks of election to inspect voting machines submitted to the Board. 152 Thomas F. Judge: Lives 3610 Pine Grove avenue. Was Election Commis- sioner for about twelve years. Appointed in 1898 and served to November, 1910. Represented the minority, the Democratic party. 153 Witness had to do with voting machine question. After adoption of voting machine law in 1904, bids were adver- tised for and machines were sent up to the Election Com- missioners ' office and experts Depuy, Breckenridge, Leut- weiler and Olson were employed. All bids were rejected, 154 because the experts said that they did not cover the law as laid down, and the size of the machine, and the cost it would make the taxpayers to handle it. "I did not be- lieve there was any saving, even if the machine was per- fect under the law, I thought the cost of transportation would exceed any saving; that was my reason." 155 The experts made separate examinations and did not meet until after they had made final report. r 18 Testimony of Thomas F. Judge. The bids called for January 15, 1909, and were not to be opened until September 15, 1909. When the machines were sent to the Election Commissioners' rooms the ex- perts of competitors' machines were permitted to see what they could do with them. The test lasted a long time, probably 40 days. 156 On voting to reject all machines, the Election Commis- sioners did not decide on party lines. Invitations to in- spect machines were issued by the Commissioners to the editors of all the newspapers in the city, the clubs that were social or quasi-political. 158 Witness had no mechanical ability to examine machines. 159 Witness read reports of Olson, Depuy and Leutweiler. When the report of experts said the machine did not come within the law, that settled it in witness' mind. When Election Commissioner, witness most favored vot- ing machines on the ground of expense. Did not then think machines improved honesty of elections. Also thought machines could be set wrong before voting be- 167 gan. Also witness did the rubber-band trick. The wit- ness examined machines closely enough to have a fair judgment as to whether or not they would improve elec- tion conditions and concluded that the machines would 168 not improve conditions at all. Witness thinks that coun- ters can be changed on machines by judges and clerks 170 if they had a key. Witness thinks that election returns can be falsified by the judges reading falsely from the counters on the back of the machines to the clerks who take down the figures. Testimony of John D. Cannon. 19 VOLUME III. Morning Session, Wednesday, July 23, 1913. John D. Cannon : Besides 1811 Larchmont avenue. Since July 11, 1911, Superintendent of Employment under the Lincoln Park Board, Civil Service Law. Was employed previously, for approximately 30 years, with the Western Electric Com- pany, and nearly five years with the Consolidated Fire 177 Alarm Company. Was chairman of the Board of Election Commissioners for about three years and for a little more than that, chief clerk of the Board. Election Com- missioner from 1905 until December, 1910. Had to do with voting machines. First bids were advertised for in 178 the spring of 1907. "When bids were opened in October or November, eight or nine companies bid, as I remember it." "As I remember it, all these bids were voluntarily withdrawn and the bidders agreed to submit machines for experimental purposes. Machines were set up in the Elec- tion Commissioners' office and tests made. Another ad- vertisement was made in 1907 for bids to be opened Oc- tober 31, 1907. In the meantime, the Council had made an appropriation of $100,000. 179 After the bids were opened October 31st, the Board employed experts to examine machines and answer cer- tain questions. At the first examination the experts were Professor Breekenridge, of the University of Illinois; Mr. Depuy, of the Lewis Institute, and Mr. Olson, of the Fort Dearborn Manufacturing Company. Professor Breekenridge took a position with some college in the East, — Yale or Harvard, — and his successor completed the examination. All bids were rejected. Besides the experts, all civic bodies were invited by the County Judge and the Secretary of the Board, to examine the voting devices on exhibition. 180 For all judges and clerks of election, certain days and hours were set. The general public was invited, too. Also the newspapers. There were then about 1,326 precincts and about 6,500 persons w-ere invited to inspect the ma- chines of judges and clerks alone. The Board advertised for bids about January 15, 1909, 20 Action of Former Board of Election Commissioners. to be opened September 15th. A long time was given to give everybody an opportunity to present voting devices to the Board and to get the fullest competition. In that year also an appropriation of $100,000 was made by the Council when the budget was made up. The 1909 adver- tisement brought in, the witness thinks, four machines. The Triumph, the International, the Wilcox, and the Em- pire. 181 The same three experts again examined the machines. 182 The same opportunities were afforded to others as be- fore, and the newspapers, the general public, invited, and the judges and clerks of election were requested to come in, and many of them did come. As witness recalls, the examination lasted four or five weeks. Each of the three 183 experts examined all three of the machines and made a separate report on each to the Board. Then a public hearing was held, and the agents of all machines were asked to prepare questions to be asked of the demonstra- tors of other machines than his own to be ready to attack the opposing machine, and if demonstrator, for reasons of personal friendship, or other reasons, did not like to ask questions of fellow demonstrator, they were asked to hand in questions to the Board so that the Board might ask them so that the Board had the experts' experience and the knowledge of voting machines of all the voting 184 machine experts in the country. The result was that when the rival demonstrators were through with the various machines, there was not much left of them. They were all defective and all admitted they were defective. No one who saw the demonstration and examination would recommend the purchasing of any of the machines there exhibited. A combination of several of the eight com- panies that exhibited was begun then and there, and one of the representatives of the companies that went into the combine showed a memorandum indicating the interest of each of the companies that combined or went into the 185 supposed new company. Four companies that had com- bined were the Federal, Dean, Columbia, and the United States Standard. After the tests the Board refused to purchase machines. The Board also made a written statement holding out certain objects in regard to future contests and set forth certain features that would have to be in the voting ma- Rejection of Voting Machines. 21 chines. This was given to the public. It was the state- ment read yesterday. The consolidated company, that is the Empire Com- 189 pany, presented a machine afterwards, either in the early part of 1910, or latter part of 1909; that machine was tested by the three experts employed by the Board was 190 proven defective, and rejected. Neither the Empire nor any other company presented a voting machine after that rejection. As chief clerk, the witness looked into the question of transportation and storage of voting machines; the cost of printing ballots to be placed on the machine, and every other item that may enter into the expense, to 191 see whether or not there would be any saving to the tax- , payers, and "found there was really ilo saving to be made. ' ' Thinks that the memorandum showing proceedings of the Board on voting machine matters was left in the files of the office and should be in the files now. The items showing no saving, from a financial standpoint, from the. use of voting machines, included everything that entered into the handling of voting machines by the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners in the territory under the jurisdiction of the Board. 192 Cross-Examination by Mr. McEwen. Witness knew of favorable vote by the people on vot- ing machine question at the election of 1904 and as Elec- tion Commissioner and Clerk was trying to find some way to carry out the will of the people. There was a large public sentiment in favor of voting machines. 193 As Chief Clerk and Commissioner, witness kept track of every detail of election matters. Witness has no means of knowing the number of fraudulent votes counted or cast in this city at election. 194 As Election Commissioner, witness had an opinion re- garding fraudulent registration in the First AVard. The Board erased many thousand names from the First Ward voting list. Witness has seen ballots marked with two different kinds of markings called "short-pencilling." 195 Witness knows of precincts in Chicago where well known and reasonably popular men did not receive their votes. 196 Matters of frauds in elections mentioned in grand jury reports read j^esterday, including false representations, 22 Possibilities of Fraud on Empire Machine. repeating, falsification of ballots and returns were in vogue in witness ' time and before and after. Witness has no opinion regarding illegal voting in the 1st, 18th or 28th wards. 197 Witness made a personal examination of voting ma- chines and read Professor Leutweiler's report in detail. 198 Witness thinks Professor Leutweiler rated United States Standard Machine first as the best mechanically con- structed machine, but that it was heavy and advised against purchase. Mr. Leutweiler was also favorable to 199 the Empire; and also gave it first place, and so did the other experts, as to mechanical construction alone. Wit- ness includes in mechanical construction, the engineer- ing theory upon which the macliine is designed, the char- acter of material entering into its construction, the qual- ity of workmanship put upon those materials, and setting up the machine. The counting mechanism of nearly all machines was manufactured by the Veeder Manufacturing Company, known as the "Veeder counter." All counters were cov- ered by Veeder patents, except the Dean Company, which has a counter of its own. 201 On the Empire Voting Machine, "By manipulating the voting key and juggling and loosening it up a bit, you can get in the lower House of Representatives as many as 44 votes, and on judges for the Superior Court you could vote for 15, and on County Commissioners you could vote for 11." This was done when the machines were checked for voting by the machine's representative. They were told, "Here are the keys to your machine. Go and fix your machine as though it was to be voted on tomorrow morning. ' ' The witness looked at the Empire Machine in his vot-, ing precinct last November, 1912, and tested it. But used 202 the paper ballot on election day. The witness knew of his own experience that you could manipulate the Empire Machine if you could get at the back of it. "If I were permitted to get at the back of the machine and study its mechanism, I would there learn enough about its con- struction to go to the front of the machine and, by manip- 203 ulating the voting key, as I did do with the Empire Ma- chine, and vote the entire ticket when it was supposed to be cut out and only permit the women to vote for Uni- versity Trustees." Testimony of John D. Cannon. 23 The witness knows about protective counters. It gives the total vote cast on the machine. It cannot be gotten at. It is sealed. It is set in the machine and runs imtil 204 it is through running. No way of opening it except to cut it. It is intended to prevent the possibility of en- larging the number of votes in reports of the precinct. If the judges and clerks examine the protective counter in the morning and again in the evening and report on it, it will show by the difference just how many votes have been cast that day. That should tally with the tally votes in the poll book. The individual counters are set back in the machine, behind tlie line of candidates. They can dis- connect them or lock them out by removing the counter rings that connect the voting key to the voting counter. 205 Disconnecting the counters is a very simple operation for anyone who has access to the machine. The counters are set by the custodian back to zero. He gets at the coun- ters by having access to the back of the board. It was only necessary to get at the upper portion of the ma- chine to set the counters on the other machine which the witness saw. The witness has not seen the back of the machine in the County Commissioners' Assembly Room 206 now. The counters are set with a thin piece of wood. 208 The witness did not see the lock which prevents the counter from being moved, unless it is unlocked. Eight or nine parties bid on the first machine; on the second, four; the last time only one, the Empire. The witness has talked to more than ten or fifteen people that had mechanical voting devices. 209 The process since has been one of elimination of the companies. "I do not believe A^oting machines are prac- tical. I do not believe it is standing still, though. I do not believe that the last machines are better, mechanically or in theory, than the older machines, than the Standard, or the Columbia." The witness thinks the difference be- tween the United States Standard and the Empire is a combination of the parts of the machine of the old three companies. The Empire had a party lever. The old United States Standard had. 210 The Empire had one key, belonging to the party ticket. The total had to be added to the vote on the same ticket, showing the aggregate vote for the candidates. The Avitness examined the material that went into vot- ing machines. The Empire and Columbia were machine 24 Testimony of John D. Camion. made. The Wilcox was in part hand made. Some of the machines were hand made. Such machines did not have a full set of tools and were not manufactured to the same extent as those of the old companies. The Election Commissioners found that voting machines were used in Bufifalo, New York and Milw^aukee. Witness does not know the number. 211 The time the examination w^as made, the Election Board found that there was not any increase in use of vot- ing machines, and that in New Jersey the machines had been rejected by the different counties and voting munici- palities. The witness examined reports of the machine companies of the State of New Jersey, on the subject of machines. It was favorable. They were all rejected im- mediately afterward by the different political divisions in the state. 212 The witness thinks there were four companies with a plant and tools to manufacture, including the Interna- tional. The International had a printing device which ran off the total votes cast on a sheet after the voting day was closed. Witness does not know of any other machine that does this. In all the rest the totals have to be read by .the judges and tabulated on the tally-sheet. 213 The witness does not think that voting machines are practical in the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, or County of Cook. No machine has been yet invented which will meet conditions here. There is no other state that has the cumulative voting scheme. There are not so many groups of candidates in the other states as here, and all of those conditions mean added complications under me- chanical devices. 214 In group voting you have 14 judges; also on County Commissioners. When the group voting principle is car- ried out to seven feet in length, it is difficult as a me- chanical and engineering proposition. 215 In machines examined by the witness the metal used was phosphor bronze, steel and aluminum; some brass, but very little. "Q. You never had any trouble with the City Council in the matter of getting appropriations! A. No, sir; the last time we went there for an appropriation there was some question because of the City being in financial strin- gencies and the Finance Committee at that time invited the Election Officials, the Election Board, to come before Former Conferences With City Regarding Finances. 25 them when they wex-e preparing their annual budget. We went at that time. Mr. Snow, who was then chairman of the Finance Committee, as I remember it, was present, and we were questioned about the matter. The combined voting machine companies were represented at that time, I think, by John Maynard Harlan. The question was asked, 'Judge, if $100,000 worth of the machines would be all the City of Chicago would need, if they found, — if the Election Board found an acceptable machine!' I answered for the Election Board that |100,000 would not buy all the machines that might be needed by the Board, but they did not purpose at that time to buy more than $100,000 worth of machines at one time ; and that appro- I priation was granted at that time on my statement as a member of the Board that we did not like to ask the City for an amount beyond $100,000 at that time." 217 Civic bodies made reports on voting machines. Some passed on them favorably and others were against them. Some of the newspapers of Chicago were "crabbing" the election officials now and then on the subject of voting ma- chines. Witness does not think any civic bodies made rec- ommendations one way or the other to the Election Com- missioners. In their investigations they discovered some weaknesses and made reports to the Election Commission- ers as to what they had discovered. Witness thinks he saw one such report from the Committee on Elections of the City Club. 218 The Election Commissioners had about twenty machines in use in the election at one time. This was either be- fore or after the tirst demonstration. Machines exclu- sively were used in precincts where they were placed. Ballots were kept in the Election Commissioners office for use if needed, but they were not needed. Witness remem- bers that machines were placed in the 27th Ward, in 219 Ravenswood, in Hyde Park and in Englewood. Thinks there were more than one in these precincts, but does not remember there were. The reports were made to the Election Commissioners of votes that were never recorded on the machine. There were three machines in use, the United States Standard, the Dean, and Winslow, and com- plaints were made against all three. The reports were in writing and witness thinks they were in the Election Commissioners' office. There are about three such re- ports. The reports were in the safe in the Rand-McNally 26 Testimony of John D. Cannon. Building and were indexed under the title "Machine Data," and kept in a separate compartment of the safe. 221 Witness would be willing, with the aid of an expert, to study the mechanism of the machine now present in the County Commissioners' room and "tell how to beat it." Judge McEwen states' that the Election Commission in- vites the -witness to select his expert, study the machine for any reasonable length of time and get in front of the machine and beat it. "Judge McEwEN. The Board invites you, and I, on behalf of Judge Owens, invite you to do that." ' 'The Witness. All right. ' ' 223 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mitchell. While there was a Republican Board of Election Com- missioners, to the witness' recollection there was only one paper that had an editorial commenting on the purchase of voting machines. The witness does not recollect that the Chicago Tribune was pertinacious in advocating the purchase of voting machines. The Chicago Daily News was never in favor of voting machines until a suitable and ample machine could be found. 224 The witness does not remember any persistent attempts for the purchase of machines, either on the part of Repub- lican or Democratic newspapers. Does not know that any opposed it. Witness recalls editorial in Chicago Record- Herald ending, "Why any more wait!" 225 In the last. examination, it was shown the cut-off with reference to women's voting could be defeated. The ex- 226 perts said this. Professor Depuy particularly, and alluded to it in their reports. The witness does not know of any 228 report made by Professor Depuy on the Empire Machine in 1910 in which he did not allude to defect in cut-out de- vice. 229 The defect existed in the last Empire Machine pre- sented. "I called the defect to the attention of the mem- bers of the Board of Election Commissioners, the County Judge, Harry Barr, and Mr. Lausterer, the superintend- ent. I cannot recall whether these objections were incor- porated in the reports of the experts. 230 The witness did not visit the plants of any of the ma- chines concerned while he was Election Commissioner to see whether or not they had adequate plants. The witness Fraudulent Manipulation of Empire Machine. 27 thought that the three companies had adequate plants. The United States Standard, Dean, and International. 231 The witness thinks that this machine, or any machine could be tampered with by one man if he was custodian. The witness has set the Empire Voting Machine so that it would record falsely. Has also set the United States Standard Machine so it would record falsely. And voted 232 for more candidates than the law permitted. Did not put out that particular machine on election day, but showed the defect to the manufacturers who rectified it. "Q. You never nut out any machine that was capable of defective work? A. I never wanted to put out a ma- chine that was not honestly and legally capable of letting ■ the voter cast his ballot. ' ' Q. Then all the machines you put out were capable of that result! A. Yes, they were. We believe they were legally capable. We never put out over twenty, though. ' ' 233 Cross-Examination by Mr. McEwen. To the witness' recollection only one examination of machines was held in 1910. They came in under the last clause of the report, — People who had voting machines or devices, — and permitting them to bring them in at any time. Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. While the process of elimination of voting machines was going on, and other machines were being invented, the witness heard of at least four. 234 Regarding the attitude of the newspapers during the witness' membership on the Republican Board, the wit- ness had discussed voting machine defects with publish- ers and editors of newspapers. Did so under the direc- tion of the County Judge and Election Commissioners who instructed witness to call on all Chicago papers. Wit- ness called on all. 238 "I called on Mr. McCullough of the Record-Herald, and stated to him that the County Judge and Commission- ers wished him, for his own information, to send some expert in whom he had implicit faith and confidence, to the Election Rooms and he would there be shown a vot- ing machine and its defects would be shown to him. I 28 Testimony of John D. Cannon. " carried that same request to the Tribune and saw Mr. Medill McCormick and was referred by Mr. McCormick to Mr. Beck." 239 The Tribune and Record-Herald were Republican papers at that time. The witness also called on the Inter Ocean, Examiner and American. Mr. Hewitt came over from the Record- Herald and Mr. O'Dell from the Tribune, Mr. Strauss from the Inter Ocean, and Mr. Dennis from the Daily News. All of these men saw the machine in the presence of the County Judge and the Election Board, and was shown its defects as determined and discovered by the demonstration and reports of the experts, and from that 240 time on the witness believes every newspaper was satis- fied that the Board was endeavoring in every way to get a machine that was suitable for the needs of this city and this county. This was done after the "Why any more waiting, waiting, waiting?" editorial in the Record- Herald. 241 AVitness was with Western Electric Company nearly 30 years. They now employ 20,000 men, women, boys and girls. "Q. From your knowledge of tools, as revealed here by Judge McEwen, and the length of time to make them, do you think they could make tools sufficient to manufac- ture the machines in 25 days! A. The Western Electric Company f "Q. No, any company. These voting machines! A. Any properly equipped company could made tools; of course, if there was a great many of them 25 days would not be enough." "Q. Sufficient to make the Empire Voting Machine! A. I think putting men enough on them they could make tools enough in 25 days. "Q. A large organization could! A. A large organ- ization with men, space, and machinery. ' ' 242 As the witness remembers it, the New Jersey Voting Machine Law was ' repealed April 27, 1911. Witness thinks the machines had been used in over 100 New Jer- sey cities. Three days after the repealing of the New Jersey law the Election Board in the City of Chicago approved the specifications and set 25 days for filing bids. The repeal of the New Jersey law was public informa- tion to those keeping in touch with, voting machine situa- tion. Testimony of John D. Cannon. 29 243 After the experimental use of voting machines in the elections in Chicago they were rejected by the Board. ' ' Senator Landee. After the interview you had with the newspapers here, after that editorial had been in one of the papers, did the paper change toward the voting machines right after, or did they wait until the new Elec- tion Commissioners had been appointed? 244 "A. Well, there was not any unfavorable comment after that (after my visit to the newspapers and their experts coming in and looking it over, getting the real information). "Q. Immediately afterwards and before the new Board was appointed, the change was made after the new , Board, but after your interview] A. After my inter- view. ' ' 245 There was no editorial appeared manifesting any change in the attitude of the newspaper after witness' interview. They just stopped talking; did not say any- thing more about it. 246 "Mr. Deneen. Q. Before I go into the matter, Judge McEwen, you asked a question and said, 'Had there been any adverse comment upon the contract up to the time the contract had been let?' Do you want that question to stand at that, or up to the time of negotiations? "Mr. McEwEN. I will let it stand just as I asked it. "Mr. Deneen. Very well, I will refresh your recollec- tion. I read from the Daily News editorial of June 24th, 1911, which said: 'A small rubber band, or a small spring, arranged on the face of the machine, can be placed upon the keys of three of the four machines submitted in such a manner that voting for one or more candidates can be interfered with unknown to the voter. Upon three of the machines, an independent voter who desires to write in the name of his candidate cannot change his mind after he writes the name of his candidate on the paper provided for the purpose. Only one of the machines has a device to print a record showing the condition of the voting ma- chine before the election and the votes registered for va- rious candidates after the election. A printed record, in the event of contest, would be unquestioned proof as to the facts.' 247 "Q. Do you remember any such statement? A. Yes, I do. "Q. The contract was let the following month in July? — No, the contract was voted on June 30th, and then it 30 Testimony of John D. Cannon. was executed later; it was about six days beforehand? A. Yes. "Q. Do you remember on June 30th in the morning, before the contract was made, that the Chicago Examiner announced 1,000 voting machines would be purchased at a price of approximately $1,000,000? A. Yes. "Q. Now, as to the question — on July 1st, from the News : ' Men who have been busy in gambling and slot machine devices have shown a vital interest in the activity to install voting machines in this city, and a former race- track magnate of Chicago and two race-track men of Cali- fornia are among those interested in the Empire Com- pany. While some friends of these men may claim that their interest is caused by their own investments, others declare that they are merely proxies for certain other Chicagoans reported to be interested in the voting de- vices. ' "Do you remember a charge of that kind being made in the newspapers! A. Yes, sir, I remember seeing it in the paper. Yes, sir." This appeared after the witness' visit to the news- papers. 249 The Daily News had always been strong for voting machines. Witness does not know whether they got Wins- low to go to Chicago with a view of promoting the voting machine matter. Mr. Winslow was informed, but not any more than any other representatives of machines. Wit- ness does not know that Winslow went to Springfield dur- ing the last session of the Legislature or that somebody circulated literature at Springfield purporting to come from Kansas. Witness does not know that the Record-Herald, Daily News, Journal and Tribune opposed the purchase of vot- ing machines. Witness does not read every one of these papers. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 31 VOLUME IV. Afternoon Session, Wed., July 23, 1913. 252 Howard S. Taylor: 6356 Stewart avenue. A lawyer, and has official posi- tion of Election Commissioner of the City of Chicago and Cicero. Appointed Election Commissioner Decem- ber 9, 1910, and has served continuously since. 252-3 Immediately prior to his becoming Election Commis- sioner, the witness was writing editorials for the Chi- cago Examiner. Has not engaged in that occupation • since. Wrote editorials for Examiner for about two years. The Election Commissioners are C. H. Keller- mann and Anthony Czarnecki. Czarnecki represents the Republicans. William H. Stuart was appointed Chief Clerk after witness assumed office. All have served con- tinuously since. The witness thinks that about the mid- dle of January, 1911, the Election Commission began talk- 254 ing about the voting machine matter seriously. Thinks the first official step was to urge the secretary to com- municate with all voting machine manufacturers whose names could be obtained from the records in the office or otherwise, and invite them to a competitive examination. The Election Commissioners had a good deal of talk in January. The recent case against the Election Com- missioners brought to light by the grand jury in 1908, in which they recommended that voting machines should be put into every precinct in Chicago at the earliest possible moment. Also there was a good deal of talk about im- 255 pending frauds at the spring election. That also was talked over. The witness talked it over with Judge Owens as to what precaution should be taken, and it was agreed there should be a fraud bureau to look up all fraudulent attempts. "Q. What was said about voting machines in Janu- ary? A. I can't recall any precise meeting, but I think that it was generally understood between Mr. Kellermann and myself, and Judge Owens and Mr. Stuart, that we ought, if possible, to install voting machines. The first conversation occurred about the middle of January, 1911. It did not occur at a meeting of the Board, but was an informal talking and conferring." 32 The Voting Machine Specifications. Mr. Kellermann and the witness talked it over and Mr. Czarnecki perhaps heard some of the talk, though witness is not sure about that. 256 The witness cannot say whether the voting machine matter was taken up with Commissioner Czarnecki, either officially or casually. It is merely his impression that Commissioner Czarnecki must have heard the conversa- tion. These conversations were not in official meetings, but in the office. The witness cannot say whether Com- missioner Kellermann and the witness discussed the vot- ing machine matter with Commissioner Czarnecki during 257 the month of January. The witness thinks that the Board officially ordered the Clerk to write letters of in- vitation sometime in February; it might have been that March 4th was the first time that anything was done. The witness has a copy of the minutes as sent to Mr. Deneen by the secretary of the Board, which show that the first time the matter was discussed in an official meet- ing was March 4th, 1911. The Avitness cannot be positive, but thinks that it di- rected the Clerk to write letters before that and that on March 4th he reported that he had. 259 Specifications to submit to voting machine companies were not prepared before the letters were sent. The witness thinks that probably the first motion regarding voting machines, during the term of the present Board, was March 4th, 1911. After looking at the minutes, the witness says that the motion of March 4th was intended to ascertain whether or not there is a practical and effi- 260 cient voting machine. That was the first motion relating to voting machines and was made by the witness. Wit- ness cannot say whether specifications were drawn be- fore that time. Two or three sets were drawn and rati- fied from time to time. Witness does not know that the 1908 report of the grand jury was ever called to the at- tention of the Board. The Board had been talking about it a good many times, but not in the Board's sessions. 261 Does not know that the grand jury report was called to the attention of Commissioner Czarnecki before the con- tract was made. Prior to March 4, 1911, the witness had been one of the early voting machine men, made speeches and aided the enterprise all he could in 1903 ; might have been when the matter was submitted to the people, 1904. The witness is not a machinist, but had a little knowl- edge of voting machine mechanism. While prosecuting Experimental Use of Voting Machines. 33 attorney in 1904 and 1905 the witness went to Milwaukee and talked with officials there about voting machines which they had installed. 262 The custodian, or someone, showed witness a voting machine in the Milwaukee City Hall. Witness took merely a superficial look and perhaps witness operated the lever. Does not remember about that. The machine the witness saw in Milwaukee was the United States Standard, the one that was purchased later by the Empire Voting Ma- chine Company. Witness cannot say that he had examined the minutes of the preceding Board relating to voting machines pre- 263 vious to March 4th ; but sometime early in the spring the witness went over the report of old examinations and • looked into the minute-book. Witness does not remem- ber what information he got and cannot say whether it was before March 4th or not. March 24th, 16 machines were sent out, 16 machines for experimental use. Witness thinks Commissioner Czarnecki made a motion that 20 machines be sent out. Witness remembers a man named Farrell who repre- sented the Triumph Voting Machine Company. Witness 264 does not recall that Farrell objected to notice sent out to the machine companies on the ground that the notice was too short. Farrell might have done so, but it would be better proven by the minutes. Witness thinks he then made a motion to limit it to 16 machines. Remembers that when making the motion he stated the purpose of exhibiting and experimenting with machines was to agitate the matter in the public mind and call it to the attention of civic bodies. 265 About April 24th a final set of specifications was pre- pared and adopted by the Board. Witness cannot recall whether the Board had instructed Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Stuart to prepare specifications prior to April 4, 1911. The minutes do not show that the Board had ordered this done, but witness does not think that conclusive. 267 Witness thinks that at the time of the meeting on March 4th in which voting machines had been discussed, "we had a pretty fair notion, some of us, that we wanted to buy some machines and install them. ' ' It was the wit- ness' view that Election Commissioners were entering a period of inquiry and examination with a view of pur- chasing voting machines. The witness had talked before 34 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 268 that with Judge Owens, with Mr. Kellermann and with Mr. Stuart, and he thinks with Mr. Czarnecki. The wit- ness cannot be positive that he discussed or referred to the matter of voting machines in the presence of Com- missioner Czarnecki at any time before April, 1911. Wit- ness aided in the preparation of specifications only to the extent that items were discussed and amended sev- eral times back and forth by Kellermann, Stuart, Mitchell, and, he thinks, "although I am not certain," Mr. Czar- necki. Witness cannot say that the matter was discussed, either officially or informally, with Commissioner Czar- necki before April 24th, 1911. 269 Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Stuart prepared specifications, from old specifications, by adding and subtracting a little to meet the new situation. Witness cannot recall when Mr. Mitchell was directed to prepare specifications, but thinks that they fitted them up immediately after the April election. The witness had not, prior to, or on April 24th, 1911, discussed purchasing voting machines with any member of the Finance Committee or the City Council. 271 On or before April 24th, 1911, and since the witness became Commissioner, he has talked at the Election Com- missioners ' office with some of the voting machine agents. About the middle of March, in the Rand McNally Build- ing, three machines were installed that were afterwards in competition, the Empire, the Wlnslow, and the Tri- umph, and witness talked with a number of the agents 272 of those machines. The machines used in the election of April 4th were United States Standard. They were owned by the Empire Company, and witness' recollection is that the Empire Company exhibited these Standard machines rather than their own. Before April 24th wit- ■ ness thinks he had not examined an Empire machine, though not sure. 273 Witness thinks he had examined reports of the experts made to the old Board, either before or after April 24th. Thinks the reports rated the Winslow machine low and experts regarded it as a crude machine. On the Triumph machine the report was something more favorable ; can- not recall the details. The reports regarded the Stand- ard as the best machine. On one occasion Mr. Olson, one of the experts, in answer to the question whether the ma- chines had been sufficiently developed so as to warrant Commissioner Czarnecki Asks for Time. 35 the Board in purchasing, he replied, "Yes, considered from a mechanical standpoint only." 274 After reading page 16 of the minutes, witness says it is probable Commissioner Czarnecki moved for delay to give the Commission time to examine and consider the specifications. After reading the minutes, witness says apparently he (witness) moved, on April 24th, that the question of advertising for bids be taken up without de- 275 lay. Witness says that from the minutes he must say that Clerk Stuart said the matter should not be permit- ted to drag along any longer. Witness explains in re- gard to minutes, and says: "The explanation is this, that the minutes were in the hands of the Secretary of the Board, Mr. 'Czarnecki, they were typewritten out and taken by him and put away, and I tried faithfully for about a year and a half to get hold of them and for one reason or another Mr. Kellermann tried and protested against it, the minutes ought to be brought out and read and adopted ; we could not get the minutes out, however, and written into the budget until a little while before this committee was appointed. I made such a protest and Mr. Kellermann made such a protest about having a lot of loose sheets, that we at last got them out and got them written up. Now, I do not say whether they are correct or not, except on some of the big, major features that I have an independent recollection of." 276 Reading minutes handed him does not revive the wit- ness' recollection sufficiently to state whether or not he made the motion to adopt without delay. The minutes were not approved by the Board at the time, and wit- ness does not know that they ever have been since. Memoranda for the minutes were sometimes handed the witness the same day as the meetings occurred, but not regularly; a great many times the witness did not 277 see them. Could not recite any such occasion between April 11th and July 22nd. Witness would not say they were not handed to him. Examination of witness continued by Commissioner Czarnecki : — 278 The witness cannot remember Commissioner Czar- necki 's insisting that the minutes should recite anything and everything that took place at the meetings of the Board, but remembers the controversy over that ques- tion. The witness was in favor of condensing the min- 36 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. . • utes and reading them before the next meeting and pass- ing upon them while they were fresh in mind. 278-282 Questions are asked by Commissioner Czarnecki as to method of keeping the minutes. The substance of the examination may be summed up as follows : — Commissioner Czarnecki was Secretary of the Board and contended that all matters occurring before the Board should be set forth in the minutes of the Board in detail. Doctor Taylor insisted that they should be con- densed, and himself undertook to edit them. The min- utes, as they appear in the record used in this investi- gation, are the edited minutes. Commissioner Czarnecki produced a large book in which were pasted shorthand transcripts and other matter purporting to be full rec- ord of what occurred at certain of the meetings of the Board of Election Commissioners. 282 The witness states that Mrs. Clinton, a stenographer in the Election Commissioners' office, according to the Avitness, worked night after night upon the minutes un- der the direction of Mr. Czarnecki. Mrs. Clinton told him that she was required to make alterations in the minutes and did not think it was right. 283 ' ' Commissioner Czarnecki. Q. Very well, is this your handwriting. Doctor Taylor? "A. Yes, sir, that is my handwriting. "Q. That correction, 'January 17'? "Mr. Denebk. 1911? "Commissioner Czahnecki. Yes. "The Witness. That was made, to the best of my 284 recollection, recently, — comparatively recently, — for the purpose of editing this sheet, as it would appear in the book. "Mr. Deneen. Q. Pardon me, when was it made, — when you say 'compared'? "A. Well, we got the minutes out, at last, this spring, along in,— Oh, just a little time after the appointment." "The Chairman. Q. Do you identify the book there as being the book containing the minutes of your Board meeting? "A. I think not, we never paid any attention to it.' * # * "The Witness. I said that those minutes I edited up, all those things were done along probably April. "Mr. Deneen. April. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 37 if 'A. But they were the minutes of 1911." 'Mr. Dbneen. You were careful to correct the Eng- lish? "A. Yes, as well as I could. "Q. Did you correct the facts, too? A. No, sir. "Q. You let all the facts stand? A. There is not a thing in there, Governor, that I put my assent to that is not straight, except this. I did not know, and I do not know now, whether the minutes were correct or not. I have a very strong impression that they were not cor- rect. "The Chaibman. You approved the minutes for the Board, did you not. Dr. Taylor? I« "A. I said to Mr. Kellermann, talking the matter over quietly, — he was very dissatisfied about it, — "The Chaibman. I asked if you approved the minutes for the Board, finally? "A. I think not. "Q. These minutes contain an approval. A. The ad- dition at the head of each meeting, to the minutes, read and approved, that was written in there ^pro forma.' " 308 "Commissioner Czarnecki. Q. At whose direction, Dr. Taylor? "A. Well, possibly by mine and Mr. Kellermann 's. I think so, — in pursuance of the idea that these minutes are to be brought out and presented to the Board and read aloud and approved by the Board. "Senator Barb. Whv didn't you say that everv meet- ing? "A. I could not get ahold of them. "Q. Who had ahold of them? A. Mr. Czarnecki. "Q. Was he the secretary of the Board? A. He was secretary of the Board. "Senator Laj^dee. Q. Didn't your minutes — weren't your minutes read at every single meeting, and ap- proved? "A. No, sir. "Q. No minutes were read and approved at the fol lowing meeting? A. No, sir. "Representative Gabesche. Q. Then, as a commis- sion, you had not approved the minutes at all? "A. I don't know that we have that formal approval. My understanding, and my desire, was, that we should have at each meeting the minutes of the previous meet- 38 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. ing brought out and read and approved, and then signed by the Chairman and Secretary, but, as I say to you, 289 there was a long period there, a very long period, when we couldn't get hold of the minutes, simply couldn't do it. We had controversies sometimes heated." 290 "Commissioner Czarnbcki. Q. Didn't you do the editing, Doctor, of what finally went in! "A. No, sir; my proposition, Mr. Czarneeki, was that the minutes should be edited down properly so as to cut out your stump speeches against the voting machines." 291 Witness does not believe that the minutes of April 24th, showing that Mr. Czarneeki asked for a delay of one day to examine the specifications, are correct. Can- not say that iCommissioner Czarneeki made a stump . speech, or any kind of speech at the meeting of April 24th. 292 The witness identifies, in initial, notes of the Secretary of the Board as a direction to Miss Johnson, "Condense this, Howard S. Taylor," under date of March 2nd, 1911. (The book is marked "Exhibit A-2.") "The Chairman. I would like to have it entered as an exhibit. 296 "Commissioner Czarnecki. Q. Here is some con- densing; did you direct this condensing. Dr. Tavlor, on March 4th? "A. Yes, apparently. That is my signature up there, or my direction. "Commissioner Czarnecki. Was that condensed for the purpose of eliminating the noting of the payments of the regular men and the noting of the exception marked by myself with reference to the payment of extra time to regular men for work, Messrs. Shapp and Stevens, and other reasons of that kind? Did I not insist that all of them should go always, whether it was in dialogue form or not? That is where you and I differed, was it not? "A. Apparently there was a striking out of a discus- sion in regard to whether a man who works overtime should be paid for it or not. Czarnecki, as the minutes show, was opposed to pajdng the men for overtime, and I do not recall what was my view at the time, but I thought that it was — " 297 The witness 0. K. 'd the minutes of March 4th, 1911. 298 Commissioner Czarnecki asked the Committee to send Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 39 the Sargeant-at-Arms to get Miss Elizabeth Johnson, an employe of the Election Commissioner's office. 299 "Mr. Deneen. Q. Do the minutes accurately state the facts? "A. No." 300 "Mr. Dbneen. Q. They were approved, were they not? "A. I cannot say whether they were or not. "Q. You said awhile ago they were. A. There were times when we approved them; I was going to say that Mr. Kellermann and myself, talking about the minutes long afterwards, agreed that probably the substantial facts were in there, what we called the biblical meaning, • but that it would be better to let it alone and not make any fuss about it." 304 The witness O. K. 'd the facts of the minutes of March 4th. 307 "Commissioner Czarnecki. Q. Did you 0. K. those minutes. Doctor? "Senator Landeb. Q. At the time you 0. K.'d those minutes, didn't you take it for granted that they were right, or else you wouldn't have 0. K.'d them, wouldn't you? A. Well, I have been explaining to you, I regarded them as the substantial things, on the whole, correct; but some particulars pushed by Mr. Governor Deneen's question as to correct or not correct, I had to give the rea- son." "Senator Landee. Has Mr. Czarnecki been your sec- retary ever since the Board was organized? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. That is something over two years, about three years? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And the majority of the Board kept him, a man. as secretary, that would not do the biddings of the Board and report to them? A. Well, he would not refuse abso- lutely to—" 308 He was the minority man. There might have been a way of dismissing him. "Mr. Czarnecki. (Reading the first page of the min- utes of March 24, 1911) : 0. K. with corrections. How-, ard S. Taylor." This is the witness' notation. 40 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. 311 Minutes of the meeting of March 25th called to the witness' attention. 313 "I think I marked those. Those condensations are mine. ' ' The meeting of March 27, 1911. The witness identi- ties the direction, "After hearing much evidence," and so forth, as in his handwriting. Wherever there is any editing done, or direction "0. K. with corrections indicated," the direction was always given to the stenographer. 314 The witness does not remember that Commissioner Czarnecki, at the meeting of March 31st, 1911, moved that each machine used for experimental purposes should have a certificate from the State Commission before it was used. Witness was at the meeting of the Board when the specifications were submitted and discussed about April 24th. 315 The witness has not any independent recollection whether Commissioner Czarnecki made a motion for de- lay to examine and consider specifications, and after hear- ing the minutes cannot say whether they are correct or not. Will not say that it did not occur. Witness thinks that a printed copy of the specifications dated April 27th, presented to him is a correct copy. Witness is not sure whether the specifications have been discussed with Commissioner Czarnecki prior to their presentation to the Board, April 24th. Thinks that he was present on one or two occasions, but is not sure. Does not know that it was at an oflBcial meeting. It was in the Board rooms. 316 Mr. Czarnecki signed specifications, it is said, under protest, but — "The Witness. The protest is not here. "Mr. Deneen. That appears later in the minutes. The protest was not entered into the minutes until long after the minutes were adopted. The specifications called for 1,400 machines. The wit- ness knew, in a general way, the price other cities were 317 paying for machines. Does not know he knew the price likely to be charged for these machines. Witness did not confer with the Finance Committee of the City Council about the indebtedness to be incurred. Does not think there was any conference had with the Finance Commit- tee, but not sure about it. Short Time Allowed for Bids. 41 318 The witness did not discuss the matter of purchas- ing machines with any member of the Public Efficiency Bureau. The contract did not conform to the requirements of the specifications as to the kind and number of machines to be delivered. The Commissioners did not discuss with any of the machine companies before the specifications were writ- ten them, their ability to manufacture 500 machines in 9 months. Certified checks for 5 per cent, of the bid were asked for in the specifications. The per cent, was fixed according to a sort of prevailing standard. The City of Chicago requires from 2 to 5 per cent. The County Board sometimes as high as 10 per cent. 819 The date of opening bids was fixed for May 22nd fol- lowing; the reason for fixing the time limit at 25 days, witness thinks, was that all machines likely to compete were on the ground. Invitations were sent to other ma- chines, but in the previous examination by experts in 1907 they had these machines, three of which belonged to the Empire 'Company. The witness thinks it was com- monly known that there were about four machines in 320 the country all told, that really were capable of competing. 321 There were only two voting machines that had any plant aside from the Empire. "Q. So you expected that at that time, that those would be the only two that would make any bids when you fixed the time at 25 days? A. No. "Q. What did you expect? A. There was a possi- bility, for instance, that the Winslow, or International might very rapidly develop a great capacity" — 322 In the experimental use of voting machines, April 4th, there was no Empire machine used. The ones used were the U. S. Standard. The U. S, Standard is almost part for part the Empire. 323 A prospective bidder would have to understand the Illinois Election Laws, the Illinois Primary Law, the Illinois Ballot Law, the cumulative voting system, with the grouping for judges of the Circuit Court and of the Municipal Court, the Sanitary District and the County 324 Commissioners, and with the system regarding women's voting in this state. Also with regard to public ques- tions. The company would have to deposit a certified check for $50,000 and arrange for $250,000 'bonds. 'A. Yes, that is, he would not have to do all of this. <( 42 Testimony of Hovmrd 8. Taylor. "Q. If he met your specifications lie would have to do them, wouldn't he! A. Yes, he would have to do it within the time. "Q. Twenty-five days? A. Oh, no, no. He could make his bid the date of the contract ; the date of the first installment might be far off in the future. In the mean- time, I think the salesman would be under those cir- cumstances, perfectly safe to jump on the cars and come to Chicago with his machine, learn all about these par- ticulars as to the election laws in 24 hours. ' ' Q. And then take his machine back and fix it to com- ply with the laws ? A. Oh, no ; they would know and he would know. • "Q. Well? A. They had been here." 325 "The Witness. All of these machines that I spoke of before, — and for the matter of that, almost all possible machines, the American, the Calkins, all of them that had men here under the specifications, almost exactly parallel to the rules issued by the old Board, — knew all the par- ticulars about the Illinois law and whether they could ap- proach the specifications or not." The Election Commissioner could not tell in advance who would bid, but owing to the process of elimination, would be reasonably sure of just about what the machine was. 326 The witness' attention is called to Section 5 of the Ballot Voting Machine Law, providing that bidders shall be furnished with a certificate of indebtedness or bond in payment for machines. The witness thinks in view of this that 12 hours would be sufficient time for bidders to submit these propositions to the bond companies and lawyers and get their conclusions. Bidders had been requested in the specifications to outline a scheme of financing the voting machine purchase project. Witness says this was put in the specifica- tions in view of the fact a great many states that had bought machines bought them on time and paid for them out of the savings, and it is a question whether the vot- 327 ing machine companies would grant unlimited time for pajTuent. The provision in the specifications regarding financing was simply equivalent to asking the companies what will be done on the money end. 328 The witness is asked whether companies without plants would have to arrange for plants and equipment and for the manufacturing of 500 machines to be delivered in Commissioner Czarnecki Asks Time Extension. 43 nine months and answers: "Possibly, I don't know." It is customary for such companies to get a bank to arrange to finance them so that they may carry out the contract. They would also have to arrange for creating an organization of careful men to manufacture the ma- chine. 329 "Q. You lunited them to 25 days? A. They could meet the invitation to come here and present their ma- chines and wait for a contract. The contract might be adopted a month after, or six months after, and it might provide for whatever circumstances were required. "Q. Did your Board or you anticipate that the men would 'bid, submit bids, for a certain price for a machine and then take his time afterwards to discover whether "S30 he had made a mistake or not, write out a check for $56,000 or something like that? A. Well, that is a con- jecture I don't know anything about. 331 This matter was called to the witness' attention by Mr. Czarnecki, who moved that the time be fixed at 90 instead of 25 days. "Mr. Deneen. Mr. Czarnecki 's motion received no second, that was for ninety days, Mr. Czarnecki, Commis- sioner Czarnecki, moved the adoption of the provision to fix time for filing the bids at three months instead of 25 days, declaring that 25 days was not sufficient, that it might create criticism, that the Board had not given suf- ficient publicity to the matter and conjecture which might arise from such criticism. Commissioner Taylor said that 25 days was sufficient time and that the question of praise or criticism is not involved in seeking to give Chicago a reform in election conditions. Commissioner Keilermann said that it was the opinion of the County Judge that 25 days would be sufficient 'because of the foi-mer publicity, and agitation of the problem." Commissioner Keilermann had stated that it was the opinion of County Judge that 25 days would be suffi- cient time because of the former publicity and agitation of the problem. The witness knew that the companies had failed to meet the requirements and specifications made by the old Board. The specifications were dated April 27th and were is- sued the next day. 25 days' time was given and Commissioner Czarnecki moved for three months' time. There was no second to his motion. The witness does not recall that Commissioner Czar- 44 Protest, of Hoosier Voting Machine Company. necki moved for time to have an opportimity to exam- 335 ine the proof sheets of the specitications, and asked for a delay of one day for that purpose. Chief Clerk Stuart then asked for authority to proceed with the advertisements for sealed bids to furnish voting machines, such advertisements to continue in the Chi- cago daily newspapers beginning Friday, April 28th, 336 "Q. (page 38): Let me see if I am mistaken about that: 'Commissioner Czarnecki asked for time to see the printed proofs of the specifications and asked for delaying the advertisements. " ' Commissioner Taylor moved that the authority asked 'by the Chief Clerk be granted and that the Board direct the advertising for proposals at once and without de- law.' " 337 ' ' Q. Without waiting for the printed proof sheets ? A. Yes." "Middlebury, Ind., May 11, 1911. Mr. Anthony Czarnecki, Chicago, III. My Dear Sir : — "We received registered specifications for bids on 1,200 voting machines to be furnished Chicago, 25 days limit — Whew! These are not window frames; The require- ments are too big and fast for a small concern like owr- selves, altho we have the goods. "It reads as though it was made to fit one certain corporation U. S. S. So do the V. Machine Laws of the various States. It would be foolish "for the City of Chicago to load up with V. Machines at the present time. Within a few years they will be able to buy machines, that are as far ahead of the big, heavy, cumbersome ma- chines of to-day as they "are" ahead of the paper ballot. There are several machines to be heard from soon. I notice by the paper the several stands you have taken in this matter and wish to say that you are on the right track. Standard tactics seem to be the rage all over the country. Whether it is the Standard Voting Ma- chine. If I can find out when the machines are open to inspection I will come to Chicago. "Respectfully, "Arthur L. Griffin, "HoosierV. M. Co." Protest of American Voting Machine Compcmy. 45 338 "Q. Did you receive this letter! A. I recall that was read out. "Q. And you made a motion to file it, did you not? A. I think so; yes, sir. "Q. You gave it no consideration at all, did you? A. No. "Q. None! A. No." "The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago. Gentlemen : "The American Voting Machine Company, Inc., of Bos- ton, Mass., having recently started their factory at Bos- ton, for the manufacture of voting machines, are desirous to compete for the contract of furnishing your City with the required 1200 voting machines. ' ' In view of the fact that your proposal did not reach our company until the 10th inst., and owing to the limited time of only 12 days, in which to submit a sample which meets all the requirements of your City, and the approval of the Illinois Board of Voting Machine Examiners, this Company respectfully petitions your Honorable Board to extend the time limit for submitting our machine together with our bid for your consideration, to June 30th, 1911. "The American Voting Machine Company contains many desirable features not found in any other machines and does not call on the voter for any ingenuity or judg- ment bevond that involved in the simple casting of his ballot. "The American Voting Machine has been examined and approved by the Massachusetts Board of Voting Ma- chine Examiners and can be constructed to meet all re- quirements in the State of Illinois if the opportunity is granted us for the time extension as aforesaid. "Yours very respectfully, "Amekican Voting Machine Company. "Per Fbed'k E. Nickels, Treas." 340 "Q. You made a motion to put that letter on file, did you? A. Yes. "Q. It received no further consideration! A. Well, I don't — Yes, there was. I think the letters were written to the American Voting Machine Company by the Clerk explaining that under the active suggestion of Judge Owens, the period for practical bidding would be extended 46 Communication of Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency. up to the time when the experts finished their examina- tion. "Q. Let me refresh your recollection on it. The time was extended from May 22d to May 26th first! A. Yes, sir. "Q. Then there was some more protests, which we will have to read here, filed, and then it was extended four more days to May 30th f A. To June 1st. "Q. To June 1st? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And then a statement was made later that if ma- chine came in between that time and the opening of the bids and the awarding of the contract it would be con- sidered. That is what it was? A. Yes, sir." 341 Mr. Winslow filed a protest; first appeared before the Election Commissioners and protested verbally and said he would later submit a protest in writing. May 20th, 1911. To the Board of Election Commissioners, of the City of Chicago. Gentlemen : By direction of the Board of Trustees of the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, I am transmitting herewith a report on the proposed purchase of voting machines by the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chi- cago. As stated in the report itself, the inquiry on which the report is based was undertaken when it was learned through public advertisement that bids were to be opened on May 22 for 1200 voting machines. This work is in line with the general purpose of the Bureau of Public Efficiency to make studies of the expenditures of the local governing bodies and to furnish the public with exact in- formation and constructive suggestion relative thereto. The Judge of the County Court and the members of the Board of Election Commissioners and its officers and em- ployes have been most cordial in affording to representa- tives of this Bureau opportunity to secure information on the subject under consideration. This report is of- fered not in a spirit of hostile criticism, but in the hope that it may be of suggestive value to the Board of Elec- tion and of benefit to the taxpaying public. Respectfully submitted, Chicago Bueeatj of Public Efficiency. Hebbeet R. Sands, Director. No Conference With City Over $1,000,000 Purchase. ^Ti Report on the Proposed Plirchase of Voting Machines by the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago : On April 27th, 1911, the Board of Election Commis- sioners of the City of Chicago advertised for bids for voting machines, the bids to be opened May 22. The ad- vertisement calls for bids on 1200 machines with delivery as follows: Not to exceed 200 within four months of the date of signing the contract; not to exceed 300 more within nine months; the balance and final installment within twenty- one months from the date of signing the contract. The Board of Election Commissioners reserves the right to take a less number of machines at the same rate and to require the delivery of additional machines at a price no higher than that named in the original contract. The amount of money involved in this transaction, if the number of voting machines named in the specifications should be purchased, presumably would be in excess of $1,000,000. No well-defined plan for financing the prop- osition seems to have been formulated, but in- quiry on the part of representatives of the Chicago Bu- reau of Public Efficiency disclosed the fact that neither the Comptroller of the City nor the finance committee of the City Council had been consulted upon the matter of providing funds for the purchase of voting machines. Bidders themselves are asked to name the terms and con- ditions of payemnt, particularized as to the method, time, amount, interest, etc. Further inquiry of election officials and others by mem- bers of the staff of this bureau disclosed that the success- ful bidder would be expected to take in payment for voting machines purchased, evidences of indebtedness to be is- sued by the Board of Election Commissioners, with the approval of the County Judge, to be payable by the City of Chicago, but failed to develop what the character of such evidences of indebtedness would be, the form there- of, or what provisions were to be made for liquidating the same as they matured. In view of this somewhat anomalous situation, the Bu- reau of Public Efficiency has made as full an inquiry into the subject as the limited time prior to the opening of bids would permit, the results and conclusions of that inquiry are set forth herein. The General Assembly of Illinois in 1903 passed a law 48 Contrasted Action of Previous Commission. authorizing the use of voting machines in this State. By the terms of the act, election officials are authorized to submit to the voters of specified civil divisions of the State the proposition to adopt a voting machine or voting machines. When the people vote affirmatively upon such propositions the proper election officials may lease or purchase voting machines. "The requirements which must be met by the voting machine adopted are laid down with considerable particu- larity in the act and provision is made for a board of vot- ing machine commissioners, consisting of the Secretary of the State and of two other persons, who shall be jne- chanical experts, to be appointed by the Governor. No machine may be purchased without the certification of this state board of voting machine commissioners that it meets the requirements of the statute. "On November 4th, 1904, the general proposition to adopt voting machines was submitted to the electors of Chicago and Was approved by a vote of 229,557 for, 27,081 against. Prior to that time some experimental use had been made of machines placed on trial in a few selected precincts and immediately thereafter the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners took steps looking to the purchase of voting machines. Bids were asked and opened on three different occasions. "November 21, 1904, the Board called for bids on such number of machines as might be necessary to equip the polling places under its supervision. The following July all the bids submitted under this call were withdrawn and the manufacturers agreed to submit machines for experi- mental use. At the fall election of 1905 and again in the April 1907 election, machines were so used. * ' The City Council having appropriated $100,000 in the 1907 Budget, advertised for bids for furnishing machines to that amount, the Board to have the right to make pur- chase for any part thereof. The bids received in response to this advertisement were opened October 31, 1907, and purchase thereunder deferred, pending the examinations of the machines by the Board's experts. These tests were commenced immediately and continued until March 23, 1908, when the Board decided not to purchase at that time. (Pending this decision the City Council again in the 1908 Budget appropriated $100,000 for the pur- chase of machines.) Serious objection to the mechanical Previous Commission Fitids MechanicaX Defects. 49 construction of the machines was assigned as the reason for rejecting the bids. "January 15, 1909, the Board again advertised for bids to be opened September 15th of that year. It was pro- posed to purchase machines to such an amount, not to ex- ceed $100,000, as the Board might determine. In re- sponse to this call four machines were offered in competi- tion, the names of the machines and the prices bid being as follows : "Empire, |925, with primary attachment, $50 addi- tional. "Willix, $1050. "Triumph, $900. with instruction model, $925. "Winslow, $900; "After these machines had been tested by experts the Board rejected all the bids and in so doing rendered a decision which was in part as follows : "As in the previous investigation, the machines were thoroughly inspected and tested by three mechanical ex- perts at the instance of the Board. Their detailed reports show that while substantial improvements have been made within the past year, yet there are still remaining siich defects in the mechanical arrangements of all the ma- chines submitted as to preclude their practical use in this city. "This Board is of the opinion that among the many necessary essentials required by the specifications none is of greater importance than that which requires a ma- chine to record the vote in strict compliance with the law, and absolutely prevent a person voting for more candi- dates than there are officers to be elected. "A machine which can be so manipulated as to permit a voter to vote for more candidates than the law permits is fatally defecti^'e and its use would only be productive of protest and costly litigation. "Each machine is found to be seriously defective and their purchase at this time impracticable; therefore, all bids will be rejected. "The defect in each machine will be shown to the rep- resentative of that machine. "This Board in response to an overwhelming vote on the proposition has faithfully tried to find a satisfactory voting machine. Our efforts so far have been in vain. We do not know when we will advertise again for bids, 50 Points Out Deficiencies in Report. if at all, but we desire to purchase voting machines as soon as one that is satisfactory is presented. "Therefore, we desire to announce that if any time after the first day of December, 1909, any one believes that he or they have a voting machine that will answer our pur- poses, we invite you to bring it to the Board, and the same will be inspected. "It seems to us that this will be a proper time again to give all the suggestions we are able to in reference to the kind of a machine that the Board wants to buy. " 'First: The machine must allow voting in accord- ance with the laws of the State of Illinois. " 'Second: The machine must prevent any voting not in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. ' ' ' Third : It must be accurate, positive and incapable of fraudulent manipulation. " 'Fourth: We want as small a machine as is prac- ticable. ' ' ' Fifth : We want as light a machine as practicable. " 'Sixth : And, taking afi the foregoing into considera- tion, we want as cheap a machine as possible. " 'Seventh: When such a machine is presented to us a purchase will be made." " 'In response to the foregoing invitation, during the spring and summer of 1910 three machines were submitted and were examined by mechanical experts employed by the Board. None of these machines received the unquali- fied endorsement of the experts. "Although many improvements had been effected in the interim, it was the opinion of these men that it was not then advisable to purchase a large number of machines and that great improvements were to be looked for in the future. The machines on which the mechanical detail had been more satisfactorily worked out were said to be large, heavy, difficult to handle and store and not easily set up and adjusted — in this connection affording oppor- tunities for careless or dishonest officials to nullify the op- eration of the machine. "Early in the present year the new Board of Election Commissioners that came into office last December took up for consideration the subject of the purchase of voting machines. On April 27th, as stated at the outset of this report, the Board decided to advertise for bids for 1,200 voting machines, the bids to be opened on May 22nd. Prior Objections to Large Initial Purchase. 51 specifications bad limited the bids for macbines to the number that could be secured for $100,000. "There are numerous objections to the purchase on one order of so large .a number of voting machines as 1,200. According to the experts who have made examina- tions heretofore for the Board of Election Commission- ers, the voting machine is still in somewhat of an experi- mental state and substantial improvements may be looked for in the future. "The Chicago situation presents unusual obstacles to the successful use of voting machines. Among these are the long ballot made necessary by the large number of offices to be filled at some elections ; the group voting for certain offices, such as judges and county commissioners ; and the system of cumulative voting for members of the lower House of the General Assembly, which is peculiar to Illinois. The fact that women may vote for University Trustees but not for other officers requires a restrictive device that introduces additional complications. The long ballot necessitates the use, in Chicago, of a larger and heavier machine than is required in other cities that have adopted voting machines. The size and weight of the ma- chine causes it to present problems of transportation, of storing and of setting up in the voting booth. There are special complexities due to the use of the voting machine at a primary election at which nominations are to be made for a large number of offices. "Aside from the mechanical operation of the machine itself there are other elements of uncertainty connected with the use of voting machines than for experimentation and caution. It cannot be told until the actual trial is made how rapidly the voting can be done by machine, even assuming the mechanism to operate perfectly so far as all except the human element is concerned. This Bureau learns that in Minneapolis, where voting machines are in use, the voting has been so much slower than anticipated that it has been found necessary to install two machines to a precinct of 600 voters, instead of one. The Illinois law contemplated a single machine to a precinct of 600 voters. Then there are problems of transportation and storage and the proper setting of the machines in the booths. Three of those machines will make a truck-load and it will require at least three men to handle one. Skilled persons will be required to set them up when 52 Small Purchase and Experiment Recommended. taken from the storage room to the voting booth. It would seem that the Board of Election Commissioners ought to acquire experience in handling 50 or 100 machines before undertaking the burden of managing 1,200. This experi- ence, moreover, should be in connection with the most try- ing elections such as the primary of April, 1912, and the election of the following November, when the long ballot must be voted. "The voting machine law contemplates that following the adoption of machines the number of voters to a pre- cinct will be doubled and the number of precincts thus reduced by half. The statute directs the rearrangement of precincts so that each precinct shall contain approxi- mately 600 voters. On the basis of the present registra- tion, this would give only 705 precincts. As there is sup- posed to be but one machine to a precinct with possibly an extra machine to a ward for emergency pui-poses, it . is hard to see why more than 750 machines at the out- side should be needed if the requirements of the statute are to be followed. One of the chief arguments in favor of voting machines is that they will bring about a sub- stantial decrease in the cost of holding elections. Unless this contemplated reduction in the number of precincts is made, the desired saving will not be effected. "The financial aspect of this atfair also calls for se- rious consideration. The Board of Election Commis- sioners, with respect to finances, occupies a somewhat anomalous position. Under the law some of its expenses must be paid by the County of Cook, others by the City of Chicago. The Board claims, and probably rightly, so far as ordinary expenses are concerned, that it has the power to incur liabilities, for the payment of which provision must be made by the City or County, as the case may be. "The Board appears to assume, and perhaps rightly, that this power to incur indebtedness in the name of the City, without the consent of its officers, is broad enough to include the purchase of voting machines to the amount of 11,000,000 or more. "The manner in which this obligation is to be provided for is not clear. The financial officers of the City have been in no way consulted in the matter, and it evidently is the intention of the Election Commissioners to issue in payment evidences of indebtedness in some form which shall be payable by the City. Whatever power there is Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 53 to do so (except as to warrants issued by the County Judge under the City Election Law) is to be found in Section 5 of the Voting Machine Law, which is as follows : " 'The Local authorities, on the adoption and lease or purchase of a voting machine or voting machines, may provide for the payment therefor in such manner as may be deemed for the best interest of the City, Village, in- corporated town or county. They may for that purpose make leases, issue bonds, certificates of indebtedness or other obligations, which shall be a charge on the city, village, incorporated town or county. Such bonds, cer- tificates or other obligations may be issued with or with- out interest, payable at such times or time as the authori- ties may determine, but shall not be issued or sold at less than par.' "So far as investigators for this Bureau have been able to learn there are in the records of the office of the Elec- tion Commissioners no written legal opinions covering this point, nor has it been passed upon by the courts. "For the purpose of this discussion, however, the legal power of the Board of Election Commissioners to issue without conference with the City authorities evidences of indebtedness which the City must pay, is a matter of less moment than the wisdom of the course. With reference to ordinary expenditures of the Board, while holding that it is not bound in law to request appropriations from the City Council, does go through the form of stating its wants to that body and of having appropriations made for it, as is done for other departments of the City gov- ernments. This is the course which the Board ought to pursue. Any other procedure would tend to demoralize the finances of the City. The power conferred by law upon the Election Commissioners to compel the City to pay its expenses was not intended for arbitrary or whim- sical use, but only as a safeguard to prevent a contuma- cious city government from interfering with the election processes by wantonly refusing to make appropriations for the necessary expenses thereof. "If this is the correct view with respect to ordinaiy expenditures involving comparatively small amounts, the same reasoning, of course, would apply with still greater force to the proposition to incur obligations of large amounts for extraordinary purposes, such as the pur- chase of voting machines. Public opinion should demand 54 Conference With City Officers Urged. that the Board of Election Commissioners confer with the financial officers of the City prior to the incurring of obligations of $1,000,000 or even for $100,000, the amount which the prior Board planned to spend for vot- ing machines. The prior Board did, as a matter of fact, twice secure Council appropriations for $100,000 for the purchase of voting machines, in advance of the opening of bids, which appropriations were not drawn upon be- cause the machines were not actually purchased. Action by the City Council in advance, whether necessary in law or not, is essential from the viewpoint of public economy. Evidences of indebtedness issued by the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners, mthout previous council approval, would occupy such a novel status that they would of necessity have to carry a higher rate of interest to enable them to sell at par. The City can borrow for about four per cent. Obligations of the Board of Election Commis- sioners presumably would carry a rate at least one per cent, higher, and one per cent, on $1,000,000 amounts to $10,000 a year, a sum worth saving. Not only should the financial officers of the City be consulted in advance of the issuances of such evidences of indebetdness, but they ought to be consulted in advance of the advertisement for bids. For certainty as to the plans for payment might be a factor with bidders in fixing the prices quoted; the more definite and clear the arrangement for prompt pay- ment, the lower the price. "In reply to what has been stated herein it may be said that the Board of Election Commissioners, while it has called for bids on 1200 machines, might not decide to pur- chase that number. It has the right under the specifica- tions to take a smaller number than 1,200, or to reject all the bids. The requirement that every bidder must submit with his bid a certified check for 5 per cent, of the amount of the bid in all probability means a check for approxi- mately $50,000. This sum might be so large as to deter some bidders. If it be not the plan to purchase 1,200 ma- chines, the amount of the deposit should be less. The re- quirement as to the delivery of the machines, in case an order for 1,200 is placed, would also seem to be so severe that strict compliance with the specifications in this re- spect would be out of the question for most bidders, if not all. "The main conclusions reached as the result of this in- quiry may be summarized as follows : Conclusions of Bureau of Public Efficiency. 55 "1st. The number of voting machines to be purchased in the near future should be limited to one hundred at the most; and the purchase of a greater number of ma- chines should be postponed until after trial at the pri- maries of April, 1912, and at the election of November, 1912, of such limited number of machines. "2nd. The Board of Election Commissioners should seek to secure the co-operation of the tinancial authorities of the City in advance of action looking to the purchase of voting machines, whatever the amount involved. "In offering these suggestions, the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency wishes to be understood as in no wise hostile to the adoption of voting machines. It merely urges the policy of experimentation and caution which it believes is demanded by ordinary business prudence, in view of the difficulties and uncertainties of the situation, which are greater for Chicago than for any other city in the land. "End." VOLUME V. Morning Session. Thursday, July 24, 1913. 363 Howard S. Taylor: * ' Q. Doctor, have you refreshed your recollection about the approval of those minutes over night? A. Oh, why, no, sir; I cannot refresh it. "Q. Will you say that the minutes of April 24th are accurate or not, the one we discussed last night? I will change the form of that question — I say, do you claim they are inaccurate? A. No, sir; I do not claim that about any of the minutes. "Q. Yes. A. I simply say that, in the main, taking the minutes as they were written off of the books for the Commission, I think in the principal parts they were accurate, there are some little matters that I don't know about. I won't say that they were not." 364 The Chairma??. Doctor, when you say that those mat- ters that you are not so certain about, would you say they would be vital in any way? 56 Communications Placed on File. "A. No; I could hardly determine that; they might prove to be vital, but I think that they were inferior and quite subordinate to the main topics. I was asked by the Governor to say whether certain things were true, and I replied that I could not say so, but I think in the main ' ' — Witness thinks that the communication from the Bureau of Public Efficiency was read over at the meeting, or shortly afterwards. Cannot tell whether it was read at the meeting. The witness made a motion to place it on file. "Q. Without reading it? A. I think that we knew the contents of it, probably it was read. I think so ; I am not sure." 365 "Q. Let me read from page 71. (Beading): 'Com- missioner Taylor: I move that the protest of Mr. Winslow and the communication from the Chicago Bu- reau of Public Efficiency be received and placed on file for further consideration and the secretary be directed to notify those parties to that effect. ' Does that refresh your recollection? A. I think that was my motion. "Q. Now, you think that was not read, don't you? A. I cannot say. "Q. Was it given any consideration thereafter by the Board? A. I do not think the Board ever took the matter up as a Board. "Q. Officially? A. Officially. "Q. Did you give it consideration? A. Yes, I think so. "Q. The law required the Election Commissioners to redistrict the city into election precincts of 6CM3 voters each." 366 The law permitted the voter to take one minute only for voting. The witness recalls that the communication of the Bu- reau of Public Efficiency made a statement that in Min- nesota it was found impossible for voters to vote in one minute, and it was necessary to place additional machines in the voting precincts. Q. Did the Board make any inquiry as to the fact re- lating to that statement? A. I think we had informa- tion then ; I know we have now. "Q. I say, did the Board make any such inquiry? A. As a Board, bv resolution? "Q. Officially, yes. ? A. I think not. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 57 "Q. You think not? A. No. "Q. Was that matter discussed in official meeting by the Board? A. I do not know that it was. I couldn't say as to that." 367 Witness thinks that the Election Commissioners had information about the Minneapolis situation on file from previous inquiries and that further information was secured more recently. Witness does not know that they had any information in relation to voting in one minute. The Election Com- mission is still urging the City Council to pay for the 300 machines delivered. The witness does not think that the Election Commis- . sion has information to the effect that the State of Minne- sota passed a law requiring printed ballots to be fur- nished to precincts where they had voting machines. The "witness will not say that such is not the fact, but the witness' understanding is that Minnesota passed a law abolishing the party circle which made it difficult to vote so that they were compelled to use two machines to a precinct instead of one. 368 "Q. Well, in the event you would be required in Chi- cago, with its larger and more complex ballot, to use two machines to a precinct, that would require another million dollars, wouldn't it? A. I presume it would, yes. "Q. Now, if the women have a right to vote it would require about two million more, about four million, wouldn't it? A. I think not that number — "Q. I say, based on the experience of Minneapolis? A. The w^omen don't vote up there. ' ' Q. But, I say, based upon the experience of the voters in Minneapolis. A. If the women registered and were as numerous as the men, and the party circle were abol- ished in this state, so that they would have to vote each individual key, then, probably, we would have to have four million dollars. "Q. Four million dollars? A. Four million dollars." The witness does not concede that if the vote is limited to the men and we have the same experience in Chicago that they had in Minneapolis, it would require two million dollars. Thinks that the 1,000 machines purchased are enough to poll the vote in the City of Chicago at any election. 370 The witness has read the decision of the Illinois Su- preme Court, dated February 6, 1913, Hill vs. Election 58 The Supreme Court Decision. Commissioners, does not think that the court holds that the voting machine does not comply with the law in re- spect to voting in one minute. Does not so understand the decision. "Q. What is your understanding of the decision? A. My understanding is that in the original oral opinion, a certified copy of which is in the office, the court said, 'We do not condemn voting machines, or this machine, but at the election in November we find that the average voter will not be able to vote so large a ballot with so many propositions in the space of one minute.' There- 371 upon the court issued a writ of mandamus requiring us to put ballots in the polling places in addition to the ma- chines in" — "Q. Go ahead. A. In the modified decision, the modi- fied written decision, the court said that they found that the machine did not comply with the law for the election of November 5, 1912. "Q. A legal election? A. Yes, that election. "Q. That is the real decision then, wasn't it? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Instead of the oral one. "In view of the decision do you still say that the voters here in Chicago can vote in one minute on that machine? "A. The voters in Chicago, if they would take the pains to examine the specimen ballot in the booth, that the average voter can vote in a minute and split, and I think that the fifty or sixty per cent, of the men who ballot, according to my information, and my notion, vote a straight ticket, could vote in five or six seconds." 372 The witness does not think a voter at the presidential election of 1912 could go into a voting machine and do the work that he ought to do before he enters ; an elector can be informed both as to the position of the candidates on the keyboard and to be informed as to how to operate it by the model out in the main room, and he ought, I think, the average voter, a man of intelligence, ought to be able to vote within one minute. 373 Witness identifies a card containing Question No. 1 voted on last November election and reads question ap- pearing on pages 374 to 379 of the record in eight min- utes. 380 This was not the only question submitted to the vot- Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 59 ers. There were at least four others. The specifications, paragraph b, require that the machine should provide for 12 propositions at one and the same election. The voter could post himself outside the booth on the position and character of the propositions to be voted on. The law does not require him to do so. 381 The Election Commissioners were required to re- district the city into precincts of 600 voters each. The voting hours contain 600 minutes. In the City of Chicago, when the contract was made, the women had a right to vote for University Trustees. The Board of Election Commissioners was required to make provision for their vote also, or make provision for 600 voters re- • gardless of whether they were men or women. If so, it might have doubled the precincts and required twice as many machines. 382 The voting machine had to cover the primary ballot also. Witness does not recall the number of candidates in the primaries of April, 1912. Witness presumes the Election Commissioners had not conferred with the Mayor or Comptroller, the Chairman, or any member of the Finance Committee of the City Council regarding the financing voting machines. He had not done so. 383 On requiring a certified check for 5 per cent, of the ag- gregate amount of the bid, witness thought this a rea- sonable sum and a sum the City usually required. Also wanted to be sure that the men who bid really meant business. It was rumored that a lot of them were sim- ply living off sample machines and their object was to sell out, not to the City, not sell machines to the City, but sell their supposed rights to other companies. There were other people who perhaps really believed they had machines and would bring all sorts of things and present them. "I believe, in one of the last reports of 384 the old Board's experts, three of the machines were not reported on because, — I think it was Mr. Olson said that they were not worth considering, or something of that purport. So it was our desire, — at least that was in my mind, — that the machines that should compete here, and take up the time of the Board and experts, would be men who meant business. We afterwards relaxed that rule and allowed Mr. Winslow to bid for only 50 machines and to put up a correspondingly small bond. ' ' 60 The Five Per Cent. Deposit Requirement. "I cannot tell whether the rule was relaxed in behalf of Winslow before June 1st, 1911." "Q. Now, about these machines, the owners of the machines who wanted to sell out ; to whom did they want to sell out! A. Well, we had one instance in which Mr. Winslow undertook to sell out to the Empire Company." 386 The witness thought that four companies, the Empire, the Triumph, the Winslow and the International, if they had inducements to sell, could very readily equip them- selves for the purpose. Witness' impression at the time of sending out specifications was that either one of the four companies might get the contract. This, and the fact that the precedent M'as around 5%, was what deter- mined the 5% requirement. 389 The specifications also called for $250,000 bonds. 390 "A. My thought Avas that if we should get an install- ment of machines, or two installments, and it would prove that the machines were deficient and not up to the guar- anty of the contract, that we would have some recourse or would have a bond from some indemnity company." This would be true no matter what voting machine com- pany furnished the bond. 391 "We would rely upon the bond for a possible deficiency of the machine, but we would rely somewhat on the strength of the companies as to the preliminary bid." "Q. Why did you send letters to 39 companies when only four companies were considered 1 A. The hope was 394 to get in anybody that knew anything about voting ma- chines to make an application and let us see what they had. "Q. Did you intend to pay any attention to any com- panies save the four you mentioned? A. If they should develop that they had machines, certainly. "Q. What if it did develop that they had the machine, but not the equipment or factory? Did you intend to ignore it? A. That does not follow as a consequence at all ; I am speaking of my own opinion ; my thought was that men that had a good machine could finance it very quickly without so much trouble and get it — and I further thought that there might be, somewhere in the progress of things, an ideal machine that I did not know anything about and never had heard about. "Q. But that ideal machine that you had in your im- The Purchase of 1200 Voting Machines. 61 agination would require the owners of it to put up a cer- tified check for $50,000? A. Yes. 395 "Q. And did you not think that the- requirement of $50,000 certified check would crowd out nearly all of those persons to whom you sent notices to bid! A. Now, I 396 don't recollect on that at all. No, it didn't occur to me that it could have operated." Witness expected to make an examination of the ma- chines submitted but to rely mainly on the judgment of the experts who were to do the examining for the Board. The witness, above all,- expected to make inquiries of places where machines had been used everywhere. 397 The Bureau of Public Efficiency objected to the pur- chase of 1200 machines at one time. "Q. Was that considered by the Board of Officials? A. I can't recall whether we actually read the reports out or not and took further action or not, but I re- member that we talked around about it and I had a copy of the report and looked it over and considered it as ma- turely as I could at that time." 398 There were a number of reasons for mentioning 1200 rather than 100 machines in the specifications. 400 Witness did not confer with Powell about his article. The article had been written five years before. At that time witness had also read the action of the preceding Board and knew that every machine presented to it had been rejected. 401 This document of the Secretary of State of New Jersey was dated 1908 ; the New Jersey law was repealed in 1911. The New Jersey document is on file in the office of the Election Commissioners. It is the annual report of the Secretary of State. 402 The witness does not know the date of the document; it had been made, however, before it came up to the voting machine problem in the spring of 1911. Witness does not know whether the voting machine law of New Jersey was repealed two days before the Chi- cago Election Commissioners advertised for bids. The grand jury report of 1908 recommended that satis- factory voting machines should be installed in each pre- cinct in the City of Chicago at the earliest practicable moment. 403 Witness thought it proper to purchase a large number of machines at the start, because experimentation had 62 Financing the Purchase. been going on here for a number of years and in other states voting machines had been used for as much as 13 years and that the data regarding voting machines was well known to people interested. All machines had been rejected after experiment by the Board of Election Commissioners. The Bureau of Public Efficiency communication goes' into financing and opposes the methods adopted. The 404 Election Commission did not go into that. The witness did not, had not the time; that was referred to Mr. Mitchell, the attorney for the Board. This matter had been discussed almost from the in- ception of the voting machine question. "Whether we had power to buy or whether it had to be a matter for somebody else." Witness cannot say that prior to April 24th, 1911, the Board had ever officially requested an opinion on the subject from Mr. Mitchell, or that it had been discussed at any Board meeting. Witness thinks that the Board had an informal talk; that the Board was the only in- strument fixed by the law to do it; that if anybody did 405 it the Board must do it. "That was my impression of his (Mitchell's) view." * ' Q. Did he indicate to you any plan by which it could be done? A. Well, the plan proposed in the law itself, by the issuance of certificates." The purpose of asking companies to outline a financial scheme for the payment for machines was to elicit whether the companies would be willing to, as they had done in some cases, extend the indebtedness at a low rate of in- terest, so as to allow the savings to pay for the machine. Witness does 'not know what financial scheme was adopted for paying for voting machines in Indianapolis, 408 or in Milwaukee. The machines used in Indianapolis or Milwaukee were United States Standard, owned by the Empire. The witness does not know that the Board of Election Commissioners called any member of the Bureau of Public Efficiency before it to discuss the question of financing. Witness delivered a speech on the voting machine ques- tion before the City Club and several prominent members of the Bureau of Public Efficiency. Chairman asks witness if he said that Indianapolis and Milwaukee had made some financial arrangement with Voting Machines in Other Cities. 63 voting machine companies by which a saving was effected. 410 "A. I did not intend to say that: if I did say that, I mean to correct it. I do not know what the scheme was. .It is possible they paid all cash at the time they bought their machines." In Indianapolis and Milwaukee they use the United States Standard machine, one of the companies that finally merged in the Empire. Witness cannot say he had consulted with any officials of Milwaukee or Indianapolis as to what the saving would be. A lot of information about these cities is in the Elec- tion Commissioners ' office, the study of which was part of witness' emplo\Tnent; experts' reports and testimonials from the cities which the press in Chicago was constantly giving. 411 The witness ' speech at the City Club was probably July before the Commission let the contract. 412 The speech was made July 18th. The City Club bulletin containing the speech is dated July 31st. 413-4 The witness does not think the speech was made after the Election Commissioners' decision on the voting ma- chine and says the bulletin is not conclusive on it. Thinks the resolution was passed July 21 and the contract signed July 25th. 414 On June 30th the Commission decided only that the Em- pire Company was the preferred exhibitor and that they were to be notified that the Election Commissioners stood ready to enter into a contract with them. Witness be- lieves that the contract was in the course of preparation but does not think the contract had been submitted to the Election Commissioners on July 18th. 415 Witness' best recollection is that the contract was signed July 25th . "Sen. Landee. Q. Was not the resolution in June? "Mr. McEwEN. 'It was resolved that any two members of this Board, that is the resolving part, together with the Chief Clerk of this Board, be, and they are hereby authorized to execute and deliver a written contract, a copy of which is hereto attached, and ordered incorpo- rated in the minutes of this Board with the Empire Vot- ing Machine Company for the purchase of 1,000 machines at said price, $942,500 and that said contract shall be ap- proved by the Countv Judge of Cook County,' and so forth." 64 Expert's Report on Empire Voting Machine. 416 One reason for deciding on the Empire machine was that the firm was a responsible firm. "Q. To shorten the matter, I will direct your atten- tion to page 108 in the City Club Bulletin, to the speech made by Shelby M. Singleton of the City Club. A. Yes, sir. "Q. I will read from his speech: 'The report says:. The four general requirements relate probably to the adaptability of voting machines in general to the prac- tical requirements of elections in Chicago, among which are the following: " '1. Convenient form — ' "Q. That is the report of your expert, isn't it, that he 417 is speaking about? A. I think so. "Mr. Deneen (reading from page 118). It is as fol- lows: '1st: Convenient form. " '2nd: Convenient design for keyboard and counter mechanism for simple, easy, rapid and positive voting. " '3rd: Provision for prescribed and limited number of inspections of counters by the election judges before and after hours of voting. " '4th: Proof against fraud by custodians, judges or voters.' " Mr. Deneen continues reading: " 'After setting forth these requirements as the cardinal tests of any machine the experts, as a matter of fact, negatived to a large de- gree the ability of the Empire machine to fulfill them. For instance, the report shows that the Empire machine is third on the list as to convenience of form and weight for transporting; two of the machines are lighter and therefore easier to handle and transport. 418 " 'In regard to convenient design of keyboard, coun- ter mechanism, for simple, easy, rapid and positive voting, the report says in part: "because of the absence of a party lever which in other machines operates each of the individual keys of that party, split voting by the Empire must be done by pulling down individually the keys which represent the candidates to be voted for and this on a 70-key board will scarcely be done within the one minute's time permitted to each voter in the voting booth." In regard to the third test the report says in part: "as in the case of the Triumph, the Empire has no provision to restrict the number of inspections or the Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. 65 number of times which the judges of election may have access to the counters." ' " "'In regard to the 4th test, viz: that the machine should be proof against fraud by custodians, judges or voters, the report sets forth that the Empire machine "leaves that point unguarded to a certain extent, since there is a possibility of the 'wrong setting of coun- ters' "; and the report sets forth further that 'the dan- ger of fraud by custodians is not wholly obviated since fraud is possible in the use of the Empire machine by disconnecting the actuating mechanism from one or more of the keys.' " 'The machine — the report does not touch on the question of whether the machine had been tested in re- gard to its adaptability for primaries.' " 419 The Avitness heard these matters at the City Club before he signed the contract. "Q. What consideration did you give them? A. That was considered when the reports of the experts were first made." "As to form and size we had proven in the city of Chicago that it could easily be moved without any dan- ger or trouble ; as a matter of fact, I had brought a ma- chine up into the City Club, the second floor, in an ordi- nary elevator. Machines weighing 1400 pounds had been used in Indianapolis for 11 years." 420 In regard to voting a split ticket the witness had ex- pressed the idea that a party lever is a great disadvan- tage. The experts' report show it necessitates a pull from 25 to 75 nounds. A voter may only half operate it thinking he had fully done so when he had not. In the experts' report it is said that the Empire machine, in the absence of a partv-lever. would require a few sec- onds more time, but +1^ov riid not regard this as an im- portant point, but think it should be brought to the Election Commissioners' attention. 421 A voter who would take two or three minutes on the outside to post himself before going into the machine, could vote on the machine within one minute. Like the Triumph, the Empire machine had no pro- vision to restrict the number of inspections or the num- . ber of times when the judares of election might have access to the counters. T^is question was discussed with voting machine men and Mr. Kellermann and it 66 Requirements of Voting Machine Law. was decided that it was not a good thing to restrict the number. Witness thinks the machine is so con- structed that the judges cannot do anything with it to eiTectuate a fraud. 422 And it would be a great advantage to be able to go into the back of the machine to decide a dispute as to the proper reading of the counters. The custodian might disconnect the actuating mechan- ism so that the key would not work, but the witness couldn't see but that he would be instantly detected and face the penitentiary under the law. 423 Besides the Election Commissioners took care that the assembling of the machine is properly done under the greatest possible security. 424 Three distinct inspections are made by different men who make affidavits which are filed separately and witness does not regard this as a valid objection. Taking the evidence from communities which have used voting machines, the records show that voting ma- chines prevent and eliminate fraud. 423 "Mr. Deneen. (Eeading from the voting machine law quoted in the copy of resolutions, page 3, line 67:) 425 "That the machine is provided with a lock or locks by the use of which any movement of the voting or reg- istering mechanism is absolutely prevented so that it cannot be tampered with or manipulated for any fraudu- lent purpose. 426 "Mr. Deneen. (Reading) Line 70 of resolutions. The voting machine is susceptible to being closed during thi^ progress of voting so that no person can see or know the number of votes registered for any candidate." 427 The witness says that the unlimited inspections he re- ferred to as desirable were those taken after the elec- tion was over. The mechanism of the machine can be opened during voting for repair purposes. 428 Through collusion of all judges and clerks in the poll- ing place the machine might be examined during the progress of voting to learn how candidates stood, but it would require the connivance of the entire polling officers. As to form and weight, the machine weighs 950 net, 1120 pounds in a bulk. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor, 67 Witness has no knowledge how many times the ma- chine must be handled in preparation for use at election. 429 The Chairman announces the presence of Miss John- son and asks if counsel care to use her as a witness. "Mr. Deneen (to the witness). Q. Do you and Mr. Czarnecki agree in these matters? The Witness. I do not think there is any occasion for any further disputation, Governor. I am willing to say that that testimony furnished the committee is sub- stantially correct, but as to all the other facts, I mean little items that I cannot remember, it may be correct, I do not know, I would not say. Mr. McEwen. You mean the record as furnished rather than the word testimony which you said. The Witness. The minutes. Me. McEwen. I will say in behalf of the interests I represent, I do not intend to take any dififerent position than as stated here by Dr. Taylor, and I presume the stenographer might say everybody checked up the min- utes and added to it. I think it will show that Mr. Czar- necki did and probably Dr. Taylor did and that is my understanding. Mr. Deneen. But, mind me, when it was all done they all agreed to the minutes as being substantially the min- utes of the Board. Mh. McEwen. On all the essentials that would natu- rally form a part of the record, the proceedings, they were acouiesced in and considered as the record. Mr. Mitchell. The statement incorporated in the minutes by Mr. Czarnecki that the minutes were read and approved is not true. Volume VI. Afternoon Session. Thursday, July 24, 1913. 433 Dr. Howard S. Taylor : "Communication of the Winslow Voting Machine Co. "The Winslow Voting Machine Company, an Ohio corporation, having its headquarters at Toledo, Ohio, respectfully presented this its protest and petition to the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of 68 Protest of Winslow Voting Machine Co. Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, in relation to the specifi- cations for the furnishing of voting machines and the invitation of sealed bids thereunder, which specifications have been adopted and bids invited by the said Board on or about April 27th, A. D. 1911. ' ' 1st : The specifications require bidders to specify that they have at least a voting machine on exhibition meet- ing the requirements of the Illinois Election Law and the Illinois Voting Machine Law, and yet such specifica- tions permit for the purpose of exhibition a machine with a number of voting keys and party columns in- adequate for the requirements of the elections held under their jurisdiction and inadequate to meet the require- ments of specifications describing voting machines which the "Board has authority in law to purchase, or which as indicated under said specifications it proposes or intends or purchase. "2nd: The number and date set forth in the specifica- tions for the furnishing, delivery and equipment of the voting machines set forth in (1) are unreasonably im- possible of fulfillment as your petitioner is informed and believes by any existing owner or manufacturer of voting machines in the United States of America. No possible competent bidder is known to your petitioner who would dare to make bids under the specifications as to the installments for delivery above referred to, xm- less such bidder felt that grounds existed for belief that an extension of time would be granted. "3rd: (n) of the specifications taken in connection with the terms of (a) of the specifications for the ex- hibition of a machine adequate for the desired purposes is so drawn as to operate to the material disadvantage of intending bidders who now possess, ready for the purposes of exhibition machines suitable for purchase under the specifications in the contract, and to work to the material advantage, by allowing a postponement as to the date of the execution. of the contract, in favor of intending bidders who may possess and exhibit ma- chines which do not comply with the specifications cov- ering machines which may be purchased. "4th: Your protestant and petitioner shows that (6th) of the specifications the Board requires an indef- inite and therefore unreasonable continuing further op- tion on its behalf, but with no obligation on its part to Testimoni/ of Howard S. Taylor. 69 purchase additional machines at a price no higher than named in the original contract. This disregards the reasonably anticipated variations in the prices of labor and material and furnishes no limit except the life of the Board of Election Commissioners only, for the termination of this continuing obligation on the bidder, "5th: Your protestant shows that the amount of the check required to accompany each bid is unreasonably large, being substantially $60,000 and that the require- ment that said check shall not be returned to the suc- cessful bidder until the contract has been executed a bond of $250,000 guaranteeing the faithful performance of the contract has been furnished, is unreasonable be- cause the specifications are so drawn that it is entirely with the power and right of the Board to accelerate or delay the signing of the contract with the successful bidder. Your petitioner if a bidder has no means of ascertaining whether the signing of the contract would be so delayed by the Board as to afford sufficient time to permit compliance with the delivery, installment quan- tities and dates set forth in (k) of the specifications^ or whether the contract would be signed at a date making it impossible for any possible bidder known to your petitioner to comply therewith if the date of the signing of such contract should be as early a date as is legally possible under the specifications as framed. "For the reasons above stated your petitioner re- spectfully protests against said specifications and peti- tions the Board to reasonably so amend the same as to permit your petitioner with propriety and reasonable business safety and intention of perfoi-mance to submit bids and to submit a sample of the machine manufac- tured by your petitioner. "Which your petitioner affirms will fully and completely satisfy the requirements of the laws of Illinois and any specifications prepared in com- pliance wath the letter and spirit thereof, and that the time for the filing of the bids be extended until the first day of July, A. D. 1911. Your petitioner is not fully informed as to the law, but inasmuch as your Board has already amended the specifications and already extended the time, your petitioner assumes that your Board has authority to heed the protest and grant the petition of your petitioner. "WiNSLOw VoTixG Machine Company, By (Signed) L. E. Winslow, Mgr." 70 Protests Placed on File. 437 "The witness remembers these protests. The witness thinks Commissioner Czarnecki moved to give consider- ation to the protest and that the witness moved to place it on file. 439 "After hearing read the requirements of specifications as to delivery of machines the witness say: 'My reply is that I do not think that we formally altered the "tests "and I do not know that we altered it at all.' " After receiving the Winslow protest Mr. Winslow was permitted to come in with a smaller number of machines however. Witness does not think that any bidder had advance information that the Kleetion Commissioners would alter the specifications, and the Commissioners had not discussed with any bidder the subject of altering the specifications after letting the contract, or that the con- ditions as to the time of delivery would be changed. 440 The contract does not follow the specifications as to delivery. Mr. Deneen'. Q. You extended the time to fifteen months rather than nine months after you had awarded the contract, after you had decided to award it? A. I do not recall that, it is a total of twenty-six months. 441 Witness does not recall why the time was extended. It occurs to him that if no company could have complied with the contract then no company was injured. Witness thinks that the contract was prepared by the attorney and the Chief Clerk; perhaps the attorney of the Empire Company. It was brought in and his only recollection of it is that complete delivery was to be ac- complished in twenty-six months. "I thought that the permanent installment of voting machines would prob- ably be accomplished within Judge Owen's time, his term. Mr. Deneen. The provisions of the specifications were altered. Were those contained in the copies sent out to the machine companies generally. The witness thinks that the Commission was not bound by the specifications on this point, that having selected a machine they could make whatever contract seemed best. 443 The specifications is a sort of an invitation to "come and see how nearly you can get to this, and if you can get within that bound, or approximately, we will then con- sider a contract, if yours is the goods, if yours is the selected machine." "That is what I thought about it." The witness regarded the specifications as more than a Protest of Ergy Register Company. 71 matter of form, but not binding upon the Commissioners as to each proposition. 444 The specifications were made a part of the contract. The witness had not noticed that. " Ml-. -Deneen. The contract states that the specifica- tions are attached hereto and that tliere is no provision to make them a part of the contract. ' ' 445 Mr. Deneen reads the following provision of the con- tract: "Whereas, the 'Board' issued specifications for the furnishing of voting machines to said 'Board' which said specifications bear date April 27, 1911, and a cop}- of which specifications is hereto attached and marked 'Ex- hibit A, and' " ' ' The Witness. That is correct, yes. ' ' "From the Ergy Eegister Company, Dayton, Ohio, May 25th, 1911, from Leopold Rauh, President, addressed to Mr. Wm. H. Stuart, Chief Clerk, Board of Election Com- missioners of Chicago, Ills., which is as follows: Dear Sir: After my conversation with you with regard to voting machines and upon my return home I received your valued favor of the 20th inst., stating that bids for voting machines will be opened tomorrow. We have al- ready stated to you that we shall not be in position to file a bid of this kind since we have just completed our funda- mental machine and this machine we shall have on exhibi- tion at the Chicago Municipal Exposition to be held in your Auditorium September next. You can readily understand that in the first place it 447 would have been quite expensive to ship our machine to Cliicago at this time and that it would avail of nothing else but to demonstrate, since we are not ready to receive any orders and it will take considerable time to prepare for manufacturing as well as organization. I have no- ticed in the lobby of your office that perhaps only the 'Triumph, the Empire and the Winslow' will be on ex- hibition. The Empire being the oldest- Company in the field will be undoubtedly the most aggressively situated at this time. In reviewing your conditions as to what your requirements are, I will not go at length into this matter and would simply suggest this, that if it is within your province to inform me who your Board of Mechani- cal Experts are that will go into an examination of the machines that will be before them, I shall be very glad to avail myself of the opportunity of laying all the facts 72 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. pertaining to our machine before. them, and I assure you that we can demonstrate most important points in all of the arrangements that you are requiring, barring none — that we can furnish a machine that is lighter and smaller than the ones that are likely to be on exhibit, since all the countei-meehanism of our machine is semi-rotary and each party column can be readily removed for storing away, thus we have what no one else has, a sO-called K. D. voting machine. Of course, all this is mechanical and can be best appreciated by expert mechanics. The ma- chine has been built in the shops of the Ergy Eegister Company but it is my own property. The experiments have been going on for almost the past ten years and the invention is covered by patents that have gone to issue and a number of patents that are now pending. We have a great number of security features connected with our machine, such as sealing the machine when the election is over, for taking an impression of the counters onto a tally sheet at the opening of the booth, whereon we show that all the counters have been at zero and for taking this same tally sheet and showing thereon in each column the standing of the voting counters at the close of the election so that an exact audit and report is had very quickly. Another very important feature that I might enumerate is that we set all our counters at zero by and in a single operation for each party column so that if there are ten political parties we have simpy ten operations to per- form to turn all of the counters in the machine to zero. Everything in our machine is new and novel. It has been so constraeted on independent lines and our inventor has been original and has not endeavored to copy in the in- ternal working arrangements. The outer constructions of course will not differ very much from any other make of machines. Much thought has been given to building the machine 'fool' and 'villain' proof, and the matter of adjusting the machine to the various demands of the tickets nominated" by political parties has also been taken care of so that it will not require any one above ordinary knowledge to set the machine to the requirements. Our group voting or limiting device is one of the simplest imaginable and the machine can be set to conform to the ticket of any nomination as quickly and as simply as one would set the hands of a clock or watch and the capacity is, not only almost unlimited, but free of any lost motion Protest of American Voting Machine Co. 73 or wear. I am not writing this letter to you in order to 'knock' any other machine that may be before you but am writing you to simply keep you informed of what will be on the market. My Company has not been financed yet and it will be perhaps a year before we will arrive at a manufacturing basis. Voting machines are first class things and there are some on the market now that have very good features. No one company will be able to furnish all the machines that will be needed over this broad land before very long, consequently there is room for all of us. Thanking you for courtesies shown me while at Chicago and trusting that you will permit me to keep in touch with you on this entire proposition, I re- main, yours very truly, Leopold Batjh." 451 Witness thinks the letter just read was received and filed, probably. "I do not recall." "Mr. Deneen. It was not given any consideration by the Board? ' ' The WiTOEss. No, I think not. ' ' "Also the following letter from the American Voting Machine Company of Boston, Mass., dated May 18th, 1911, addressed to the Honorable Board of Election Com- missioners of Chicago, Illinois: "Gentuemen : In reply to your night message of May 17th in which you suggest that we submit an informal proposition in reference to our voting machines to your Board, after which you would pass upon our requests that the time for submitting our bid has been extended to June 20th, we respectfully submit to your Honorable Board the following: "We can furnish your city with voting machines as per specifications and to meet the requirements of the voting machine law of the State of Illinois, measuring 6' 2" in height, 18" in width and about 12' in length and weighing about 800 pounds, f. o. b. Chicago at a price of |700 each from which totals will have to be read and $780 per ma- chine equipped with printing registers together with printing devices. This estimate is approximate and may be |50 more or less. If the time for our bid in ex- tended to June 30th, we will be able to construct a ma- chine with nine party columns and seventy keys which will meet with all the requirements and be able to give 74 Protest of Caulkins Voting Machine Co. you the exact cost. We trust that your Board will take favorable action in behalf of our request, we remain, Yours very truly, American Voting Machine Co. F. E. NicKBi^." 454 The witness thinks that likely he moved to place the letter on file. Witness cannot state whether it received consideration by the Board or whether it was simply an open discus- sion. Witness supposed that the American Voting Ma- chine Company had been in the habit of asking for an extension and that there were records of their asking ex- tension on the old minutes; that they were apparently never getting ready to get into the contest. "Now, I am not sure, as I say, that that was talked about in the open Board when we considered, and I would not say it was talked of officially. I cannot remember whether it was talked over between me and any member of the Commis- sion, and will not say that the American Voting Machine 'Company had been in the habit of asking delays of pre- vious Board." Also the following letter from the Caulkins Voting Ma- chine Co., to the Honorable Board of Election Commis- sioners, Chicago, Ills., dated Mav 25th, 1911, on the letter- head of Erik L. Krag, 1041 First National Bank Build- ing, Chicago. "Honored and dear Sir: — I regret that I am unable at the present time to comply with all the demands of your specifications for bids for voting machines. I have ex- hibited a Caulkins Voting Machine with your Honorable Board, which, while not entirely complete, beyond doubt will clearly demonstrate its many advantages to you. This is the only machine which can absolutely guard against fraudulent manipulation of counters and mechan- ism. It is the only machine which will print, in one min- ute, the totals for every candidate, for every straight ticket and of all cast votes, for each office, together with the totals of all the totals in each party, leaving the only thing for the judges to do — sign their names. "A machine of the capacity required for Chicago will weigh, complete, in shipping case, about 200 pounds and would be 34^" long, 23" high and 12" deep. If you are favorably impressed with this statement, I should be Protest of American Voting Machine Co. 75 pleased to give you more detailed information. I beg to remain, Yours very truly, Ekik L. Krag." Witness thinks this letter also was filed. Also the following letter from the American Voting Machine Company, of Wooster, Ohio, dated May 19th, 1911, addressed to Mr. W. H. Stuart, Chief Clerk of the Board of Election Commissioners, city of Chicago, Ills., "My dear Sir: We have been making every effort pos- sible to complete a machine for exhibition before your Board of Election Commissioners under your specifica- tions, dated April 27th, 1911. We regret to say that we cannot complete this machine by the 22d of May, 1911. We commenced to build this machine to meet your re- quirements as given to Judge H. B. Swartz and regret that we will be unable to complete it by the 22d of May, 1911, We desire to say, however, that we can comply with each and every requirement under your specifications for a voting machine. We believe that we have built a ma- chine, which can comply with your requirement, and we trust that some later date will be fixed by the Board of Election Commissioners for the receiving of bids and ex- hibition of machines. It will take us probably 30 days to complete our machine and secure the approval of it by the State officers of Illinois, and inasmuch as you desire to purchase a large number of machines, we feel it to be an injustice to let this contract without seeing our machine, which is built on an entirely ditferent principle than any other voting machine now built. AVe believe this machine, on account of the new parts needed in its construction, and the simplicity of its operation, will take a lead over all the other voting machines now on the market. "On this macliine it is possible to do everything that is possible to do under the Australian Ballot Law of Illi- nois, with the paper ballot and the pencil. There is no requirement of this law which we cannot meet with this machine. Is it not possible to arrange some time later when our machine can be exhibited before your Board and you can be made familiar with its operation? We have done everything possible to be ready by the 22d of May and find that we are not able to complete this ma- chine. Very truly. The American Voting Machine Co., H. H. Zeigler, Sec'y." 76 Protests Placed on File. Witness thinks this letter was also probably placed on file. 458 The bids were opened June 1st. The four companies bidding were the Empire, Triumph, Winslow and Inter- national. The experts were appointed on June 3d, selected by 459 Judge Owens. The experts were Messrs. Abbottt, Cham- berlain and Wooley. The witness did not know them at that time. "Michigan City, Ind., June 15th, 1911. Hon. Chas. H. Kellerinann, Cluiirman, Board of Election Commissioners, City Hall, Chicago. Dear Sir: — "I am submitting to you for presentation to the Board the status of my eighteen j'ears' work to produce a me- chanical device for recording and counting votes at our popular elections. "First : It is impossible to state fully, in any single pa- per that you would have the patience to wade through, what ought to be given on this subject. And many of my assertions herein will be hardly believable by your Board without a fuller setting forth than can be made by writ- ing. If, however, this letter creates enough interest to warrant you in calling for me I will at any time gladly come before the Board for questioning. And while wish- ing to be decently modest and certainly not to stand in the light of a 'knocker' or 'butter in', yet 18 years of the hardest study, work and careful observation of what has been going on in thi« field, ought to enable me to speak with some weight. "After several years' work devising and building a type similar to those you are now examining, I abandoned the so-called 'voting machine' idea which does not permit several electors in the same voting precinct to be prepar- ing their ballots at one and the same time. "The reason is obvious. "After long study and observation of actual conditions during elections, together with a careful comparison of re- quirements in ditferent states, I set myself the task four- teen years ago to devise a mechanism for recording and counting votes in our popular elections with the following requirements: '1. It must be very simple, small and light. n- Letter of Eugene Gregory — Filed. 77 "2. Must have capacity to record a minimum of one thousand names and fifty questions of public policy, amendments, etc., or ten full tickets of one hundred names each, besides all possible 'yes' and 'no' or 'for' and 'against' questions. "It must, without extra cost, count two thousand votes. "To count two thousand votes in a ten-hour day there would be required at least ten marking devices and booths with one counting machine in each voting precinct, thus allowing at crowded hours as high as ten voters to be pre- paring their tickets at the same time. "3. Must not allow even an official to regulate or even touch by any means short of mutilation a single counter or a single piece that actuates the counter. All 'setting' must be done from the outside by a single stroke of the operating mechanism. "4. In size 1 set a cubic foot and weight fifty pounds and have been able to save a good margin. ' ' To accomplish special things in elections, such as come up in Primary balloting, or as in your state, vote plump- ing there must be no special attachments. The regular mechanism must do the Avork ; and the simplest directions must be plain on the face of the invention so that any voter with or without mechanical turn of mind shall see what to do without coming from his booth. "5. Xo 'expert mechanic' must be necessary in its up- keep or in handling and placing for elections. "6. The total cost to equip a first class City should leave something in that City's treasury. ' ' Can so much be done ? "It is done. "Within six weeks' time I can put the visual evidence before you. "Your undemocratic Illinois feature of cumulative vot- ing, together with the recent expansion and elaboration of Primary voting, in many states, have been a serious hinderance to me after I thought I was done with this most intricate problem. "Thanking you for the privilege of presenting this to your Honorable Board and holding myself at your service, "Eespectfully, (Signed) Eugene Gregory." 463 Witness remembers the receipt of this letter and thinks it was placed on file. 78 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. Chicago, III., June 19th, 1911. To the Honorable Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago. Gentlemen : 463-468 "Supplementary to our printed and oral arjmments, we beg leave to present to your attention herewith a num-. ber of statements relative to the International voting ma- chine. "It will be as much to our advantage as to yours, to make whatever changes are desirable to our machines, so that it will meet in every particular the needs of the City of Chicago as you see it. To this end we will (a) move the public counter so that it is visible from the back 463 of the machine and can thus be read while the voter is in the booths; (b) place the woman's lockout ballot lever, on the back of the machine, outside of the curtain, (c) Build six or more primary bars in each machine said bars to be operated from the rear of the machine and outside of the curtain, and the face of each bar to be sufficiently large to carry a party appellation which may be readily distinguished by election judge or by a watcher, (d) Cover the face of the ballot with celluloid, which will pre- vent the voter from marring the ballot and will prevent the placing of rubber bands on the lower part of the key. (e) If you think it is desirable, we will put a tension on the party bar which will have a tendency to prevent the withdrawal of the keys by rubber bands placed on top. "Your attention is respectfully called to the light weight of the International machine, it weighing less than one pound to each key upon the face of the machine; and to the convenience and ease with which the machine may be set up ready for voting. The case frame of our machine, which furnishes the working support, is a compact, fabri- cated structure, built up scientifically so as to withstand any strain that may be put upon it. "There is no maze nor mass of suspended and collapsi- ble parts susceptible to every jerk or jar. 464 "The International machine does, we believe, every- thing that any other voting machine does, and performs its work in the most simple and natural way possible. It 465 is a machine that no mechanic will have to touch with a tool, a machine so advanced in its fundamental features that it may be changed to receive a new ballot as easily as the marginal stops may be changed on a typewriter Letter of International Voting Machine Co. 79 machine. The fact that these changes must be made for each election, or on an average of four times a year, should be taken into consideration in figuring the fixed costs of using voting machines. "The International machine has its lock on its face, directly alongside of the ballot, most convenient for the custodian. He sees what he is doing all the time, there is no guess work adjustment. Every piece of the machine which the custodian needs to see is get-at-able in an easy and natural way. Every part of the machine is thor- oughly tested as to its strength, and is guaranteed. There are no weak parts. All movements in the International Voting Machine are positive and camactuated. The posi- tively engaged register is a fundamental feature. It is absolutely controlled, inasmuch as the key which operates the register travels only across the diameter of a round hold of a predetermined correct size, thus making it im- 465 possible to count more than one vote. "The irregvdar vote on the International Machine wholly meets the requirements of the law. Possibly it is not ideal but we believe that its slight disadvantages are not equal to the disadvantages of the bulky, weighty and doubtful paper roll. 466 "The International is an all machine voting device, not half man and half machine. It prints the condition of the registers in the morning and does not depend upon the sworn statement of judges and clerks. The registers are set preferably at 000, but wherever they are set, the machine preserves a record of their starting points. This print together with the print taken at the close of the polls in the evening, supplies a positively correct record of the number of votes for each candidate, and for and against each proposition, during the voting day, thus not depending upon the fallible human record. This printed record furnishes wholly dependable evidence in the event of a contest and will practically eliminate court proceed- ings. The exhibition of a ballot with both morning and evening print will immediately satisfy judges and candi- dates. It will be as final as a court decision in itself. "The slow progress of voting machines in the past is due, we believe, to the fact that none of these machines has printed as much as it is due to their cumbersome and general unreliability. It is argued by the manufacturers of nonprinting machines as opposed to another nonprint- 80 Letter Placed on File. ing machine that the latter does not total the votes, that the individual vote must be added to the party vote to 467 secure the total. In other words that it does not do what the machine is primarily intended to do — eliminate cler- ical work. This is all right as far as it goes, but the argu- ment of the first man condemns his own machine and en- dorses the International which is the only one that wholly eliminates the human element in the record of its work. "The one hypothetical argument that stands against the International Voting Machine is the argument rela- tive to the malicious use of snow or water brought into the booth by the voters. The voter who comes to the ma- chine with malicious intent, and who is willing to take the chance of going to the penitentiary if he is caught in the act, can destroy any voting machine that has ever been made. T'he celluloid sheet over the face of the ballot will prevent injurious results from whatever moisture is un- avoidably brought into the booth. "We believe that the International voting machine has reached the state of perfection where it is a practical de- vice, that it will give Chicago better election results than can be secured by the use of any other machine now in existence, or by the use of the paper ballot. The use of the International Machine in the City of Chicago would result in a large annual saving, and would reflect great credit upon the men who are instrumental in bringing it into use. AVe maintain that a voting machine with 700 keys on the face and which weighs only 600 pounds is as light a machine as is practical to build. Two men can handle it easily and no machine will ever be built, it is our opinion, suitable for use in the City of Chicago, which can be handled by less than two men. "We submit these statements in this form that they may be analyzed by you at your convenience. We be- lieve that they will receive your careful consideration. "Yours respectfully, ' ' International, Voting Machine Co. ' ' 468 Witness remembers the letter which was placed on file. Does not know that any official consideration was given to it nor was it discussed by the Board. » Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 81 The report of the experts W. L. Abbott, Paul M. Cham- berlain, and Wm. W. Wooley, received June 26th. "Honorable John E. Owens, County Judge, County Building, Chicago. Sir: 469-480 Your Commission of Experts, appointed to advise you as to the actual and relative merits of certain voting machines which the Board of Election Commissioners have received proposals for, have examined the machines submitted, considered the practical requirements of elec- tion conditions and herewith submits the following report : "The problem submitted to your Commission was broadly outlined as follows : "1st: Do the machines fulfill the requirements of the State law? "2nd: What are the materials entering into the con- struction of the machines, and are the materials sufficiently good to meet the demands made on the machines? "3rd: Are the machines mechanically correct? 470 "4th: Are the machines equal to the work and re- quirements of the election conditions of Chicago? ' ' The first general requirement is detailed in the State Law relating to voting machines. "The second general requirement relates to the me- chanical strength and durability of the device. "The third general requirement relates to the mechan- ical accuracy of the machine in performing desired opera- tions and restricting to such operations. "The fourth general requirement relates broadly to the adaptability of voting machines in general to the prac- tical requirements of election conditions in Chicago, among which are the following: "1. Convenient form and weight for transporting. " 2. ■ Convenient design of key-board and counter mech- anism for simple, easy, rapid and positive voting. "3. Provision for prescribed and limited number of inspection of counters by the election judges before and after the hours of voting. "4. Proof against fraud by custodians, judges or voters. Four makes of machines were submitted for an inspection : — "Triumph Voting Machine, manufactured by the Triumph Voting Machine Company, Pittsfield, Mass. 82 Report of Election Commission's Experts. 471 "Empire Voting- Machine, manufactured by the Empire Voting Machine Company, Jamestown, N. Y. "International Voting Machine, manufactured by the International Voting Macliine Company, Elgin, Illinois. "Winslow Voting Machine, manufactured by the Wins- low Voting Machine Co., Toledo, Ohio." "Following is the discussion of the distinctive features found in the various machines : — "Triumph Voting Machine. "This machine is of medium weight, is packed in con venient form for transportation, it fulfilled all of the con- ditions imposed by the State law, is made of suitable and durable material, and is of correct mechanical construc- tion. "The commission, however, considers it deficient in that there is no provision for limiting the number of times the judges may obtain access to the counters. It is also deficient in that it is easily possible at the time of an in- spection to disconnect an individual counter or counters from the party lever bar, so that straight ballots cast by 472 the party lever will not be registered by the counter so disconnected. The resetting and releasing levers where understood, are useful for quickly correcting erroneous votes, but may be confusing and present the possibility of voter erasing entire vote. The machine may also be made to give a false registration by means of a spring or rubber band attached to the voting key. Such an at- tempt at fraud, however, would be so apparent that it could scarcely fail to attract the attention of the next voter. "Empire Voting Machine. "This is the only one of the four machines submitted which is not provided with a party lever. The machine fulfills the requirements of the State la.w, is very well con- structed of suitable and durable materials, and is in con- venient form for transijortation ; but is somewhat heavy, weighing 904 and 1150 lbs. boxed for shipment. "Because of the absence of the party lever, which in other machines operates each of the individual keys of that part}', split voting with the Empire must be done by pulling down individually the keys which represent the candidates to be voted for, and this on a 70-key board will scarcely be done within one minute's time per- mitted to each voter in the voting booth; it also makes Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 83 it necessary to add the ballot cast on the party key to those on the individual keys. These disadvantages ap- ply to any machine which has a party key instead of a party lever. The advantages of the party key on the 473 other hand are simplicity of instruction to voter and less mechanical complication. "As in the case of the Triumph, the Empire has no provision to restrict the number of inspections or the number of times which the judges of election may have access to the counter. "International Voting Machine. "This machine complies with the requirements of the State law, is well built of strong and durable materials, and is of correct mechanical design. Of four machines submitted, this one is the lightest in weight, the sim- plest in design, and is the only one from which printed records of the counter indication may be taken. "The commission, however, considers the machine de-, ficient in the following points : The arrangement of the key-board in a horizontal rather than in a vertical plane is not approved. The arrangement of the printed lines on the ticket is parallel to the line of vision and the names are, therefore, not so easily read as if they were arranged at right angles to the line of vision. The move- ment of the voting key is so slight that there is not a positive indication for whom the ballot is cast. The voting by a party lever may not be positive when the 473 lever is not moved through its full swing. A voter pos- sessed of a key might open the machine and tamper with the counters within the time allowed for voting. 474 "Winslow Voting Machine. "Complies with the requirements of the State Law, and is properly constructed to meet the requirements of strength and durability. Your experts find, however, that in the sample submitted the actuating mechanism of a number of counters was inoperative, and in the opinion of your commission the design of the counter used is such that after a few hours it may be expected that one or more counters will become inoperative. "This machine is provided with a restrictive device, but in the sample submitted the device is ineffective. _ It would, therefore, be possible, in spite of the restrictive device, for a woman to cast a full party ballot ; also on the sample submitted there was no check on the roll of 84 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. paper which is provided for the irregular vote, and with- out such a check voters might cast several ballots for any irregular candidate. "As the weight of each machine is 1,290 lbs. handling is not an easy matter. The keyboard is well designed for rapid and positive voting, but the amount of force required to pull a party lever (about 75 lbs.) is consid- 474 ered objectionable and excessive. "Below in tabular form appears a comparison of the principal features of the machines examined. 475 Item Triumph Empire Check on irregular vot- Perforation Clutch ing of roll Possibility of disabling mechanism by con- struction of keyboard Yes No Possibility of fraud by None found None voter. found Intern' 1 Winslow Individual U n p r o cartridge tected 476 Possibility of fraud by D i s c o n ■ judge. Fraud by custodian Provision for spections three nectmg one or more keys from party lever at time of inspection. Wrong set- t i n g of counters Disconnect Same actuating mechanism from one or more keys Wrong set- t i n g of counters Yes Turn coun- ter if pos- sessed of key None No No limita- tion to amt. of irregular voting Wrong set ting of counters None None Same Yes Same Yes Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. 85 476 Item Triumph Empire Intem'l Winslow Dimensions, width 22' 19" 26" 22" Required for length m" 88' 88" 78" Storage, Height m" 62" 42" 68* Weight as per proposal 725 904 665 to 715 1260 Shipping box Exterior finish 286 Enamel Enamel Enamel Paint Effectiveness of mechani ism Excellent Excellent Good Fair Pull of party lever 25 lbs. None 5 lbs. 75 lbs. Relative convenience of handling First Third Second Fourth Party voting Party Party Party Party lever key lever lever Split voting Party lever Individual Party lev- Party lever and indi- key er and in- and indi- vidual key dividual key Same plac- vidual key Irregular voting Written or Same o n Same on sticker o n roll ed in a roll roll cartridge Correcting voting error By voter By judge Not pos- sible By voter "All of the machines submitted comply with the re- quirements of the State law. All are constructed of steel, aluminum, bronze and other composition metal, and the parts are of sufficient strength and durability for their respective duties. "All, with one exception are of proper mechanical de- sign to perform their required operations, the exception being in the case of the counter mechanism of the Win- 476 slow machine. "For convenience in transportation the machines may be rated inversely as their respective weight w^hich is as follows: International 665 to 715 lbs. Canvas case. Triumph 725 lbs. Canvas case Empire ^ 904 lbs. Wooden case, 185 lbs Winslow 1,260 lbs. Canvas case. "The design of the keyboard and counter mechanism for simple, easy, rapid and positive voting, is satisfac- 477 tory in the Triumph and also in the Empire, except that with the latter machine, which has no party lever, split voting requires a few seconds more time than is neces- sary to vote a split ticket, on a machine equipped with a party lever. Your commission does not set this up as an important point, but think it should be brought to your attention. ' The horizontal arrangement of the International 86 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. keyboard is not approved, neither is the arrangements of the printed lines on the ballot. These points were called to the attention of the mechanician demonstrating the machine who stated that the machine could be readily adapted to a vertical position keyboard with horizontal printed lines, and in this statement your commission 477 concurs. The movement of the voting key is too slight to be positive indication of its having been voted, and it is easily possible to give the party lever a partial move- ment which wall actuate some but not all of the counters. "The Winslow machine has a well arranged keyboard and a design of voting keys which gives a positive in- dication for whom the votes are cast, but the pull re- quired to operate a party lever constitutes a very serious objection to this machine. "Provision for a prescribed and limited number of inspections of counters by election judges before and after hours of voting, your experts consider highly de- 478 sirable. Provision for limiting the number of inspec- tions by judges is made in the International machine and in the Winslow machine, but is not provided in the Triumph nor in the Kmpire. It seems that it would be a rather simple matter to include such an attachment in the mechanism of these two named machines. "Absolute proof against fraud by custodian, judges or voters or by connivance of two or more of th'ese par- ties is, of course, impossible, but certain precautions may be taken which will make voting machines reason- ably secure in this respect. 478 "The use of a rubber band attached to a voting key to give false indication is such a clumsy and apparent at- tempt at fraud that it need scarcely be considered, al- though this method of deception is applicable to the Tri- umph machine. A more serious matter, however, is the possibility witli this same machine of disconnecting an individual counter from a party lever which may be done by a custodian before the machine is sent out or by the . judge at the time of an inspection in the polling place. Your commission considers that the designers of the ma- chine can easily provide protection which will prevent a judge from so tampering with the machine, and a rule re- quiring the judges to test all voting levers and keys be- fore polls open w^ould detect any false setting on the part of the custodian. The Decision of the Experts. 87 ' ' The Empire is, in the opinion of your experts, reason- ably well protected against possibilities of fraud. 479 "The International in its present form may be easily tampered with by a voter possessed of a key which will open the machine to the counters, as he could change them to any desired indication. This weakness might, in a way, be protected by a seal which would indicate when the ma- chine is opened. "The Winslow is susceptible to fraud in that the re- strictive device for women voters is not effective, render- ing it possible for such a voter to cast a full party vote; and there being no check on the paper roll which provides for the irregular vote, a voter might cast several ballots for any irregular candidate. "As will be seen in the foregoing, each machine pos- sesses certain points of excellence and certain defects which are not common to all. Some of these defects are not vital and most of them may be overcome by the de- signers. ' ' Your commission believes that the voting machine art has been developed to a point where machines may be in- stalled in Chicago with safety and economy and that such installation shall be the means of greatly minimizing pos- sibility of fraud at the polls. Taking the machines as sub- mitted and allowing for such changes as manufacturers would doubtless be glad to make if requested, your com- mission gives them the following relative rating for gen- eral adaptability to your purposes: 480 "First: Empire Voting Machine. ' ' Second : Triumph Voting Machine. ' ' Third : International Voting Machine. ' ' Fourth : Winslow Voting Machine. "All of which is respectfully submitted, (Signed) W. L. Abbott, Paul M. Chamberlain, Wm. M. Wooley." 482 The report was filed with the commission and received consideration. The witness thinks it was received June 28th. "This is a motion made by Mr. Czarnecki at the meet- ing of Friday, June 30th, 1911 (reading) : " 'Whereas, the voting for groups of judicial candi- 482-3 dates and County Commissioners is a question of great importance in Chicago's elections; " 'Whereas, the number of judges to be voted for is 88 Motion of Commissioner Czarnecki. steadily increasing, and the number of County Commis- sioners to be voted for in the future may be increased beyond the number of ten ; " 'Whereas, the Board of three engineering experts in their report are silent entirely upon tlie question of group voting, the practicability of grouping for, say, fifteen or twenty candidates without violating the law in permitting extra votes under such grouping, and throw no light upon the subject as to whether any test was made along that line ; it is hereby moved that this Board of Election Com- missioners before passing any further in the voting ma- Qhine matter, and before taking any other action, do now proceed to make its own test with reference to the group- ing of fifteen or twenty names for an office to determine whether the future requirements of the election conditions can be complied with, or whether the adoption of ma- chines at present submitted will limit the grouping of fifteen or twenty without the dangers of facilitating the casting of an additional or more illegal voting for such grouped office.' " 484 The motion received no second. Witness assumes that in the experts' report of the grouping device of the Em- pire machine, that the experts had tested it and made no objection. 488 Witness' attention is called to the clause in his resolu- tion: "Therefore be it resolved that this Board do at once proceed to arrange for the purchase of 1,000 voting machines, deliverable in installments approximately as provided by the specifications hitherto adopted by the Board." Witness does not think that the Empire Ma- chine Company had had any conversation with him in reference to delivering machines at that time. 489 The provision that the delivery of the machines should be "approximately" as defined in the specifications was placed in the resolution so that the authority of the Board to make the contract should not be too arbitrary, too pre- cise, and allow some latitude. The witness knew there would have to be some accommodation as to delivery. "Q. Why? A. Well, it might be, as it afterwards transpired, that we should have these, not in three or four big deliveries, but in deliveries of fifty. I remember talking that up and they said they did not want their machines piled up in the shop and they would like to de- liver them fifty at a time as fast as they were finished and prepared ; so that was one thing ; I cannot recall just Czarnecki Moves to Limit Machine Purchase. 89 what the reason was, but it was intended to allow some latitude in making a contract. ' ' 490 The change did not necessarily mean a change in the specifications after delivery of 200 machines within four months, but that instead of delivering 200 machines in a single delivery they might deliver the machines within the months named in installments of 50. As to the second installment of 300 machines, witness did not mean that they should be delivered in installments of fifty or any like number within nine months. The word "approximately" simply referred to some latitude of ad- justment between the Board and the company. At the meeting of June 30th Commissioner Czarnecki offered the following resolution: 491 "I hereby renew my motion upon which no action has been taken up to date, and now move to limit the first pur- chase of voting machines for the City of Chicago to 120 ; these to be tried out in practical use at the primaries and elections of next year before the remaining number of machines necessary to equip the City of Chicago are pur- chased." The witness remembers the resolution. 492 There was no second to the resolution. The witness stated regarding the resolution that "to limit the purchase as requested would be unfair to the bidders who bid upon 1,200 machines and would be merely a delay in bringing about the reform of installing voting machine for which the people had voted which had been sought for many years." Witness thought that the degree of flexibility as to ma- chines purchased required by Commissioner Czarnecki 's resolution a difference of approximately 900 machines was too much flexibility. Witness did not want the speci- fications enforced verbatim, but approximately. Commissioner Czarnecki offered the following resolu- tion: 493 "I hereby renew my motion upon which action has been taken heretofore and now move that the attorney for this Board be required to present to this Board a legal opinion with reference to the financing of the purchase of the vot- ing machine by this Board; the power of this Board to buy and the need of doing so in accordance with the law before deciding upon the 'question of purchasing." 494 "Mr. Deneen. Q. Had the Board received any opinion 90 Czarnecki Moves to Confer With City Authorities. from the Counsel up to June 30th, 1911, on voting ma- chines! "A. I could not tell you. "Q. Don't you know. Doctor, that it had not? A. No, sir, I do not. "Q. What is your best judgment on that — your recoL lection? A. Mr. Mitchell had given us a vocal talk, long previous to that, giving a view of the statute, and he had made us an opinion, I think, in June, addressed to the Judge ; now I cannot give the date, but some time, I think, in June, and that opinion was eventually sent down, as I understand it, from the court and was filed in our office." Witness thinks that up to June 30th, 1911, the opinion Avas read, or a copy delivered, to each Commissioner. "Mr. Deneen. It does not appear in the minutes." 495 "Mr. McEwEN. I will agree that the opinion had not been delivered up to that time. ' ' The witness is very confident that Mr. Mitchell's opin- ion, unwritten, had been talked over several times pre- vious to that. Probably Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion for a legal opinion from counsel for the Board was not seconded. Commissioner Czarnecki submitted the following mo- tion : "I hereby renew my motion upon which action had been taken some time ago, and now move this Board proceed to hold a conference with the City officials in charge of Chicago's finances, namely, the Mayor, City Treasurer, City Comptroller, Chairman of the Finance Committee, and the Corporation Counsel, as to the method of financ-, 496 ing the purchasing of voting machines, before any action is taken definitely by this Board. ' ' Witness' recollection is it was not considered. "Mr. McEwEN. I submit he ought to read Commis- sioner Taylor's remarks." Mr. Whittaker reads Commissioner Taylor's remarks as follows : 496-7 "Commissioner Taylor stated that the question of financing the purchase of voting machines was not neces- sary at this time, that there would be sufficient time for such conference, a conference, if one is deemed advisal)le or necessary, to be held some time in the future, before any contract is signed or entered into." 497 "Mr. Deneen. 'Chief Clerk Stuart stated that there was no need of a delay for a conference and that a confer- No Conference Had With City Authorities. 91 ence could be held later on. ' ' Chairman Kel lemiann stated that he understood that a conference would be held in due course of time. ' ' ' No such conference was ever held by the Board. Later, in December, the Board authorized the Clerk to write a statement to the Mayor and the Council and the Finance Committee to the effect that a contract had been entered into, reciting it, and requesting the Council and the Finance Committee to make provision for pay- 498 ment. This was the only time any relation was created between the Board and the City Council. Commissioner Czarnecki then made the following motion: "I move that the Empire Voting Machine Company be ordered to produce before this Board a machine which will have the objections of weight, cumbersomeness, lack of restriction of inspections, the inability of the voter casting a straight party vote to see any indications as to the names of the candidates he voted for or against, of the absence of the party lever, the absence of any printed record of the counters before and after the voting takes place, the absence of a grand total of both straight and individual votes at the close of an election, and other im- perfections, cured and corrected before the question of passing upon its merits or awarding a contract to that Company is resolved upon." Witness does not think this motion received a second. "A. I cannot tell you that. Probably there was a de- bate on it. "Q. On a motion not seconded? A. A debate on the proposition. "Mr. McEwEN. There was some statement made on the subject immediately following. 499 "Mr. Deneen. On page 193 of minutes. "Mr. McEwEx. Commissioner Taylor made some re- marks and Commissioner Czarnecki, too. "Mr. Deneen. Let us see what it was he said: " 'Commissioner Taylor declared that the motion of Commissioner Czarnecki did not entirely state facts con- cerning the Empire voting machine, and that it should not be considered, because it was a move for delay. " 'Commissioner Czarnecki stated that the imperfec- tions printed out in his motion were taken from the re- port of the three expert engineers and also included what he considered imperfections which are apparent to any 92 Motions of Commissioner Czarnecki. observer. He insisted that the Board pass the motion and that the imperfections of the machine as claimed by him be corrected before any action concerning the merits of the machine or the awarding of the contract be taken. " 'Chairman Kellennann declared that he was going to act on the report and the opinion of the three experts appointed by the County Judge, which approves the Em- pire Voting Machine and that this report will be the basis of his action on the resolution of Commissioner Taylor.' " 500 Witness thinks that the action of the Board was that stated in the above minutes. Commissioner Czarnecki then made the following mo- tion: "I move that before this Board takes any action uix)n the selection of any machine that we proceed at once to enforce Section '18' of our own specifications, which pro- vides that a public exhibition of all machines of bidders will be conducted by the Board of Election Commissioners at such times prior to the awarding of a bid, as the said Board may determine. At all such exhibitions, the bidder will be required to have present a person competent to demonstrate in every particular the operation of the ma- chine offered in bid. ' ' ' ' Mr. Deneen. Now I will read Section 18 of the specifi- cations, — we have it here. Section 18 of the specifications reads as follows: 'A public exhibition of all machines of bidders will be conducted by the Board of Election Com- missioners at such times prior to the award of the bid as said Board may determine, at all such exhibitions the bid- der shall be required to have present a person competent to demonstrate in every particular the operation of the machine offered in the bid.' " Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion received no second. 501 Witness is asked why no public exhibition was held as provided for in the specification. "A. Oh, we had had a public exhibition for from about the middle of March almost straight along. The provision as you call it, was taken from the old specification of the previous Board, and it had no practical, and fruitful end at all, if we had had a public exhibition in that sense and had gotten a few hundred people in here, they would have in no way represented the intelligence and the interest of Chicago, we could have invited the judges and clerks in, and they could not have had such a bid, with a skilled opinion as to the machine, and the education they might Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 93 have gotten would have been small. As a matter of fact, down in the old Rand-McNally building where we were located at that time before we came into the City Hall, we had a string of people there all day looking at the ma- chines and talking and speculating and inquiring. Ac- cording to my recollection pretty much all of the business hours of the day for weeks together." 502 "Q. You think that the intelligent persons would not have availed themselves of an opportunity to inspect the machines'? A. I do not think that many of the intelligent people in Chicago would have done it." The press had notified the public that the Commissioners were investigating voting machines and that the machines were 'located in the Election Commissioner's office and witness thinks one was at an hotel and pretty nearly all the people that could get around to the place to investi- gate machines were investigating them. The witness does not recall that the City Club asked for an opportunity to investigate machines. The news- 503 paper had given considerable notice to the voting machines. "Mr. Deneen. Q. Here is an editorial from the Daily News of June 16th, 1911, fourteen days before; I will read it and see if you recall it, about giving a public exhibition. ' * ' A small rubber band or small string arranged on the face of the machine can be placed upon the keys of three or four machines submitted in such a manner that voting for one or more candidates can be interfered with, un- known to the voters; upon three of the machines, an in- dependent voter who desires to write in the name of his candidate cannot change his mind after he has the name of the candidate on the paper provided for the purpose. Only one of the machines has a device for a printing rec- ord showing the condition before election and the votes registered by the various candidates after election, the printed record that if there was a contest would be unques- tioned as to the fact.' " 504 Witness thinks he read all those things as they came out. The article did not impress upon the mind of the wit- ness the necessity for public exhibition because "We were having a public exhibition all the time." The witness heard testimony at the present hearing re- garding what was called the "Knock Fest" or public com- petitive examination of machines conducted by the old 94 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. board, but has no recollection concerning such examina- tion. Witness had read minutes of old board, but did not recall that point. 505 "A. I remember hearing that statement made here by a witness the other day and am doubtful about its accur- acy. ' ' After the experts had finished their work and the bids were opened, the machines were placed on the witness stand, and, out of the seven machines, six machine owners were directed to cross-examine the machine on the witness stand. "I was not pres- ent, but that was the testimony and may be entirely cor- rect." This was a pretty severe test and would show de- ficiencies and efficiencies. 506 The witness thinks that in the examination of machines by the present Board, the men opposing them there, par- ticularly Mr. Winslow, was making known pretty gener- ally all of the deficiencies and faults of all the other ma- chines and witness cannot see how he could have done it more effectually than he did. "We were advised, I think, once or twice a day." "Q. By protest? A. No, not by written protest, but circulating around, talking. " Q. Didn 't he file a written request for certified copies of the meeting and threaten to institute a suit against you? A. Yes, sir." Witness thought that a public examination and inspec- tion of machines would not be fruitful or any advantage to the Board. "They were doing all they could." Witness recognized that "at the nieeting of the City Club, July 18th, pretty much all of the well-informed ca- pacity had been brought to fight all machines." 507 Witness left the meeting before it was over and does not recall that no representative of other voting machines was present or made a speech. Witness made a speech, also George C. Stykes. Witness thinks Mr. Stykes probably represented the Bureau of Public Efficiency. Mr. Czarnecki made a speech ; Professor Depuy, George M. Singleton, George Hooker and W. L. Abbott made speeches and witness made a reply. Witness does not say that any one of these men repre- sented the Winslow or International voting machine. 508 Mr. Abbott and Mr. Depuy were experts. Mr. Deneen. Q. Will you state whether or not the Em- Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 95 pire Company had an Empire machine on exhibition in the middle of March, 19111 509 A. I think that was a Standard. Q. The fact was they never had an Empire on exhibi- tion until after your contract was let, isn't that the truth of itf A. No, there was an Empire examined by our board of experts, — an Empire machine, it was not a Stand- ard, but an Empire. I want to make it plain, this explana- tion, so that there will be no misconstruction. The Stand- 509-513 ard and Empire, as I recall, are almost identical, be- long to the same company, they use the same important parts, namely, the vedermeter and the strap mechanism by which the vedermeter is actuated. The only difference be- tween them is that one had the lever, the Standard had a party lever and the Empire I think a key, and there was a device on the Standard, I don't recall whether the other had it or not, but when the voter had voted and swung his lever, there was a bell rang; that and one or two other parts, particulars, I don't recall now, constituted all the difference, something in the shape of the keys, too, the vot- ing key on the keyboard, the machine was shaped some- what diiferently than that on the Standard machine. Go . on. 510 Q. The machine that was exhibited by the Empire Com- pany was Serial No. 3592, made at Eochester, New York, wasn't it? A. Rochester. Q. Rochester, not Jamestown! A. That one that was exhibited before our experts ? Q. Yes. A. I don't think so. Q. You would not say it was not? A. No, I would not say. I thought it was an Empire. Q. Wasn't it the identical machine rejected by the old board of experts ? A. I don't know. I never heard any- thing about that. Q. Just a minute, let me refresh your recollection on that, I will call your attention to an article that appeared in the Daily News. Mr. McEwEN. What is the number of the machine? Mr. Deneen. Number 3592 is the serial number. Here 1)10 it is, I have not the article but I have a synopsis of it, Sep- tember 26th it appears. A. Synopsis from what? Mr. Deneen. Daily News article. Daily News chargeg that the sample machine of the Empire Machine Company 96 Did Commission's Experts Examine Rejected Machine? on which the order was placed, Serial No. 3592, was made in Rochester, N. Y., by the United States Standard Com- 511 pany and was the identical machine rejected by Judge Rinaker's experts. A. In the experts ' report the numbers of the two ma- chines are given, Judge, can you look it up, that is 1911. Mr. McEwEN. Which one do you want, 1910"? The Witness. 1911 the numbers of the machines that were examined by Abbott, Wooley and Chamberlain, I am very confident it was not that number. Mr. McEwEN. I have not these reports here, they are on file. Mr. Deneen. It is copied in the minutes. It is page 186, 1 think, page 185 in our report, it is in the meeting of June 30th, the minutes of the board. The Chaibman. June 26th, pardon me. Mr. Deneen. June 26th. Mr. McEwEN. What is the number on your report? The Chaibman. Page 185, signed by Abbott, Chamber- lain and Wooley. 511 Mr. McEwEN. I don't think they give the number, I think that report is over in the office. Mr. Deneen. I think there is no number given. Mr. McEwEN. I haven't the report here. Mr. Deneen. Doctor, will you say whether or not the Empire Machine Company had an Empire machine on 512 exhibition from the middle of March straight along? A. I think so, sir. Q. Until June 30th, when this discussion occurred, and this motion was made ? A. I would not say from the mid- dle of March probably, that was a Standard machine and the Empire machine, however, if I recall it properly, was analyzed and passed upon by the experts who reported on June 3rd. Q. That is, you say you think they did? A. I think so. Sen. Canaday. I did not catch his answer to that ques- tion, whether or not this was the same machine that was examined under Judge Rinaker. Mr. Deneen. Yes, will you answer that? Sen. Canaday. I don't know whether he answered it or not. A. No, I never heard of that before, I never heard of that article, that was never called to my attention — Sen. Canaday. You don 't know whether it was the same machine that was examined by the former commission? Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 97 A. I have not, I think not, I am almost sure — Mr. Deneen. Q. The fact is, you don 't know the iden- tical number of the machine that was examined there of the Empire, the Winslow, Triumph or any of the com- peting companies, do you! 513 A. All I remember is the numbering of the two ma- chines, the Empire machines that were examined by our experts, and I think they ran up each of the numbers over four thousand. Sen. Canaday. Do you know why the secretary did not keep a record of the numbers, is there any reason why the numbers were not kept? Mr. Deneen. I don't believe that there was any record kept of the machines examined by the members. Sen. Canaday. Well, why didn't the secretary keep a record of the numbers ? Mr. Deneen. He simply incorporated the report of the commissioners, the secretary did not examine them. 514 "The voting machines were examined by the experts in what we called the hidden room of the Election Com- missioners' office and no one was permitted — " No time was ever set for a public exhibition. 515 Witness thought that the Election Commission was in possession of every point of criticism that could be raised against any of the machines. The criticism that the ex- perts had examined the wrong machine was a piece of in- formation the Commission did not have, if it was true. 516 If true it would be a serious matter. The witness could not say that the Empire machine was exhibited while the people were strolling around the corridors. The witness thinks that the Empire Machine Company did not exhibit to the Election Commission a 9-party, 70- key machine before December, 1911. Here Mr. Whittaker read paragraph 18 from the speci- fications, as follows : "A public exhibition of all machines of bidders will be conducted by the Board of Election Commissioners at 517 such times prior to the award of the bid as said board may determine ; at all such exhibitions the bidder shall be re- quired to have present a person competent to demonstrate in every particular the operation of the machine offered in the bid. ' ' 519 * ' Q. Did you have a public exhibition of the machines, offered and bid, wherein each machine had its demon- 98 No Public Exhibition of Voting Machines. strator to exhibit the machine, and at a specified time and place, as provided for in Section 18 of the specifications? "A. I don't think we had any arrangement of that sort. "Commissioner Czarnecki then offered the following resolution : 519 & 520 ''Whereas, the purchase of 1,000 voting machines involves the expenditures of a large sum of money; and "Whereas, precedents recently established in connec- tion with the expenditures of large sums of money by public bodies have been to submit the question of the making of such an expenditure to the vote of the people ; "Therefore, I move that this Board of Election Com- missioners does hereby resolve to submit to the voters of the City of Chicago, at the very next election, the question of whether or not the Board of Election Com- missioners shall proceed to expend the specific sum neces- sary for the purchase of 1,000 voting machines ; and that pending this referendum, the Board withold its definite action in the proposed purchase of voting machines." Witness does not think that the motion was seconded, but that some remarks were made about it by himself and Mr. Mitchell. "Me. Denekn: Mr. Mitchell made the remark that it is illegal. ' ' Mr. Taylor, the witness, then offered the following resolution at the meeting of the Board of Election Com- missioners, at which Commissioner Czarnecki 's last reso- lution had been offered : "Commissioner Taylor moved that the adoption of the resolution which he had presented earlier in the meet- ing, with reference to the Board's favoring the Empire Voting Machine, and going ahead with the plan to pur- chase 1,000 machines be taken up for vote and disposition. "The resolution of Commissioner Taylor was then re-read, and Commissioner Taylor formally moved its adoption. "Chairman Kellermann seconded the motion of Com- missioner Taylor, after which it was submitted to a vote. "Commissioners Taylor and Kellermann voted 'aye,' and Commissioner Czarnecki voted 'nay.' ' ' The resolution to buy being adopted by a vote of two to one, Commissioner Czarnecki voting 'nay.' "The Witness. That is a correct statement." At the same meeting Commissioner Czarnecki there- upon offered the following resolution: The Daily News on Voting Machines. 99 b22 "I move, that in the light of the action regarding Com- missioner Taylor's resolution yesterday, with reference to the Empire Voting Machine ; and in view of the request made here today by the International, the Triumph and the Winslow Voting Machine Companies for the return of their checks deposited by them with their bids with this Board, which checks were made payable to Chas. H. Kel- lermann, it is hereby ordered by this Board that the Chairman be hereby ordered to return on Monday, July 3rd, the certified checks held by him from the International Voting Machine Company for $54,000, and the Winslow Voting Machine Company for $2,500, and a cashier's check from the Triumph Voting Machine Company for $60,000, as set forth in the Board's proceedings of June 1st, 1911." Mr. Deneen announced that he would have read, a state- ment from the Daily News of July 1st, 1911, to see w^hether it affected the mind of the witness before making the contract : 523 "July 1st. News. Men who have been busy in gambling and slot-machine devices have shown a vital interest in the activity to install voting machines in this city, and a former racetrack magnate of Chicago, and two racetrack men of California are among those interested in the Empire Company. While some friends of these men maintain that their interest is caused by their own in- vestments, others declare that they are merely proxies for certain other Chicagoans reported to be interested in the voting devices." "Q. Was that called to your attention, that article, that information! A. There were insinuative and ma- licious publications; I recognized this as one of them. It did not dare to give any names and be specific in their accusations." The witness probably understood the article to insinu- ate that Mr. Condon was an owner of the Empire Com- pany. Witness does not know that he knew it before; 524 it is only lately that the name has become familiar. Witness does not know and never saw Mr. Condon. Previous to or about this time Conmiissioner Czarnecki had introduced resolutions requiring the bidders to reveal the names of their stockholders and directors. The motion was objected to by some of the voting machine men. Mr. Farrell and Mr. Barr, witness thinks, objected 100 Protest of Winslow Company. to it as a business impertinence, a matter about which the Commission had no right to inquire. ''Mr. Deneen. Q. The other alleged gambler referred to in that editoral was a Mr. Willians, of Oakland, Cali- fornia, who had been mixed up there in voting machine deals?" "A. I have heard from the same reliable source that there is a man named Williams in California. I want to say that I have never heard of Mr. Williams before, never 525 met him ; never seen him ; don 't know him ; and don 't know that he is a stockholder. ' ' * * Q. I didn 't charge that. Doctor, you knew that there was a general report here that a number of gamblers owned the Dean Machine, didn't you? It was a matter of common knowledge, wasn't it? A. No, sir, I don't know a thing about it, even up to this time ; never heard it. ' ' The Dean machine was one of the machines that was put in by the Empire Company. 526 The insinuation contained in the article appearing in the Daily News was not inquired into by the Board. At the meeting of the Board of Commissioners, of July 1st, Mr. Winslow made the following protest : This is July 1st (reading) : "Mr. L. R. Winslow for the Winslow Company, stated that he might prepare a written protest to be filed on Monday, with the Board. He desired to register a protest orally against the Board's action in passing Commis- 526-528 sioner Taylor's resolution yesterday. Mr. Winslow stated that under the resolution, the Empire Voting Machine Company was given an advantage in that no limit of time was fixed for the construction of a model machine ; that under the resolution, until further action of the Board, all other voting machine companies excepting the Empire Voting Machine Company, were excluded from participating in any contest for the installation of voting machines in Chicago, that the resolution directs the Empire Voting Machine Company to build a sample machine and to bring it to the Board in accordance with its plans and specifications; that this Board is ready to go ahead and give the Empire Company a contract for the purchase of 1,000 machines. There is no mention in the resolution with reference to giving them a fixed length of time so that if within that time they fail to produce the sample machine, other companies would then have the right to submit propositions to this Board. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 101 "Mr. Winslow declared that the report of the experts upon his machine was unfair, libelous, and not based up- on a thorough and impartial inquiry, that the Board of experts did not devote sufficient time or make a long enough examination to know what the Winslow or any other machine really was. He charges that the experts' report was made for the special benefit of the Empire Voting Machine Company. "Commissioner Taylor stated that the resolution gave the Empire Voting Machine Company no legal right and special benefit; that it was a notice that the Board was ready to enter into the contract upon the production of a sample machine of a proper character that if the Empire Voting Machine Company does not comply within a rea- sonable length of time with this notice, that the Board will consider that everything is off and that everything will then commence anew." The protest was received, but witness does not recall that it was given any consideration. 537 Witness does not recall the date when the Commission first learned that the International 's check had been cashed and placed to the individual account of one of the members of the Election Commission. After it was learned, the witness took up the matter with Mr. Kellermann, and at a subsequent meeting of the Board, a motion was made directing Mr. Kellermann to redeposit the check so that the three members of the Board would have to sign in order to make it effective. Witness did not make any inquiry as to the charge that the blue-prints, photographs, statements and drawings of the bidders had not been opened by the experts. He thought it was trivial. The specifications required the companies to present blue-prints, photographs, and so forth, with their bids. This was taken from the old specification. 538 The witness cannot understand "How an expert, or even a non-expert, would want to puzzle over a blue-print when he had the machine right before him. Very much easier perceived and understood than a wilderness of blue and white tracing. ' ' The witness is informed the International representa- tive claimed "They spent $750 getting up blue-prints, photographs and drawings." Witness is asked why, assuming such expenditure 102 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. they required bidders to go to so much expense on useless matters, as he deemed them. "A. I don't believe it would have cost $100. I believe that a statement like all those embittered protests — " 539 Witness does not know what it cost bidders to prepare photographs, drawings, and printed statements as re- quired in the specifications. Does not know what it cost the International but would not think $100. Witness has some knowledge of blue-prints; witness saw the blue- prints, there was a roll of them, six or seven. Witness 540 glanced at the end but did not open them. Does not think that an estimate of $750 is anywhere near right. Witness does not think that blue-prints, drawings and photographs would be of any advantage to mechanical experts in examining machines. Thinks that the parts of the machine would be a hundredfold more useful and informing than any blue-prints. The witness does not know whether the protest filed by the International Company requested an opportunity to present statements regarding the cost of blue-prints or regarding the failure to have a public exhibition under Section 18 of the specifications. "The statement made in the International's protest, that no such meeting was ever held, is not true, or depends on what you would de- termine would be a public meeting. If it means a specified hour and a specified place and a specific notice and an orderly assembly, no such meeting was held. If it means an assembling of the people representing all parties and classes and grades coming continuously, and as there could be accommodations, looking at the machines and "watching its operation, then we did have one." Volume VII. Morning Session. Friday, July 25, 1913. 544 Dr. Howard S. Taylob resumes the stand: Witness refers to a Daily News article charging that the machine examined by the Election Commissioners in the Spring of 1911, was the same machine which had been examined and rejected by the previous Board, and says: "I stated that it was my clear recollection that the Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 103 machine examined by the experts in June, 1911, was an Empire machine, and was not a Standard machine that had been previously examined and rejected by the old Board, and that, according to my recollection, the number of the machine examined by the experts was something over four thousand. 545 "I now recall that those machines were examined by the State Voting Machine Commissioners, and that their reports give the number and kind of machine. The reports of the Commissioners have been read into the minutes of this inquiry, as I understand, and I would like to name the numbers and kinds of machines from these reports. "Mr. Deneen. Very well. "A. The first of the reports of the State Voting Ma- chine Commissioners I read from the certified copy of the reports hitherto read into the minutes, the initial words of the certificate say, 'I, James A. Rose, Secretary of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that the follow- ing and hereto attached is a true copy of the report of the Illinois State Voting Machine Commission, relating to Empire Voting Machine No. 4071, ' filed March 21st, 1911, and the initial paragraph in the report itself is: 'The undersigned, constituting the Illinois Voting Machine Commission appointed under the laws of 1903, hereby certify that on the 20th day of March, 1911, we examined Empire Voting Machine No. 4071, submitted by the Em- pire Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, New York, and report as follows:' I don't know as it will be neces- sary to read the remainder of the report. ' ' 546 The name, the number, and date of the examination of the other machines examined by the State Board of Voting Machine Commisioners was December 21, 1911, No. 4362, submitted by the Empire Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, New York. "Q. The question yesterday was asked as to whether or not the experts or commission of experts of Judge Owens examined these machines, wasn't it? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Nothing was then said about the State experts? "A. Well, I don 't recall that, my impression — ' ' 547 "Q. So that these corrections, the attempted correc- tions you make, do not apply to anything that was said yesterday? A. Yes, I think they do. "Q. In what way? A. They proved the machine that was on exhibition here early in the spring, in February, was an Empire machine, and I think that the necessary 104 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. inference is that that was the machine that was examined by the experts. ' ' The witness saw the machine quite a number of times. 548 The witness' recollection is that the machine was not on exhibition April 4th at the spring election. Witness recalls that he made a motion that 16 United States Standard machines be placed on exhibition, but can- not say whether any Empire machine was at the polls on April 4th, 1911. Witness' recollection is that there was an Empire ma- chine examined by the experts of the old Board and re- ported upon. 549 The witness thinks the Empire machine examined by the old Board was not a 9-party x 70-key machine, but a 9-party, 50-key machine. ' ' My recollection is that they never produced a 9, 70, until the fall of 1911. I am not — I could not be positive about that." "I do not know." The witness thinks' that the machine examined by the State Board on March 20th, was a 9, 50 machine. The State Board certificate does not show this. 550 Mr. Deneen reads paragraph 7 of the State Board certificate as follows: "It has the capacity to contain the tickets of 9 political parties with the names of all candidates thereon, together with all other propositions to be voted on, except that it is so constructed that the names of all candidates for presi- dential electors will not occur thereon, but in lieu thereof one ballot label in each party column, or row, shall contain only the words "Presidential Electors" preceded by the party name, each vote registered for said ballot label to be counted as a vote for each of such party candidates for presidential electors." The certificate says nothing about 70 keys. 551 The experts employed by Judge Owens were not ap- pointed by Judge Owens until June. The witness has refreshed his recollection since yester- day and says it was an Empire machine Judge Owens' experts examined. Witness thinks that they so certified. 552-3 As to the number of keys and kind of machines certifi- cate will speak for itself. 553-4 Witness infers from the fact that the State Board of voting machine commissioners examined an Empire ma- chine in March, that Judge Owens' experts examined the same machine in June. Witness also has an independent recollection that the machine that was under investiga- Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 105 tion and discussion for weeks by the board and which was installed in the Rand-McNally building was an Empire machine. 555 Witness thinks that the probability is very strong that the machine examined in March by the State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners remained until June and was examined by Judge Owens ' experts. Witness thinks that the machine examined by the State Board and by Judge Owens ' experts was a 9-party, 50-key machine. Witness thinks that the Election Commission experts did not examine any other kind of machine for the Em- pire Company before July 21st, 1911, and that witness didn't see any machine submitted by the Empire Com- pany other than a 9-party, 50-key machine. 556 The 9-party, 70-key machine was submitted by the Em- pire Company some time after the signing of the contract, witness thinks "well into the fall." "Mr. Deneen. Q. December 18th, 1911, at the Sher- man House? "A. Oh, it might have been here some weeks before that, I cannot tell, but it was after the signing of the con- tract." Witness cannot say whether between June 1st and July 21st, 1911, he saw the 9-party, 50-key machine from the Empire Company; that it was in possession of the board. His recollection is that "After the examination the ma- chine remained in the City Hall here for some time, how long I do not know. " "Q. Will you say that you saw the Empire machine that your board of experts recommended to you and upon which the contract was made, before the contract was made ? A. Why, yes ; we saw the one that was installed at the Rand-McNally lauilding. "Q. The one they recommended to you, your own ex- perts; did you see that machine? A. The one they re- ported on? "Q. The one they reported on, then. Did you see it? A. Why, yes, sir, many times. "Q. Now, was that a 9-party, 50-key machine? A. That is my recollection. "Q. Now, you say the number was what on that ma- chine? A. I would have to refer you to the certificate there ; we have had that just now. 557-559 "Q. Oh, no. What you saw; not what the State 106 Voting Machine Number Missing. Commissioners saw. A. I have no recollection of it my- self. ' ' Q. The State certifies to what they examined, but you have no recollection? A. No. "Q. Did you examine the plate on it showing where it was made, this 9-party, 50-key machine? ' A. I don't think I did, sir. ' ' Q. Was not the serial number under 4000 on that ma- chine you saw, that 9-party, 50-key machine ? A. I could not tell you of my own recollection. "Q. Was not the plate on it — did not the plate on it contain the statement, 'Made at Rochester, New York'? A. I don't recollect at all ; I don't think that I ever looked at the plate. "Q. Or the number? A. Or the number. "Q. So your correction as to the number stated yester- day refers to what the State Voting Commission saw? Not what you saw, or your board saw? A. No, that is not the correct statement. ' ' Q. State it correctly, then. A. I have a very strong recollection that we had an Empire machine installed probably in the early part of March ; it might have been in February ; at the Rand-McNally building ; that it remained there for weeks and that a great many people examined it ; and that I frequently examined it ; and that it was an Empire machine ; and that that was the machine that was eventually presented here in June for the examination of the county experts. That is my recollection. "Q. And that was the sample machine upon which the contract was awarded? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And that was the only one you saw until Decem- ber ? A. Oh, there was a number ; I would not say that we got — they had not Empire machines, as I recall it, sufficiently built for this voting machine test that we in- tended to have at the polls. They supplied United States Standard Machines, of which, as I recall it, there were 16 in number, which, as I testified the other day, are almost identical with the Empire machine. I think there were 16 of them; but there was an Empire machine here on examination, I feel sure of that. ' ' Q. And that was the one upon which you based your judgment and made the contract? A. We based it on the judgment of the experts. " Q. On that machine ? A. On that machine. "Q. Fif ty -key, 9-party machine ? A. Yes, sir. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 107 "Q. You don't remember where it was made, or its number? A. I don't remember from the machine itself. ' ' Q. That is what I thought. When you state, ' We ex- amined it neai'ly every day, ' I notice you go back to that, you did not mean that the machine was discussed or ex- amined by the board officially! That means you and Mr. Kellermann, or you and Mr. Stuart ? A. Mr. Czarnecki, and every one. "Q. In the board meetings, while you were together officially? A. No. ''Q. While you were with Mr. Czarnecki? A. It was standing in a room adjoining the Commissioner's room and frequently, sometimes two or three times a day, we were out there looking at it. I say 'we,' I could not say precisely, but it was a great many people coming and going and the machine men were demonstrating, explain- ing it, and that continued for a great many days. ' ' 561 Witness made a motion that 16 United States Standard machines be placed in different polling booths at the spring election, 1911. He did not make the motion after consultation with the Empire Company and did not con- sult with the company about anything first nor last. Mr. Barr, agent for the Empire Company, had suggested, "I heard from the clerk, or someone else," that the Empire Company could not supply a sufficient number of ma- chines in time to demonstrate and it was suggested that the company could supply United States Standard ma- chines. Witness thought it Avould be well to use them to educate the people and make the sentiment favorable to them. 562 The witness does not think the Election Commission had a Standard machine on exhibition, at the Kand-Mc- Nally building. Thinks the Empire machine was at the Eand-McNally building in February and that there was a demonstrator there every day. The Empire machine at the Eand-McNally building was not used at the polls, probably because the Election Commissioners were ex- amining it. Witness does not remember what the reason was. 563 The witness has found since yesterday, and produces a letter of the American Voting Machine Company. Wit- ness did testify that this company had asked for a contin- uance and that he had seen a letter of this import in the minutes. The letter is read by witness as follows : Letter addressed to Isaac N. Powell, clerk, Chicago, lUi- 108 Letter of American Standard Company. nois: "Dear Sir: I am writing to inquire if the Board of Election Commissioners have closed the contract with any voting machine company for furnishing voting ma- chines for the City of Chicago. I received the printed specifications for bids on the contract, but was not able at this time to demonstrate my machine. I enclose herein prospectus of the American Standard Voting Machine, 563-4 patented and manufactured by myself, which I ask you to get before the board for examination. This machine has been exhibited in competition with every voting ma- chine on the market today, but after a thorough examina- tion and test of the different machines, the City of To- peka awarded their contract for 25 machines to the Ameri- can Standard. The prospectus shows a machine having only 50 keys, but it may be manufactured with as high as 100 keys. The cumulative is not shown in the prespectus also, but if this machine proved satisfactory to the City of Chicago the machine can be manufactured for cumulative. I would be glad to know if Chicago is still in the market for voting machines, and if so I would be glad to take the matter up with the board. Please let me hear from you in regard to this. Yours very truly, (Signed) J. P. Painter." Witness also reads from the minutes as follows : 564 "The Board of Directors of the Board of Election in- formed the American Standard Voting Machine Com- pany, per Mr. Painter, that no contract had as yet been awarded by the board for the purchase of voting machines in this city, and that the examination of voting machines as provided for in the specifications, issued by the board January 15, 1909, was in progress, and that it would prob- ably be two weeks before the same would be completed, and that the board was willing to investigate any voting machine that might be submitted for its attention at its ofiices, 160 Adams street, Chicago, Illinois." Witness thinks the American Voting Machine letter equivalent to a request for delay. 566 Mr. Whittaker read from the minutes of the meeting of July 3d, letter addressed to the Board of Election Com- missioners by L. E. Winslow as follows : "To the Honorable Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Ills. * ' Gentlemen : — 566-569 "The undersigned, The Winslow Voting Machine Co., being a bidder for the contract of supplying voting I Protest of the Winslow Company. 109 machines to the hoard according to specifications issued by the hoard on April 27th, 1911, herehy enters a protest against the action of said board on June 30th, 1911, in adopting the Empire Voting Machine for the following reasons : "1st. The machine adopted was not a legal machine under the laws of the State of Illinois. John E. Owens, and the members of this board knew at the time of adop- tion that said machine was not a legal machine and could not be legally purchased. "2nd. Said action was taken behind closed doors and all competing voting machine men were excluded from the meeting of the hoard when said action was taken. "3rd. John E. Owens, County Judge, who has dictated the adoption of the Empire machine, has never even looked at or examined the Winslow machine which has been in your office continually since the latter part of 566 March, 1911, and we are reliably informed that he has never examined any other machine which was competing with the Empire for this contract. "4th. In making this selection John E. Owens has ap- parently relied solely upon the opinion of the three so- called experts who devoted less than three hours to the examination of the Empire machine. Said experts, we are reliably informed, have had no former experience Avliatever with voting machine construction, and their report made to Judge Owens clearly proves their utter incompetency and lack of knowledge on the subject upon which they endeavor to pass judgment. "5th. The report of these so-called experts, W. L. Abbott, Paul M. Chamberlain and William Wooley, made to Judge Owens, is filled out with contradictions from beginning to end, and is, we believe, purposely drawn to injure competing machine concerns except the Empire. It is a libelous document calculated to work untold injury to the business of the Winslow Voting Machine Company and to the reputation of its product, and we hereby de- mand that the said report be publicly condemned and re- jected by the board as being worthless and unworthy of any consideration. 567 "6th. The Winslow Voting Machine Company's rep- resentative was required by the board to be present at the offices of the board daily for a period of approximately one month for the purpose of permitting the board to make an examination of our machines. Only one machine. 110 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. that of the International Company, was so examined, that examination covering a period of about two weeks time, when suddenly for some yet unexplained cause the Board, in a meeting in which our representatives were denied ad- mittance, adopted the Empire Voting Machine, without any examination whatever being made by the board of our machine. "Throughout this entire contest all common rules of fairness, honesty and decency have been abolished by the judge of the County Court, the Board of Election Com- missioners and the Chief Clerk of the board. "7th. The Empire machine was adopted by the board without any tests being made to ascertain its adaptability to Chicago elections, and without the knowledge that the Empire machines have absolutely failed to work, and had to be taken out of recent elections in Indiana. "8tli. The resolution passed by the board at said meet- ing declares that 'Whereas, voting machines have been tested in voting at actual election in 1904, 1905, 1907 and 1911, with highly satisfactory results,' this is very mis- 568 leading inasmuch as the Empire machine has never been used in a Chicago election. The Empire Company when 569 given an opportunity by this board to place machines in the Chicago election April, 1911, refused to install Em- pire Voting Machines but placed 16 U. S. Standard Ma- chines in said election. "9th. Section 18 of the specifications issued by the board requires a public demonstration of all machines prior to award bid; this section was absolutely ignored by the board and a public demonstration was refused Our representative when demanded of the board. "10th. Other sections of the specifications too numer- ous to mention, together with the laws of the State of Illi- nois, not having been complied with, render the action of the board illegal in adopting the Empire machines. "For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respect- fully demands that the board rescind the action taken at the meetings of the board, held June 30th, relating to the adoption or purchase, or contracting for voting machines. "Respectfully, "The Winslow Voting Machine Company, " (Signed) L. R. Winslow, Manager. "Chicago, 111., June 13, 1911." 570 The Winslow protest was submitted to the board and witness made a motion to file it, and then he included in Protest of International Company. Ill his motion tlmt the protest was false and libelous to Judge Owens and that it should not be put in the minutes, but crawled in. It was put in the minutes by the secretary. 571 The board paid no attention to the protest. From the minutes of the same meeting, July 3d, of the Election Commissioners, the following communication of the International Voting Machine Company was then read: "To the Honorable Board of Election Commissioners, Chicago, Illinois. "Gentlemen: Whereas, the International Voting Ma- 571-574 chine Company, acting in good faith, placed with this board a bid for voting machines for the City of Chicago in accordance with the advertisements and specifications issued by your Honorable Board, and "Whereas, in order to make such bid we were com- pelled to deposit with the chairman of this board a certi- fied check for five per cent. (5% ) of the amount of the bid, which in our case was fifty-four thousand dollars ($54,- 000), and to prepare, at great labor and expense, blue prints and drawings showing every part of our machine, 571 together with photographs, and printed instructions and arguments in favor of the International machine, and "Whereas, the chairman of the board did not turn this certified check over to the Election Board nor deposit it with the Comptroller of the City of Chicago, as he had informed the Treasurer, but did on the contrary, cash the check and place the money in his own private banking account, where he had the privilege of using it for his own personal purposes at any time he saw fit, without so much as consulting the other members of the Board of Election Commissioners, to say nothing of the owners of the money, who were thus in continual danger of losing the entire amount, and "Whereas, it has developed that the drawings, photo- graphs and blue prints which were prepared by us at a great expense for the supposed enlightenment of the me- chanical experts of this board, were never opened nor examined by the members of this board nor by their me- 573 chanical experts but were returned to us in the original packages with the seals unbroken, thereby revealing an evidence of bad faith, and "Whereas, the mechanical experts selected to examine the machine, made a most superficial examination of the International Voting Machine, and in their report to this 112 Protest of International Company. 573 board made statement relative to the machines which are inconsistent, misleading and false, thereby working un- told injury to the good name of the product w^hich has cost this company thirteen years of persistent effort, and al- most $400,000 in cash, and "Whereas, this board apparently accepted the state- ments of the said experts at their face value, and concur- ring in that report, published these false statements to the w^orld, and further proceeded to purchase voting ma- chines for the City of Chicago in accordance with the recommendations of the experts, and without giving us a chance to be heard, although our attorney demanded such a hearing on the day that the action was taken, and was faithfully promised such a hearing by the Judge of the County Court of Cook County, under whose instruction this board is supposed to be acting, and also by Commis- sioner Taylor, who agreed to notify our attorney over the phone before any action Avas taken, which notices he neg- lected to give, and "Whereas, the specifications issued by this board under the date of April 27th, 1911, made provision for a public hearing and exhibition of all voting machines submitted to this board, which exhibition was never held, and 574 "Whereas, the International Voting Machine Company believes that the action of the experts and of the board itself has wrought untold injury and financial loss to said International Voting Machine Company, "Therefore, we demand that the board rescind such ac-* tion as has already been taken, reopen the case, and give us an opportunity for a full and complete public hearing in answer to the report of the experts, and we notify the members of this board that unless such action is taken, we will be compelled to go into court to protect our own good name and property interests. "International Voting Machine Company, "RoBT. E. Petrie, (Signed) "President. "E. R. Kelly, (Signed) ' ' Secretary. ' ' 575 On motion of witness the letter was filed and received no other consideration. The witness thinks probably Mr. Hall of the International Machine Company was present when the letter was presented. The witness cannot say whether Mr. Hall then made a statement that the seals on their package of blue-prints, Czarnecki Moves to Hear Protests. 113 drawings, photographs and specifications had not been broken open and that the package had not been opened. Does not know the fact that the package had not been opened. Witness cannot recall whether the seals on the Tri- umph package of blue-prints and so forth were broken or on those of any machine. These packages were turned over to the experts. 576 "Mr. Deneen. Q. Let me refresh your recollection. On July 1st, after the protest had been made — is this a proper recital of your attitude! In the minutes, Com- missioner Taylor stated 'that the resolution which you had made for the award to the Empire Machine Com- pany, gave the Empire Company no legal right and special benefit; that it was a notice that the board was ready to enter into the question upon the production of a sample machine of a proper character; that if the Empire Vot- ing Machine Company does not comply within a reason- able length of time with this notice, that the board will consider that everything is off and that everything will then commence anew'? "A. Yes, sir, I think that is correct. "Q. Then the further recital: 'We have given them nothing except the notice that we are ready to go ahead when they furnish the sample which meets our require- ments'? A. Yes, I think that is correct." 577 The following statement was then read from page 211 of the Election Commissioners ' report of meeting of July 1st: ' ' I hereby move that the action of the board on last Fri- day in adopting by a majority vote the resolution of Com- missioner Taylor's with reference to notifying the Empire Voting Machine Company that its machine is preferred and that the board is ready to enter into a formal contract when the sample machine is found to be in accordance with the requirements and specifications, be and is hereby rescinded so that the three companies complaining and protesting have opportunity to reply to the experts' re- port ; and that the entire subject matter may be reopened and begun anew. "I move that we rescind the board's action of last Fri- day upon the voting machines and that we now enter the reopening of the whole proposition of voting machines." 578 This motion was made ; the witness cannot say whether it was discussed, but it received no second. 114 Czarnecki Motions Receive No Second. The following motion made by Commissioner Czarnecki at the same meeting, July 3d, was then read into the rec- ord: "Resolved, that the time limit for the delivery by the Empire Voting Machine Company to this board of the sample machine of nine party columns, containing 70 names in each column, and containing keys for voting upon 12 propositions, be and it is hereby fixed for October 3d, 1911, on or before which date said sample machine is to be submitted and delivered." The motion was made, but the witness cannot say with- out looking whether it was carried unanimously. 579 The witness does not know. The following motion was then made at the same meet- ing by Commissioner Czarnecki, and was read into the record : ' ' I move that the failure on the part of the Empire Vot- ing Machine Company on or before October 3rd, 1911, to deliver the sample machine be hereby declared to be suffi- cient notice per se, that all negotiations between the com- pany and this board are at an end and that an entirely new deal with reference to voting machines must be entered into." The witness examines the minutes and says: "I think that is correct." Witness thinks the motion did not re- ceive a second. The following motion made by Commissioner Czarnecki was read into the record : ' ' I move that the final test upon the sample machine be hereby declared to be the binding test, and that it will be a test by the experts, by the public, by this board and by civic bodies, and further, that the final test will determine 580 whether or not any installments of the Empire Voting Machine is to be purchased, and that this motion be hereby declared and ordered to take precedence over any action by this board heretofore, which might be understood in any wise as inconsistent with this motion." Witness thinks the motion was made and that it did not receive a second. The witness cannot recall whether Mr. Winslow at that meeting of the board asked the Election Commissioners whether or not a public examination had been held in compliance with Number 18 of the specifications. The following motion by Commissioner Czarnecki at the same meeting was then read into the record : Further Motions by Commissioner Czarnecki. 115 580-1 "I move that this board hereby require the Empire Voting Machine Company to deposit in cash or certified checks with this board, the sum of $25,000 to guarantee the production of its sample machine of nine party col- umns and 70 keys in each column by October 3, 1911, as an evidence of good faith, and that said $25,000 shall be forfeited and turned over to the City Treasurer as dam- ages to the City and as a compensation or bonus for the exclusive right exercised from this date until October 3, 1911, by the Empire Voting Machine Company in barring other machines and other voting machines from sending their devices to the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago or from installing their devices in the City of Chicago for use at elections and primaries ; that upon the delivery of the sample machine within the speci- fied time, the $25,000 deposited in accordance with this motion is to be returned to the Empire Voting Machine Company. ' ' The witness thinks the motion was made and received no second. 581 "Q. Now, if you will look at page 214 (of minutes), the question was whether Mr. Winslow asked the board, or Mr. Kellermann, who was present at the board, if he knew of any public examination held under Section 18 of the specifications. A. Yes, sir. 582 *'Q. I will ask that question in regard to the minutes? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Didn't Mr. Kellerman, president of the board, reply, 'I know of none'! A. Yes, sir." The witness also stated at said meeting of the Board of Election Commissioners, as follows: ' ' Commissioner Taylor. Mr. Winslow, the members of the board have made a satisfactory and exhaustive exam- ination of these machines. So far as public examinations were concerned, the public have had opportunity at elec- tions in the past years to get acquainted with voting ma- chines and anyone applying for an opportunity to exam- ine the machines was afforded that opportunity without question by this board or the Chief Clerk." 583 Mr. Winslow asked how much time had been spent in making an exhaustive examination of this machine. Wit- ness replied three or four days, and when Mr. Winslow called his attention to the fact that he was out of town the first two or three days the witness said that he (the wit- 116 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. ness) had. delegated Mr. Kelly to act as his proxy. Mr. Kelly is Assistant Chief Clerk. 583-4 "A. One moment, let me answer that fully; in a dis- cussion, which will be found in the minutes, among the voting machine agents, in which they were all recorded, I believe, as present, and after much conference and de- termination as to how the expert examination should be conducted, I finally introduced a resolution, that the ex- perts appointed by the County Court, the members of the board, and in case of the necessary absence of any member of the board, a proxy appointed by him should have ad- mission to that room, it wa^ eventually — it was objected that the proxy ought not to be some possible hostile agent opposed to the machine that was on examination, and finally I suggested, or Mr. Kellermann, I have forgotten, that it should be some unprejudiced person, should be an employe of the office who would report to the absent com- missioner what was said or what was done about the ma- chine. I was called away to Indiana by the sickness of my sister and I was gone three or four days necessarily ; dur- ing that time I asked Mr. Kelly to represent me in the room and take notes of anything he thought was impor- tant in the way of a discovery of any of the machines, a discovery of any weakness, and to make a note of it, and I asked him to call my attention to it when I got back. " Witness thinks the Winslow statement, "like most of Mr. Winslow 's statements," tended to make out a case. Witness had been going over the Winslow machine in the 585 Rand-McNally building a great many times and knew a great deal about it and what the experts thought about it. Mr. Winslow 's demonstrators were demonstrating his machine there. "Q. Who was demonstrating his machine to show up the weak spots? A. I don't know that anyone was but the experts. The experts, under our arrangement ap- pointed by Judge Owens, had the machines in what we called the ' hearing room, ' the particular agent of the ma- chine being examined at the time was present, whoever it was ; if it was Winslow 's machine, Winslow would be there; and then the Chief Clerk and the attorney and members of the board, and in the case of the absence a proxy of the board, those were the persons present in the room during the examination." 586 The witness does not recall that Mr. Kelly made any report regarding what he observed as proxy for the wit- Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 117 ness. He might have made a verbal one. Nothing partic- ular developed. "Mr. McEwEN (reading from minutes). 'Commissioner. Taylor (addressing Mr. Kelly) : Were you present, Mr. Kelly, during my absence from the city, at the examina- tion of the machine by the expert? Mr. Kelly replying declared that he was. ' " " ' Mr. Winslow : Commissioner 587 Taylor, were you and Mr. Kelly both present at the exam- ination together? Commissioner Taylor : I think not.'" At the same meeting the minutes state that Mr. Hall made the following statement to the Election Commis- sioners : ' ' I wish to state that there was no public examination of the machines in accordance with the specifications. Fur- ther, that the experts did not go thoroughly into the mechanism of our machine. That they did not spend suf- ficient time to know the things in its favor or its shortcom- ings, and that while all the other voting machine men were examined on the Sunday when the experts completed their examinations, no one of our company was notified to be present and no one of our company was on that day exam- ined by those experts. In speaking plainly, the examina- tion was not only unfair, to us, but the report was libelous and incorrect and we shall endeavor to show it up in its proper form in court." The witness thinks Mr. Hall made the statement. 588 After Mr. Hall's statement the Election Commission- ers' minutes show Mr. Kellermann made the following statement : "Commissioner Kellermann stated for the information of the voting machine men that in voting for Commis- sioner Taylor's motion he did so upon the findings and recommendations of the three experts appointed by Judge Owens, that it was this report of experts which guided him." Witness thinks this is correct. Witness based his attitude upon the findings of the ex- pert and his own personal examination of the machines ; had been examining the voting machine subject for ten years. 590 The following communication addressed by the commis- sion of experts appointed by Judge Owens , to Judge Owens, was then read into the record : 118 Report of Owens Experts. "Hon. John E. Owens, Judge of the County Court, 590-592 County Building, Chicago, 111. "Sir:— "Your commission of experts which formerly inspected and reported on the four voting machines for which the Board of Election Commissioners received bids, having since examined a 70-key, 9-party machine built by the Empire Voting Machine Company, and finds as follows : "The 70-key, 9-party machine differs from the 50-key, 7-party machine in the following particulars : ' ' The 70-key, 9-party machines are provided with a re- leasing lever attachment which must be thrown before it is possible to operate the individual candidate keys. ' ' The 50-key, 7-party Empire Voting Machine formerly examined did not have this releasing lever attachment and we are told that the 70-key, 9-party machine the Em- pire Voting Machine Company proposes to furnish will not have this attachment, which attachment your commis- sion considers undesirable. ' ' In the 70-key, 9-party machine the provision for inde- pendent voting by written ballots on the paper roll is iden- tical with the arrangement on the 50-key, 7-party ma- chines, except that in the 70-key, 9-party machine the slots in the casing through which the voter obtains access to the paper roll are one-half inch shorter than they are in the 50-key, 7-party machine ; also the shaft on which the roll of paper is carried is provided with a releasing attachment so that when the machine is used for exhibition purposes, the roll may be disconnected. "Your commission recommends that slots of ample length for independent voting be provided and that the releasing attachment on the shaft which carries the paper roll be omitted; thus making the design of the 70-key, 9-party machine conform in this respect to the design of the 50-key, 7-party machine, formerly examined. "Your commission finds that the mechanical principles of the Empire Voting Machine are applicable to a machine of 70-key, or of 100 keys, or of double that number. "Your commission did not have facilities for weighing the machine and therefore is unable to state of its own knowledge what the weight actually is. "Respectfully submitted, (Signed) W. L. Abbott, Paul M. Chamberlain, William Wolley." Csarnecki Moves for Sample of Empire Machine. 119 The minutes do not show the date of this letter, but it was considered before the meeting of July 21st. The wit- ness wishes to correct his previous statement, ' ' That the 9-party, 70-key machine was not produced until some time 593 along in the fall. ' ' That was evidently an error of recol- ' lection. 594 The report on the 70-key machine must have been made previous to July 21st and some time before the contract was signed on July 25th. 595 "Q. Let us see if I cannot make the confusion worse confounded: I call your attention to the fourth para- graph of this letter : ' The 50-key, 7-party Empire Voting Machine, etc' This says, 'The one they propose to sub- mit'; they had not submitted it, had they! So you have to change — A. I may be — I am not at all sure. " Chief Clerk Stuart said that he would bring in the letter of the experts to Judge Owens. 596 The following motion made by Commissioner Czarnecki at the meeting at which the letter was submitted to the board was then read into the record : "Whereas, a sample machine submitted is not the sam- ple of the device which the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany proposes to furnish to this board as indicated by the report of W. L. Abbott, Paul M. Chamberlain, and Wm. Wooley today, but contains a releasing lever which the machine formerly submitted did not have and which re- leasing lever upon the sample machine submitted the three experts consider to be undesirable ; and further, the experts themselves point out that the present slots for independent voting are not of sufficient size. Therefore, be it "Resolved, by this board, that in view of the fact that the Empire Voting Machine Company still has nearly more than two months' time within which to submit the sample machine of the identical construction that the company proposes to furnish to the Board of Election Commissioners that this board here defers any further action in the premises until the device which the Empire Voting Machine Company proposes to furnish is actually submitted to the board. * ' Submitted by Anthony Czarnecki. ' ' "Friday, July 21st, 1911." This motion was made and received no second. ' ' Q. Why was it you were unwilling to wait until you had a sample machine by which all other machines should be 120 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 597 judged before you would enter into a contract with liim? A. The reason was that we had provided in the contract that unless they produced a machine of that kind and that capacity and character, why, we would not proceed with the contract, that was a condition precedent, and to have waited until the machine was actually produced with the doubt and uncertainty that would have been resultant in the mind of the company might have greatly delayed the actual purchase and installation of the machines which we contemplated running over a period of two years and six months and would about carry us through the term of Judge Owens. ' ' Q. Doctor, did you think it was more of a businesslike policy to have the doubt and uncertainty discussed after you had made a contract, or to have the doubt and uncer- tainty cleared up before you entered into a contract with the voting machine company? A. If the contract was sufficiently guarded so as -to impose no obligation upon the board until that condition precedent had been thor- oughly fulfilled I considered there was no peril about it. That was the understanding, that they were to produce the 70-key machine here which would be examined by the same experts and submitted to the board and that we were not — if they were not able to complete the agreement, what they had agreed to produce, why, everything would be off. Q. And the purport of the resolution of Commissioner Czarnecki would be to have them produce the identical ma-, chine before, so that if any doubts arose there would be no grounds for litigation or doubt by the board f A. Yes, I think so. Mr. McEwEN. May I suggest that the remarks of Com- missioner Taylor immediately following be read f I would like to have them read. Mr. Deneen. I think the Judge meant all right. Mr. McEwEN. You have cross-examined him on them. Mr. Deneen. I have not finished, he is giving other rea- sons than are in the report, I want to see if they agree. 598 That is why I examined him. We will have it now if you want it, I think it is all right, it is not very important. Mr. McEwEN. I did not intend to interfere, I waited until I thought you were entirely through on the subject ; I wanted to put it in so as to save me the trouble of put- ting it in. Owens' ExpeHs Report Defects. 121 Mr. Deneen. I was going to put it in after he gave his reasons in this connection. I will read it : "Commissioner Taylor. I wish to make a motion and preface it with this remark : ' The two express exceptions noted by the experts in which the new 70-key machine dif- fers from the old type were examined by me very early yesterday morning, as soon as I came to know of it. I con- ferred with the experts and with the machine men about it and I am satisfied that the two differences are immaterial in their nature, can be easily removed without in any way affecting the value and practicability of the machine, and I ask our attorney to incorporate in the purchase contract conditions to that effect, in other words, the consensus of that is that the finished machine shall be exactly identical with the one submitted except that it will contain instead of 50 keys, 70 keys and instead of 7 party columns, 9 party columns. The provision has been put in the proposed contract.' " 599 That is what you said? A. Probably, I think that is right. Q. So you had a machine before you of 7 party col- umns, 50 keys? A. Yes. Q. You thought it was better to put that in the contract and sign the contract then than to go on with all the doubts, uncertainties and disagreements betw^een the board and the parties, and have those all cleared up, before you went into any legal obligation that might bring no end of trou- ble to you, lawsuits and otherwise ? A. I thought then, it is my recollection now that I was perfectly satisfied that the Empire Company would comply with every detail of that contract, that it would be to their great interest to do so, that in any event if they did not, the prerequisite condi- tions named in the contract would abundantly protect us. At the meeting of the Election Board when Commis- 600 sioner Czarnecki's resolution was offered, the following resolution was also offered : "Whereas, this Board of Election Commissioners has heretofore by resolution, duly passed and recorded, de- cided to purchase one thousand voting machines from the Empire Voting Machine Company, a corporation organ- ized and doing business under the laws of the State of New York at the price of nine hundred and forty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($942,500) ; and "Whereas, a further and full investigation of the sam- 122 Taylor Resolution for Contra-ct With Empire Co. pie Empire machine by this board and by the experts ap- pointed by the County Court warrants this board in pro- ceeding to make a formal contract of purchase ; therefore, "Be it resolved, that any two members of this board, together with the Chief Clerk of this board, be and they are hereby authorized and instructed to execute and de- liver a written contract, a copy of which is hereto attached and ordered incorporated in the minutes, for and on be- half of this board, with said Empire Voting Machine Com- pany for the purchase of one thousand at said price of nine hundred and forty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($942,500) and that said contract shall be approved by the County Judge of Cook County, Illinois, and that said contract be executed in duplicate, one copy for said Em- pire Voting Machine Company and one copy for this board." The witness states that the above was a resolution sub- mitted by him. It received a second. 601 In the contract the time for deliveries did not agree with the time mentioned in the specifications. Paragraph 11 of the voting machine contract was then read into the record as follows: 601-2 "Eleventh: The 'board' agrees that in payment of said one thousand (1,000) machines the 'Company' shall be paid the full sum of nine hundred forty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($942,500) by payment or payments to be made on the delivery and acceptance of any of said machines, said payments to be made at the rate of nine hundred forty-two and 50/100 dollars ($942.50) for each machine so accepted and delivered. The 'board' agrees that such acceptance shall be made within ten (10) days after the delivery of the machines in Chicago. Said pay- ments shall be allowed first by the approval of the 'board' of the claim or claims as they become payable by and upon the delivery and acceptance of the machines. That said claim or claims shall then be forthwith presented to the county judge for auditing, who shall then draw the neces- sary warrant or warrants to secure the payment thereof out of any money then or thereafter available in the City Treasury. Said warrants shall be for sums of from one thousand dollars ($1,000) to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) each, and of such smaller amounts as may be necessary to complete the payment, and shall be of the following form as nearly as may be practical : Testimony of Hoivard S. Taylor. 123 "Chicago 191 The City of Chicago, For Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illinois. To Empire Voting Machine Company, a corporation ex- isting under the laws of the State of New York. Certified correct for the sum of Dollars Board of Electiox Commissioners OF THE City of Chicago, By. Approved : By. Chairman. Audited for payment: Chief Clerk. Board of Election Commissioners OF THE City of Chicago. County Judge." 603 "Q. I will ask you whether or not the board had con- sidered the question of financing these purchases by issu- ing certificates of indebtedness or bonds such as provided for in Section 5 of the Voting Machine Law! A. I under- stood and understand now that this form of the certificate of indebtedness is the form referred to in the Voting Ma- chine Law." Witness thinks such a certificate of indebtedness is not the same as a "warrant for current expenses." The witness would not like to say it was not a bond, not 604 in form, exactly. But whether it would not be equivalent to a bond witness does not know. Witness thinks the City Council at this time had not made any appropriation to meet such warrant. The Board of Election Commission- ers have not notified the City Council to prepare to meet such expenses. 605 The letter from Judge Owens' experts was here pro- duced. It bore no date but had a notation on the back "July 27—11." Witness said, "That says July 27, '11. This contains the filing marks ; that is my handwriting. I think prob- 124 Testimony of Hoivard S. Taylor. ably that is recently made. It looks like it was. That is my handwriting; that says July 27th — 11." This letter is the one read in the meeting of July 21st six days before it was filed. "Mr. Stuakt. They have apparently omitted the date, but that is not my handwriting. "Mr. Deneen. It is not your handwriting, Mr. Stuart? "Mr. Stuakt. It is not. It is in the handwriting of Bert Kelly, my secretary. Do you want it looked up fur- ther as to date ! " Volume VIII. Afternoon session, Friday, July 25, 1913. Howard S. Tayloe, resumed the stand : 608 The letter read at the meeting of July 21st was the sec- ond report received from Judge Owens' experts. Witness does not recall that they received any later report before the contract was awarded. The second report or letter from Judge Owens ' experts was here read. 609 "Mr. Deneen. Q. Did you incorporate these changes in your contract ? "A. I think, I am not sure, I am not sure whether it is in the contract or not, but my recollection is that the Em- pire machine that was purchased for — the 70-key Empire machine that was produced for exhibition and competition had reduced the slot to an inch and a half and that it was required to restore it to its old dimensions of two inches and that that was done. ' ' 610 "Q. Did you make a contract specifying that those changes should be made ? A. I cannot tell you. ' ' Witness supposed the standard of comparison for ma- chines to be furnished by the Empire Company was the 7-party, 50-key machine with certain changes that we had made, but cannot recall that the changes required were incorporated in the contract. 611 Witness has no independent recollection on the subject and will have to refer to the contract. Witness here ex- amines a copy of the contract. "A. Yes, the second provision here is that the ma- The Contract With the Empire Co. 125 chine shall be provided with independent slides of not less than two inches in length and one-half inch in width and shall not have an interlocking device requiring the opera- tion of a release knob between the straight ticket and the ei2 split ticket." The contract between the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany and the Board of Election Commissioners was then read into the record as follows : 614-624 This agreement, made and executed in duplicate this day of July, A. D. 1911, by and between the Em- pire Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, N. Y., a cor- poration organized under the laws of the State of New York, party of the first part, and hereinafter referred to as the "Company," and the Board of Election Commission- ers of the City of Chicago, State of Illinois, party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as the "Board," Witnesseth that : Whereas, the "Board" issued specifications for the fur- nishing of voting machines to said "Board" which said specifications bear date April 27, 1911, and a copy of which specifications is hereto attached and marked Exhibit "A," and Whereas, the "Company" bid in competition on said specifications and was the successful bidder for furnishing voting machines, and Whereas, the Empire Voting Machine manufactured by the "Company" has been duly approved by the Illinois State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners as com- plying with all of the requirements of the laws of Illinois relating to the use of voting machines and a report of said Board, setting forth such approval, has been duly filed in the office of the Secretary of State of Illinois, and a certified copy of a certificate of said voting machine Com- missioners certifying as to an actual examination of a seventy (70) key, nine (9) column machine by said Voting Machine Commissioners shall be filed with the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago before the first installment of machines is accepted, and a failure to file same shall nullify this contract. Whereas, the "Company" has submitted to the "Board" a machine which provides for nine (9) political parties of seventy (70) candidates each, one row of sev- enty (70) devices for voting persons not nominated, and 126 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. one (1) row of devices for voting on twenty-five (25) ques- tions : Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the agree- ments hereinafter stated and expressed, the parties hereto 615 hereby covenant and agree with each other as follows : First: The "Company" hereby agrees to sell to the "Board" One Thousand (1,000) Empire Voting Machines at the net price of nine hundred forty-two and 50/100 dol- lars ($942.50) for each machine, f. o. b. car at Chicago, Illinois, and agree that each machine so furnished shall in all respects comply with all the requirements of the Stat- utes of Illinois now in force relating to the use of voting machines. The "Company" also agrees that each ma- chine so furnished shall be of the same materials and ex- cellence as the seventy key nine column machine exhibited at the time of ensealing these presents. Second: The "Company" agrees that each of said ma- chines shall provide for nine (9) political parties of sev- enty (70) candidates each, one row of seventy (70) devices for voting for persons not nominated, one row of devices for voting on twenty -five (25) questions, and a device to provide for voting cumulatively on the office of member of assembly, said machine shall be provided wdth indepen- dent slides of not less than two inches in length and one- half inch in width and shall not have the interlocking de- vice requiring the operation of a release knob between the 616 straight ticket and the split ticket. Third : The ' ' Company ' ' agrees to deliver the said ma- chines f . 0. b. Chicago, Illinois, as follows : Two hundred (200) thereof on or before eight (8) months after the date of this contract, three hundred (300) thereof on or before fifteen months after the date of this contract, two hundred and fifty (250) thereof on or be- fore twenty-one (21) months after the date of this con- tract and two hundred and fifty (250) thereof on or before twenty-six (26) months after the date of this contract, pro\'ided, always, there is no delay caused by strikes, fires or other causes over which the "Company" has no con- trol. It is mutually agreed by the "Company" and the "Board" that subject to the foregoing the "Company" may deliver said machines in shipments of fifty (50) or more machines as suits the convenience of the ' ' Company" and that the ' ' Board ' ' will receive and accept the same as they arrive in Chicago, said deliveries are also to be made Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 127 subject to the provisions of Section 13 hereinafter con- tained. Fourth: The "Company" agrees to make good by re- pairs or replacement any imperfections or defects in ma- terial or workmanship in said machines and to keep said machines in repair without additional cost to the "Board" for a period of five (5) years from the delivery of said machines to said "Board," provided, however, that said machines shall be properly cared for and properly pre- pared for each election, and provided, further, that such repair or replacement is not rendered necessary by the elements, fire, accidents or through careless or malicious handling. Fifth: The "Company" agrees to defend any action or actions that may be brought against the "Board" or against any officer, member or employe of said "Board," or against the City of Chicago, or against the Countv Judge or any judge of election, by reason of any alleged infringement of any letters patent by the use of said ma- chines (provided immediate notice is given to the "Com- pany" of the beginning of any such action) and to indem- nify the "Board" for all damages and costs and attor- neys ' fees that may be incurred therefrom. Sixth: The "Company" agrees to furnish with each machine, without extra charge, for the instruction of vot- ers, a working model, which shall be a duplicate of a por- tion of the face of the machine. Seventh : It is mutually agreed that if the ' ' Board ' ' de- sires to purchase any additional voting machines that said "Board" may purchase same from said "Company" and 618 said ' ' Company ' ' agrees to sell said machines at no higher price than the price named in this contract. Eighth: The said "Company" hereby agrees to allow said "Board" to have the use and benefits of all future patents and improvements owned or controlled by the 619 "Company" applicable to and an advancement upon the process and functions of this machine without additional cost to said "Board" except a reasonable price for the labor and materials employed in such improvements. Ninth: The "Company" agrees to deliver to the Elec- tion Board a bond in the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) executed by the "Company" as principal and by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Illinois, as surety, guaranteeing 128 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. the prompt and faithful performance by the "Company" of each and every obligation on its part in this agreement contained, said bond to be subject to the approval of the Judge of the County Court of Cook County, Illinois. Said bond and this contract are to be read as one contract. Tenth : The ' ' Board ' ' hereby agrees to purchase from the "Company" the said one thousand (1,000) Empire Voting Machines at the net price of nine hundred forty- two and 50/100 dollars ($942.50) for each machine, f. o. b. machine cars Chicago, Illinois, amounting in the aggregate 619 to the sum of nine hundred forty-two thousand five hun- dred dollars ($942,500) to which amount the City of Chi- cago shall become indebted to the Company on the deliv- ery and acceptance of the machines. Eleventh: The "Board" agrees that in payment of said one thousand (1,000) machines the "Company" shall be paid the full sum of nine hundred forty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($942,500) by payment or payments to be made on the delivery and acceptance of any of said machines, said payments to be made at the rate of nine hundred forty-two and 50/100 dollars ($942.50) for each machine so accepted and delivered. The "Board" agrees that such acceptance shall be made within ten (10) days after the delivery of the machines in Chicago. Said pay- ments shall be allowed first by the approval of the "Board," of the claim or claims as they become payable by and upon the delivery and acceptance of the machines. That said claim or claims shall then be forthwith presented to the County Judge for auditing, who shall then draw the necessary warrant or warrants to secure the payment thereof out of any money then or thereafter available in the City Treasury. Said warrants shall be for sums of from one thousand dollars ($1,000) to ten thousand dol- 620 lars ($10,000) each, and of such smaller amounts as may be necessary to complete the payment, and shall be of the following form as nearly as may be practical: Testimony/ of Howard S. Taylor. 129 621 Chicago 191.... The City of Chicago, For Board of Election Commissioners, Of the City of Chicago, Illinois. To Empire Voting Machine Company, a corporation ex- isting under the laws of the State of New York. « * * * * * # * * • « * * * * * * * * * # # # # * * * Certified correct for The sum of Dollars BoAED OF Election Commissioners OF THE City of Chicago, By. Approved : By. Chief Clerk. BoAKD OF Election Commissioners OF THE City of Chicago, Chairman. Audited for payment : County Judge. 622 Interest at four and one-quarter (4l^) per cent, shall be paid on all amounts, the payment of which may be deferred more than thirty (30) days after the date of the warrants, which shall be dated as of the date of the acceptance of the machine. Twelfth: The "Board" further agrees to give imme- diate notice to the governing authorities of the City of Chicago of the execution of this contract, so that provision may be made for the prompt payment of the amounts be- coming due hereunder. Thirteenth: It is further agreed between the "Com- pany" and the "Board" that the machines may be deliv- ered in shipments of fifty (50) or more, which machines shall be paid for promptly on delivery and acceptance, and in case there is any delay in the receipt of the purchase price in money by the "Company" on account of the fail- ure of the City of Chicago to promptly pay any warrant so issued, the "Company" at its option may postpone the de- livery of the balance of the machines by a term beyond the 130 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. time fixed for delivery in this contract, to equal the delay in the payment of such warrant. In witness whereof, The "Company" has caused these presents to he signed in its name, by its president and sealed with its corporate seal and attested by its secretary, the day and year first above written, and the ' ' Board ' ' has caused these presents to be signed in its name by two mem- bers of said Board of Election Commissioners and the Chief Clerk of said Board of Election Commissioners and sealed with its seal at the same time. Empike Votikg Machine Company, By (seal) President. Attest : Secretary. Board of Election Commissioners OF THE City of Chicago, By Chairman and Election Commissioner. By Election Commissioner. By (seal) Chief Clerh. Attest : Chief Clerk. Approved : County Judge. 0. K. C. H. M. 624 Attached to the contract as Exhibit "A" is a printed copy of the board's specifications for the furnishing of voting machines, dated April 27th, 1911, which is attached here and which is also on file. 626 The witness thinks the minutes concerning the contract are correct. " Q. I call your attention to the 11th. I will not go into the contract very much. It said that the warrants of the County Judge are to be paid out of ' any money thereafter available in the City Treasury'? A. Yes, sir." Witness recalls that the Bureau of Efficiency had called the attention of the Election Commissioners to the fact that this provision would mean that "You could take out Fwids to Pay for Voting Machines. 131 the funds called the traction funds accumulated through the percentage awarded the city by the public utility com- panies for the purpose of building a subway ? ' ' Q. Did you make any inquiry as to the validity of that claim" — and so forth. "A. We had some discussion about it. I don't just re- call who, whether it was before the board as organized, or anybody else and the opinion, I think, of this commission and myself, and perhaps Mr. Wheelock, who was then, I think, representing the company — "Q. The Empire Company? A. The Empire Com- 627 pany was that it was sort of a waiting scheme that we would have to take the funds when they were available; when the City Council thought they were available and in effect it was a matter that would defer the payment ; hence the provision for deferred payments bearing a rate of in- terest." The witness cannot recall specifically whether the Bu- reau of Efficiency's contention regarding the taking out of the traction fund was ever considered by the Election Com- missioners. Witness never heard of the proposition that judgment should be confessed on the warrants converting indebted- ness into a judgment against the city. 628 That is what has come to pass, but it was not considered at the time. Witness does not know, but has heard that the City has confessed judgment for $182,000. The following was then read into the record from the minutes of the Board of Election Commissioners : 628-9 "Commissioner Taylor: Mr. Chairman, now, after having heard the contract read, referred to in my motion, I move its adoption. Mr. Deneen. Q. Did you make that statement? "A. Yes, sir. "Mr. Whittakek ( reading) . ' Commissioner Czarnecki : Let's get this thing clear; does this resolution adopt and approve this contract? Commissioner Taylor: Yes, and I want the authority of the majority of this board to exe- cute this contract. ' "Mr. Deneen. Q. That is correct? A. Yes. "Mr. Whittaker (reading). 'Commissioner Czar- necki : Is it out of order to study over this contract, with the view to offering amendments to it? This is the first time I have seen this contract. There are things that I 132 Czarnecki Denied Time to Read Contract. might submit that would meet with your approval. There is a penalizing clause and there are other things that are missing. Surely, gentlemen, you will give me sufficient time for that. I ask it and I move it. ' " The witness cannot tell whether Commissioner Czar- necki had seen the contract previous to the time of his . motion above quoted. The following motion by Commissioner Taylor was then read into the record : 629 " 'Commissioner Taylor: I object to any delay. There isn't a single item of that contract that has not been de- bated and redebated except two or three small provisions; Most of that matter is old specifications, which I believe you approved. ' ' ' "Mr. Deneen. Q. Did you make that statement? "A. Yes, sir. 630 " Q. If there were no new items added to the contract, why did you object to giving him time to read it? A. My objection at that time, and to previous motions of Mr. Czarnecki was largely founded on the strong impression I had that his whole course — the whole course of his man- agement, his objections, the introduction of protests and ■ letters, was simply a movement for delay, with the ex- pectation of defeating by delay the consummation of the contract. * ' Q. Did you expect that he would influence you to vote against the contract? A. If I would yield to him and delay, I think there was a possibility. ' ' The witness continues his answer: "I will answer I did not expect he could control me. I had been studying this business for a great many years and knew, or thought I knew, and think I know now, that voting machines, widely in use throughout the United States, and almost uniformly certified to be effective and economical and 631 safe, that it was a wise thing for Chicago to get them and to get them right away, as the grand jury had recom- mended in 1908. I had that strong conviction and while I yielded at the start to the dilatory movements of Mr. Czarnecki, and continuing from time to time, for instance, the period of opening the bids, three times, I think, and then continuing it indefinitely, and hearing patiently all the protests, some of them insulting, and hearing their arguments, after all that I got a little impatient toward the last, and I thought it was time for us to do something. Reasons for Denial. 133 That was my feeling along toward the close of this term of discussion. ' ' "Q. Then why did you object to giving him an oppor- tunity to read the contract before he signed it, for $942,- 500? A. My objection was out of a feeling of impatience toward the continued pressure of procrastination and be- cause, as I stated here, we had debated those points over 631-2 and over again and threshed them out, and there was nothing except this — so far as the expert report and plans for the final machine, except this large slot and that re- lease lever that had not been demonstrated to the board ; and I saw no occasion for waiting. ' ' ' ' Q. You thought he would have ample time for reading it after it was passed! A. Yes, and I think after he had read it, and after it was passed, he continued to object to it on one ground or another. " Q. It seems he is doing it yet ; it seems he has kept it up for two years ? A. Yes." A statement by Commissioner Czarnecki at this meet- ing of the Board of Election Commissioners was then read into the record as follows : " 'Commissioner Czarnecki: The only action I ap- proved on voting machines in this board was the action of Chief Clerk Stuart way back in last February to send out notices to the voting machine men that we might become interested in the installation of the voting machines in this city. When the specifications were considered and acted upon I submitted a minority report and have a copy of it. I voted against the approval and adoption of your specifications.' " Mr. Deneen. Q. Did he make that statement ? A. I am not sure about it. Q. Well, do you doubt it? A. I have been willing to let that minute go in as correct. The Chairman. I would like to have a little more read right along there. Mr. Deneen. So there won't be any dispute, we will take it up paragraph by paragraph. 633 Mr. Whittakek (reading). "Commissioner Taylor: You signed the specifications yourself and it was so pub- lished to the world. ' ' Mr. Deneen. Q. Was that stated! It was, was it not? A. Yes. Mr. Whittakek (reading). "Commissioner Czarnecki: 134 Czarnecki States His Position. If I signed I did so as secretary of the board under protest and not at any meeting. Mr. Deneen. Q. Did he make that statement? A. Well, that may be. I confess that my independent recollection of that conference or, rather, dispute, was somewhat different from this, but I can't give you the items and features of it from my memory. Q. Well, the fact w^as he did sign it under protest, didn 't he ? A. No, sir, I don 't think he did. Q. You don't think so? A. I don't think he did. Q. Do you dispute the statement made here? A. I don't think he protested; I don't think we heard a word of protest from Mr. Czarnecki at the time those specifica- tions were signed ; I don't think I did. Mr. Deneen. Read the next. Mr. Whittaker (reading). ''Commissioner Taylor: I do not recollect any protest from you." Mr. Deneen. Q. You made that statement ? A. Yes. 634 Mr. Whittaker (reading). " Commissioner Czarnecki : Do you remember a series of motions and amendments that I offered to this board for the specifications right here in this room. Dr. Taylor? Commissioner Taylor: When was that — last winter? Commissioner Czarnecki : I want to make myself clear on this. In the first place I would like to see my signature. Commissioner Taylor: You signed. Commissioner Czarnecki : If I signed the speci- fications I did so as secretary of the board, as a matter of form, and did not withdraw my protest. ' ' 635 Q. Now, those minutes are correct as far as we got; we haven't got to any others. Or shall we read them? A. I will not dispute them; it may be that these things were said at the time. Mr. Deneen. Now read your statements, you objected to it at the time. Read Commissioner Taylor's statement, Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker (reading). "Commissioner Taylor: The only thing that is new in this contract or of any ma- terial diflference is the provision that we have made in there as to the manner of delivery of the machines and provisions for the enlargement of the slots for indepen- dent voters. I am opposed to any motion for delay. I have been remaining here under painful conditions for the past three or four days. My sister has been ill. I have been called on the telephone and by telegraph. I felt that I did not wish to go until this matter was settled. I will Commissioner Taylor Objects to Delay. 135 object to anything that would occupy me eight or ten days longer until this matter is disposed of. I am opposed to any delay, for any purpose real or pretended. I urge the adoption of the motion. ' ' Mr. Deneen. You made that statement? A. I think that is probably correct. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Mr. Deneen. Now read Mr. Czarnecki's statement. Mr. Whittaker (reading). "Commissioner Czarnecki: In the first place, before you go on, I must make myself clear as to what my position and my action has been from the beginning. My vote was against every step and these specifications. The specifications were adopted by a ma- jority vote of two to one. My recommendations were ignored and overruled except in one or two instances perhaps and I voted against the approval of the specifi- cations." 636 "If I signed the specifications as secretary I did it upon your request as a matter of form, but the fact as to my position, what was done by this board in voting, there is no question in my mind. I did not and do not approve the specifications. ' ' Mr. Deneen. Q. He made that statement? A. I think so. Q. Now, Clerk Stuart said — read that, Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker (reading). "Chief Clerk: My recol- lection is that you did sign these specifications." Sen. Canaday. I would like to ask a question of Mr. Taylor. Q. Is that original resolution in existence, on file here? A. I can't tell you about that. They were probably sent to the printer and whether they were returned, and gotten back again, I am not sure. Q. Do you know whether he did sign that in any other capacity except as secretary of the board? A. Well, that might have been the motive in his mind, I am very certain that there was no protest written upon the copy, that is my recollection, strong recollection. I would have noted it at the time, I think that was at a period considerably before Mr. Czarnecki began his objections. Sen. Canaday. The copy that I have here is signed, "Charles H. Kellerman, Chairman," "Anthony Czar- necki, Secretary, " " Howard S. Taylor, Board of Election 637 Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illinois." Is that the way the original draft was signed? 136 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor, A. I think that was the way, sir. Sen. Canaday. That is all. The Chairman. That is all the Senator wants to ask. Mr. Deneen. I will ask you a question there on that. You remember that Commissioner Czarnecki asked you one evening, and which you read, to procure a statement of those specifications and which you refused, that was recalled to your mind yesterday, he wanted to read the proof-sheets and you and your associates prevented it? A. I do not recall. Q. We went to that yesterday, but we did not hunt it up. A. It may have been. Mr. Deneen. Make a note of that and I will look the • record up on that. All right, Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker. Following what the Chief Clerk said, Mr. Czarnecki said: "If I did it I did it as secretary of the board upon your request. Such signing as secretary as a matter of form under direction of a majority of the board surely did not mtean an approval after I voted against approving them, and surely that is clear from the very nature of the specifications themselves. If you recall 637 your specifications provide for the submitting of bids within 25 days or less than a month, whereas I urged and 638 offered amendments that three months at least be given. If you recollect I also urged the bond to be equal to the amount of the purchase. I also urged that a check for one per cent, of the purchase price and not more be re- quired as a certified check deposit on the bid. I did not withdraw my objections. I insisted upon minority rec- ommendations and voted against the approval and adop- tion of the specifications. ' ' Mr. Deneen. That is correct, isn't it. Doctor? A. I think it is, sir. Mr. Deneen. Now, Doctor Taylor's remark. Mr. Whittaker (reading). "Commissioner Taylor: That was true, I recall some of this. Commissioner Czar- necki : I want to bring this to your attention. I did not approve and did not vote for the specifications. Commis- sioner Taylor : I cannot say now that you differed from the majority of the board ; my impression was that after we had completed the discussion and the matter came to a vote you agreed to vote and sign the specifications." Mr. Deneen. That statement was made by you and by 638 him as read there ? A. Yes, sir. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 137 Mr. Whittaker (reading). "Commissioner Czarnecki: If you will think about this matter I cannot believe that you will not agree with me that I am right as to my posi- tion. It is unpleasant for me to point out your mistakes, Doctor, as to my position in this matter, at this time. 639 There was no agreement of all the board on the specifi- cations and no unanimous vote. My position has not changed on this proposition from start to finish and at this time I would respectfully move and ask to give me sufficient time to look over this contract for the first time in my hands." Mr. Deneen. Q. Did he make that statement, accord- ing to your best recollection? A. I do not recall about that. Q. Do you dispute it? A. Oh, no, no. Q. Well, it has been approved as part of the minutes? A. Yes. Mr. Deneen. Now read Dr. Taylor 's statement. Mr. Whittaker (reading). "Commissioner Taylor: I object to any further delay myself. I want the motion passed. We have been here talking over this matter for at least three months. ' ' Mr. Deneen. Q. You made that statement, to the best of your recollection? A. Yes, sir, probably. 639 Mr. Deneen. Now read Commissioner Kellerman's statement. Mr. Whittaker (reading). " Commissioner Kellerman : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. All in favor say * aye. ' Commissioners Taylor and Kellerman voted ' aye. ' Commissioner Czarnecki voted 'nay.' Motion carried by a vote of two to one. ' ' Mr. Deneen. Is that a correct statement ? A. I think so. Mr. Deneen. Now read Commissioner Czarnecki 's re- mark. Mr. Whittaker (reading). "Will I have the privilege 640 of setting forth my reasons in detail and in writing on my voting 'nay,' as soon as I can prepare them?" Mr. Deneen. Now, Dr. Taylor's remark. Mr. Whittaker (reading). " Commissioner Taylor : I have no objections to your setting forth your reasons, but when these minutes come to be written upon the record I shall object very much to the writing in of an oration. I think it is very bad business, unprecedented by any other 138 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. board. I think there should be some way of reducing the transactions of the board to as brief a form as possible. I shall insist that the minutes be written out in that proper method and proper manner and before they are written out in that proper method and proper manner and before they are written in they must be brought before this board and approved by this board. ' ' 640 Mr. Deneen. You made that statement in response to him? A. Yes. Mr. Deneen. Now read Commissioner Czarnecki's re- mark. Mr. Whittakeb (reading) . ' ' Commissioner Czarnecki : Do I understand that you will insist that my motions and resolutions which did not receive a second will not appear of record? Conmiissioner Taylor : They ought to appear in the record." Mr. Deneen. Those statements by him and you are correct? A. Yes, I think so. Mr. Deneen. Yes. Bead Commissioner Czarnecki's statements. Mr. Whittaker (reading). "We have a transcript of 641 the shorthand reporter's notes in typewritten form of the board's proceedings during the time Mr. Force, the short- hand reporter, was here. Then after he left we had no shorthand transcript notes but I have minutes from my own notes and notes as taken by our stenographer. We have all the minutes of all meetings." Mr. Dekeen. He made that statement, did he, or in sub- stance that? A. I do not recall anything about that at all, that latter part. Q. Well, you do not dispute it, you simply do not recall it?' A. Oh, no, I don't— Q. Well, that was approved as part of the minutes of the board? A. That is a matter for the — Q. What did you say? A. I say that is a matter for the Commission, as to what is proven by the minutes. Q. I say, the Commission approved that; they ap- proved the statements. You Commissioners approved these notes, these minutes as they appeared? A. No, sir. I explained a day or two ago that these notes probably never had been approved by the board. Q. You think that part of the minutes which recites you Commissioner Csarnecki Makes a Motion. 139 made a contract, was not approved, and this whole thing could be opened up ; do you think that would stick ! A. I don't know about that, I don't think that as a mat- ter of law, but I have no recollection of any approval of those being made, except in this way, long after they were written out I went over them for the purpose of editing them into some sort of shape, getting them condensed, practically, a few errors of phraseology, supplied a word here and there, and then they were turned over to the typewriter to be written out on a sheet as amended to be submitted to the Board for our approval. Now that is my recollection about the minutes, and I am not sure, I would not say positively whether we ever took any action approv- ing all of those minutes. I said to Mr. Kellerman, however, 642 that on looking over the minut-es we were discussing the fact whether they were accurate or not — that in my opinion the substantial features of the procedure were preserved, and my advice was not to make any fuss about it, let it go in, then go written into a book and stand as the minutes. Q. You, — among other things, you said, 'Let this be written in to stand as the minutes 1 ' A. Yes, let it go in. Q. I will ask you if in editing these minutes you did not write on each of the minutes, 'the minutes of the previous meeting read and approved,' or indicated to your stenographer to have that done, or, as a matter of form, you said 'pro forma'? A. Yes, pro forma. The stenog- rapher had been directed to put that in, a certain form, 'the Board met at a certain time, present so and so, minutes of the previous meeting read and approved. ' Commissioner Czarnecki then made the following mo- tion: 643-4 " 'Commissioner Czarnecki: I move that before the resolution and contract passed by the Board's majority offered by Mr. Taylor, and regarding the purchase of the voting machines goes into effect and is acted upon, that this Board proceed to devise ways to take the question of sub- mitting the entering into, signing and executing of that contract to a vote of the people at the next November elec- tion.' "Mr. Deneen. Q. He made that statement, did he ? "A. I recall that. ' ' Q. And your answer was — Read Dr. Taylor 's answer. "Mr. Whittaker. (reading). 'Commissioner Taylor: The voting machine proposition has been submitted to 140 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. the people and voted nine to one in favor of it a good while ago.' "Mr. Deneen. Q. That was your statement? "A. Yes, sir. "Mr. Deneen. Now Commissioner Czarnecki's state- ment. Read it, Mr. Whittaker. ' ' Mr. Whittaker ( reading) . ' Commissioner Czarnecki. I move we adjourn.' *Mr. L. R. Winslow. Before you ad- journ, may I be heard?' 'Commissioner Taylor. I do not care to hear Mr. Winslow. Commissioner Czarnecki. I have no objection to hearing you. Mr. Winslow. I don't 644 care whether you want to hear me or not, Dr. Taylor. I address myself to Mr. Kellerman and Mr. Czarnecki. I would like to ask the Board if I may be furnished with certified copies of the previous minutes, on the subject matter of voting machines, of the resolutions and con- tract, and the reports of the experts rendered to Judge Owens and the Board. Commissioner Czarnecki. I think that any interested party may make a request for copies and get them. Chair- man Kellermann. I think anyone can have a copy. We might also any disinterested parties. Commissioner Czarnecki. Yes, any one. Commissioner Taylor. I have no objection.' Mr. Deneen. Q. That is in substance what he told you? A. I think so, yes. Q. It does not relate to this matter. Now, on page 245, Doctor Taylor. Will you read what Doctor Taylor stated there? A. Yes. Mr. Deneen. Now that was the meeting of June 22nd. Mr. Whittaker. This is the meeting of July 22nd. Mr. Deneen. All the Commissioners were present? Mr. Whittaker. All three were present (reading) : 'Commissioner Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask 645 you if you recall the order of the motion on the resolu- tion on the adoption and signing of the contract, at yes- terday's meeting? The minutes do not cite it. My clear recollection was that I made the motion myself, then called our attorney, Mr. Mitchell, to read the contract. We dis- cussed that for some time, and when I moved the adoption of the motion and you, Mr. Kellerman, seconded it and I then put it to the Board and used the words 'the ayes Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 141 have it, ' and so on. Now, Mr. Chairman, in order to make assurance doubly sure, I move that the action — ' 646 Mr. Deneen. Q. Now you made that statement when he interrupted you, when Mr. Czarnecki interrupted you? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Deneen. Now read Mr. Czarnecki 's remark. Mr. Whittakek (reading). 'Commissioner Czarnecki. I wish to state that I had no recollection of the 'second' to the motion — I do remember a 'second' on another mo- tion with reference to the man from San Francisco on another matter, but I recalled no 'second' on the motion to adopt and sign the contract, although I said to the stenographer when she failed to find it in her notes, that that was a matter which Dr. Taylor would recall. I had her go over her notes and it was not in her notes, and I had no distinct recollection of any 'second.' I called up 646 Dr. Taylor and tried to reach you, Mr. Kellerman, on the wire.' Mr. Deneen. Q. That statement was made, was it not ? A. I think so. Q. And you responded : Read it, Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittakek (reading). 'Commissioner Taylor. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move that the action of the ma- jority of the Board at the last meeting, directing and authorizing any two of the Commissioners and the Chief Clerk to execute and deliver the contract read before the Board to purchase one thousand Empire Voting Machines, be hereby ratified and approved.' Mr. Deneen. Q. You made that motion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Commissioner Kellerman seconded the motion — 647 A. Yes, sir. Q. He seconded the motion? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Deneen. Now, Commissioner Taylor's remark. Read it, Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker (reading). 'Commissioner Taylor. Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. All in favor sig- nify by saying ' aye ; ' contrary ' nay. ' Commissioner Tay- lor and Kellerman voted 'aye'; Commissioner Czarnecki voted 'nay.' Mr. Deneen. Q. That was a correct statement? You made the motion at the end? A. Yes. Mr. Deneen. Now, Doctor Taylor's — read it, Mr. Whit- taker. Mr. Whittaker (reading). 'Commissioner Taylor. 142 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the following motion: Resolved, that hereafter all documents and records and official duplicate copies thereof, belonging to this Board, shall be filed and indexed in the vaults of this office under the charge of the Chief Clerk, and that no person other than a Commissioner be allowed to withdraw the same from the vault, and that no Commissioner shall remove them except by filing a receipt for the same, and that at all times, except when in actual use by the Board, the minute-books shall be kept in the vault where they may be inspected at any time by order of the Commissioners, or the Chief Clerk or the Attorney. I move the adoption of this resolution. ' Mr. Deneen. Q. You made that motion? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Deneen. Now, Conmiissioner Kellerman — read it, 648 Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker (reading). ' Commissioner Kellerman. I see no objection to it. Commissioner Czarnecki. Just one question. Does that mean that if a member of the Board makes a copy of a resolution, or copy of contracts, or copy of reports here for himself, that he is not per- mitted to take that away with him! Does that further bar a keeping of a private set of minutes which a member 648 of the Board may make at his home ? I want to know if every memorandum which would pertain to Board matters must be done here ? Mr. Deneen. Q. Did he make that statement? A. I think so. Q. You then said: — read Dr. Taylor's remark, Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker {reading). "Commissioner Taylor: If you will read the resolution you will see it says 'belong- ing to the Board. ' Now, we sometimes make several cop- ies for the Board's use. My thought is that the records shall be kept in the vault and taken care of in some sys- tematic order. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it has occurred again and again that our records have been scat- tered around here and there and if a Commissioner wanted to look at them he had to start an inquiry before he could find them. It is not businesslike, it is not the prac- tice that is followed in various clerical offices of this City. I think the proper thing to do is to put all of the records in the vault, index them so they can be easily found, so that when any member of the Board wishes to see them he can see them. That is my thought." Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 143 Mr. Deneen. Q. Did you make that statement? A. Yes, sir. 649 Mr. DENEEif. Then Commissioner Czarnecki. Mr. Whittaker ( reading) . ' ' Commissioner Czarnecki : 'I wish to be clear on the proposition of having the right to make copies, or anybody else having the right to make copies of the record of the Board — will any person out- side have the right to make copies of the records'?' " Mr. Deneen. He made that statement? A. I think so. Q. And then you make this statement: — read it, Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Whittakek (reading). 'Commissioner Taylor: No objection to anything of the sort. Conunissioner Czar- necki: Will it require a special permit to do so, or is it understood now, in accordance with the motion, that this does not apply to any copies which may be made by indi- vidual members, or by people outside who might wish copies made by stenographers? Commissioner Taylor: No objection to anybody making copies for themselves. I speak of the records 'belonging to the Board.' 'Com- missioner Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of this motion. Commissioner Kellerman. I second the motion. Commissioner Taylor. Genltlemen, you have heard the motion. All in favor signify by saying 'aye.' Contrary 'nay.' Commissioners Kellerman and Taylor voting ' aye. ' Commissioner Czarnecki stated that in the 649 light of Mr. Hewitt's point just made, he voted 'nay.' Mr. Deneen. Q. That motion was put and carried, and those statements made in here precede it? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Deneen. Read Commissioner Czarnecki 's statement. Mr. Whittaker (reading). 'Commissioner Czarnecki. Gentlemen, I submit the following resolution: 'Whereas, I know and am ready to take my oath upon it, that after the refusal of the majority of the Board to adopt a series of my provisions and amendments in the specifications, in- cluding among other — that the time within which to file bids and submit a machine be at least three months from the date of the adoption of the specifications, that the amount of the certified check required to be put up in. escrow be for one and not five per cent, of the price of the machine, that a penalizing clause to compel prompt delivery of the machines, and that the amount of the Surety Company bond be equal to the cost price of the machines under the contract, all of which were refused and over- 144 Czarnecki Makes His Position Clear. ruled. . I opposed, refused to support and did not vote for the adoption and approval of the specifications. '"Whereas, I know and distinctly recall that I voted 'no' 650 on the proposition of the adoption and approval of the specifications. 'Whereas, the appearance of my name in the printed specifications as a matter of form, as Secretary of the Board is contended to show that I approved these speci- fications. 'Whereas, it is contended that the specifications were signed, as if approved by signing them. 'I move that the specifications so alleged to be signed, be produced, so that all that was written upon such speci- fications at the time of the alleged signing, and with such alleged signing may be shown and made a part of the min- utes of this Board, because the specifications, even those for the printer, were not signed by any one in a Board meeting. ' That is my resolution. 'I offer it because there seems to be some misunder- standing as to how I stood on those specifications, and what the appearance of the printed name, as Secretary means.' Mr. Deneek. Q. He introduced that resolution, did he ? A. I do not recall, sir. I have no independent recollec- tion about it. I read the minutes over after they were produced, as I say, edited them, and concluded to let them go in that report. ' ' 652 It was the custom of the stenographer of the Board to write up the minutes immediately and hand them to Mr. Czarnecki. ' ' Mr. McEwEN. The stenographer 's report in full of all the talk? "The Witness. A. Yes, of everything, and Mr. Czarn- eki put them away and he took care of them. I think, more through carelessness than anything else, I have no charge to make against him, but we have had a hard time trying to get hold of them. ' ' The Commissioners asked Mr. Czarnecki to put these matters in the vault. 653 The purpose of Dr. Taylor's resolution was to have the minutes when they were written up kept in the vault and properly indexed. This was not carried out. 654 "The Witness. For months, for more than a year, I Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. 145 and Mr. Kellermann, at intervals would say to Mr. Czarn- ecki: 'Now get out those minutes and let us get them into the books after being approved by the Board.' We both did it, we did it separately, and we asked the stenog- rapher to get them out so as to get them in form and get them into the books, and we didn't succeed in getting them until just a little while before you gentlemen came up here, we got them actually written into the books." Sometimes the Conunissioners got from the stenogra- pher loose sheets of the reported proceedings, sometimes not. But the sheets were not to become the official records 655 of the Board. 656 When Commissioner Czarnecki showed the memoran- dum of minutes of the Board, there was a jar full of them (indicating about six or eight inches thick). 659 The reports of Judge Owens' experts were locked up in the vaults in charge of Mr. Stuart, and not in possession of Mr. Czarnecki all this time. 661 Neither Commissioners Czarnecki, Kellermann nor Tay- lor had the combination of the vault in the Election Com- missioners ' office so as to get into it. A special vault clerk has the combination. 662 Witness thinks that the correspondence with all the voting machine companies came to the Chief Clerk. Wit- ness cannot recall receiving any. Witness made a motion that the Chief Clerk should take care of such correspon- dents, and presumes it was carried out. Concerning Commissioner Czarnecki 's motion regarding whether or not he had approved the specifications, the minutes of the Board of Election Commissioners was then read into the record as follows : 663-667 "That is my resolution. "I offer it because there seems to be some misunder- standing as to how I stood on those specifications and what 663 the appearance of the printed name, as Secretary, means. Commissioner Taylor. I ask if you are not willing to let that go over f Commissioner Czarnecki. Did I hear a second to the motion just made? I think not. Then there is another motion I wish to make now. I move that either all that was written under the specifications be made a part of them, including the explanation under which the document was signed, or that the secretary's name be withdrawn there- from, because its presence there without the explanation 146 Czarnechi Points Out Objections to Contract. might be misleading and has been misunderstood by every one of the members of this Board. Do I hear a second to this motion? I do not. Then Commissioner Czarnecki stated that pursuant to his announcement made yesterday when he was taken by surprise, by having the question of the voting machine con- tract brought up unexpectedly before the Board, the con- tract there being read for the first time and without any opportunity to study it, there being voted upon and passed 664 by a vote of two to one, he hereby presents the following specific objections to the contract in support of his vote against the adoption, approval and acceptance of the con- tract. 664 'That the contract does not properly safeguard the Election Board and the City of Chicago. 'That the Board is exceeding its legal authority to make such a contract.' Mr. Deneen-. Then I will ask you. Commissioner Czar- necki made the statements as revealed there in substance ! A. I have no independent recollection of it at all. Mr. Deneen. I will ask you if you approved it as a part of the record. A. Well, yes. Q. Now, read the next. Mr. Whittakeb. Then Commissioner Czarnecki stated 'That the voting machines purchased under the provisions of the contract is a heavy, unwieldy and impractical de- vice which will not save money but which will require a large expense for storage, handling and cartage. 'That the contract is of special advantage to the Com- pany and of special disadvantage to the Election Board. 'That before the contract is entered into there should 665 be more time and more opportunity given to a wider competition. ' That the Empire Voting Machine does not contain all the required improvements, but that each one of the other machines in the competition have special features the need of each one of which is essential with other things to make a practical machine. 'That sufficient time should be granted to every Com- missioner to read and study every action and portion of the proposed contract before an attempt is made to have it passed and approved. 'That the contract binds the Board to buy a larger number of machines than business dictates. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 147 'That 120 machines should first be tried out before any more are contracted for. ' In addition to the above Commissioner Czarnecki reit- erated other objections which he had previously raised with reference to the voting machines. ' Commissioner Taylor stated that all points of Commis- sioner Czarnecki could be entered of record, but that his extensive remarks should be eliminated from the min- utes.' Mr. Dbneen. Did Commissioner Czarnecki file that protest? A. I think there was a sort of a final shower. Q. But no attention paid to it except to raise an um- 666 brella? A. No, sir. Mr. Whittakeb (reading). 'W. J. Lausterer of the Empire Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, N. Y., appeared before the Board and declared he came for his company to receive the certified check held in escrow to secure the bid. 'Chairman Kellermann announced that he would tele- phone to the bank and make arrangements that the cer- tified check could be returned today. 'Commissioner Czarnecki asked if a special order of the Board is necessary or whether the return of the un- successful companies checks meant that upon request the Empire Company should also receive its check. Mr. Deneex. Q. Those statements were made, I pre- sume? A. Yes, sir; I think so. Mr. Whittakeb (reading). 'Commissioner Taylor de- clared that it was unnecessary to make a special order inasmuch as the majority was acting in harmony upon the subject and all were agreed not to refuse the check. 'Commissioner Czarnecki declared the check should re- main in escrow until the sample machine is delivered. 'Chairman Kellei*mann announced that the bank people would wait even after the banking hours today and will give the certified check at once, and moved that all hurry to the bank without further discussion. 667 'Commissioner Czarnecki moved that the Board ad- journ, which was done. The Commissioners and Mr. Lausterer thereupon going to the Continental Commer- cial National Bank, where a certified check signed by Chas. H. Kellermann, Chairman, Anthony Czarnecki, Sec- 148 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. retary, Howard S. Taylor, for the Board of Election Com- missioners, was turned over to Mr. Lausterer. ' Mr. Deneen. Q. Those statements were made, that statement by you 1 A. Yes, I think so. Q. That represents the facts? A. I think that is true." The witness does not think that Commissioner Czar- necki's protest about the unwieldiness of the machine re- ceived any consideration. The machine weighed 1,120 pounds with the case. 668 The machine had to be handled a number of times for each election, perhaps ten. 668-9 ' ' Q. Instead of asking you a question, I am going to read to you this, — it is a calculation that has been made, — and ask you if it is substantially correct : ' The machine weighed, with its box, 1,190 pounds, handled ten times with each election, that made 11,900 pounds, and if there are four elections a year, that makes 47,600 pounds, and for a thousand machines, it would require to handle, which would be 47,600,000,' which is 23,800 tons,— that is about it as you would say? A. Yes, I say it is possible, I have not gone into that computation. "Q. If the average carload fixed by the Central Freight Association here is 19.3 tons to a car, that would make 1,233 carloads and would make a train nine and one- half miles long to handle your machines, once a year, would you call that an unwieldy machine or otherwise? A. No, sir; I don't think it would. "Q. That is about four and one-half times as much metal as there is in the First National Bank in this city. A. Yes. "Q. And more than any building in the city, you say that would not be unwieldy? A. You might say, by the same computation, a man in the course of an ordinary lifetime would eat food amounting to the size of a house, but it would not appear unreasonable, it would not be a very unreasonable thing, as I said yesterday. Indian- apolis has been handling machines weighing 1,400 pounds for eleven years, and are very much in love with the ma- chines, according to the official testimonies of the Mayor and the City Clerk and the Auditor and the Election Com- missioners, and leading citizens, — and another thing that occurs to me pertinent on that question, is this: that if we would take the International Machine or the Triumph The City Notified After Contract Made. 149 Machine, which is slightly smaller, still they are large, and by the same computation you might get a trainload of them." 669 The Election Commissioners had special devices where- by one man could lift a voting machine into a box. This device was not taken to each precinct in the City. 670 It required four men to handle a voting machine. "Mr. Deneen. Now take the meeting of November 16th. 671-5 "Mr. Whittakeh (reading). Board met at the call of 671 the Chair. 'Present: Commissioners Kellermann, Taylor and Czarnecki. 'Commissioner Taylor said 'Our contract with the Em- pire Voting Machine Company requires us to notify the governing authority, the Mayor and the City Council, that the Board had entered into a contract with the Em- 672 pire Voting Machine Company for the purchase of one thousand voting machines. Such notices should be ample to thoroughly inform the Mayor and the City Council of the nature of the contract. ' 'Commissioner Taylor moved that the Chief Clerk be directed to serve upon the City Clerk and through him upon the Mayor and the City Council, the following notice which has been submitted to the Attorney of the Board, who has prepared the same with the contract and ap- proved the notice. ' The Chairman. You said Chief Clerk there; it should have been City Clerk. Mr. Whittakee. If I said Chief Clerk it was a mistake. Mr, Landee. Yes, the Mayor and the City Clerk. Mr. Whittakee. Yes. (Reading) 'To the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Chicago. Care of the City Clerk of Chicago, Gbeeting : Gentlemen : Acting under and pursuant to power and authority vested in us by the laws of Illinois, we have heretofore on the 25th day of July, 1911, entered into a contract with the Empire Voting Machine Company, of Jamestown, N. Y., for the purchase of one thousand (1,000) voting machines at Nine Hundred Forty-two Dollars and fifty 673 cents ($942.50) each, or for the total of Nine Hundred Forty-two Thousand and Five hundred Dollars ($942,- 500). A copy of this contract is attached hereto. 150 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. Sections 3 and 13 of this contract specify the rate at which these machines are to be delivered, and Section 11 specifies the manner in which the machines shall be paid for. For the purpose of paying for these voting machines, we request your Honorable Body to provide in the City Treasury money not otherwise appropriated, at the fol- lowing times and in the following amounts. 1. Within the current period expiring March 21, 1912, the sum of One hundred eighty-eight thousand, five hundred dollars, $188,500) in such installments as may be necessary to pay for the two hundred (200) voting machines as they may have been delivered from time to time during that period under the terms of said contract, or to pay at once for the two hundred (200) voting ma- chines if the entire amount shall be delivered at one time. 2. Within the period between March 21, 1912, and October 25, 1912, the sum of two hundred eighty-two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($282,750) in such installments as may be necessary to pay for three hundred (300) additional voting machines as they may have been delivered from time to time during that pe- 674 riod under the terms of said contract, or to pay at once for three hundred (300) voting machines if the entire amount shall be delivered at one time. 3. Within the period between October 21, 1912, and April 21, 1913, the sum of two hundred thirty-five thou- sand six himdred and twenty-five dollars ($235,625) in such installments as may be necessary to pay for two hundred and fifty (250) voting machines as they may have been delivered from time to time during that pe- riod under the terms of said contract, or to pay at once for the two hundred and fifty (250) voting machines if the entire amount shall be delivered at one time. 4. Within the period between April 21, 1913, and be- fore September 21, 1913, the sum of two hundred thirty- five thousand six hundred and twenty-five dollars ($235,- 625) in such installments as may be necessary to pay for two hundred and fifty (250) voting machines as they may have been delivered from time to time during that pe- riod under the terms of said contract, or to pay at once for the two hundred and fifty (250) additional voting machines if the entire amount shall be delivered at one time. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 151 We further request you to promptly levy and direct annual tax that may be needed to provide in the City Treasury any part or parts of the aforesaid sums, pro- vided to be paid under the terms of said contract, to- gether with the interest thereon, that may become pay- able under paragraph 12 of the contract in case the ma- chines are not paid for within thirty (30) days from the date of the delivery or acceptance thereof. Ohas. H. Keixermann, Howard &'. Taylor, Anthony Czarnecki, {by direction of the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners of the City of Chicago and ex-officio of the Totim of Cicero), W. H. Stuabt, Chief Cleric. John E. Owens, 675 County Judge. Commissioner Kellermann seconded the motion, which was carried, Commissioner Czarnecki voting nay. Thereupon the Board turned its attention to other matters." Mr. Dbneen. Was that notice sent? A. I think that is correct, sir. 676 The minutes of the meeting of December 28th, 1911, were then read: — "Mr. Whittaker. I read the minutes in full after the statement of who were present. (Reading.) Commis- sioner Kellermann presented to the Board a communica- tion from the Empire Voting Machine Company, ad- dressed to the Board of Election Commissioners, and announcing that the Company is now ready to deliver an installment of fifty (50) machines under their con- tract with the Board, that the machines have been duly inspected by the Board of Voting Machine Commission- ers of the State, and that the Company has now in the City one (1) of the said fifty (50) voting machines in- stalled at the Sherman House, Room 800, and invites the Board or any of its members to visit and inspect said machine. "Said letter also enclosed a copy of the report of the State Voting Machine Commissioners, showinar that the machine now on exhibition at the Sherman House has k 152 First Voting Machine Delivery. been duly inspected by the Voting Machine Commission- ers and found to be correct and competent under the law, and the letter further states that the original report of the said Voting Machine Commissioners has been duly filed with the Secretary of State. "Commissioner Taylor moved that the letter from the Empire Voting Machine Company and copy of said re- port be received and placed on file.' "Mr. Deneen. Q. Is that a correct statement? "A. I believe that is correct." 677 After voting machines were delivered a storage room was rented. Witness cannot say for how much per month. Witness cannot say whether the number of em- ployes of the Board has been increased since 500 voting machines had been secured, or how many men are em- ployed at the storage house. Has no information upon the subject. 678 The fact that keys had been broken in moving the ma- chines had been called to the attention to the Board by judges and clerks on election day who failed to get them together properly. This was a matter of no consequence so far as the machines were concerned. Witness thinks there was one case where there was a broken key and its place was supplied, but witness is not sure about it. Witness has not heard of any complaints regarding the operation of the machine in the witness' own ward and has never heard that a machine refused to operate in the morning in the Longwood precinct and that it was necessary to send out an expert who failed and an- other had to be sent, or that the Longwood machine didn't begin operating until ten o'clock. Longwood is the witness' own district. 679 The witness did not hear anything about a machine in the 36th Precinct of the 31st or 32nd Ward losing 151 votes. Witness does not believe that was the case. "The Witness. A. I think, Governor, you are eon- fusing, there was a lot of votes lost on the State's Attor- ney issue in the 30th, 31st, 32nd and 35th Wards, but they were not lost on the machine, they could not be lost on the machine." Witness thinks that if any votes were lost in any pre- cinct they were lost on the paper ballots and not on the Witness' View of Supreme Court Decision. 153 machine. Witness never heard of any votes being lost on the machine. 680 Witness knows of the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the provision of the law requiring that a vot- ing machine shall enable the voter to vote in one minute and states that since the decision the Commission has in- sisted upon further payment for the machines. "Q. And insisting on it now, aren't they? A. Yes, sir, we have; we think that is a valid contract, the ma- chine is a valid machine. "Q. Have you saved any money on printing since these machines were installed! A. I don't know that, I think that is very doubtful. "Q. Or cartage! A. I don't think it has, it is very doubtful for several reasons, owing to the legal con- tests, the conditions, investigations, etc., we have not been able to pursue the voting machine methods that have approval everywhere else. "Q. What is the cost of the cartage for each, cost of taking out these machines, the Empire, to the polling place! A. I cannot remember that. "Q. $5 a trip! "Mr. McEwEN. They have spent as high as $6 a trip, but they contend that the ultimate round-trip expense will be $3. 681 "Mr. Deneen. $3! "Mr. McEwEK. For each machine. "Mr. Deneen. And 5 per cent, on $942 would be over $45 a year, on your investment. "A. How is that! I don't get you. "Q. The machine costs |942? A. Yes. "Q. And 5 per cent, on nine hundred, to make it easy calculation, would be $45? A. Yes. "Q. And then your charge for electricity, bulbs and such, in the arrangement would be a little more? A. Would be a very small amount. "Q. You haven't figured that out, have you! A. No. "Q. In the cheapening of the cost of election, did you consider that the income on the money you spent, the interest on the money you spent, would be an item! A. Yes, I contemplated that. "Q. That was taken into consideration in your esti- mate, that it would be cheaper to have machines than to have ballot boxes! A. I have no doubt about it, that 154 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. is the experience in all cities where they have used them, in Indianapolis and Milwaukee they certify on oath be- fore officials that in the eleven years, ten years they have saved the entire price or cost of the machines. "Q. That certificate was made in Minneapolis, too, 682 wasn't it? A. How is that! "Q. A statement like that! A. There is a statement there from Minneapolis. "Q. And then — A. I don't think they make that statement. "Q. And then later they had to put in two machines? A. Well, it was, there was an urgency at a particular time and under particular circumstances where they have to put in two machines. "Q. Later, that urgency culminated in repealing the law or requiring ballots in their place! A. I don't know that. 683 Recent reports from Minneapolis are extravagantly favorable to the voting machines. 684 Witness does not think that 9,000 votes were lost in the State's Attorney contest in Cook County last fall, but only temporarily held up by Judge Baldwin. Witness thinks that by the precedent of the Supreme Court most of the ballots held up will be found to be valid ballots. Every vote to which there was any objec- tion was held up for future decision. 686 Witness has not read that 17 men voted for a candi- date in one of the precincts where the machine showed only one vote and thinks he knows it is not true. Witness does not believe that any man can go to the voting machine now in the room and make it lie, it is not possible. 688 "Representative Jayne. Q. Doctor, do you know of any city that has purchased any Empire machines since the Chicago purchase was made? "A. I cannot say certainly; I think tliose that were bought at South Bend were bought after ours were. I may be in error." Witness thinks that he knew that action was taken on the voting machine matter when the experts finished their report. 689 This was about June 26th. "Q. You made a remark the other day you said it was generally understood between Mr. Kellermann, Judge Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 155 Owens and Stuart and yourself that the voting machine matter would be started? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Now, Mr. Stuart is not a member of the Board, is he! A. But he is a statutory officer and occupying a prominent place ; an executive who has to do a great deal with the voting machine, and, naturally, while he had not any vote, naturally, we listened a great deal to his sug- gestion. ' ' Mr. Stuart was appointed by the Board and confirmed by the County Court. 689 Witness in his book, "The Truth about the Voting Machine Deal," stated that the counters could not be altered without the use of the five keys. The judges and clerks could not operate them without getting all the 690 keys together. In regard to witness' former testimony about Indianapolis and Milwaukee having some scheme regarding saving money at elections, witness does not know that he had any talk about those subjects with rep- resentative of the Empire Voting Machine Company, but had a lot of literature directed to his attention and, in preparing his speech at the City Club, wrote mayors and executive officers and got replies, telegrams, and read them aloud during his speech. He had such re- plies from Indianapolis and Milwaukee. 691 In what witness has previously stated about a man be- ing able to vote in a minute, he meant that if a man went into a machine without looking at the ticket and how it "was to be voted he would be delayed, but if he studied this matter for a few minutes before going into the booth he ought to go in there and vote in a minute. "I have no doubt that any ordinary intelligent man could." It is not a fact that blueprints and specifications would be of any assistance to experts in checking up the machine. Witness had seen the Winslow machine in the Rand- McNally Building and probably put in as much time ex- amining it as he did the Empire machine. 692 "I didn't attempt to go into the interior of it." "Representative Jayne. Q. There is one question I would like to ask you because I didn't fully understand it. Up until the time the contract was awarded to the Empire Company, had they ever produced or shown a machine like the one you actually purchased under the contract ? 156 Confusion Over 9-Party 70-Key Machine. n 'A. Well, that is a point I am very much confused on; but apparently from the records, we had here this morning, they had produced a 9-column, 70-key machine, and it had been approved, got a certificate from our ex- perts ; that is my impression, but I confess I am confused about that." Witness and Mr. Kellermann constituted a majority of the Board and witness can hardly explain now why they didn't get a new secretary during the trouble over the minutes. They thought the matter would be fixed up from week to week and month to month. Mr. Czar- necki was pleasant, and was the minority member of the 693 Board and witness did not feel like driving. He simply politely invited. Senator Landee asked if it is not a fact that the first complete Empire machine was not examined by the State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners December 18th and approved by them. Witness answered, "Well, that is a question that I am puzzled over; I do not know; but I think, my recollection now is that a 9, 70 had been pro- duced and examined and approved by our experts be- fore we ever signed the contract." "Mr. McEwEN. That is not the question. That is just where the difference is. Before the signing of the contract, a full sized machine was produced, but tht question of Senator Landee was whether at the time of the awarding of the contract it had been done. ' ' Senator Landee. Q. At the time of the award. "A. No, but we understood, — I should say I under- stood that it was simply a question of coupling a few 694 more cars onto a train; that the mechanism was all just alike. "Q. Up to that time, there had not been any machine of the Empire Company such as was awarded for, on trial, or voted on at any election in the City of Chicago? A. I am not sure about that. I think there was one under the old Board. They had the machine that was examined by the experts, Empire machine, in 1909. Whether it had been used, if there was one, I don't know — " A. I don't know whether the Illinois Voting Machine Commissioners had examined and validated the Empire machine that was exhibited in 1909; but I am confident if you wish to look up those reports of the old 695 experts, you will find that an Empire machine was ex- amined here in the City of Chicago in 1909 in the fall." Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 157 "The Witness. I am talking about the local experts here." "Senator Landee. I was referring to the State." The report of Professor Depuy made in 1909 is pro- duced by the witness, who states that it says that they had examined an Empire machine. "Senator Landee. Q. Was not that Empire machine of the United States Standard type? "Mr. Deneen. That is what it was; owned by the Empire Company. Was it not? "A. No, it was an Empire, I assume. There is the signature. ' ' 697 Cross-Examination by Mr. McEtven. Witness had seen various reports of officials in the State of New Jersey in forming his knowledge of the efficiency, practicability and adaptability and advisability of purchasing them. They were on file in the Election Commissioners' office. Mr. McEwen shows witness several documents marked for identification 3/0, 4/0, 5/0, 6/0, 7/0 and 8/0. These documents witness identifies as those he referred to as having seen prior to the voting machine proceed- ings regarding which he has testified. 698-9 "Mr. McEwen. The document mentioned as 3/0 is described on the title page as the State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners' Eeport to the Governor, De- cember 30, 1905, does not say what State, but printed at Trenton, New Jersey, the one referred to as 4/0 is described as the annual report of the S'tate Board of Voting Machine Commissioners of New Jersey, of date December 31, 1906. The one marked 5/0 is described as the annual report of the Secretary of State regarding the use of machines, made in pursuance to provisions of Sec- tion 37 of Chapter 215 of the laws of 1905 of Chapter 268 of the laws of 1907. December 3Q, 1907. "Mr. Deneen. What state. New Jersey? "Mr. McEwen. These are all New Jersey. "Mr. Denebn. Yes. "Mr. McEwen. The one marked 6/0 is the annual re- port of the Secretary of State of New Jersey relative to paper ballots and voting machines and excerpts of the Annual Report of the Secretary of State dated December 158 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 22nd, 1908, treating on the paper ballots as used in New Jersey and other states and the use of voting machines in New Jersey. 7/0 is the report of the Committee in- vestigating ballots during the legislative session of 1908, 8/0 is the annual report of the Election Division of the Department of State including the report on voting ma- chines, December 21, 1909. ' ' Q. And those reports as you read them you consider all to be favorable! "The Witness. Yes, sir, eminently so." 699 As the witness read these reports he considered them all to be favorable. At the time of exercising his judgment on the voting machine matter and before he had learned "that there were several patents; I don't know how many, but a large number of valuable patents." The counters were substantially of the Veeder meter 670 pattern. They are made by the Veeder Cyclometer Com- pany and have to be bought by this company. There would be 700 of them in a machine of this size. They are used in every machine of the Empire 9-party, 70-key pat- tern. "Q. What were you informed at this time was the cost in royalties of each of these counters? A. Forty- five cents each. "Q. Of the 700? A. Yes, sir. "Q. So that there was involved in the cost of the ma- chine the sum of $315! A. Yes, sir. ' ' Q. And paid for, and the royalty to the Veeder Meter or Cyclometer Company — whatever the designation is, the sum of $315? A. Yes, sir, to each machine, and the other machines use the same meter, that is, the Veeder meter. Those are not printed, the Winslow and the Tri- umph use the Veeder meters also, I think. 701 The witness was informed at this time of the general use made of Veeder meters in voting machines and other devices. Testimony of Howard S. Tar/lor. 159 VOLUME IX. Tuesday, July 29, 1913. 9:30 o'clock A. M. 703 HowAED S. Taylor : Resumes the stand for further cross-examination by Mr. McEwen. The County Judge appoints the Election Commission- ers and they hold their sessions or meetings independ- ently of him, that is, he does not attend their sessions, usually.- Does not participate in the Election Commis- sion meetings at all ordinarily. The Commissioners con- 704 suit with him infonnally, individually. No part of the action of the Election Commissioners in regard to the voting machines was directed by the County Judge, ex- cept in the broad particular that he favored the install- ing of voting machines. Witness thinks that no act or vote, howevei", was induced or ordered by the County Judge further than that the Election Commissioners knew his views, and after the experts had reported that we had selected a machine, we understood from conversation with him that the County Judge approved of our action. "Mr. Deneen. Will you please read that last answer? (Answer read.) "Mr. McEwEN. In passing upon the subject of voting machines, had you considered the reports of the Illinois State Voting Committee or Commission, which were pro- duced here and identified by members of that commission the other day?" "Mr. McEwEN. Those reports I hold in my hands, and they are identified as 'Owens' Exhibits 1 and 2,' marked '0-1' and '0-2' for identification, portions of them were read and I offer them in evidence now. "Mr. Deneen. No objection." In passing upon the voting machine question witness had also considered the report of the special grand jury appointed by Judge Freeman, of which Mr. Loesch was special prosecutor, dated December 6, 1908; a certified copy of this report was on file in the office of the Election Commissioners. It was one of the earliest things that brought the voting machine project to our attention. 160 Grand Jury Report of November, 1908. 706 Grand jury was called to investigate alleged frauds particularly in the primaries of 1908 and, incidentally, to consider the subject of elections generally in Cook County. 708 The grand jury reports were then read in evidence : "To the "Hon. Henky V. Freeman, "Judge of the Criminal Court of Cook County. "We, the undersigned, empaneled by your Honor on November 4th, 1908, as a Special Grand Jury to investi- gate misdemeanors and crimes committed in connection with the primary election held in the County of Cook on the 8th day of August, 1908, respectfully present to the Court herewith our report and recommendations. The Special Grand Jury has found numerous true bills which have been returned into Court against persons who from the testimony produced before the Special Grand Jury appeared to be guilty of misdemeanors and crimes denounced by the laws of this state. In addition to the testimony directly bearing upon the crimes and misdemeanors, for which true bills were found, the Grand Jury heard much testimony regarding the con- duct of said primary election and also general elections, and find and report a deplorable condition of affairs in certain wards, not creditable to the officials who are charged by law with the conduct of elections and disgrace- ful to the City of Chicago, which has permitted such elec- tion frauds to go on almost unquestioned until this time. We find and so report that no confidence can be placed in the reported results of or against any candidates for a party nomination at said election, and yet that election cost the taxpayers of Chicago fully $75,000.00. Fraudulent registration leading to fraudulent voting; 709 repeating by platoons of men who were voted first for one party, then for other party candidates at the same precincts; voting names of absentees, non-residents, in- sane and dead men, accepting false affidavits on behalf of disqualified voters, known to the judges to be so; numerous and flagrant perjuries by party voters to enable them to cast illegal votes; taking votes from non-regis- tered voters without affidavits in support of such votes; fraudulent writing names on the poll books and putting ballots in the boxes to correspond ; keeping upon the regis- ters names of men who had removed from the respective Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. 161 precincts and voting tliem; voting the same name more than once at the same precinct; disfranchising voters by permitting their names to be voted by others; marking ballots after the boxes were opened; handing voters bal- lots already marked for certain candidates ; marking bal- lots for voters against their wishes and so putting ballots into the ballot box; intimidating voters and compelling them to vote for candidates contrary to their wishes; strangers and police officers being permitted to handle the ballots after the boxes were opened, so as to permit of fraudulent marking of ballots were proven before us and are by no means all of the devices which we have reason to believe were resorted to in violation of every provision of the election law intended for the security of 710 the voter, the sanctity of the ballot and the accuracy of the result and to defeat the will of the people as ex- pressed by the lawful votes, cast at said election. From the facts coming to our knowledge we express serious doubt whether there has been any honest general or city election in Chicago for years past. We report that in our opinion much of said fraudulent voting was done in pursuance of general schemes of cor- ruption, the nature, character and extent of which we had not the time to fully develop. Almost universally we found the persons immediately responsible for many of said election frauds to be men holding elective offices and men holding responsible sub- ordinate positions in the service of elected or appointed County Officials and of course paid by the taxpayers. Out of such facts grow the creation and continuance of offices serving no other purpose than to draw salaries from the taxpayers for assumed public services, but in fact being used to pay for venal services rendered to party bosses. We do not wish to say unqualifiedly that no election frauds were committed by civil service employes ; but we do report thus far in our investigations no civil service 710 employes, except policemen, have been found to be en- gaged in such frauds; and the attitude of the police is one of giving negative aid to such frauds by seeing and hearing nothing that was to the prejudice of their pat- rons, however well it may have been seen and heard by others no better situated than the policemen at the poll. 711 We are disappointed in having received no aid in the de- 162 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. tection of such frauds from the police officers appearing before us. The inference is a plain one to us, and it is that in the interest of fair elections and better government the com- ing Legislature should enact a comprehensive civil service law which shall apply strictly to every state, park and county office in the County of Cook, whether the ap- pointees are now appointed by the Governor or by the County Commissioners, clerks of courts, county clerk, sheriff, treasurer, or any other elective or appointed of- ficer of said county. We further report that corrupt, incompetent, irrespon- sible, illiterate and characterless men in numerous cases have been appointed and have acted as election judges and clerks of election manifestly in the interest of cor- rupt and venal persons or parties and for selfish ends to the scandal of the honest citizen and to the discredit of the superiors responsible for such appointments. 711 In respect to such appointees, we cannot hold the Elec- tion Commissioners blameless. It is the duty of the Elec- tion Commissioners in the first instance under the elec- tion laws to nominate and appoint honest and properly qualified judges and clerks in the manner and as desig- nated by the election law. We think that quite generally such judges and clerks have been selected and named by the precinct committeemen of the leading parties and 712 have thus become the active or willing tools of the pre- cinct committeemen in the work of corrupting the ballot. Sufficient care has not been exercised, in our judgment, to revise the selections of nominations for judges and clerks made by the ward and precinct committees to the election commissioners. It has been testified to before us and to a certain ex- tent it must be admitted to be true that there are sections of the City in which the Election Commissioners find it almost impossible to name competent and honest men to act as judges and clerks of the election. Conceding this to be so, we yet find that such incompetent and corrupt judges and clerks have not been confined to the districts referred to. But if such vicious sections were more numerous than they are, it is no sufficient reason for permitting the scan- dals to go on unrestrained to the degradation of our Grand Jury Makes Recommendations. 163 public life to the uncountable cost of the taxpayers and to the nullifying of the franchise of law-abiding citizens. 712 A remedy should and must be found in the laws to pre- vent the disorderly and vicious elements from exercising the pastime of stuffing ballot boxes in their disreputable haunts. It has been suggested that this evil may in part be 713 overcome by a supervising election official appointed di- rectly by the Governor and free from local influence as is the case in New York City, but this would not be an adequate remedy, would be expensive and would be hostile to home rule to which the people of Chicago are thoroughly committed. We do, however, recommend the following amendments to the election laws, and in this respect concur in the sug- gestions made to us by the Election Commissioners : First. The election law should be so amended as to require compulsory services, if need be, from* voters appointed to act as judges and clerks. There is good and better reason to require such com- pulsory service as there is in the case of grand and petit jurors and the service is less onerous. Secondly. That when the emergency exists the Election Commissioners shall be authorized to select qualified voters at large to be sent into other than their home pre- cincts to there act as judges and clerks. Thirdly. That the law provide for general Election Commissioners, whose duty it should be to see that all provisions of the election laws are complied with by the judges and clerks of the election and by voters ; these to be competent men of character and standing, with police authority, and to report upon the working of the law 714 and to be qualified to act as prosecutors in cases of viola- tion of the law. Fourthly. Some method of identification of the voter should be required at registration and at the poll, such as his signature or thumb impression to prevent repeat- ing and impersonation by other voters. The number of illiterate voters who cannot read or write the English or any other language makes it easy to cast fraudulent votes in their names or prevent such voters from voting according to their intention. The law seeks to protect them in their right by requiring one judge of each party to see to the marking of such voter's ballot, 164 Statement as to Voting Machines. but this was looked upon as almost a dead letter at the said primary election. Fifthly. Every candidate for any office, includino- the precinct committeeman, should be denied the right to be present in the polling booth, except during the easting of his vote, and should be denied the right to act as chal- lenger. Nor should candidates be permitted to enter poll- ing places on a round of visits or for any other purpose. The most active agent in the perpetration of frauds were the precinct committeemen, or candidates for such places, who acted as challengers and intimidated voters, coerced judges and clerks to do their bidding and aided and directed fraudulent and illegal voting. Sixthly. Amend the general election law so as to re- quire a revision of the registration prior to a primary election, so that any legal voter might have the oppor- tunity to register and vote and thus cut off the voting by affidavit, which was a prolific source of fraud at the pri- mary election. Seventhly. The Election Commissioners should bring before them all the election judges and clerks in election precincts where complaints are made of inefficiency, in- competency or frauds, or where they have reason to be- lieve without complaint that bad conditions exist, examine them according to law and replace many of the present judges and clerks with qualified men of good reputation. As every general election costs the taxpayers of Chi- cago fully $250,000.00, we should have at least fair elec- tions and accurate counts and returns. With the best intentions on the part of the judges and clerks, numerous errors are likely to occur where many candidates are voted for, and in a close election no real confidence can be placed upon the stated result under existing conditions. 715 Therefore, to reduce the opportunity for errors, pre- vent frauds, lessen the cost, secure the prompt announce- ment of the result of an election and prevent the holding back of announcement of results in one ward in order to defeat some candidate who had a lead in other wards, we recommend that satisfactory voting machines should be purchased and installed at each precinct at the earliest practical moment. There are difficulties in the way of so doing at once, but there was testimony given before us to the effect that Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 165 such voting machine suitable to Illinois elections would soon be upon the market, light in weight and at a very- reasonable cost compared with voting machines now be- ing made. As we are convinced from our investigations that much of the misgovernment of Chicago and Cook County and the waste of public money is due to frauds at primary elections, which are the first step in the election of public officials, we recommend and earnestly urge the continu- ance of the investigation which time did not permit us to conclude in order to detect and vigorously prosecute and punish those guilty of the crimes denounced by the elec- tion laws and thereby prevent a recurrence of such frauds, 716 misdemeanors and crimes. To that end we earnestly urge upon the Board of County Commissioners the making of a liberal appropriation for the Special State's Attorney to effectively carry on said work. We desire to express our obligations to the Board of Election Commissioners and to the chief clerk thereof for the prompt and efficient aid which has been daily ac- corded to us and to the Special State's Attorney in the investigation of said primary election frauds. We consider that the People of Cook County, in whose name and by whose authority we have conducted our de- liberations, have been outraged by the machinations of certain office-holders of the County which have resulted in the constant financial embarrassment of Special State 's Attorney Loesch and his aids. We denounce the men who have thrust upon the County the shame of forcing Mr. Loesch to perform his public duty without the com- pensation which he is entitled to, and which thus far, he has ably and conscientiously earned, and we denounce the measures by which these men have achieved this ignoble end, and we especially condemn the recent dis- graceful conduct of the Superintendent of Public Service, which deprives Mr. Loesch of reimbursement of funds for emergency and other expenses to the amount of 1511.14, which, with generosity and a high sense of duty, he advanced from his private purse. 717 We vote our unanimous thanks to Mr. Loesch for his courtesy and assistance to this Grand Jury and for the thorough manner in which he made his preliminary in- quiry before submitting testimony to our body. We com- mend the whole-souled and single-hearted devotion to his 166 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. public duty of this able special officer of the Ci'iminal Court, and his heroism in battling on in the face of the almost insurmountable barriers placed in his way by those who manifestly either must fear or be interested in stopping this inquiry. We further commend the able, honest and conscientious discharge of public duty of all of his assistants and in- vestigators ; also Mr. Ambrose H. Purdy, Mr. Walter F. 718 McEntire, Mr. Robert M. Buck, Chief Investigator, and more especially the untiring efforts of Mr. Frank Jani- seski in the impartial presentation of evidence to our body. We insist that the honor of Cook County can be vin- dicated only by a way being found by which fully to re- imburse Mr. Loesch for his expenditures and to com- pensate him for his time and service. J. S. Richardson, Foreman. Sam'l T. Jones, Sec. Special Grand Jury. Norman H. Davis. H. A. Smith. Frank V. Irish. J. W. Smithson. W. R. Ashton. Wm. Gillman. Adolph Leffett. Patrick E. Murnane. 718 Geo. W. Field. Martin B. Rogers. J. Mills. Chas. Guesten, Jr. H. F. Ahlswede. Chas. F. Stone. Henry A. Dedenwald. John J. Bryant. Thomas J. Condon. Daniel S. Stern. Florrin William Schmidt. John A. Wachter. J. Schmadic. Mr. McEwEN. Q. Doctor, you stated that you also 720 examined all the different reports of experts in the pre- vious examinations of these voting machines, I believe? A. Yes, sir. Q. I will show you a series of documents here pur- porting to be such reports of examinations. First, a re- port of November 15, 1907, of Professor DePuy, which I will ask to have marked Exhibit O-IO; also document of November 18, 1907, George Olson, to be marked 0-11 ; also document of November 15, 1907, purporting to be a report of Professor Breckenridge to be marked 0-12; relating to examinations of Winslow, Columbia, Dean, International, Triumph and United States Standard Ma- chines; and ask you whether those are part of the re- Reports of Experts Under Old Board. 167 ports that you examined. A. Yes, sir, those are the original reports filed in the office, which I have found there, and read a good many times. Mr. McEwEN. I might say to the Committee that I think we will be able to take a short cut on these and save some time. Q. I will also ask you to look at documents purport- ing to be reports of experts, which I will ask to have marked Exhibits 0-13, 0-14, and 0-15, respectively, re- lating to examinations in March, 1908. Mr. Deneen. By whom? Mr. McEwEsr. 0-13 purporting to be a report of an examination by C. E. DePuy; 0-14 purporting to be a report of an examination by George 0. Olson; 0-15 pur- porting to be a report of an examination by O. A. Leut- 721 weiler, and ask you the same question as to whether those were on file and examined by you prior to pass- ing on the subject of the voting machines. A. Yes, sir. Mr. McEwEN. I likewise show you what purports to be reports of experts of an examination made in Octo- ber, 1909, to be marked Exhibits 0-16, 0-17, and 0-18. Mr. Deneen. By whom? Mr. McEwEN. The first being one by DePuy, 0-16; the second by Olson, 0-17; the third by Leutweiler, 0-18, and ask you the same question as to whether those doc- uments were on file and read by you prior to the vot- ing machine proceedings of the Election Commissioners. A. Yes, sir. Mr. McP^wEN. I will show vou a series of documents, to be numbered 0-19, O-20, 0-21, 0-22 and 0-23; the first, 0-19 being an examination by DePuy, August 3, 1910, of a Caulkins machine; the second, O-20, an exam- ination by DePuy of a Triumph machine, July 20, 1910; 0-21 being an examination by DePuy of an Empire ma- chine of July 1, 1910; 0-22, being an examination by Olson, July 14, 1910, of an Empire machine, 0-23 being a report on several machines, July 14, 1910, — rather, a copy of a report by Olson and DePuy. That may be a duplication of those other reports, I can't tell. And will ask you the same question, as to whether they were on file and examined by you prior to the vote machine pro- ceedings. 168 The Reports Considered by Witness. . 722 A. Yes, sir. I recognize some of these as the orig- inals — Q. "While the last one there is a copy? A. — and the other is an office copy made of the entire lot of them. I found that in the office, however, on file with the rest of them. Q, And were considered by you? A. Yes, sir. Mr. McEwEN. I ought to have stated, — I believe I read the names of the group that was examined in 1907 ; the group examined in 1908 were the Winslow, Colum- bia, United States Standard, American Vote Register, the Willix and the Triumph. The ones in July and Au- gust, 1910, were the Caulkins, Empire and Triumph. Mr. Cannon mistakenly stated the Empire was the only one examined in that year. Q. You heard the reports of the three experts of 1911 read? A. Yes, sir; and I have read them many times. Q. If there is no objection, I will ask you to read the synopsis that you have prepared of the more prominent features that appealed to you in these voting machine proceedings. I ask this in the interest of saving time, rather than take the documents and go through them at length. Mr. Deneen. Will Ave get the copy of that letter! Mr. McEwEN. Yes, it can go right in the record. The Witness (reading) : "The reports of examina- tions made by experts under the present Board of Elec- tion Commissioners were two in number, viz: on June 20th and July 27th, 1911." Mr. McEwEN. Q. By the experts appointed by Judge Owens, or, selected by Judge Owens? A. Yes, I am calling the Committee's attention to that old error. If you will recall there was a pencil no- tation on a dateless report, which said "July 27th"; as a matter of fact, it w^as rendered earlier than that it w^as 724 on July 21st at least, before the signing of the contract. Mr. Deneen. Mr. Chairman, I will object to that. That is not responsive to the question, and I think he ought to correct it in interrogative form, if he means. to correct that statement. Let us make it responsive and then Judge McEwen can ask you about that. The Witness (reading): "The reason for two exam- inations ' ' — Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 169 Mr. Deneen. Pardon me. Is that matter stricken out about the 21st, and then he can ask about it later? The Chairman. Let that be stricken out. Let the an- swer be responsive. Mr. McEwEN. Q. Doctor, I will ask you at that point whether the date of July 27, 1911, refers to the docu- ment which was produced here, which was dateless, but bears a lead pencil memorandum, July 27, 1911, and purporting to be a supplemental report of the previous report; is that the document referred to? A. That is the document. Mr. McEwEN. All right, that is enough. Go ahead with the reading. The Witness (reading) : "The reason for two exam- inations was that the Empire Machine Company had on hand for the first examination only a 50-key machine, while the specifications required a 70-key machine. They did not wish to be at the expense of building a 70-key machine unless the Board would be ready to buy. 725 The specifications allowed the exhibition of a smaller machine, but provided that the bidder whose type of ma- chine was favored should, before contract was made, produce a machine of 9 columns and 70 keys which should be passed upon by the experts. This was done. The 50-key machine was examined in June and the 70-key machine in July, 1911. The experts of the present Board (Abbott, Chamber- lain and Wooley) examined all the machines presented in competition in June, 1911. The machines were the Empire, The Triumph, The International and the Wins- low. In their rating, p. 12, of their joint report, they estimated the merits of the several machines in the fol- lowing order: First, The Empire. Second, The Triumph. Third, The International. Fourth, The Winslow. They say, on p. 12, "Your commission believes that the voting machine art has been developed to a point where machines may be installed in Chicago with safety and economy and that such installation shall be the means of greatly minimizing the possibility of fraud at the polls." They say, on p. 4, 'Split voting with the Empire must 170 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. be done by pulling down individually the keys which represent the candidates to be voted for and this on a 70-key board will scarcely be done within the one min- ute's time permitted to each voter in the voting booth.' But they add, on p. 9, 'With the latter machine (the Empire) which has no party lever, split voting requires 726 a few seconds more time than is necessary to vote a split ticket on a machine equipped with a party lever. Your committee commission does not set this up as an important point, but think it should be brought to your attention. ' And they say of the Empire, on p. 4, 'The machine fulfills the requirements of the State law, is very well constructed of suitable and durable materials and is in convenient form for transportation.' Observe, too, that the State Voting Machine Commis- sioners April 26, 1911, certified of the Empire, "It is so constructed that each elector can understandingly and within the period of one minute cast his vote for all candidates of his choice." See certificate. In their last report on the Empire, July, 1911, the ex- perts recommended that change in the machine be made to have larger slots for writing in votes. This was pro- vided for in the contract and was done; Chamberlain, expert, who inspected the first invoice of machines, Feb. 1st, 1912, certified that the improvements had been made. A digest of expert reports made to the former Board of Election Commissioners gives the following points: A report was made in November, 1907. There Avere > six machines examined, viz: The Winslow, Columbia, Dean, International, Triumph and U. S. Standard. Three of the above machines now belong to the Em- pire Company, The Dean, The Columbia and U. S. Stand- 727 ard; and the Empire owned them at the time of the Chi- cago Contract. The experts who made this 1907 exam- ination were Olson, DePuy and Breckenridge. A second examination was made in March, 1908. The experts were Olson, DePuy and Leutweiler; and the ma- chines examined were the Winslow, Columbia, U. S. Standard, American, AVillix and Triumph, Two of these, ■Columbia and U. S. Standard, belong to the Empire Company. Digest of Reports to Former Board. 171 A third examination was made in October, 1909. The experts were Olsen, Leutweiler and DePuy; and the ma- chines examined were the Empire, Triumph, Willix and Winslow. A fourth examination was made in July, 1910, by Ol- son and DePuy, and the machines examined were the Caulkins, Empire and Triumph. Note that in all these examinations some one of the machines owned by the Empire Company were always rated highest. Thus: In 1907 Olson reported of the U. S. Standard, 'I con- sider it the best machine on the floor.' DePuy did not make comparison; and Breckenridge gave the U. S. Standard first place, saying, 'The machine which best fulfills the requirements of a voting machine for the City of Chicago from the standpoint of good mechanical de- sign, good construction, sound mechanical principles, good materials, accuracy and simplicity of operation and 728 recording is the United States Standard Voting Ma- chine. Second in rank and not far behind the first choice I should place the Columbia Voting Machine.' In 1908 all three of the experts gave the U. S. Standard and the Columbia the preference. In this examination Mr. Olson seems to have reached a point where he re- garded machines as purchasable. He said: "In answer- ing question No. 18, 'From your examination and study of the several voting machines are they in your opinion sufficiently perfected so that you would advise the Board to purchase any one of them at this time?' My answer is yes — from a mechanical standpoint, only." In his re- port on both the U. S. Standard and the Columbia, he said, "This machine is very practical in every way as certain conditions complained of in my last report have been successfully overcome." In 1909 Leutweiler was the only expert who graded the machines : He gave first place to the Empire. The other two experts constructively did the same. In 1910 DePuy, reporting on the Empire machine said: "The machine presented, I believe, will receive and re- cord votes in an election accurately and quickly after the machine is adjusted and the voters have received proper instruction and will thus simplify the work of judges and clerks in securing correct returns. To offset these ad- vantages, however, the machine is large, heavy and diffi- 172 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. cult to move and store." P. 3. Depuy also said in this 729 report: "The material, workmanship and general de- sign are of the same excellent character as shown on the machine previously exhibited; and I believe that this machine would be durable and reliable in action." P. 1. At this same examination (July, 1910), Olson, the other expert (there were but two) said of the Empire: "This machine seems to have been designed and built with the sole idea of complying with the Illinois law and they have no doubt succeeded but they have lost sight of the many problems confronting a large city, such as transportation, storage and repairs. The machine is en- tirely too heavy and composed of too many parts and I consider it unwise to purchase any machine of this type at the present time, as I am convinced we can look for great improvements in the near future. The material used in the construction of this machine could not in my opinion be improved on. The workmanship is first class," etc. Apparently, from DePuy's examination of 1910, the only objections he made were: a. Weight. b. Possibility of custodian adjusting machine before election so as to defraud. Olson's objections at the 'same examination were: a. Weight. b. Voter who votes straight party vote wishes to see all pointers come down instead of one. 730 c. The Company's requirement that machine should "set on level floor" — which he thought indicated defec- tive legs. d. Not large enough for primary election. The answers to those objections are as follows: Weight. Indianapolis has for eleven years used suc- cessfully a heavier machine. Theirs weighs 1,400 pounds. Ours 950 pounds ; and the Empire has been used in sev- eral elections in Chicago without difficulty. Straight vote. Turning down one pointer gives the voter as much information as turning down 70 pointers. In either case the voter cannot see the interior of the machine and know what has been recorded. The one pointer turned down is analogous to the one cross at the head of a ticket. Testimony of Hotvard S. Taylor. 173 Possibility of custodian manipulating counters before election. It could not be done. One set of employes before elec- tion sets the counters of the machine. Another set of employes inspects and reports to the custodian. Both reports are in writing giving status of machine and counters and both reports must agree. Further, the judges and clerks of election must inspect the counters on election morning and see that all counters are set at zero. Not large enough for primaries. Mere speculation; but if at any primary one machine be too small two would be used and paper ballots could be furnished for the time in precincts where machines are not supplied." The Chairman. Doctor, that is prepared by your- self? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Jayne. On what date? A. This was comparatively recent, but it was a com- pilation I made from an old digest, in fact, four or five of them. 732 Mr. Deneen moves to strike the memorandum from the record as he has understood it was prepared before this investigation was called. "Mr. McEwEN. It is made simply to obviate the neces- sity of making these reports. "The Witness. The matter was prepared before this investigation begun, two or three weeks before. "Mr. McEwEN. It is not offered on the theory that it is evidence but simply as a time saver." 736 Mr. Deneen renews objection. Witness explains that the memorandum was part of the preparation he made for the little book or pamphlet entitled "The Truth About the Voting Machine Deal." Mr. Deneen 's objection is sustained and memorandum stricken out. 739 Mr. McEwen here offered in evidence documents which had been identified as Exhibits 10 to 23, inclusive : — 174 Report of C. E. DePuy. Clarence E. DePuy. 742 Mechanical Engineering and Shopwork. Lewis Institute. Chicago. Points Noted Concerning Construction and Operating of Voting Machines. Columbia. Voting action is produced by cams and links and is positive. Parts are few, well designed, well made and appar- ently are durable. Springs are not used at all. Steel stems are too thin to push the wedges down pos- itively. Stems for the question keys are too short; sometimes the lower end catches on top of the ad.joining wedges, causing them to buckle. Bars between restricting wedges are too short to allow them to swing over far enough to vote easily a group of 10 or more if taken in adjoining end columns. Counters should be held in cases like the one used for the straight ticket, and like those also should have a mark on the first disc to set zero. Making the zeros a different color is convenient. Cumulative vote attachment is very simple and easily set anywhere and makes the number of votes nearly 748 positive. There must be 3 votes for 1 candidate. 1-1/2 votes for 2 candidates. 1 vote for one, two or three candidates. It is not possible to set for 2-1/2 votes, but a man does 743 not necessarily vote for all three if he uses the single candidate group. U. S. Standabd. Voting action is produced in the main by cams, al- though there are several springs used, and in some places they control important motions. Construction is good, but there are many parts, and some are not readily accessible. Restricting wedges stick in some cases, causing keys already set to turn back while setting others. Cumulative vote attachment can be adjusted on ma- BePuy Report — Continued. 175 chines between columns 6 and 26 Tjut cannot be moved the entire length. The device is somewhat complicated and needs care and skill to adjust. It does not make number of votes positive, for it may be set for 2-1/2 votes. Abbott ob Winslow. Voting action is produced by levers and gears and is positive, no springs are used. The general design and construction are not good, and some essential parts are not very durable. 744 Position of keys are not positive; after one is set it may be moved again in setting others, especially in group voting. Grouping device is controlled by a chain giving much friction, which makes the action unreliable. With a cer- tain grouping it is possible to vote 19 vertical columns and 23 in horizontal rows. After a mixed group has been voted, it is very difficult to vote a straight ticket, for the lever moves very hard, caused by the necessary readjustment of the grouping mechanism. In arranging machine for voting a given ticket it is difficult to connect or disconnect keys and party levers, because opening in front is too small. Counter wheels have duplicate sets of numbers, the reason is not apparent. One set of large figures would seem to be more desirable. Triumph. Voting action is produced by gears and eccentrics and seems to be positive, but connection to counters is not substantial and may become disarranged. Setting counters to zero is inconvenient. Grouping is governed by a chain which gives much friction under certain conditions. Bestricting action is produced by the same chain and is not always reliable. 746 Group voting is satisfactory, but the cumulative vot- ing arrangement does not restrict it to the exact num- bers. The means of recording the vote and setting the count- ers is cumbersome. (Signed) C. E. DePuy. 176 Report of G. 0. Olson. Mr. McEwEN. I next offer and read into the record 747 the report of Geo. 0. Olson, dated November 18th : Exhibit "0-11." November 18, 1907. Board of Election Commissioners, City of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Gentlemen : — At your request I have made an examination of the six voting machines installed in your offices and beg to sub- mit the following reports, which I enclose in separate envelopes. I would recommend that the box for the ma- chine selected be made as near dust-proof as possible. Yours very truly, (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson." Nov. 18, 1907. TJ. S. S'tandaed. The material used in the construction of this machine 748 is practically as specified in their bid. But the device for cutting out candidates is too weak in construction and very liable to be broken when making the adjustment. This defect is not at all serious as in making up the machines this part can be made a little heavier. Grouping for 10 County Commissioners or 14 Circuit Court Judges is readily accomplished on any part of the machine and very easily handled. The legislative vote can be applied to any part of the 749 machine providing the extension is made on all the vot- ing levers. This attachment is easily applied but the manufacturer should provide some handy tool for han- dling the interlocking straps and 'make it easier to han- dle. It is set to vote one, 1-1/2 or three votes independently and is a very practical device. It will also allow of 2-1/2 votes being registered on the voting keys whicli is a de- fect that I understand the manufacturers claim to be able to remedy. This machine is secure against manipulation having a custodian's key provided to unlock the glass doors, the Olson Report — Continued. 177 record can be taken off very easily without opening these doors at the Polling Place. I -wish to call your special attention to the raising and lowering device which is a very great improvement and should ibe given the greatest consideration. Also to the automatic closing of the curtains which is in my opinion very essential. The counters are returned to zero very easily. Re- stricted voters device is very simple and easily handled. Ballot lock is secure and easy to handle. The face of this machine is very plain and very easy to read and does not in my opinion confuse the voter. AVorkmanship and mechanical construction in this ma- chine is very good and I consider it the best machine on the floor. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson." ''Nov. 18, 1907. Abbott. The material used in the construction of this machine is practically as specified in their bid. But the steel that enters into the construction of the doors and the frame that holds the ballots is entirely too light and is very liable to be bent out of shape in handling. The chain Avhich controls the voting mechanism inside of the ma- chine is very liable to cast 2-1/2 or 3-1/2 vote but only three will be counted. The voting for 10 County Commissioners in two col- 750 umns across the board or for candidates in 5 different parties only 9 votes can be counted. For lack of time I did not try to group this machine for 14 Circuit Court Judges. The restricted voters' device is very easily handled. The method of returning counters to zero by unloosen- ing a set screw and using a screw driver is very slow. On this machine it is necessary to use two levers to cast a straight party vote which would be very confus- ing to the voter. The face of the machine is too congested and hard to read. The workmanship is fair but for the defects which have been enumerated. 751 . (Signed) Geo. 0. Olsok." 178 Olson Report — Continued. "Nov. 18, 1907. Intebnattoxal. The material used in the construction of this machine is practically as specified in their bid. This machine is constructed of many small parts and is very liable to get out of order for that reason. I am satisfied that if it was stored for six months that you could not move the party lever as there would be a great liability that the slides would gum up and stick. A great many of the keys are very hard to move at the present time. Voting for County Commissioners in two columns up the board or voting for two commissioners in five differ- ent parties you can only cast 9 votes. Did not try group- ing for 14 Circuit Court Judges as the manufacturers did not supply a grouping piece for that number. In group- ing it is necessary to have a separate -piece for each num- ber you wish to group and the pieces would not be part of the machine, only an attachment. Voting for Legislators is done by casting two 1-1/2 votes, one for each or 3 for one candidate must be writ- ten on paper provided in small tubes and dropped into the machine. This is very impractical and should con- demn any machine. 752 The voting lever can be moved without the assistance of the judges. The restricted voters device is simple and easily oper- ated. The counters are positively locked against manipula- tion in fact so much that it takes three men to get at them as it takes that number to turn the table over. There is something radically wrong with the metal in the counters as on opening the machine I found any num- ; ber of teeth broken off, which I enclose in an envelope for your inspection. Ballot holding is very crude as you must take out small screws from the strips that hold them. "Workmanship fair. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson." Olson Report — Continued. 179 "Nov. 18, 1907. Columbia. The material used in the construction of this machine is practically as specified in their bid. But the steel tape which draws the wedges into the limited space is too light, and buckles when you wish to release a key. In voting for 10 County Commissioners in two col- iimns down the board or voting for two commissioners in five different parties, the keys cannot be released in- dependently. The cause of this is the buckling of this steel tape. The same thing occurs when you group ma- chine for 14 Circuit Court Judges only in this case you can vote for 15 judges. The grouping device is practical and easily adjusted to all positions and I am of the opinion that the manu- facturers can remedy these defects. The straight party vote is controlled by one pointer and the voter cannot tell from the board what candidate he has voted for. This is very simply constructed from the manufacturers' point of view, but I think very unsat- 753 isfactory for the voter. The counters are not positively locked as when the back doors are open it is only necessary to move a small catch and lift a rod and the counters can be removed from the machine. This can be remedied by having a custodian's lock. If the manufacturers have provided for this I failed to discover it. Voting for Legislators is provided for in three col- umns and the device is shown on a smaller model which can be easily applied to the sample machine. The device 754 is very practical and is positive in its action. Total vote counter can be easily manipulated when doors are open, but this can be remedied by taking ofif a small knob. The restricted voters device is very simple and very easily operated. Curtains have not been provided and it will be neces- sary to remove them from the machine and^ quite difficult to put them back again. This is not a good method as the bars or channels which hold the counters are liable to sret damaged. The workmanship is first class. I would recommend that the cam roller and cam bars be made about 1/4" thicker at the working parts and be case hardened. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson." 180 Olson Report — Continued. "November 18, 1907. Triumph. Material used in the construction of this machine is practically as specified in their bid. This machine is weak in construction in the grouping mechanism the slack of the chain cannot be taken up readily and in some combinations of votes the rack and pinion device allows of too much lost motion which makes it difficult of adjustment. Grouping is easily ac- complished on any part of the machine. Voting for 10 755 County Commissioners the 10th vote works very hard and in some combinations you can vote 12 votes or in a group of 14 Circuit Court judges 16 votes can be counted. Voting for legislators is done by casting two 1^ votes with the keys, but if you wish to vote 1 for each or 3 for one candidate you must write the name on the paper for independent candidates. This is very impractical and should condemn any machine. The counters are not positively locked as when the back doors are open it is only necessary to move the vot- ing lever to a middle position to get out the counters. A custodian key should be provided. 755 The device for locking ballots is very crude. Workman- ship only fair. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson. "Nov. 18, 1907. Dean. The material used in the construction of this machine is practically as specified in their bid. The party levers do not draw the voting studs down far enough to lock the counters, and it is necessary to push them down independently if you wish to count your vote, as in this operation each counter is locked. Grouping device is very difficult to handle and very in- tricate, and I am of the opinion that an expert would be 756 necessary to handle this part of the machine. I did not try to group for 14 Circuit Court Judges as the smallest grouping block was No. 11. The Legislative voting device is a special attachment, but can be applied to any part of the machine. In voting for Legislators the voter must cast a full com- Olson Report — Continued. 181 plement of votes before he can register. He cannot vote independently at all. The face of this machine is too congested and very hard to read. I am of the opinion that a machine to he practical must be read by looking straight at the board while standing up. The counters are positively locked (or unlocked in this case) against manipulation. Eestricted voters' device was out of order and would not work. The device for locking ballots is practical. Returning counters to zero is very practical and easily handled. The mechanical construction lacks simplicity. (Signed) George 0. Olson. November 18, 1907. 757 GrEORGE 0. Olson's Report on Voting Machines. Machines examined were: Winslow (Abbott). Columbia. Dean. International. Triumph. United States Standard. 759 Mr. McEwEN. The next document in the report of Prof. Breckenridge, dated November 15, 1907, is as. fol- lows: "Exhibit 0-12." Report of the Examination of Six Voting Machines for The Board of Election Commissioners, of the City of Chicago, Illinois. Approved. L. P. Breckenridge, Professor of Mechnnical Engineering, University of Illinois. Urbana, Illinois, November 15, 1907. 182 Report of L. P. Breckenridge. Urbana, Illinois, November 15, 1907. The Board of Election Commissioners , of the City of Chicago, Illinois. Genttj5Men : I take pleasure in handing you herewith enclosed my report on the examination of six voting machines for the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago. I trust that this report will cover the ground desired. If I can be of further assistance to you in this matter, command me. Yours respectfully, (Signed) L. P. Breckestridgbi. Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois. "Urbana, Illinois, November 15, 1907. The Board of Election Commissioners, of the City of Chicago, Illinois. Gentlemen : In accordance with your request, I have examined the six voting machines named elsewhere in this report, and I have the honor to present the following opinions : Names of Machines. The following machines were examined : 1. Winslow Voting Machine, by Abbott Voting Machine Company. 2. Columbia Voting Machine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 760 3. Dean Ballot Machine, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. International Voting Machine, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Triumph Voting Machine, Pittstield, Massachusetts. 6. United States Standard Voting Machine, Rochester, New York. Basis of Examination. The opinions expressed in this report are based on a series of grades given in two tables which follow : Grade Table No. 1 contains a series of questions or points referred to me by the Board of Election Commissioners Breckenridge Report — Continued. 183 and Grade Table No. 2 contains a series of points pre- pared by the writer containing some additional points of considerable importance bearing on the final decisions as to the rank of these machines. Voting Macjhine Contest foe the City of Chicago. Grade Table No. 1.— November 9, 1907. (A) — Questions prepared by Commissioners. "3 a No. QUESTION o < 3 S "3 O s 03 Q E CD a ■a 1 761 A. Mechanical Construc- tion 90 95 100 75 75 100 B. Mechanical Action 60 95 80 80 60 100 100 90 85 100 75 100 85 50 85 100 762 C. Counting Mechanism — Reliability of all parts 100 100 75 D. Counters — Positiveness of action. Fimmess in position. Clinging or freezing of parts. Which has best protection against fraudulent ma- nipulation 100 80 90 90 90 100 E. Strength and delicacy as to all parts and en- tire machine F. Preventive action. That is, will permit of voting proper number of candi- dates only G. Liability to get out of order, bv accident, de- sign, rust, or otherwise 100 80 100 H. Grouping of candidates. Capacity to arrange for on any part of machine 100 100 100 90 90 100 I. Party lever — How much more difficult will it be to operate it, on an 8 or 9 column machine with 70 100 184 Breckenridge Report — Continued. No. 1 QUESTION < es 3 B 3 O D ■§. S H D 50 keys if stored for six months or year 95 J. Which machine would be the least liable to be fraudulently manipulat- ed 95 K. Simplicity of arranging and preparing for vot- ing 100 L. Which permits of group voting with greatest ease and reliability M. Cumulative vote for legislative candidates — which machine shows best method for count- ing, i. e., — 1 vote each for 3 candidates, 1^ votes each for 2 candi- dates, 3 votes for 1 can- didate N. Also grade as to capac- ity of machine to ar- range for cumulative voting on any part of machine 100 0. Are any springs used on machine (2) 100 90 90 90 95 85 95 100 100 100 50 100 90 90 85 100 100 100 50 100 80 . 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Total points Average grade 1054 1355 1065 1025 910 1395 74.7 96.8 76.1 85.5 70 99.8 5 2 4 2 6 1 (1) Applies to small Columbia. (2) Cannot grade on this question — there were very 763 few springs used on any of these machines that were visible. The specifications must be consulted for an an- swer to this question. Breckenridge Report — Continued. 185 Voting Machine Contest foe the City of Chicago. Grade Table No. 2— November 9, 1907. (B) — Points suggested by writer. -t3 No. QUESTION •?5 ■*j .2 3 ■■s ■§. 1h a cS ■§.£fJ o J C3 s 1 M "3 " Si < o P -.id '^4 H ^ P. Simplicity of oper- ations before vot- ing 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 Q. Simplicity of oper- ations in voting straight ticket 70 70 (1) 100 90 85 90 95 E. Simplicity of oper- ations in voting . split ticket 80 60 85 70 65 90 100 S. Ease of manipu- lation 50 80 100 (4) 75 90 95 T. Accuracy of re- cording mechanism 100 65 80 100 65 100 (2) (4) (6) TJ. Permanency of rec- ords 100 100 lOO 100 100 100 100 (5) V. Excellency of workmanship 100 90 95 100 75 75 100 W. Character of de- sign 100 60 90 75 60 75 100 X. Correct selection of material 100 90 95 100 85 80 100 764 Y. Ease of provision for cumulative vot- ing 100 80 lOO 100 ? 100 (3) (5) (7) Z. Accuracy of plan for voting 10 coun- ty commissioners 100 100 100 100 Total points 795 1045 915 845 765 1090 Average grade 72.3 95 83.2 84.5 69.5 99.0 5 2 4 3 6 1 Position of voting board, ** Vertical or horizontal Vert. Vert. Hor. Hor. Vert. Vert. 186 Breckenridge Report — Continued. (1) Required 2 handles to vote 1 ticket. (2) Yes and no were interchanged. (3) Plan on small machine examined. (4) Machine out of order, might have graded S-95, T-95, if it works. (5) Apparently correct, but could not easily exam- ine. (6) Index to candidates tended to fly back when vot- ing other candidates of same party. (7) No plan provided. (8) Average includes grades on machine assumed in working order, see footnote (4). 765 The Method of Grading. It should be stated that the method of grading used in the tables consisted in selecting what appeared to be that machine best satisfying the point or question under consideration and marking that macliine 100 for that point. The other machines were then graded as they compared with the 100 mark given the first machine. Doubtless some comparative weights should be as- signed to the several points on which marks were given. In Grade Table No. 2, prepared by the writer, such weights have been suggested. No attempt has been made by the writer to give weights to the questions submitted by the Commissioners as exhibited in Grade Table No. 1, so that the final relative standing as deduced in this table assumes an equal weight for each question. Where no grade is given in the tables, the writer was not pre- pared to mark that point because of lack of exact knowl- edge of all the facts. No points of great importance are left without grades. Result of Examination. As the result of my examination I am of the opinion that the machine which best fulfills the requirements of a voting machine for the City of Chicago from the stand- point of good mechanical design, good construction, sound mechanical principles, good materials, accuracy and sim- plicity of operation and recording is the United States Standard Voting Machine manufactured by the U. S. Standard Voting Machine Co., Rochester, New York. 766 Second in rank and not far behind the first choice I should place the Columbia Voting Machine, manufactured by the Columbia Voting Machine Company, Indianapolis, Indiana. Breckenridge Report — Continued. 187 Various faults of design, construction, character of materials or poor operation place the other four ma- chines considerably below the first two and it would not be just to attempt any comparative ranking of these four machines. Bespectfully submitted, (signed) L. P. Breckenridge, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois. "Supplemental to report on Voting Machines for the City of Chicago: For purposes of publication, if such should be desired, it may be that the preceding report is sufficient. You requested me, however, to make any statements I might choose setting forth my reasons for certain opinions ad- vanced in this report, and this I have decided to do in the followdng pages which may be regarded as supple- mental to the main report. General. Discussion op Pbinciples Invovx.ed in the Opin- ions Expressed. When any mechanical device is invented and con- 767 structed to accomplish a new purpose or to perform an or- dinary service in a new way, it is frequently the duty of an engineer to pass judgment on such new device or apparatus as to its value or as to its efficiency in accom- plishing the specific purpose for which it was designed. There are three fundamental principles which must be given consideration in the attempt to reach a just con- clusion in all such examinations. The principles re- ferred to are concisely expressed by three words: De- sign, construction, materials. If perfection is to be reached, each of these three principles must be under- stood and intelligently used in the construction of any and all engineering works or manufactured articles. Design. The design of a mechanical device, a typewriter, for instance, will take many and varied forms according as the designer wishes to emphasize some special features or because he gives much attention to those methods of production which will result in cheapness of first cost. Just which form will appeal to the public cannot always be foreseen. But whatever the final shape taken by any 188 Breckenridge Report — Continued. device may 1>e, there are certain mechanical principles which must not be violated or the design is defective. 768 Again, when a machine is designed which must be op- erated by many different people, it is highly important that not only may this machine be correctly operated by such as are generally familiar with similar mechanisms, but it must be so designed that it cannot be wrongly op- erated by those unfamiliar with mechanical devices in general. It must then be so simple and so easily oper- ated that it will be clear to the operator that he has prop- erly operated it. On the matter of design there will be much opportunity for a difference of opinion. This will be due to the difference in the training of the experts whose opinion is expressed. The practical expert may entirely overlook a violation of the principles of mechan- ics, and the theoretical expert may fail to comprehend that certain methods of construction used are vital to the design if the machine is to be made a commercial suc- cess. While therefore the matter of design is of the ut- most importance it might easily occur that there should be in this respect a wide difference of opinion among ex- perts making a careful examination of any device, as well as among the users and purchasers of the device it- self. Construction. By this is meant the character of the workmanship em- ployed in carrying out the constructive plans contem- plated by the design. Good workmanship can be passed upon easily by expert or non-expert alike. Good con- struction at the right points is essential to satisfactory and lasting operating. Poor construction may easily 769 ruin a good design. Inferior construction may sometimes be justified in early models where the machine does not enter into competition with other machines, but when it does enter into such competition the workmanship should at least be equal to that which is contemplated for the machine when it is placed on the market. Materials. The determination of the materials to be used for each part of a machine might rightfully be considered as a part of the design. It is, however, of so much importance that the writer prefers to give it equal prominence with design and construction. The materials used in any ma- Breckenridge Report — Continued. 189 chine should be chosen with reference to their strength, durability, ease of manufacture, adaptability, and cost. Opinions may differ somewhat as to the best material suited for various machine parts, and the change in the price of some metal such as zinc or copper might make the use of different materials justifiable at different times. The mistakes to be avoided are the uses of materials which deteriorate either in use or when at rest. The use 769 to which the machine is to be put will often determine the material to be used. While only steel or wrought iron is permissible in a power plant boiler, neither of these ma- terials should be allowed in a residence heating boiler, the latter demanding cast iron, which endures non-use in summer much better because of its lesser tendency to rust. Appucation of the Above Principles to the Voting Ma- chines Examined. The matter immediately preceding this section has been presented in order to indicate in a general way the point of view of the writer, which has resulted in the opinion expressed in this report. With this explanation, there need only be recorded a brief statement as to how each of the machines examined fulfills or fails to fulfill those conditions which should be made to determine the stand- ing of any and all mechanical devices. 1. Winslow Voting Machine. (1) The design (60) was defective as follows: (a) Must operate two handles to vote one straight ticket. (b) Position of black pins whether out or in not easily observed. (c) The plan for group voting is defective because a 770 chain is used to determine the number of candidates that may be voted for. (2) The construction was satisfactory. (90.) (3) The materials were satisfactoiy. (90.) 771 2. Columbia Voting Maddne. (1) The design (90) was good and could easily be made a satisfactory machine. Should criticise : (a) Split ticket not easily voted and it is not very clear what has been voted. (2) The construction was very satisfactory. (95.) (3) The materials were satisfactory. (95.) 190 Breckenridge Report — Continued. 3. Bean Ballot Machine. (1) The design (75) was defective as follows: (a) Horizontal board not as good as vertical. (b) Positions of square pins not easily observed. (c) Voting pins not easily operated without moving others. (d) Sacrificed clearness for compactness. This machine was evidently out of order when exam- ined, which gave it low-grade mark, but even in working order its design is defective as indicated above. (2) The construction was most excellent. (100.) (3) The materials were very satisfactory. (100.) 4. International Voting Machine. (1) The design (60) was defective as follows: (a) Horizontal board not as good as vertical. (b) Position of voting pins not easily observed. (c) Sacrificed clearness for compactness. (d) Some parts of machine were too small. 772 (e) Much difficulty in arranging for the printing of results. (2) The construction (75) was not easily seen inter- nally, but in general was not up to the grade of some other machines. (3 The materials (85) were fairly satisfactory. 5. Triii/mph Voting Machine. (1) The design (75) was defective as follows: (a) The use of a chain for group voting made tamper- ing possible, a poor mechanical device for this purpose. (b) Voting pins turned down would fly back when other names in same part were voted. (c) Was not arranged for all means of voting called for in the specifications. (2) The construction (75) was not very good. (3) The materials (80) were not well selected for pre- vention of rust when machine was out of use. 6. United States Standard Voting Machine. (1) The design (100) was evidently the best of the machines examined. The grade of 100 does not signify perfection of design, but only means that this machine should be graded the highest and so it is marked 100 so that the other machines may be easily compared with it. (2) The construction (100) was most excellent. (3) The materials (100) were very satisfactory. Breckenridge Report — Continwed. 191 Explanations. In the above brief review there has been inserted the grade numbers from the grade table No. 2. This serves to show just what valuation has been put on the three important points which may in a measure be taken to represent the standing of these machines. In Conclusion. The problems which are presented to the designer of voting machines are certainly complicated and difficult. It is evident that the designers and the builders of the six machines upon which a report has herein been pre- sented have all made a most careful and intelligent study of the problem. It has not been a simple undertaking to form an opinion which shall do exact justice to all of the machines examined. 773 AVhenever any point of defective design or construc- tion was clearly evident in any machine, that particular machine was not as carefully examined for grading under other points. Still, after all, the writer feels that the re- sult of grading the several points considered, reaches a result corresponding with that general all around opinion which is formed by an inspection of the various machines, combined with an attempt to operate each machine ac- cording to the directions furnished and from the point of 774 view which would be taken by the great mass of voters for the use of whom the machine was designed. I desire to express to your honorable Board my appre- ciation of the confidence you repose in me when you ask my opinion as to the merits, from a mechanical stand- point of the voting machines submitted for purchase, to the City of Chicago. I thank you for your assistance rendered during the days of the examination. I trast you will find hopeful suggestions in what I have reported. Eespectfully submitted, (Signed) L. P. Breokenbidgb, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois. 192 Report of C. E. DePuy. Nov. 15, 1907. Professor Breckenridge's Report on Voting Machines; Machines examined were Winslow (Abbott). Columbia. Dean. International. Triumph. U. S. Standard. Mr. McEwEN. I am reading from 0-13, report of C. 775 DePuy, on the American Vote Register, the Columbia, Triumph, U. S. Standard, Winslow and Willix. I will read his resume and then confine my reading, I think, to the U. S. Standard and Einpire Machine unless the other side should prefer to have it all. Mr. Deneen. It will all be printed in full in the record. Mr. McEwEN. Oh, yes. Mr. Deneex. Regardless of what you read? Mr. McEwEN. Yes, I assume so ; I am furnishing them with copies that are offered in evidence. Mr. Beneejst. All right. The Chairman. What is the date please? Mr. MoEwEN. The date is March 9, 1908, the next year. Points Noted Regaeding Voting Machines. The grading of these voting machines on the basis asked is, in some respects difficult, and I fear may be the cause of some misunderstanding. The counters, for instance, are nearly all made by the Veeder Cyclometer Company, and are of practically the same construction, and hence are of the same reliability. On the Winslow and U. S. Standard machines the counters are made on the same principle, but the parts are larger, and, I think, more durable. They are not enclosed in separate cases, but are embodied in the general construction of the machines. On the Winslow there is a spring hook that catches over a ratchet wheel attached to the unit counter which turns the wheel one notch for each vote. The counter is good, but the connection may not be positive, always. 776 The Standard operates in a similar way, but has not a spring catch. DePtiy Report — Continued. 193 The Columbia has each counter pinned on a square shaft that makes a complete revolution for each vote or unit on the counter, and I consider the action more posi- tive and the Avhole mechanism more reliable, although the counters are not secured as rigidly on the machine as those on either the Winslow or the Standard. The counters on the Triumph machine are rigidly held in place, and the voting action is positive, but the pin, through which connection to the counter is made, is not substantially held onto the counter disc, and I think will in time work loose. The keys on this machine do not seem to be very firmly held in the voting position, and after being once set are sometimes moved back to the non- voting position in the manipulation of other keys. The method employed for restricting the number of votes is practically the same on the Columbia, the U. S. Standard, and the Winslow, but the number of pieces employed is much less on the Columbia, and the action is smooth, and I think reliable. A more positive action would be secured, however, by making the steel strips connecting the voting keys to the restricting wedges thicker, and hence stiffer. I found that the wedges do not always go down the en- tire distance. The restricting wedges used on the revised Triumph Machine are a great improvement over the chain, but the action is not as positive as it ought to be. The restriction depends entirely on the width of the wedges at the line of action, and a little wear on the wedges, pins or raising strips will change this ^vidth 777 enough to make a large group unreliable. On the three machines before mentioned the wedges become parallel blocks in the voting position, and a little wear on the lifting mechanism will not aflfect the number that can be voted. The principle used in restricting the cimiulative vote is also the same on the Columbia, the U. S. Stand- ard, and the Winslow, but again the Columbia has much the simpler construction. The possibility of adjustment and result are the same on the IT. S. Standard, but there are many more pieces employed, and they are much more delicate and more likely to get out of order. On the Wins- low machine the number of combinations is not as great, and the device cannot be moved to another part of the machine without also changing the raising strips and wedges, which would add considerable work and annoy- ance. 194 DePuy Report — Continued. As a result of my investigations of the six macliines shown, if I were to choose one of them, I should select the Columbia. It seems to accomplish all that any of them will, except that it does not show the actual arrange- ment when voting the straight ticket; it has fewer parts than any of the others, and is simpler to adjust and main- tain in the proper working order. The U. S. Standard. This machine also meets all the requirements as to the arrangement of tickets and group voting, but it has many parts and springs which make it quite complicated, and I think it might be difficult to maintain. It is also heavj' and hard to transport. The Winslow. 778 This machine is not as readily adjustable to any and all conditions as it should be, and the action is not always positive in voting a ticket, the knobs do not return to their extreme position, which makes it possible to tell by inspection some, at least, of the candidates that have been voted. The Triumph. The changes made in this machine make it much more reliable than it was at the previous contest, but the re- stricting for the groups is not entirely reliable, and I think it has too many moving parts in the connection to the keys to be durable. The cumulative vote arrange- ment also is not readily adjustable to any part of the machine. The American Vote Register. The construction of this machine is such that its action is entirely unreliable. It could very easily be put out of service during an election by one so inclined, even if it would vote right at the beginning. The Willix. This machine is evidently in a very crude and unper- fected state. It has some interesting points, but as shown its action is entirely unreliable. I do not consider any of the machines shown to be suitable to the needs of the voters of Chicago. These that do the work satisfactorily are too large and un- Report of 0. A. Leutwiler, 195 wieldy, and would, I think, be a cause of constant an- noyance and expense in excess of any gain derived. Very truly yours, (Signed) C. E. DePuy. March 9, 1908. Mr. McEwEN. I read from the report of March 10, 1908, from C. A. Leutwiler on the same group of ma- chines : Ukbana, Illinois, March 18, 1908. The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illinois. Gentlemen : — Enclosed find my repoi-t on the examination of six voting machines for the Board of Election Commission- ers of the City of Chicago. Trusting that the report will give you the information you desired, I am Yours very truly, (Signed) 0. A. Leutwiler, Assistant Professor in Machine Design. Report of the Examination 780 of Six Voting Machines for The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illinois. Approved 0. A. Leutwiler, Assistant Professor of Machine Design University of Illinois. Urbana, Illinois, March 10, 1908. Urbana, Illinois, March 10, 1908. The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illinois. Gentlemen : — In accordance with your request I have examined the six voting machines named below and I have the honor to present the following report : Make of Machines. The following machines were examined : 1. American Vote Register. 2. Columbia Voting Machine. 3. Triumph Voting Machine. 196 Leutwiler Report — Continued. 781 4. United Stales Standard Voting Machine, 5. Willix Voting Machine. 6. "Winslow Voting Machine, Basis of Examination. The opinions expressed in this report are based on a series of grades given in the following tables, the first of which contains a series of questions referred to me by the Board of Election Commissioners and the second a series of questions suggested by the writer, which in- fluence to a certain degree his final decision as to the rank of these machines. Basis of Grading. The grades in these tables are arrived at as follows: The machine that seemed to satisfy the requirements of the question under consideration in the best manner was marked 100. The other machines were then graded hx comparing them with the one selected as the ideal. The average grade given at the bottom of Table No. 1 is based upon the assumption that each question is of equal weight. Probably it might have been well to assign weights to the various questions as some are of more im- portance than others. This was attempted in Table No. 2, as indicated in the second column. General Discussion. 782 In order to arrive at correct conclusions in the exam- ination of these voting machines the following funda- mental principles were given serious consideration. I. Design. A voting machine must be so designed that any one familiar with mechanical devices is capable of operating it easily and at the same time correctly. Probably the most important point in the design of these machines is that which absolutely prevents the fraudulent manipula- tion of the machine by either the voter or the judges. The question of what material to select for each part is another important point and is considered by the writer as a part of the design. The size and weight of a ma- chine must also be considered, as a bulky and heavy machine increases the storage and carting charges and at the same time the polling places must be so selected that the machine may easily be installed. A voting ma- Leutwiler Report — Continued. 197 chine which is very complicated requires more skilled experts to prepare it for voting and to maintain it in proper working order. 77. Construction. By construction is meant the character of workman- ship employed in the making of the machine. Many well designed machines have turned out to be failures due to faulty construction. In a voting machine it is essential to have good construction as that prolongs its life con- 783 siderably, and keeps down the repair charges. Application of these Pbinciples to the Machines Ex- amined. (1) American Vote Register. This machine is very simple considered from a me- chanical standpoint, and required but two operations when voting a straight ticket. When voting a split ticket this machine is very inconvenient in that a large num- ber of levers must be handled, and in voting for County Commissioners, University Trustees, Judge of Circuit Court and Representatives in the General Assembly the names of the candidates one wishes to vote for must be written on a separate ticket. These tickets are then in- serted in the proper slots provided near the bottom of the machine. By proper manipulation the writer cast two such ballots in each case. The possibility of doing this is a very serious defect of the machine. It was also possible to cast two votes for the same party, when vot- ing a straight ticket, which is another serious defect in the design. Another disadvantage of this machine is the large number of ballots that must be counted by the judges, which is one of the points a voting machine should avoid. One lock is not sufficient to secure the ma- chine against fraudulent manipulation as any one of the 784 judges in the absence of the other two might easily op- erate the machine to the advantage of his party. The se- lection of the materials for this machine and its construc- tion are very satisfactory as indicated by the grade in Table No. 2. The machine has an advantage in that it is of small size and weight thus decreasing storage and carting charges. 198 Leutwiler Report — Continued. (2) Columbia Voting Machine. The design of this machine is probably the best of any machine the writer examined. The operations required for voting a straight ticket are very simple and easy to perform. In voting a split ticket a voter may encounter some difficulty in telling at a glance for whom he has voted. This is due to the use of round knobs instead of small levers as is done in some of the other machines. This machine works very satisfactorily for all groups and cumulative voting, and it was impossible to so manipu- late the keys that more than the legal number of votes could be cast in any one case. A serious defect of the machine is that by the use of a strong rubber band, the writer was able to deprive a voter of several votes. This rubber band was so located that it was rather difficult for an ordinary person to detect. The fact that the keys make a complete revolu- lution and always in the same direction makes it more difficult to attach the rubber band than in some of the other machines. This machine has advantages over the 785 U. S. Standard in that a rubber band placed on any key so as to lock it, will not affect the vote when a person votes a straight ticket, as the machine is equipped with a ' ' straight party key. ' ' It is practically impossible for the judges to_ manip- ulate the machine fraudulently, as two locks having sep- arate keys are provided, thus one judge of one party takes one key and the other goes to the judge of the sec- ond party. This means that both parties are represented when the machine is being prepared for the voting. The same remarks apply when the polls are closed and the votes are being counted. The selection of the material and the workmanship in this machine are of a very high class and in the opinion of the writer this machine comes nearest fulfilling all the requirements of an ideal voting machine. This machine occupies considerable space and is rather heavy. (3) Triumph. The design of this machine was defective in the fol- lowing points: (1) In voting a split ticket the small brass keys in some instances are hard to operate. (2) In voting for the fourteen judges of the Circuit Court, Leutwiler Report — Continued. 199 the grouping mechanism was found to be defective in that the writer was able to vote for fifteen judges. In this connection it might be mentioned that the part of this machine used for voting for the above named judges is supposed to be an improved device over the cliain mechanism formerly used. It is understood that the en- tire machine was not arranged for voting for County 'Commissioners as called for by the specifications. (4) With a sufficiently strong rubber band it is possible to hold some of the keys so that some votes may be lost, unless the voter detects the rubber bands. (5) The ma- chine has an insufficient number of locks to secure it against fraudulent manipulation by the judges. The folio-wing are some of the advantages the machine possesses: (1) If a mistake is made in voting the keys may be put back into the original position very quickly, by means of the lever resetting. (2) The space occu- pied by the machine, also its weight is less than some of the other machines. The selection of the material might be improved upon, also the workmanship. (4) United States Standard Voting Machine. The design of this machine comes up to about the same standard set by the Columbia machine as the grades given in the tables indicate. The operations for voting a 786 straight ticket are not quite as simple as those on the Columbia in that all the keys are moved which makes it harder to operate. Voting a split ticket the operations on this machine are about the same as those on the Co- lumbia. The keys on this machine are in the form of small levers painted black, which enables one to tell at a glance for whom a person has voted. The machine works satisfactorily for all group and cumulative voting, and it is impossible to so manipulate the keys as to per- 787 mit a person to cast more than the legal number of votes in any one case. As in the Columbia machine the writer could by means of strong rubber bands very readily deprive a voter of several votes. It is easier to attach rubber bands to the keys of this machine than it was on the Co- lumbia as these keys are angular and furthermore do not make a complete turn. A sufficient number of locks having separate keys are 200 Leutwiler Report — Continued. provided on this macliine wliicli prevent fraudulent ma- nipulation by the judges while the machine is being pre- pared for voting. The same may be said of opening the machine to count the votes after closing the polls. The materials used and the workmanship in this ma- chine are as good as on any machine examined, and in the opinion of the writer this machine is almost the equal of the Columbia. It is rather bulky and about the heaviest machine examined, which are points not in its favor. (5) Willix Voting Machine. The design of this machine was defective in the fol- lowing points: (1) In group voting the mechanism was found defective, and the writer was able to vote for twenty-one judges for the Superior Court where seven- teen should have been the maximum allowable. (2) It was possible to cast nine votes for Eepresentatives in the General Assembly instead of only three. (3) Neither keys nor counters are numbered or marked so that it is a rather difficult matter to insure a correct count. (6) The machine is not equipped with sufficient locks to pre- vent manipulation just before opening the polls als/) after closing. The selection of the materials used in this machine might be improved upon considerably also the workman- ship. The machine is not very heavy and does not take up so very much room. (6) Winslow Voting Machine. 788 The design of this machine is fair though not quite as good as in the case of the Columbia and IT. S. Standard machines. Some of the defects are as follows: (1) When voting a straight ticket all the keys on the board are operated which necessarily makes it work a trifle hard. (2) The machine is equipped with two separate levers which must be operated by the voter, one at the entrance end of the machine which sets the machine when the voter enters and the other registers his vote as he passes out. (3) Since the voting keys are round and are perpendicular to the board it is not so easy to see readily for Avhom one has voted. These keys must all be pulled outwards in voting. (4) The writer found that some of the keys in the County Commissioners group would not LeutwUer Report — Continued. 201 remain in the out position, but would continually slide back, thereby depriving the candidate of those votes. (5) In examining the interior of the machine at the bot- tom, the writer found a rubber band attached to a lever but could not find out for what purporse it was there. As in the Triumph machine we have a releasing lever which quickly brings all the keys into the original posi- tion if a mistake is made in voting. The machine is rather heavy but does not take up excessive room. In weight it is next to the U. S. Standard. The selection of materials and workmanship is very satisfactory. The machine is secured against fraudu- lent manipulation by the judges by only one lock which is, not sufficient. 789 CoNCLtrsiON. The writer having given Professor Breckenridge some assistance in the first examination of the voting ma- chines submitted to your Board in November, 1907, can- not help but remark upon the improvements made in some of the machines since that time. The question im- mediately arises, why will not voting machines continue to improve until the fraudulent manipulation mentioned in the foregoing section of this report will be entirely eliminated. Until this is accomplished the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago would be entirely justified in postponing the purchase of voting machines. In the opinion of the writer the machine that comes nearest to fulfilling all the conditions required of a vot- ing machine is the Columbia Voting Machine. Next in rank and not far behind comes the United States Stand- ard Voting Machine. The writer Mashes to thank your honorable Board for the assistance rendered and the courtesies shown dur- ing the days of the examination. Eespectfully submitted, (Signed) 0. A. Leutwiler, Assistant Professor of Machine Design, University of Illinois. 202 Leutwiler Report — Continued. 791 VOTING MACHINE CONTEST FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO, GRADE TABLE No. 1— March 4, 1908.- Questions prepared by Commissioners. No. QUESTION ^T;'" „^ol-, umph.s'^-^ Wil- lix Wins- low 1. Mechanical Construction. .. . 50 2. Mechanical Action 50 3. Counting Mechanism, Relia- bility of all parts 100 4. Counters: (1) Positiveness of action 100 (2) Firmness in position. . . 100 (3) Clinging of freezing of parts 100 (4) Which has best protec- tion against fraudu- lent manipulation. . . (5) Strength and delicacy as to all parts and entire machine 50 (6) Preventive action that is, will permit of voting proper num- ber of candidates only (7) Liability to get out of order by accident, design, rust or other- wise 90 792 (8) Grouping of candidates to arrange for on any part of machine 100 (9) Party lever — how much more difficult will it be to operate on an 8 or 9-column mach- ine with 70 keys — if stored for six months or a year 100 (10) Fraudulent manipula- tion which machine would be less liable thereto 25 (11) Simplicity of arranging and preparing for voting 100 (12) Group voting which machine permits of same with greatest ease and reliability. . 25 100 80 100 50 95 100 80 100 50 90 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 50 100 100 100 50 100 75 100 75 75 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 100 90 100 50 95 25 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 50 90 Leutwiler Report — Continued. 203 u s ■NT niTtT'OTTriM Ameri- Col- Tri- c!i'„j Wil- Wins- No. QUESTION ^^„ ^^^-^ ^,^p^ Stand- ^^ ,^^^ (13) Cumulative vote for Legislative Candi- dates — Which mach- ine shows best method of counting, i. e., one vote for three candidates, 1| votes for two can- didates, three votes for one candidate, one vote for one can- didate and two votes for another candidate 25 100 95 100 90 100 (14) Grade Machine — As to capacity for arrange- ment for cumulative voting on any part of machine 100 100 100 100 100 100 (15) Springs — Are there any used on machine 2 4 36 9 9 63 times No. of keys 793 (16) Grade— As to liability of machine to get out of order or become injured by being hauled to and from polling places 100 100 100 100 100 100 (17) Separate Report State by means of report separate from this, in your own way, your suggestions, advice, etc.; also any points that deal with the merits or demerits of the several machines — that is, a resume of the good and bad points of each machine. (18) From your study and examination of the several voting machines, are they in your opinion sufficiently perfected, so that you would advise the Board to purchase any one of them at this time. Average Grade . 66 100 81.5 99 71 91.7 204 Report of George 0. Olson. 794 Rela- Amer- Colun I- Tri- U.S. Wil- Wins- No . QUESTION tive Wgt. ican bia umph Stand- ard lix low 1. Simplicity of oper- ation before vot- ing 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 2. Simplicity of oper- ation in voting straight ticket. . . 50 100 100 90 90 100 90 3. Simplicity of oper- ation in voting straight ticket. . . 100 25 100 95 100 80 90 4. Ease of Manipula- tion 50 60 100 90 95 70 90 5. Accuracy of record- ing mechanism . . 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 6. Permanency of re- cords 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 7. Ease of provision for cumulative voting 100 25 100 95 100 80 100 8. Accuracy of plan for group voting 100 100 100 90 9. Character of design 100 60 100 85 100 60 95 10. Correct selection of material 100 85 100 80 100 60 95 11. Excellency of work- manship 100 95 100 75 100 75 95 12. Size and weight. . . . 50 100 95 95 90 95 90 13. Simplicity of voting restricted ticket. .\verage grade 50 100 100 100 100 - 100 68.5 99.8 82.6 97.8 73.8 95.2 795 Mr. McEwEN. The next is the report of March 10, 1908, of Geo. 0. Olson: "Chicago, March 10, 1908. Board of Election Commissioners, of the City of Chicago. Gentlemen : At your request, I have examined the several voting naachines installed in your office and am pleased to sub- mit the following reports. In making the report on the diagram, I have left Out three of the machines, namely the American Vote Kegis- ter, Willix, and the Triumph. The Triumph and the Wil- lix have many points which I think will be good when fully developed, but at the present time the machines are in such a crude and unfinished condition that I cannot see my way clear to make a report. Olson Report — Continued. 205 In answering Question No. 18, "From your Examina- tion and Study of the several voting machines, are they in your opinion sufficiently perfected so that you would advise the Board to purchase any one of them at this time!" my answer is "Yes," from a mechanical stand- point only. If there is any other questions which I have not cov- ered in my reports, I would be pleased to come to your office at any time and answer them to the best of my ability. Thanking you, I remain Yours very trulv, (Signed) ^Gko. 0. Olson." Winslow Voting Machine. The machine is entirely new in the internal working parts and is very practical, but the face of the machine is practically the same as the last machine, with the ex- ception that the keys run across the face instead of up and down, which is a verj^ great improvement, but I foundl that in voting, especially where the vote is split, that you could not readily see when a pin was out or in without examining very closely, and I found also that the voting plugs were not always positively locked in position. The cumulative voting device or attachment for Legis- lative candidates is practical and positive and accurate in all combinations, but is not adjustable to any part of the machine. Grouping is easily accomplished, but I am of the opin- ion that the screws which fasten the grouping blocks are not positive. In grouping for ten county commissioners, and voting the Eepublican column, the plugs or pins will not always 796 stay in the voting position. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson." "Columbia Voting Machine. 797 This machine is very practical in every way, as certain conditions complained of in my last report have been successfully overcome. The Cumulative voting device or attachment for Legislative candidates is very good, being made up of very few parts, and is very easily adjusted to any part of the machine, and in voting for the Legis- lators it is positive and accurate in all combinations. Grouping is more easily accomplished on this machine 206 Olson Report — Continued. on account of the accessibility of the different parts, and it is impossible to vote for more candidates than the ma- chine is grouped for. I am of the opinion that the weight of this machine could be reduced a great deal without impairing the effi- ciency in the least. I wish to again call your attention to the lack of a cus- todian lock which I think is very essential and can be placed on this machine without adding any additional weight. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olsox." "U. S. Standard Voting Machine. This machine is a very practical machine in every way, and certain conditions which I criticized in my last report have been successfully overcome. 798 The cumulative voting device or attachment for legis- lative candidates is good, but is not as simple as on some of the other machines, as it is composed of too many parts and the method of adjustment on the horizontal rods merely adds weight, but in voting for the Legislators it is positive and accurate in all combinations. Grouping is easily accomplished, but the horizontal rods mentioned above are slightly in the way. But it is im- possible to vote for more candidates than the machine is grouped for. In my last report, I called special attention to the glass doors to be opened with the custodian key, but upon fur- ther thought and consideration, I am of the opinion that the glass doors are more of a detriment than otherwise, as they are very liable to be broken in shipment from the warehouse to the polling place, and it is my opinion that they add more weight than security. I am of the opinion that the weight of this machine could be reduced a great deal without impairing the effi- ciency in the least. (Signed) Geo. 0. Otsonf." Mr. McBwEN. I read from 0-16, the report on the vot- ing machines by DePuy of October 12, 1909, the Empire, the Triumph, the Willix and the Winslow. "Report of the Board of Election Commissioners of the Results of Investigation of Voting Machines. October 12, 1909. Report of C. E. DePuy. 207 Empire Machine. Construction. The material, workmanship, and general design are very satisfactory. The working parts, so far as I have been able to get at them for examination, are made of steel, galvanized or coppered, generally, brass, bronze, aluminum, or white metal composition, and I think there would be but little tendency to rusting. A few bars, pins, etc., are of plain steel, and they should be galvanized or made of brass. The workmanship is excellent, and the parts fit well together, so that, for the most part, the action is positive and very reliable." VOLUMEi X. Tuesday, July 29th, 1913. Afternoon Session. HowABD S. Taylor: 802 Cross-Examination Resumed by Mr. McEwen. Mr. McEwen reads from Exhibits 10 to 23 offered by him, the part applying to the Empire Voting Machine, as follows : "Counters. The counters and operating mechanism I consider very positive and durable. The parts of the counters proper are comparatively long, and are therefore not so liable to be broken as those that are made with small and deli- cate parts. The turning down of the voting key moves the operating mechanism in such a manner that the coun- ter cannot fail to register, and unless the key has been turned down the counter cannot move. The counters are locked at all times and can only be moved by the opera- tion of the machine after the keys have been turned down by the voter, or when the operating mechanism is dropped below its normal position by turning up two handles in- side the lower rear door when the operating handle is locked, as is necessary when setting the counters to zero. After this adjustment is made the counters can be readily 208 DePuy Report — Contitmed. turned in either direction to zero, but if they are turned backward they will move until all the wheels are at zero, and then they will stop positively, which is a great con- venience in setting. The counters are held securely in substantial aluminum cases, which 1511 the back of the machine and cover the working parts of the key spindles and restricting strips, but if it should be necessary to get to these working parts to adjust or repair the machine, these cases and counters can be readily removed and replaced again. Individual Restt'iction and Grouping of Candidates. The restricting strips for the individual keys are neatly made, light and yet strong, arid have small wedges which cause the restriction. These wedges slide between rollers, which gives very little friction, and the grouping of can- didates can be accomplished anywhere on the machine by removing one or more pins passing through these rollers. The removal of a pin does not change the spacing of the rollers, but allows the wedges to be pulled up in a different order. No adjustment of screws or insertions of additional wedges is necessary, and the grouping seems to be positive. Cumulative Vote Device. 803 The attachment for cumulative voting can be placed anywhere on the machine, and as it is used only to pre- vent voting in more than one at a time of the cumulative groups, the actual restricting of the number of votes is done with the regular wedges and rollers. It is very simple, and as far as I have been able to operate it, en- tirely effective. 804 As the device is shown it allows of arranging the candi- dates in four groups of three keys each, and two, three, or four of these groups can be used as desired. The ticket now placed on the machine uses but three of these groups. Two of them operate together on the restricting device and allow three votes for either of the two candi- dates or two for either one of them and one for the other. The other group operate^ independently and allows li votes for each of two candidates, leaving one key a blank. This group on the device should be arranged so that either two or three keys could be controlled by it, and then if but two candidates are on the ticket, there need be no DePuy Report — Continued. 209 blank key left. The device does not permit of voting 1^ votes each for two candidates by using a single key, but it could be made to do so by a slight modification. Fraudident Manipulation. As the machine now stands, it is possible to vote a straight ticket of any party with the straight ticket key, and at the same time vote a straight or split ticket with the regular candidate keys anywhere on the machine. It 805 is done by first pushing down the release lever, which allows individual candidate voting, then returning this lever and holding it up and at the same time pulling down and gently shaking a straight ticket key. Pulling down the individual key release lever pulls up a restrict- ing wedge in the straight party group, which locks the straight party wedges all out and at the same time oper- ates a slide which turns up all the individual restricting clips which hold down the wedge strips connected with the individual keys. When the release lever is held up and the straight party ticket key shaken, the restricting wedge pulled up by the release lever gradually works down and drops into its normal position, but the slide controlling the rod carrying the individual restricting clips does not return to its normal position by the shaking process, and so the restricting devices are all off, and the machine is free to be voted in both ways at the same time. The reason the wedge strip operated by the re- lease lever drops down while the restriction slide stays up is that the hole in the bar that pulls the slide up is a slot, and after the slide is up the pin on the release lever is free to go down without moving the slide. If this slot were omitted the shaking of the machine could not return the restricting wedge, and the machine could not be made 806 to vote double. This slot is put in this strip to allow the restricting slide to remain up when the machine is used in a primary election, but this is unnecessary, for the ma- chine works just as well, when arranged for primary vot- ing, with this slide w'orking in the regular way and the restricting clips turned up individually. This restricting slide has another attachment, a little swinging arm marked 'B,' by which it may be disconnected entirely in a primary election and so take off all the restricting clips, but it is unnecessarj', as has just been shown, to remove the restriction in this way, and if during a regular elec- 210 DePuy Report — Continued. tion this slide should happen to be left disconnected any- one could vote a straight ticket in both ways, or they could vote a straight and a split ticket at the same time without any extra manipulation. Restricted Voters Can Vote Straight Ticket. Another possibility of error exists in the machine whicli is not necessary and can be very easily avoided. The rod controlled by the restricting lever on the end of the ma- chine does not carry a clip to restrict the straight party vote. If a clip were placed on this rod (there is a place for it) over the straight party wedge strips, those who are expected to vote for the University Trustees only could not vote a straight party ticket, as they can now. Priinary Voting Device. The mechanism for arranging the machine for primary voting is simple and easy to adjust and operate. If neces- sary, several of the horizontal bars can be arranged to be grouped together to serve for one party, and yet all are controlled by the primary lever as easily as if only one bar for a party were used. 807 Positive Action. The swinging arm 'B' and the slot in the vertical bar which operates the restricting slide are evidently intended to throw the slide out of action when using the machine in a primary election, but they are not necessary, and if they were left off I think the machine would be positive and reliable in its action. All parts are well proportioned and accurately made. The movements of the parts are controlled by cams or levers, but few springs are used, and they are in places where they are not likely to give trouble. Party Bars. Party bars are used only for restricting purposes in primary elections, and if they were used with a party lever to make all the keys move when voting a straight ticket, it would be necessary to redesign the whole mech- anism and make it more complicated. DePuy Report — Continued. 211 Tbiumph Machine. Constrv/:tion. The materials used in this machine are largely steel 808 and brass. Most of the steel is either enamelled or gal- vanized, but some pieces are left uncoated, and they would be likely to rust. The machine is put together in such a way that many of the parts are difficult to get at for ad- justment or repairs. Cou/nters. The regular 'Veeder' counters are used, but they are operated by a special disc carrying a crank pin engaged by a lever turned down upon the pin by the voting key. These crank discs and pins have a rather loose connec- tion, and when the levers turn down, the pins are not always in just the right position for them to go down all the way, and this might cause a counter to fail to regis- ter, although I have never found that to be the case, even when the pins were not properly engaged. The method of setting the counters seems cumbersome, and the rack and gears which have to be disengaged need some indicating marks or stops for engaging them again. In setting the counters two men are required, and very careful watch has to be kept in order to stop the counters at just the right point. When the doors are open to read the counters, the counters are locked against movement, unless disconnected for resetting. The counters are small, and their parts are quite delicate, but they prob- ably are strong enough for their work. 809 Individual Restriction cmd Grouping of Candidates. The device for restricting the individual voting keys, when properly adjusted, works very well, but when a change is made to a group, then some adjustment has to be made, and it is diffijcult to tell just which one of the screws in the group ought to be turned to keep the strips alike. A change in the adjustment of the individual keys affects the ease of voting in a large group. When the adjustment is right only the proper number can be voted in a group, but I think this adjustment will change slightly in the process of voting during an election. k 212 DePuy Report — Continued. Cumulative Vote Device. The device for cumulative voting allows voting the leg- islative ticket in five ways, viz. : 1^ votes for each of two with one key; 3 votes for one with but one key; 1| votes for each, two keys to be used; 2 votes for one candidate and one for another, two keys to be used ; 1 vote for each of three candidates, three keys to be used. This device discards the regular restriction, and the different com- binations are obtained by special wedges in the cumula-. five attachment. There is no way to adjust these wedges, and the strips connecting them to the key strip are not stiff enough to hold them in proper connection. After the machine was put in adjustment by its representatives I could vote without much difficulty in all of the last four 810 of these groups, making a total of 7^ votes, all for one or for different candidates, all in one party or any parties. Primary Device. The primary restricting device seems to be satisfac- tory, but if more than one bar is to be used for a party the election judge would have to keep careful watch to see that the restriction slides were properly set. Positive Action. After the last key has been turned in a group where the adjustment is made close to restrict to the proper number of votes, I find that sometimes the restricting wedge would not drop to its normal position when a key was turned back, thus making it impossible to change the vote if desired. Party Bars. This machine has a bar and lever for each party, so that the straight ticket can be voted by simply pulling this lever, and the keys of all the candidates voted for are moved by the operation. After the party lever is pulled the vote can be 'scratched' or 'split' as much as desired. The connection between the individual keys and party bar is very easily made. DePuy Report — Continued. 213 811 WiLjjx Machine. Design and Construction. The design and execution of this machine are in many respects crude and unsatisfactory, so that it can not be considered as a salable machine at the present time. Handles and Counters. The handles or voting keys are long and weak, making them very liable to injury. A different device would have to be used in a practical machine. The counters are the 'Veeder,' and have a simple star- wheel for turning them. There is no device for locking them in position, and the hooks and cams by which the wheels are turned are un- substantial. Restricting Device. The device for restricting the number of votes is en- tirely different from any of the other machines, and seems to be entirely satisfactory in principle, but sev- eral details are poorly worked out. This same statement applies to the machine as a whole, and I will not note individual items further. WiNSLOw Machine. Design and Construction. This machine is poor in design, construction, and oper- 812 ation. I do not find any redeeming features. The party levers, with one exception, cannot be operated, the in- dividual keys pull too hard, and the party bars are not stiff enough, the restricting wedges and supporting strips are too heavy and clumsy, the bell-cranks operat- ing them are poorly supported and connected. The mechanism for returning the voting keys has too much back lash, and the keys do not come back to their proper place. The handles of the voting keys are long and slender and liable to be bent, which would prevent their operation. The screws which adjust the restriction wedges are very difficult to adjust properly, and the cumu- lative vote restricting device frequently does not return after it has been raised. The number that can be voted in a group is very uncertain and depends on the order in which the keys are operated. 214 DePuy Report — Continued. Counters. The counters are unreliable in their action, being moved and held by springs, which do not always work. The device used for setting counters to zero has to be placed in a position which makes it difficult to read the counters, and when the machine is adjusted for voting it is then sometimes possible to read the counters from the front of the machine. 813 As shown by this report, not one of the machines ex- hibited is satisfactory in its present condition, but if the changes suggested were made, the Empire machine would be reliable and positive in its action. The Triumph also no doubt can be made to vote more positively, but considerable work would have to be done before they eliminate all its faults. This machine has the party bars and levers, which I think makes the proper way of voting the straight ticket, but I do not see how they could be applied to the Empire machine without adding very much to the complication of the mechanism. The cumulative voting attachment of the Triumph ma- chine provides for voting in all the desired ways, while the Empire does not, but the Triumph attachment is un- reliable, and the Empire is positive. Another group could be added, if desired, to the Empire device without difficulty. While the Empire machine can, with a very little chang- ing, be made to do all it claims to do, I am not sure that it would be best for the Board of Election Commission- ers to purchase them at the present time. The same trouble exists now that was present two years ago, al- though not to so great an extent. The machines are large and heavy, difficult to handle, and awkward to store. 814 I think the Empire machine will stand the moving very well and will not be liable to get out of adjustment, but whether it is wise for, the Board to incur the expense and trouble that will come with these machines I do not feel competent to say. BespectfuUv submitted, (Signed) C. E. DePuy." Mr. McEwEN. I have now the report, Exhibit "0-17," of Geo. 0. Olson, dated October 11th, 1909 (reading) : Report of George 0. Olson. 215 Chicago, Oct. llth, 1909. Board of Election Commissioners, of City of Chicago. GentXiEMen : 815 At your request, I have examined the several voting machines installed in your office, and beg to submit the fol- lowing reports: I am of the opinion that voting machines have not been perfected to such a degree that they would be useful in any large city. I am of the opinion that the art to-day as expressed in these machines is in such a condition that we may look for improvements very shortly that will far surpass anything which has so far been shown. And for reasons given above and in my reports, my an- swer to questions #18 and #19 is "No." ' Yours very truly. Signed. Geo. 0. Olson. Triumph Voting Machine. Ballot lock is good with the exception that the locking bar on the right hand end should be secured in the center as the way it is it can easily be pried off. Restricting latches have been provided for primary elections for all the parties, but I found three of the- latches which I could not move. Alignment of keys good. 816 Independent voting device works good. Curtains should be made of some opaque material. October 11th, 1909. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson. Empire Voting Machine. The material used in the construction of this machine could not in my opinion be improved on, and the outside finish is fine. The workmanship is first class. I wish to call especial attention to the high grade of work on the counters and counter holders. It is in my opin- ion very high grade work. The straight party vote is controlled by one pointer and the voter cannot tell from the face of the machine what candidates he has voted for. This is a very simple construction from the manufacturers point of view, but I think very unsatisfactory for the voter. I called special 216 Olson Report — Continued. attention to this (I call it a defect) in my report of Nov. ISth, 1907, on the Columbia Voting Machine. The cumulative voting device is very good and can he arranged very easily on any part of this machine. The grouping can also be applied to any part by sim- ply pulling out a pin or putting one in and is very handy, hut there is no adjustment for wear in the limited space as in the case of the Triumph, and it is a question if it is necessary. I consider that both the cumulative and grouping devices are very good and easily handled. 817 I found two defects in the voting levers which I con- sider very serious. The voter can vote the straight ticket and then by moving the release lever he can vote the straight again, and also vote for all the rest of the candi- dates separately and register two votes for every candi- dates. The other defect was in the restricted vote as in the case of the University Trustees. The restricting lever which the judges are supposed to move does not do the work it is designed for, as it does not restrict the straight party lever. The restricted voter must first pull the re- leasing lever before she can vote for the trustees or she can vote the straight ticket. Empire Votijtg Machine. The following extract from the literature on this ma- chine speaks for itself. "It is important that the ma- chine should stand on a solid level floor. (This would be hard to find in a great many of the precincts.) If it is found that either of the doors bind when they are opened or closed it is because the floor is uneven. Shifting the position of the machine to give it a level footing or rais- ing one of the legs slightly with a block so that it will stand level will overcome the dififieulty." I am of the opinion that the fault would not be in the floor, but in the construction of the lower part or legs of this machine. The judges and clerks are not as a rule machinery movers, and that is what they ought to be to handle a machine that weighs 800 pounds, and put it upon the legs. The danger of accident would be very great. 818 I would not accept any machine that was constructed along these lines. The machine should be self-contained and have a raising and lowering device similar to the Olson Report — Continued. 217 other machine so that they could not be affected by an unlevel floor. Outside of the defect in construction which I have men- tioned in the foregoing, it is first class. The ballot lock is simple and effective, but the bar at the right end which holds the strips into place, should have a key lock. The resetting device on this machine is to be commended for its simplicity. Alignment of keys good. This machine is very secure against manipulation, as the counters are locked and cannot be moved without opening the lower door, and as I understand the keys to this door are held by the custodian. A very effec- tive device has been provided for primary elections and in our trial worked perfectly. Independent voting device works good. Curtains should be made of some opaque material. October 11th, 1909. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson. Triumph Voting Machine. The material used in this machine is good, but the fin- ish on the outside is not up to standard. Workman- ship only fair. Madiine is supplied with voting levers, which, when pulled votes the straight party ticket, and throws down 819 all the keys at once allowing the voter to see that all the keys have been voted. The cumulative device can be applied to any part of the machine, but is not easily handled. It is composed of a great many parts. I am of the opinion that it could be made to work all right if properly made and adjusted, but it would require extreme accuracy. The way it is made at the present time, I find it de- fective and you cannot vote for the legislative candidate properly. The voter can vote 4^ votes for the candidates. Grouping on this machine is easily accomplished and can be adjusted on any part of the machine by pulling out a small strap or pushing one in. An adjustment has been provided to take up any wear in the limited space. Restricted voters' device is good and secure and works pei'fectly. The operating lever works very hard, and 218 Olson Report — Continued. rough, due to a defect in the design of main rack. I would suggest a roller bearing for this part. The counters are too small and lack rigidity, and are not positively locked when the doors are opened. They are not easily manipulated, but they are not perfectly secure as in the case of the Empire, public counter is hard to get at to set. Besetting on this machine is very slow and it would take two men at least to reset these counters. The rais- ing and lowering device is good, and the machine is on wheels which makes it easy to handle and I do not be- lieve that it requires a solid level floor to stand on. 820 WiNSLow Voting Machine. The material used in the construction of this machine is good and the outride finish is first class. Workman- ship is only fair. The straight party levers do not work properly, due, as I understand to lack of time to adjust them properly. The cumulative voting device is first class and can be applied to any part of the machine, but it is not easily applied. Grouping can be accomplished with difficulty. Restricted voters' device has not been finished on this machine, but the bar provided for that purpose should have a center support. Counters cannot be condemned too severely, as they are controlled by springs and the method of applying them is very bad. They are not posi- tively locked, but they cannot be manipulated until the front plate is taken off. It is not necessary to take this plate off to see the counters. Resetting device is very slow and difficult to handle. Lock nuts should be provided on all screws in the bell- cranks. Alignment of Keys Poor. The voting keys are not positively locked, and they often fall back to non-voting position. A spring has been provided to hold them in place, but it is very liable to get out of order. This machine is in such an unfinished condition that it was impossible to make a practical test. October 11th, 1909. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson. Report of 0. A. Leutwiler. 219 WiLUx Voting Machine. 821 The material used in this machine is good, but all the parts are in such a rough and unfinished condition that it is almost impossible to judge what the finished machine will look like. There are some very good ideas on this machine and I am of the opinion that when fully developed will prove of great value. I refer especially to the grouping de- vice which is an entirely new principle on voting ma- chines. Even in the crude condition it is at the present time, it works perfectly, but the springs which control the segment gears are absolutely worthless as they would never hold their shape. The cumulative device can be applied to any part of the machine but does not at the present time register the proper vote. Keys are entirely too weak and are easily bent. Counters and method of turning them are very weak and unsecure and can be manipulated easily when the doors are open. I do not believe that the manufacturer of this machine ever expected to get any credit for this part of their machine. October 11th, 1909. (Signed) Geo. 0. Olson. -Report on Voting Machines — Olson, Oct. 11, 1909. Willix, Winslow, Triumph, Empire, Mr. McEwEN. I will now read from Exhibit "0-18," Prof. Leutwiler 's report, dated October 13, 1909. 822 "Urbana, Illinois, October 15, 1909. The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illitipis. Gentlemen : Enclosed find my report on the examination of four voting machines for the Board of Election Commission- ers of the City of Chicago. Trusting that the report will give you the informa- tion you desired, I am. Yours very truly, (Signed) 0. A. Leutwiler, Assistant Professor of Machine Design. 220 Leutiviler Report — Contimied. Report on the examination of four voting machines for the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chi- cago, Illinois. Approved 0. A. Letjtwileb, Assistant Professor of Machine Design, University of Illinois. Urbana, Illinois, October 15, 1909. Ukbana, Ilijnois, October 15, 1909. 823 The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illinois. Gentlemen : In accordance with your request I have examined the four voting machines named below and I have the honor to present the following report : Names of Machines. The following machines were examined : 1. Empire. 2. Triumph. 3. Willix. 4. Winslow. Basis of Examination. The opinions expressed in this report are based on a series of grades exhibited in tables forming an appen- dix to this report. The first of these tables contains a series of questions referred to me by The Board of Elec- tion Commissioners, and the second contains a series of questions suggested by the writer, which influence to a certain degree his final decision as to the rank of these machines. Basis of Grading. The grades in these tables are arrived at as follows: The machine that seemed to satisfy the requirements of the question under consideration in the best manner was marked 100. The other machines were then graded by comparing them with the one selected as the ideal. 824 The average grade given at the bottom of Table No. 1 is based upon the assumption that each question is of equal weight. Probably it might have been well to as- sign weights to the various questions as some are of Leiitwiler Report — Continued. 221 more importance than others. This was attempted in Table No. 2 as is indicated in the second column. General Discussion. In order to arrive at correct conclusions in the exam- ination of these voting machines the following funda- mental principles were given serious consideration. I. Design. A voting machine must be so designed that any one unfamiliar with mechanical devices is capable of oper- ating it easily and at the same time correctly. Prob- ably the most important points in the design of these machines is that which absolutely prevents the fraudu- lent manipulation of the machine not only by the voter, but by the judges as well. The question of what ma- terial to select for each part is another important point and is considered by the writer as a part of the design. The size and weight of a machine must also be consid- ered, as a bulky and heavy machine increases the stor- age and carting charges and at the same time the polling places must be so selected that the machine may easily be installed. The ease with which a machine in a stor- age house or polling place may be handled is another item not to be overlooked. For example a machine on wheels is by far more convenient than one having removable 825 legs. A voting machine which is very complicated re- quires more skilled men to prepare it for voting and to maintain it in proper working order. Furthennore, all parts of the machine should be accessible for inspection. II. Construction. By construction the writer has in mind the character of workmanship employed in the making of the machine. Many well designed machines have turned out to be fail- ures due to faulty construction. In a votjng machine it is absolutely essential to have good construction as that prolongs its life considerably, and keeps down the repair charges. 222 Leutwiler Report — Continued. Application of these Peinciples to the Machines Ex- amined. . (1) Empire Voting Machine. The general design of this machine is probably the best of any machine the writer examined. This machine possesses the following good points: (a) the operations required for voting a straight ticket are very simple and easy to perform, (b) For voting a split ticket the. op- erations are simple, and in case a mistake is made or one wishes to change, it may be done very readily, (c) The operations performed by the 'Judge of Election' in permitting a 'restricted voter' to vote are simple, but at the time this machine was examined it was not prop- erly set up, in that a 'restricted voter' could not vote for ,826 the 'University Trustee to fill vacancy' which should have been possible, (d) The operations performed by the judge during a 'primary' are simple, but the ma- chine was not set up properly for primary voting when the writer examined it. (e) The grouping of candidates could be done on any part of the machine, (f) The plan used for group voting or the so-called 'interlock- ing device' is accurate, likewise the device for cumula- tive voting, (g) The recording mechanism and coun- ters work very satisfactorily and are well designed, (h) The selection of the material is excellent, also the work^ manship is of a very high grade, (i) The machine is amply protected against fraudulent manipulation by the judges in that it is locked by several separate locks and keys, thus permitting the keys to be divided between the judges. This means that at least two parties are repre- sented when the machine is being prepared for voting. The same remarks apply, when the polls are closed and the count is being taken off the machine. The machine has the following defects : (a) The ma- chine is fairly large and is supported on legs, thus re- quiring dismantling when preparing it for voting and storage. To do this requires at least three strong men and generally four, (b) The greatest defect is that the machine permits of casting an illegal vote. This may be done as follows : Vote a straight ticket first, next .turn the straight party knob back and lower the release lever as if voting a split ticket. Then raise by means of a quick jerk the release lever and again vote by means of Leutwiler Report — Continued. 223 the straight party key; next turn down the keys of all other candidates you wish to vote for. By this line of procedure I was able to cast votes for any party or split it up as I saw fit. This point indicates a serious defect somewhere in the design of the interlocking device as used on the straight party column. (2) Triumph Voting Machine. The Triumph machine possesses the following good points: (a) The machine being mounted on wheels is readily moved about and prepared for voting. Less men are required in handling this machine, (b) The oper- ations required for voting a straight ticket are very simple and easily performed, (c) The operations re- quired for voting a split ticket are simple. A mistake made in voting may be corrected very readily, (d) The operations perfonned by the judge in permitting a 're- stricted voter' to vote are simple, but as in the Empire 827 machine, this machine was not set up to permit a voter to cast a vote for the 'University Trustee to fill va- cancy.' (e) The machine is easily prepared for pri- mary voting, (f) The grouping of candidates may be done on any part of the machine, (g) The recording mechanism and counters work satisfactorily, but in set- ting them back to zero in getting the machine ready for an election it takes two men to do it properly, (h) The selection of the material is fair also the workmanship, 828 The machine has the following defects: (a) The de- vice used for cumulative voting is defective, as I was* able to cast an illegal vote as the following will show : First Combination : For G 25 I cast one vote. For E 25 or 26 I cast one vote. For B 23 I east two votes. Total vote cast is four. Second Combination: For A 15 I cast 3 votes (party). For A 20 I cast 1^ votes. Total vote cast is 4| votes. Third Combination : For A 15 I cast 3 votes. For C 15 I cast 3 votes. Total vote cast is 6. Fourth Combination: For A 15 I cast 3 votes. For A 20 1 cast 1^ votes. For A 23 I cast 2 votes. For A or D 25 I cast 1 vote. Total votes cast is 7i votes. 828 (b) During a primary election a dishonest judge may allow a voter to vote for two or more parties by pushing in the corresponding number of 'Primary Hooks' in the back of the machine. The machine in my mind should be 224 Leutiviler Report — Continued. protected against this, (e) A large number of the keys are rather hard to turn when voting a split ticket. This is due to the interlocking mechanism being set rather close. 829 (3) Willix Voting Machine. The Willix machine possesses the following good points: (a) The operations for voting a straight ticket are simple and easy to perform, (b) The operations for voting a split ticket are simple and a mistake made in voting may be readily corrected, (c) The grouping of candidates may be done on any part of the machine, (d) The mechanism used for group and cumulative voting is very good and ingenious, though some of its constructive details might be improved upon. It prevents illegal vot- ing absolutely, in fact, I consider it the best mechanism for that purpose that I have examined. The machine possesses the following defects: (a) "NTo provisions are made for restricted voting, (b) The keys which are perpendicular to the face of the machine are too frail and by bending them, the machine could readily be put out of commission, (c) Some of the keys worked a trifle hard, (d) The recording mechanism is far from being perfect, and the counters are not pro- tected secureh' against tampering by the judges. In fact, the machine should be locked by more than one lock and key. (e) The most serious defect in this machine is that it may be manipulated fraudulently in the follow- ing manner: Push in the "mixed party key" and vote an entire party ticket or whatever you desire. Next jerk back rather quickly the "mixed party key," and then vote the "straight party key" that you desire, thus being able to cast two votes, (f) The workmanship is of an inferior grade, and the selection of the material could be improved upon. 830 (d) Winslow Voting Machine. The Winslow machine as submitted by the manu- facturers was worthy of very little serious considera- tion, for the reason that it was not a finished piece of work. The keys worked too hard, due to the unfinished conditions of the detail parts. Furthermore, only one party lever was in working condition and that worked much too hard. The writer is of the opinion that this Leutwiler Report — Continued. 225 machine might work fairly easy after all the parts are Stted together properly. The mechanism used for group and cumulative voting looks as if it might be accurate providing it were constructed with care. The record- ing mechanism does not embody good design, and each counter has at least four springs, thus making the total number of springs, on a nine party seventy -key machine, due to this one source alone, as 2,520. Furthermore in bringing the counter back to zero when preparing the machine for an election, requires two men and consider- able time. The machine may readily be set up and moved about as it is mounted on wheels. The selection of the material is fairly satisfactory. Conclusions. The writer feels that some improvements have been made in the design of voting machines since the investi- gation of a year and a half ago. However, there seems to be considerable more to be done along that line, before the voting machines will stand the thorough test that they necessarily must be subjected to, and until the defects mentioned in the foregoing sections of this report are entirely eliminated, the writer recommends that the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago postpone the purchase of voting machines. The one machine that in the opinion of the writer comes nearest to fulfilling all the conditions of a voting machine is the Empire Voting Machine. The writer wishes to thank your Honorable Board for the assistance rendered and the courtesies shown dur- ing the days of the examination. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) 0. A. Leutwilee, Assistant Professor of Machine Design, University of Illinoii*. 85 80 50 75 50 25 100 100 75 100 100 100 90 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 50 90 100 50 50 226 Liietwiler Report — Continued. GRADE TABLE No. 1 QUESTIONS PREPARED BY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ■KT r.TTi?aTTmvT Em- Tri- Wil- Win- No. QUESTION pi^g ^^^^ li^ glj,^ 1. Mechanical construction 100 2. Mechanical action 100 3. Counting mechanism reliability of all parts 100 4. Counters: (1) Positiveness of action 100 (2) Firmness in position 100 (3) Clinging or freezing of parts 100 (4) Which has best protection against fraudulent manipulation 100 5. Strength and Delicacy: As to all parts and entire machine. . 100 833 6. Preventive Action: That is, will permit of voting proper number of candidates only 7. Liability to get out of order: By accident, design, rust or otherwise 100 8. Grouping of Candidates Capacity to arrange for on any part of machine 100 100 100 100 9. Difficulty of operation — Party lever (a) How much more difficult would it be Not to operate a WillLx machine with 9 much columns, 70 keys, if stored for six harder months or a year (a) How much more difficult would it be to operate these other machines after having been stored for six months or a year 100 100 90 10. Fraudulent Manipulation: Which machine would be less liable thereto 100 11. Simplicity — of arrangement and pre- paring for voting 100 12. Group voting: which machine permits of same with greatest ease and reliability 100 13. Cumulative vote legislative candidates : Which machine shows best method of counting one vote for three can- didates, one and one-half votes for two candidates, three votes for one candidate , 100 90 100 One vote for one candidate and two votes for another candidate 14. Grade Machine : As to capacity for arrangement for cum- ulative voting on any part of machine 100 15. Springs: Are there any used on the machine? Yes 16. Grade: As to liability of rnachine to get out of order or become injured by being hauled to and from poling place 100 Average grade 95 90 ? 80 90 75 100 100 ? 100 100 ? Yes Yes Yes 100 100 100 90 76 54 Report of C. E. DePuy. 227 GRADE TABLE No. 2. QUESTIONS PREPARED BY WRITER. 834 No. QUESTIONS Relative Em- Weights pire Tri- Wil- umph lix Wins- low 1. Simplicity of operations before voting 5 5 5 5 5 2. Simplicity of operations in vot- ing 'straight ticket' 5 5 4 5 4 3. Simplicity of operations in vot- ing 'split ticket' 3 3 3 3 3 4. Simplicity of voting 'restricted ticket' 2 2 2 ? ? 5. Simplicity of operations in 'primary voting' 3 3 3 ? ? 6. Protection against fraudulent manipulation 10 8 8 5 ? 7. Accuracy of recording mechan- ism 10 10 10 10 ? 8. Permanency of records 10 10 10 5 10 9. Accuracy of plan for cumula- tive voting 10 10 10 ? 10. Accuracy of plan for group voting 10 10 10 10 ? 11. Character of design 10 10 9 5 5 12. Correct selection of material. 10 10 9 6 10 13. Excellency of workmanship. .10 10 9 5 5 14. Size and weight 1 i 1 1 1 15. .Ease with which the machine may be set up 1 i 1 1 1 Average grade 100 97 84 71 44 Mr. McEwEN. I have now the report Exhibit "0-19" of C. E. DePuy, dated August 3, 1910. (Reading) : "Beport to the Board of Election Commissioners of the Investigation of Caulkins Voting Machine. August 3, 1910. General Design a/nd Arrangement. This machine is of an entirely different type from any of these previously shown, and it has some important advantages and also, I think some disadvantages. The machine is comparatively small and much lighter than any other I have seen, but the method of voting a ticket is not altogether desirable. One end of a paper ballot, arranged with the candidates of each party in vertical columns, is attached to a horizontal driving bar connected at each end to an endless chain, and the other end of the ballot is brought around and pasted on the first and over the driving bar. The ballot is thus made 835 228 DePuy Report — Continued. into an endless strip whicli moves along the space of one name each time a voting lever is operated. The counters, made of three small wheels, with ten type numbers and ratchet teeth on each and rotating loosely on a pin, are connected together by links form- ing a chain of the same pitch as the chain moving the ballot. When the machine is operated the ballot and counter chains both move, but as the sprockets carry- ing them turn in opposite directions the ballot and the counters on the inside of the machine move along to- gether and in the same direction. Each name on the ballot thus has its corresponding counter and at the proper place on the machine they always come together. The returns, after the voting is finished, are deter- mined by bringing the ballot and counters into actual contact and making the counters print the number of votes cast opposite the corresponding name on the bal- 836 lot. This printing can be done rapidly and the returns can be quickly and accurately obtained. As a check on the setting of the counters, before the voting begins all counters may be set to 999 and printed on the ballot, then all can be advanced one number, set- ting them all to 000 and again printed on the ballot. This would show on the ballot that all counters are work- ing and that they are all set right before the voting be- gins. Method of Voting. The candidates are voted for singly and the name of each must be brought to the proper place on the machine in order to record the vote. To accomplish this there are provided at the bottom of the machine ten levers, one for each of eight parties indicated, one for the independ- 837 ent vote, and one for a no vote column. This no vote lever provides a means of moving the ballot along with- out recording a vote for any candidate. The name of the candidate being voted must be between two lines on the glass front of the machine, and when in this position, if the corresponding lever at the bottom is pulled, the counter operating mechanism is set ready for action, and when the handle is pushed in. the ballot and counter chains are advanced one link, the counter pawl operates on the ratchet of the counter of the candidate voted for and advances this counter one number. At the same time DePuy Report— Continued. 229 a dial restricting mechanism is turned one space and if it is a single office candidate voted, the restricting mechanism releases and the machine is set ready to vote the next candidate. If the candidate voted is in a group of several for the same office, then the restricting device is retained in action and voting can continue either in the same eohimn or party, or in the same line hy pulling the lever of some other party until as many levers have been pulled as there are votes allowed in this group. The pulling of this last lever sets a restricting bar on the bottom of the machine and prevents any more voting levers being pulled until the voting levers have been pushed in and the restricting device released. If the voting in the group has all been done on one ticket, the pushing of the lever after the restriction is caused by 838 pulling the last time, releases the restriction again and the machine is ready to vote as before, because the ticket is then at the end of the group. If the end of the group on the ticket is not reached when the last lever, making the proper number of votes, is pulled (this wall occur when candidates from more than one party are voted i. e., the ticket is "split"), then the no vote lever must be used to pass by the remainder of the lines in the group. "When the last line of the group is reached the restrict- ing dial operates to release the restricting bar under the machine the same as is done if the voting is all in one party. Locking of Machine After the Straight Ticket. The ticket shown on the machine gives the straight ticket at the head of each party ticket. If this straight ticket is voted then the dial restricting mechanism oper- ates on another restricting bar in the bottom of the ma- chine and locks everything so that no more voting can be done until the long handle has been turned, which the voter does as he leaves the machine. Turning this han- dle returns all the mechanism to the original position. Arrangement of Legislative Ticket. As the machine is shown the legislative ticket can be 839 voted in either one of three groups, viz: 3 votes for 1 candidate 1 pull required. 1-1/2 votes for each of two candidates 2 pulls required. 1 vote for each of 3 candidates 3 pulls required. These three groups are placed at the end of the ticket, 230 DePuy Report — Continued. because after the voter has finished voting in any one of them, the final locking bar is set and no more voting can be done. The action is the same as when the straight ticket is voted. This locking arrangement should be changed so that the restriction after the legislative vote is not on the final locking bar. This change would al- low the ticket to be arranged in any order desired. Mechanical Construction and Difffculty of Operation. The mechanical construction of this machine is very faulty in many respects, and in operation it frequently catches and has to be helped over the hard spots. Until I had studied the machine enough to learn the action of the various parts, I was not able to make the machine operate at all satisfactorily, because I did not know what to do to help it along. This of course is only an experi- mental machine. In building another the designer would change many details and add a number of things that are not present on this machine. Sprvngs. A good many springs are used to obtain the desired 840 movements. In building another many of these could be done away with or changed in form so that their ac- tion would be satisfactory. Checking of Poll List hi/ Machine. In the operation of this machine some counter on each horizontal line must always register (the no-vote counter registers if the others are not used), and so the sum of the numbers registered in each line would be the same and should correspond to the poll list. It is the plan of the designer to place a counter on each voting lever, which will record the number of times each is pulled, and these would also make a check on the corresponding vertical column. Independent Slide and Changes on a New Machine. With this machine the independent votes are written on separate cards, but it would be better to have a con- tinuous strip. This the designer proposes to change in another machine. Primary and restricted voter devices are also planned which I think would be satisfactory. The restricting and grouping device seems to be very positive, BePuy Report — Continued. 231 and I think on a new machine all the mechanical move- ments could be made satisfactory. Advantages. The advantages of this machine are : Small size and comparatively light weight. A machine 841 with a full nine-party ticket would be somewhat larger than the model shown, but it probably would not be larger than 3 feet long, 16 inches high, and 15 inches deep. The weight would probably be about 300 pounds. Ease of handling and storing. Machines of this size could be taken care of with comparative ease, and they would not occupy much space. Returns quickly obtained. A complete record of the vote cast could be obtained in a few minutes after the polls closed. Returns printed by machine. The record is obtained by running the . regular ballot over the machine while holding the counters in contact with it. As many copies could be made as desired. The first copy would have the 999 and the 000 imprints also. Counters give a check on poll list. The sum of the numbers registered in any horizontal line would always be the same and would show the number of voters using the machine. Disadvantages. Voting must be done a line at a time. The ticket must be voted as each line of candidates appears at the proper place and after the lever is pulled, even part way, it can- not be returned to change the vote. For single candi- dates this probably would not cause much trouble, but in a group of many candidates voters would be very likely to make moves they did not intend. No-Vote Lever Confusing. The use of the no-vote lever would be very apt to con- 842 fuse an inexperienced voter, and he would pull the ticket past the candidate wanted before he was aware of what he was doing. Voting would he slow. In order to be sure he was doing just what he ought to, the ordinary voter would take more time than could be 232 BePuy Report — Continued. allowed in most places, and the ignorant voter would, I fear, get hopelessly confused. The advantages outnumber the disadvantages, but I think the disadvantages are of such vital importance that they must outweigh the advantages. The other machine presented that works properly cannot be considered be- cause of its weight and size, and this one is out of the question because of the way in which the machine has to be operated. There is still a field for invention of voting machines. I have not yet seen one I can recommend for use in the City of Chicago. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) C. E. DePuy.' " Mr. McEwEN. I have now the report. Exhibit '0-20' of Mr. C. E. DePuy, dated July 20, 1910 : ' Report to the Boabd of Election Commissioners of the Results of Investigation of the Tritjmph Voting Ma- chine. July 20, 1910. General Design. The general design and arrangement of parts is the same as of the machines previously shown by this Com- 843 pany, but the details are improved in some particulars. Materials. Cold rolled steel is used very largely in the construc- tion, some of the parts are made of bronze and a few are aluminum. Some of the steel parts are electro-galvan- ized, but many are plain uncoated steel, and I think they would rust when the machines are in storage, and cause serious trouble. All working parts should be galvanized, or coppered, and all other surfaces should be enameled. Coimters. The counters are made by the Veeder Manufacturing Company and are operated by a disc and pin held in place by the frame which supports the counters. The construction seems to be more substantial than on the previous machines, and I think they will give accurate results. The arrangement of the mechanism for resetting the counters has also been improved and this adjustment can DePuy Report — Continued. 233 now be easily made. The resetting, however, requires two men, considerable time, and very close observation and attention. Individual Restriction and Grouping of Candidates. The device for restricting the individual voting keys works satisfactorily. The restriction seems to be posi- tive, except on the independent slides mentioned later, and is not likely to be changed by use, although each wedge has a screw for adjustment if necessary. When 844 the machine is arranged to vote a group of candidates the same restriction device is used and seems to be perfectly positive without special adjustment as was required be- fore. Cumulative Vote Device. The device for cumulative voting is practically the same as that sho\vn on the earlier machine, but there are some changes in the details of the parts which make it some- what more positive, but it is not yet satisfactory. The legislative ticket can be voted in five ways, viz. : H votes for each of 2 candidates 1 key used o" (( <<(((< 1 II 1 " " 2 " " 1 candidate and 1 for an- other 2 " " 1 " " each of 3 candidates 3 " " The first three groups are controlled by one set of re- stricting Avedges and seem to work positively, but the last two groups are controlled by another set of wedges and they are not properly proportioned. When adjusted so that the three individual candidates can be voted easily, two keys can be operated in the other group, making two votes for each of two candidates. If the device is ad- justed so that only one key can be voted in the two-vote group, then the last key voted in the single candidate group works very hard. The whole device is cumbersome and has too many parts to be satisfactory. 845 Indepetident Vote Slides. The slides used for independent. voting are not prop- erly locked. Any of these slides can be raised five-eighths of an inch and slides on columns 5 and 29 can be raised three-quarters of an inch without operating the i-estrict- ing wedges. The slide on column 1 will sometimes lock, 234 DePuy Report — Continued. but that on column 7 never locks Avlien the slide is raised to the top and then pulled down again. In these columns it is then possible to vote twice for any office by writing a name in the slide opening and then voting in the regu- lar way afterward. The same thing can be done on any of the columns, if the name is short, by writing through the five-eighths inch opening of the slides. The reason that the operating of the slides on column 7 does not lock the regular voting key is that the strip on the slide connecting with the restricting wedge is a little too long, and when the wedge is up there is no tension on this strip, and it is free to fall back into its original position. The wedge is of such shape that it stays up by friction. While this condition appears only on this wedge and strip now, I see no reason why it may not ap- pear on any of them at any time. The Primary Device. The device for arranging for one or more lines to be 846 used by a party in a primary election is a great improve- ment over that previously sho-wn. It is easily adjusted and operates satisfactorily. Desirability of Machine. The machine as shown is not satisfactory and I believe some parts might fail to operate sometimes even if the failure noted were overcome. The machine also has the same objections regarding size, weight, and storing qualities as before, and I think it is not a type of machine desired by the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) C. E. DePuy. Mr. McEwEN. I have now the report, Exhibit ' 0-21 ' of Mr. C. E. DePuy, dated July 1, 1910 (reading) : "Eepokt to the Board of Election Commissioners of the Results of the Investigation of the Empire Voting Machine. July 1, 1910. Construction. The material, workmanship, and general design are of ff DePuy Report — Continued. 235 the same excellent character as shown on the machine previously exhibited; and I believe that this machine would be durable and reliable in action. Springs. Springs are used in several places to assist the action or to counterbalance the weight of the various parts to 847 which they are connected ; but their material and applica- tion are such as to give reliable results. In many cases where springs are used their action is not absolutely es- sential to the operations of the machine, but they assist the movement of other parts, making their action quicker and more reliable than they would be without the springs. Counters. The counters are the same as used on the previous ma- chine, and, I believe are perfectly reliable, positive, and durable. Individual Restriciion and Grouping of Candidates. The strips and wedges for restricting the number of keys that can be operated are simple in construction and positive in operation. By a very easily manipulated ad- justment the machine can be, anywhere, set to vote for a single candidate or a group of any reasonable number. The arrangement of a large group does not interfere with the ease of voting nor with the absolute restriction to the correct number of votes. Cumulative Vote Device. ■ The attachment for regulating the cumulative vote can be placed anywhere on the machine, and compels the vote to be cast in one of three ways, viz.: Three votes for either of two candidates; two votes for either of the two candidates, and one for the other; or one and one- half votes each for the two candidates. The device is used in connection with the regular re- stricting mechanism which controls the actual number of 848 votes, and compels the voter to confine himself to the group in which he has begun to vote. As shown it is di- vided into four sections, each section controlling three voting keys. One, two, or three of these sections control the first method of grouping, while the fourth section con- trols the second method. This last group requires but 236 DePuy Report — Continued. two voting keys, and consequently one key in this groUp is left blank. The device could be arranged to vote the one and one- half votes for each of the two candidates on one ticket by the operation of a single key, thus making use of the key that would otherwise be left blank. If the Board of Election Commissioners should decide to purchase these machines, I think it would be desirable to make this change. Improper Adjustment of Device as Shown. As the device is now shown on the machine, all four sec- tions must be used, because the stationary top-bar of the grouping device is too wide to clear the projecting lugs on the restricting strips of the individual voting keys. When the first two sections are nominally thrown out of this action, this top-bar causes the device to operate just the same. In other words, these sections can not be thrown out of action. Making this top-bar a little nar- 849 rower will allow it to operate as intended. Primary Voting Device. The device for controlling the number of bars used by each party in a primary election is very simple and ef- fective. It accomplishes the end desired without in any way interfering with the accuracy or ease of manipula- tion of the machine for other purposes. Desirability of Purchasing Machines. The machine presented I believe will receive and record votes in an election accurately and quickly, after the ma- chine is adjusted and the voters have received the proper instruction, and thus will simplify the work of judges and clerks in securing correct returns. To offset these advantages, however, the machine is large, heavy, and difficult to move and store. If many machines were used in an election it would be a great undertaking to get them properly adjusted and placed in the voting places. The custodian would fill a very re- sponsible position, for on him would depend the adjust- ment of the machine, and he, through error or fraud, could so adjust the machine that it would nullify its operation in a given election. In the light of these facts, I believe that it is not desir- Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. - 237 able for the Board of Election Commissioners to purchase many of these machines at present. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) C. E. DePuy." 869 The witness had considered the objections which have been made to the machine prior to 1911 by the experts assigned to examine them. 870 It was his judgment, based upon reports of these ex- perts that at the present time the machines belonging to the Empire Company, namely, the United States Stand- ard, the Columbia and the Empire unanimously stood at the head of the machines examined in all the examina- tions and that in the last examination, those of 1909 and 1910, the Empire stood at the head. Witness does not think that any discussion was had officially at any regular or special meeting of the Election Commissioners on the reports of the experts that had been furnished to the Board but that they were discussed at times, "whenever we would meet, that is, whenever we would meet in the Board room together." 871 The Commissioners had their discussions in the same room where the Commission had its meetings. The Com- missioners went to the rooms ever-^ day most of the time, and sometimes nights, but not necessarily to hold a for- mal Board meeting. The Commission had no particular 872 day for its meetings. The Commissioners were usually called together by the Chairman whenever exigency re- quired it. Witness thinks the old reports prior to 1911 were talked over by the Commissioners. Witness is asked as to the qualifications of the Com- missioners for passing on such matters and states that Kellermann was a manufacturer of machinery. Witness ' knowledge of mechanics is "just the mere common sense of the average citizen." Witness is a lawyer. Commissioner Czarnecki had been engaged in news- paper work and once had been connected with a bank. 873 Objection to the weight of the machine was met by the contention on the part of the witness that "I did not see and cannot see how it would be possible for an im- mense ticket with a lighter machine and that, heavy as the machine w^as, they had been handled in the City of Chicago without any very great difficulty and without any 238 Objections Raised by Experts Considered. accident"; "handled before our time." "Some 37 ma- chines had been put into tlie polling places and taken out and everybody seemed to be enthusiastic over their oper- ation, especialh^ the reports in the newspapers. Further than that, I knew they were handling a much heavier ma- chine, and had been for a number of years, in Indian- apolis, and that, upon the whole, the machines widely used thi'oughout the United States were machines not greatly lighter than our own and that weight didn't seem to be any serious obstacle." The objection made in 1909 that the machines with a party lever permitted the voter to vote a straight ticket and then vote specially in the same line of candidates had been made "before our time in the reports of 1910, and it was entirely absent when Judge Owens' experts examined it." 874 The objection as to the lack of restriction of number of inspections was talked over and witness did not regard it as a serious objection. "Witness did not regard as a vital objection going to the honesty of the count that the judges were obliged to total the straight and individual votes. Witness expected only that the machine would honesly record and pre- serve the voter's choice. "Q. So far as any difficulties that might arise over false registration, impersonation, repeating and all those matters outside of the machine, they represented a human element in the election and you did not expect the machine to take care of that?" The question received no answer. 875 In looking after the human element surrounding the machines, the Election Commissioners adopted various rules and instructions based upon experience, to guard against fraud by permitting checking up of one upon another. The Commission also went over registration lists, especially in river wards, called in voters and checked their testimony trying to purify the ballot. 876 In advocating voting machines, witness was influenced by what he believed was the public sentiment as expressed in the public press. Files of newspaper clippings were found by the witness in the vaults of the Commission, probably 300 or more. Witness has a portion of the clip- pings and states that they show that all the newspapers here in the English language were in favor of voting ma- chines from 1903 down to 1910. The Vote of the People. 239 Witness also knew the results of the election in 1904 and that the people voted over 8 to 1 in favor of adopting the machines. 877 Witness had also inquired during the consideration of the voting machine question in 1911 concerning the use of, voting machines in other cities and went over a large num- ber of testimonials on tile in the Election Commissioners ' office. 878 Witness had learned that at several places voting ma- chines had been rejected or invalidated, in all of the mu- nicipalities of New Jersey and two or three other places. The reason for the New Jersey action is given in the official report, "It was a matter of policy and locality, mainly. ' ' New Jersey had purchased a limited number of ma- chines and there were disputes as to where they should' be placed. Massachusetts had used the voting machines but the Supreme Court had decided that under their pecliar constitution the machines were not valid. 880 The witness had learned the machines were still in operation in Buffalo, in Schenectady, Syracuse, Eoclies- ter, Utica, and there were still some others. They were also in use in Indiana at Indianapolis and Evansville and Peru. Witness is asked by Mr. Deneen whether he recalls their use in Pulaski County, Indiana. Witness replies: "Probably, I do not recall." In Connecticut they had them at Hartford, Danbury, Bridgeport, and lots of other places, and in Minnesota, Minneapolis and other places. 881 Witness also knew at one time but could not quite re- call what state commissions had approved the Empire Voting Machine. Witness is handed a package marked "Judge Owens' Exhibit 24" purporting to be a certified copy of Com- mon Council Board proceedings of the City of Hartford, Conn., and his attention called to pages 786 to page 814 inclusive. Witness had seen these prior to voting ma- chine matter in 1911. Witness had seen the proceed- ings of the Common Council of Hartford, Conn. It was on file in the Election Commissioners' office. The pro- ceedings were dated February 10, 1902. 882 This document was then offered in evidence by Mr. McEwen. Introduction objected to by Mr. Deneen on 240 Hartford, Connecticut, and Voting Machines. the ground that it includes the newspaper clipping 883 "which may be nothing more nor less than an attempt to advertise." That portion of the document is admitted which re- ports the proceedings of the Council Board of Hartford, Connecticut, excerpts from newspaper clippings ex- cluded. 886 Mr. McEwen here read in evidence the part of the document which was admitted in evidence as follows: "Report of the Board of Selectmen, with accompany- ing resolutions, blank form of agreement, wdth surety and letters and testimonials from other cities, on com- 886-894 munication re U. S. Standard Voting Machine; the matter of adopting said machines having been referred to said Board November 25, 1901, by the court of Com- mon Council, came from the Board of Aldermen with the second resolution embodied therein passed, and the rest of the report referred to a joint special committee of two Aldermen and four Councilmen and the Board of Selectmen. Aldermen Wells and Ball appointed. "The report is as follows: To the Honorable Board of Selectmen of the City of 887 Hartford: Gentlemen: Your committee, to w-hom was referred the matter of drafting a favorable report on voting ma- chines, beg leave to report that they have given the matter careful consderation and submit the following for your approval. W. H. ScoviixE, Charles W. Doughebty, Henky F. Smith, Clerk, Special Committee of Board of Selectmen. Hartpobd, Conn., Jan. 25, 1902. To the Honorable Court of Common Council of the City of Hartford: 'The Board of Selectmen, to whom w^as referred the matter of adopting voting machines, beg leave to re- port : 'The Legislature of 1901 created a State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor who were to examine any machine brought before them. Any machine approved by this Commis- sion would then be a legal machine and could be then Hartford Report — Continued. 241 used in any citj^ or town election of the State of Con- necticut. The Governor appointed Henry H. Snell, Samuel C. Hardin and Frederick W. Cooper as Voting Machine Commissioners of the State of Connecticut. 'This Commission examined the U. S. Standard Voting Machine and have filed a report with the Secretary of State, in which they state that this machine complies 888 Avith all the laws of Connecticut, which are as follows : 'Section 3 of Chapter 120 P. A. 1901, page 1257: 'A voting machine to be approved by the State Board of Voting Machine Commissioners must be so con- structed as to provide facilities for voting for the can- didates of at least seven different parties or organiza- tions. 'It must be provided with a single straight ticket de- vice for each of said parties, by the use of which a voter may vote for all the candidates of that party. *lt must permit a voter to vote for any person for any office whether or not nominated as a candidate by any party or organization. 'It must permit voting in absolute secrecy. 'Such machine shall also be constructed that a voter cannot vote for a candidate or on a proposition for whom or -on which he is not lawfully entitled to vote. 'It must also be so constructed as to prohibit voting for more than one person for the same office, except where a voter is lawfully entitled to vote for more than one person for that office. 'It must afford him an opportunity to vote for as many persons for that office as he is by law entitled to vote for, and no more, at the same time preventing his voting for the same person twice. 'It must be so constructed that all votes cast by voters are registered or recorded by said machine. 889 'It must be so provided with a lock or locks by means of which any movement of the voting or registering mechanism is absolutely prevented. ' The approval of the Commissioners makes this a legal rnethod of voting only in City, Town and Borough elec- tions in this State. 'This Board have examined the U. S. Standard Voting Machine and we believe that the interests of the City will be enhanced, both morally and financially by the adop- tion of this machine. 242 Hartford Report — Continued. 'These machines have been thoroughly proven and tested, having been in practical use for four years in the State of New York and are the only method of voting in twenty cities and over fifty towns in this, New York State. 'By their use the accurate results of each election are obtained promptly at the close of the polls and all re- counts and election contests are reduced to a minimum. The expenses of election are greatly reduced. 'The most important features of this machine claimed by its manufacturers are simplicity, accuracy, speed, durability and economy, and on these five essentials we have based our investigations. 'The first claim, that of simplicity, involves the ability of all voters, educated or illiterate, to operate the ma- chine in such a manner as to correctly express their sentiments upon any subject which may be submitted for their vote. 890 'As to this feature, we cannot find that the machine has ever disfranchised a voter. On the contrary, it would seem from what outside evidence we have secured, that it insures and protects the franchise of the voter. 'In our investigations upon this point, we have en- deavored to secure the opinion of some Hartford citizen wdio may in the past have been called upon to vote upon the machine while yet a citizen of some sister city where it was in actual use, or who may have witnessed its workings while temporarily abroad, and in both in- stances have been fortunate enough to meet such par- ties. The first, a gentleman and acquaintance of our City Clerk and now managing an insurance agency in our City, was a citizen of Buffalo, N. Y., up to about a year ago and had voted on the machine in that city. He was enthusiastic in his report of the machine, and pro- nounced it a grand success with all voters there, with- out regard to educational qualifications, and called at- tention to the fact that Buffalo has a very large element of her population who are illiterate; yet the machine stands in great favor with them all. 'The. second, a personal friend of City Clerk Smith, now and for many years past a citizen of Hartford, who has made business trips to the Cities of Rochester and Buffalo for four years past, in the autumn of each year, Avlien elections were being held. His attention was first Hartford Report — Contiwued. 243 accidentally called to the machine in the City of Roches- 891 ter in the month of October, 1898, four years ago when the voters of that city were for the first time heing in- structed in the use of it, preparatory for the election to follow in November of that year. His interest being aroused in such an innovation, he was himself, by cour- tesy, instructed upon the machine, and has watched its results with much interest ever since. In Buffalo he has many times casually dropped into a voting booth just before an election and questioned the precinct officials as to its workings, always receiving from them the same unstinted praise tliat seems to follow the machine wher- ever seen and tested. 'A son of the party just mentioned, who was formerly a citizen of Hartford, and voted here, but is now, and has been for four years past, a citizen and voter of Rochester, N. Y., offers similar testimony. 'We have also received a reply to a letter written to an ex-City Clerk of Buffalo in which the writer expresses his approval of the speed, accuracy and economy of the machine. 'The reply to our letter to the Hon. Conrad Diehl, ex- Mayor of Buffalo, substantiates in almost every par- ticular the claim made by the manufacturers of the ma- chine in question. 'As to the durability of the machine, time alone must pass upon that question; but, judging from the char- acter of construction and materials used, the claims of its manufacturers upon that point would seem to be well grounded. 892 ' To sum up the result of our investigation thus far, all the information which we have received goes to show that all voters can easily be taught to vote correctly on this machine; that every vote is automatically regis- tered, thus eliminating all mistakes and doubts in count- ing; that the method of voting is an absolutely secret one ; that votes can be cast far more speedily than under our present system; while the final result is obtained almost immediately after the close of the polls; that the cost of elections is greatly reduced; that the machines are compact, easily taken down, safe in transportation, and simply and quickly put into position for use; that liability to get out of order is reduced to the minimum; that the present ordinary expenses of candidates are 244 Hartford Report — Continued. literally done away with; in fact, that every condition sought under our present system is obtained on this machine, with added certainty, greater secrecy, and a great reduction in time and expense. 'And this information has been obtained without re- gard to any claims made for the machine by its manu- facturers. 'While considering the object aimed at in examining into the merits of this method of voting, we feel that we cannot do better than call your attention to the words of His Excellency, Governor George P. McLean, on page 13 of his Message to the General Assembly of 1901. The 893 sentiments there expressed, under the heading "Purity of the Ballot," are comprehensive and to the point, and may be read with interest and profit by all our people, and are so simple and plain that advanced scholars of our grammar schools cannot mistake their meaning.' "Kesol,at;d, That the Ordinance Committee prepare an ordinance for submission to the Honorable Court of Common Council which will legalize the use of Voting Machines at all Citv and Town elections of Hartford, Conn." 896 Witness does not recall having talked with any of his predecessors in office. Witness has read Mr. Powell's" article and has read the report identified as "Owens' Exhibits 3 to 8," made by various officials of the State of New Jersey. Mr. McEwen offers them in evidence. Witness understands that these documents are, in a general way, favorable to voting machines. 897 "Mr. McEwen. I want to read the paragraph of one report, 'Owens' Exhibit 6' from the annual report of the Secretary of State of Xew Jersey relative to the paper ballots and voting machines. Dated December 22d, 1908." Mr. McEwen then reads as follows: "In addition to the reasons mentioned in the last re- port, it is the belief of the department that the chief 897-903 and the underlying reason for the opposition to the voting machines in New Jersey is the manner in which their use was provided for. The voting machines are properly the property of the municipalities, and, except in New Jersey, they have been procured at municipal expense, as paper ballot boxes are procured here. This New Jersey and the Voting Machine. 245 State undertook to supply a limited number of machines. By this method, it became necessary to discriminate be- tween election districts, some districts being provided with the new method of voting without cost, while others were forced to retain the old system or to provide ma- chines at their own expense. The members of the legis- lature, also, having made the necessary appropriation for the purchase of the limited number of machines, sought to secure for their respective counties their pro- portionate share, with the result that instead of having the machines properly grouped together in a given num- ber of municipalities, so that a fair and reasonable test of their efficiency might be made, they were scattered without system throughout the different counties. Al- though this seemed at the time equitable and just, ex- perience has proven that it was an entirely mistaken policy. Two systems of voting were thereby forced upon many municipalities to the general dissatisfaction of all, thus placing the new method at great disadvantage. But more important, the legislature and the Secretary of State, who is charged with the location of the ma- chines, being of the same political party, an opportunity was immediately given to those of opposing political 898 faiths to assume that the machines were being located or relocated with a view of accomplishing a partisan, rather than a public service. Indeed, many of those affiliated with the dominant party were of the same opin- ion. The department has no hesitancy at the present time in saying that the appeals of party workers of all parties, either for original location of machines or for removal for the avowed purpose of accomplishing some partisan purpose, were both unreasonable and unjust. 899 Such procedure could naturally produce no other effect on the average mind of a member of an opnosition party than that the machines were unworthy devices to aid rather than to prevent ballot manipulation; and logic, education, and training have not yet proven sufficient to change such opinion. Added to this was the quite general disposition among election officers and others charged with the use of the machine to instruct voters only in those features which would enable the voter to cast his ballot the way the instructor desired. If the instructor were a Republican, the voter would probably be instructed only in the way to pull the Republican 246 New Jersey Report — Continued. lever ; if the instructor were a Democrat, the voter would be told onl}' about the Democratic lever. If the instructor desired the voter to split a ballot, he would teach him simply how to accomplish a particular cut. If he desired a straight ballot voted, he refrained entirely from in- structing in the method of voting split ballots. In many instances, where the voter requested instruction on split- ting ballots, the instructor would discourage or advise against such voting. The whole purpose of many election oflScers seemed to be to see how little, rather than how complete, instructions they could give the voters. 900 In 1906, when the elections in several districts where voting machines were located resulted disastrously to the dominant party, those thoughtless members of that party who had allowed themselves to believe that the machine was indeed for their own selfish advantage be- came disgusted with what they promptly came to regard as a faithless servant, and they, too, from that time, became enemies of the machine. In the last report on voting machines, after answer- ing at length, and as is believed, absolutely and finally, all the honest objections that have thus far been raised to the use of voting machines, four recommendations were made, the principles of which it is sought herewith to re-incorporate in the present report. They are: First. Two systems of voting should not exist in the same municipality, and a machine once located should not be removed. Second. Arrangements should be made whereby every voter may have ample opportunity to examine the machine and to understand every detail of its operation. Every voter should also be provided, before election, with a fac-simile of the face of the machine, showing how the names of the respective candidates will appear thereon on election day. 901 Third. Each municipality where machines are used should be supplied with at least one person from each political party who is sufficiently versed in the mechan- ical construction of voting machines to pass such exam- ination as the department shall prepare and conduct, and all municipal clerks should either be themselves thus prepared or have someone in their employ Avho has suc- cessfully passed such an examination. New Jersey Report — Continued. 247 Fourth. Abolition of party levers, especially if the Massachusetts, Montana, or Minnesota form of paper ballot should be adopted, is also recommended. In such cases provision should be made that where a candidate of a given party is endorsed for the same office by other parties his name shall appear only once on the face of the machine, thereby eliminating the use of endorsing bars, a very ingenious and valuable device, but one which election officers seem, in many instances, incapable of comprehending. The use of two methods of voting in the same munici- pality has been found productive of much ill-feeling. Voters are unable to understand why there should be discrimination. Those who desire to use machines. and are residents of districts not equipped with them are equal in their condemnation with those who reside in voting machine districts, but prefer the paper ballots. 902 The necessity for education of voters in the use of machines is paramount. Voters must know how to cast their ballots. A person becoming acquainted at the same time with both our paper ballots and our voting ma- chines will more readily acquire a knowledge of the machine method than of the paper ballot method. Much of the present opposition is because voters already have a knowledge of paper ballot voting, and have been com- pelled to learn, often from incompetent or unwilling instructors, the machine method. A thorough acquaint- ance with the machine seldom fails to convince voters of both its ease and its infallibility. The fourth recommendation is important, particularly if the state adopts a paper ballot requiring the voter to mark each individual name.' 902 Mr. McEwen. Now, I will read the concluding para- graph, which is just a glance at the future, by Mr. S. D. Dickinson, Secretary of State. (Reading.) 'Future of Voting Machines. 'The future of voting machines is not in doubt. The demand for them is annually increasing. In fourteen states their use has been legalized and has stood the con- stitutional test in five states, which includes every state where the question has been raised, except Massachu- setts, where the wording of the constitution is peculiar 248 Testimony of Reward S. Taylor. ■ 903 and was given a very strict construction. Many large cities are already entirely equipped with them. Fiftj'- five per cent, of the voters of New York State, outside of Greater New York, use them. Chicago is seriously considering their adoption. It remains for New Jersey to determine whether she will for the present continue their use or await the time when her people have been aroused to the necessity of placing the most efficient known safeguards around the ballot. The time will surely come. Jerseymen are not different from citizens of other states. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) S. D. Dickinson, Secretary of State.' December 22, 1908." 904 Election Commissioners also had advance sheets or a certified copy of the hostile opinion of the Supreme Court on the subject of voting machines. Counsel does not refer to the Hull case, to which wit- ness refers, but a prior case, regarding which witness says, "Oh, we knew that the Supreme Court of the State had validated the voting machine." That is, they treated the voting machine ballot as a ballot, and in general sus- tained the voting machine law. Witness also considered the reports of the last experts appointed by Judge Owens. Witness knew the weights of the various machines ex- amined but does not remember them. Thinks the Winslow was the heaviest machine. 905 "Q. Refresh your recollection by referring to the re- ports in the minutes deciding that the International weighs 665 to 715, the Triumph 725, and the Empire 904 without the case, the case weighing 185 pounds, the Wins- low, 1260 pounds? A. Yes, sir." The strongest element that influenced the witness' mind in favor of the Empire was that the Empire was almost identical with the Standard machine that had been on trial and widely used and was an established success. The witness had information as to what machines had been used in different places. 906 The International had installed ten machines in Elgin. Witness does not think the Winslow had installed a ma- chine anywhere. The Triumph had a few in the East. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 249 The witness knew from newspaper clippings and voting machine literature the percentage of Empire machines in use as compared with other machines. "I did not travel around to see whether the machines were actually located where it was claimed they were." 907 As to the detail of the machine and its operation, "I had no opinion contrary to that of the experts, except I was strongly in favor of the party key instead of the party lever for the simple reason that in a large machine the lever pull would be very heavy," and so forth. The Winslow machine had a pull of 75 pounds. Opposition to putting in voting machines was first en- countered by witness, he thinks, some time after the speci- fications had been drawn and advertisements and letters sent out. 908 The objections begun in a "moderate sort of way and sort of a protest against buying so many machines at once and with some other critical suggestions. ' ' The Bureau of Efficiency objection appears to have been introduced May 20th, 1911, and it was about the same time that other objections began to appear. The Bureau of Efficiency is a voluntary body and Julius Rosenwald signed one of those reports as president. Mr. Sykes was actively connected with it. 909 The Bureau of Efficiency objection was to the pur- chasing of so large a number of machines and also the suggestion that "maybe the machine was not just the ideal one to purchase." "Q. Their conclusion is summed up in two headings: first, that the number of machines purchased in the near future should be limited to 100 and the purchase of a greater number postponed until after trial at the pri- maries of 1912 and election of November, 1912, of this limited number of machines, and. Second, the Board of Election Commissioners should ask and secure the finan- cial authority of the city in advance of taking action to- ward the purchase of voting machines. ' ' In determining upon the purchase of 1,000 machines witness was influenced by the fact that "that was about the number of maehiues that would be required to supply the City under a voting machine precinct, that is, making the precincts of the proper size." The Commission also considered in this connection the 250 Witness' View of Proposed Conference With City. report of the Secretary of State of New Jersey, in which objection to a limited number of machines is pointed out. 910 The witness did not consider as to the question of con- ferring with the City Council that it was his duty as Elec- tion Commissioner to confer with the Council upon the subject of financing the purchase of voting machines, and had been advised by the Election Commissioners' attor- ney upon the subject, who said that the law laid the duty of purchasing voting machines upon the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners, and, in view of the fact that in 1909 the City Council practically refused to go fonvard and make any appropriation and was standing still, the at- torney, — "our attorney, thought, (to use his phrase) 'it was up to us'." No particular method of payment was mentioned in the specifications. The Commissioners were willing that the voting machine companies should take their chances on the subject of payment. 911 The witness knows, in a general way, that the City of Chicago has had a great many judgments pending against it. Witness recalls Winslow protest which was read into the record. He gave it "very indignant consideration be- cause it libeled Judge Owens and each member of the Board by implying that Judge Owens had put the whole deal through and we were simply the instruments in his hand." Witness was also influenced by the fact that the Wins- low machine "had always been at the foot or near the foot of standards given by the experts." 912 He was also influenced by the rumor that ' ' Mr. Winslow had been having a meeting with the Empire Company and attempted to compel them to buy his machine and his supposed influence so as to get him out of the competi- tion, and, putting it all togethei-, I had a very poor opin- ion of Mr. Winslow." Mr. Winslow was given an opportunity to bid on 50 machines. His machine was examined by the experts and it did not class with the other machines. Witness does not recall the objections made by the Tri- umph Company. The Triumph letter of July 3, 1911, ob- jects to the time given for examination of voting ma- chines. (Objected to the Empire on the ground of heaviness Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 251 and also to the language of the experts in criti- cising the Triumph machine.) In the early part of the discussion of voting machines, very considerable attention was given to Commissioner Czarnecki's objections but "towards the latter part of the controversy it seemed to me that Mr. Czaniecki was man- ufacturing artificial objections for delay or to open up a new subject for debate and toward the last I got a little impatient with that kind of procedure." Witness was never advised to select one machine or another except by the agents and experts. No outside in- fluence was exercised upon him. 914 Witness favored the voting machines because he had been a strong advocate of them for years and thought them the final solution of election corruption. The peo- ple wanted them and the witness was satisfied it was the right thing to do and "that it was my duty, if we found an adequate machine, to buy it." The witness thought that the opposition to the voting machine took a partisan aspect, — could not say whether before signing the contract. "They were gentle at the start, but this was a fact, that nearly all of these news- papers for ten years had never deviated from the plan of 915 advocating the purchase of voting machines, as soon as it became a Democratic measure, standing in the threshold, they all reversed themselves over night and commenced fighting." All of the Republican papers had lined up in this oppo- sition. The Tribune, the Record-Herald, and the News; possibly the Journal and the Inter Ocean. "Q. What newspaper still appeared to applaud the voting machine ? A. Only the Hearst papers, the Exam- iner and the American. Sen. Landee. Q. What I would like to ask is, were all these papers you mentioned Republican papers? A. One of them, the Journal, is not nominally a Re- publican paper." 916 The Republican papers were not all one way and the Democratic papers all the other way. _ Witness does not know about the attitude of the for- eign paperSjbut thinks the Election Commissioners had on file clippings from the German papers favorable to voting machines. 917 Witness' attention is called to the fact that it took him 252 Testimony of Howard 8. Taylor. 921 eight to twelve minutes to read one proposition submit- ted to the voters voting at the last election and states that in considering one-minute voting as a requirement of the Voting Machine Law he took into account that the public propositions were discussed in the public press and sometimes at public meetings to familiarize voters with them on Election Day. 922 Some difficulty would be experienced by a voter who did not read the propositions before entering the booth with a paper ballot. Witness identifies a paper handed him as a sample vot- ing machine ballot issued by the Board of Election Com- missioners at the last fall election, 1912. 923 It was the practice of the Election Commissioners to is- sue sample ballots and was prior to 1911 voting machine project. Mr. Deneen objects that the paper offered is not a sam- ple ballot and it does not contain the names of independ- ent candidates, but simply a paper sent out by Election Commissioners. They were sent out to each precinct for election day. 925 They were on view in the Election Commissioners office where they could be procured by the citizens. It was the custom to circulate ballots containing the public proposition. They were sometimes called "Little Ballots" and were separate from the other sample bal- lots. 926 Questions appearing on the sample ballot, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, were voted upon last fall and appeared in the order named on the voting machine. "Q. Did you consider, in passing upon the subject of voting in a minute, that ordinarily any lengthy statement or proposition would be contained in a ballot?" 926-935 This question was objected to and after discussion the objection was sustained. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 253 VOLUME XII. Morning Session. Wednesday, July 30, 1913. Dr. Howabd S. Taylor, resumed the stand for further cross-examination by Mr. McEwen : 1033 Witness knew the attitude of previous County Judges, Carter, Rinaker and Houston, regarding voting machines only from their public interviews. Mr. McEwen asked witness whether these interviews had influenced him in making up his opinion in judging voting machines. 1034 Objected to and objection sustained. 1035 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. Hartford, Connecticut, is about 1,000 miles from Chi- cago and the report from the Common Council of Hart- ford, Connecticut, was published in 1902, seven years be- fore the voting machine matter was under consideration by witness. Witness does not think the Hartford report alluded to the Empire Voting Machine, or to a 9-party, 70-key ma- chine. Witness does not recall in any of the reports read into the record, any allusion to a 9-party, 70-key machine. 1036 AVitness thinks that the reports of experts, especially those of Judge Rinaker, advised the Board not to pur- chase the machines. Witness says the Chicago Journal is a Democratic pa- per, and that he thinks the Chicago Daily News is a Re- publican paper. The witness was an editorial writer on the Chicago Ex- aminer for two years and didn't know the politics of the Daily News; thinks nobody else does. 1037 Does not read the News and does not know that it sup- ported President Wilson and Vice-President Marshall last fall. Witness was an editorial writer on the Ex- aminer four years ago and that paper had a presidential candidate of its own then, named Hisgin; the vice-presi- 254 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. dential candidate was Graves. The witness was on the ticket for United States Senator. 1038 The National ticket was called the Independent Party ticket. Witness was also offered for nomination as vice-pres- ident at the Netional Convention of the Independent Party. Witness was also a member from Illinois of the Na- tional Committee of the Independent League. At this time witness was writing a series of articles for the Chi- cago Examiner. Witness helped write the platform of the Independent Party. 1039 George W. McCaskrin of Kock Island was candidate for Governor of Illinois. 1040 Mr. Charles H. Mitchell present attorney for Election Commissioners ran for State's Attorney on the Independ- ent League ticket, probably in 1908. Witness does not think that Mr. Stuart, Chief Clerk, was doing the political work for the Examiner at this time. Can only recall Charles A. Walsh and Theodore Nelson w^ho seemed to be in charge of this work. 1041 Mr. Stuart was employed by the newspaper in some capacity then and supported the newspaper policy of favoring the Independent League in 1908. Witness reads the Examiner and American. He thinks tliem Democratic papers but does not know that they are now supporting President Wilson and Mr. Bryan in some of their policies. 1043 Witness is shown a cartoon in the Examiner and says it indicates that the paper is against them, Wilson and Bryan. The witness calls the Post a Eepublican paper, but does not know what candidate it supported last November. 1044 The Tribune is a Progressive paper supporting Roose- velt and Johnson the last time. The Record-Herald is an Independent paper. When speaking of the Republican newspapers oppos- ing the voting macliine deal the witness spoke of the tra- ditional the Republican newspapers. 1045 Witness lays the blame for the opposition to "several newspapers, one of which I said nominally is Democratic, that is the Journal." Witness has been a Greenbacker, a Prohibitionist, a Populist, a Democratic and an Independent Leaguer. Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 255 1046 The Inter Ocean is a Republican paper. Notwithstanding the attitude of these newspapers, the witness ' predecessor refused to buy voting machines. The witness heard Mr. Cannon's statement regarding visiting newspaper offices and having them send experts to view the machines and that no adverse comment was made regarding delay in purchasing voting machines. The witness thinks that the active comment in the news- papers of voting machine matters was confined each time "only a little while after one of those experts' examina- tion." 1047 They did not continue throughout the year except to comment upon the facility and accuracy of election re- turns in some machine cities like Buffalo or Milwaukee. Those items would come in whenever there was an elec- tion or a number of them. ' ' The witness thinks the editorial policy of criticising the Election Board for delay in purchasing voting ma- chines ceased a little time before the present Election Board came into office. At a meeting of the 25th of March, the witness moved to have 16 machines installed to create agitation in the public mind and to induce newspapers to publish it. 1048 Witness thought the newspapers and public sentiment needed stirring up. The witness cannot recollect that any Chicago news- paper ever advocated the selection by the Election Board of anv particular voting machine. Neither did the Grand Jury 'Report of 1908. 1049 The newspapers talked about the gamblers being stock- holders in the Empire Company. "I recall that they were cautiously suggestive that we should not buy many machines, but gradually taking up the opposing attitude." Witness testified before the Grand Jury that he thought that Commissioner Czarnecki was earnest in his opposi- tion to voting machines, but used all tactics of a general to cause delay. 1050 His purpose was to defeat the Board in making an award of the contract. 1051 The witness had stated, in answer to Judge McEwen's question, that the city was in the habit of allowing judg- ments to go against it and paying them when it could. Witness has been City Prosecuting Attorney for ten years; had nothing to do with civil suits and only knew 256 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. in a general way from newspapers that a good many judg- ments were entered against tlie city. Witness did not have this in mind in financing the en- terprise with the Empire Company that they would be paid off by having the city confess judgment. 1052 Witness believes that the city could easily pay off the indebtedness which would be in the nature of a declared obligation, and believed and still believes that it could be paid from savings on the machines in the course of a few years, "just like other cities have done." Witness supposed the city would find ways and means to pay for the machines. The contract specified that they were to be paid off "from funds available." Witness would not say that it meant they could be paid off from the traction fund. Has no opinion on that. 1053 The witness thinks judgments against the city would bear 5%'. Witness thinks the International machine had a pull on the party-lever of about 25 pounds; does not think any machine had so light a pull as 5 pounds. Witness did not regard the public vote in 1904 in favor of voting machines as calling for the particular voting machine selected by the Commissioners. 1054 Witness is confident that the specifications were dis- cussed with Commissioner Czarnecki. His recollection is that Commissioner Czarnecki was present and made sug- gested amendments. "In fact, I think that the minutes show it." 1055 "I cannot say for sure that Mr. Czarnecki was in the discussion of specifications in the Board rooms." The grand jury report of 1908 influenced witness in re- gard to voting machines. It was two years old when the witness took office, but it was read in the proceedings against Commissioners Abbot and Hudson in the fall of 1910. 1057 The witness thinks the grand jury report was read in these proceedings. "Mr. Mitchell. That was read and they were asked if they had any answer to make. " 1058 Witness thinks that nothing was said about the grand jury report in 1908 between December 9th, 1910, and March 4th, when it was taken up in a meeting of the Board. Preceding the approaching election, friends and repre- sentatives of the candidates were "running into the of- Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 257 fice with big stories about what was planned to be done here and there, colonization, lodging house certificates and all sorts of things"; and witness thinks he can recall two or three occasions during the discussion of these subjects when the grand jury report was referred to, ' * which seemed to indicate a permanent condition of cor- ruption in the electorate of Chicago." The witness is shown the minutes of the Board of Elec- tion Commissioners regarding voting machines which be- gin with the meeting of March 4th. "Q. Don't those minutes recite the facts of any official discussion of this matter! A. As far as official discus- 1059 sion is concerned, I do not know that we had any." Witness thinks the matter of voting machines was talked about by the Commissioners as early as January, 1911, but does not think that the representatives of vot- ing machines called on the Commissioners until sometime in February. Witness knows Charles A. Walsh and that he was a member of the Independent Party. 1060 Witness does not think Walsh called in January or February on the Commissioners about voting machines. Cannot recall that Walsh spoke to him (witness), "but once or twice casually." Witness is asked whether Walsh called in January or February, 1911, with some gentlemen representing voting machines, and witness says, "I do not think I ever saw Mr. Walsh in connection with the voting machine question outside of the Examiner's office." "Q. Did you see him at the Examiner's office? A. I am not sure about that, but I think he had a desk there and was engaged in some sort of business connected, I think, with the advertising, or something connected with the Examiner's office, and I have a vague recollection of his passing some desultory remark a;bout the voting machine question, what we were doing, what we intended to do, and so forth. Q. Don't you recall that he and Mr. Barr called on you at your office over here, at the Board office, the Elec- tion Commissioners' office and talked about the voting machine ; Mr. Barr, of the Empire Voting Machine Com- pany? A. I don't think he ever did. Q. Didn't they bring in some gentleman from Ot- tumwa, Iowa, and introduce them to you and the other Commissioners, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Barr? A. They 258 Testimony of Hoivard S. Taylor. 1061 might have done so, I can't recall it at all; it may have been so. Q. Do you recall any others that were with you then, that were with them? A. I don't recall the occasion at all. Q. Mr. Walsh was connected with the Hearst papers, was he not? A. He was for a time, as I understand; I never knew exactly the nature of his employment, but I think it was in circulation or advertisement, or something. I know he had a desk in the 'Examiner' office for awhile. Q. He had charge of the Land Show, didn't he, that was given here by the ' Examiner ' ? A. I think he did. Q. You and I were both there, do you remember? A, Yes. Q. Will you state what he said to you about the Empire machine? A. Oh, I can't remember a thing about it. I don't remember that he spoke to me about the Empire machine at all ; he may have done so. "Q. Your memory is vague on that matter? A. Very blank; I can't even recall that he came to the office or that he came with any people. It is entirely possible that he may have done so. Q. Did' you discuss this matter of the voting machine with Mr. Andrew Lawrence of the ' Examiner ' ? A. Yes, sir, as I recall it, and stated the other day, I think I had two conversations only with Mr. Lawrence. 1062-1064 Q. About the Empire voting machine? A. No, I don't think he named or I named any particular machine. The last conversation was at a date when, I think it was June, about the middle of June; they had a Democratic Editors' convention here in the La Salle Hotel, and there were a large number of people in the room and a little adjunct of a room, with open doors, opening into the main room, and Mr. Lawrence was there, and Judge Owens was there ; and someone, either Judge Owens or Mr. Law- rence, asked how we were getting along with the machine ; and I made some reply, I can't recall what. I do recall that Mr. Lawrence said we ought either to vote it up or vote it down, and I remember that because I was a little disappointed; apparently his papers had been strongly for the voting machines ; we had been pushing it, and it looked to me like he was remarkably indifferent about it. Q. He was strong for the voting machines — do you mean the one vou had selected ? A. No, I don't think he Witness Had Backing of Mr. Lawrence. 259 ever mentioned any particular machine at all. I can't recall that he ever did. Q. Do you read the Examiner and the American? A. Yes, sir, generally, a portion of it. Q. Do you know these papers have 'been very strongly for this purchase of the Empire voting machine since? A. Oh, yes. Q. Were they not before! A. I think they were for voting machines; I don't think they ever mentioned any particular machine. Q. Did Mr. Andrew Lawrence ever mention to you any particular machine? A. I don't think he ever did. Q. Haven't you discussed with him or Mr. Walsh this matter of the Empire voting machine — didn't you dis- cuss the Empire voting machine with him or Mr. Walsh before the contract was made? A. I can't recall that I ever did. Q. Will you say you did not? A. No, it may have been that I had some talk that I do not recall. Q. Doctor, who was it that recommended your appoint- ment as a member of the Board of Election Commis- sioners? A. I presume I had — I don't know, but I pre- sume I had the backing of Mr. Lawrence. Q. Of the Chicago Examiner? A. Yes, I think so. I had known Judge Owens, however, for many years? He was city attorney when I was city prosecuting attorney and we were warm personal friends. Q. Who recommended Mr. Stuart as Clerk of the Board, if you know? A. I don't know. Q. He was employed by the Examiner at that time, was he not? A. I think he was, though I am not sure whether he was employed just as that time ; but he had been in and out and I only saw him casually, and knew him very slightly. Q. Mr. Mitchell is attorney for the Board; do you know who recommend him? A. I do not, no. Q. He was associated intimately with the Examiner people at that time, was he not, the Independent League and others? A. Well, he had been in the Independent League and in the Independent Party, I don't know how intimate his association was with the Examiner. Q. Mr. Lawrence had been really the active power in the Independent Party here, the moving power, had he not? A. I am doubtful about that; I thought I was the man. I conceived of the Harmony project and I wrote 260 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. the platform, and I was the first mover in the whole busi- ness ; I took my plans to Mr. Lawrence to see if he would come in, and then I went to see the other Democratic lead- ers to see if they would come in. I knew if we did not get together we would get beaten. Q. I don't want to embarrass you by asking a personal question, but you really think that Mr. Lawrence is sup- porting this Empire voting machine because you told him to? A. No, yet that may be true. I was an enthusiastic ad- vocate of the voting machine long before Mr. Lawrence came to this town. Q. You made a mistake in not telling the other papers, too. A. Oh, we — Mr. Deneen. I believe that is all I care to ask the Doe- tor." 1065 Re-cross Examination by Mr. McEwen. The difference between a 9-party, 70-key machine and the smaller one was about the same as between a train of five cars and a train of seven cars. The tracks were the same; there was a difference of weight. Witness remembers reading the reports of experts one of whom said, "they could make it 70 keys or 100 keys, or even 200 keys ; that there was no mechanical obstruc- tion to that. ' ' 1066 The witness thinks the Daily News has always sup- ported the Republican candidates for County Judge. The County Judge is treated by the different newspapers as the head of election machinerj*. Witness does not know what party backed Mr. Czar- necki for Election Commissioner. Witness was not con- sulted. 1067 The witness was prosecuting attorney in 1897 and for ten years afterwards; it was an appointive office. The witness held the office under Mayor Harrison and Mayor Dunne ; all the terms of Mayor Harrison, eight years, and two years under Mayor Dunne. Voting machine examinations were held in 1910. Witness is asked if the voting machines then examined did not remain in Chicago until the witness and his col- leagues were installed in office. 1068 "A. Oh, I think not, sir, T think they were taken away by the several parties and taken home." After witness assumed office he thinks it was Febru- Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. 261 ary or March, 1911, before voting machines appeared in Chicago. The witness did not consider the question whether the memhers of the State Board of Voting Machine Commis- sioners were experts, but assumed that they "who had been in the business of inspecting machines to determine whether they were legal or not, had been in it for years, and ought to know, and that their certification would be final." 1069 "Q. Now, in your evidence last Saturday, you referred to the Veeder meter and the royalties ; I think you said there were about 700 voters and they cost 45 cents each ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who gave you that information! A. I can't tell you now. Q. Did you understand that was just for the royalties, or the royalties and the cost? A. I think the word 'roy- alty' was injected in there. I think it is for the finished wheels, the aluminum wheels; that they cost 45 cents apiece and that is my impression, but I would not say that is true absolutely. Q. Do you refer to a single wheel or a single meter? A. I refer to the little contraption, the combination that is called 'a meter.' " 1071 The witness is asked by Representative Jayne whether the Commission had made inquiries to discover the bad points of the machines in use elsewhere, as well as the good points. "A. The thought I had was this, that we would make inquiry in these places and get the results; if they were bad points they would tell us and if they were good points they would tell us, and that out of it we would get the correct statement of the situation. Q. Well, of course, I take it for granted from the Hart- ford Council's report that there were no bad points; they gave nothing but good points in their recommendation, and that is the reason I asked the question. A. That is 1072 true, Senator, of all those cities; Indianapolis, for in- stance, it is absolutely unqualified; Milwaukee the same way; in fact, wherever they were used. Buffalo, Roches- ter, Syracuse, all those cities only have one story to tell." The witness remembers the party lever in the Winslow machine was a 75-pound pull. The Illinois experts only give the pull on two machines, 25 and 75 pounds. The 262 Testimony of Howard S. Taylor. Winslow was 75. The witness thinks the International was the other of the two. One reason for purchasing voting machines was the prevalence of political corruption in CMcago in the past. 1073 This continued during the witness's term as Election, — was a common topic. 1074 The witness does not think that the last general elec- tion was a fair test for the voting machine. "Q. In loading a load, would you not load it consider- ing the largest hill you had to go up ! A. No, I hardly think I would ; that would be true if I were freighting, if I were preparing for a voting machine I would anticipate the possibilities of the situation arising where we could not just use a voting machine at a particular election." 1075 Witness does not think that every man knows how he is going to vote as he steps in to vote, but he does not think "it is a part of the duty of public authorities to pander to stupidity and ignorance. ' ' Witness thinks that some of the voting machines were in the City Hall during the interval between the middle of January and the 4th of March, 1911. Thinks the agent of the International was there ; possibly the Empire, and they mav have been all there. 1076 Not a'9-party, 70-key Empire, but the 7-party 30-key machine. Witness thinks the Empire Company was allowed to put in 20 machines for experimental purposes at the elec- tion of April 4, 1911, because the voting machine com- panies could not supply a sufficient number of machines to take charge of the situation. The Empire Company did put in United States Standard machines. 1077 Witness' impression is that the voting machines were in Chicago and some of them in the Band, McNally Build- ing between the middle of January and March 4th, 1911, and is very positive that there was "an Empire machine brought here and installed in the Rand, McNally Build- ing in the office of the Election Commission sometime in March." The witness is not sure whether it was United States Standard machines, which were afterwards used in the election of April 4th, were in the city when the motion was made at the meeting of March 25th to use machines in that election; is not positive. W^itness thinks they probably were here because the election was to be April 4th; has no independent recollection about it. Testimony of W. L. Abbott. 263' 1078 The meeting at wliicli the precincts in which the ma- chines should be used was determined on was that of March 31, 1911. William L. Abbott: Resides at 4616 Beacon street, Chicago. For ten years has been chief operating engineer of the Chicago Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison. Is a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. As chief operating engineer for the Edison Company, has charge of all power houses, the street distributing lines, arc lamps, incandescent lamps, in fact, from the production of the electrical energy to the delivery of them to the customers. 1080 Witness is handed copy of paper and is asked whether he recalls when he was appointed expert. "A. I presume May or June, 1911." The date of the report is June 20th. There were two drafts made of the report, but witness thinks the draft he has here in his hand is the one sub- mitted by the experts. It is dated June 20th. 1081 Before witness was appointed he had not been an ex- pert on voting machines. and had no experience with vot- ing machines except to vote on one at one election. After his appointment he began to study voting machines and made a report concerning it. 1082 "Q. How long did you give to studying the machines after your appointment, Mr. Abbott? A. As I recollect, we spent some two or three weeks on this matter, not con- tinuous time, however ; I believe I rendered a bill for ten days ' services. Examined four machines during this time : the Empire, Triumph, Winslow and International." The report the experts submitted was that the Empire machine fulfilled the requirements of the Voting Machine Law. 1083 The report said that the voting machine "fulfilled all the requirements of the State Election Law." The experts had a copy of the law and examined it, and in the witness' judgment the machine fulfilled the requirements of the election law. Whether you could vote a split ticket in one minute de- pends on the candidates. 264 Witness Acts as Expert on Voting Machines. 1084 "A. It would depend on the kind of splitting which the voter cared to do and how much splitting he would care to do before setting his keys. ' ' Also on the number of public questions. Witness remembers the primary election of April, 1912 j that there was an unusually large number of candidates, several hundred, to be voted for. Witness could not say whether a voter could vote such a ticket, but will say that it is possible to multiply the 1085 number of candidates and the number of offices and par- ties, so that if the voter cares to do a great deal of split- ting it will ordinarily — ordinarily the voter will not do it in a minute. ' ' The report of the experts says that the material en- tering into the construction of the Empire machine is suitable for the requirements of the machine and this is witness' opinion. Witness looking at the report says, the machine is com- posed of steel, aluminum, bronze, and the other composite 1086 metals. Aluminum and bronze would not corrode. Steel might if it was not protected with enamel paint. Witness does not remember how the steel in the Empire machine is protected. Witness thinks enamel paint is a satis- factory protection of the delicate parts of the machine Avhich are for the most part of bronze or aluminum. 1087 The question whether the steel parts of the machine were jjroperly protected was doubtless considered and if it had not been thought that the machines were prop- erly protected it would have been reported in the report. The experts examined the primary device on the ma- chine. Witness does not remember whether they had a IDrimary ticket placed on the machine so as to test its actual operation in a primary election. Witness thinks there was placed on the machine a ticket of the previous general election. "That was the ticket which we considered; that was not a primary ticket," is witness' recollection now. The machine was considered Avith reference to the general election ticket. 1088 But the primary device was also considered. The witness asked Professor Chamberlain who is , present if the report covers the primary device. "Prof. Chambeelaix. I do not think that any specific reference to it was made except that it is covered in the statement that it complies with the state law." Mitst Machine Comply With Primary Law? 265 1089 "Prof. Chamberlain. In glancing over it I see no ref- erence to it. ' ' 1090 There is no specific reference to the machine and the primary law except the general reference to complying with the primary law. "Q. Was the primary device satisfactory to you? A. I believe it was; my reasons for so stating is we were careful to enumerate all of the objectionable features which we found in the machine, and as that is not men- tioned, I believe that it must have been satisfactory." Witness has no indejjendent recollection on the sub- ject. The report states that there is no mechanism on the entire machine restricting the number of times counters may be inspected by the judges. The machine is crated or boxed like a piano box for transporting. It would be like moving a very heavy piano. 1091 It would seem that you would have to make provisions for boxing it and moving it at the polling places by a proper number of men; perhaps four good ordinary piano movers could handle it. Four ordinary men could handle it, but not so expeditiously. 1092 The Empire machine was not provided with a party lever. The Commission of experts recommended that it should be, and pointed out as an objectionable feature of the machine that it did not have a party lever. The party lever would vote and at the same time when the voting was finished, adding was finished also. This 1093 matter was discussed in the report and was one of the features witness had in mind in stating in the report that "with certain improvements the machine would perform certain functions." The Empire machine had no provision to restrict the number of inspections by judges of election. The weight of the machine was objectionable. Witness believes the Empire machine had a grouping device for the women voting, for the legislative ticket, for commissioners and for Sanitary District Trustees, and so forth. Witness believed that the machine permit- ted voting for the legislative ticket according to the law. 1094 Witness has no independent recollection on this sub- ject, but simply assumes it did from the papers. An error made by the voter could not be corrected after 266 Party Lever or Party Key — Which Best? he had pulled the party lever clear over ; it could be be- fore that. The witness is shown a copy of the speech made at the City Club July 8th, 1911, in which he said that it was as- sumed that the reports of the experts was to be kept secret; otherwise they might have modified their lan- guage. 1095 This was said because the representatives of other machines than the Empire were quite incensed by criti- cism of their machines appearing in the report. The witness is not sure whether the Empire had a re- leasing knob. Witness does not recollect clearly, but thinks the purpose of the releasing knob was to release the lever and enable the voter to change his vote. Witness does not think this matter is referred to in the report. 1096 "Q. Did you or did you not recommend accepting the Empire machine on the supposition that certain changes Avould be made by the manufacturer ? A. I think it says 'with certain modifications.' " The recommendation to accept the Empire machine was made on the supposition that certain changes would be made. The witness does not know whether the changes were incorporated in the machines bought by the Election Commissioners. Witness cannot say now whether, without the lever on the Empire, he would have preferred the Triumph "which has a lever that indicates every vote for every candidate and adds the votes"; but knows that, for himself, he was very much in doubt as to which of those two machines were more preferable. 1097 Witness found all machines defective in some particu- lar, and made recommendations regarding it. The re- port stated that if certain recommendations were followed it would practically perform the work. The question whether the Commission could install a few machines at first or 1,000 to begin with was not pre- sented to the experts for consideration. Cross-Examination by Mr. McEwen. The Empire had no party-lever, but a party-key. Wit- ness does not know what objections experts had to the party-lever. There were objections to the party-lever to which we called attention. Testimony of W. L. Abbott. 267 1098 Did not consider the machine from the point of view of the party voter as distinguished from the independent voter who wanted to split a ticket. The report shows the points upon which they considered the macliine. 1099 Witness was simply looking at the machine from a mechanical standpoint. The report of the experts did not make specific recom- mendations of changes but pointed out such defects as we considered subject to criticism. 1100 Witness thinks the experts might safely have pointed out advantages and defects without drawing conchisions as they did. Witness thought there was nothing to prevent the Em- pire machine from putting in a party lever. It seemed to him a simple thing to do. Witness thinks the expert who demonstrated the Empire machine said they coultj put in a party lever. Witness is asked if he knew that there was a difference of opinion as to the value of a party lever and says : — "A. Yes, the Empire expert was apparently very firmly convinced it was not desirable." Witness thinks that the party-key which requires the adding of totals by judges and clerks gave additional chances for fraud over the party-lever. 1101 It is much simpler also to vote a straight ticket on a lever machine than on a party-key machine. The experts considered the rubber-band objection. The only place where it would be used would be on a machine with a party-lever and would be most effective on such a machine. Also considered the pull on the party-lever machine and thinks it was stated that the Winslow had a 75-pound pull, a 5-pound pull on the International, and on the Triumph a 25-pound pull. 1102 "Q. Will you tell us what the limits of a desirable pull are, taking into consideration the strength of the voter, the ordinary voter, and the extraordinary voter and the in- ferior voter?" Witness would consider anything above 50 pounds ob- jectionable and "the less the pull the better." The hard- ness of the pull depends on the size of the ballot and the construction of the machine. Witness is still of the opinion that the party-lever is preferable. 268 Experts' Objections to Empire Machine. The experts' report speaks of there being no provision for limiting the number of inspections by judges and clerks. 1104 ''Q. What objections did you have in mind when you wrote that! A. That judges and clerks have access to the counters in a way not authorized ; they could set them' ahead, certain counters." It was possible that the judges would have access to the counters in the progress of voting. AVitness didn't think they would have more access to the counters during the hours of election than they would to ballot boxes: — perhaps less access. Witness does not recall the arrangement of counters on the Empire machine as to the ability to set them ahead during election. 1105 Witness does not recall that the Empire machine had a locking device that locked the counters against manipu- lation which was in a separate compartment with a sepa- rate key; but the criticism which appears in the report implies that the judges, if they had access to the counters, could tamper with them. The report was made with reference to special ques- 1106 tions submitted. Where the report does not mention anything specific it was intended by the report that the experts' answer was favorable to the question. Witness thinks there is a certain mechanism in ma- chines with party-lever which permit the voter to cor- rect his vote after he has pulled the party-lever. 1107 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. "Q. The last answer is just an impression, — we want to get a positive opinion." There was a second examination of machines by the Owens' experts, examination of a larger machine. Wit- ness has not seen the reports on this last machine for two years. Witness thinks there is no mechanical objection to mak- ing the Empire machine of any size, but with a party-lever there would be an increased pull for pulling the increased number of coimters. 1108 Witness thinks that the second examination by experts was for the purpose of determining the feasibility of Testimony of W. L. Abbott. 269 larger machines. Witness has no independent recollec- tion about it. 1109 Witness thinks the first Empire examined by the Owens experts was a 50-key machine. Witness does not re- member the number of the machine examined and does not remember whether the machine was made at Rochester or Jamestown and has no memorandum on the subject. 1110 A larger machine would take the voter longer to oper- ate because it covers more space. The pull on the party-lever depends on the design of the machine and the number of keys. It would be hardly possible to provide for a pull of five pounds on a machine that would accommodate the Chicago primary ticket. 1111 Thinks a 10-pound pull would be very low; would con- sider that 20 pounds was the lowest. The agent for the Empire offered objections to the party-lever but the experts favored it. Witness thinks that to put a party-lever on the Empire machine would require some change, but not a radical change. It would be required to be somewhat heavier, something less than five per cent. 1113 Witness has the impression that if the judges had keys to the counters and access to the counters they could change the counters and make them register differently, run them up or run them down. "Mr. McEwEN. Q. What do you mean by 'keys' and 'counters,' if I may interrupt? "A. Keys so that you can see that they may move by the hand; if they have those keys to them, so that they can be moved, of course they might be moved." 1115 Asked as to the intention of the report to comment on what is not pointed out as a defect, witness says, "Per- haps a better answer would be that we pointed out any defects, any and all, that came to our attention." 1116 It would be a reasonable supposition that as to things the experts overlooked they could not comment upon in their report. The use of a party-lever, instead of a party-key would tend to simphcity and prevention of error. 1117 The witness has had practical experience in shops as Avell as a technical education in engineering and mechan- ical engineering. The witness understood that the report made by the ex- 270 Testimony of W. L. Abbott. perts was to be considered by the Election Commissioners in concluding the purchase of voting machines. The witness is obliged to base his statement as to whether the Empire machine fulfills the requirements of the law upon his report and so doing says it does. 1118 According to the report, the Empire machine weighs 1150 pounds. The Triumph 1260. A difference of 110 pounds. The Empire has a party-key, the Triumph a party-lever. Placing a party-lever on the Empire, the witness has estimated, would add to its weight about 5 per cent, and make no practical difference in the machines as to weight. 1118 "Q. Have the Commissioners ever called you back to inspect the machines that were shipped and sold to the city? A. We examined the larger machine about a month after we made this report. ' ' The experts examined only one large machine. 1119 Witness does not know that any other of the machines purchased by the City of Chicago was ever examined. "Mr. McEwEN. I think the evidence will show that one of the three of them did." In saying that "this machine" complies with the law, the witness means that the machine examined by Judge Owens' experts, not the one in the hearing room. Witness' appointment was not solicited by him. Wit- 1120 ness' first thought regarding the matter was the Chief Clerk Stuart who recommended witness to Judge Owens. In their first report. Judge Owens' experts stated that all four machines examined by them complied with the State law. In the last report, but -one machine was examined, be- cause the one question put up to them was "Is the large machine, the 70-kev, a practical machine, the same as the 50-key was?" It was the only machine the experts were asked to ex- amine and report on. The examination of the one ma- chine occurred one or two months after the examination of the four machines. 1121 Witness does not remember the number of the machine the experts examined the second time, nor whether it was made at Rochester, or Jameston, New York. Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain. 271 Afternoon Session. Wednesday, July 30, 1913. 1122 Paul M. Chamberlain: Resides 427 Diversey Parkway, Chicago. Is a con- sulting engineer, electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, and civil. The firni name is Chamberlain &. Howell, 1719 Marquette Building. Was appointed expert to investi- gate voting machines by Judge Owens, witness thinks early in June 1911. 1123 Witness understood there was to be an examination of voting machines and made application to the Commis- sioners for appointment on the commission of experts. The application was made to Chief Clerk Stuart. Witness first made inquiry about his appointment of the former attorney for the Election Board, W. W. Wheelock, who referred witness to Mr. Stuart. 1124 Mr. Wheelock was attorney for the Empire machine. Witness saw nothing of him during the time he acted as expert. Witness understands that Mr. Wheelock drew the contract for the purchase of the Empire voting machine. Witness had no previous experience with voting ma- chines and had never examined one. Witness was en- gaged about 14 days in his work as expert. Does not remember how many days he was engaged in examining the Empire machine. That the Empire voting machine complied with the State law "was our conclusion in the report." 1125 Whether a voter could vote a split ticket in one minute or not on the Empire Voting Machine, depends upon the rapidity with which the voter worked. Witness believes it possible to do so. With such a ticket as Chicago had at the April elec- tion in 1912, witness does not think that all the voters would vote within a minute. Witness was in Chicago in April, 1912, when the pri- mary occurred but did not vote on a voting machine. 1126 Witness knows there were a large number of candi- dates and thinks that with proper preparation before the voter could vote such a ticket in a minute, that is. by instruction and by perusal of the sample face of the machine. ■ 272 Views on Minute Voting, 1127 If a voter would take a sample ballot and mark it just as he intended to vote the witness thinks he might vote in a minute. At the general election of 1912 48 men contested for nomination for County Commission- ers and the same proportion for the Sanitary District Trustees, and Judges. To do this he would need to have some such aid as the marking of a sample ballot. The witness makes the same answer as to primaries. The witness concurred in the conclusion of the experts that suitable material had been used in the construction of the Empire machine. 1128 Looking at the report, the witness says that materials used were steel, aluminum, bronze and other composi- tion metal. The metal in the machine is protected from corrosion. The exterior is enameled and such parts of steel as might corrode under exposure to the weather are protected from the weather by the case. The steel parts are put in place, usually, with some small coating of oil. 1129 Witness does not know the particular process which was employed in the Empire machine. ■ Witness had satisfied himself that the machine had been protected from rust so it would not rust out and become inefficient. 1130 As to the machinery, witness could not say now whether the parts were covered with aluminum paint, enamel paint, but thinks perhaps that some of them were. There were parts that were apparently covered with nothing. In fact, there is nothing which could be put on 1131 steel parts and still provide for the proper mechanical movement to protect them from the weather. 1132 The parts of a machine to which witness refers are • "A. The metal straps, steel straps, the pins separ- ating the different restricting spaces in which the wedges pass, and I should say the levers provided for the inter- locking; some of these steel parts were galvanized. I recall at this moment that such parts as depend on the accurate adjustment and hard surface, are in no ma- chine coated, plated or enameled." Witness examined the primary device; did not have a primary ticket on the machine and did not experiment about voting at primaries with an actual ticket, but tried to cover all the conditions which might arise. 1133 Witness remembers that in using the machine at pri- Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain. 273 mary elections the party keys were covered up. The machine is adjusted according to the voter's declaration of party affiliation by one of the officers of the election by manipulating a lever pointing to the party which wit- ness things, is printed on a slip. As a matter of fact, the name of the party does not appear but instead the figures 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so forth, as many numerals as there are parties. 1134 When the lever is adjusted properly the voter has ac- cess to all the candidates of the party of his declared affiliation. It is witness' recollection that if the lever is fixed at zero the voter cannot vote at all. 1135 Witness thinks this was one of the requirements of the state law. The report of the experts did not refer to the pri- maries, except that it stated that the machine complied with the state law, with certain objections. The Empire machine has no restriction on the number of times the counters may be inspected by the judges. 1136 The machine is arranged for transportation by put- ting it in a box and is as conveniently moved from the box and placed in voting position at the polls as a piece of mechanism of that weight. AVitness thinks it would require four ordinary men to handle a machine. The machine weighs 1180 pounds with the box. 904 pounds 1137 Avithout the box. The Empire machine has no party lever. The matter was discussed by the experts and there were advantages and disadvantages connected with having a party-lever. With a party-key the mechanism is less complex than with a party-lever. The time for voting is somewhat less with a party-lever than with a party-key, and the party-lever has the advantage of totalling the votes cast. The report of the experts on the Empire machine com- ments on the absence of a party-lever. 1138 Witness reads from the report: as follows: "Because of the absence of the party -lever, which in other machines operates each of the individual keys of that party, split voting with the Empire must be done by pulling down individually the keys which represent the candidates to be voted for; and this on a 70-key- board will scarcely be done within the one minute's time permitted each voter in the voting booth. It also makes 274 Disadvantages of Party Key. it necessary to add the ballots cast on the party-key to those cast on the individual keys. These disadvantages apply to any machine which has a party-key instead of a party-lever. The advantage of the party-key, on the other hand, are simplicity of instruction to voter and less mechanical complication." The weight would be a little less without a party-lever and it would be cheaper to make. 1139 To apply a party-lever to the Empire machine it would be necessary to supply the parts necessary for inter- • locking, and adding. To use a party-lever on the Empire machine would require appliances connected with the lever and the name of each candidate to be voted for. They would ■ have to be interlocked and some of the mechanism of the present machine would be applicable. 1140 Witness does not know whether the present parts of the machine utilized in a machine with a party-lever would have to be changed or not ; it is quite possible that the lever attachment could be changed to cooperate with the mechanism as it now stands. 1141 There would have to be some connection between each key of the machine and the party-lever mechanism, but it might not necessarily be a separate piece from each party key running to the lever. 70 keys or 700 keys could be so arrangetl that the movement of a bar up- ward turns them all. Whether the application of a party-lever to the Em- pire machine would add considerably to the weight is entirely a matter of design and constriiction. 1143 Witness would be surprised if a party-lever mechan- ism could be put on a machine which would weigh less than 15 pounds, but might take 15 pounds from other parts. Would be much surprised if the change from the party-key to the party-lever would increase the weight more than 100 pounds. The machine examined by the experts had a grouping device; all were examined. The machine also examined was arranged to vote the legislative ticket according to 1144 the law of Illinois. It also had a device restricting the women's votes to Trustees of the University of Illinois. The witness thinks an error in voting could not be corrected by the voter on the machine the experts exam- ined. Experts' Report Not Dated. 275 Tlie witness here goes to the machine and says that a certain knob pointed out is the releasing knob. Witness thinks this was used to allow the voter who has pulled down the party-key and then afterwards decided to vote individually to pull the releasing knob, turn back the party-key and vote individually. 1146 The witness is asked if the Empire machine was not recommended by .the experts on the supposition that certain changes were to be made by the manufacturer! "A. We state in the report 'it will be seen from the foregoing, that each machine possessed points of excel- lence and certain defects which are not common to all; some of these defects are not vital and most of them can be overcome by the designers.' " In relative convenience of handling, the Triumph is placed first, the International second, the Empire third. Witness says he knows that changes were made in the Empire machine after it was examined by the experts and before it was bought. 1147 Witness thinks the aperture for voting for irregular candidates was enlarged and thinks that on the 70-key machine the roll device was corrected. The first examinations of the machines was made by the witness some time in June, 1911. The Empire ma- chine examined was a 7-partj', 50-key machine. Later a 9-party, 70-key machine was examined. The latter examination occurred about July 20th, 1911. The second report was not dated. This was an oversight. 1148 Witness remembers that in the public press of the 2l8t it was stated that the report had not been dated and witness' books show that he rendered service to the Board of Election Commissioners on July 20th. Witness is shown the file marks on the paper in Dr. Taylor's handwriting, "Filed July 27-11," but can only testify as he has already testified on the question of date. The report was made in the Board rooms on the day 1149 the examination was made. When finished, the report was sealed and addressed to Judge Owens and, witness thinks, was handed to Chief Clerk Stuart. Witness has no independent recollection of that. On July 20th, there had been no change made in the machine examined in regard to judges getting access to the counters. Witness does not know the number of the machine 276 Number of Empire Machine Examined Not Known. examined July 20th, or Avlaether it was made in Kochester or Jamestown, New York. Witness has the impression that it was made at Jamestown. Witness does not remember the number of the machine 1150 examined in June, and cannot state whether it was made in Rochester or Jamestown. He cannot state that it was not a United States Standard machine in either case. Witness does not recall a dinner at the Athletic Club before he was appointed, with some gentlemen, where the voting machine matter was talked over, and to the best of his belief witness was not at such dinner. Wit- ness remembers only one occasion during this period being at the Athletic Club. This was with Mr. Abbott and Mr. Wooley. To the best of his recollection, witness never had a meal with Mr. Stuart at any time. 1151 Witness naturally talked with Mr. Stuart about voting machines before his appointment and Stuart wanted to know what witness' qualifications were. Witness told Stuart that he had never examined the voting machine. As far as witness recollects, they did not discuss any particular machine. Witness cannot say whether they discussed how many were exhibited. 1152 The Triumph, International and the Winslow machines have party-levers. The experts must have read the specifications before examining the machine. Witness remembers that the specifications required bidders to furnish blue prints. 1153 Witness does not know whether or not each bidder filed such with the Election Commission. Witness recollects that there was a complaint made about the experts not having opened the blue prints, and so forth of the International machine. To the best of witness' belief, the experts neither opened nor consulted any blue prints. It was evidently the experts' judgment at that time that the machine itself answered every pur- pose that the blue prints would. "Q. You are a mechanical engineer? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Will you say that blue prints would not have been of great advantage to you in examining these ma- chines 1 A. I will say that if the blue prints would have been a great advantage to me I would have called for them." 1154 To the best of witness' belief blue prints would not have been of great advantage to him. Blue Prints. 277 The experts did not take the machine entirely apart so that they saw each part. The blue prints might aid somebody in telling what pur- ports to be inside, but the blue prints would not tell you 1155 what was inside or it wouldn't tell you the mechanism. Blue prints are required in machines which you make or design and are customary where it is desirable and necessary. Many times blue prints are not used for any purpose except construction. Frequently they are an aid in finding out what the design of the part may be. Witness had nothing to do with the requirement in the specification calling for blue prints. Witness never saw a voting machine before examining one as expert for Judge Owens. 1156 Witness knew the principle of voting machines, but had never seen one in operation. In the absence of a demon- strator or representative of the machine, the experts would probably have been assisted by the printed descrip- tion. 1157 The experts had the machine before them and repre- sentatives of the different makes. The witness, who is at the machine in the room, de- scribes how the voter votes on the voting machine, and illustrates. He closes the curtain, sets the keys to reg- ister his vote, pulls the voting lever, comes out. 1158 No voting is done until the voter pulls the voting lever ; pulling the key down sets the register for movement. 1159 Witness again describes the operation of the machine. Witness' attention is called to the ballot for the regular election, Socialist ticket. Hugo A. Kahn is running for the Legislature. Q. If a man desires to vote a straight Socialist ticket and walks in and votes a straight Socialist ticket, how many votes will Mr. Kahn get. It says on the ballot 1} and li, doesn't it? A. It is possible "to vote three votes for him. Q. Yes, how? A. Here, and here, and here. 1161 "Here, and here, and here" means pulling down keys 16-D, 17-D, and 18-D. 1162 In regard to voting the legislative ticket witness says "the machines can be set so that 19, 21, and 22-D could not be pulled down and thinks he could set the keys in that way. 1164 The demonstrators of the machines before Judge Ow- 278 Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain. ens' experts did not demonstrate about frauds that could be committed on their machines and the experts were not permitted to show what could be done with competing machines. There was no public hearing. 1165 Cross-Examination by Mr. McEwen. Witness does not know who wrote the lead pencil marks "July 27-11" at the time of the supplementary report. The witness did not. The supplementary report, the second report, is con- fined to a 70-key, 9-party machine, and this refers to a particular machine examined at that time. 1166 Witness identifies in the report, paragraph five, the recommendation of enlargement of the slides for indi- vidual voting. Then follows the recommendation to omit the releasing attachment of the paper roll mechanism. 1167 The experts found tliat the mechanical principles of the Empire were applicable to 70 keys or 100 keys, or double that number. As a machine it works just as well with a larger or with a lower number. The absence of a party-lever in the Empire machine is not considered by the witness a fault of construction. As to whether the party-lever was preferable, it would be a matter of difference of opinion. Witness cannot say what was in the experts' mind when they wrote the feature of the report relating to the limi- tations of inspections b.v judges. At present the witness 1168 cannot see any disadvantage in judges being able to have access to the counters. The Empire machine had a locking device designed to lock the counters so they couldn't be operated except by unlocking the compartment and releasing the locking de- vice. To get at this locking device would require con- nivance of the judges with the men at the warehouse. 1169 So far as the weight of their parts was concerned, wit- ness thinks that all four machines exhibited were worked out excellently. Whatever fault was found is pointed out in the report. 1170 As to correcting erroneous votes the voter has an op- portunity to adjust any of the levers to satisfy his de- sires, with the exception that, having once voted for in- dividuals he cannot then decide to vote the party key, but must vote on all the keys to vote a straight ticket. Mr, Chamberlain Knew Mr. Wheelock. 279 If he pulls the party key and then decides he would like to split, the releasing lever enables him to do that. The releasing lever also enables a man who goes into a ma- chine and fails to vote, to release the curtain so that it goes back. 1171 The witness' recollection as to voting on the ma- chine at a primary is that if the party-lever be set at zero the voter cannot vote for any party, and that if the lever is set at any party all other parties are cut out. 1172 As to applying for appointment as expert witness knew Wheelock as having been attorney for the Election Board in former years. He does not know when he learned that Mr. "Wheelock was attorney for the Empire Voting Machine Company, but presumes it was before this time. Mr. Wheelock 's office is in the same building as witness and witness called on him there. Witness testified before the grand jury as follows (Mr. McEwen reads from Grand Jury Report) : " 'Q. How did you learn that Mr. Wheelock repre- sented the Empire Voting Machine Company?' Did you answer: 'A. He told me, when I went to see him rela- tive to this.'? A. That is probably correct. "Q. 'Did you — at the time you called upon him did he tell you the procedure, how you should proceed in order 1173 to get on this Board'? 'A. Well, he told me the proper official to see — ' "Q. 'And that was the clerk of the Board'? A. 'The Clerk of the Board, yes. ' "Q. 'How long had you knowii Mr. Wheelock before that?' 'A. Oh, I had known him for many years. ' "Q. 'You then called on Mr. Stuart? A. Yes.'" Witness also wrote a letter to the Board of Election Commissioners asking appointment. Mr. Stuart asked witness to give him a list of people who knew of witness' work and that Stuart would look it up. Witness' appointment by Judge Owens must have been more than a week after his interview with Mr. Stu- art, because some of witness' out-of-town friends whose 1174 names he gave to Stuart advised the witness they had received letters regarding witness' professional ability, honesty, and so forth. Witness did not meet Mr. Wheelock during the process of making his report, nor in any way to discuss the ma- chine matter. Witness saw Mr. Wheelock in the cor- 280 Witness Exammes 200 Machines. ridors frequently, but did not talk to him about the ex- amination of the machine, not after his appointment, nor, the witness thinks, at the time he asked Mr. Wheelock about the procedure for securing the appointment. Wit- ness did not talk to Mr. Wheelock after appointment and prior to the report about the machine and Mr. Wheelock never at any time asked him "to do one thing or the other. ' ' 1175 Witness' judgment was formed independently upon his examination. The process of Sheridizing is used to prevent metal from rusting. It makes the metal smoother and is used on the interior of electric conduits a great deal. Witness does not recall finding Sheridized metal in this Empire machine examined. 1176 In examining the machines, the experts took into ac- count the liability to rust and tried to cover all prob- abilities of exposure. An attachment limiting the number of inspections can be put in the Empire machine ; also the party lever. The witness had to do with examining machines that were delivered. Witness examined some 200 machines. "Q. What did you examine, in a general way? A. Well, the machines were taken out of the cases and set in voting position, a voting position, counters were in- spected to see that they were at zero, and a series of voting done on the machine to see that the mechanism was in good working order and that the interlocking sys- tem performed its function — " Witness found that nearly all machines examined per- formed these functions. Witness thinks 198 of the ma- chines passed inspection. Witness thinks that one ma- chine was damaged in transit and that another machine did not show up. Witness thinks he afterwards exam- ined two machines to fill out the 200. 1178 Witness also in one election went to the different poll- ing places to see that the machines were set up properly and in working order. Witness is a practical machinist and has worked in the shop. He is a graduate of Mich- igan Agricultural College, Engineering Department, and of Cornell University. Witness cannot recall how the experts determine the weight of the machine ; did not personally weigh them. 1179 The weight of the machine given in the report was that Testimony of P. M. ChamberlaAn. 281 of a 7-party, 50-key machine. Did not give the weight in the second report on the 9-party, 70-key machine. "Mr. McEwEN. I will say that we will show that the 70-key is 950 pounds, the machine net ; 1120 gross, which is with the box on." 1180 Witness is asked whether he considers himself a vot- ing machine expert; says that he is intimately familiar with many types of machines employing similar mechan- ical principles and devices as are found in voting ma- chines, and so far as being an expert on mechanism pre- sumes he could qualify. 1181 Witness thinks he could build a voting machine involv- ing the principles of the machines examined by the ex- perts. Not without considerable thought, however ; those were the product of much consideration and trial and ex- periment. Witness has stated, in the present hearing, that he had put in 14 days. His bill is for $750 for 21 days. Witness thinks the 14 days covers the time spent on the first ma- 1182 chine. The 14 days mentioned in the bill does not mean 14 different days, but the equivalent of 14 days' time. Witness cannot remember how much time was put in on the Empire machine. Witness thinks that Veeder meters were not used on all three of the machines. Witness has read the little book ' ' The Truth about the Voting Machine" on page 10 of which it is stated that it requires 5 keys to alter the machine or change the re- sult. After his investigations witness thinks that they cannot change the result with 5 keys, "the continuous 1183 counter keeps on going, it is incapable of resetting no matter how many keys you have." As witness thinks of it now, the two keys which the custodian is supposed to have would be necessary to make any change which would be a fraud. In examining the 200 machines witness did not pull down all the keys, but just voted upon the party lines to move all the wedges and would have moved no more if he had voted for all the parties. 1184 Witness knew that there were blue prints with some of the machines. Cannot state whether or not there were blue prints with all the machines. Witness is not sure whether these blue prints were pre- sented to the experts by the Election Commissioners when 282 Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain. they asked them to do their work. Witness remembers 1185 seeing blue prints but cannot tell of what machine. When he saw them they were open so that he saw they were blue prints ; the seal was broken. Witness remem- bers seeing them in the room, but does not know who pre- sented them and cannot tell what machine he was examin- ing at the time. The experts had all the machines in one room. The report on the 9-party 70-key machine was made in the Election Commissioners' room where the machine was examined by the experts. That is the last report. 1186 Witness has no particular recollection of the conversa- tion with Mr. Wheelock when he spoke to him about em- ployment as expert. "A. I presume that I would attack it tlien as I would now, any job that I was after I went to the man that I thought was most likely to know what I wanted." Witness has known Mr. Wheelock for many years, had not known Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Frank D. Ayers, attorney for the previous Board of Election Commissioners. Wit- ness did not know any member of the Board of Election Commissioners nor Mr. Stuart nor the County Judge. 1187 Witness testified before the Grand Jury that Mr. Wheelock told him he was attorney for the Empire Com- pany when he first called upon him. 1188 Witness cannot now remember whether he' knew that Wheelock was attorney for the Empire Company when he called upon him. Witness does not know of any voting machine experts who have worked in the construction of voting machines who are not employed by voting madhine companies. 1189 Witness first read of the proposed examination of vot- ing machines in the paper and knew the Election Commis- sioners were the men who employed experts before he went to see Mr. Wheelock. Witness did this because Mr. Wheelock had once been attorney for the Election Com- missioners and would know how the witness should pre- sent his request. 1190 Mr. Wheelock told witness to go to Mr. Stuart. Wit- ness thinks he did not see Judge Owens until after he was appointed. Witness does not know whether Mr. Stuart went to Judge Owens about witness' appointment. Witness testified before the Grand Jury, April, 1913. 1191 "Q. Do you remember these questions were asked and these answers were made by you at that time? I am hold- Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain. 283 ing some questions here. It is a little inconvenient. 'Did you render your decision in favor of the Empire machine because of your personal friendship and liking for Mr. Wheelock,' that was asked you, wasn't it! A. Yes, sir. "Q. You said 'No. sir.'? A. Yes, sir. "Q. Now, was the question asked you, 'Did that thought ever occur to you?' and did you not reply, 'No, I don't think so'? Was that question asked you? A. Yes. "Q. And then was the question asked you 'Are you positive?', and your answer was 'No, I am not positive'? A. Yes. *'Q. And you went on with a long discussion qualifying that afterwards. Do you want us to have that put in, shall I put it all in? "Mr. MoBwEN. Well, there is some portion there, I think it might as well go in, referring to Mr. Wheelock. "Mr. Deneen. What part? "Mr. McEwEN. I have 108, 'You have offices in the Marquette Bnilding?' "Mr. Deneen. I had intended to ask him that but he already stated that he had offices in the Mai'quette Build- ing and Wheelock also had. "Mr. McEwEN. Over two pages to 110, 'A Juror. This being true, wouldn't your friendship — ' right in the mid- dle of the page — 'influence you in your decision?' ' ' Mr. Deneen. I don 't see that. "Mr. McEwEiiT. It follows the statement there about Mr. Wheelock — "Mr. Deneen. You may read on. ' ' Mr. MoEwEN. Well, that would have been true if you had been wavering between one machine and another, if they were so equal? "A. Well, the decision of the mechanical points was not a question of wavering at all." "Mr. Deneen. What else do you want to put in? "Mr. McEwEN. Well, they have wandered away there? "Mr. Deneen. Yes, wandered away and just left, that is all I care. "Mr. McEwen. They came back to Mr. Wheelock on page 115, put that in. "Mr. Deneen. You can put that in, 115. "Mr. MoEwen. Over on 116 is the question 'When you went to Mr. Wheelock, did you know he represented the Empire machine? 284 Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain. "A. No. " Q. You solicited this business the same as you would any other business ? A. Exactly.'" 1194 Witness is asked about the complaint that certain blue prints had not been opened by the experts. Witness said he thought some of them were opened. ' '_Q. Two of the complaints, you will recall, the Inter- national and the Triumph, were that their blue prints were not opened, so that the blue prints opened did not belong to those machines. A. I don't know, they might have, because some of the complaints they made were quite as ridiculous as that would have been." Witness' attention is also called to the claim that the International's blue prints and photographs cost about $750 to prepare and said he didn't see how it could cost to prepare $3 worth of blue prints. Witness has worked at the bench in school and as a journeyman. 1195 "Q. You were not a joui-neyman — you mean journey- man for the experience or do you mean that you earned your living at it? A. Well, living at it. "Q. How long did you work at the bench after you graduated? A. I never worked at the bench when I graduated. "Q. How old were you when you worked at the bench? A. Oh, probably, I was sixteen. Witness was paid $50 per day for examining the voting machines. 1196 Afterwards witness was employed, he tJainks, by Mr. Stuart to examine the 200 machines. Mr. Stuart sent for him. Witness cannot say how long he was examining the 200 machines. 1197 Is not sure what he received for the examination of the 200 machines, that it was $50 per day, cannot tell how long it took. Thinks not more than two weeks. Witness can refer to his book to tell exactly and will get the infor- mation tomorrow. Witness was also employed by the Election Commis- sioners to go to the polls and inspect the machines there. Witness does not remember what he was asked to do but he was, "to be of such use as my familiarity with vot- ing machines would enable me to see that the machines were properly arranged, properly located for proper elec- tions. ' ' Witness Inspects Machines at Polls. 285 Witness visited nearly all the machines that were in operation and thinks this was in the April primaries. 1198-1202 "Q. Did you inspect each machine that you vis- ited? A. Well, I don't recall that I examined mostly every machine. Q. Did you examine them in any way! A. Oh, the general conditions of setting and — Q. The levers? A. Seeing that the roundings were proper. Q. Whether the levers were working? A. Well — Q. Restricting devices? A. No. Q. Keys? What was it you looked at? A. We could not operate those after the machine was ready for vot- ing. Q. What were you doing? What were you doing with reference to the machines at polling places. A. Well, I stated a moment ago that I visited the different places where machines were set up to see that they were working properly. Q. You visited them before election, before primary day, did you not? A. Yes, I think so. Q. Did you test them to see whether they were working properly ? A. No. Q. _ What did you do? A. Not on the visiting; but the machines, of course, could not be voted after they had been set at the custodian's. Q. What did you do in reference to them when you visited them? A. Well, I saw that the machines were set up and in proper shape for voting, that there was room for the curtains and the curtains to be on in the proper shape so that the machines could be opened, and some instructions to the voters — I mean to the judges. Previous to the election I assisted in instructing the 1199 judges and clerks. Q. Well, now, let us finish this and then we will go back to that in order to save time. What else did you do while visiting the machines? A. I cannot recall any specific thing that I did other than what I have described. Q. To see whether or not they were in condition for use? A. Yes. Q. Did you test them out as much as you could without altering them? A. Why, I can't recall any specific test that I applied to them. Q. But you did visit all of them, you think? A. I think I visited all of them. 286 Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain. Q. And how many days were you engaged in that? A. I can't tell you. Q. "Well, how many; what is your best judgment? A. Well, I should think that there were two or three days before election. Q. Yes. Now you say you got $50 a day for that? A. No. Q. What did you get for that? A. For what? Q. What did you get for that? A. 1 think that I made a Ivunp sum for the work outlined. Sen. Canaday. Will you please speak a little louder so we can hear you? The Witness. I think I made a lump sum for the work 1200 that would be required for that. Mr. Denebn. Q. Then you say you were engaged in instructing judges before the primaries. Who engaged you you to do that, Professor? A. The Board of Election Commissioners. Q. Through Mr. Stuart? A. Yes. Q. How many days were you engaged in instructing judges how to conduct the machine ? A. I can't tell you. Q. Well, was it two weeks? A. No, I should think — Q. About how long? A. I should think a day or two. Q. Will you say it was only a day or two, instructing all of these judges? A. I did not say that I instructed all the judges. Q. How many judges did you instruct during the time that you were employed in that capacity, so far as you can recollect? A. Well, that I can't answer, because I don't know% but the instructions w^as very largely at sec- ond hand, the various employees of the office who were available for that purpose received more or less instruc- tion from me. Q. Well now, let us get it as we go along, the judges. To what extent did you instruct them? A. I can't tell you definitely. Q. As to how many, or how many? A. Nor how many. Q. Now, about the employees, how many employees did you teach? A. Well, I should think there were fif- teen to sixteen. Q. Who employed you to do that? A. All of my em- ployment was by the Board of Election -Commissioners 1201 that had to do with the voting machines. Testimony of P. M. Chamheiiain. 287 Q. Through Mr. Stuart? A. Through Mr. Stuart. Q. Now how long were you employed in teaching the employees, these fifteen or more employees of the Election Commission? A. Well, I can't tell that very closelj^, some of those employees had to assist me in setting up the ma- chines for examination over to the storehouse, and the others were entirely new for it. Q. Well, give your best judgment as to how long a time was consumed in instructing these employees of the Election Commission. A. Well, I should think two or three days, but I — Q. Not more than that ? A. I think not, but I haven 't any definite recollection. Q. What compensation did you receive for instructing those employees! A. The last employment by the board Avas a lump sum. Q. Yes ? A. Which I made mention of before. Q. What was that! I do not recall it, you said a lump sum, but I do not think you named it? A. No, I did not name it. Q. What was it? A. I do not recall how much it was. Q. About how much was it? A. Well, I can't tell you that. I can give that to you from my books if you would like to have it. Q. I think we ought to have that. Very well, we would like to have that. Can you give a general statement as to how much vou got for that? A. No. 1202 Q Within $100 or $200? A. No. Q. How much money have you received in the aggre- gate from the Election Commission in connection with this voting machine since vou met them? A. I don't know. Q. Well, is it $150*0 do you think? A. No, I think not. Q. Will you give that statement to us, to? A. I will be glad to do so. Q. Have you appeared on their salary roll or have you been employed at so much per diem a day? A. Well, I have been employed at so much per diem with the ex- ception of one set of service which was for a lump sum. 288 Testimony of P. M. Chamberlain, VOLUME XIII. Thursday, July 31, 1913. Mornina: Session. 'o Paitl M, Chamberlain resumes the stand: 1204 The three experts employed by the Election Commis- sioners met with Judge Owens and received instructions. No Election Commissioner, County Judge or employee of the Election Commissioners' office made any suggestion regarding one machine or another, nor interfered with the 1205 experts in any way. Witness rendered a bill for services on the voting ma- chine experts commission, June 5 to June 26th, inclusive, 13^ days, $675, and on July 21st a bill for one day, $50, and on March 12th, 1912, a bill for testing and inspecting 100 voting machines at the Pugh warehouse, February 21st to February 23d, inclusive, 2i days, $125, and on April 11th, in connection with voting machines on March 28th, 1912, to April 10th, 1912, per agreement with Mr. Stuart, $300. 1206 The item is not stated in the bill but witness finds in his ledger it consumed 12J days. The total amount is $1150. Witness has not been employed by the City or any Chi- cago municipality since that tinie, nor at any except on this one occasion. 1207 Witness is not related to Mr. Wheelock. When examining the voting machines in the election booth the witness traveled in an automobile, which, the witness presumes, the City furnished. 1208 Witness does not recall that he looked at any machines after the polls closed. Witness had no keys to the ma- chine. 1210 Witness does not consider the Empire machine an easy machine to handle. Witness can think of nothing unfair about the ticket at the last November election as being unfair as a test of voting machines ; would think it an ordinary test. Witness thinks Judge Owens did not state anything about the $50 per day paid the witness, or about the com- pensation for his services. 1211 Witness' attention is called to the difference in the Testimony of Paid M. Chamberlain. 289 amount of his own bill and that of Mr. Abbott. Witness states Mr. Abbott was called awa^- from the examination once or twice and that might account for the difference in time. 1212 Witness is a mechanical expert capable of passing upon the mechanical movement of any machine which was brought to his attention. Witness does not think he knows as much about voting machines as an inventor, manufac- turer or man who built a voting machine. 1213 Witness' attention is called to a device, a lever, for cutting out all parties but one on primary day, and asked if the lever stands at zero whether the voter cannot vote for any or all parties. Witness thinks not, but is not sure. Witness cannot remember, but depends upon the report as to whether the experts considered the ques- tion of primary elections. 1214 Witness looking at commission's report states: "A. Well, we reported that the machine fulfilled the requirements of the state law." "Sen. Landee. Q. Well, that is in the state law, the primary election. "A. Then it is covered. "Q. We had the primary election at that time. A. Then it is covered. "Q. You are sure of that? A. Yes, sir." Witness cannot express an opinion as to a fair price to be paid to the manufacturer of the Veeder meter. 1215 Witness cannot say that you could place a mechanical movement on a blue print as well as you could on a ma- chine. A machine could be made without a blue print. 1216 Blue prints would not show the material. Specifica- tions, if they were complete enough, would. 1217 By contracting engineers — the witness is one — specifica- tions and blue prints are frequently considered before the contract. Witness does not think the Empire voting ma- chine will corrode standing in the warehouse in all kinds of weather. 1219 Witness is familiar with the grouping devices on the Empire machine. They are set by the custodian. Wit- ness does not think that pegs or pins in the grouping de- vices could drop out or be disturbed by moving the vot- ing machine. 1220 The pins referred to make the restricting spaces. Wit- 290 Testimony of Paul M. Chamberlain. ness cannot tell without examining tlie machine whether 1221 there is any locking device to keep the keys in. 1222 There is little strain on this pin and no strain which tends to pull them out or in. 1224 The restricting pins are made of wire about 3/32ds of an inch thick and are strong enough to stand the strain put upon them. Mr. Deneen. You stated in response to Representative Jayne's question that your bill was put in the 10th of April, the last bill that you have? A. March 28th to April 10th. Q. Election occurred on April 4th? A. Yes, I think so. Q. What were you doing on the 5th, 6th and 7th of April with these machines T A. I could not recall at this time. Q. Were you examining them to see whether they were in proper condition? A. I don't know, I cannot recall what the services were, rendered at that time. Q. What were you doing on the 28th and 29th and 30th, and the 1st, 2d and 3d of April, save Sunday, with reference to the machine, what kind of work were you doing? A. AVell, examining the machines, I don't re- member these specific days, but at that time I examined the machines and as I recall it gave some instructions re- garding the operation and the setting. Q. What part of the machines were you examining? 1225 A. Oh, that was with reference to setting. the machines and the proper handling of it in the hands of the officials, the Election officials. Q. Well, now, the proper setting, let us get that first, what did you do about the setting of it? The Chaieman. Has the witness answered the ques- tion! Mr. Deneen. He is thinking that over, he has not an- swered that. A. I do not recall definitely. Q. Can't you tell the commission the things of your work with reference to those machines from March 28th to April 10th? A. It embraces a number of various things wherever there was a call for my assistance or ex- planation I was on hand to give it. Q. Well, now, what did you do? A. I remember spe- cifically explaining the operations of the machines? Testimony of Paul M. Chamberlain. 291 Q. To whom? A. To members of the Election Com- sion's office force. Q. Well, I don't mean their names, but where, where were you explaining it ? A. Well, there were several ma- chines were set up for exhibition purposes and instruc- tion. Q. Well, what else, and where? A. I cannot recall specifically. 1226 Q. Did you have to do with explaining to members, representatives of the Election Commission over to the warehouse — Pugh's warehouse? A. On some occasions, I am not quite positive whether or not it was at this time. Q. I mean between the 28th of March and the 10th of April. A. I would think that — I cannot say positively. Q. Well, can't you tell the Commission what you did, save the fact that you inspected several machines in the City Hall and taught some of the men connected with the Election Commission over there in intricacies of the ma- chines? A. On two occasions I examined machines at the Pugh warehouse. Q. On two occasions? A. On tw^o occasions. Q. Do you mean on and after March 28th? A. I don't think — I think that quite likely one of them was after March 28th. Q. And one was after? A. Well, that is covered by— that is the interval February 21st to 23d, the two and one-half days. Q. Well, now, when you examined them at Pugh's warehouse on or after March 28th, what were you doing with the machines? A. Well, if it was after the date that I made the test of the second lot of the machines at the Pugh Terminal warehouse it was taking the ma- chines out of the crates and testing the keys for voting and interlocking. Q. Well, you said if it was, you mean to tell the com- 1227 mittee that the second consignment of machines came after March 28th and you examined them for the April election on April 4th. A. I did not mean to say that. Q. State to the committee whether or not you were engaged on or after March 28th, 1912, examining a con- signment of machines from the Empire Voting Machine Company to the Commission? A. I think I was. Q. And was that all that you were doing? A. I ex- 292 Testimony of Paul M. Chamberlain. plained to you just a moment ago that I demonstrated the machines over at the City Hall. Q. Several machines? A. Yes. Q. What were you doing in riding around town visit- ing the polling places, what work were you doing in con- nection with the machines at that time ! A. Well, seeing that the machines were properly set and that they were getting along properly with them at the polling places. Q. In what way do you mean getting along properly, that they were working and operating? A. Yes, and if there was any obstacles to their working in some of the 1228 polling places, we had to have them move some of their furniture to give room for the curtains to be opened. They had been set up the night before but not opened out, that is one of the things. Q. Yes, tell some others? A. Well, I don't recall at this time what other things were found. Q. You cannot tell what you did from March 28th to April 10th, inclusive, except that you assisted or demon- strated on several machines in the City Hall and you rode around the city inspecting machines in reference to the curtains? A. Well, inspecting machines to see whether they were in condition for voting and whether they were having any difficulty with any of the explana- tions which they had previously received and which they might have forgotten. Q. Well, did you tell any of the judges, inform them as to the mistakes they made or were making. A. I think in some instances they had not understood about the unlocking of the machine, ready for voting. Q. And what did you do? A. Demonstrated to them how it was done. Q. When was that? A. Well, I cannot say that defi- nitely but I think the morning of election. Q. How many did you have to teach how to open the 1229 machine? A. I cannot say. Q. What time did you begin work that day? A. Started out very early, I should think perhaps half past six, but I am not sure, it was very early. Q. How many judges, how many polling booths did you have to teach the judges how to open their machines ? A. I cannot say. Q. How long were you riding around the city before Testimony of Paul M. Chamberlain. 293 you visited the first polling place 1 A. Went directly ta the first polling place. Q. Where was it? A. Well, I should think it was on State street. Q. Well, that is a long street, what part? A. Oh, somewhere in the vicinity of 600 State street. Q. Do you mean to say that you started from the Elec- tion Commissioners' office at half past six, or that you started to go to work at half past six! A. I remember leaving the house very early and starting in on the duties of the day and I know we were riding very early. Q. Well, what time? A. Well, I should think that we were on the road by seven o'clock. Q. And that is — then you went to State street, the 600 number? A. I don't know that it was 600. Q. About that? A. That is my recollection, some- 1230 where in the 600 's. Q. Down as far as Harmon court? A. I don't know it by that name. Q. Well, Van Buren street ? A. I should think it was in that vicinity. Q. And the judges had not been able to open the box of the voting machine at that time? A. I cannot say that it was the first place we visited nor can I say what place it was. Q. Do you remember about what time of the day when you had to open the machine, the first one? A. No, I can- not. Q. Could it have been as late as eight o 'clock? A. Yes, it might have been. Q. It might have been that late? A. Yes. Q. How many of the machines did you have to open and work for the judges? A. I don't know. Q. Were there any others ? A. I cannot recall whether there was or not, I remember that is one of the things. Q. Did you go out as far as Longwood — you know where Longwood is ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know where Tracey is? A. No, sir. Q. Or South Englewood or Morgan Park? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go out to a little town near Morgan Park to examine some machines that would not work, — Long- 1231 wood, that is the 32d ward? A. I cannot recall that. Q. Cannot recall that? A. No, sir. Q. Did you go into the outskirts of the city, the sub- 294 Inspects Voting Machines Election Day. urbs and examine some machines that would not work ? A. During the day we visited nearly all the precincts where the machines were in operation. Q. Do you know how many were in operation? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. There were several hundred, were there not? A. I think it was less than 200. Q. Less than 200! A. Yes. Q. How many did you tind out of order ? A. I cannot tell you. Q. Can you give us an estimate ? A. No ; I don 't know that I found any out of order. Q. How many did you find working defectively? 1232 A. I didn't find any that were working perfectly. Q. How many did you have to correct in their opera- tion? A. How many judges? Q. No, how many machines? A. I don't think we corrected any machines in their operation; I don't remem- ber any. Q. How many election boards did you have to instruct how to operate the machine? A. I can't tell. Q. Well, give us an estimate. A. I have no definite memory on that subject ; I would think that there probably were not more than two or three. Q. Your recollection is vague on that? A. It is. Q. Did you make any memoranda regarding that ? A. No, I did not. Q. Didn't make any report regarding it? A. Verbal only, at the time. Q. To whom? A. The clerk of election. Q, Mr. Stuart? A. Mr. Stuart, yes. Q. Who accompanied you on this trip ? A. Employees of the office. Q. Do you know their names? A. I can't give you their names. Q. That is all you can say about your work from March 28th to April 10th, is that your recollection? A. Yes. 1233 Witness thinks the experts, when examining the ma- chines saw some little pamphlets submitted by the owners of some of the machines. The experts examined the specifications. Witness' at- tention is called to the part of the specitications on page 3 regarding blue prints, photographs and statements. Testimony of Paul M. Chamberlain. 295 Witness does not recall it, but the experts must have read it. 1234 Witness does not recall that Judge Owens said any- thing about the machines complying with the specifications nor does he remember that anything was said about how many machines were to be purchased. Witness thinks that nothing was said about report of the previous examiners or about the investigations of the preceding Board. 1235 Experiments in voting, testing whether a voter could vote in a minute, were conducted by Election Commis- sioners, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Wooley, and the witness. Did not use any employees of the Election Commission. 1235-6 "Q. You don't think so. I notice, if you will turn back to your memoranda, that you say March -1, 1912, you rendered a bill for services in inspecting 100 ma- chines for $125; that was the bill, wasn't it? A. Yes, sir. "Q. You accepted 200 machines and rejected 2. Where is your bill for the other 98 or the other 100 f A. My testimony of yesterday in regard to inspecting 200 ma- chines at one time must have been in error, it was en- tirely a matter of memory. "Q. Yes. A. But I find from the bills which I ren- dered that 101 machines — now, let us see, just a moment — I have a note here that on April 4th I reported examina- tion on machines, serial numbers 4461 to 4661, covering dates of March 28th, 29th and 30th. "Q. That is what you were doing then? A. 101 ma- chines. "Q. March 28th to what? A. 28th to 30th." 1236 The machines examined were sent out at primary elec- tion. Witness did not set the grouping devices, but was on hand when this work was going on and perhaps set some of the machines. 1238 The representative of the particular machine under ex- amination, or the owner of the machine, was called in as the experts required, to demonstrate the use of the machine and to answer questions. In examining the Empire machine the experts didn't take it all apart. They removed the legislative grouping device. There is but one grouping device, the witness says, on the Empire machine. It is in one apparatus, as the witness recalls it. 296 Testimony of William Wooley. Witness has not been employed by the Empire Com- pany to do any work since he made the examination. Witness knows Mr. Barr who was one of the repre- sentatives of the Empire machine, but was not the me- chanical expert. Mr. Barr was in the corridor and 1239 offered, but witness does not recall whether he gave any explanations of the workings of the machine or not. William Wooley: Direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. Residence, 3143 Diversey Avenue. Witness is a me- chanic employed by the Moon-Hopkins Machine Com- pany, a computing machine. 1240 AVitness was employed as one of the experts to exam- ine the voting machines in June, 1911. Witness was recommended to Mr. Stuart as an expert by a Mr. Scull, an auditor at Armour's. Mr. McCord of Armour & Com- pany told witness to see Mr. Stuart. 1241 Witness saw Mr. Stuart and introducing himself pre- sented Mr. Scull's card. Witness told Mr. Stuart that he was the gentleman Mr. Scull had spoken about to him. Mr. Stuart said he wanted witness to examine four dif- ferent makes of voting machines. 1242 The conversation occurred at the Election Commission- er's office. Witness talked with Mr. Stuart at no place else. Talked with Mr. Stuart three or four weeks before he began work as an expert. The only time the witness met the other experts was when he went with them to Judge Owens. Witness never saw reports made by other examining experts. 1243 Witness does not remember seeing the specifications while examining the machine and did not know that any had been issued at the time of soliciting bids. Witness did not examine any blue prints or photo- graphs or instructions as to the operation of any of the four machines. Witness testifies he saw the instructions in a small room adjoining the room where the machines were and thinks he remembers the blue prints were in a kind of book form ; does not remember whether or not they were sealed. The package of blue prints in book form, tlie witness thinks he remembers, was open. Witness thinks Cannot Vote Primary Ballot in Minute. 297 refers to the International machine. Thinks that the International was the only machine that had blue prints there. 1244 Witness does not know whether any other blue prints were opened. The experts had the aid of demonstrators of several machines. The demonstrators were with the experts about half the time and were accessible the other half. 1245 The experts did not take the machines apart and all that the experts saw was what could be seen from the front, and then in the rear when the doors were open. 1246 Witness thinks the experts and the demonstrators were the only ones that voted and that afterwards Mr. Czarnecki and Mr. Kellermann tried their hands at it. 1247 Witness thinks the experts put in all of three days on the Empire voting machine. 1248 Mr. Barr was not in the room where the machine was. Witness met Mr. Barr, but at no time talked with him about the machine. Mr. Barr was there during the three days. Witness had never before examined a voting machine. Had voted on one once at Whitestown, New York, in 1898, when he cast his first vote. 1249 Witness' acquaintance with voting machines is limited entirely to what he did on these machines. Witness be- lieves the Empire voting machine fulfills all the require- ments of the State Ballot Law. Witness does not know what the requirements of the State law are, but "we had them up when we examined the machines." Witness said that a split ticket could be voted on an Empire machine at the general election, but not at a primary election. "I do not believe that anybody could vote a split ticket in less than a minute in a primary like the last April primary." That was the Chicago primary of 1912. 1250 Witness does not include voting on public utility ques- tions but just the names. It would require more time to vote on public questions. Witness' attention is called to the fact that there is no split ticket at primary elections, and lets his answer stand as to general elections. The reason for not voting in a minute at a primary is because there are so many names. 1251 As to materials in the machine, witness has no inde- 298 Testimony of William Wooley. pendent recollection, but reads the report and says "It states here steel, aluminum, bronze, and other composi- tion metals." Last fall's election was a general presidential election. 1252 Witness thinks that a man might vote the ticket in one minute if he was familiar with the ballot and "did not want to cut his ballot all to pieces. In splitting, an ordi- nary, intelligent man can vote in a minute, I believe." If he desired to split his ticket very generally, witness thinks he couldn't do it. As to the possibility of the metal used in the Empire machine corroding witness only knows that the process that they had, of course, on their metal prevented it from 1253 corroding. The demonstrator claimed it. The demon- strator claimed the metals were shererdized. Witness does not know what this process is or what it would do except as the demonstrator told him. 1254 Kust would interfere with the operation of the ma- chine at the working points unless they were oiled. The experts examined the machine in reference to primary devices. If the machine were set in a certain place a voter could vote for candidates of his own party and also for those of any other party at the same time. The custodian could set it so this could be done. The judges could do nothing. The custodian could do this by setting the primary lever at zero. When the lever is set at zero the voter can vote any candidate on the machine. "But there is a lock 1255 in the machine that prevents that, as near as I can re- member. ' ' "It is under seal when the custodian sets the machine and throws that lock down preventing the primary lever from going to cipher after he has the machine set." The seal referred to is an ordinary wire seal with a leaden ball on both ends. Witness does not know whether it is numbered and registered for identification. 1256 According to the report the Empire machine has no restriction on the number of inspections of the counters and registers by the judges. Witness thinks there are cases to arrange the machines for transportation. Witness is asked if it is convenient to put a machine up in a case and put it out, and answers : "A. I think they roll right on their owm casters." 1257 Witness does not know whether the Empire machine Cannot Remember Number of Machine Examined. 299 has castors. Witness saw the machine cases and thinks the machine the experts examined would run into the room in its case. 1258 "Thev had four or five big, husky fellows there to take it out."' Witness does not remember the weight of the machine, but same report says it is 904 pounds. The first Empire machine examined by the witness was a 7-party, 50-key machine. It was this machine that weighed 904 pounds. 1259 Witness does not remember the serial number on the machine, nor where it was made. "Q. Was the machine, the Empire ma,chine, marked, was the machine marked 'Empire' or 'United States Standard'? A. I do not remember of seeing the plates." Indicating the make of the machine. It took four men to handle the first machine. Witness would not call any of the machines convenient to handle. The second Empire machine handled was heavier than the first because it is a larger machine. Witness did not take the serial number of the machine and does not know where it was made nor whether it was marked "Empire" or "United States Standard." Wit- ness does not remember the weight of the second ma- chine. 1261 The second Empire machine was provided with a party-key. Both the Empire machines had a party-key. Witness thinks the party-lever and the party-key is a matter which is optional with the town purchasing ma- chines. The partj^-lever casts the vote for each indi- vidual candidate and the party-key makes one mark like a circle on a straight ticket. 1262 "It also makes it necessary to add the ballots cast on the party machine to those cast on the individual keys. This advantage could apply to any machine which has a party-key instead of a party lever. The advantage of the party-key, on the other hand, are simplicity of con- struction and less mechanical complications." It was the opinion of the experts that the party-lever would be an advantage over the party-key because it would add the straight ticket to the irregular ticket, and 1263 give the total on the machine. Under the party-key sys- tem the judges had to call off the votes and the clerks put them down and add them. 300 Thought Defects Found Woidd Be Corrected. Witness understood that in making the statements in the report in regard to the absence of a party-lever, the experts intended that the commissioners would have the manufacturers correct this defect to make it a machine that came up to the views of the experts. Witness does not believe that a" party-lever could be 1264 placed on the Empire machine. It it were done, it would be necessary to have some mechanism connecting with each counter. There are 700 counters on a machine, and to attach the party-lever would be some job. Witness does not think it would be difficult and cannot say whether it would be expensive. 1266 Tlie Empire machine was ranked third in regard to relative convenience of handling. The experts examined the grouping devices on the Empire machine as to their operation. The demon- strators explained all the operations to the experts. The witness does not think the legislative grouping devices could be arranged so that the voter could cast 6 votes for Eepresentative, if the machine is set correctly by the custodian. 1267 Witness thinks the custodian could set the legislative grouping mechanism so a voter could vote more than 3 votes. The experts relied on the demonstrators for setting and controlling of the legislative grouping device. 1268 Witness does not think the custodian could set a ma- chine so that voter could vote twice for one candidate. The custodian could not set a machine so that the voter could vote a straight ticket and also for another indi- vidual candidate. The experts examined the device restricting Avomen's voting. 1269 The machine could be set by the custodian so that women could be restricted. On examining the experts' report witness said that an error by the voter could be corrected by the judge on an Empire machine. The witness cannot explain how this could be done by the judge. The witness' present recol- lection is that the judge could do it. 1270 The Empire machine had a releasing knob. Its pur- pose was to enable the voter to get out of the voting ma- chine without voting if he desires to do so or it could be pulled by the judge. Testimony of William Wooley. 301 The witness is asked to look at the machine in the room to refresh his recollection. Mr. Deneen asks that Mr. Stuart deliver the keys so as to facilitate the examination. 1271-2 "The Chairman. The custodian has them. 1273 After examining the releasing knob on the voting ma- chine, the witness is asked as to its function, and states that if the voter goes out of the machine without voting it will be necessary to release the releasing knob before the operating lever could be returned to its normal posi- tion. The same thing can be done by operating any key on the machine. The witness is shown a sample ballot on the machine 1274 and his attention called to two keys, one of which is blank and the other marked "H. H. Hahn 1 1/2 votes," the keys being numbered 22-D and 23-D respectively, and asked if the voter who votes some other ticket than the straight Socialist ticket, pulls down the key marked 23-D on the machine, how many votes he casts for Mr. Hahn. He answered, "My memory of the grouping device is not very clear, but I should say that Mr. Hahn got one vote, one and one-half votes, rather." "Q. Now, if he pulled the 22-D down, what would hap- pen, there is a blank space there? A. I don't believe that he could pull 23-D down if the grouping device is set correctly. "Q. He would get just li votes? A. 1| votes; yes, sir." The witness does not know whether any other sugges- tion made by the experts was incorporated in the Empire machines sold to the City of Chicago. Cross-Examination by Mr. McEwen. The witness is not a graduate of any college and has no degree. He has worked at the bench. 1275 For the past two and a half years the witness has had charge of the Chicago office of the Moon-Hopkins Company at the mechanical end ; this means that he goes out and keeps the machines in working order. In voting machines it is not necessary to have drawings or a model. After a machine is built, one would go to the blueprint 302 Testimony of William Wooley. only to get the number of a part or a measurement once in awhile: 1276 Every part has a number in the blueprint, but not on the machine. The blueprint is an index to the machine. In examining a machine to see whether it operates prop- erly, the machine itself is examined, not the blueprint. Witness thinks there are five keys for the various com- partments of the Empire voting machine. 1277 To change the grouping device or set the counters, a man would have to have the five keys. No. 1 key is for the padlock on the voting lever. No. 2 is the operating knob. No. 3 is the rear door. No. 4 is the custodian's key, giving admission into the grouping devices part of the machine, and No. 5 unlocks the operat- ing lever of the counters. VOLUME XIV. Afternoon Session. Thursday, July 31, 1913. William Wooley, resumes the stand: 1279 "Q. I understand, complying with request of counsel for the committee, Mr. Huff, the custodian for the Elec- tion Commissioners has turned to Prof. Leutweiler the keys to the machine that is now in this room. "The Chairman. Your five keys. "Mr. McEwEN. Mr. Huff also left with me two reports of the examination of the machine, which I would like to have identified and left with the Chairman. "The Chairman. That is for the purpose of making the record. "Mr. McEwEN. If the machine is to be subjected to any test, I think that ought to be the procedure. One is called the Assemblers' Certificate and one is called the Examiners' Certificate. "The Chairman. The assembler is the man who sets the machine witli reference to the grouping and cumula- tive voting? "Mr. McEwEN. And the examiner is the one who goes after the other and checks it up, the one follows the Testimony of William, Wooley. 303 other. I think if there was going to be any change, these 1280 ought to be left with the Committee. "The Chairman. There is no objection with the Chairman. The examiner has not tried yet — "Mr. McEwEN. It does not seem to be tried, I don't know whether — ' ' The Chairman. It doesn 't make any difference, that is, if Mr. Huff has now put the machines in working or- der for election. "Mr. McEwEN. Yes, they have been gone over twice by somebody or other. Witness did not solicit appointment as expert. Wit- 1281 ness met Abbott and Chamberlain for the first time in the Election Commissioners' office the day they went be- fore Judge Owens. Neither the Election Commissioners, Judge Owens, nor any employe suggested a preference for one machine or another or interfered with the work of the experts. Witness gave 70 hours as a rough estimate of the time spent on all four machines. 1282 It was 15 years ago that the witness voted once on a voting machine. At that time he had no knowledge of voting machines. Simply went in and voted. Does not remember the kind of machine it was. The second examination by the experts, that of the 70- key Empire machine, was made about four weeks after the report on the other machine. The second report was not signed at any Board meeting. The second examination was on the question whether the 70-key machine would do the work as well as the 50- key machine. 1283 Witness thinks the same principles would operated as well in a 70-key machine as in a 50-key machine and the report stated that they would work on a 100-key machine, or twice that number. If a machine is enlarged, it has to be considerably strengthened. Witness sees no reason why the enlarge- ment of a machine w^ould result in an accumulation of space down at one end so that the machine would not work properly. The experts' report stated that the Empire machine was rather heavy, but, as a mechanical expert, witness sees no way of lightening this particular machine to any appreciable extent. 1284 For a 9-party, 70-key machine, with 730 voting points 304 Testimony of Willia/m Wooley. the Empire machine is very well built. Witness does not believe that much weight could be taken off the machine with a ballot of this size, the Chicago ballot. In relation to the working of the party key, the ma- chine examined by the experts worked well. Either a party lever or a party key works well. It is the option of the purchaser. In saying that the Empire machine and the Triumph machine had no device to restrict the number of inspec- tions, witness meant that the judges who had the keys could go together and move the counters. Witness says the judge could not move the counters. To move the 1286 counters the seal would have to be broken and the coun- ter device unlocked. He would have to have the key pro- vided for that purpose. 1287 Witness thinks that you cannot unlock door No. 1, the one on the end, before the back rear door is unlocked ; that is, lock No. 3. AVhen the rear door is unlocked, the counters can be looked at, but not the grouping device. The custodian has the key to the grouping device, and all that is done to the grouping device is done before the machine leaves the warehouse. The custodian has the key to the lock on the counters and the grouping device. The judges do not get it. Witness does not now remember the objection to per- mitting the judges to look at the counters more than a given number of times. 1288 If they stopped voting to go back and look at the coun- ters every 15 minutes it would not affect the counters any. From his examination the witness did not see where the voter could "beat" the machine. Witness could not see where the machine could be dis- arranged to register falsely without its being detected. The protective counter is enclosed in a metal case which would have to be knocked off before you could get into it. It keeps on counting, is never turned back, and works in conjunction with the public counter as a check on the judges ringing up extra votes on the ma- chine. The last reading on the protective counter would have to tally with the number of votes on the public counter. The demonstrator of each machine examined was pres- ent, but not the opposition demonstrator. » Testimony of William Wooley. 305 1290 Witness' attention is called to the report of the ex- perts regarding the Empire machine, "The wrong set- ting of counters" as a possibility of fraud, and asked if judges could do this, and witness answered: "He could 1291 do it with his three keys." Under the heading of "Fraud by Custodian," the re- port says, "Disconnect actuating mechanism from one or more keys," witness is asked if this could not be readily discovered by the voter and says, "If the cus- todian could disconnect those keys in such a way that the keys would operate themselves, but still be discon- nected from the counters, the voter would have no way of — the voter would have no way of telling." Witness could not say whether this could be done or not. The voting key, even when disconnected from the ae- uating mechanism, might be fixed by the custodian so it would pull up or stay down as he pleased. 1292 The experts opened the machine so as to see the ac- tuating mechanism between the voting key and the coun- ter. Witness cannot recall whether he saw any parts that might be changed or interfered with so that a dis- connected voting key would work as though it were con- nected. 1293 Witness cannot describe the actuating mechanism. "Q. You say in your report, 'Absolute proof against fraud by custodians, judges or voters, or by connivance by two or more of these parties, is, of course, impossible, but certain precautions may be taken which will make vot- ing machines reasonably secure in this respect." Have you in mind now any precautions which might be taken to make a voting machine secure? A. No, sir. Q. _ Do you think a rubber band can be used on this machine? A. No, sir. Q. Isn't that one of the objections to a party lever, in that rubber bands can be used more easily on a party lever machine? A. I think we had that rubber band in the report; I think you will find it in there. Q. You say here, — changing the subject slightly — 'Your commission considers that the designers of the machine can easily provide protection which will prevent a judge from so tampering with the machine,' that is, rubber bands, — let me go back a little — you first refer to rubber bands, and then you go on with this: 'A more serious matter, however, is the possibility with 306 Testimony of William Wooley. this same machine of disconnecting an individual counter from a party lever, which can be done by the custodian before the machine is sent out or by the judge at the time of his inspection at the polling place. Your com- mission considers that the designers of the machine can easily provide protection which will prevent a judge from so tampering with the machine, and a rule requiring judges to test all voting levers and keys before the polls are opened, would detect any false setting on the part of the custodian.' Do you think the judge in the polling place would be a check on any fraudulent setting of the machine? A. No, I think we had in mind then that instead of setting the machine at zero, set all the counters at 999 and put the machine in operation at the booth, and have the judges vote once and go to the rear and then have another in- spection to see if all the counters had gone to zero. Q. Your idea was to use the judges as inspectors on the machine as well! A. Yes, sir. Q. That would immediately detect any disconnection of a counter? A. Yes, sir. 1295 As to the material used in the machine the witness could not make any objection to it. 1296 The witness' bill for services was $350, Mr. Chamber- lain's bill was $725. Witness did not know what they charged. His price was $25 a day. Witness does not consider himself a voting machine ex- pert. Before the examination of the machines nothing had been said to the witness or the expert about not per- mitting demonstrators of other machines to be present during the examination of any particular machine. Witness says, "Well, when a man is demonstrating his own machine, he should demonstrate his, and not the other fellow's. That is why we did not want the other fellows around." 1297 The demonstrator of his own machine would not give bad points, only good points. Witness does not believe that the counter used on the Empire machine is a Veeder meter. Thinks that it is made by the Empire people themselves. 1298 The counters on the other machines were different from each other and from those on the Empire. "Senator Barb. I just want to ask the Governor, does The One-Minute Voting Requirement. 307 the State law require that they could be voted in a minute f 'Mr. Deneen. a minute, yes. "Senator Babr. Q. Mr. Wooley, did I understand you to say this morning tliat they could not vote one of the primary ballots in a minute? "Mr. McEwEN. The primary of last year, of April, 1912. "Senator Bare. Yes. "The Witness. A. No, I said they could not vote that primary in a minute. "Senator Babb.. Q. Did you report that this machine complied with the State law? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. I just don't understand how you reported that, when the State law requires that it should vote in a minute and you state they can't vote this particular ballot in a minute. I don't understand your position on that. "Mr. McEwEN. May I suggest, that the election of 1299 April, 1912, was held a year after, or nearly a year after the examination on which they made their report? 1302 Witness is asked as to his statement that a key discon- nected from its actuating mechanism could be pulled down and go back to the voting position as though it were still connected, but says that they could manipulate any machine. 1304 Witness will not state whether there is any objection to any machine because it will not accommodate the large Chicago primary ticket and says that "the big ballot had not been out when we examined it." 1305 Witness would not state whether it is an objection now that the big ballots are out. "Senator Babb. Of course, they had the same law then as they had now, as I understand it. ' ' Senator Canaday. I would like to get the opinions of the attornej'S on both sides as to whethey they believe that this law contemplates voting in a primary election." 1306 "Senator Landee. This law, as I understand it, was passed in 1903. "Mr. Deneen. Yes. There was no primary election law in the state at that time, it was passed in 1907, I be- lieve, 1907. "Senator Babb. Oh, there was no primary law then? 308 Method of Finding Pull on Lever. ' ' Mr. Dekeen. Yes, there was a primary law then, but not this one. 1315 Witness thinks that it is necessary to pull the voting key down to the bottom in order that it may register. To determine the pull on the lever of the Winslow Ma- chine, which is said in the report to be 75 pounds, witness thinks the expert used a spring scale either 75 or 50 1316 pounds, and which the lever pulled to the end. Witness cannot say how that takes exactly the pull. "Q. Didn't you have, in fact, a 50-pound scale and estimated it and didn't you say then, 'Well, we will give it 50 per cent, more and make it 75 on the Winslow Ma- chine!' A. I think that was right, I think it was a 50- pound. W^e pulled the full capacity of the scale and the lever would not work and so we put 20 to 25 pounds more to it." • 1317 The witness would not think the present machine free from criticism if the changes recommended by the ex- perts' report had not been made. Witness had in mind in the suggestion that counters should be set at 999 and the election judges make an ex- perimental vote a check on fraud on the part of the cus- todian. 1318 Otherwise there would be no check on the custodian. 1319 "Mr. Deneen. This is your report (reading): 'Pro- visions — the provisions are there prescribed and recited — and recite the number of inspections of counters by the election judges before and after the hours of voting.' (Beading) : 'Your experts consider it highly desirable to make provision for a limited number of inspections by judges, which provision is made in the International and the Winslow but it is not provided for in the Tri- umph and the Empire. It seems that it would be a rather 1320 simple matter to include such an attachment in the mech- anism of these two named machines.' You remember the International punched a ticket in the morning?" Witness remembers that the International machine made an impression or printed copy of the counters. 1321 Witness thinks that fraud might be perpetrated on the International by somebody moving the counters after the impression was taken. 1322 In suggesting that the Empire machine should be placed by the custodian at 999 and the judges take an experimental vote upon it in the morning, putting it at Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 309 zero, the experts had in mind that the judges would be better able to determine in that way whether the machine was in working order and whether the custodian had tam- pered with it. As the machine is, there is no such check against the custodian! The experts investigated to see whether fraud could be committed on the machine by anybody, by the judges, voters or custodians. 1323 The witness says the voter could commit fraud upon the International if he was possessed of a key. He would • have to have five keys to do it on the Empire. If the voter had five keys to do it he would be very readily found out. The judges with five keys could do it. They already had three. 1324 Witness didn't consider this a defect in the machine. 1325 Witness thinks there should be a check on the cus- todian, on the judges, and on the voter, with any machine. Clakbnce E. DePuy: 1326 Lives at 411 North Elmwood, Oak Park. Is a teacher at Lewis Institute. Witness has charge of the shop at the Lewis Institute and also of some of the machine de- signs, pneumatics. The Lewis Institute is a polytechnical school for many branches of work, including mechanical and electrical engineering. It has a student body of 960 day students and 2,000 night students. About 2,500 night students last year. It has a faculty somewhere in the neighborhood of 50, and the Institute ranks with the best of its kind in the country. Witness has been Professor in the Lewis Institute about 17 years. 1327 The witness has been called at various times to exam- ine voting machines, the first time in the fall of 1907. Chief Clark Powell had told Mr. Carmon, director of the Institute, that he wanted someone to examine voting ma- chines. Witness told Mr. Carmon that he knew nothing about voting machines, but had given a great deal of at- tention along similar lines of mechanism. Witness later called on Mr. Powell and went with him to see Judge Binaker. 1328 Witness was thereupon employed as expert. On the first examination the witness had to take care of his 310 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. classes up to 3 o'clock in the afternoon and spent several weeks in the examination which began sometime in Octo- ber and was not ended until nearly the end of November, The report made by the witness at that time has been presented at this hearing and read. Later the witness was called upon by the Election Com- mission to examine another set of machines. This was in March, 1908. There were six machines in the first lot and six ma- chines in the second lot. Four of the same machines. 1329 The second examination covered a long time, but the- witness thinks not quite so long as the first time. Witness' associates as experts were the same men in both cases, Mr. Olson and Mr. Leutweiler, and in the first examination Mr. Breckenridge of the University of Illi- nois. The experts worked independently and none knew who the others were. Witness examined the voting machines for Election Commissioners the third time in the fall of 1909. This examination extended over several weeks also. The wit- ness' time on each examination was broken, as he could devote only part of his time to the work. 1330 The same men acted as experts on this examination. There were four machines on the third examination, the Triumph, the Empire, the Wilcox and the Winslow. This examination was made by the experts individually. Neither expert saw the others until the examination was all over, and then they were called together in the Com- missioners' room to go to the machines and do what they could with them. That is the first time the experts met, sometime in October, 1909. The so-called "Knock Fest" was held in 1907 and was between the machine men themselves. The experts who had been examining the machines for the Board were not in that. 1331 The witness also participated in another examination for the Board of Election Commissioners in the summer of 1910. The commissioners wanted the report as soon as they could get it. The first machine ready for examination was the Em- pire. Witness examined that machine and made report July 1st. At that time that was the only machine ready for examination. The next machine that came for examination was the The Empire Voting Machine. 311 Triumph. The witness examined that and made his re- port July 20th. The next machine examined was the Calkins and the report made in August. The witness has made no examinations since of other . machines. Witness has heard these reports read by Judge Mc- Ewen, who introduced them in evidence. The witness has been making an examination of an Empire machine recently. 1332 He began about 2| weeks ago and has been associated with Mr. Olson and Prof. Leutweiler. The examination was made in the La Salle Hotel, where the machine was under examination at the request of the Legislative In- vestigating Committee for nearly three weeks. Mr. Deneen produces a memorandum containing report of examination of voting machines which is in the form of question and answ^er. The questions are read to the witness and the witness gives the answers from tliis memorandum, as follows : 1353 The questions read from and answers given from the memorandum are admitted in evidence subject to with- drawal upon objection. The witness thinks the workmanship of the Empire machine is good. It is composed of steel, bronze, alumi- num, composition metal, white metal. 1354 In the Empire machine examined by the witness re- cently, some parts were protected from corrosion by enamel, some were shererdized and some were copper- plated. In many places this is satisfactory; in some places not. Some places on the machine examined already show evidence of corrosion. Witness does not think this serious at present. 1355 In the course of time there might be trouble through rusting. Not all the steel parts are protected from cor- rosion. Some of the springs are not, and the restricting rollers in the bottom of machine do not seem to be. A voter could commit fraud while concealed by the cur- tain of the voting machine. " Q. In what way or ways ? " (Thereupon members of the legislative committee and the witness and counsel went back to the voting machine 1356 present in the room and the examination was continued at the machine. 312 Some Frauds Possible on Empire Machine. Q. Can a voter commit fraud while concealed by the curtains? A. Yes, sir. Q. In what way or ways? A. A voter can be pre- vented from voting for any particular candidate. Q. In what way? A. By pressing a wire clip on the key-handle. Q. Describe the wire clip. A. It is a small coil of wire with a point bent at right angles with the face of the coil. Q. What will this do? A. By applying this to the handle of the key, the wire protrudes into a channel in the face of the voting machine and under the key, pre- venting the key from being moved forward. Q. What color is this wire clip? A. Black. Q. To correspond with the color of the machine? A. Yes, sir. Q. If the voter follows the instructions laid down for the operation of this machine, for voting a mixed ticket, how may he be deprived of a vote for any particular can- didate by the use of this clip? A. By moving downward the keys for the candidates in other parties for whom he 1357 desires to vote, and then fellowing the instructions, run- ning his finger along the horizontal row of the keys of his parties from right to left. Q. What other devices, if any? A. A wire bent in the form of a question mark, with its point bent at right angles, when placed in the channel back of a key, one end resting on the hub of the key and under the channel and the other end projecting under the key and outward, pre- vents the key from being moved downward. Q. Is there any other device? A. An angle strip. This is a small piece of sheet 1358 metal bent in the form of an angle. This is placed in the right-hand corner of an aperture in the irregular slides, the lower end resting on the top of the slide, the upper resting in the upper right-hand corner of the aper- ture. This prevents the slide from being moved upward. Q. How is the angle steel concealed? A. No attempt is made to conceal it, but the edge only is visible and is so thin as to be scarcely visible and unnoticeable unless called to one's attention, and then only with a strong light and good eyes. It is made the same color as the slide. Fraudulent Manipulations Demonstrated. 313 Mr. Dbneen. Q. These little pieces of metal are all made by hand, are they, Professor f A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, is there another angle strip, is there any other device? A. An angle strip. This is a small piece 1359 of sheet metal bent in the form of an angle. This is placed in the right-hand corner of the aperture in the irregular slide, the lower end resting on the top of the slide, the upper resting in the upper right-hand corner of the aperture. This prevents the slide from being moved upwards. Q. Now, I think we might describe further. The angle steel is put in one of these slides (indicating) ? A. Yes. Mr. Deneen. I would like to have the Committee try that, and then later after they have tried it, see if they can find any defects, find out what the trouble is. Q. You have to move them up to write the name in. Mr. Deneen. Let Judge McEwen do it, too. The Witness. Several of them won't drop. Mr. Deneen. Q. Several of them won't drop; what is the reason, what is the trouble? The Chairman. Pull them all ; they ought to act freely. Mr. Dbneen. Which one is that! Let us see what the trouble is with number four, it being the first one. Let us take them as they come, four and eight, see what the trouble is. The Chairman. Do you see any trouble there. Senator Landee? Mr. Deneen. Now, has the Committee examined them enough ? The Chairman. Senator Canaday, do you want to ex- amine this? Step over. Mr. Deneen. When you are through I will ask him some questions, to explain the matter, to explain what the trouble is. Mr. Deneen. Q. Professor, will you tell what the trouble is, and tell it to the Committee? A. A small strip of angle steel is placed in that slide (indicating) above the spindle; pull one of them out and it shows what is the matter with it here (indicating). Q. Now, tell to the Committee what the trouble is with it. A. The machine must be so a voter can vote any candidate he wants, and the independent ticket. Q. Will you describe now the angle strip? Let him 314 The "Angle Steel" and the Rubber Bamd. 1360 describe it. Now you may describe it, Professor. A. An angle strip. This is a small piece of sheet metal bent in the form of an angle. This is placed in the right-hand corner of an aperture in the irregular slides, the lower end resting on the top of the slide, the upper resting in the upper right-hand corner of the aperture. This pre- vents the slide from being moved upward. Q. How is the angle steel concealed? A. No attempt is made to conceal it, but the edge only is visible and is so thin as to be scarcely visible and unnoticeable unless called to one's attention and then only with a strong light and good eyes. It is made the same color as the slide. 1361 Now, will you ask the question, Governor. Mr. Deneen. Q. Professor, can a voter place a rub- ber band on these keys to prevent the movement of any of the keys ; is there any other device that a voter can place on the machine when back of the curtain? A. Yes, sir, this rubber band. Q. Put a rubber band on one of them? A. A rubber band is not a very good device to try to use on a voting machine. Q. Put one on the machine. A. Yes. Q. Eight in front of them, and then they can see how it is worked. I suggest that they be put so the Commit- tee can see it in the grouping device, and then they can see whether the voter would see it. The Chairman. Here is a man voting the straight Re- publican ticket, and of course it is understood that he comes along and votes ; he stands up in front of the ma- chine and votes for the Republican ticket and throws his hand along like this. Now, of course, he doesn't know that that rubber band is there, is there nothing to call his attention to that? Mr. Deneen. Especially in groupings like County Commissioners. The Chairman. He would never discover it. A man may go in there and then within thirty minutes another man would come in, then within the next thirty minutes an- other man, you could get twenty of them in there like that working like a team. Mr. Deneen. Q. Professor, will you describe the ef- fect of this rubber band on the keys? A. The rubber band on the key allows the key to go down as the voter pushes it in voting position, but the Secrecy of Machine Ballot Not Secure. 315 rubber band returns it to nonnal position, non-voting po- sition. Take a rubber band three-eighths of an inch long 1362 and put over the handle of one key and under the hub of another immediately jjreceding it at the right. The effect of it is to return the key after having been voted to its non-voting position without registering a vote. Q. And can the machine be manipulated by the judge or judges? A. Yes. We have now past what the voter can do. Q. Now, we come Jo what the judge or judges can do. I am now calling your attention. Professor, to the judges, what the judges of election can do to our machine by manipulating it among each other. A. Yes. Q. And how? A. Yes. Q. In what way? A. First the judges of election may 1363 have access to the counters any number of times. If they know the condition of the counters before a voter goes into the booth and casts his ballots, they can look at the counters before the next voter and will know exactly how the first voter voted. The secrecy of the ballot is destroyed. (2) The judges can keep informed as to the progress of voting in elections and primaries and can give information to party officials and workers. (3) They have access to the keys and can manipulate them in any of the ways heretofore indicated. Q. What else can the judges do? A. They can disengage the pawl which engages the ratchet controlling the irregular paper roll and by operating two or more widely separated shutters permit the voter in front of the machine to manipulate the paper roll by moistening his fingers and pulling it downwards. The voter is thus able to vote for more than one candidate in an irregular slide or in several slides. If a subsequent voter desiring to cast an independent vote finds a name already written in the slide he opens, the only way the judges can remedy the situation and permit him to vote requires them to open the door back of the machine. Q. Now will you show to the Committee what you mean by that, disengaging the pawl which engages the ratchet controlling the irregular paper roll? I suggest 1364 that Committee just step around and you will see him. A. Now, by opening two slides here we can move the paper, but, suppose I have written in a name there and 316 Wrong Setting of Counters. another name in there (indicating) the paper cannot be moved without operating the key. Q. What else can the judges do regarding the misread- ing intentionally or otherwise, of the registers in the machines'? A. He can misread purposely or uninten- tionally the registers in the morning. He may make, pur- posely or unintentionally erroneous additions of straight, split, independent and irregular ballots. The judges will be able to set the counters in the machine before the polls are open if they can gain access to the compartment con- taining the counter locking device, and are provided with the necessary key to unlock that device. VOLUME XV. 1366 Morning Session. Friday, August 1, 1913. Clabence E. DePuy resumes the stand : Mr. Deneen. I will take up where we left off yester- day, if the Commission please. Q. Prof. DePuy, what else can the judges do? A. The judge can manipulate the question knock-out in such a way as to enable anybody to vote on all questions, and on primary day the judge may fix the primary lever at zero and enable the voter of any party to vote the primary ticket of any party or vote a split ticket. The judge may also intentionally or otherwise deprive the voter from voting for his party by moving the lever while the voter is going into the front of the machine. Q. Shall we just demonstrate that as we did yester- day one at a time, maybe we had better do that. Senator Bark. I think we better. The Chairman. If you care to, it will be just as well. 1367 Are you going back to the machine! Mr. Deneen. We will have to arrange for the stenog- raphers so that they may have access. Mr. Deneen. Yes, I think we had better. Whereupon the Committee repaired to the rear of the room to inspect the machine in a body, and the following proceedings were had in front of the machine. Manipulation of Question Lockout. 317 Mr. Deneen. What else can the judges do, professor? A. The judge can manipulate the question lock-out in such a way as to enable anybody to vote on all ques- tions, and on primary day the judge may fix the primary lever at zero and enable the voter of any party to vote the primary ticket of any party or vote a split ticket. 1368 The judge may also intentionally or othermse deprive the voter from voting for his party by moving the lever while the voter is going into the front of the machine. Q. Now, what else can the judges do? A. The ques- tion lock up there is at this end, in general elections there is nothing to prevent the judge from moving this at any time. If it is set there, they can vote on questions from one to five, and if here, from five to ten, and here, all above ten, and if set there they can vote for nothing. Representative Jayke. This can be set so that a woman can vote on a man's question? A. Yes, if the questions were put on the machine in such a way that it would restrict the question which the women were expected to vote on, it could be set so that the women cannot vote from one to ten, or it could be set so that the women's questions could be from one to ten and the questions for men beyond that, and then if this was set at this point, only the questions from one to ten could be voted for, and if at this point then the questions* beyond ten, this time, could be voted. Mr. Deneen. When you say this point and that point, will you explain it so the reporters will get it. A. Zero, one, two, three and four. .1369 Mr. Dexeen. When set at zero, they can vote any- where? A. Yes, they can vote anywhere. Representative Jayne. If men and women voted alter- natively twenty-five or thirty times, the judge would have to keep changing this each time? A. Yes. (The committee, counsel and witness go to the machine present in the room.) The witness states that the judges could, intention- ally or otherwise, deprive the voter from voting for his party by moving the party lever while the voter is going into the booth. The judges can, by manipulating the question lock-out 318 Prof. BePuy Makes a Duplicate Key. permit women to vote on questions not permitted them by the law. There is no way in which the judge could prevent the voter from using the party key at the left hand end in the row devoted to Independent candidates on the Em- pire machine as at present constructed. There is no Independent Party but there is a party key at the end of the row for Independent candidates and this key cannot be locked as the machine is constructed. There is no restricting device as long as the party column is in use. 1371 The candidates on the Independent row do not belong to the same party, but may be opposed to each other. 1373 The custodian cannot fix the machine so that the voter, when he pulls do^\^l the party key, votes for all the candi- dates. That is a matter of construction of a vote on the party key given by the judges. 1374 The judges may have duplicate keys made like the keys of the custodian by connivance with somebody in the custodian's office. This is not a difficult operation. Witness has made duplicate keys for the present machine since he got the keys. "The Witness. There is a duplicate to the lower key, Lock No. 4, and there is a key to the lock that sets the counters. "I have not had the keys in my hands more than five minutes since the kej's were delivered. "This one I made from an impression on a piece of blotting paper." ' ' The Witness. This one, a Yale lock key, I made from a little device which any locksmith has. ' ' 1375 The legislative restricting device can be set so that the voter can vote more than the legal number of votes for Representatives for the General Assembly. The device can be set so the voter can vote for three, four, five or six. 1376 The custodian can set the counters so that the vote will not be indicated on the machine as set by the voter. (The Committee and the counsel thereupon inspected the counters at the rear of the voting machine.) The public counter is read as standing at 0-15, and the protective counter at 003069. 1377 Mr. Deneen states that the judges of election are re- Experimental Voting by Committee. 319 quired to inspect the counters before the election begins to see that they are all set at zero. 1378 Members of the Committee inspect and read the coun- ters on the back of the machine as follows: 42-E, 1 vote; 38-D, 1 vote; 38-0, 1 vote; 37-D, 1 vote; 15-E, 1 vote; 10-E, 1 vote ; 6-E, 1 vote. (The doors of the machine are then closed and certain members of the committee, a Democratic and a Pro- gressive member vote upon the machine.) "Mr. Deneeist. Now. Mr. Chairman, I will ask that one Democratic member of the committee vote 16 votes and one Progressive member vote 16 votes and let the other members of the committee keep count and see that they vote 16. Will you select one of the Democrats a'nd one Progressive! "Mr. McEwEx. Whv 16? Why not 17? "The Chairman. Make it 18 or 20. "Mr. McEwEx. There must be some magic about that. "Mr. Deneen. Let him say any number, but don't make it too long a number. "Mr. McEwen. I will sav number 22." Senator Canaday voted 22 times on a straight Demo- cratic ticket. Eepresentative Jayne voted 22 times straight Pro- gressive ticket. 1379-1382 Mr. Deneen. Now we will have one of the mem- bers of the committee cast twenty-two votes for Judge Einaker as States Attorney and the same for Mr. Hoyne. Senator Barr does the casting for Einaker and Hovne. The Chairman. The public counter now shows 103. Mr. McEwEN. How much does it show? 103? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Deneen. You voted twenty-two for the Progress- ive, twenty-two for the Democratic, that is forty-four, and twenty-two for Einaker and twenty-two for Hoyne, that is eighty-eight. Mr. McEwEN. It ought to be 103. The Chairman. May I look at it? 103 is the public counter. Now read the total here on the protective coun- ter, this is 003157. Whereupon the rear doors to the machine were opened and the counters left open for inspection of the commit- tee. k 320 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. The Chairman (reading the counters): "B-12, F-32, A-24-6; B-24, 38. 1379 Mr. McEwEN. We want the opportunity to inspect the counters. The Chairman. Without it being touched we will ex- plain how it is done. Mr. Deneen. May the Commission remain here, and Judge McEwen too, and we will tell you how it is done. 1380 Mr. McEwEN. I suppose you changed the counters. The counter- wheels. We don't want those changed. The Chairman. There is no mechanism changed in the machine, we shall show how that is done now. Mr. Deneen. Will you explain how this was done? Q. The set of operating counters — The Chairman. Is that the key, is that your key, the one you made? A. Yes. The machine will have to be set in that posi- tion ready to vote. The Chairman. All right, is that all right? A. That is all right. Now, with that in that position this key can be turned. Mr. Deneen. Just a minute, this kev, what key is that? A. This key, this is the custodian's key. Mr. Deneen. For what? A. To fit this lock. Q. I know, but what lock? A. The one inside the case of the machine, which controls the setting of the counters with this in this position, naturally the counters cannot be moved. Q. What does it operate? A. This handle in the upper position, he has moved the lever into position ready to vote. Insert the key and turn the key around. This bolt in the lock shoots both ways, this prevents the dial from being voted, that machine could not move with this handle, but that releases this handle and it now moves down. Q. This releases the lower handle? A. The counter 1381 operating handle, and now these counters can be set either to zero or any number you mind to. Q. Set them as they were on the straight tickets. Now as to Mr. Hoyne and Mr. Rinaker? A. This was set at 12 and this was set at 32. Now at the beginning — Cotmters Set Above and Beloiv Zero. 321 Senator Landee. It read 32, you counted 22 votes, did you not? A. Yes, before they, started you see they set it at a certain figure, — Senator Babr. So that thev covered it? A. Yes. Senator Babr. Was that covered up? A. Yes. Mr. McEwEN. You covered up the one? A. Covered up the one. Mr. Deneen. Did you do that, or one of the others? A. No, sir, I have not — Mr. Deneen. Is Mr. Leutweiler here? The Witness. This one is set 10 ahead, and the other we set at 990. Mr. McEwEK. You have got to have the key to set the counters ? A. Yes. Senator Barb. That is the custodian's key? A. Yes. Senator Babe. It would be nothing for the custodian to set them before if he wants to, at the custodian's place? A. Yes. Q. And the judges could not detect it? A. No. Mr. McEwEN. If they vote one vote, however, then they would get it? 1382 Representative Jayne. They would not. They would have to vote a test vote every day? The Witness. That would not show the counters. The Chairman. Show how you did it. A. On 24-A and 24-B we did the same thing. Mr. McEwEN. You set back each of those. The Witness. Yes. The Chairman. Set it back 16 and set it ahead 16? The Witness. Just a little piece of paper that we put on there, that is made out of a piece of paper with a little zero painted on, and with aluminum paint, and a little 1383-4 stick 'em on the back. Senator Canaday. Where does that go to? A. The rest of the mechanism peels it off, it cannot do any damage to the machine; ultimately, of course the custodian will find that at the bottom of the machine. 322 Other Frauds by Custodian. The Chairman. Yes, but where would the blame go then? A. I would not want to find it, 1383 Mr. Deneen. Q. What, if anything, can the custo- dian do in reference to the manipulation of the machine? A. He may remove a split vote restriction clip for any candidate and enable the voter to cast a vote for the straight party ticket and another vote for the particular candidate whose restriction clip has been removed. He may, for instance, place a set of counters at 980, which is tantamount to starting them at twenty below zero. When the machine arrives at zero on this set of counters all record of the twenty votes cast disappears, thus com- pensating for another set of counters which have been set at twenty to give a favored candidate twenty votes to start with. The custodian may place a facsimile of the zeros on the counters, the facsimile made of paper which may be placed over any figure or figures in the three columns of the counters, concealing the original figures and thus permitting a machine to appear to stand at zero when in fact it registers some votes. When the register is again turned in voting, the paper facsimile can drop into the lower part of the machine, to which the custodian alone has access. Q. I will ask you about what the custodian can do re- garding the paper vote in the mechanism controlling it. A. The custodian may also remove the pawl engaging the ratchet controlling the independent paper roll in the same way that it can be manipulated by the .iudges, and this manipulation might be undiscovered bj^ the judges in their inspection the day of election. 1384 Q. What can the custodian do in regard to giving a representative more votes than the law permits ? A. The custodian may also arrange the machine to allow three votes to be cast for each representative candidate in the same way that the judges might manipulate the legisla- tive grouping device. Q. Will you show that? The Chairman. I will vote it. The Witness. You have to let me fix it so you can vote it. Now, you can go ahead. The Chairman. All right. The Witness. The legislative restricting device is a The Cumulative Voting Attachment. 323 special attachment which is applied to the machine at any point, so that the ticket can be arranged anywhere. This is the device (indicating) and prevents voting in one group when you have started to vote in another. When the voting has been done by the individual keys, 1385 this bar is raised up ; when this is raised it prevents this from going up. When the voting is started in the 1^ votes then this part of the machine is used ; when this is raised up, this part cannot be used. Mr. Deneex. When you say "this part," describe it, so the reporters will get it, and so the man who reads it will understand it. The Witness. I was showing it to the committee. Mr. Deneen. Describe the parts. The Witness. This device is arranged in three sec- tions. This is one section of three votes each; here is another section of three votes each; here is another sec- tion of three votes each ; and here is another one of three. Senator Landee. Four groups? The Witness. Four groups, of three votes each. It may be set that all can be used ; as it is now set, only two of three vote groups are used; and two of these groups are used only, this part is thrown out of action and this section is thrown out of action. When that is on the ma- chine, that restricts the voting to one of those two groups, whichever you start in you have to continue in; but the grouping is done on the back of the machine in the regular way by these grouping pins that were spoken of yesterday. The group for 1^ votes is arranged by pulling out one pin between the grouping pins for that particular group, which in this case is 22 and 23. The li votes as you will find on the face of the machine, is a group in those two columns. The individual legislative tickets are in the group on the face of the machine from 16 to 21, ,1386 and those pins are all removed so that it makes it possi- ble to vote anywhere, in that group, but to restrict that to three votes only, there are three compensators put in. I will remove one; they are not pins; those are the pins; this is a compensator; we have taken the pin out so the position for those straps is not restricted lengthwise but we must restrict a number of wedges ; these are brought up; this is done by putting in these compensators. It prevents more than the right number being used, but does not restrict the position in which those may be moved. 324 Fraudulent Setting of Attachment. For each pin if we put in one of these compensators where the pin was removed, then you could not vote at all, but here we have taken out five pins, making a group of six; then put in three compensators which restricts that to only three votes ; now, if the custodian leaves out one of these you can vote four votes. Mr. McEwEN. It depends on the setting! The Witness. Yes. Mr. McEwEN. Is the voter aware of the number of votes he has voted? The Witness. He is. He has pulled down a certain number of keys. If I pull out another one, you can vote five; if I pull out the other, you can vote six. If the custodian should leave the machine set in that way, any voter could vote six legislative votes. 1387 Senator Babr. Q. For one man? The Witness. No; he could vote three for each of two men. If he votes in the li group, he can vote only two, because that is in a group by itself. You can try that on the machine. Mr. Deneen. Suppose you experiment on the machine to see how it works. The Witness. It is now set for four votes. Now I am restricted to those four in that group. I can vote those four for this man or I can vote for another man. I can vote these four only, but I can't votes these two. When the device is properly set then you can only vote three. The Chairman. Can you put that device on now as you have it set there? The Witness. Yes. The Chairman. Leave it just as it is in regard to the voting. (Whereupon the wdtness put the device on.) The Witness. Now, that is set to restrict to one group only, but I can vote — The Chairman. Is the device on now? Show us how you can vote, how many you can vote. The Witness. I can vote four ; if I vote in this group it restricts me entirely from this, as it should do ; so, with that device as arranged now, if you vote the regular ticket, it is entirely correct. 1388 The Chairman. A straight ticket, you mean? The Witness. Yes, if you vote 1^ votes for each of two men on the regular ticket in the regular way, but if I choose to vote individually, I can vote four votes. Could Not Be Detected by Judges. 325 Senator Baeb. Can they detect this by inspection in the morning! The Witness. No, they do not vote; they can't do it; the machine is locked; if they do, they register a vote. Mr. Deneen. a little louder, Senator, please. Senator Bare. I am inquiring if the judges in the morning could detect this change, and the professor says it can't be done. 1388 Q. They are not allowed to do it? A. No, as the machine is arranged, they would not detect it. By taking out another one of those compensators, I can vote for five. The Chaibman. To show that, demonstrate it. You have your slugs in there, or your compensators! The Witness. There are two in there; I have taken out one. The Chairmain (voting the machine). Do you get them on 16, 17, 18 and 19 A, Senator? Have you got them! The Witness. Yes. The Chairman. Four votes cast for representative, then! Senator Barb. Try it again. The Chairman. I will cast it now on B — Senator Barb. Give the same one. The Chairman. On A 16, 17, 18 and 19. (Voting on 1389 the machine). Did they register! The Witness. Yes, sir. Would you like to have me take out the rest of them ! Mr. Deneen. Will you arrange it for six votes ! The Chairman. Now, if you want to vote three votes 1390 for ^FcNichols and three votes for Marcy, here are 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 (indicating on machine). Open that back. Now, get the numbers in "A." A. The numbers in "A"! Q. Yes. Get 17, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21. That is three votes for McNichols and three votes for Marcv, as you read? A. Yes. Q. Voted? A. Yes. Mr. Deneen. I will ask you. Professor, to demonstrate on the machine how you can vote a straight party ticket and also an additional vote for another man on the ticket. A. Yes, sir; just let me adjust the machine. 326 Unlawful Vote Is Cast on Machine. Senator Canaday. What officers are you going to set it at? The Chairman. Set it in column 25, Recorder of I^eeds A. What is that? The Chairman. Make it in column 25, Recorder of Deeds. A. Column 25? Q. In column 25, yes. A. All right. Now see if it registers hack there. I strike 25-B. Now, I am voting the straight ticket. Now I am going to vote the straight Democratic ticket for Mr. Joseph Blank, running on the same ticket for the office of Recorder of Deeds in column 25. Are you ready? Q. Yes. The vote registers for Mr. Blank, 25-B. A. 25-B? Q. Yes, and the straight Democratic ticket is voted also. 1391 A Bystander, Take some other ticket. Take the Pro- gressive ticket. A. Oh, you want some Progressive votes. The Bystander. Yes. A. All right. The Bystander. Tell us who you are going to vote for. A. I wall take the Progressive, " F" ; have you got it, in column 25? The Chairman. Yes. A. Now I have got that down; then we will vote for Walter Willis, 25-F, for-Rieoorder of Deeds. A. All right. Now have you got your eye on both of them? The Chairman. Yes; it doesn't count a vote. Walter Willis then got a straight vote for his party and got an individual vote counted, did he? A. Yes. The Chairman. Proceed with the examination Counsel. Mr. Deneen. Q. Professor DePuy, what may a cus- todian do regarding the primary lever and its manipula- tion of the mechanism through that? A. The custodian may leave the primary lever in an unrestricted position, thus permitting him to manipulate this device. Will you demonstrate your answer on the machine? A. Yes, sir ; the primary device is not set. I will set it. Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 327 Mr. Denebn. The committee will kindly step forward while this demonstration is taking place. The Chairman. Give the custodian's orders, how he acts on this machine at the primary, so the committee will see how it is done. 1392 A. Now, in the first place, you set the pointer on the ticket. The Chairman. Suppose you demonstrate it under the most favorable circumstances. A. All right. And allow a party for each line. Kepresentative Kasserman. It is easy to demonstrate ! A. Yes. The Chairman. Just as many as there are there. Mr. Deneen. Q. Professor DePuy, will you state what you have done so that the Commissioners may get it? The Chairman. Just a moment. Wait until he fixes it, then it may be done. Mr. Deneen. All right, then you need not take it until he does that. A. Now, this lever is now set at zero point. The Chairman. What does that mean! A. The primary lever. That means that any of these bars can be used; that is, the machine is now just the same as it is at an ordinary election. It does not affect this at all (indicating). If I pull this handle, however, one of them, this slot which I have pulled off allows this bar only to move in the top of the space. Q. What is the Republican party line? "A"? A. On the face of the machine, "A." The *'B" key does not move in because this (indicating) passes in behind, this lug (indicating). The Chairman. Will you indicate how that is done? A. The lug on the end in the party bar projects 1393 through the face of the machine; that lug at the end is restricted by means of a little segment on the primary device which turns around, can be turned out of the way. Senator Canaday. Suppose I am voting and telling you I want to vote the Republican ticket — A. Yes— Q. — now, when you set it at one after I go back into the booth, can you set it at zero? A. No, after you go into the booth I cannot move this, but before you get into the booth I can. 328 Various Operations of Machine Demonstrated. Q. But after I go into the booth you cannot move it? A. No, no; for instance, you told me I vote the Repub- lican primary ticket. Q. Now, if you set that at one and I go in here and vote, and I have not touched the machine, could you move that back to zero ! A. Yes, before you got in there. Q. Before I got in there? A. Yes. Q. Now, I am asking you about this. I now want to vote the Republican ticket. Just a moment; Mr. Jayne, will you please step in here! You see I want to vote a Republican ticket. A. Yes, sir. Q. I want to set it to this point (indicating). Representative Jayne. . He wants to vote the Repub- lican ticket; that is what he is asking you about. The Chairman. Is that demonstrated? Representative Jayne, Yes, I understood it. The Chairman. Senator Canaday now asked him a question. Set it at Recorder of Deeds, "C"; you see him set it; now I want to vote the Democratic ticket. Now eome on, go and turn any of the keys down indiscrimi- nately now. You are supposed to be limited. According to previous testimony of the witness, if the party lever is set at zero at a primary election, the voter can vote anywhere on the face of the machine and is not restricted to any one party, and to prevent the lever be- ing set there a hook inside the machine should be fixed at a certain position. 1395 "A. A little hook on the inside of the machine can be and should be set by the custodian so that this key might not be returned to zero." But the judge of election can also set this hook so as to permit the party lever to be set at zero. To do this the judge of elections would have to break a seal. 1396 The seals are not identified or numbered. The seal is a piece of wire with a piece of lead fastened to it. 1397 The number of the Empire machine in the room here is 4838. 1398 The number of the machine examined by Mr. DePuy, Mr. Leutw^eiler and Mr. Olson at the Hotel La Salle is 4522 ; the latter machine was furnished to the experts by the Board of Election Commissioners. The w-itness has been experimenting on the latter ma- chine, and in witness' opinion neither one of the ma- Defective Voting on Machine. 329 chines was set properly to give a true record of the votes cast at the election of November, 1912. "Q. Wherein were they at fault! You read it and then demonstrate it. A. *In the party row "0" and candidates' column 22, the name of the candidate for Kepresentative was not repeated, thus depriving that particular candidate of one and a half votes every time that key 22-C was used, which naturally would happen if a split ticket were voted in the regular way.' "Q. Were there any other omissions? A. Yes, sir; the same conditions as mentioned before existed on party rows 'D' and 'F' in column 22. "Q. Will you demonstrate on the machine now the statement made in tlie party row 'C and candidates' column 221 A. Yes, sir. Party row 'C We have one name here in the 1^ column, Representative of the Sec- ond District. That key would be depressed to vote for him in the regular way. If, however, it was done by vot- ing according to instructions, on a split ticket, that would be by pulling all the keys down. In doing that I would pull on that key (indicating) and also the next one, 22-C. ' ' Senator Babe. They were not voting for anybody ! 1399 "A. There is no name there. I give this vote to the man in the 1| column. I give this vote to him because he is not designated there, as I understand the machine. It will not vote for him unless his name appeared on the machine. I can do it by pulling down the three keys, but I do not do it in the regular way of voting. The regular way of voting is by pulling on this key (indi- cating). "Mr. Deneen. Q. According to your instructions? "A. According to the instructions of the Election Board." 1401 "Mr. McEwEN. You find more fault with the instruc- tions than with the machine? "Mr. DstNEEN. No, the machine is involved. "The Witness. No, the machine is involved. You see, the ticket is not properly printed." In the space provided for the names of candidates for the House of Representatives on the sample ballot fixed to the voting machine, where the machine provides for two votings of 14 votes each, the name of the candidate appears but once and below but one of 1\ vote keys. The space below the other l|-vote key being blank. 330 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. The witness explains that a voter in voting these two keys for the purpose of voting two votes, IJ each, or 3 votes for the candidate for the House of Eiepresentatives, would, as a matter of fact, only vote 1^ votes for him, as the 1^ vote on the blank key would not be counted. "Senator Canaday. I suppose that is the fault of the Election Commissioners who had the ballots printed? "Mr. Deneen. Yes. "The Witness. Complicating matters so that the will of the voter is not properly registered; that is the diffi- culty with this machine here, as well as in many other places. ' ' The witness shows that all the columns for candidates for Representative are in the same condition as above noted. 1402 "Senator Canaday. As I understand it, Professor, you are now demonstrating the machine as it would be used on the general election? "A. Yes, sir. "The Chaikman. This machine was turned over to the Committee as it was when used in the demonstration for the last general election." Senator Canaday raises the question whether in voting two keys for a Representative, one of which only bore his name, the other being blank, he would not receive three votes. 1403 Operating the blank key would set a counter working. The Chairman makes the point that the voter cannot indicate that he wants to give a Representative two votes of li each on this machine. 1404 The voter can vote three votes on the 1^-vote keys by voting for two different men, but cannot vote 3 votes for one man on such key. "Q. Now, you pull down 22-F over the blank space; then what does it do? A. It registers on the counter, but there is no identification mark." If the vote on the blank space is counted, the candidate, of course, would receive more than li votes. 1405 "Q. Directing your attention to the movements of these keys, I would like to have you state whether or not a vote can be partially voted and not register the vote and to what extent V Witness states the key must be moved down to a cer- Key Duplication. 331 tain point. If the key is moved down nine thirty-seconds of an inch, it does not register the vote, 1406 "Q. Now, will you give us the measurements that you made in measuring this machine which has been identi- fied as No. 4522? What are the measurements which you 1407 took in reference to this 'F' key! A. The key when pulled down nine thirty-seconds will not release the vot- ing lever ; if it is pulled down eleven thirty-seconds it will release the voting lever." Witness describes how he got an impression of the two keys on the machine for the purpose of making duplicate keys. "A. The flat key, perfectly flat, this key was handed to me and I went through this process. I moistened the blotting paper and squeezed this key into the blotting paper with my fingers. I afterwards took a blank and filed it to correspond with the impression on the blot- ting paper." 1411 The process was simple and took 20 minutes. The witness had the two keys in his hands about five minutes and made the blotting paper impression and car- ried it home and made the key. It is not a difficult mat- ter; the key could be made by any locksmith or mechanic. 1412 Witness produces a key which unlocks the counter-con- trolling device. The key and the lock are marked "zero." It is a standard Yale lock key, what is known as a five- pin key. Witness made a duplicate by placing in a block a regu- lar Yale cylinder which has holes for the pins in the cylin- der; such blocks are easily procured in Chicago. It is a block belonging to a regular Yale lock. In this block the witness inserted pins of soft wire. The Yale key received by the witness was then inserted in the block and the ends of the pins of soft wire raised in the notches in the face of the key as it stands in the block. The key is then twisted around and the motion presses the soft wire pins against the shearing edged in the block and cuts them off the same length as the pins in the lock to which the key belongs. 1413 "These pins are numbered. I took the key out and put it in my pocket, and when I got to the hotel last evening after the session, in 20 minutes I had a key which, when I tried it in the lock this morning, fitted it. ' ' The device is one in common use by locksmiths. 332 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. The witness didn't take home the key with him, only the little machine and the block. 1414 Witness also made the other key, the flat key, in about 20 minutes. The two keys in 20 minutes each. Witness could have made any number of keys in short order. Witness supposes that in counting the votes after elec- tion, the counters are read by the judges at the back of the machine. On the counters at the back of the machine there are onh'- numbers and letters; on the front of the machine the numbers, letters and the name of the candi- date. Witness has never seen judges record votes on a machine. 1415 Witness has seen a card so devised as to be put on the back of the machine showing the names of each can- didate. Mr. Huff had shown it to him and witness thinks this would simplify the counting. AVitness thinks the three judges could not see the coun- ters at the same time, and that it would be difficult for more than one judge to see them at one time. VOLUME XVI. Afternoon Session. Friday, August 1, 1913. Clarence E. DePuy resumes stand : 1418 Witness identifies a piece of wire as part of a seal. It is identified by number and witness assumes from its being numbered that it is registered at the Election Com- missioners' office. 1419 The guards at the back of the machine were small cir- cular pieces of lead with the wires which wei-e placed on the machine running through them and squeezed down •upon them so they couldn't be removed without cutting the seals. It is a very easy matter to substitute one seal for another of such seals. There are several voting machines which provide for printing an impression of the exact condition of each counter. Witness has examined two such machines, the International and the Calkins. A Voting Machine That Prints Own Record. 333 1420 In place of wheels, like those on the Empire machine counters, the International has wheels containing type which will print like typewriter print; when an impres- sion is taken, the machine is turned bottom side up, in which position the counters are locked so that the ma- chine cannot be voted, and an impression is taken on a paper ballot by running over it with a rubber roller, such as is used in mounting blueprints, or prints. The machine just prints the number which the machine records on the ballot directly below the name of each candidate. 1421 A print is made in the morning before any votes are cast, and on the same ballot a print is taken in the even- ing after the election is over. Several ballots are printed; one kept for a certain length of time by the judges, another by the Election Commissioners, and witness thinks there are three made, at least; there may be more. This gives a check on the condition of the machine as to each candidate. On the Empire machine there is no check except the inspection of the judges. The cor- nectness of the Empire machine depends upon the integ- rity of the custodian, also the carefulness, because it is an easy matter to overlook. 1422 Witness thinks the custodian could alter every ma- chine in the city if he cared to do so and give a handicap of any number of votes he chose without anyone being able to detect it. Witness regards this as a serious defect in the Empire voting machine and at the present time a printing ma- chine is the only way to avoid many of these errors. The restricting clips may be placed so as to affect the integrity of the machine, by anyone who has the key to the lower rear door. The custodian could do this. 1423 This could be done in five seconds and the mechanism can be replaced after the election in as little time. Witness thinks the machine is not convenient to handle. The machine must be removed from its box or crate in order to let the custodian fix the counters and place it back again; it has to be handled several times at the warehouse and several times, at the polls. 1424 The space assigned for writing the names of presi- dential electors is IJ inches high and 2\ inches wide. There are 29 presidential electors in Illinois. Witness 334 "Independent Slides" Too Small. thinks the names of these 29 possibly could be written in this space, but it would take more than the allotted time. Witness thinks it would take at least an hour to write the 29 names in the space provided. Pasters could possibly be applied if you could find pasters to suit the possible views of every voter, but it 1425 would be too intricate. Cross-Examination hy Mr. McEwen. Witness is questioned as to whether, if the ratchet on the left hand end of the irregular (independent) voting roll is detached, he could, as he had stated, move the roller forward with his moistened finger. Witness answered "yes." 1427 (Witness, counsel and members of the Committee go to the machine and experiment is made and witness moves the roller with his moistened fingers a distance of two spaces.) 1428 (On attempting to move the paper to the third space the paper tore.) It took more than a minute to do this. Witness' attention is called to the fact that in Chi- cago elections 15 or 20 men are often at the same time waiting to vote and asked if he thinks the roller experi- ment shows any mechanical objection to the machine. Witness answered: "I think that ratchet ought to be arranged so it could not be done. It would be a very easy matter." 1429 Any kind of ratchet that would be attached would per- mit the roller to be moved. The witness thinks the roller should be made non-removable. Witness does not think that this particular objection is serious or that the fraud would be practiced generally at polling places. It could be done in isolated instances. 1430 In primary elections, the operation of the paper roll is different from what it is in elections. In primaries the point perforates the roll with a certain number of i>erfo- rations according to the party ticket voted. In primary elections, if the names were fraudulently written in the paper roll, these perforations would not appear oppo- site to such names. Thus furnishing evidence of the 1431 fraud. The party restricting device, when placed at zero, permits the voter to vote for candidates of any party. Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 335 It should be locked to lock out such miscellaneous vot- ing. Without the zero setting a man would not be per- mitted to vote any ticket he chooses as he may do in a general election and the machine could not be used at a general election. The integrity of the lockout depends on the restrict- ing hook being set so as to keep the party lock out off zero. 1432 Properly, the custodian has access to the restricting' hook; properly, the judges do not have access to it. So far as witness knows, all machines use a lock to prohibit the operation of portions of the machine by the judges, and does not believe it will be possible to construct machines without locks for this purpose. The Yale lock is supposed to be one of the best made, but any lock witness knows of may be tampered with. 1433 It is not necessary even with a Yale lock to have the key to open the lock. Witness does not think that a combination lock would be satisfactory. In examining machines the witness had in mind that it must be operated by men and considered with reference to the practical holding of an election. "Q. At the present time under the ballot system, it is necessary to have honesty of officials ? A. Yes, sir. "Q. At some or all points? A. Yes, sir. "Q. If everybody is dishonest, the system breaks down? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And it is the effort to meet that dishonesty that has led to inventors trying to invent satisfactory voting 1434 machines? A. Yes, sir." Witness does not know the system that is applied to the present system of printing, counting, checking up, in- spection, and so forth, of ballots, but knows that if this breaks down, and the ballots get into outside circulation they are readily made the means of fraud. 1435 Witness has never seen a better than the Empire ma- chine. The witness examined the Calkins machine in 1910. It was not in a perfected state, but had some good fea- tures. The International machine was examined but once by the witness and was not approved. 1436 Witness does not claim to be an expert on voting ma- chines, because he does not devote his time to it. Witness expects to render a bill for his services in 336 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 1437 this investigation. Witness' compensation on other voting machine investigations has been $25 per day. AVitness was asked by Governor Deneen to make the present investigation. 1438 The wires placed by the witness on the face of the ma- chine yesterday were intended to prevent the key from be- ing pulled down. In putting the wire on yesterday, the witness used a screw driver and took about ten minutes ; has been more expeditious on other occasions, but the particular clip did not want to stay on. "Q. And after you placed it in, perhaps you observed that I readily pulled the key down and it flew out! A. 1439 I believe the space was a little different from what it is in different places on the machine, or else the clip was not just the right shape. ' ' On the machine at the La Salle Hotel witness and the other experts had put in clips in five seconds and have not been able to pull them out by a pull of the keys. Witness does not think that a voter who knew that the key should go down would know if it didn't that there was something wrong with the machine. 1440 In many instances the voter would object, no doubt. Witness thinks the voter absolutely without instructions would be confused in attempting to vote on the machine and the same as the Australian ballot such as used at the last primary election. The voter needs some instruc- tion in both instances. 1443 Many voters would require considerable instruction before they understand the operation of the machine, more 1444 instruction than to vote an Australian ballot. These dif- ficulties are not insuperable, however, to Illinois voters. The witness favors the voting machine when a satisfac- tory one is presented. Such a machine would have locks and great care should be taken to prevent the use of keys by any unauthorized persons. 1445 The means of protecting the machine against inspec- tions were not carried out as fully as they might be on the Empire machine. The number of inspections should be limited. Would have men in charge of machines or their use watched by dissimilar interests. 1446 The rubber band is not a very successful means of fraud on this machine. It appeared as early as 1907 and was one of the objections to the United States Standard machine, which had a party lever and a key to which a Form of Empire Machine Aids Frauds. 337 rubber band could be attached. Witness has not exam- ined this with reference to the use of rubber bands, but thinks the shape of the key might be improved. 1447 Witness has seen machines where the rubber band was less effective than on the Empire machine, where the rub- ber band could not be used at all. Witness thinks this Avas true of the old Columbia. Witness does not think that the rubber band fraud was one of the reasons for abolishing the party lever. 1448 Witness thinks the key could be so shaped that a rub- ber band would not stay on. The present machine has some features resembling those of the old Columbia, such as the legislative restrict- ing device. It may be possible that shaping the key to prevent the rubber band fraud would make it more diflScult for the voter to use the key. Witness does not place much weight on the rubber band objection. 1449 Witness thinks the wire clip might cause a good deal of trouble; if taken off others can be put on. The ma- chine might be disabled in many ways but not so easily disabled as ballots in a ballot box could be destroyed. 1450 The witness is asked whether the keys could be made in such shape as to prevent the wedging of wire clips and so forth. "A. "VMiy, I think that the form of the face of that machine might be improved. The trouble there is that the grooves in which the ticket is held on the machine form an excellent place for these restricting pins to get a foothold." _ 1451 AVitness thinks the International machine was not sub- ject to this defect. The International had a sliding key, but the opening in the face of the machine was covered completely by the key and witness does not think any- thing could be slipped under it. When the voting machine comes to the polling place, the counters are supposed to be set at zero and that they cannot be moved except through the regular voting mechanism. 1452 In order to move the counters, the front of the machine must be locked, the middle rear door opened, and the counter locks unlocked to release the counters. This look can be opened without a key but an impres- sion to make a false key cannot be made without the key. 338 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. The plate over the lock that locks the counters has an ordinary lead seal on it. 1453 That might have, but these have not the identifying mark registered in the Election Commissioners office. If the judges of the election move the protective lock that locks the counters, the protective counter moves up one count ; the protective counter cannot be disconnected without breaking the seals; the public counter can be. 1454 ' ' Q. From a practical standpoint, do you consider that a possibility of the judges getting hold of the custodian's key, opening all the doors, unlocking the protective counter, leaving the record on the protective counter, of having unlocked the counters with the responsibility for that opening of the lock on the protective counter ; do you consider practically that possibility so great that it ought to reject this machine? A. Possibly not, but I think in some cases it might be done." Any mechanism devised by man may be tampered with and improvements in voting machines may go on for 50 years to come. The restricting and grouping devices used on the Em- pire machine are in general use in practically all voting machines. 1455 The device for keeping in the restricting pins on the Empire machine is a practical one "if the pins are not bent, but they can be easily bent." Ordinarily, the pins, once inserted, would not be pulled out ; the device might be improved. 1456 Witness would not reject the machine solely on this account. Witness is asked whether machine will prop- erly operate in group voting if the pins are properly set. He answers: "It may be set wrong." The purpose of the restricting clip is to prevent vot- ing on the split ticket after the straight ticket has been voted. Eestricting clip locks out each individual row of candi- dates. "If it is set wrong the voter may vote a straight ticket and also vote for indi^ddual candidates." 1457 The custodian has charge of the compartment contain- ing the restricting clips. The clips are numbered to correspond with the number of the key on the face of the machine. Witness does not know of any attempt to write 29 names of presidential electors. Does not think that would be a common case. A Message From A. M. Lawrence. 339 Witness has not read the law which substantially abol- ishes presidential electors so far as this machine is con- cerned. 1458 Witness has been a republican, until last fall, when he voted the progressive ticket, mostly. "Mr. Deneen. Will the Commission excuse me a mo- ment? A gentleman wishes to speak to me. Mr. McEwEN. Yes, but we want to hear it first. 1459 The Chairman. Mr. Keehn, w^ho is attorney for An- drew M. Lawrence, has presented a message to the Com- mittee and to the attorney for the Committee, that Mr. Lawrence, if he is wanted as a witness before this Com- mission would have to be available between now and Mon- day next, according to plans made by Mr. Lawrence. It seems that he is afficted with hayfever and it is customary for him to be gone this time of the year, until October. At the present time the Committee is unable to inform Mr. Keehn whether Mr. Lawrence will be wanted to-day or at any other time. We cannot tell whether he will be wanted now, next week, or the week after next, or the week after that, and the Commission is not in a position to send a message saying that he is wanted or is not wanted, and they have no reason to believe now that they really want him as a witness at any time. Mr. KJEEHN. I will say that he will remain here if the Commission indicates that it would like to have him re- main until the latter part of the week, but to do that he will have to change his plans, or he will return, as is customary for him, next October, about the first of next October. The Chaibman. There is nothing within the knowleflge 1459 of the committee at this time, Mr. Keehn, that will justify it in calling Mr. Lawrence as a witness at this mo- ment. Mr. Keehn. I thank you. The Chairman. I think the commission's position is clear, and possibly Mr. Lawrence 's too. We are not ready to say whether we want to subpoena Mr. Lawrence or not ; he simply notified us that he wants to go away. 1460 Mr. McEwEN. I assume this commission expects to be in existence after October Istf The Chairman. The Commissioners expect to run as long as they have anything to do. Judge. Mr. McEwEN. Well, they won't go out of existence un- less they have nothing to do. 340 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. The Chairman. Well, I hope not, unless they die off one at a time. Mr. McEwEN. Well, the workings of the Lord are past finding out, I do not know what he will do about that. Mr. Mitchell. That will be entered — The Chaibman. Are you addressing the chair, Mr. Mitchell? Mr. Mitchell.' Yes, I am addressing the chair. That will he entered of record ; that up to the present time the Commission sees no reason to believe that Mr. Lawrence will be called or requested to be here as a witness. The Chairman. You are the attorney for the commis- sion, Mr. Mitchell? Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I think it may be entered what he stated. Mr. Mitchell. I think it ought to go into the record. Mr. Deneen. Yes, I think what Mr. Mitchell said should go in the record. The Chairman. Also. Mr. Deneen. Yes. The Chairman. You may go on with the examination of the witness. I think that is disposed of. 1462 Part of the material and construction of the present Empire is the same one examined by witness in 1909. 1462-3 "Q. Let me read from the report which you signed in 1909, in which you say, under the head of Empire Machine Construction: 'The material, workmanship and general design are very satisfactory, the working parts, so far as I have been able to get at them, for examination, are made of steel, galvanized or coppered, generally; bronze, brass, aluminum or white metal compositions, and I think there would be but little tendency to rusting. The foot bars are plain steel, and they should be galvanized or made of brass ; the workmanship is excellent and the parts fit well together so that for the most part the action is positive and very reliable.' Have you had any occasion to change your views? "A. In a few respects; as I said yesterday, I have ob- served some indications of rusting." 1463 Witness observed rust on the frame of the machine at the Hotel La Salle and thinks later there may be develop- ments of rust on the working parts. 1464 The spot of rust is from 3 to 4 inches long and pos- Witness Never Saw Feasible Voting Machine. 341 sibly 3/16ths of an inch wide and is right on one corner of the bar containing the restricting pins. Thinks that the preserving coating has been knocked off from some cause or other. 1465 It is a difficult thing to keep steel from rusting under certain conditions. "Q. Have you any criticism to pass now upon the con- struction, of the materials, woi-kmanship, and general design of that machine? A. Yes, the general design I think is not, as I have thought of the subject of voting machines, I do not believe that a machine of this type, general design, general arrangement of the frame, would ever be adaptable to the needs of Chicago. "Q. Do you know of any machine that has? A. No, sir. 1467 Q. Have you a picture of a machine in your mind that has? A. No, sir, I think of— Q. Do you know a better design than this — Mr. Deneen. He has not answered, Judge ; let him an- swer. A. 1 think, however, the satisfactory machine, when it is found, will be something entirely different; I don't be- lieve that this type of machine will ever be satisfactory. Mr. McEwEN. Q. But you are willing to go on record that this is the best machine you ever have seen? A. Of this type. Q. Ofanyt^pe? A. Yes. Q. Why did you qualify it before? A. Well, I don't like the type. Q. Do you like any other type better? A. I don't — I have never seen a machine that I would consider a feasible machine. Q. Well, what do you mean by saying that the general design was very satisfactory^? A. Well, I think in writ- ing that report that I had in mind the mechanical design, the mechanism of the machine, and that is satisfactory, the mechanical workmanship of the machine, the design of its parts, to work with the other is excellent. Q. You cannot see any improvement on it? A. No criticism at all to make on that part of the machine. 1468 Q. On the subject of the counters, you say that the counters — I am reading from the same report of 1909. A. Yes. 342 Witness' Former Report on Empire Machine. Q. The counters and operating mechanism you con- sider very positive and durable? A. Yes. Q. The parts of the counters proper are compara- tively long, and therefore not so liable to be broken? A. That word "long" should be "large" that was a mis- print. Q. Should be large? A. Yes, comparatively large. Q. Well, the parts of the counters proper are coni- paratively large, and therefore not so liable to be broken, as those made with small delicate parts ? A. Yes. Q. ' ' The counters and operating mechanism I consid- ered very positive and durable. The parts of the coun- ters proper are comparatively large, and are therefore not so liable to be broken as those that are made with small and delicate parts. The turning down of the vot- ing key moves the operating mechanism in such a manner that the counter cannot fail to register, and un- less the key has been turned down the counter cannot move. The counters are locked at all times and can only be moved by the operation of the machine after the keys have been turned down by the voter, or when the operat- ing mechanism is dropped below its normal position by turning up two handles inside the lower rear door when the operating handle is locked, as is necessary when set- ting the counters to zero. ' ' A. That refers to a different method of operating counters than we have on this ma- chine, the counter, however, is the same, but the manipu- 1469 lation — the counter is different but the manipulation is the same, I mean. Q. If this manipulation is made of the counters, the counters can be turned in either direction to zero? This machine has a locking device? A. Yes, I think there was simply a pair of rods at each end, one at each end of the machine which were reached from the custodian's door. Q. Do you consider this device in this machine better than the old device? A. Yes, it is better. Q. Is it a safer device? A. Yes, it is a safer device. Q. I am omitting two or three lines, in reference to that old setting. "The counters are held securely in substantial aluminum cases, which fill the back of the machine and cover the working parts of the key spindles and restricting strips, but if it should be necessary to get to these working parts to adjust or repair the machine, Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 343 these cases and counters can be readily removed and re- placed again." A. Yes, sir. Q. (Reading): "The restricting strips for the in- dividual keys are neatly made, light and yet strong, and have small wedges which cause the restriction. These wedges slide between rollers, which gives very little fric- tion, and the grouping of candidates can be accomplished anywhere on the machine by removing one or more pins passing through these rollers. The removal of a pin does not change the spacing of the rollers, but allows the wedges to be pulled up in a different order. No adjust- ment of screws or insertion of additional wedges is neces- sary, and the grouping seems to be positive." You are still of that opinion? A. Yes. Q. By the way, I would like to ask you if there is any material wear in the use of this machine, whether it is a permanent and durable thing? A. I think that they will not show serious wear." 1472 "Now, on the fraudulent manipulation, you say: "As the machine now stands, it is possible to vote a straight ticket of any party with the straight ticket key, and at the same time vote a straight or split ticket with the regular candidate keys anywhere on the machine. It is done by first pushing down the release lever, which al- lows individual candidate voting, then returning this lever and holding it up and at the same time pulling down and gently shaking a straight ticket key. Pulling down the individual key releases lever, pulls up a restricting wedge in the straight party group, which locks the straight party wedges all out 1473 and at the same time operates a slide which turns up all the individual restricting clips which hold down the wedge strips connected with the individual keys. When the release lever is held up and the straight party ticket key shaken, the restricting wedge pulled up by the release lever gradually works down and drops into its normal position, but the slide controlling the rod carrying the individual restricting clips does not return to its normal position by the shaking process, and so the restricting devices are all off, and the machine is free to be voted in both ways at the same time." A. Yes. Q. Was that objection cured on this machine? A. Yes, that was a different device for operating the straight party restriction from what is on this present machine. 344 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. Q, 'Could you consider that as cured! A. Yes, sir. Q. Then under the head of "Restricted candidates" (Reading) : "As the device is shown it allows of arrang- ing the candidates in four groups of three keys each, and two, three, or four of these groups can be used as desii-ed. The ticket now placed on the machine uses but three of these groups. Two of them operate together on the re- stricting device and allow three votes for either of the two candidates or two for either one of them and one for the other. The other group operates independently and allows 1-1/2 votes for each of two candidates, leaving one key a blank. This group on the device should be ar- ranged so that either two or three keys could be con- trolled by it, and then if but two candidates are on the 1474 ticket, there need be no blank key left. The device does not permit of voting 1-1/2 votes each for two candidates by using a single key, but it could be made to do so by S slight modification. A. Yes. Q. Do you find that cured? A. Well, it must have been an error in the man who assembled that machine, to leave out that as it was before, was a joke. Q. "Primary voting device:" (Reading): "The mechanism for arranging the machine for primary voting is simple and easy to adjust and operate. If necessary, several of the horizontal bars can be arranged to be grouped together to serve the one party, and yet all are controlled by the primary lever as easily as if only one bar for a party were used." A. Yes. Q. Do you still think that? A. Yes, that is the sam« device that is there now. Q. Do you object to this primary device, in that it gives the judges a chance to play with the party lever and prevent the voter from voting? A. Yes. Q. That would result ordinarily in the voter making a complaint? A. Yes, and the — Q. The voter would? A. And the machine would have — there would have to be a vote recorded on the public counter with no vote cast on the machine, prob- ably. 1476 Witness thinks the device for locking out the parties at the primary elections could be improved. The machine should permit the judge to pull the party lever, but not change it afterwards as he can now do. The judare can be watched by the party watcher, which might afford a Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 345 reasonable precaution. Witness would not reject this machine solely because of this defect. 1477 "Q. Under head of 'Positive Action' (reading) : 'This swing arm "B" and the slot in the vertical bar which operates the restricting slide are evidently in- tended to throw the slide out of action when using the machine in a primaiy election, but they are not necessary and if they were left off I think the machine would be positive and reliable in its action. All parts are well pro- portioned and accurately made. The movements of parts are controlled by cams or levers, but few springs are used, and they are in places where they are not likely to give trouble.' A. That is the swinging ann, isn't it, that is spoken of? "Q. Yes, speaking of the swinging arm. A. Yes, that whole device was modified when this type of machine was brought out. "Q. Under the head of 'Party Bars' (reading) : 'Party bars are used only for restricting purposes in pri- mary elections, and if they were used with a party lever to make all the keys move when voting a straight ticket, it would be necessary to redesign the whole mechanism and make it more complicated.' A. Yes." 1478 The party key at the end of the line devoted to indi- vidual independent candidates cannot be locked out to prevent its being voted as a party key. 1479 All the objections made in the report of 1909 have been made in the present machine. "Q. Concluding, in this report is shown that this re- port — not one of the machines exhibited is satisfactory in its present condition, but that the changes suggested, if the changes suggested were made, the Empire machine would be reliable and positive in its action? A. It is that today when properly set and properly used." ''Q. (reading) : 'The Triumph also, no doubt, can be made to vote more positively, but considerable work would have to be done before they eliminate all its faults. This machine has the party bars and levers, which I think makes the proper way of voting the straight ticket, but I do not see how they could be applied to the Empire machine without adding very much to the complication of the mechanism. " 'The cumulative voting attachment of the Triumph machine provides for voting in all the desired ways, while 346 Witness Cannot Recommend Purchase. the Empire does not, but the Triumph attachment is un- reliable and the Empire is positive. Another group could be added, if desired, to the Empire device without diffi- culty. " 'While the Empire machine can, with a very little ■ changing be made to do all it claims to do, I am not sure that it would be best for the Board of Election Commis- sioners to purchase them at the present time. The same trouble exists now that was present two years ago, al- though not to so great an extent. The machines are large and heavy, difficult to handle, and awkward to store. I think the Empire machine will stand the moving very well and will not be liable to get out of adjustment, but whether it is wise for the Board to incur the expense and trouble that will come with these machines, I do not feel competent to say.' A. Yes." 1481 The present voting machines are like those former ma- chines examined in 1907. 1482 The witness does not see how the present machine could be reduced in weight materially. 1484 In rejecting the Empire machine in 1909, size and weight was one objection in the witness' mind, but the witness thinks that the Empire type of machine, even with much lighter weight, will not be satisfactory in Chi- cago. 1485 A machine of this type, to meet conditions in Chicago, especially primary elections, would have to be very much larger than the present Empire machine. To meet Chi- cago's conditions the face of the machine would have to be twice as large. 1486 The machine should have a party lever and should abolish the straight ticket column. 1489 "Q. The party lever would be equivalent to the party circle on a ballot, an ordinary ballot? A. No, sir; I think not; but it does group the regular candidates of a party together and they would be voted at one time and then the voter would scratch or split the ticket as he saw fit." In straight ticket voting there is no difference in the act between voting the party lever for all the candidates and voting the party key for the straight ticket. 1491 Witness includes in the word "type," of which ho deems the Empire machine objectionable for the C'tv of Chicago, the idea of facilitating voting, which he deems Empire Machine Not Adapted to Chicago Conditions. 347 the voting machine was intended to accomplish. Another purpose of the voting machine is to prevent fraud. 1492 In his report of 1909 the witness said the design of the machine was very satisfactory both as to arrangement of the keyboard and as to size; but he did not feel compe- tent to advise the Election Commissioners to buy that machine. Witness did not think the fact that the specific objec- tions pointed out in his 1909 report were corrected made the Empire machine satisfactory. It is not the proper type' of machine for Chicago. 1495 Witness did not vote in Chicago at the April primary of 1912, but knew something of the ballot that was used and wondered how it could be used on a voting machine ; had particularly in mind the Republican primary ballot. Assuming that there were 394 names on the primary ticket in 1912, whether they could appear on the Empire 9-party, 70-key machine would depend on how the candi- dates were grouped and how they were arranged in par- ties. There were 46 Republican candidates for County Commissioners. 1496 This witness advocates the use of at least four hori- zontal rows and 12 vertical columns for the Republicans' County Commissioner candidates, and would have further required the use of the same number of vertical columns by all the parties for County Commissioner candidates. "And there would not have been space enough on the machine to accommodate all of the parties' candidates, other groups would have to have been formed also, — that is only one — " 1497 The witness attempted to devise a way of grouping the primary ticket of 1912 on the machine and could not find a way of doing it. "Q. Assuming that in the last four years, including the Municipal primary of this year, that the highest num- ber of candidates on the machine was 44, would you say that this type of machine would carry that? A. That would depend on the groups, how the candidates came in the other parties, because, when you arranged the group on one party, you have to have the same size group in all parties, and it ties up that machine very rapidly." With 44 candidates on the Municipal primary, you could group a 70-key machine for one party very easily. 348 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 1498 In the mayoralty campaign there were candidates for Mayor, Treasurer and Aldermen. 1499 Witness thinks there will be probably no trouble in grouping 44 candidates for these three offices on the Em- pire machine. If the machine would not accommodate 44 candidates for the three offices, it is not available for pri- mary purposes at all. 1500 The witness is not prepared to state the rule fixing the limitations for primary purposes of the Empire vot- ing machine; "if you have a large number in one party and a small number in another, you are going to lose a lot of the face of the machine. ' ' Witness is asked whether placing paper zeros on the counters is a practical fraud that could be committed by judges of election. "A. There would be no object in the judges putting pasters on the counters if they could not set the counters to suit themselves." 1501 With the custodian's keys the judges could set the counters to suit themselves and take off the returns from the counters as they had set them. The only check against this is the check against their tampering with the coun- ters and the check of publicity and outside observation. Independent observers present when the custodian sets the machine, the sealing of the machine and its delivery, sealed, to the election judges, would operate as a check upon the custodian. 1503 When properly working, the counters are set at zero, but witness found one that was not. It was defective. With correct inspections, the zero fraud would probably be detected. With independent inspection and a watch on the custodian, the general fraud could be prevented. It would be isolated instances. Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 349 VOLUME XVII. Morning Session. Tuesday, August 5, 1913. Clarence E. DEPxri' resumed stand: Cro'ss-Examination by Mr. McEiven Continued. 1506 Witness testifies that Ms answer in regard to what was done with the Election Commissioners or with the ma- chine was stated as a theory of handling the machine, rather than any actual observation. Witness does not know whether he has enumerated all of the objections he had to the machine, but deems it an objection that the machine requires reading of the coun- ters by the judges and does not print the ballot. 1507 The practical consideration of the voting machine ques- tion must take into account the human element and the counting of the ballots before and after election. The only check on the human element considered by itself is inspection and watching. The machine won't do it. Witness thinks the party restriction lever is set after the voter starts to move the voting lever. Certainly after the voter has thrown it over to the right. The Republican voter woukl find that he could not vote his ticket if the party lever was set at the Democratic party. 1508 Witness is asked to compare this situation with that of a Republican voter handed a Democratic ballot at a primary election, and says "I don't know that there would be more likelihood to occur that way than the other. With this machine, however, the vote either would not vote at all, or he would have to vote the party he did not affiliate with." The judges could record a spoiled vote, write down the names of witnesses and then permit the voter to vote his party ticket. 1509 The restricting rollers in the machine are of steel; the wedges of brass. Assuming the wedges moved one-half inch and that the machine was used a thousand times, the movement of the restricting wedges would be 500 350 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. inches. Witness does not anticipate there would be seri- ous wear, 1510 The only place where serious wear would occur would be in voting a large group. Witness thinks that it would be better in many places on the machine if the metal used were a non-corrosive metal rather than steel with a non-corrosive coating. The requisite hardness could be secured in a non-corrosive metal. Brass wears easily as compared with steel and the wedges where the wear occurs are of brass. Witness believes the whole strip to which the wedges are attached should be made of brass. Strips of brass of the same size as the steel would be amply strong. 1512 The angle-steel device for preventing the working of the slides is of the same general class of devices with the wire clips and the rubber bands. It would be less difficult to find a restricting wedge on a voting machine than a restricting wedge placed into the slot of a ballot box. After the judges discovered the use of the angle-iron they could remove it with the point of a knife, but it is not readily discovered. 1513 After a voter knew what to look for he would find it no doubt, but not easily otherwise. A restriction would naturally cause complaint from the voter. Witness having testified that the judges could enter the machine before and after voter voted and know how he cast his ballot, and so might be able to report progress of the workers, does not believe that this would be particularly guarded against by a rule of the Board of Election Commissioners "not under certain condi- tions in certain precincts in Chicago." 1514 To permit judges to note progress of election would require two keys, not necessarily two judges, but all the keys are in one block. This would have to be done in the presence of the other judges, the clerks and the watchers. The lock on the end would have to be turned and then the lock in the back, the rear door. 1515 The turning of a lock on the end would stop the use of the machine and temporarily suspend the election. The judges could set the device so as to produce more votes than is lawful for members of the General As- sembly, provided they have the custodian's key or a du- Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 351 1516 plicate key to the lower compartment. Without such a key not. All restricting devices depend on getting into the lower compartment. Without that the adjustment of the ma- chine could not be shifted. The machine will act according to the way it is set and must be set wrong to permit more than the lawful num- ber of votes for members of the General Assembly. 1517 It is not necessary to lock the voting front of the ma- chine in order to get into the lower rear compartment. The duplication of keys is a fraud that could not be practiced generally throughout the city, but it could be done, possibly, in several precincts. 1518 All of the voting machines require a sufficient move- ment of the key to cause the operating mechanism to cast a vote. 1519 In the Empire machine, the necessary movement of the key is 11/32 of an inch. If moved 9/32 the machine will not register the vote. 3/8 of an inch movement will in- sure a vote. It would be practical to build a machine that would reg- ister with less key movements. 1520 The International requires only 3/16 total movement. Witness does not know the movement required to make the International register. As a mechanic, witness knows there is a point in key movement at which the International would not register. Witness thinks it better to have a rather long movement of the key. The voter can see it move. 1521 Witness says that when a voter runs his finger along the keys as instructed, a key will sometimes not go down the full voting distance, and in this way a vote might be lost. The key, when not moved in the voting position by a voter, returns to normal position upon the release of the voting lever. In all voting machines, the key must be moved suffi- ciently to engage the operating mechanism. 1522 The handling of voting machines has become easier in Chicago through the year with gasoline and electric trucks than formerly. At the warehouse, a lifting device makes it compara- tively easy to take a machine out of and put it into a box. 352 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 1523 The difficulty in handling occurs at the polling place and there one trained man, with a number of others, can lift a machine and put it into position. 1524 The machine has castors and when in voting position stands on them. 1525 Witness has seen the machine put on its legs at the warehouse, not outside. 1526 Witness thinks it woiild be a bad method of putting the legs under the machine to lift one end at a time, but has never seen it done. Witness thinks it would be difficult to equip the Em- pire machine with a party lever. Party nominations for members of the General As- sembly vary from time to time ; maybe one, two or three. A machine with a party lever on the cumulative voting part would have to provide engaging points on the party 1527 bar and every bar would have to be changed. Witness thinks this matter was considered in the test of 1907. In that year the voting machine experts wanted to change the position of the cumulative voting device from the middle to the end of the machine so as to avoid this mechanical difficulty. Witness does not know that Judge Einaker ruled that the cumulative voting device must be in the middle part of the machine. Witness has seen a cumulative voting device else- where than in the middle of the voting machine, on the second machine which he examined in 1910. 1528 Witness does not think the present voting machine meets the one-minute voting requirement of the statute. Q. Do you know of any other requirement? A. I don't think of anything just at present. 1528-1531 "Q. Well, now, let me enumerate these and see what you say and think. The statute provides in Sec- tion 1 of the Act printed in the copy of the resolution on page two, beginning at line 34, that these machines shall be inspected by voting machine experts who shall file a report certifying that they have examined the machine and that it complies with these requirements. Mr. Deneen. May I hand him one of those so that he can follow you? Mr. McEwEisr. Yes. (Paper handed witness.) That it affords each elector an opportunity to vote in absolute secrecy! Requirements of Voting Machine Law. 353 A. Yes, sir, you wish me to answer a question, does it reasonably comply with that, put in a reasonable construc- tion on that? Yes. Q. And that it enables each elector to vote a straight party ticket? A. Yes. Q. That it enables each elector to vote a ticket, se- lected in part from nominees of one party and in part from nominees of any and all other parties? A. Yes. Q. And in part from an independent nomination, and in part of persons not in nomination by any party or upon any independent ticket? A. Yes. .1529 Q. That it enables each elector to vote a written or printed ballot of his own selection, for any person for any oflSce for which he may desire ? A. Yes. Q. That it enables each elector to vote for all candi- dates for whom he is entitled to vote, and prevents him from voting for any candidate for any office more than one unless he is lawfully entitled to cast more than one vote? A. When the machine is properly adjusted that is true. Q. Unless he is lawfully entitled to cast more than one vote for one candidate, and in that event permits him to cast only as many votes for that candidate as he is by law entitled to and no more. A. When the machine is properly adjusted that is true. Q. And that it prevents the elector from voting for more than one person for the same office, unless he is law- fully entitled to vote for more than one person there- fore, and in that event permits him to vote for as many persons for that office as he is by law entitled to vote and no more? A. Yes. Q. And that this machine will register correctly by means of exact counters every vote cast for the regular tickets thereon? A. Yes. Q. And has the capacity to contain the tickets of seven political parties with the names of all candidates thereon together with all propositions to be voted upon, except that it may be so constructed that the names of all can- didates for presidential electors will not occur thereon, but in lieu thereof one ballot label at each party colmun or row shall contain only the words, "Presidential Elec- 1530 tor's," preceded by the party names? A. Yes, sir, that is placed there. 354 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. Q. That all votes cast on the machine on a regular ballot or ballots shall be registered? A. Yes. Q. That voters may by means of irregular ballots or otherwise vote for any person for any office, although such person may not have been nominated by any party and his name, may not appear on such machines! A. Yes. Q. That when a vote is cast for any person for any such office, when his name does not appear on the ma- chine, the elector cannot vote for any name on the mar- chine for the same office? A. Yes. Q. That each elector can, understandingly and with- in the period of one minute cast his vote for all candidates of his choice. A. That I have a question about. Q. That in case the machine is so constructed that the candidates for presidential electors of any parties can be voted for only by voting for the ballot label containing the words "Presidential Electors," by voting an irreg- ular ticket as hereinafter defined, elector may vote for any person or persons he may choose for presidential electors? A. Yes, he would have difficulty in doing that 1531 for independent electors on this machine, he would have to write pretty fine. Q. You mean on account of the size of the space? A. The size of the opening through which he woulo have to write. Q. That the machine was provided with a lock or locks by the use of which any movement of the voting or regis- tering mechanism is absolutely prevented so that it can- not be tampered with, or manipulated for any fraudu- lent purpose? A. Yes, the locks on this machine, I think are not as secure as should be. Q. Well, as long as the lock holds, why it meets with the requirement of the law ? A. Yes. Q. That the machine is susceptible of being closed during the progress of the voting so that no person can see or know the number of votes registered for any can- didate? A. Yes, sir, susceptible of being closed and is locked, but it is possible to be opened. Q. Depending on the judges doing their duty or not doing their duty? A. Yes. 1531-2 Yale locks are as good as any in the market, but a better lock might be devised for use where the Yale lock is used on the machine. Witness does not know of any Voting in a Minute. 355 special lock made by any factory. A special key could be duplicated but it would be a little more difficult. 1533 Witness saw Chainnan Butts vote experimentally on the machine at the Pugh warehouse ; he voted a split ticket in two minutes and ten seconds. He worked as fast as he could. Whether the witness could vote in less than a minute depends on how he wanted to vote. All voting machines witness has seen have been sub- ject to voting time objections. AVitness has seen elections outside of Cook County where they didn't have the large ballot we have here. 1535 The Cook County sample ballot indicated by the wit- ness has 61 names and witness thinks in many cases it might not be voted in one minute. 1536 Witness says whether he could vote the 61 name ballot would depend on when and how he wanted to split it. "A. That would depend on the candidates that were put up on the different tickets ; I might want to split it in a minute. The voter has got to find the names of the candidates he is voting for, and that takes some time if he has to find many of them; it will exceed his time limit, I think. I do not vote the Australian ballot in a minute. ' ' The Empire machine provides for grouping of ques- tions so that the judge can control the questions that the voter may vote on. The voter can readily discover that he is locked out on a question he was entitled to vote on. 1537 The judge of election can control the question or of- fice lock-out device at anj' time and might permit a woman voter to vote on all questions and for all offices. The only protection against the misuse of the lock-out device is the honesty of the judge. The voting machine might not be able to accommodate all the questions of public policy if printed in full. 1538 Question number 1 read by Dr. Taylor the other day in eight minutes and a half was printed in full on the machine in fine type and the question the voter voted on was' printed in larger type. Witness does not know- that the full question was printed to meet the require- ments of the bankers who were to purchase the bonds. The machines that print the ballot have to use a ribbon, so far as witness has seen. Witness has never seen any confusion about the reading of the 6s, 8s and 9s on the printing voting machine. 356 Ordinary Voter Cannot Do It. On the Calkins machine the printing could be done in one-half minute all at one stroke. The Calkins machine had a capacity of several hundred names. 1540 Witness was never a challenger, a candidate or judge of election, and his testimony is therefore theoretical. 1541 The objections to voting machines read by the witness relating to angle irons and so forth, are not theoretical. Witness said nothing about these things in his re- port of 1910. "I thought there were enough other ob- jections to make it unnecessary to make them then." Witness made a report to the preceding Board of Elec- tion Commissioners on July 1st, 1910, on the Empire vot- ing machine. In that report witness said the Empire machine was durable and reliable in action, meaning re- liable in action when properly adjusted. 1542 Mechanism of the machine is very satisfactoiy and is incapable of ' ' being worked wrong unless it is set wrong. ' ' Witness said in the report of July 1, 1910, that the ma- chine would record vote accurately and quickh' and says so still. 1543 Witness was paid for his reports of 1909 and 1910. Witness does not know that on Friday last 22 experi- mental votes were cast upon the machine in a minute. 1544 Witness does not know the percentage of straight and split votes cast at elections here. Witness never assisted in the counting of ballots and does not know how many votes were marked with identi- fication marks by the voter so as to show the way the voter voted. Such markings would not be possible on a voting ma- chine. 1545 Wire clips and rubber bands used on the face of a ma- chine would not permit the voter to vote more than he was entitled to. 1546 Succeeding voter would be restricted from voting on certain candidates if they did not discover the clip or pin. The first voter is unaffected. The releasing knob is intended to peiTnit the voter to leave the voting machine without voting. Mo\ang any key on the face of the machine will answer the same pur- pose. Witness cannot see the need of a releasing knob. 1547 Witness does not believe an ordinary voter could vote a mixed ticket for 60 candidates in a minute. Witness does not think the present plan of having one custodian is practical. A bi-partisan board of cus- Mechanical Limit to Group Voting. 357 todians might help the situation but might not be satisfac- tory. Witness thinks the man who cannot read or write can- not use the machine without an instructor at his elbow. AVitness thinks that the necessity for pulling down the key 11/32 of an inch furnishes possibility, of error. 1548 Witness does not know whether it would be mechan- ically possible to devise a key which would vote the mo- ment it was moved. It would be more desirable if it could be done. With 44 candidates for County Commissioner at a pri- mary it would be necessary to use four rows for this group. 1550 About 15 in a row is the mechanical limit; where the grouping becomes more than 15 the restriction wedges will not act because they bind on themselves. If the judges are ordered not to open the machine the effect would be to stop the election in case the machine got out of order. Less than four men could not transport and handle the machine. 1551 A voter who by mistake throws up the wrong independ- ent voting slide cannot correct his vote. Raising the slide absolutely restricts the column from working. Witness supposes the post oflSce bad special locks and special keys. Witness regards the last November election as a good test of the voting machines in regard to voting in a minute. The larger a ticket is it is the best test on time. The voter would vote for an independent candidate in the irregular row above only when the candidates name did not appear printed on the machine. 1552 Witness does not know that Judge Binaker stated re- cently that there would not be more than four such names _ in 100,000 votes. To elect an independent candidate through independent slide written voting would require writing in the names a good many times. 1553 Mr.McEwen produces a section of a device to illustrate how the Empire voting machine works. Witness identifies it as a model of the individual re- stricting device. The strips to which the wedges are attached move up and down the wedges drop against each other with each 358 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. motion. "It will take a long time for them to wear appreciably. ' ' 1554-5 The voter who moves an independent slide is re- stricted from voting afterwards in the same column; but if he had voted below first, under the instructions for voting, so that he releases that column, there would not be anything to prevent his voting up there. The use of a key in a column restricts the slide and vice versa. If the voter moves the slide he cannot move any key in the same column again. 1556 Under the cumulative voting system the cumulative voting device must provide four ways for voting for each candidate for representative, 1 vote, 2 votes, 1^ votes and 3 votes. With 3 candidates to provide for all con- tingencies would require 12 different provisions. 1557 When the pin between the 1| and single voting com- partment of the cumulative voting device is removed the voter would be restricted and could not vote in the com- partment. Witness thinks, however, that so far as the individual candidates are concerned, the removal of the pin would enable the voter to vote five instead of three. 1558 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. The witness was paid for the reports made in 1909 and 1910 and made four different examinations for the old Board. He was paid each time and each time advised the Commissioners not to purchase the machines. Witness' report gave certain objections to the machine, but not all. Witness has never entered a voting booth while the voter was marking his ballot or for the purpose of seeing the voter mark it and his opinion on such things, if he had any, would be purely speculative ; so would his opin- ion as to whether a voter would observe a rubber band on the face of the machine. 1561 The witness has no practical information as to what the voter could do on the face of the machine. Witness does not remember an instance cited by coun- sel for the Commission wherein it is said Alderman Snow was nominated by having 2,000 names written in on the voting machine. Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 359 1565 The character of the work of the machine depends upon the honesty and intelligence of the voter and the judge and the custodian. "Mr. Deneen. Yes. Q. Now, referring to the ques- tion asked here by Judge McEwen regarding the points required in the ballot law, page 2, beginning at No. 30 — line 30. 1566-73 "Mr. McEwen. That is the voting machine law! ' ' Mr. Deneen. That is the voting machine law. Thirty- four is the question about the 'providing, however'; it begins at line 30 down here ; do you see it there? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. And running down to line 34. Judge McEwen asked you whether or not this complied absolutely with the provision that it affords electors an opportunity to vote in absolute secrecy. "Mr. McEwEN. Excuse me, I did not ask you whether it complied absolutely. I said 'reasonably and practic- 1566 ably.' I used those words. Mr. Deneen. I see; the absolute secrecy then — ^yours was reasonable and practicable secrecy. Mr. McEwEN. Oh, no, that is not what I said. I asked him considering those questions reasonably and prac- ticably as to all requirements of the law, did he feel the machine complied with those questions. I went on and enumerated. Mr. Deneen. Q. Professor, regarding your answer to that, the judges have access to the counters before a man votes? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they may have after he votes? A. Yes. Q. If they inspected the counters before he votes and afterwards he would not vote in great secrecy, would he? A. I think they could tell if they turned to read the counters, just what he voted for. Q. Just what he voted for ? A. Yes. Q. The second clause (reading): "That it enables each elector to vote a straight party ticket," the custo- dian can prevent him doing so when he thinks he has voted for it, can he, put on obstacles which will prevent him voting for it, when he thinks he has? Mr. McEwEN. I object to what he thinks, that is argu- mentative. 1567 A. He can vote the straight party ticket by all the 360 Frauds by Custodian or Judges. party keys, but he might be restricted from doing it by an individual key. Q. Well, the other day a man voted twenty-two Dem- ocratic tickets and when you counted them up they found he had voted only twelve t A. Yes. Q. How do you explain that! A. Because the ma- chine was not properly adjusted. Q. That depends on the custodian! A. Certainly. 1569 Q. Third: "that it enables each elector to vote a ticket selected in part from the nominees of one party, and in part from the nominees of all other parties, and in part from an independent nomination, and in part from persons not in nomination by any party or upon any independent ticket." A. Yes. Q. Whether or not it can be made to do that ? A. Yes. Q. It can also be adjusted by the custodian or the judges if they have the keys to the lower compartment of the machine, so that that cannot be done? A. Yes. Q. As was demonstrated! A. Yes, sir. Q. On line 39, "that it enables each elector to vote a written or printed ballot of his own selection, for any person for any office which he may desire," and the an- swer to that is that it can be made so to do and it can be made not to do so! A. Yes. Q. And line 40, "that it enables each elector to vote for all candidates for whom he is entitled to vote and prevents him voting for any candidate for any office more than once, unless he is lawfully entitled to cast more than one vote for one candidate," and the same answer applies to that, it can be made to do so and it can be made not to do so ! A. If properly adjusted it can do so. Q. And that it prevents the elector from voting for more than one person for the same office unless he is en- titled to vote for more than one person therefor, and in 1570 that event permits him to vote for as many persons for that office as he is by law entitled, and no more! A. Yes. Q. The same answer, it can and cannot be done? A. Yes. Q. The other day, Thursday or Friday, you showed that he could vote a straight party ticket, and on the same ticket, at the same time, give a candidate two votes? A. Yes, any individual candidate. Q. Line 49: "and that such machine will register cor- rectly by means of exact counters, every vote cast for the Testimony of C. E. DePuy. 361 regular tickets thereon." That depends on the custo- dians and the judges, if he has the keys, does it not? A. Yes. Q. "And has the capacity to contain the tickets of seven poHtical parties, with the names of all the candi- dates thereon, together with all the propositions to be voted on, except that it may be so constructed that the names of all candidates for presidential electors will not occur thereon, but in lieu thereof, one ballot label in each party or row shall contain only the words 'presidential elector'?" A. Yes. Q. I suppose that depends on the wav it is adjusted'? A. Yes. Q. On line 56: "that all votes cast on the machine on a regular ballot or ballots shall be registered!" A. Yes. Q. The custodian can prevent their registering? A. He can. Q. And the voter can by these rubber-bands and the metal instruments that they have placed on the machine, and also the judge can, under ordinary conditions, pre- vent that machine voting on certain matters ? A. On the propositions. Q. On the propositions? A. Yes. Q. And line 57 : " that voters may, by means of irregu- lar ballots, or otherwise vote for any person for any of-, fice, although such person may not have been nominated by any party and his name may not appear on such ma- chine." That depends on the judges or on the custo- dian? A. Yes. Q. And on the voter, whether he moves the paper through the slots or shutters? A. Yes, sir. Q. Line 59: "that when a vote is cast for any person for any such office when his name does not appear on the machine for the same office." A. Yes. 1571 Q. Can that be prevented? A. I suppose the only way to prevent that would be to have the name written in, not counted. Q. But he can vote into the same — A. He can write it on. Q. He can write it on? A. That depends on the judges. _ Q. Line 62: "That each elector can understandingly and within the period of one minute, cast his vote for all the candidates of his choice"; that depends on the elec- 362 Testimony of C. E. DePuy. tors, the Supreme Court has decided that, hasn't it? A. Yes. Q. That in case the machine is so constructed that the candidates for presidential electors of any party can be 1572 voted for only by voting for the ballot label, containing the words "presidential electors," by voting an irregu- lar ticket as hereinafter defined the elector may vote for any person or persons he may choose for presidential electors!" A. Yes. Q. Further "that the machine is provided with a lock or locks by the use of which any movement of the voting or registering mechanism is absolutely prevented so that it cannot be tampered with or manipulated for any fraud- ulent purpose. A. I think they can. Q. By the judges or custodian? A. Yes. 1573 Q. Can they be manipulated by the judges or custo- dian for fraudulent purposes? A. Yes, they can. Q. "That the machine is susceptible of being closed during the progress of the voting so that no person can be or know the number of the votes registered for any candidate?" A. Yes. Q. It is susceptible. A. Yes. Q. It is also susceptible of being opened, isn't it, so that they can see the progress of the vote ? A. Yes. 1574 Relative to questions asked by Judge McEwen about transportation, witness has considered them all in his examination and reported that the problem of transpor- tation was an objection to the voting machine. 1575 Witness remembers the frauds refei-red to in the grand jury report of 1908 and thinks that was collusion among those in charge of the voting machines. They could do all that was done in the hearing room the other ray. 1576 If the judges made affidavit in case of a blind vote, as was suggested, there would be no means of identifica- tion of the vote upon the machine, except that the public counter would not correspond with the individual counter. 1577 "While a machine could not eliminate the human ele- ment from voting it could restrict it more than the Em- pire machine does. It could add the vote mechanically and accurately, and to that extent eliminate the human element. If the locks were encased so they could not be reached Advantages of "Printing" Machines. 363 during voting hours that would eliminate the human ele- ment. There are machines that do this. Witness thinks the International machine does it. Placing a printed impression of the votes on the ma- chine would eliminate another human element. 1578 The method of operating the counters in the Empire machine would have to be changed to allow the attach- ment of a party-lever which would necessitate the reor- ganizing of the whole machine. The setting of the machine at 999 and the casting of an experimental vote by the ,iudges would eliminate a good deal of trouble and be a check upon the custodian. It is a decided disadvantage in the voting machine if they permit the voter to monopolize the machine while he is making up his mind. 1579 A machine so designed as to make the ballot mechanism separate from the recording mechanism would make it possible for several voters to prepare their ballots at the same time as in the Australian ballot system. Wit- ness understands that such a machine is being brought out. 1580 In answering Judge McEwen, according to his recol- lection to the effect that the Empire machine was the best voting machine witness had seen, witness was in error. What he meant to say was that it was the best of its type. The rust question was considered by the witness when acting as an expert. It was one reason why he suggested ordering only a few machines at a time, in order to test them on this question. 1581 If the voter voted according to instructions for voting a split ticket by running his finger along the keys of his own party after voting independently outside of it, the machine ought to thoroughly restrict him from voting the candidates furthest to the left in his party row. These are restricted because, with the vote outside of his party the voter has used up his space before he reaches them. 1582 Witness illustrates this on the voting machine by voting 3 outside of the Democratic party and then voting the Democratic party row, and is restricted from voting for the three County Commissioners on the left-hand end of the Democratic row ; namely, Peter Bartzen, Daniel Mori- arity and John Mahoney. If he votes two outside the Democratic party he cannot follow the instructions for voting and vote for Moriarity and Bartzen. If he 364 Defects of Split Voting on Empire Machine. votes for one outside the Democratic party he cannot vote for Bartzen. The man farthest to the right would be given an advantage by the voting machine when voted according to instructions. "Mr. McEwEN. Yes, but the instructions say that the party line is to be pulled first and your scratches after- wards." 1585 Witness has not found any means of restricting the party key at the end of the independent row as the ma- chine is constructed. Afternoon Session. Tuesday, August 5, 1913. CiARENCE E. Depuy resumes stand: Re-direct Examination hy Mr. Deneen Continued. 1586 Witness has read instructions regarding voting sent out by Election Commissioners and he understands they instruct the voter first to split the ticket and then vote the remainder of the ticket by running his finger over the keys from left to right. Re-cross Examination by Mr. McEwen. It makes a difference in group voting, in voting a split ticket, w^hether the voter votes the split first and after- wards the straight part of his ticket or vice versa. 1587 Witness can probably vote faster on a machine than with the Australian ballot. The human element cannot be eliminated by the opera- tion of voting machines. 1589 After it is adjusted correctly by the custodian the ma- chine will operate correctly as long as it is adjusted cor- rectly. 1590 Witness has not seen a better machine than the Em- pire nor one so good. 1591 There is not the same opportunity to mark ballots on the voting machine as in the ballot box. The ballots cannot be falsified on a voting machine by short pencilling. There would be no opportunity for using a device having a rubber stamp on the thumb. Witness thinks a count on the voting machine would Empire Too Much Subject to "Human Element." 365 be collected within an hour; does not know how long it takes. 1594 Witness knows that under the Australian ballot system the counts were very much delayed in some precincts. "Witness has heard that sometimes the count is held back fraudulently imtil it is known how many votes are needed. 1595 In witness' answer to Governor Deneen concerning frauds mentioned in the grand jury report of 1908 and that these could not be corrected by the voting machine, w-itness does not take into account frauds committed by holding back the returns and in that respect his answer needs qualification. Re-re-direct Examination hy Mr. Deneen. Witness recalls the provision of the law requiring the filing of nomination papers 30 days before election. The custodian would have this 30 days to "rig up the ma- chine. ' ' 1596 Under the Australian ballot system frauds may be com- mitted by judges and clerks, policemen and workmen within a few hours after the polls are closed. With a machine it might be done by the custodian along within the 30 days preceding election. "Mr. McEwEN. The last day for the withdrawal of candidates is 13 days before election; then the ballots have to be printed still." 1597 "The Witness. The restrictive mechanism is what ought to be used." "Mr. Deneen. It is page 3 and the line is 67; we will see what the law says about the human element. I will read it; this is one of the points it must have: 'That the machine is provided with a lock or locks by the use of which any movement of the voting or registering mechanism is absolutely prevented, so that it cannot be tampered with or manipulated for any fraudulent pur- pose.' That is one test, isn't it? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. It does not meet that test, does it? A. No, it does not." 1598 The test of the voting machine is how far it eliminates the human element. That is why witness advocated the party-lever; and advocated setting these locks in auto- 366 Suggested Improvements. matic cases and printing the ticket in the morning so as to have a check on the custodian. Re-re-cross Examination by Mr. McEwen. 1599 Witness thinks that better locks could be provided than the ones in use on the Empire machine. 1600 A lock with a special form of blank would be an im- provement. Another improvement would be a limited number of inspections by the judges. 1600-1607 The following statutory provision is read to the witness: "That the machine is provided with a lock or locks by the use of which any movement of the voting or registering mechanism is absolutely prevented so that it cannot be tampered with or manipulated for any fraud- ulent purpose," and is asked whether there is a lock made that will absolutely prevent tampering with it for a good or a bad purpose. Witness answers: "I never heard of any." 1608 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. The International machine has an automatic encased lock. "A. As I understand their mechanism is so arranged that the lock cannot be opened twice after it is closed until another compartment has been opened. That is the compartment closed by the lock can be opened twice and then in order to open it again another compartment has to be opened first, which is done by an entirely different lock." 1609 As the witness understands, the International machine, a printed ballot is taken off before six o'clock the morn- ing of the election day and after the lever is put on there is no possible way to get into the machine. After four o'clock the lever is taken oif and another impression taken. The two impressions are a check on each other. Testimony of G. 0. Olson. 367 1610 George 0, Olson: Direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. Lives at 5919 Ohio street. Is a manufacturer of spe- cial machinery, dies, tools and stampings. Has been jjresi- 1611 dent of the Fort Dearborn Manufacturing Company for the last 18 years. Witness has been a machinist for 36 years. Has in- spected voting machines in the City of Chicago for the old Board of Election Commissioners four times. Ex- aminations were made at the same time by Professor DePuy, Professor Leutweiler and Mr. Breckenridge the first time. A report of the examinations was filed with the Election Commissioners. Witness has been employed by the Legislative Com- mittee to examine voting machines and helped prepare the statement regarding the mechanism of the machine, its material, and so forth, which was read into evidence in the form of question and answer during the examination of Professor DePuy. 1613 A voter can commit a fraud upon the voting machine while concealed by the curtain. He can prevent keys from being worked by using a wire clip which can be placed on the machine to obstruct voting. The clip is painted the same color as the face of the machine to conceal it from the voter who is voting accord- ing to instructions sent out by the Election Board for voting a mixed ticket. 1614 A piece of angle steel may be placed in the slide or shutter for irregular voting which prevents the move- ment of the slide for voting purposes. Its edge only is presented to the voter and it is knife-edged and not dis- coverable. 1615 A rubber band can be placed on a key of the machine in such a way that when the voter votes according to in- structions for voting a split ticket the key will be re- turned to its place before the vote lever is pulled and will not register a vote. A voting key must be pulled down 11/32 in order to 368 Frauds Possible on Empire Machine. register a vote. If it is pulled down only 9/32 it will not register and the vote will be lost. 1616 The judges have access to the counters and by looking at them before and after a voter votes can tell how he voted. By lifting the ratchet controlling the irregular paper roller and thus permitting the voter to move the inde- pendent paper roller ahead And vote more than once he may write in the name of an independent candidate more than once upon it. The returns must be read from the back of the ma- chine by the judges and put down by the clerks and their integrity depends upon accurate and correct reading. The custodian can adjust the counters so that they will show a vote different from that taken during the election. 1617 This can be done by putting zeros on the counter con- cealing the counter figures. Any number of votes short of 999 can be given to a candidate or taken away. The judge can manipulate the question lockout so that the voter can vote regardless of the right to do so. 1618 The party-key at the end of the row for independent candidates cannot be locked out as the machine is con- structed. It can be done by hooks inside of the machine fastening the independent keys down. The custodian can arrange the machine so tliat the voter can vote a straight ticket and also vote an indi- vidual candidate of the same party. 1619 The custodian can do this in a few seconds. Witness believes that custodian can adjust the cumu- lative voting device so that the voter can vote 6 votes for member of the General Assembly, or 5, or any num- ber. The same thing can be done by the judges, clerks, or anybody who has access to the keys of the lower com- partment. 1620 The judge of election can permit a voter to vote at' a primary election for candidates of all parties or for other parties than that with which he is affiliated. Witnes examined the machine at the Hotel La Salle. A primary ticket in this election district cannot be placed on the Empire machine. 1621 It is too large. At the last primary there were 46 or 48 Republican candidates for County Commissioner. This Advantages of Party Lever. 369 ■would be four rows on the voting machine and require the same space for each party on the machine. This can- not be done on a 9-party, 70-key machine unless it is altered. Witness thinks the party-lever of great advantage in a voting machine. It saves time and adds the vote. 1623 The party-lever cannot be applied to the Empire ma- chine without redesigning the whole machine and estab- lishing a connection between the keys and the party bar. Since last Friday the witness has prepared an addi- tional obstacle that can be placed on the machine to pre- vent voting for one candidate. (Here the witness, the Committee and the counsel go to the voting machine.) (Witness places his device upon the voting machine and the Committee and counsel search for it.) 1625 "Mr. Dexeen. I want to call the attention of the Com- mittee to the fact that Judge McEwen's minute is up; he has been two minutes looking for it. "Mr. McEwEx. Well, just a second and I will find it. 1626 The device was fixed on key 27-D which would not go down. It is a small block of metal 5/32 of an inch thick and 5/16 of an inch wide and pierced with a 1/32-inch hole through which a piece of piano wire 7/32 of an 1628 inch long is put. The block simply finds the natural position in the channel on the face of the machine and the wire extends under the key and prevents it from going down. It is not readily seen. 1629 It took witness 40 seconds to vote and put the obstacle on the machine the first time. Both the block and the 1630 wire are black. Enamel should be put on the wire. The witness used lampblack. The voting machine weighed 1120 pounds in the case. Would not be hard to handle, but hard to handle at the polling place. That would be very difficult. 1632 As far as witness knows the instructions to voters were to vote from right to left, "pulling your fingers along the keys." 1633 Cross-Examination hy Mr. McEwen. Witness does not know about the difficulty of handling the machine in the warehouse. There will be no trouble 370 Former Report on Empire Machine. about handling it except as to expense. Witness does not think the machine hard to handle when in the box, but that it is when outside the box. Witness presumes the box is on rollers. 1635 Witness thinks that 5 men would be required to lift up the machine bodily in order to place the legs under it ; four to lift and one to place the legs. Four men might do it by lifting up one end at a time, or possibly three men if they were experienced. 1636 Witness has never seen a machine lifted; one experi- enced man and two without experience might put the ma- chine in place by lifting one end at a time. Witness examined the Empire machine and made a report in 1910, also in 1909. As to material, it is pretty good, but might be improved upon. Witness has come to this opinion because "experience has been telling me that there has been improvement along that line." The workmanship was first class in 1910. The Empire machine could be improved by using more non-corrosive metal. 1638 Witness found rust spots in the lower compartment. The metal at that point is either not shererdized or is rusted. Shererdizing will rust. Witness saw rust on the channel bar; there were more than half a dozen rust spots. 1639 Witness thinks the rust spots averaged about 5/8 of an inch in diameter. Witness saw the same machine as Professor Depuy. Witness has seen either a rust spot or a spot not shererdized on the working parts of the machine. 1640 Metal not shererdized is black or white or gray. Rust spots might be pretty serious. "Q. You say in 1910 the Empire used — I will read from the report here, to see whether you recognize the Empire, 'The material used in the construction of this machine could not be, in my opinion, improved upon. 1641 The workmanship is first class. I wish to call especial attention to the high grade of work on the counters and the counter-holders, which is, in my opinion, very high grade work.' Is that true in 1910? A. True as to the workmanship, true as to the material at that time, as far as my knowledge went at that time. "Q. Is it true altogether in 1910? A. That was my opinion at that time. Testimony of G. 0. Olson. 371 "Q. Do you think so now? A. Not as to the material no. "Q. On account of this piece of metal there that you cannot tell whether it is not shererdized or whether it is rusted? A. No, sir. "Q. On account of those little spots? A. No, sir. I will say I was of the opinion at the time the shererdizing was rust-proof, but I have changed my mind. "Q. Is it recognized as a standard method of pre- venting rust? A. One of the methods, yes. 1642 Shererdizing is a good method of preventing rust. "But I think any method of preventing rust the parts have got to be in a place of equal temperature to keep that rust from showing or rather to keep the rust away." "Q. You also, in your report of 1910 concerning the Empire machine, say this machine seems to be designed and built with the sole idea of complying with the Illi- nois law, and they have succeeded, but they have lost sight of the many problems confronting a large city, such as transportation, storage and repair. The machine is entirely too heavy and composed of too many parts and I consider it unwise to purchase any machine of this type at the present time as I am convinced we can look for great improvement iti the near future, — in the matter of improvement, — in the near future. Did you mean a lightening of the machine, did you? A. Well, that is one thing, lightening? 1643 "A. There has not been any advancement that I can see, in voting machines since 1907, except in a few de- tails. "Q. The defects that were discovered in 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910 have been corrected, haven't they? A. They have been corrected, because the workmanship has been improved." Witness thinks the party-key very unsatisfactory to the voter because he cannot see the keys go down for the candidates for whom he votes. 1644 This objection does not exist as to the keys for indi- vidual candidates. Witness thinks the party-key should be changed to the party-lever. Witness does not recall any difficulty about using the party-lever with the cumulative voting device. Four provisions have to be made by the cumulative 372 Testimony of G. 0. Olson. voting device for each candidate for the General Assem- bly; 1 vote, 1 1/2 votes, 2 votes and 3 votes. For three candidates for the General Assembly 12 lines Avould be required. 1646 Witness cannot give an idea of the diflSculty of ad- justing a party-lever to voting machines with a cumu- lative voting device, but thinks it could be done. Witness has done very little designing of machinery. 1647 The cumulative voting device on the Empire machine seems a good device. Witness' report of 1910 said there was a slight defect in the cumulative voting device on the Empire machine. Witness does not find any defect now. In the 1910 report witness thought the grouping device on the Empire machine very good. Thinks so still. Witness thought in 1910 the machine should be built so as to adjust itself to unlevel floors by some raising and lowering device. Thinks so still. 1648 Witness' report in 1910 stated, "The ballot lock is simple and effective, but the bar at the right end which holds the strips into place should have a key lock. The resetting device on this machine is to be commended for its simplicity. The alignment of the keys is good." 1649 The machine had a seal in place of a lock recommended. Witness is of the same opinion now as to the resetting device and alignment of keys. Witness would limit the possible inspection of machine and witness thinks a 100- key machine about the limit. Witness does not think the principle of the machine could be applied to a 200-key machine. 1650 ' ' Q. You think that this machine is very secure against manipulation as to the counters which cannot be moved without opening the lower doors, and as I understand, the keys to this door are held by the custodian, you thought it was a pretty secure machine at that time, didn't you? A. At that time, yes; I don't know whether it is the same machine or not." Witness' report to the Board of Election Commis- sioners in 1910 states: "At your request, I examined the Empire voting machine installed in your office." Witness does not know Avhether that was the same ma- chine as the present Empire machine or not. It bore the name-plate of the Empire Company. 1651 The machine was very similar to this. The report for 1910 commended the device for primary Empire Machine Not Large Enough for Chicago. 373 elections, but witness thinks now it is not large enough for primary elections in Chicago. The witness' opinion as to the workmanship remains the same as in 1910. It is practically the same. 1653 Witness has changed his opinion since 1910 so far as manipulating or restricting of keys is concerned. Wit- ness had not seen the rubber band until the other day. Had heard about it, but did not know how it was put on. The witness first saw wire clips about two weeks ago. 1654 W^itness thinks any voting machine might be fixed. 1655 It would take about half a minute to bore the hole in the little block; half a dozen of the pins were made by a mechanic in half an hour. 1656 Witness does not know how long it would take a voter to find this lock and pin device. He would know the key was fastened as soon as he undertook to vote. Witness thinks putting in wedges, wire clips, and rub- ber bands constitute an objection to the machine. A ma- chine that permits it should be rejected. The voting machine should be constructed along lines which would not permit that to be done. There should not be the channels and openings be- tween the keys as on the Empire machine. 1657 If you have keys to move some space is necessary, but not enough to permit of putting in a wedge. To put a ballot on a voting machine requires some space to allow the key to pass over the face of the ballot. It is not necessary to have a channel 5/32 of an inch deep. 1658 Witness would have the channel or groove removed. Witness does not believe any of the machines he has examined had the deep channel under the keys. The possibility of wedges and wires did not occur to him when examining the machines in other years. Witness has examined United States Standard and Columbia voting machines, but up to the present year has never considered the question of restricting devices, rubber bands, clips or wedges. 1659 Witness has seen a voting machine that printed; the International. It did not ink the counters; a typewriter ribbon was used. Never heard that the International was liable to get wet. 1661 Witness examined the International machine in 1907. Witness cannot say whether a machine with a party-lever is liable to get out of order, to gum and stick. In his re- port on the International in 1907 witness said: 374 Testimony of G. 0. Olson. "I am satisfied if it was stored for 6 months you could not move tlie party-lever as there would be great liability that the slot would gum up and stick." Witness does not know whether a rubber stamp could be placed over the counter on an International machine and make a false printing. 1662 Witness does not think this could be done. Witness saw Professor Depuy move the paper roll. In doing it he does not take up the slack in the paper, but makes the slack. 1663 Witness does not think there is any limit to the amount the paper can be moved, but that the roll goes round and round. A voter locked out from the row he was entitled to vote would have no difficulty in discovering it. 1664 In all the particulars testified to by Professor DePuy, the restricting device, the question lockout, the party-key on the Independent candidates, the false paper marks on the counters and so forth, the machine will do what it is set to do. The machine is not set properly because the in- dependent slides do not stay up when they are raised up. 1665 Especially when the voter, wnth a pencil in his hand, had to look for the slide the second time. It does not prevent the voter from voting when he wants to. "Q. Then I will ask you the question generally with regard to all of these matters : Will the machine do what it is set to dol A. Yes, sir. "Q. And express the will of the voter and count it or show it on the counters, and if the men surrounding the machine do their duty with regard to reporting it you will have a correct election reporting? A. Yes, sir." If the custodian's key remains in his possession and so the judges or individuals cannot get it the machine is safe in the polling place in the hands of the judges. That is, they cannot do anything that the voter cannot readily dis- cover and protest against, except in the points mentioned, which the judges can do, namely, the question lock-out, the primary lock-out and looking at the register. All of these must be done in the presence of witnesses. In order to open a machine in the rear it is necessary to have the voting-lever in regular position and this stops the voting. 1666 "Q. Do vou think that the voting machine could be so perfect that it will not permit the restricting of keys, The Independent Paper Roll. 375 tliat it will not permit the unlocking of the rear door to allow that roll to be rolled, that is, it will not — that it must be so perfect that the locks cannot be fixed under any circumstances, and that the custodian cannot set it 1667 improperly! A. Well, there are a lot of things that could be done that are not done." Witness does not think that a machine should be re- jected solely because keys may be restricted; that is one reason. Or, because a custodian may set it improperly, or because the custodian's keys may be stolen and fall into the hands of dishonest judges or other persons. 1668 Witness thinks the machine from which you cannot take a print before and after election should be rejected. Witness would not accept a machine with the Empire's device for controlling the Independent paper roll. Wit- ness thinks the construction very foolish. 1671 The Committee, counsel and witness go to the machine to enable the witness to test the paper roll. The witness moves up the paper roll permitting Mr. Hough to vote twice for Independent candidates and moved it about half a space farther. VOLUME XVIII. I Morning Session. Wednesday, August 6, 1913. 1673 Geobge 0. Olson resumed the stand : Further Cross-Examination by Mr. McEtven. 1674 After making the experiment of last evening the wit- ness still thinks the paper rolls device objectionable. He would not reject the machine because of his ability to move the paper roll, but would have the device arranged so that the pawl engaging the ratchet could not be re- moved. To loosen the ratchet should require something more than just turning it over. 1675 The slack in the paper roll produced by witness came from the paper witness forced around not from the paper roll. 376 Primary Lever and Proposition Lockout Too Small. "Q. Now, briefly stating that experiment, you went to the machine and took the keys to the machine and turned the lock on the righthand, locking the front of 1676 the machine, went to the rear, opened the top door, dis- engaged the pawl at what is the left side facing the machine, and went back and unlocked the voting lock on the right end of the machine, opened the lock, holding the lever, threw it over into voting position, raised the shut- ters, one at the left end and one towards the right end and then by working your fingers in the opening on the paper pressed it down and succeeded in pressing it, ad- vancing it about two spaces and a half, is that a correct statement! A. Yes, sir." If the ratchet was engaged in the pawl and the paper • was fastened to the roller, you couldn't move the roller around or unroll the paper. 1677 If the machine is restricted properly by the custodian the judge cannot move the primary lever to zero. 1678 Before the voting-lever is moved by the voter the judge can move the primary-lever to any point the judge de- sires. The judge would not misset the primary lever for the intelligent, honest vote. 1679 If the judge put the primary lever on the Democratic point a voter would be shut off from voting the Repub- lican primary ticket. 1680 Witness thinks the judge has a greater opportunity for fraudulent manipulation of the proposition lock-out than on the primary lever, as the machine is at present con- structed, because to lock-out on propositions the judge must go around to the other end of the machine. The witness thinks the primary lever and the proposi- tion lock-out are too small. They should be so that they could not be covered by the hand. If the primary-lever and lock-out can be seen there is no question of fraud. 1681 Witness thinks the voter should be able to set the ma- chine for his own party on primary elections. Mr. McBwen suggests that the law would have to be changed in order to let the voter do that. Witness does not think the present design of voting machines in general is correct. Witness thinks the idea of a rotary machine would be feasible. 1682 Witness has never seen one. The keys on the Empire machine could not be tampered with so readily if the pa- Testimony of G. 0. Olson. 377 per in the machine had a smooth surface. The ballot could then be fastened on in some other way. 1683 Witness sees no reason why a dial could not be devised to show what ticket a voter was voting on a primary elec- tion, especially if it were set where the challenger could see it. Witness was selected four times to examine voting ma- chines. Witness did not solicit the appointment. Witness was present last night when Mr. Keiper, Pat- ent Attorney for the Empire Company, examined the ma- chine in the Hotel La Salle. 1685 Also Mr. Hough, expert for the Election Commission- ers, and Professor Leutweiler. It was not agreed that the rust on the machine had come from acid spilled upon it. That was suggested by Mr. Hough but not agreed to. Witness has not changed his mind regarding the rust spots. In general the strips seem to have been sherer- dized. One, however, seemed to have been overlooked. Re-direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. 1686 What the witness means by the voter selecting his own party is that he should be allowed to set the primary lever for himself before going into the voting machine. The law requires the judges to be four feet away from the machine and the witness cannot see how this can be lived up to if the judges adjust the primary-lever. 1688 Anybody with a key, who also breaks the seal, can set the primary-lever so the voter can vote for any party without restriction. The seal is a lead seal with a small wire. In answering questions as to whether he would reject the machine because of this and that particular defect, witness simply means he would require the machine to comply with the law or he would reject the machine. Cross-Examination by Mr. Mitchell. 1689 If a machine in actual use at an election could be taken from the truck across the sidewalk and into the polling place and set any place in five minutes witness would still consider that the question of weight was of serious moment, because he didn't think that could be 378 Testimony of 0. A. Leutmler. done all over the city. If it was proven that the above had been done repeatedly, then he would not consider weight a serious objection. 1690 Witness does not know that the law prohibits polling places being elsewhere than on the first floor. 1691 Witness has not been a judge or clerk of election, a challenger or watcher, or a candidate for office. AVitness, 1692 therefore, knows nothing practical regarding the prac- tical operation of the Australian ballot law, the counting of ballots, and so forth, or the relative advantages of such voting and voting on the machine. Witness knows that elections are conducted in base- ments and has voted in one. 0. A. Lbxjtwiler: 1695 Eesides at 511 West Green street, Urbana, Illinois. Teacher at the University of Illinois, Department of Me- chanical Engineering. Has been teaching there ten years; graduated from the University of Illinois in 1899 from the same department. Has worked in machine shops prior to going to college, during college vacation and after graduation worked in the shops and also in a designing office. 1696 Has been engaged by the Election Commissioners of Chicago to investigate voting machines on two occasions. The spring of 1908 and the fall of 1909. Witness assisted Professor Breckinridge on the commission of experts in 1907. Professor Breckinridge was professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Chicago and has since been transferred to Yale University, Sheffield Scientific School, where he is now. 1697 In 1907 the witness helped Professor Breckinridge on his report, and on the other two occasions made reports of his own. Witness' reports were adverse to the ma- chine. Witness has been employed to examine voting machines by the Legislative Investigating Committee. 1698 Witness has examined the machine at the Hotel LaSalle and the one at the hearing room. Witness began work for the Legislative Committee early in July and was requested to serve by Govej-nor Deneen. Witness Examines Empire Machine. 379 "Q. Did you, Mr. Olson and Professor Depuy prepare a statement as to the materials in that machine, its mech- anism and method of operation, that was read by Pro- fessor Depuy here the other day! A. Yes, sir." The witness has also helped to prepare instruments to obstruct the machine. 1699 A fraud can be committed with the wire clips. Wit- ness describes the clip and its purpose "that prohibits or rather, bars the key from being moved down by the voter." It is made the same color as the machine so as not to be readily discoverable. "Q. Do you know the instructions published here in reference to voting a split ticket! A. Yes, sir, I think the voter is instructed to east the ballot for the indi- vidual he wishes to vote for outside of his own party, and then move his linger and pressing down at the same time across the horizontal row of the party of his choice, 1700 and that might be that wire clip might restrict some of these keys and he may not notice it and may pass it up." This is liable to occur on group candidates especially. Witness prepared the wire clip which he has placed on the machine. Its purpose is to deprive the voter of his vote in the manner above described. 1701 Witness describes the angle steel obstruction for the voting slide in the independent column which prevents the shutter from being opened and the voter from voting. The thin edge of the strip only is presented to the voter and is hardly visible. 1702 The witness describes the rubber band device, its oper- ation and purpose to deprive the voter of his vote by returning the key to non-voting position after it is pressed down by the voter and before the voting-lever is pulled. Judges of election can keep track of voting and how individuals vote by watching the counters. The judges have charge of the key to the voting-lever, the key to the lock on the righthand end of the machine and to lock No. 3 on the back of the voting machine. The custodian has two keys, one to the lower rear door 1703 and the key locking the mechanism on the counters. The lower compartment contains most of the restric- tions. It does not contain the question restriction which is controlled by the judge. Witness describes the paper roll. The judge can draw 380 Frauds Possible on Empire Machine. the pawl from the ratchet controlling the paper roller en- abling the voter "who knows the condition of the ma- chine" to cast two votes. 1704 The judges are supposed to inspect the machine in the morning to see that all the counters stand at zero. There are 2127 coimters on the back of the machine. "These zeros are located on the individual wheels in- side of those counters, each counter having three count- ing wheels and are approximately 1 1/4 inches high and 1/8 inch wide with a red center, red enamel center, black—" 1705 Paper zeros may be pasted over the figures on the counters, confusing them. By the use of this device, one counter may be set ahead and one back. The custodian who has the keys to the locking counter could make one set of counters read 990 and another 10, the candidate whose counter was set at 990 starts ten below zero. After ten votes his counter would register nothing. The eleventh vote would be registered as one vote. The candidate whose counters were set at ten would start with ten votes before any votes were actually cast for him. 1706 The same fraud might be practiced upon the party-key. The judges could set the counters falsely if they had the key and break the seal on the counter lock. This is an or- dinary small wire and lead slug seal. Witness saw numbers but no identification marks on the seals he examined. 1707 It is not difficult to break such a seal or to replace it with another. The paper zeros put on the machine are slipped from the wheel in the operation of voting and drop into the bottom compartment to which the custodian is the only man who has access. This evidence of a fraud which he could commit would be in his own hands and could be easily removed by him. 1708-9 If the counters were set too far ahead or too far l>e- hind, the fraud might be discovered by inference or rea- soning but not by anything appearing on the machine. 1710 But if the counters were set so that enough votes were cast to reach and pass the zero mark on the counters which were set there would be no evidence whatever on the machine for the fraud. The machine would aflford no cheek against such a fraud. Empire Machine Does Not Record Vote Totals. 381 This particular fraud would be obviated by a voting , machine that has a ballot printing equipment. 1711 Witness describes a voting machine with a printing at- tachment and its operation, practically limiting frauds to the hours when the voting was in progress and elim- inating the custodian. Witness favors the party-lever. It expedites voting the split ticket and enables the count to be taken more quickly after the election is over. It does its own add- ing. 1712 Witness describes how the votes are added on the Em- pire machine. "A. The votes for the straight party must be added or, to put it another way, the votes of the individual can- didates must be added to those on the straight ballot keys. In the legislative vote, the reading on the counter must be multiplied by constants, depending on how the ticket is arranged on the face of the machine; also the straight vote given these candidates must be multiplied by con- stants, and then the results must be added to get the final result on the legislative candidates. "Q. On the face of the machine how does the name of the candidate appear? A. On that particular machine located in the room here, one man's name appears three times in the individual rows; a second candidate in the same party, taking the Republican, for instance, it ap- pears in three columns, and then there are two columns where the man's name appears just once; that gives each one of those last named 1 1/2 votes, and in the previous case, each man can get three votes, or you can split two for one and one for the second. 1713 "Q. Now, in the column there, referring to this legis- lative device, where it shows the Socialist ticket, and Pro- gressive ticket and Prohibition ticket, 1 1/2 votes, say Mr. Snite, 1 1/2 votes, and right aside of it is a blank. A. Yes, sir. ' ' Q. Now, if a voter voted the ticket and for Mr. Snite 1 1/2 votes, and then the next one to it 1 1/2 votes, which is blank, what would be counted ? A. 1 1/2 votes for Mr. Snite." Witness describes the manner of taking the vote off the Empire machine by judges and clerks ; the adding of the straight ticket to the split ticket, and so forth. The Empire machine cannot be equipped with, a party- lever without redesigning it. 382 Primary Lever Too Small. 1714 It would require a separate connection of each counter of which there are 700. As the Empire machine is equipped at present, the judge cannot prevent a voter from voting a party-key in the Independent row. Custodian's keys could be duplicated easily. 1715 Witness saw Professor Depuy duplicate keys. The Em- pire machine could be adjusted so that the voter can cast more than three votes for Representative in the General Assembly; it can be adjusted by the custodian so that a voter may cast any number of votes up to 6. This adjustment can be made in half a minute by re- moving the compensators on the back (bottom?) of the re- stricting device. 1716 The machine can be adjusted to permit the voter to vote his party ticket and also for some individual candi- date on the ticket at the same time. This adjustment can be made by the removing of the restricting clips ; the cus- todian can do it in two or three seconds. The machine has a device for primary voting. It is at the right hand end of the machine and is controlled by the judges and is so small that it may be covered by the judge's hand. It is hard to distinguish. 1717 If the operating lever of this device is placed by the judge at zero the voter can vote for any candidate regard- less of party. The compartment containing the operating mechanism of this device is accessible to the custodian and the judges. Watchers and challengers would be no check upon vot- ing outside of party affiliation and the machine would not indicate the fraud in any way. Witness and Professor Depuy and Mr. Olson did not think that the voting machine at the La Salle Hotel and the voting machine in the hearing room were properly set up "to give a true record of votes cast at the election of November, 1912, in Cook County." 1718 "Q. Will you describe to the Committee in what way you think they were not set up properly? A. I can't recall the party — "Q. Party row C, candidate column 22, name of candi- date for Representative was not repeated. A. In the two columns that are intended for voting 1 1/2 votes for each of two candidates for Representative in the General As- sembly, there only appears the name of one candidate in Testimony of 0. A. Leutwiler. 383 the particular party in question, and that name is not re- peated. If a voter comes into the machine and wishes to vote a split ticket but wishes to give the particular candi- date of that party three votes, if he follows instructions of moving the keys down for split candidates and then runs his finger along the row, he would come to the par- ticular keys for 1 1/2 votes first depressing that key which would cut him out from voting three votes for that particular candiate. If he does not inspect the ma- chine very carefully, he is deprived of 1 1/2 votes for that particular candidate. "Q. That is true on row C, column 22, you stated? A. Yes, sir. * ' Q. On key 22-C ? A. It appears on two other rows. "Q- -^iid then on rows D and F; the same conditions prevail. A. Yes, sir. "Q. You think the candidate lost 1 1/2 votes that way? A. Yes, sir. 1719 "Q Because it would not be registered? A. Yes, sir. "Q. There is nothing on the rear of the machine to identify it with a blank ? A. No, sir. ' ' To register a vote the voting-key must be pressed down 3/8 of an inch. If pressed down only 9/32 of an inch the vote will not be registered. This may easily occur in run- ning the finger over the keys across the horizontal rows and the voter thus will be deprived of a vote. "Q. I will ask you whether candidates suffer on a group ticket; for instance. County Commissioners' ticket, where a man votes an irregular ticket, outside of his party column? A. In that particular group? "Q. Yes, how would he suffer in that regard? A. After voting for the candidates he wished to select, out- .1720 side of his own party, and then runs his finger along the particular row representing the party of his choice, he will strike the right hand end first and the candidates on the left hand end may be deprived of a vote. "Q. And the one on the right hand end is sure to get it? A. Yes." Witness imderstands that the International machine has an encased lock which prevents access to the lock during the time the machine is in operation. Has never seen it and cannot describe its mechanism. 1721 The channels on the face of the Empire machine fur- nish ready means of applying clips, wires and other re- strictive fraudulent devices. 384 . Empire Not a Good Machine. "Q. Would you regard a voting machine offering as many possibilities of fraud on the part of the custodian on the part of the judges and on the part of the voter, as a satisfactory voting machine or as one complying with the requirements of the voting macliine law that tamper- ing with or manipulating the registering mechanism for any fraudulent purpose shall be absolutely prevented? A. I certainly should not consider it as a good machine." Cross-Examination hy Mr. McEwen. Witness thinks the last question applies to the Empire voting machine and gives it as his opinion that it does not comply with the law and is not a satisfactory ma- chine, in that it is not absolutely secure against tamper- ing. 1722 The witness' testimony has largely followed an outline prepared by himself, Professor Depuy, Mr. Olson and Governor Deneen. Witness thinks his answers represent his independent judgment in all cases. 1723 Witness is an Independent in politics leaning toward Progressive and if not progressive (before the days of?), toward the Republicans. Witness entered the University's employ in the fall of 1903 and has been there since. Is assistant professor of machinery design. 1724 Witness assisted Professor Breckinridge in his report, but never read it. 1725 The following year when ax;ting as expert he did not follow the outline of that report, but a paper provided by the Election Commissioners. Witness also had a supplementary table which he pre- pared because he did not think the Commissioners' table was just what it ought to be. In 1908 witness followed these questions: " Q. In 1908 you said in your report : ' The writer hav- ing given Professor Breckinridge some assistance in the first examination of the voting machines submitted to your Board in November, 1907, cannot help but remark on the improvement made on some of the machines since that time. The question immediately arises, Why will they not continue to improve until the fraud and manipu- lation of the machine mentioned in the foregoing section of this report will be entirely eliminated. Until this is 1726 accomplished the Board of Election Commissioners of Former Examin-ations of Voting Machines. 385 the Citj- of Chicago would be entirely justified in post- poning purchasing a voting machine, in the opinion of the writer a machine that comes nearest to fulfilling all of the conditions required of the machine and carrying out the requirements.' Those words expressed your views in 1908! A. Those were my views at that time, yes, sir." In the examination of 1907 witness gave the Columbia 100% and fixed the percentages of the other machines at less than 100. 1727 The grades were all made relative to the Columbia which was deemed the best machine. Witness cannot recall whether the (Columbia had a party-key and the United States Standard a party-lever. The witness at that time recognized the party-lever and the party-key question as an important one, but there were other objections and he didn't deem it necessary to put all in his report. If the report so states, he at that time gave the prefer- ence to a machine with a party-key as against one with a party-lever. 1728 Witness does not remember enough to recognize in the Empire machine the features of the Columbia, United States Standard and Dean machines. 1729 When obstructions, such as clips, wires, wedges and so forth are placed on the face of a machine, a voter may or may not discover that they are fraudulent. 1730 The rubber band fraud depends on the voter not ob- serving it. The witness has tried rubber bands on all the machines he examined. Witness recalls a machine in which the voting-key made a complete revolution and practically abolished the use of rubber bands. 1732 It is probably true that the voting machine examined by the witness was susceptible of some restrictions by rubber bands, wedges, springs, clips, and so forth. Witness thinks he could devise a restriction-proof key. 1734 "Q. Well now, would you reject that machine, or any voting machine because of what could be done by way of restrictive clips or rubber bands on the face of the ma- chine? A. I should say it would influence me very much." 1735 It will be necessary in any voting machine mechanism to move a key to start the voting mechanism. 1736 Witness thinks the angle steel restriction in the inde- pendent voting slides is an objection to the machine. 386 Testimony of 0. A. Leutwiler. Witness is asked whether he would reject the machine on that account, and says "It would be one of the points that should be considered very seriously." 1737 The judge who removes the pawl from the ratchet con- trolling the paper roller, breaks a law if he is manipulat- ing the machine for fraudulent purposes. Opening the rear door to do this would stop voting for the time being. A vote on the paper roll at a primary election is identi- fied by perforation in the roll. 1738 Fraudulent writing in name in the paper roll would show no perforation. It would deprive the honest voter from writing any names on the paper roll because the slack produced by the fraudulent vote would not be taken up. 1740 Witness thinks the judge could remove the pawl with- out being observed by others in the polling place in the morning. 1741 During the voting, to do this might require co-operation and acquiescence of everybody. The zero position of the primary device is provided to permit the use of the ma- chine in general elections. For primary elections the zero can be locked out by an attachment hook inside the ma- chine with a seal on it. 1742 The judges can open the middle door and break this seal. A party watcher might not know that the machine was set at zero or what could be done when so set. The observer has to be very close to the machine to see where the primary-lever is set, within one or two feet, probably. 1743 The primary-lever is about 3 1/2 to 4 inches long; the numbers are apart about 3/4 of an inch; maybe an inch. The witness sees no objection to a longer lever con- structed properly so that a voter could see where it was set. In this machine a longer lever might protrude out too far. 1744 If properly set, the party-lever restricts the voter to the party of his choice. The party-lever may be moved by the judge up to the point when the voting-lever is moved by the voter. 1746 Witness thinks the voting machine should be fraud- proof and that although a fraud may be instantly detect- able, it is still an objection to the machine. i Testimony of 0. A. Leutwiler. 387 1747 The restriction on proposition voting is somewhat sim- ilar to the restriction on primary voting, the judge being given an opportunity to restrict the proposition. There is a device for this purpose and it is operated by the judges. 1748 The protection against improper manipulation by the judges is watchers and persons in the polling place. 1749 The custodian can most easily place paper zeros on the counters but the judges could do it if they had the keys, though with more trouble, to set some candidates ahead and falsify the final count. This would require the judges' and custodian's key, and might be done in such 1750 a way during the night or in the morning as to deceive the other judge. It could not be honestly done with the machine honest- ly adjusted and the custodian's key in the hands of the custodian unless that the judges had duplicate keys for making which he would have to have the original key. 1751 As a protection against paper zeros on counters, wit- ness suggests the printing voting machine device. Witness doubts very much if "rigid inspection by hon- est judges would discover the paper zeros." 1752 The judges and clerks might puncture them with a pointed instrument. Witness has seen a sample ballot printed on a printing voting machine and does not think the device a crude one but did not notice all the figures on the ballot. 1755 Witness thinks it would be very difficult to put an ob- struction on the printing type that could not be discov- ered when an impression was taken. A dishonest judge might use some device to change the figures on a printing machine, an 8 to a zero, or a 9 to a six. Witness thinks there should be about four prints taken off. 1757 If you have a party-bar on a machine of the Empire type it is necessary to have a party bar run through the whole length of the machine with points projecting to en- gage the counter mechanism opposite each name or each office line. Cumulative voting would require the use of 12 office lines if a full set of three candidates were nominated ; if two candidates, less space. 1758 It might be necessary to change the party-bar and the 388 Witness Favors a Party Lever. engaging points with a change from year to year in the number of legislative candidates. 1759 These difficulties were considered in 1907 and 1909 by the experts. 1760 Witness was not present at the so-called "knock fest," but read about it. The difference between a party-key and a party-lever is well worth considering. Qualified men may differ as to the merit of the two. "Q. I want to call your attention to question 2 on the questions prepared by the judge, that were used by Pro- fessor Breckenridge in 1907 and by you in 1908 under the head of 'Simplicity of Operation.' In voting a straight ticket you gave the American 100 and you gave the Co- lumbia 100 and you gave the U. S. Standard 90, the U. S. Standard had a party-lever and the Columbia had a party-key; at that time you did not consider a party-key objectionable? A. Not necessarily, no." 1761 The party-lever always added to the difficulty in the matter of pounds ' pull. Some machines had a pull of over 50 pounds. Witness did not measure the pull. Witness has changed his mind somewhat since 1908 but has always favored a party-lever. They may give a machine with a party-key the highest grading in his report of 1908. Afternoon Session. Wednesday, August 6, 1913. 1764 0. A. Leutwilee, resumed the stand: Further Cross-Examination hy Mr. McEwen. 1765 In the case of the printing voting machine it might be possible for dishonest judges and clerks to put a strip of paper between the counters and the printing ribbon and prevent the taking of an impression and afterwards print- ing in with a rubber stamp a false record of the counters. If the machine were properly designed the witness does not think that an impression of the Governor's vote could be transferred to that of Lieutenant-Governor or vice versa. ^ Testimony of 0. A. Leutwiler. 389 1766 The witness has seen an impression that he understood was taken from a printing machine on a paper ballot. The substitution by a rubber stamp of a cipher for an 8 or a cipher for a 6 by making an erasure should be dis- coverable. There are certain types of 6's which can be changed to zero, but probably a 6, as ordinarily constructed, could not be so changed. Witness thinks the same as to the figure 9. 1767 The Empire machine, when properly set, will work properly ; otherwise not, and when the machine is set im- properly it works precisely according to the false setting. If it is set for four votes for Representative you can only vote four, and so forth. Same is true of all lock-outs and grouping devices. 1768 As to the failure to repeat the name of a candidate for Representative on the machine at the Hotel La Salle and in the hearing room, and the leaving of a blank in the 1 and 1 1/2 vote columns, witness thinks the name should have been repeated. It is not a mechanical imperfection of the machine. Witness thinks that the instructions from the Election Commissioners' office to the judges to count 3 votes for a man with 1 1/2 votes to his name and 1 1/2 votes voted in blank, might authorize the judges to count 3 votes for him ; it would be a question of construction as to what the voter intended. From the evidence of rust in the machine at the Hotel La Salle, the witness concludes that the Empire machine did not use exactly the right material. 1769 The strip running from the key to the restricting wedge was not covered with a protective coating. This was ap- parently an oversight. The horizontal bar that contains the restricting spaces also has rough spots and irregularities here and there along its entire length. 1770 Witness did not see a rusty space about four or five inches long and 3/16 inch wide on top of the cliannel bar, only saw irregi;lar spot. The rust spot matter was discussed between witness and Mr. Depuy and Mr. Olson, 1771 but did not count them. The rust spots are reddish brown in color with white along the edges and looks as if it was coming out of the coating. Witness also saw another spot at the top of the machine on one of these levers. 390 If Custodian, Witness Could Falsify Election. 1772 How long it would take such corrosion to "put the ma- chine out of business" depends on what it is caused hy. The occurrence of spots causes witness to think that the material of the machine was not chosen properly. Witness has had no time to examine the machine in the hearing room, but has noticed no signs of corrosion. Witness never examined as good a machine as the Em- pire machine exhibited here this year. 1773 Witness has no objection to a party-lever. 1774 Witness does not know whether the key which will not vote when pulled down 9/32 of an inch and will when pulled down 11/32 will vote at 10/32. Witness thinks the machine can be improved consid- erably by having a smooth front. Witness does not think a voter who cannot read or write and needed instructions how to vote could vote in a minute. It is as easy to defraud on the machine as the paper ballot if the officers are in collusion. 1775 Witness doubts whether or not a number of custodians from each party would prevent frauds on the machine, but that it would eliminate a good deal of fraud. Witness thinks a fraudulent restricting device might be put on a key to permit it to go down 9/32 of an inch, and give the voter the impression he had voted when in fact he had not. 1776 It is a general truth that any machine designed by one man is susceptible by manipulation by another. The instructions to voters for voting a split ticket to vote first for candidates outside of their party and then run their finger along the party row, were instructions that the experts had for the old machines. 1777 Witness has seen no instructions to voters for machines purchased by the Election Commissioners. Witness received no instructions to voters for the ma- chine at the Hotel La Salle or the one at the hearing room. Witness thinks if he were custodian and had sufficient time, he could produce any result he desired at the fol- lowing election and could cheat 30,000 or 50,000 or any number of votes in the course of an election. It would be possible to fill the General Assembly with 1778 Representatives from Cook County elected fraudu- lently, who would then pass upon the integrity of their own election. Means of Doing This on Empire. 391 In accomplisliing what he has recited, the witness, as custodian, could fix the counters, pull out the pawl on the paper roll at the top, leave out restricting wedges, manipulate the legislative device, and in that way, with the number of machines required in Chicago, it would mount up very fast. Witness thinks the paper zeros used to set some coun- 1779 ters ahead and other counters back would be discovered in some instances. But "enough would pass to cause quite a disturbance." The removal of restricting wedges to permit 6 votes to be cast for Representative might not be disQOvered by the first 10, 15 or 100 voters. Even after the present investigation and the publicity given to it, the witness believes that the voting machine can be manipulated to a certain extent and change the result of an election within certain limits. 1780 Witness thinks it possible that such a fraud might be perpetrated in a majority of the precincts in Chicago; 1781 though, possibly, the majority of the machines might not come to the election without being discovered. By setting counters back of zero, a custodian can steal a number of votes from an individual candidate ; sheriff, for instance; but with a machine properly set he cannot prevent a key pulled into voting position from register- ing a vote for such candidate. The counters register positively. 1782 The general changing of the result of an election would depend upon the paper zeros and putting on restrictive clips on an individual candidate. If the judges are instructed to look out for paper zeros the witness thinks they would discover them if all the judges did as instructed. To perpetrate a fraud, w'itness would not alter the construction of the machine. 1783 If the machine was set so as to permit 6 votes to be cast for Representative this could be done by voters in the party but it might not be designed to be known by the voters of all parties. Knowledge by voters of one party that the machine was mis-set to permit 6 votes for Representative could be taken advantage of to favor w'et candidates or dry candidates, or corporation measures or anything else. 1785 With a thousand machines in use and each machine 392 Difficulty of Detection. mis-set a party could be defrauded of 50,000 votes in Cook County. In order to detect the false zeros the judges would have to inspect with a sharp instrument 2,167 registers on each machine. Witness does not think a judge could do this between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. 1786 It would be possible to paint zeros over the face of the counters instead of using paper zeros and have plenty of time to remove them before the next election. Witness states that in putting on paper zeros he curled them a little at the top so that in turning they would strike a small pin and be stripped to fall to the bottom of the machine. 1787 Zeros painted over the counters by the custodian would require a necessary time either to do the work alone or that the men wdth him were as dishonest as he. 1788 Aluminum zeros might be glued on over the face of the counters with metal cement. 1789 The paper zero used by witness was pasted over the counter with dextrine, a material similar to that used on postage stamps, and is stripped off before the counter makes a complete revolution. Witness thinks the openings were too small to permit the paper zeros to be swept from the machine by a stiff brush. A paper zero can be put on in such a way that it would adhere to the face of the counter all day and so cheat the fraud perpetrator out of 50 or lOO votes, but not if they were put on correctly. In the fall of 1908 witness reported on the Empire, Triumph, Wilcox and Winslow voting machines. Wit- ness cannot recall the details of this examination. 1791 Witness thinks that in that report he said of the Em- pire machine, something like "The general design of this machine is probably the best of any machine the writer examined." Witness thinks that is true now. 1792 Witness has never been judge or clerk of election, or challenger or watcher or candidate. 1793 Has never lived in Chicago and knows nothing of elec- tion conditions in Chicago except what he reads. 1794 Witness has heard that a judge who knows the voter of opposite politics might neglect to put the judge's ini- tials on the ballot and so disfranchise him. 1795 Witness does not know about workers outside of poll- Testimony of 0. A. Leutwiler. 393 ing places giving marked ballots to voters who voted, in- stead of the ballot given them by the judges, which they return to the worker, who pays them a dollar for every vote; has heard something of it. 1796 To examine every counter with a sharp instrument, the judges would have to examine 36 7/60 counters per minute. 1798 Grading a machine at 100 does not mean it is perfect, but only that it is the best machine according to which the grades of other machines are fixed. Witness gave a grade of 95% to a party-lever and 100% to a party-key machine because it is mechanically easier to press a key than to pull a lever. "Q. But the key does not add the voting in the rear which the lever does? A. It adds for that particular vote but not for the split vote. "Q. Yes. Referring to the part of the machine, the 1799 lower part, the key to which is kept by the custodian, and where the clips are stored and used, I will ask you whether those clips are separate or placed on a string or bar? A. The lower row of restricting clips are in units. "Q. In units? A. Separate units. "Q. Separate units'? A. Yes. "Q. Should they be otherwise? A. Why, in my mind they ought to be. "Q. Why? A. Because the way that machine is now built it looks as if it is just built to manipulate by the custodian." 1800 Witness is shown the original notes of his examina- tion of the Empire machine in 1909 and reads from the notes the number of the machine "Empire 3592." The machine was made by the Empire company at Rochester, New York. 1801 In all the witness' reports he advised the Election Com- missioners not to purchase voting machines. Witness knew of the people's voting in favor of the machine but did not find a machine adaptable to condi- tions here. Witness understood that the people wanted a machine 1802 that would comply with the Illinois ballot law and ad- vised the Election Commissioners that the machine did not comply with its requirements. 1803 Witness will not say that in his report of 1909 lie stated in those words that the machine did not comply with the state law, but he found the machine defective. 394 Testimony of F. Keiper. 1804 "Q. You seem to have said at one time 'The question immediately arises, why should not the voting machine continue to improve until the fraudulent manipulation mentioned in the foregoing sections of this report will be entirely eliminated. Until this is accomplished the Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago would be entirely justified in postponing the purchase of voting machines.' In the previous section you refer, as I take it, as applied to the Winslow voting machine, and you refer to some defects in the machine. Was not it in your mind in thest reports that the possibilities of fraud- ulent manipulation, you thought were too great to justify the purchase of machines? A. Yes, sir. "Q. You do not mean to tell us that you took the ma- chine and put it alongside the statute, that is, tried it up with the statute and examined it as to each one of the requirements of the statutes? A. I do not understand the question. "Q. I say, you did not test that machine with reference to the statute, did vouf A. Well, in a general way I did." 1806 Witness knows of no lock the key of which cannot be imitated if you had the original key. 1808 ' ' The Chaibman. The record will show that counsel for the Committee called Mr. Keiper. "Mr. McEwEN. Yes, and I will tender him as my wit- Fbank Keiper: 1809 Direct Examination by Mr. McEwen. Lives at Rochester, New York. Is a patent attorney; 1810 was Assistant Examiner of Patents in tht Patent Office from 1894 to 1899, the last two years was assigned to registering machines, principally voting machines. 1811 Witness left the Patent Office to be employed by the . U. S'. Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, New York, in 1899, and was with that company until 1910, when the company was merged into the U. S. Standard Company. Witness was patent attorney for the latter company Avhich was merged into the Empire Company in 1908 and has been patent attorney for the Empire Company ever since. I Knows AU Types of Voting Machines. 395 Witness is familiar with the^ different types of voting machines, through the study of all the patents which have been issued by the United States on voting ma- chines. There are very few foreign patents on voting machines. 1812 Witness has written a number of voting machine laws and has looked after all of the general litigation in which the voting machine company has been interested and has contributed to the construction of the machine. 1813 Witness has also attended many places where voting machines have been installed and exhibited, and super- intended their use in elections. Witness is the inventor of the inter-lock on the Empire voting machine which is not used in any voting machine except the Empire and United States Standard, in which it has been used since 1903. A plate on the Empire machine shows the number of patents which have been issued which are in use in that machine. These are owned by the Empire Machine Com- pany. 1814 Witness has seen a number of machines which print a vote before and after election. The idea is an old one, but nobody has ever made it work so that they wanted to try it a second time. It has never been used and stayed in use for more than one election. Witness saw the International machine exhibited be- fore the Chicago Election Board in Novembeer, 1907. The counter wheels in this machine have raised figures on them. 1815 In the International the printing was done by an inked ribbon the full width of the counter frame and covered the 7-party rows, as witness' impression is. A tally-sheet was placed over the ribbon and a roller or some device was fastened over the paper so as to force it down in contact with the ribbon so that an im- pression could be made upon the paper. 1816 A printed impression could be taken by inking, of course, on the counter-wheels and witness has the im- pression that the old Ellis machine was operated in that way. None of the Ellis machines was sold. The objection to the copying ribbon method of printing is that there was no uniformity or reliability of its im- pression and a certain amount of skill was required in 396 Objections to "Printing" Machines. taking the copy, which was. beyond the skill of the average Election Board member. Ink ribbons would have to be renewed every year or they would dry out and the impression would not be made or would be very irregular; also that dirt would accumulate in the raised figures, making the printing 1817 blur. It was necessary also to take a separate impression of each row of keys instead of the whole face of the ma- chine, because, in the latter case it would be certain that the roller would not make an impression of some of the counters because they did not line up evenly. Each counter has tlaree wheels and if there is any variation in the counter-wheels there is a faint impression on one side and a heavy impression on the other, and in some cases no impression at all. 1818 Where there was a slight impression there would be an opportunity for change in figures which could be duplicated with an ordinary rubber stamp. A blank could be made in the impression at any point desired by holding up the roller at that particular point. After taking an impression, if a single counter has not printed the work has all to be done over again. 1819 The International machine had a horizontal keyboard which was detached from the counter frame aud the ma- chine had to be turned over to get at the counters for printing purposes. If the carbon paper is damp it will smear the paper. The old Davis voting machine, built in Rochester, in 1895, had a party-lever by the operation of which all the voting keys were thrown into voting position at a single stroke. The Columbia, the United States, Standard and the Dean machine go to make the Empire voting machine. 1820 The Columbia operated with a party-key; the United States Standard with a party-lever; the Dean had a party-lever. Witness just now thinks of but one advantage to a party-lever ; that it throws all the keys to voting position at a single operation, and would take perhaps three or four seconds in voting a straight ticket on the individual key. It would have some advantage, also, in voting a split ticket. The relative advantages of party-levers and party- Objections to Party Lever. 397 keys were discussed before the Chicago Election Commis- sioners in 1907. 1821 The party-lever is especially objectionable in the State of Illinois because of the great size of the ticket on ac- count of the great strain produced on the machine by moving all the keys in a single operation and the liability to strain the interlocking mechanism unless the machine is specially protected. Witness describes how a voter could pull the party- lever and vote a straight ticket, throw back the key for Governor and vote the key for Governor in the next party 1822 row, and then pull the party-lever again throwing the whole leverage of the party-lever on the single key and on the interlock. Under such circumstances, unless the interlocking de- vices in the machine were made very strong, there is a chance of breaking something. "Witness describes the mechanism of the U. S. Stand- ard machine which had a party-lever, and "was built very heavy in those parts so that there would not be any danger of the party-lever injuring the parts inside the machine." The party-lever necessitates additional parts in the macliine and thus adds to its weight. "A. Those are additional parts in the machine and contribute to the weight and complexity of the machine, I should not regard those as a very serious objection, but the most serious objection to the use of a party-lever in the Illinois voting machine arises on account of the 1823 cumulative voting, the party-lever must move all of the keys in the party line to a voting position at a single stroke, and you will observe from the setting of this machine with its cumulative voting attachment on it that it is impossible in the eight keys that are given up to the Representative candidates on any party-row to oper- ate any more than two or three of them and the rest of them are locked; if you vote 1| votes each you can vote two keys, if you vote one vote each you can vote three keys, but that is all out of the eight keys for which the machine might be set. You could not have more than three or two according to the Avay in which you voted. The balance of the keys would remain locked, the fact that they must remain locked pulls the party locks so that they cannot be operated. To overcome that you 398 Testimony of F. Keiper. must make a special adjustment in the party lock for every election, you have to disconnect it, so to speak, the two keys, that is the keys outside of the straiglit ticket, for that party, from the party-lever. If the party has nominated two candidaes he will connect up two keys counting one and one-half votes each to the party-lever, and must disconnect all of the other keys belonging to that party from the party-lever. If the party has nom- inated three candidates then you must connect up to the party lever the three candidates that have been nominated by that party and disconnect all of the other keys in that party row from the party-lever, otherwise the party- lever will not operate. Now in the election last fall that cumulative vote came in one part of the machine and in the election two years from now it would occur in a dif- ferent part of the machine so that the provision that was 1824 made on the party lever or party bars for that election would necessarily have to be different from what it would be for the next election. I understood that some judges are elected in this state at intervals of six years, is that the extreme? Q. That is right. A. There are candidates for four and there are candidates for two, and that rotation of candidates keeps the sequence of candidates in the se- quence of offices recurring in different arrangements, so that the arrangement that is made for the ticket in this year would not be susceptible for the ticket two years hence. I will say that the party bars that are used on the Empire machine, that are otherwise similar in con- struction to these, are bars that are cut just as I cut this strip of paper, it is a solid bar and its teeth are ar- ranged on there. The bar runs from one end of that machine to the other, and it has teeth at intervals on the bar. It is possible to make a bar in which these teeth are detachable, but if they are detachable there is the danger they will work loose in the election and if they are removed for one election they may not get back for 1825 the next. It adds a complex proposition to the setting of the machine, and that I believe, Avould be more com- plex than anything else that has yet been discussed in connection with the preparation of these machines for. elections. If these bars were to be used on Illinois ma- chines, it would be my recommendation that the bars be removed from the machine in each election and that a Party Lever and Cumulative Voting. 399 special bar be inserted in eacli machine for each elec- tion, because I believe that would be the only safe way to do it. If a single one of these lugs or teeth were to get out of place during the election there would be proper cause for the criticism of the election or election ma- chines in Illinois. What is more, if they are left off the bars we might hear from the last three experts, there would be that possibility of the custodian leaving one or more of them off designedly, these party bars could only be removed from the machine through a hole at the end of the case. If you will look at the case of that machine you will see near the bottom of it a cover plate, that plate covers a hole in the side of the machine through which the resetting bar was inserted after the machine had other\vise been finished, but that resetting bar could not be put into the machine until all of the interlocking devices and straps have been put in, then the resetting bar goes through the slot in the bottom of the machine, and then there must be a hole put in the side of the ma- chine to get that bar in. If a party-lever machine was 1826 designed for the €ity of Chicago, I would say that a bar would have to be made especially for every elec- tion, which would have to be put in the machine that way and connected up with the party-lever and you would not know how to prepare those bars for the machine until after the nominations had been closed, and until, in fact, after all of the legal questions that might be incident to the printing of the ballot had been settled by the courts, and sometimes those details are delayed within, say, ten days of the election. The ballots cannot be given to the printer for printing until that late date, although the law may provide for nominations thirty days in advance of election. Still, these controversies arising over the nominations of candidates might come in, and in the last moment interfere with the preparation of the machine until the court has passed on those questions. Such a question might be very easily raised as to the legality of the nomination of the candidates for Assembly as to whether there were two or three nominated, especially when they are nominated by petition. 1827 The Empire company manufactured a machine with a party-lever, but Illinois is the only state that has cumu- lative voting which is the objection to building a voting machine with a party-lever for Illinois. 400 No Advantage Ufdimited Inspections. 1828 Witness further describes the difficulties of construct- ing a voting machine with a party-lever adapted to meet- ing the variations in cumulative voting. An authoritative statement as to where the cumulative ballot would have to be located on the voting machine was made to County Judge Einaker in 1907 when the matter was discussed at great length. 1829 On the subject of limited number of inspections by the judges, the witness testified that the Empire Com- pany owns the Dean patent on locks for limiting inspec- tion but does not use them on the machines it manufac- tures. Witness knows of no advantage to limited inspec- tions. 1831 If all the judges are not at the polling place until after the hour of the beginning of the election you could not inspect the machine under a limited inspection system. The Dean machine, which at first used the limited in- spection lock, got rid of them very quickly on account of this sort of trouble. 1832 The locks used on the Empire machine are not made by the company, they are purchased. The rubber band can be used more successfully on a party-lever than on a party-key machine, because the voter votes all the keys at once and is less apt to notice a restriction on one of them. In witness' opinion, the rubber band is not considered a practical method of fraud. 1833 The Columbia voting machine had a key which, when voted, made a complete revolution. The movement was partly the result of the impulse given to it by the voter and partly to an impulse communicated by the mechanism of the machine, which at the same time moved the keys not voted 60 or 80 or 90 degrees of a circle, and then back again to their original position. 1834 Witness does not think this design of voting key is better adapted to prevent the use of rubber bands than the Empire key. The voting key on the Empire machine has been made smaller and smoother for the convenience of the voter. The witness has never attached any great significance to restricting devices like wire clips, pins and rubbers. Testimony of F. Keiper. 401 Morning Session. Thursday, August 7, 1913. 1837 Fbank Kkipee resumed the stand: Further Direct Examination hy Mr. McEtven. 1839 Witness has had considerable experience in the hold- ing of elections with voting machines at Rochester, New York, at Middletown, New York, at Buffalo, New York, Cornellsville, New York, San Jose, California, and Terre Haute, Indiana. Witness was never at South Bend, In- diana, for an election. 1840 Restricting devices which prevent action of the key- have never been used at an election where the witness was present and had personal means of observation. 1841 Counters cannot be changed without taking a machine apart. They are standard decimal counters made by Veeder of Hartford. 1842 The Veeder counter is generally used; it was used by the Columbia and Dean machines, the Standard and United States Standard. Witness cannot see any way of lightening a machine of the Empire type without sacrificing efficiency. In the course of its development it has been substan- tiall}^ reduced in weight, and according to witness pres- ent knowledge of voting machines has reached about the limit of lightness. 1S43 Other means than the power of the voter on a lever have been used to actuate the mechanism of voting ma- chines. 1844 Air, electricity and liquids. These are not practical, because air, electricity and liquids are not positive in their action and are condemned for the same reason that operation by springs would be condemned. The question how far a voting key should be moved in order to register a vote has been carefully considered by the witness. The size of the key depends on the size of the ma- chine. 1845 The size of the key on the Empire machine is deter- mined by the size of the machine itself and has been made as small as the convenience of the voter, the print- ing of the ballot label and the dimensions of the inter- locking mechanism will permit. 402 Testimony of F. Keiper. 1846 "A. The channel that has been referred to is the channel in which the labels are held, this channel is made purposely deep so that it will lap the ballot labels in place; if the channel was not made purposely deep and was not provided with the locking mechanism in it, which is accommodated with that check, the ballot labels would not be locked, and they could be moved, under the label holder so that the label for judge, or for Governor, rather, might be moved down to the Secretary of State key, which, of course, would put the machine out of ad- justment and would mislead the voter in voting. Now, the front of the machine is composed of a steel plate which is pierced with a number of holes in which the keys are pivoted, and the keys have heads in them which stand up from the keys proper, so that the key itself will swing free over that ballot label, and this, of course, leaves a space between the back of the key and the plate, that label holder or channel, as you speak of it, could not 1847 be made thinner and lie closer to the front plate of the machine without sacrificing the important advantage of locking the ballot labels in it, it could not be sunk in the front plate without greatly increasing the cost and diffi- culty of building the machine itself, and I don't think — wait a minute, — read the question again. (Question read.) "A. — I don't think they can be left off, and either pre- serve the efficiency of the machine or comply with the law; that is, it would not be practicable." The Empire machines have all been manufactured at Jamestown, New York, as also were all the United States Standard machines. If an Empire machine bore a name-plate with the words "Rochester, New York," it was because the offices of the company were located at Rochester, New York, up to 1910. They are now located at Jamestown. 1848 Witness is asked as to the adaptability of the Empire machine to primary elections in Chicago and as to the grouping of candidates and says, "A. I think that 100 names can be carried in one group and probably more." "Q. Do you think you could put on the number of names that were printed on a ballot in the 1912 primary, assuming that there were about 450 names. A. It de- pends on how those names were distributed among the parties. If you will let me see the items of the distribu- I The Empire Machine in Primary Elections. 403 tion of the names among the parties I will tell you, other- wise I will not. There was such a list here that I saw." 1849 The witness states the limitations of the machine as to use in primary elections, "A. In a primary election, each party must have at least one party row and it must have as many more as are necessary to carry all of the candidates, that may be nominated. The small parties that will make few nomi- nations would be accommodated with a single row each, other parties that make a large number of nomina- tions would have to have two or more party rows, accord- ing to the number of nominations which they might make, and the number of nominations in a single office might determine the number of party rows that any one party might require. If the Republican Party had 44 nominations for the office of County Commissioner and four party lines were given to that party, then those 44 names would have to be put on 11 office rows and the 11 office lines grouped in one group and that would work on that machine all right. "Q. Will you just explain what an office line is, as it has been used here? A. An office line is a single column of keys on the machine, there are 9 keys on an office line, plus the slide on top. "Q. An office line includes all of the keys in that line? A. It does. 1850 "Q. If the ballot were too large for one machine, is there any way it could be spread on two machines? A. Why, each party could be put on a separate machine. "Q. Each group of parties on each machine ? A. Yes, the Republicans with several of the minor parties could be put on one machine and the Democrats with several minor parties on another machine, and both machines could be worked simultaneously by the different voters." 1854 The primary lock-out on the Empire machine could be arranged so as to be worked by the voter, the witness thinks the present construction affords sufficient protec- tion against the judges' wrongful act. They are as large as they need be for convenient operation and to make them easily visible to everybody; if made larger they might be broken off in handling. Some parts connected with the paper roll mechanism could be changed without the custodian's key and some parts in the counter compartment could be changed with- out the custodian's key by breaking a seal. 404 "Paper Zero" Fraud Easily Detected. 1855 "Q. Well, what of them are protected by the key? A. The setting of the counters and the setting of the grouping pins and the setting of the wings on the lock- out that is operated by the ticket key and the lock-out that is ordinarily called the 'woman's lock-out' and the lock-out for locking the unused party rows, those are all controlled by the custodian's key." The primary lock-out is controlled by a seal. These seals bear evidence of whether they remain intact and are used by railroads all over the country. 1856 The Independent column can be locked if it is desired by wiring it from within. If the interlocking straps of any two keys are wired together neither can be moved. Witness saw the so-called rough spots on the Em- pire machine at the La Salle Hotel. They were at the interlocking channel at the bottom of the machine, and witness believes they were due to something that was done to the machine at the factory. 1857 They had the outline of something splashed on the machine and dropped and were too deep-seated to be of recent origin. Witness inspected the counters on that machine with a pointed instrument. He timed himself and went over all the counter-wheels in a party-row in three minutes and six seconds. Tested each wheel separately. 213 wheels in all. 1858 That is about 1/10 of the machine. Later witness used a 3-pronged fork and tested three wheels simul- taneously. — He made this inspection three or four times as fast as by the other method. Witness does not regard paper zeros as a practical method of fraud. 1859 Witness produces the ordinary fork used, an ordinary oyster fork. It can be easily used with the prongs bent to fit so as to strike the centers exactly. Witness has heard of other restrictive devices used during the present hearing on the machine, except the block pins. The paper zero device is old and the criminal sections of the law especially provide for it. * Witness describes the mechanical movements in the mechanism of the machine Avhich are caused by casting a straight ticket and a split ticket respectively. Empire Machine Meets Illinois Law. 405 1861 Witness has read the statute of the State of Illinois which specifies the requirements of the voting machine. 1862 Witness says that the Empire machine complies with all the requirements of the statute. "Mr. McEwEN. Q. We have here a portion of the ballot of 1912 in the primary of that year; I was mistaken as to the number, the number is 594; the ballot of 1908 was the one I had in mind; that was considerable less in size. Taking the Democratic ballot, can you readily tell by looking at that how much of the machine that would take up ! (Witness examines the ballot handed him.) The Witness. What is the question! (Question read.) A. I think it would take up six party rows on the ma- chine. Q. Have you counted the number of names on that ballot? A. There are 303 names, and place for one more. Mr. McBwEN. That gives the Democratic Party over half of the ballot. Q. Now, will you look at the Kepublican ballot for 1863 the same election and state how much space that would take. A. I will add to the preceding answer that I want to further consider this Democratic ballot carefully be- fore I would want to say that it would not take seven; I believe from the calculation that I have already made that it would not take 7, that 6 would do, but I am quite sure that six would be needed. The Chairman. For the Democratic ticket! The Witness. Yes. If you want me to take the time I ■will see whether seven will be needed, but it will take more calculation. Mr. McEwEN. I suggest that you iiot take any more time on that, but this noon you can check over your fig- ures and if there is any correction to be made we can do it afterwards. The Witness. Wliat is the question? (Question read.) A. It would probably require three party rows, it might be put on two, but I doubt it. The Chairman. Q. How many? A. It will probably require three. The Chairman. Q. Six for the Democratic, you say? 406 1912 Primary Ticket Requires Two Machines. A. Yes. (Witness examines Republican ballot again.) I will say positively it would require three. Mr. McEwEN. Q. It will require three? A. Yes. Q. Will you step down this way, Mr. Keiper, and look at the Prohibition Party primary ballot of that primary ; these are the official records ; and say whether that would go on one party row. A. I think it would all go on one party row. Q. Look at the Socialist Primary Ballot. A. I think it would all go on one party row. 1864 The Chairman. Q. There were only four parties were there, Judge, in that primary! A. Four is all. Senator Landee. There are six on the machine; were there only four at the primary instead of six! Mr. McEwEN. There are only four apparently in the primary. Mr. Deneen, will there be any dispute that this contains the official record? Mr. Deneen. Well, I will admit that the Prohibition and Socialist parties nominated a full complement of officers and no more; a straight ticket, we will call it. The Progressives had no ticket, of course; what about the Socialist Labor! Mr. McEwEN. They were by petition. Mr. Deneen. I think we will agree on that; we will look it up and if there is any difiference we can correct it. Mr. McEwEN. That is subject to correction. Mr. Deneen. I think that is right. Mr. McEwen. Q. Now, the sum total of your answers on these four parties is that it would require six for the Democratic, six party columns for the Democratic ticket, three for the Republican, one for the Prohibition and one for the Socialist? A. That is true. Q. Eleven party columns, that would require two ma- 1865 chines? A. Eleven party row^s. Mr. McEwen. Eleven party rows, I should say. Q. Will you briefly state just how you make the com- putations say, for County Commissioner, take the largest group, take that Democratic group of 81 names. A. The computation cannot be made with reference to one group of the ticket ; it must be made Avith reference to all of the groups on the ticket so that you will keep within the Testimony of F. Keiper. 407 number of office lines that are on the machine. The ticket has to be limited so it will not run over the 70 office lines, and that means that enough party rows have to be used so as to keep within that limit. Q. Now, if you figure on using five party rows for the purpose of a Democratic Primary Ballot, you would — Mr. Deneen. Six you said, did you notf Mr. McEwEN. Q. If you figure on five party rows the machine would have to have 75 office lines, which it does not have, and to come within the 70 office lines, which the machine does have, why you would have to use an- other party line just on account of that surplus of six. A. Surplus of five office lines. Q. Yes. A. Which would exceed the capacity of the machine, if you used but five party rows, and if the Dem- 1866 ocratic and Republican ballots are both put on the same machine, why the ballots must be figured together so that the same number of office rows that are given to the County Commissioners of the Democratic Party will 1867 answer for the candidates for County Commissioners on the Eepublican ticket in the number of party rows that are allotted to the Eepublican Party. Now, these ballots will work together on the same machine because the County Commissioners are only 14 in number and they would easily go within the 14 office lines, that would be allotted to the County Commissioners on the Democratic ticket, that is, in the Republican Party you would have three times 14 spaces for County Commissioners, which would be 42, and there was only 14 names to put in those spaces. Representative Jayne. Fourteen names on both tickets. A. There is only 14 names on the Republican ticket for County Commissioner and 14 names on the Demo- cratic ticket, and by reason of the aggregate you would have to make the Democratic party — you have to give up 42 keys, you have only 14 names to put on it. Senator Landee. Would not it require another ma- chine, or wouldn't you have to remodel the mechanism of the machine to group them? Every party lever that you lock out the party with now would have to be mechanically rearranged, the whole machine, or else you could not do it with your party lines that you have on the machine now! 408 Testimony of F. Keiper. << 'A. Yes — read the question. (Question read.) 1868 "A. It would not have to be changed. "Q. Have to be a new machine? "Mr. McEwBN. The answer was that it would not. "Senator Landee. Wouldn't it even in taking care of the Democratic and Republican party tickets — wouldn't the mechanism in the machine have to be rearranged and changed from what it is now intended and made for? "A. Not a bit; as the machine is built it will carry those two ballots together. "Q. It will carry them off your party line, key, but your lock-out device, the different devices, would have to be changed, wouldn't they? A. Not a particle. "Q. If you gave six columns for one you would have to lift six columns to allow you to vote any one of those six columns? A. That is all provided and adjusted on the end of the machine for a vote. "Q. Yes, you have the lock-outs from each bar? A. And you can group six of those bars so that they will all be released simultaneously, and those six party rows will be released simultaneously. The lockout is made in that way so that it can be changed by simply throwing these in and out, varying the conditions, so that the machine could be entered between those two parts. The first in- side party rows would be given to the Democratic Party and would be released when the lever was set on position 1, and the three bottom party rows would be released when the lever was put on position 2. Q. And still that would require a rearrangement of the machine? A. Why, just simply setting these parts, that is all that are to be set. I can make that change in- side of half a minute, using what is regularly on the machine. Q. Then you can group all the machine into one party if you wish? A. Oh, yes ; yes, indeed. Q. But how could you make the two Commissioners run them. Republican and Democratic on the same line and lock them out? A. They have to be on the same of- fice line. Mr. McEwEN. Q. Have to line up and down? A. They have to be on the same office lines up and down. Mr. Deneen. Q. Vertical? Testimony of F. Keiper. 409 A. That is, the Democratic Commissioners have to be under the Republican Commissioners, or vice versa, or 1869 whichever would be the sequence on the machine, but that would be controlled by those different lock-out bars, so when operating on the one you could not operate on the other. Representative Jayne. I wonder if he means running the other way? The WiiWEss. One man on six lines in one group. Q. How would you get 89 lines in one vote? A. By making the grouping big enough. It is simply a matter of correcting our grouping point. In this case you would have to use 14 office lines for that one group to accom- modate the 81 names on the Democratic ticket. Mr. McEwEN. The office lines being vertical and the party lines being horizontal? A. And then you would cover all three keys there in that group. The Chairman. That would be necessary. A. Beg pardon. Q. That would be necessary? A. Yes, sir; it would be necessary; you have to sacrifice some of the keys in order to get all of the group of one or the other on. Q. How many names do you figure out on the two ballots, Republican and Democratic! Mr. McEwEN. You did not give an answer on the Re- publican; you did on the Democratic but not the Repub- lican. 1870 Senator Landee. I mean the total names on the ballot, on the two ballots. A. 437. Q. Your machine contains 700? A. Yes, sir. Representative Jones. Let me ask you, you say it takes six rows for the Democratic ticket? A. True. Q. And six rows crosswise of the machine? A. Yes. Q. In the event that the Democratic ticket. Primary ticket, was as large again as that, then what are you going to do? A. The Democratic ticket now has 303 keys. Q. Suppose you had 606? A. It would still be in the capacity of the machine. Q. What is the capacity of the machine ? A. 700. Q. Suppose you had a thousand names on the Dem- 410 Testimony of F. Kciper. ocratic ticket! A. Then a machine would have to be built. Q. Then you have no assurance that vote would be . a thousand ? A. No. I have to read the law first before I answer that question intelligently, though. Mr. Denben. May I ask you, the machine takes care of 630 names, only nine party keys? A. That is right. Q. 630 is the capacity of the machine as they call it. 1871 If there are 631, how are you going to get it on that machine? A. Get another machine, a bigger one. You can't get it on this machine. Mr. McEwEN. That is, if you had 2,000 in a mixed pri- mary, you would still have to get another machine. A. True, but you could put half of the office on one machine and half on the other. Q. So that the tickets could be accommodated in that way if you wanted to separate them. Representative Jaynb. By voting on both machines? A. Yes, voting on both machines; voting half of this ticket on one machine and half on the other. Eepresentative Jones. Do you think that complies with the law? A. I have not seen any law regulating our voting ma- chines in primary elections in this state. Senator Landee. Do you think on those 407 Demo- cratic names a man could pick out and vote them all in a minute on six lines, a man, I mean an average man, not an expert. A. Will you read the question? (Question read.) A. I will have to count over something here again. Mr. McEwEN. Is that an average Chicago man or an average State of Illinois man or an average IT. S. man? 1872 Mr. Deneen. Well, if he would use that machine he would be an average voter. A. I don't know, he has got to move 58 keys. Senator Landee. He would have to vote between 40 and 50 keys and he would have to pick them out. Mr. Deneen. 58 keys. Senator Landee. Q. I mean he would have to pick 1873 them out. Don't you think that would require an ex- pert typewriter that had learned the keyboard tirst of the machine to get them all in that space of time? Voting Machine Not Mentioned in Primary Law. 411 A. My experience with primary elections is limited, I cannot recall that I have ever been in attendance on a primary election. Mr. Deneen. I was going to say that that answer was not responsive to Senator Landee's question, he asked him whether he could move 58 keys in a minute, he said his experience in primary laws is limited, the question is, could he move 58 in a minute. Read the question. (Question read.) Mr. McEwEN. And pick them out of six columns. Mr. Deneen. That is the question, in six rows. Senator Landee. I asked this question because he men- tioned the other day that the machine complied with the law, and in complying with the law said it must be voted in one minute, and if they cannot vote for these candi- dates, for all candidates in the six columns in one min- ute, then it does not fully comply with the law. A. I have not seen any primary laws regulating vot- ing machines. Senator Landee. Q. No, but that would come in un- der the general election law. Mr. McEwEN. That is a debatable proposition, prob- ably, that question is raised here. Senator Landee. That is all. Eepresentative Jones. Q. Now let me ask you, the intention of this machine is to use it in general elections and not to use it in primary elections'? A. It is the intention to use this machine, this machine is built so that it can be used in both kinds of. elections. Q. You think it would have to, do you, to comply with the Illinois law? A. I do not know, so far as I have been able to learn the Illinois Primary Law makes no special provision for the use of voting machines in primaries. Q. Is it not a fact that it would be very difficult to build a machine that could be used in general elections and also in primaries? A. No. Q. You bid on these specifications, did you not, under 1874 these specifications? A. I have not read the specifica- tions. The Chaieman. You did not write them, did you? A. I did not write the specifications and I do not recall having read them except in a casual way, and I have got no recollection as to what is in them. 412 Should Machines Be Used at Primaries^ Representative Jones. You realize tliat with the un- certainty as to the number of candidates that may be in a primary — you understand that that is unlimited, do you not? 1875 A. Yes. Q. You realize that with that uncertainty that the probabilities are this machine would not be large enough to take care of one party! A. That is possible, I would not say probable. Q. Well, it is possible, that is your answer? Then how can you under the law in Illinois permit a man to vote on two machines to vote one ticket? A. I do not know what the law is on that. Q. Well, if it run over the capacity of this machine he would have to vote on two, would not he? A. He would have to vote on two, yes. The Chairman. Did you say the other day in answer to Judge McEwen's question that you had written vot- ing machine laws for various states? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you write the law for Indiana? A. I helped write it. Q. You did not write, then, the law for Illinois? A. No, sir, I had nothing to do mth writing the law for Illinois. Representative Jones. You have read the law from Illinois, have you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. I believe I understood you to say yesterday that you worked in the capacity of mechanical engineer and expert and an attorney? A. Yes, sir. 1876 Q. Well, now, would not your duties require that you be conversant with both of those subjects? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you be in a position to know what the pri- mary law of Illinois is, what the law relative to elections of Illinois is? A. Yes, sir. Q. You do know? A. I have read them. Q. What is your conception then on this machine complying with the primary law of Illinois? A. I say that I cannot find that the primary law of Illinois makes any reference to the Use of voting machines. Q. Then it is a question in your mind whether they can be regularly used in the primaries ? A. That is cor- rect. Witness Helped Write Voting Machine Laws. 413 Senator Jayne. Mr. Keiper, you say the last two years your time has been occupied in investigating vot- ing machines and working on them, working on inven- tions as you have said in the beginning. Are there in- ventions enough to keep you biisy on that! A. No, that is a very small part of my work, I have not made any inventions for several years back. Q. You have been writing on election laws then, have you? A. Not for several years back. Q. Were you ever a lobbyist? A. Never. 1877 Q. In writing any of these voting machine laws, did you ever write the law so it would favor the Empire machine? A. Never. Q. Didn't your company replace the machines in Kochester, N. Y., since these were purchased here? A. And got full price for the machines. Q. And got full price for the machines? A. For the new machines. Q. Why did you take out the old ones? A. Simply because the city wanted to buy the new ones. Q. They didn't make any exchange then, they just put the other new machines in? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know why the machine companies did not bid on the machines at South Bend, Ind., on June 24, 1911? A. Will you please read that question? (Question read.) A. That is my recollection, that they did bid on them, that is, others than the Empire Company. Q. Is it not a fact that there were no companies bid- ding on the machines and that they had another letting, 1878 do you recall that? A. Well then I was not there at that time, I was there a couple of weeks later when the bids were made, on which I think the contract was let. Q. Are you aware of the fact that the Winslow Com- pany have sold out to the Triumph Company? A. Yes, sir, I so understand. Q. Yes. A. Their patents have been assigned to the Empire Company, that is all I know about it. Q. To the Triumph Company. A. Or to the Triumph Company, I mean. Q. Eeally, that would only leave one competitor in the field for you, doesn't it? A. No, I would not say so. Q. What other machines would you consider in the field as competitors ? A. Why, the Triumph machine. 414 Helped Write Chicago Contract. Q. The Triumph machine? A. Yes. Q. That is the one you referred to! A. Yes. 1880 If the witness were judge of election and the machine got out of order he would call for another machine and stop voting in the meanwhile. 1881 It is possible on an Empire machine that a voter might not pull down a voting key sufficiently and so lose a vote. 1882 A sample ballot can be put on the Empire machine with paste instead of in the channels as at present. The record is to be made by those who handle them of seals used by railroads. The judges of election do not need to take any notice of any of the seals on voting the Empire machine ex- cept the seals on the protective counter. 1884 The witness has never seen paper zeros used at an election ; has heard them discussed in the shops. When the key is turned in locking the inter- locking counters, the protective counter is advanced one number. 1886 Witness cites a number of frauds which can be com- mitted on the ballot box election and which, in the opinion of the witness, cannot be committed, or are more difficult of commitment on the voting machine, as follows: The purchasing of votes and the miscounting of ballots. "I do not believe that votes can be purchased satisfactorily where the voting machines are' used, because there is no evidence that the votes have been delivered and as for counting of the votes, that is taken out of the hands of the judges entirely, because the machine does the count- ing." 1887 "The only thing the judge has to do is to take off the details and add the separate tickets onto the split ticketfj for each candidate. He does not pass on the individual ballots." Witness thinks this minimizes the possibilities of error and fraud. Witness helped write the contract for the purchase of the Empire voting machines for the City of Chicago. He prepared it in co-operation with Mr. Wheelock and Mr. Herrick. He had no other connection with the voting machine matter in Chicago. 1888 Witness has only looked at the Illinois primary lavv within the past few days and cannot find any mention of voting machines in it. Testimony of T. A, Boyer. 415 Afternoon Session. Thursday, August 7, 1913. 1896 F^NK Keiper: Direct Examination by Mr. McEiven Continued. 1898 Witness is temporarily withdrawn and gives place to a new witness. Thomas A. Boyeb: Direct Examination by Mr. Deneen. Besides at 4458 Emerald avenue. Is Clerk of the Board of Review and a Representative in the General Assembly from the Fourth Senatorial District. Witness knows Lloyd L. Duke of Ottumwa, Iowa. Wit- ness thinks Duke is the City Attorney of Ottumwa. 1899 Witness talked with Duke on Decoration Day at Wash- ington, Iowa, about 30 miles from Ottumwa. 1902 "Q. AVill you state the conversation you had with Mr. Duke relating to the contract for the purchasing of these machines! A. After being introduced to Mr. Duke— "The Chairman. Louder, Tom. "The Witness. After being introduced to Mr. Duke, as a Representative of the Illinois General Assembly, he made the remark that he had wanted to talk to somebody that was ac