Waterbury Democrat., 1901-04-04
! MACHINE VOTING COMING.
THE ArTAMMANY MACHINE RECOMMENDED COMMIT
 TEE APPOINTED IN 1899.

1 does it fin a simple and thoroughly | practical manner. The McTammany system has been in use since 1892, and the reports of the state officials, com ments of the press, and all who have had charge of them in elections bear witness to the successful workings of the system in those states where this, system has been employed.
 During the progress of the inquiry the question arose as to whether, un- der our bill of rights, a ballot cast on any of these machines was a ballot within the meaning of the sixth amendment of the constitution. adopted November, 1896, which reads as fol lows:
 Tn all elections of officers of the state or members of the general as- sembly. the votes of the electors shall be by ballot either written or printed.'
 "In order to determine whether the McTammany system conformed to the constitution of this state, we consult ed the opinion of the attorney general Of Massachusetts, in which state the constitution provides that elections shall be by written ballot and the opinion of the supreme court of Rhode Island. in which State the constitution provides that elections shall be by ballot or paper vote;' in both of which instances the McTammany system was declared constitutional.
 'sThe question of the initial cost of the machines being raised, with the intention of discouraging the friends. of the voting machines, we would brief | ly call attention to the fact that in the city of Stamford, with voting popu-. lation of about 3, 3,500, the cost of elec-i tions for the town and city is given as not less than $3,500. This does not include the expenses to the individual I'eandidates and parties. which would undoubtedly reach, as much. more; and, we are of the opinion sthat enough would be saved in two years to cover the initial cost incident 10 the adop- ton of voting machines: so that no valid objection can be raised against them on account of the expense in volved.
 The proposition to- pass a general law 1egalizing all voting machines in this State. in the opinion of the com mission, is unwise. as it would be equivalent to legalizing a number of different election systems within q single State. Furthermore. the law governing elections by each machine system is radically different and would lead to endless confusion among the officers appointed to con- duct elections in the cities, towns and boroughs. What Connecticut wants and what she is entitled to have Is the best, and to determine this question was one of the objects for which your commission was. tap- pointed: and it is our judgment that by reason of the simplicity of the Me Tammany system. and the. fact that 1t gives a permanent record of the votes cast. which can be subsequently count ed and which can be taken into court and settle any dispute that might arise. and for other reasons above re- ferred to. your commission is of the opinion that this system alone should be adopted by the State"
 The committee recommends the pas sage of the following act
 "Section I. The common council of any city. selectmen of any town. the board Of warden and burgesses of any borough is hereby authorized and em- powered to apply to the Secretary of State for sufficient number of voting machines to enable the electors of said city. town or borougl to vote at all elections in accordance with the pro- , visions of an act of the General As sembly passed at the January session. A. D. 1895. and entitled An act to pro- vide for the use of McTammany yot- ing machines in towns, cities and bor- l,ough.'
 -ssSec. The Secretary of State Is hereby empowered to purchase such n number of machines as may be neces- sary, and to supply them to the sev- eral cities. towns and boroughs upon such application therefor"
 sc, cio IVnrrnn Tf. Hall. chairman; T. Raymond Warren. secretary. and. Edwin s. Thomas. J. Leroy Buck and George A. Williams.