324.7731 C431t The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN UNIVERSH ILLINOIS L AT URBANA-C STAC L161— 0-1096 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/truthaboutthevotOOchic The Truth about Machine Deal” r/fiv «* #v ^ 4 "^ ' . •• Compiled and Approved by Ch as. H. Kellermann, Howard S. Taylor, Election Commissioners. William H. Stuart,, Chief C d278 CX*\^ THE TRUTH ABOUT THE VOTING MACHINE DEAL In big cities newspaper sensations follow each other so rapidly the average reader has no time nor opportunity to obtain the evidence necessary to determine the truth or falsity of printed gossip; and so it often happens that an utterly false story, if sufficiently repeated, makes an impression on the public mind though there be not a particle of evidence to justify it. The “voting machine scandal” is an illustration. Two years ago certain Chicago newspapers which for ten years previ- ously had zealously demanded the installation of voting machines in Chicago, suddenly reversed their former views and began to oppose the project. This opposition soon developed into malicious but cautious insinuations that the majority of the Board of Election Commissioners who favored the Empire Voting Machine and had made a contract to purchase 1,000 machines, were corruptly influenced or, at least, were unfair, rash and extravagant in their plans and methods. Certain bipartisan political bosses who did not like the notion of an accurate and infallible count of votes, such as the machine gives, helped to boost the scandal, and one or two defeated voting machine agents supplied, from time to time, items of misinformation to keep things going. The result of this long continued campaign of calumny was an inquiry made by a special grand jury last April, and other investigations are pending. At no time have we been solicitous about the outcome of any legal inquiry concerning our conduct. But we are anxious lest a protracted cam- paign of mere gossip may gradually bias the minds of citizens against the use of voting machines and thus delay a reform which we earnestly believe is in the interest of all Chicago. We, therefore, present to our fellow citizens the following pages con- taining “THE TRUTH ABOUT THE VOTING MACHINE DEAL.” In order to squarely meet each insinuation the matter concerning the voting machine contract is presented in the following questions and answers: I. WERE ANY OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONERS BRIBED OR IN ANY WAY CORRUPTLY INFLUENCED TO PURCHASE THE VOTING MACHINES? The most authoritative answer to this question is the report of the April grand jury, 1913. The matter was presented to the jury at the urgent request of County Judge John E. Owens, who demanded that the subject be “probed to the bottom.” The jury sat upon the matter for two weeks, exam- ining forty-nine witnesses in all. Their inquiry resulted in a UNANIMOUS report, from which the following is quoted: “It is due the State’s Attorney to say in this connection that every witness whose presence was desired by the grand jury and who was within its jurisdiction was sum- moned and produced by the State’s Attorney. “The grand jury in the course of this investigation has called before it and has rigidly examined every person whose name was brought to its attention from any source whatsoever with the intimation that such person had or might have any knowledge with regard to any irregularity in connection with the selection of the machine or the award of the contract. 3 “There have been called before the grand jury in pursuance of his policy members and employes of the present Board of Election Commissioners and of the previous Board of Election Commissioners, the experts selected to pass upon the merits of the machine submitted by the several bidders, reporters, editors and proprietors of news- papers in which insinuations of graft or corruption have appeared, members of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, who, it is reported, have intimated that there was graft in connection with the transaction, officers and investigators of voluntary civic organizations that had criticized the award of the contract, makers and salesmen of the machines, which were in competition and were unsuccessful at the time of the awarding of the contract, stockholders in the various companies manufacturing the machines, and, as has been before said, every person whose name had been suggested to the grand jury as that of one who might be able to furnish some clew to any irregularity if such did exist in connection with the selection of the machines and the awarding of the contract.” “None of the parties thus summoned has furnished to the grand jury any facts giving evidence of criminality in connection with the award of the voting machine contract. “We have found no trace of money or favors conferred, or of pledges to confer hereafter money or favors, in the return for the selection or purchase of a machine for which the contract was given.” On May 2nd, the day following the jury’s report, Benjamin T. Lewis, foreman of the jury, and a man of high standing, in an interview given to the press, said : “We made a complete and thorough investigation, and our report represents the unanimous opinion of the grand jury. It speaks for itself. “We found not one scintilla of evidence tending even remotely to show that there was graft or corruption in the voting machine contract. “A surprising thing was that, after all the rumors and stories in newspapers and of many people, nothing was found to justify a single criticism of the contract.” During the investigation, and afterward, the same mendacious news- papers that had invented and circulated these, false charges sought to dis- credit the grand jury and State’s Attorney by intimating that those officials were united to “whitewash” the Election Commissioners. The truth is, the grand jury was drawn by lot from a large list of jurors previously prepared by the Jury Commissioners of Cook County. As to residence, the jurors were drawn from all quarters of the city and suburbs. As to avocations, there were on the jury four business managers, two manufacturers, two salesmen, three officers of corporations, three real estate dealers, one merchant, one architect, one florist, one typefounder, one civil engineer, one contractor, one superintendent, one mechanic, and one retired from business. As to political affiliations, there were thirteen Republicans, six Demo- crats, two Progressives, and two Independents. Clearly such a jury could not have been used for the purpose of “white- washing” anybody. Insinuations against their candor or competence is of a piece with the rest of the unfounded newspaper talk about “the voting machine deal.” Their report shows that they were not hampered or controlled in any manner by the State’s Attorney, but freely examined the witnesses them- selves, and arrived at a unanimous conclusion. And it shows that there was no conflicting testimony whatever, but that none of the witnesses had fur- nished to the grand jury “any facts giving evidence of criminality in connec- tion with the award of the voting machine contract.” The collapse of a canard could not have been more complete! The newspaper editors who for two years had hinted graft every few days with exclamation points and staring head-lines, were not able to show to the grand jury a single fact to justify their accusations. It was a flat failure. 4 The bad faith of these accusations is evidenced by another circumstance. The gossipers knew as much — or as little — two years ago as they knew when they were summoned before the grand jury. Why did they wait so long before trying out the matter? The City Council and the grand juries were always accessible. Why did not these scandal mongers long ago file informa- tion that would compel an investigation? Was it because they wished to nurse along the scandal and carry it over into the next campaign as a political asset? Or did they wish to do something larger — to keep up a clamor about “THE VOTING MACHINE DEAL” and thus divert public attention from the really important corruptions of rich tax-dodgers and predatory public utility corporations — all of which were dead ripe for a thorough Lexow overhauling? II. DID THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS PAY AN EXTRAVAGANT PRICE FOR VOTING MACHINES? The minutes of the Election Commissioners’ office show that there were but four machine companies which appeared at the competitive examination in Chicago two years ago. In fact, there are only four types of machines now actually in the market. The bids of these companies were written and were spread upon the minutes of the Election Commissioners’ office. They were as follows: The International Voting Machine, each.... $ 900.00 The Empire “ “ “ 942.50 The Winslow “ “ “ 1,000.00 The Triumph “ “ “ 1,000.00 From this it will be seen that the price paid for the Empire machine was not excessive as compared with the prices of other machines. Neither was it excessive as compared with the prices asked in the competitive bidding offered to the old Board on Sept. 15, 1909. The official minutes show that the bids then offered for nine column and seventy key machines were as follows: Empire Machine, each. $ 975.00 Willix “ “ 1,050.00 Triumph “ “ 925.00 Winslow “ “ 900.00 Neither was it excessive when compared with the prices paid for voting machines in other cities. Milwaukee, Wis., is supplied with U. S. Standard Voting machines, a machine made by the Empire Company, and substantially of the same mech- anism as the Empire machine. The Milwaukee machine has 210 keys for votes (which is just one-third the capacity of the Chicago machine) and cost $6oo each. Indianapolis, Ind., also has U. S. Standard machines with 420 keys for votes (just two-thirds the capacity of the Chicago machine), and the price paid was $750 each. South Bend., Ind., is supplied with Empire machines of 450 keys for votes (just five-sevenths the capacity of the Chicago machine), and cost $800 each. Elgin, 111., has quite recently installed International voting machines. This machine has 360 keys for votes (just four-sevenths the capacity of the Chicago machine), and cost $750 each. 5 The foregoing examples fairly illustrate tlie prices paid everywhere. From data on file in the Election Commissioners’ office it can be shown that the Empire Company have installed about 5,000 machines in the United States, while all other companies together have installed less than 100; and that the Empire Company has everywhere asked and obtained a uniform price in pro- portion to the size of the machine sold. III. DID THE ELECTION COMMISSIONERS “JAM THE CON- TRACT THROUGH SUDDENLY’’? The newspaper story that the Commissioners acted with suspicious hurry in their purchase of voting machines has no justification. The truth is that informal discussion of the voting machine subject was commenced by the present Board about January 15, 1911, and the contract was let July 21st, following — a period of discussion covering full six months. Following are the dates and items of proceedings by the Board in the spring of 1911 : The minutes of the Board show that on March 4th the Chief Clerk, under instructions of the Board, sent out registered letters to every person and firm known to have had at any time voting machines for sale, inviting them to a competitive examination of machines. Thirty-nine persons and firms were thus addressed. By March 15 following, the four machines which afterward actually competed were placed in the Election Commissioners’ office and were daily on public exhibition and under discussion until the contract was finally awarded. On April 4th, at the municipal election, sixteen machines belonging to the Empire Company were used for voting in as many precincts* and were found highly effective. On April 26th the Commissioners, after much previous discussion, adopted specifications describing the character of the machine required, and the Board fixed May 22nd as the date upon which bids would be opened. This near date for opening bids was chosen because the Board was per- fectly informed that all the machines which were in any condition to com- pete were already on the ground. Also on April 26th the State Voting Machine Commission completed their examination of the Empire Machine and certified that it in every way complied with the Voting Machine Law of Illinois. On May 22nd the time to open the bids was continued to May 26th, then to June 1st, and subsequently, upon request of Judge Owens, it was determined to receive bids at any time during the examination of machines by the experts. On June 1st the bids of the four competing companies were opened, but no award was made. On June 3d, at the request of the Board previously made, County Judge Owens selected a commission of three experts to examine and report upon the efficiency of the competing machines. The experts appointed by Judge Owens were : Paul M. Chamberlain, formerly head of the Mechanical Engineering Department of Lewis Institute, and a prominent consulting mechanical engi- neer of Chicago. 6 W. L. Abbott, Chief Operating Engineer of the Commonwealth-Edison Company, and President of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. William Wooley, Chief Mechanical Expert of the Moon-Hopkins Billing Company. Shortly after their appointment the experts commenced their examina- tion of the four competing machines and continued their work from day to day until report was made. On June 26th the above named experts rendered a joint written report upon the four machines examined by them. In order of excellence they placed the Empire machine first, and in the concluding paragraph of their report said: “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 would be the means of greatly minimizing the possibility of fraud at the polls.” On July 7th the Attorney for the Board rendered a written opinion to the effect that the Board had ample power, under the law, to purchase machines. On July 2 1st the Board, by a majority vote, resolved to purchase 1,000 Empire Voting Machines. On July 25th a contract for such purchase was signed by Commission- ers Kellermann and Taylor. From the foregoing (all of which is a matter of record) it will be seen that so far from “jamming the contract through” the Board was studying the problem for full six months before the contract was signed and, in the course of the investigation, took every precaution which seemed reasonable. The reader must remember, however, that the Board was not investigat- ing a new subject. On the contrary, voting machines had been under discussion and actual demonstration in Chicago for a number of years, and full data was in the hands of the present Board when they began their inquiry. The following items will show how well ripened the subject was: 1. After some years of inquiry and discussion the proposition “For the adoption of voting machines” was submitted to the electors of Chicago at the general election held November 8, 1904. Pending the election the subject was widely discussed by the press, the people and the election officials, and the experience of many other cities using machines was sought and obtained. As a result of such discussion and inquiry the voters at that election decided in favor of adopting voting machines by a vote of 229,221 for machines, and 27,081 against machines — a majority of more than 8 to 1 in favor of voting machines. It was the people’s mandate to their officials to buy machines — and that was nearly nine years ago ! It is worthy of note that at that election two propositions aimed to secure election reforms were submitted to the voters — one for direct primaries and one for the adoption of voting machines and the proposition to adopt voting machines was given over 3,000 more votes than were cast for direct primaries. Nevertheless, the direct primary reform went rapidly forward, while the people’s mandate to install voting machines was disregarded. 2. Actual demonstration of the efficiency of voting machines had been made at the polls in Chicago elections at follows: April, 1904, one machine; November, 1904, one machine; November, 1905, eleven machines; April, 1907, thirty-seven machines, and April, 1911, sixteen machines. In the three elections last named all but five of the machines used belonged to the Empire Company and were built upon the same general mechanical principles as the 7 machine finally purchased by the present Board. Each of these election experiments demonstrated the high efficiency of the machines, as is shown by the comments of election officials and all the Chicago newspapers now on file in the Election Commissioners’ office. 3. The experience of other cities which had been long using voting machines was well known and authentic testimonials as to their great effici- ency were on file in the Election Commissioners’ office when the present Board began its investigation. These testimonials show that machines have been continually used as follows: In Rochester, N. Y., Pop. 218,149, since 1898 In Utica, N. Y., it 74,419, ‘ 1898 In Buffalo, N. Y., if 423,715, ‘ 1900 In Oswego, N. Y., if 23,368, ‘ 1900 In Ithaca, N. Y., a 14,802, ‘ 1900 In Poughkeepsie, N. Y., a 27,936, ‘ 1900 In Elmira, N. Y., a 37,176, ‘ 1900 In Schenectady, N. Y., a 72,826, ‘ 1900 In Syracuse, N. Y., a 137,249, ‘ 1900 In Milwaukee, Wis., a 373,857, ‘ 1903 In Indianapolis, Ind., a 233,650, ‘ 1904 In Minneapolis, Minn., ft 301,408, ‘ 1908 All the machines used in the above named cities are substantially of the Empire type and the patents belong to the Empire Company. The Board, therefore, knew when they began consideration of the voting machine project that machines (of this type at least) were an established success — as much so as adding machines or typewriters. 4. The present Board also had before it the reports of experts who, under the direction of a preceding Board of Election Commissioners had made examinations of competing machines in November, 1907; March, 1908; October, 1909, and July, 1910. 5. That the foregoing election tests and actual examples were highly favorable to the machines is evidenced by interviews given the city press by former County Judges Orrin N. Carter and Lewis Rinaker. Judge Carter said, February 1, 1907: “All obstacles have been cleared away and I am in favor of immediate use of voting machines. They are simpler to the average voter than the present system, and (with the expedition I have spoken of before) there will be a generally improved condition at elections.” Judge Rinaker said, March 8, 1909: “I cannot figure out how the Finance Committee thought it was economizing when it refused the voting machine appropriation we asked for. This action will simply mean that the machines will cost more in the end for we are going ahead and purchase them just as we had planned to.” Mr. Isaac N. Powell, formerly Chief Clerk of the Board of Election Commissioners, after making wide inquiry among cities using machines, sum- marized his information in an article written by him for the Technical World Magazine, February number, 1906, in the following words: “It is the almost universal experience that voting machines present the following advantages over any other method of registering the will of the people. They compel every voter to vote in secrecy; they make it mechanically impossible to cast a defective ballot. In Illinois alone, at every general election 40,000 voters lose their votes because of wrongly marked paper ballots. They cannot be made to sIigw results. They prevent error. When the voting is ended the count is ended. They largely reduce the cost of the election. Buffalo, N. Y., saved $12,000 over the Australian system at each election.” 6. Beside these expressions from the County Judges who were at the time in charge of the election system of Chicago, there was on file in the Election Commissioners’ office a vast number of clippings from all the great 8 daily newspapers of the city showing that without exception every one of them were urgent for the installation of voting machines. Want of space forbids the quotation of many of these press utterances, but the following are fairly representative of all : Editorial, Chicago Daily News, March 5, 1909: “It has been conceded for a number of years by the public and the election commissioners that Chicago must be provided with voting machines as soon as possible. At last conditions are deemed right by the commissioners for the taking of bids from the voting machine companies, satisfactory improvements having been made in these mechanical devices in the last few years.” Editorial, Record-Herald, September 20, 1909: “Long, long ago the Legislature authorized the use of voting machines in Chicago elections. Long, long ago, though not quite so long, the Supreme Court sustained the law. Several times the City Council has made provisional appropriations for a beginning in equipping the city. “The history of the many advertisements for bids, of the many examinations of machines submitted, and of the many excuses offered for postponing action, would be tiresomely long. We refrain from going into it. Some of the excuses may be classified from plausible to fair, when considered individually; but all the excuses taken in a row are distinctly lacking in plausibility. “We have just had new bids submitted and a new set of tests is just beginning. Coincidentally, however, we hear the first pipings of a new-old excuse for non-action — namely, that a new primary law impends, and that it is wise to wait, wait, wait. “Incidentally, it is known that the introduction of machines will mean a great saving in election expenses, partly in doing away with the printing bills and partly in reducing the number of party workers who must be paid for service at the polls as precinct officials. “The reduction of expenses is one of the great direct arguments for buying the machines. “Is it also indirectly one of the causes of the delay?” 7. The Board also had before it the report of a Chicago grand jury which had heard testimony on election frauds for an entire month. In their report, rendered to the criminal court December 4, 1908, the grand jury said: “From the facts coming to our knowledge, we express serious doubts whether there has been any honest general or city election in Chicago for years past.” After discussing tentatively several methods of correcting this evil, they said as the conclusion and summary of it all : “Therefore, to reduce the opportunity for errors, prevent frauds, lessen the cost, secure prompt announcement of the result of the election, and prevent the holding back of the announcement of results in one ward in order to defeat some candidate who is leading in another ward, we recommend that satisfactory voting machines should be purchased and installed at each precinct at the earliest practical moment.” From the foregoing it will be seen that the voting machine contract was not “jammed through suddenly.” The TRUTH is that the voting machine subject had been under examina- tion in Chicago for more than ten years past and the accumulated results of this long study were supplemented by six months of diligent inquiry by the present Board before the contract was signed. IV. DID THE ELECTION COMMISSIONERS “PUT THROUGH THE VOTING MACHINE DEAL SECRETLY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS”? No. This newspaper story is entirely false. The TRUTH is that the present Board has never held an executive meeting behind closed doors since it entered office. Shortly after their 9 appointment the Election Commissioners unanimously adopted a resolution to have all meetings open — and that policy has been maintained ever since. The minutes of the Board show that at every meeting of the Board at which important steps were taken concerning the purchase of voting machines the various machine agents or their attorneys were present and participated in the discussion, and that such meetings were open to representatives of the press, who promptly reported the proceedings. The minutes also show that the only restrictions that were placed upon any part of the proceedings was upon the expert’s work of examining the competing machines. By resolution of the Board the persons permitted to be present in the room where the experts were at work were limited to the experts, the members of the Board or their proxies, the Board’s Attorney, the Chief Clerk and the agent of the particular machine at the time being examined. This restriction, as the minutes show, was adopted upon the request of all the representatives of the competing machines, each of whom objected to having the interior of his machine dissected in the presence of competitors. This restriction was also in pursuance of the practice that had prevailed at all former examinations by experts. No. The story of “closed doors” is wholly an impudent fabrication! V. WERE THE VOTING MACHINES WHICH WERE USED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 1912, TAMPERED WITH WHILE IN STORAGE AFTER THE ELECTION? No. The story is founded on a ludricous misapprehension. The TRUTH is a committee of the Illinois Legislature came to Chicago last March to recount the votes cast for certain legislative candidates and on examining a few machines stored in the warehouse they found that in sev- eral instances a fastening that secured an extension handle attached to the curtain lever was broken, and some of the committee at once concluded that this indicated tampering. But the TRUTH is the condition of this extension handle was utterly unimportant — no possible manipulation of it could in any way alter the vote recorded on the interior of the machine. The counters of the machine are secured by five different locks and no alteration of the record of votes can be made without bringing together the keys of all these locks. Three of the keys are given to the judges of election in each precinct on the night before election, and after the judges count the votes on election day these keys are placed in a sealed envelope and are brought to the Election Commissioners’ office by the judges and are placed in a guarded vault without breaking the seals. The other two keys are kept by the voting machine custodian at all times. Therefore, in order to alter the count recorded by a machine it would be necessary to obtain the three keys from the vault of the Election Commis- sioners’ office and also obtain the custodian’s two keys — then if the con- spirators were sufficiently expert in manipulating the highly complicated inte- rior mechanism the counters might be changed, Even then the fraud would be quickly detected by comparing the record on the tampered machine with the machine tally sheets which are sent in by the judges and clerks of election on election night. These tally sheets are sealed in envelopes by the judges of election and are not opened until the 10 general canvass is made and the results tabulated in the presence of the candi- dates or their representatives. It may be added that in the entire history of over 600 municipalities now using machines there is not one authentic instance of such tampering so far as can be ascertained. VI. HAS THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT THE MA- CHINES PURCHASED FOR CHICAGO ARE NOT IN COMPLI- ANCE WITH THE VOTING MACHINE LAW? No. The decision handed down in the case of Hull versus Election Commissioners will bear no such construction. The TRUTH is that in the oral opinion as first pronounced by the Court, October 22, 1912, the Court said: “The Commissioners have a right to put voting machines in use, and we do not by our judgment condemn the use of machines, or this machine. We do not say it may not be used in elections, but in the election of November 5th, with its long ticket complicated by the vote for presidential electors, the minority representation feature of the legislature vote, and the votes on bond propositions and questions of public policy, the time limit fixed by the statute is too short for its use.” In the writ of mandamus afterward actually issued by the Court and directed to the Election Commissioners, the Court’s order was as follows: “In those precincts in which the voting machines may be installed by you each voter shall be permitted to vote at his option by ballot so furnished or by the use of said machine.” In the final decision as printed the Court said : “As a matter of fact, we find that the machine does not comply with the law in enabling the voter to cast his vote in one minute at the election of November 5, 1912, at which the ballot will contain the names of so many candidates and so many proposi- tions for the choice of the voter.” The foregoing quotations clearly show that so far from disqualifying the machines, the Court expressly allowed their use and merely took the pre- caution to order the Board (in view of the exceedingly large ballot voted at that one particular election) to provide paper ballots as well as voting machines for that election. Let it be noted that preparatory to this decision an Empire machine was actually produced before the Supreme Court and was exhaustively tested in the Court’s presence and in the presence of opposing parties, and that the Court found no ground for any criticism whatever except as above indicated. Let it also be noted that 460 machines were used in Chicago at the presidential election November 5, 1912, and that machines were used exclu- sively in 134 precincts at the municipal election of April 1, 1913, and no one has attempted to contest the machine vote at either election on the ground that the machine was not in compliance with the law. Its legal sufficiency stands admitted. VII. ARE THE MACHINES PURCHASED SUSCEPTIBLE TO FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION AND ARE THEY “WHOLLY INADEQUATE FOR THE USES SPECIFIED IN THE STAT- UTES”? It has been shown on previous pages that the Illinois State Voting Machine Commissioners have certified that the Empire Machine complies with the law, and that the Supreme Court of Illinois after a rigorous test of 11 the machine, made in the Court and in the presence of those who opposed the machine, refused to condemn the device, but, on the contrary, expressly allowed its use at the presidential election of 1912. More conclusive, however, as to the efficiency of the machine is the experience of its use in actual elections, and upon that point the evidence in its favor is overwhelming. CHICAGO EXPERIENCE. Machines have been used for actual vot- ing in precincts of Chicago at the following elections: Nov., 1905, No. of machines used 11 Apr., 1907, “ “ “ “ 37 Apr., 1911, “ “ “ “ 16 Apr., 1912, * “ “ “ 192 Nov., 1912, “ “ “ “ 460 Apr., 1913, “ “ “ “ 134 Of these 850 tests, made in the actual polling of votes, 786 were made with Empire machines and 57 were made with Dean, Columbia and U. S. Standard machines. The three latter machines belong to the Empire Company and their chief features are incorporated in the Empire machine. In no single instance were any of these machines fraudulently manipulated and in no instance did they fail to operate properly. Still more conclusive, perhaps, is the testimony of judges and clerks of election who controlled and observed the operation of the machines. Their opinion is almost unanimously favorable to the machines. Recently the Board caused a canvass to be made among judges and clerks of the First, Eighteenth and Twenty-first Wards of Chicago. These wards were selected because in popular apprehension they are liable to present more election difficulties than other wards. The Board’s employes who made the canvass were instructed to have written reports made by all judges and clerks, to file the same whether they were favorable or unfavorable, and, in no case, seek to influence the opinion of the writer. In short, a fair, free opinion was sought. The result was that out of a total of 670 election judges and clerks in the above named wards (all of whom have had experience with machines in one or more elections) 560 sent in reports highly favorable to the machines ; 108 failed to respond owing to death, removal, absence from the city, or neg- lect, and ONLY TWO judges sent in unfavorable reports. It is doubtful if these election officials could agree so nearly unanimously upon any other item of election law or election procedure ! All of these reports are on file in the Election Commissioners’ office and are open to inspection. EXPERIENCE IN OTHER CITIES. Want of space forbids even a recital of the names of over 600 counties, towns and cities in the several States where voting machines made by the Empire Company are now in successful operation. We, therefore, present only a few illustrations which we deem most apt examples. HARTFORD, CONN. As long ago as 1902 this city (having in 1910 a population of 98, 9 1 5 ) took up the question of voting machines. Realizing that the reasonable way of ascertaining the efficiency of machines was to inquire into the results of their use in other places, the City Council directed their Board of Selectmen to make the proper inquiries and report back. 12 The Selectmen investigated and reported and the report was printed in the Hartford City Council Proceedings of February io, 1902, and a certified copy of these proceedings is now on file in our office. In their report the Selectmen said: “These machines have been thoroughly proven and tested, having been in prac- tical 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 recounts and election contests are reduced to a minimum. The expenses of elections are greatly reduced.” As a result of this investigation, Hartford installed a complete supply of machines and now, after ten years of uninterrupted use of them, under date of June 20, 1913, Harry F. Smith, Town and City Clerk, and H. B. Phil- brick, Chairman of Election Commissioners, certified in regard to their Empire Voting Machines as follows: “Everybody favors them here. Time saved from 3 to 8 hours each election, and from $600.00 to $1,000.00 each election; perfectly accurate; no chance for fraud. We would not go back to the paper ballot for anything. They are legalized by the State laws and it was left optional for the towns to adopt. Nearly all the cities have adopted them and town after town is putting them in.” INDIANAPOLIS, IND. This city (census 1910) has a population of 233,650, representing all sorts of classes, races and political opinions ; so that the average precinct in that city may properly be compared with the average precinct in Chicago. From sworn testimony of Indianapolis officials, now on file in our office, it appears that Indianapolis in 1902 purchased 10 U. S. Standard Voting Machines, each weighing 1,400 pounds. In 1904 another installment of 130 machines was purchased. In 1910 another lot of 10 was purchased, and in 1912 another and final installment of 3 machines were bought, so that now all of Marion County (including the City of Indianapolis) is supplied with machines and use them at all general elections. These ten years of experience with a machine substantially the same as the Empire machine, and made by the Empire Company, ought to furnish fairly conclusive evidence as to the efficiency of the machine purchased for Chicago. What is the testimony? In a sworn statement of May 7, 1913, made by James Kervan, John Kitley and Charles Maguire, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Marion County, the affiants testify to the perfect satisfaction given by the machine. Among other things the sworn statement says: “Affiants further state that since the installation of the voting machines in said County there has been but one election contest, and that that suit proceeded no further than the opening of said machines and the verification of the votes therein recorded; that during the time Australian system was in use contests were frequent and injunction suits providing for the preservation of ballots numerous; that, by the use of. said voting machines, this has been eliminated and the Board has as yet to ascertain of a single instance in which any election fraud has been perpetrated, or even attempted, in the use of said machines ; that there has been a saving to said County of a sum equal to the purchase price of said machines; that the use of said machines in this County has given the voter confidence and the Board is of the opinion that should it decide to return to the Australian system of voting its action would be met with a storm of protest from voters of all parties and that the voters and taxpayers are thoroughly satisfied with the machine in use.” In perfect agreement with the foregoing is a sworn statement of the same date made by John Rauch, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Marion County and ex-officio member of the Board of Election Commissioners of Marion County, and Martin M. Hugg and Leroy J. Keach, the three together constitut- ing the Board of Election Commissioners of said County, Mr. Keach being the Chairman of the Board. This statement says in part: 13 ™T e ’ H n f several , Precincts there were m?re than oOO votes cast Fram our exDerh ° 4 t^ C ^ S ^ t f i2 ^ e s th W a 1 ?£ e e y °fo^ they voted 0t for n ;° whH^un^e^^e^baUo/^system^they^neve^knew^ 1°^ money, prevents fraud, and has given absolute satisfaction.” , M In a sworn statement made May 6, 1913, by William T. Patten, Auditor of Marion County, this official among other things says: irreeulaThfeV th t e ha"t Se t W S 2L d machines h “ absolutely estopped all election frauds and r” leS ’i h ^n^ h o e ^ have encoura ged and increased voting; that there were no disputes over the 1912 election returns ; that the work of handling elections has been faC1 ltate n’ ? nd that , th u satisfaction with the machines fs general and pro- or tamperSTwith otdef'eated.” ' ” judgmem Said machines cann0t be manipulated Beside the foregoing official sworn statements we have on file in our office and open for inspection a number of testimonials recently made by lead- ing officials a.nd citizens of Indianapolis — from several of which we extract the following brief quotations: S. L. Shank, Mayor, says: wf . JT° r a n 1 u m ber of years voting machines have been used in this city and I have ehminated ar * legltlmate com plamt concerning them. By their use fraud is practically Edward A. Ramsey, City Clerk, says : ,. } cons ider the voting machine method far superior to the discarded and His- credited Austrahan Banoi; system. If I understand (and I believe I do) the public mind Indians?^ of , India napolis upon this subject, I am certain that there is not a man in Indianapolis who would be willing to revert to the old paper ballot system. Rev. Victor J. Brucker, Rector of St. Patrick’s Church, says: r^rJ^h eVe L they have , once b 5? n ad opted I do not think anyone would care to return to me old process, slow, tedious in getting tabulated returns, and often times inaccurate. 1 hey are a great invention, simple and efficient Rev. Francis H. Gavisk, Rector of St. John’s Church, says: natinnJwiJl 1 ; 6 P ^ St s ^ eral elections in Indianapolis (primary, city, county, state and national elections) voting machines have been in use (I do not know the name of the machine), and have given general satisfaction; and, I think, have made for the purity of elections. Fred C>. Gardner, President Columbia Club (Republican) says : ‘‘The Columbia Club several years ago purchased a machine upon which to conduct its own annual elections. f think it is safe to say that Indianapolis would not for a moment consider going back to the antique paper ballot with its attendant dangers of irregularities and traud. I can also state that there has been absolutely no trouble with the machines they are simple of operation and the voters experience no difficulty whatever in casting their votes on the same. Voting machines are here to stay! Fred E. Barrett, President Indiana Democratic Club, says: ‘ The machine saves time, registers accurately, saves mutilation of votes, and traud of . every land; has been used exclusively in this county for many years and has practically paid for itself without injuring the machines by wear, and they are now in good condition. The voting machine was used at our last Club election. James A. Stewart, City Editor, says: The Indianapolis Star heartily commends voting machines as the agents of speed, purity, and accuracy in elections. They have been used in elections in this community for the past nine or ten years and have given universal satisfaction. In- dianapolis would under no circumstances return to the ancient and unreliable paper ballot system. L. H. Lewis, Secretary Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, says: The establishment of the voting machines in this county marked an epoch in governmental affairs and is certainly a big improvement over the old ballot system. At 14 the present moment we do not recall one instance where a righteous criticism was ever made in Marion County upon the operation of the machines used here. Wm. K. Sproule, Cashier National City Bank, says: “It is generally conceded here that the use of machines has reduced election- frauds to an absolute minimum, that they have encouraged voting and have reduced the expense of elections in many ways — not the least of which is the fact that we have had no election contests for the past five years and only two previous to that time since the machines have been installed. It is safe to say that this city would under no con- ditions return to the old method of voting. C. A. Schrader, Wholesale Grocer, says : “I do not believe that the citizens of Indianapolis would be willing to return to- the long, cumbersome paper ballot that we discarded years ago in favor of the honest,, up-to-date method of voting. T. Taggert, National Democratic Committeeman for Indiana, says: “They are easy for the voters to understand and operate, and we have been: able to cast more votes and have them tabulated much earlier than under the old Australian system. In fact they have been very satisfactory to the voters of Marion County. All of the foregoing testimonials are on file in our office and open for inspection ; and thousands more might be obtained. There is but one senti- ment concerning voting machines in Indianapolis ! That city is near by and might be heard from quickly. Why did not the hostile Chicago newspapers give a report from Indianapolis? MILWAUKEE, WIS. Milwaukee is another near-by city. Its population (census of 1910) was. 373>857. It is an industrial city and probably has a larger proportion of for- eign born citizens than any other American city. The city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County are entirely supplied with U. S. Standard voting machines. The city first installed machines in 1902 and shortly afterward supplied all precincts in the city ; and the county soon fol- lowed. Milwaukee, therefore, has had eleven years of experience. What has. it been? In a sworn statment made May 13, 1913, Louis G. Widule, County Clerk of Milwaukee County says among other things: “Affiant further says that on account of the perfection and accuracy of the machine election contests have nearly ceased, whereas, they were frequent under the old, cumbersome Australian system; and that election frauds have almost entirely disap- peared; that said machines are of good material and workmanship and that they are equipped with all devices that the county needs at an election, including restricted vote device ; and that the voters would be loth to forego the convenience of the voting machine and would fight for its retention.” Under the official seal of the Board of Election Commissioners of the city of Milwaukee, May 14, 1913, John C. Reutman, Chairman, and Herman C. Schultz, Secretary, say: “Voting machines have been used in each and every precinct of the City of Milwaukee for ten or twelve years at all elections. They are satisfactory in every way. They have paid for themselves during the time they have been in use by reducing elec- tion expenses. They have resulted in practically no contests and by their use we have dispensed with the services of two clerks of election in each precinct who were paid $6.00 per day. They have proven an absolute barrier to the frauds which were insepar- able from the superannuated paper ballots. Machines have been a great step forward in the civic life of Milwaukee.” P. F. Leuch, City Clerk of Milwaukee under seal of his office, May 12,. 1913, certified as follows: “As compared with the old ballot system we prefer the machines for the reason that a vote once cast is counted and it cannot be changed by election officers. It does away with fraud that formerly existed in elections, and it is a more economical way of conducting elections and leads to better efficiency in the conduct of elections.” 15 G. A. Bading, present Mayor of Milwaukee upon his official letter-head, May 12, 1913, says: , “The machines have been in use here for a number of years and results from them, I believe, have been highly satisfactory, especially when compared with the old Australian ballot system. With machines in the booths at election time I am certain that there is less opportunity for fraud and less chance of mistakes in registering the choice of voters. This has been repeatedly proven here in recounts.” Beside the foregoing official expressions we present the following quota- tions from testimonials of leading citizens: Emil Seidel, Former Socialist Mayor, says : . From all that I have been able to gather concerning the use of the machines in our city they have met with the general approval of the public. The voting machines have served us well and I think that a proposition to abolish them would meet with most obstinate opposition. J. D. Jenkins, Former Judge of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says: “It has at least, two merits which stamp it as indispensable. First, it absolutely prevents fraud in the changing or counting of votes and, second, it speeds the telling of the result and obviates all errors in the counting of the ballots. Personally, because of defective eye-sight, the machine is not of much use to me, being obliged to rely upon the honesty of an official; but, speaking generally, I think it a great success. Wm. Walter Webb, Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee, says: “I feel very strongly that the voting machines have many advantages in our elections, here in Milwaukee, as far as honesty and quickness of return votes are concerned. John Poppendieck, Jr., Managing Editor Milwaukee Sentinel, says: “I do not think the electors of this city would ever consider going back to the old ballot system. Machines have simplified the method of holding elections, have eliminated all suspicions of fraud and ballotbox stuffing and, in case of contest, the matter has always been speedily settled and with little public expense. Osmor R. Smith, Managing Editor Milwaukee Leader, says : From my observations here in Milwaukee, where the voting machines have been generally used for a number of years, I feel confident that Chicago would never have any occasion to regret adopting the machines — at least that portion of Chicago which is satisfied when it has cast the single vote it is entitled to. The machine is quicker, more occurate, and safer than the old ballot. It practically eliminated the possibility of fraudulent voting and the fraudulent counting of votes. It also makes possible the elimination of many election officials whose work it does better than they can do it. The voting machine is to the election what the typewriter is to the modern business office; in addition it is a pretty efficient guardian of the ballot-box. P. P. Donahue, President, H. A. Plumb, Secretary, Milwaukee Cham- ber of Commerce, say: “It is the belief of the undersigned that the use of voting machines in Milwaukee has been more than satisfactory and that the experience of the past dozen years or so that they have been employed has shown the wisdom of replacing the early day vote- recording methods by the time and labor saving voting machines. You would probably not find many Milwaukee voters who would care to have them discarded.” Wm. Geo. Bruce, Sec’y Merchants’ & Manufacturers’ Ass’n of Mil- waukee, says : “For a period of ten years and until about seven years ago the undersigned was the City and County Chairman of one of the political parties here and had, during that time, an opportunity to note, at clpse_ range, the operations and the utlity of the voting machine. The opposition to their introduction advanced various arguments against them. New arguments were advanced after the machines had been introduced — it is unnecessary for the purposes of this letter to repeat them. Suffice it to say that with time and experience these arguments have fallen to the ground and the opposition has subsided.” Edmund T. Mehns, Sec’y Social-Democratic Co. Com., says: “As Chairman for the Social Democratic County Committee of Milwaukee County for the past ten years, and at the present time the Secretary of the County Committee of the Social-Democratic Party of Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin, I wish to say that the City of Milwaukee, to my knowledge, has used voting machines during this entire time in all of its Judicial, School Board, Municipal and General Elections; and 16 that to the best of my knowledge, the voting machines have proven satisfactory to ninety-nine per cent of the people using the same during this period.” Orin M. Peters, Sec’y Democratic Co. Com., says : “Milwaukee, generally, regards them as an absolute bar to the usual election frauds which were inseparable from the Australian ballot. I do not believe the citizens of Milwaukee would be any more willing to revert to the paper ballot than would the farmers to change from the modern reaper back to the scythe.” All of the original affidavits, certificates and testimonials from which the foregoing quotations are taken are on file in our office and are open for in- spection. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. This city having a population (census of 1910) of 301,408, purchased in 1908 a full supply of voting machines and in 1910, in order to accommodate her rapid increase of voters, another installment was bought — making 226 machines in all. These were Dean voting machines supplied by the Empire Company and in all essential particulars are the same as the Empire voting machine. Minneapolis has used her machines for about 5 years — what has been her experience? The following quotations from testimonials all of them dated in June, 1913, will show. Wallace G. Nye, who has for many years been prominent in political and civic affairs in Minneapolis and is now Mayor of the city, on his official letter-head says: “Personally I am strongly in favor of the use of voting machines as, I believe, nearly all of our citizens and voters are; and I cannot understand why a community like Chicago should question the advisability of adopting machines or should ever desire to return to the paper ballot.” Henry N. Knott, City Clerk, certifying under the corporate seal of the city says: “There never has been the suggestion of failure on the part of the machine. In 1910 the election of a Mayor resulted in so close a vote between the two leaders on the ticket (James C. Haynes, Democratic, and Eugene Satterlee, Republican,) that a recount was asked for. The returns of the machines showed Mr. Haynes 34 votes ahead of Mr. Satterlee. There were 37,760 votes cast for Mayor, all told. The recount re- sulted in the majority for Mr. Haynes being reduced one vote, his final plurality being 33 votes. In this case also it was clear that the mistake was one of misreading and not one caused by the failure of the machine to do that which was required of it.” Eugene Satterlee, head of the Salisbury-Satterlee Mfg. Co., and the defeated candidate above referred to, says: “I speak in all sincerity when I tell you that I firmly believe the voting machines have accomplished all of the objects above set forth and have been the principle agent in purifying elections and political conditions, generally in Minneapolis.” Twenty-four members of the City Council out of a total of twenty-six say in a duly certified document: “In favor of the machines it was urged that they would materially reduce the cost of elections, prevent tampering with the ballots, promote clean elections and positively and accurately record the will of the voter thereby reducing election contests to the minimum. In our judgment the machines purchased have done all these things claimed for them.” Fred T. Williams, for three terms Secretary to Mayor Haynes and now Assistant General Manager of the Penn Mutual Life Co., says : “I consider the machines a splendid institution, a safeguard against fraud, a pro- tection to the voter and distinctly an advanced step toward honest elections.” Frank T. Hefifelfinger, President of Peavey Co. (Grain dealers), says: “They have withstood the tests in splendid style; we regard them as a marvelous mechanical device. They have not failed in a single instance to truly record and pre- serve from tampering hands the will of the voters. This could never be said of the 17 paper ballot. I hope the day will never come when Minneapolis will be without this means of registering its political preference.” F. H. Wells, President of the Globe Company, says: “The voting machine in Minneapolis has been a positive advance step. Business men gave it their approval as a means of eliminating election contests and stamping out that predominant evil of elections, the tampering with the ballot. I am pleased to say that since the inauguration of the voting machines in Minneapolis we have been absolutely free of even so much as talk of ballot tampering.” Arthur J. Leahy, Vice President of The General Contracting Co. (pav- ing), writes: “When Chicago finds itself equipped with a voting machine for every precinct it can well congratulate itself upon having delivered a body blow to political scull- duggery, juggling and manipulation; and it is only from these sources that the voting machine need fear that stones will be thrown.” Thomas J. Hamlin, General Manager of The Labor Review (organ of the Trades and Labor Assembly), writes: “I am an ardent advocate of voting machines. They are an advanced step in election machinery, quick, accurate, fair and, mark this, honest!” Joseph Chapman, Vice-President of the Northwestern National Bank > says : “There has been no failure of the voting machines in Minneapolis that I ever heard of, and the citizens generally are very much pleased with the results obtained.” L. J. Boughner, City Editor of the Minneapolis Tribune, says: “Compared with the tedious work of handling the paper ballot returns the voting machines have been a real joy. One can shut up shop and go home shortly after the polls close so speedily are the machine returns in ; and in going home one can feel sure that the returns as received and put into the extras are correct. The few election contests we have had since the advent of the machines only testify to the futility of contesting at all; for, it is noteworthy, that we have yet to find a single machine which has not accurately expressed the will of the voters. There have been one or two little mistakes found but these mistakes were not due to the machines but to the error of the election judges who failed to properly transfer the totals.” BUFFALO, N. Y. This city has a population of 423,715 in 1910. Buffalo installed voting machines (Empire type) in 1900 and their use was gradually extended to all of Erie County including the city of Tonawanda, city of Lackawanna and twenty-five towns. The early experience of Buffalo has been referred to in this pamphlet in the testimonials concerning Hartford. Further experience of Buffalo is expressed in a testimonial from Frank J. Schmidt, Commissioner of Elections for Erie County, who says under date of June 23, 1913 : “There is a great deal of time saved by using the voting machines. The returns are printed in the newspapers and are upon the streets within one hour after the closing of the polls. They are very accurate and prevent any possibility of fraud. The ma- chines have done very satisfactory work in this County and I know that the voters would not want to go back to the old form of voting by ballot.” . This experience of Buffalo, covering 13 years of uninterrupted use of voting machines must close our list of testimonials. Evidence from hundreds of other cities, town and counties could be produced if space allowed. Candor compels us to admit that in several instances machines have been installed and afterward discontinued ; but in no instance has it been shown that the machines were discontinued because they failed to work properly. In some cases changes of the election laws making larger machines necessary, in others judicial decisions on constitutional law, partisan politics and the active opposition of political bosses and vote-brokers account for all such re- actions ; while opposed to these few instances stand the unquestioned experi- ence of a multitude of communities including representative large cities and whole counties showing that voting machines are time-savers, money-savers and fraud-preventers. 18 VIII. ' DID THE ELECTION COMMISSIONERS ARBITRARILY LOAD THE CITY OF CHICAGO WITH AN OPPRESSIVE AND UNMANAGEABLE DEBT? The price paid for the machines sounds large and the newspapers which have been busy “concocting a case” have not failed to take advantage of the fact. The following reflections, however, will probably reassure the taxpayers of the city : The total appropriations for city uses last year amounted to nearly seventy millions of dollars. Was it unreasonable to ask that out of this im- mense sum a sufficient amount should be set aside to meet one or two of the payments for voting machines as they fall due? Just now Chicago is contemplating many large improvements which will cost vast sums. It is all right — outer harbor, new bridges, subways, new parks, playgrounds, bathing beaches and the “City Beautiful !” — but would it not be wise to first provide for the thing that lies at the very foundation of municipal advance — HONEST ELECTIONS? That would be beautiful in- deed ! Chicago is not poor. If her revenues were fairly collected she would have funds in abundance. The fact is, however, that exceedingly wealthy TAX DODGERS, corpo- rations and individuals, some of whom have been prominent in denouncing iwhat they call “The voting machine deal,” have defrauded the city year after year of just and lawful taxes amounting to millions of dollars. Take for illustration the following: On January 8, 1913, a committee of the City Council reporting on tax- ation to the City Council said: “Mortgages are subject to taxation and the records in the Recorder’s Office show that there were $300,000,000 of mort- gages recorded in that office last year; but there were not $100,000 assessed for taxation !” In the same report the Committee pointed out what it termed “The most glaring discrimination in the assessment of real estate in favor of railroads.” The amount of taxes thus dodged was not specified by the Committee but it must have been millions of dollars. In the case of People ex rel John, C. Harding vs. Board of Review to compel the Board to tax the capital stock of 17 specified big corporations owned in Chicago (mainly the big packers) the sworn petition shows that such capital stock, though held liable to taxation by a final decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois, was not assessed at all for either of the five years ending with the year 1909; and the petition shows that the amount of personal prop- erty of these 17 corporations which dodged assessment was for each of the Eve years $223,202,600; or, for the five years, more than a BILLION OF DOLLARS. If the stockholders in these 17 corporations could successfully dodge so large an amount what huge figures would be necessary to express the evasions of all the other corporations in Chicago ! In a similar case settled in court in 1909 a few of the stockholders in the International Harvester Co., as a compromise, paid $167,000 back taxes which was but a small part of the amount claimed. But the striking thing about the case was the fact brought out that no taxes had ever been paid on isuch stocks previously — they had always escaped before ! Recently (according to The Chicago Record-Herald of May 9, 1913) certain tax experts furnished the Board of Assessors with a long list of un- 19 taxed wealthy stockholders and gave “information concerning millions of dol- lars in hitherto untaxed stocks in the hands of Chicagoans.” It should be remembered that the warrants or certificates of indebted- ness which have been audited and issued for payment of the purchase price of the machines, are by provision of the contract to be paid for “out of any money then or thereafter available in the City Treasury,” and the contract further provides for a low rate of interest ( 4 y A per cent) in case of deferred pay- ments. If the management in Chicago is nearly as capable as those in Indian- apolis and Milwaukee have proved to be Chicago will be able to pay for her machines, as those cities did, out of the money saved by diminished election expenses. The voting machine indebtedness should not be a burden but a boon. Extended over a term of years, through the medium of certificates or judg- ments, the annual payments would not be noticed, and in a term of years the machines would pay for themselves several times over out of the savings incident to their operations. The machines, for instance, make unnecessary the services of clerks of election. The work of clerks has to do with two things in the main : tallying and tabulating, and the handling of poll books. The machines do the counting and they substitute the poll books. Here is a fairly accurate estimate of the possible saving in 1914 were voting machines installed throughout all Chicago with clerks eliminated: Saving of 2 clerks in each of 1,266 precincts Saving by elimination of 10,000 poll books at a cost of 10 cents each. . Saving in other election forms Saving in paper ballots Saving in office work $139,260 1,000 2,500 30.000 15.000 Total saving $187,760 To this should be added the saving in expensive and protracted contests. The Hoyne-Cunnea contest alone has cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. The foregoing pages contain the Truth. We know it and challenge in- vestigation. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 3 0112 073474832