Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-05-04
The New York Election Frauds

WHAT Mr.. JOHN 1. DAVENPORT DID WITH
THE MONEY.
The Committee on Expenditures OF the
Department of Justice this morning resum-
ed the examination of Mr.. Davenport, aud
he proceeded to explain TO the committee
his time books, papers, and other vouchers,
showing the manner in which each payment
was made, the object of payment, &c. Wit
ness had now, he said, produced all tie
vouchers he could find covering the eXpendi-
ture of S3i 900, and those he could not iEd
covered small amounts.
In response TO Mr.. Conger, witness said ne
had not paid one dollar OF the money for any
purpose whatever except for the carrying
cut of his system TO detect aud prosecute
frauds at elections.
Question. Was any amount expended for
political purposes, either by yourSelfor ~
any OF the men IN your employ Answer.
Not one dollar unless the men chose TO give
their own wages, which was doubtful.
Question. Ia any conversation You ever
had with the President, or with anv AttOr-
rey General, or with any other official, or
with any other person, was il ever suggested
or contemplated 70 spend money for cleo
tons except in the manner you nave stated
Answer. None whatever, sir. No such sug-
geStiOn from any person.
Question. After the use OF this money a
you have stated, what result ana effect in
regard to fraudulent naturalization. regis
tration and voting in New York was brou ght
about by the means you inaugurated?
Mr.. Caulheld directed the witness not 20
had agreed TO IL.
Mr.. COchrane said he feared the question
would open up a field the committee had
better not go into.
Mr.. CoDger thought the question was pro-
per, because If ii had worked good IT would
show the sound Judgment and good faith OF
the President in spending this large sum OF
money. If no good had resulted, the Presi-
dent might be censurable.
Mr.. Caulfeld objected to the question be-
cause II merely was 10 draw out the opin-
ion of the witness.
Mr.. Copger said the witness was the only
one who knew anything about it.
The committee, by vote OF four TO three.
swered-yeas, Messrs. Wait, Conger, Coch-
raDe and Joyce. Nays, Messrs, Durham
Gambler and Caulfeld.
Answer. IL was beneficial. The witness
then explained that IL had reduced the
fraudulent registration since the year 1868. he
then went Into name the districts that had
been most affected by his system, and as an
illustration of the advantages he referred TO
the Il tn and 18th precincts OF the third as
sembly district. In 1869, when he had no
contest, the vote was I,OlO. In 1870, when he
could interfere only as to the vote for Con-
eressmen, the vote for Governor was iSe.
while that for Congressman was only iIS. In
1sl1, in the state Senatorial election, when
witness could not interfere a. all tire vote
ran up TO T05. In 1872, when witness had
full control and could apply his system to
all, the vote for President was 15S; for Gov
ernor, 15j, and for Congressman, 100.
Witness had no doubt that the system he
had inaugurated could still be carried out at
very small cash, and result beneficiaLy.
In response to Mr.. Gambler, the witness
said his sy stem had resulted In reducing
expended in all the sum Of $4,000, and all
but the sS4 900 came out OF the Judiciary
fund.
The committee at II o'clock adjourned.