Ci^l CONTESTED ELECTION CASE OF EAYMOND J. JODOIN V. EDWIN W. HIGGINS FEOM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I WASHINGTON 1911 CONTESTED ELECTION CASE OF EAYMOND J. JODOIN V. EDWIN W. HIGGINS FROM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ^ WASHINGTON 1911 -.^ ^^ I. % CONTENTS. Notice of contest 1-4 Answer to notice of contest 4-6 Testimony for contestant and contestee 1-58 Stipulations 6, 7, 26 Exhibit No. 1. — Copy of tiie ballots used for the election of the State oflB- cers of the State of Connecticut, Representative in Congress for the third congressional district, for judges of probate for the probate dis- tricts at the election-held November 8, 1910 8 Exhibit No. 2. — Opinion by the attorney general of the State of Con- necticut, on the ballot law of the State for the guidance of the election ofiicials 9-11 Exhibit No. 3. — Copy of papers and records in the matter of the applica- tion of William J. Kennedy, to the judges of the supreme court of errors, of the State of Connecticut, for a recount of the ballots cast at the congressional election in said State at the election held November 8, 1910 11-26 CONTESTED ELEOTIO:N CASE OP RAYMOND J. JODOIN v. EDWIN W. HIGGINS FROM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. TESTIMONY FOR CONTESTANT AND GONTESTEE. To Hon. Edwin W. Higgins, declared member-elect to the Sixty-second Congress of the United States for the Third Congressional District of the State of Connecticut: You will please take notice that tlie undersigned intends to and does hereby contest your election as a Representative in Congress of the Sixty-second Con- gress of the United States, and the undersigned specifies the following as grounds upon which said contest is made : First. That the undersigned contestant, a citizen of the United States and a duly qualified elector of the State of Connecticut, and regularly nominated as candidate of the Democratic Party for Representative in Congress for the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut at the congressional election held in said district in pursuance of law, on the 8th day of November, 1910. received a plurality of all the lawful votes cast at said election for Representa- tive in Congress in the said district, by the legal, and duly qualified electors of said district voting at said election, although by reason of the lack of skill, understanding of the law, and an erroneous interpretation and construction thereof, as more particularly set forth in paragraphs " fourth," " sixth," " sev- ( (nth," and " eighth," following, it appears otherwise on the face of the returns. Second. That you, the contestee herein, did not receive a plurality of all the lawful votes of the legal and duly qualified electors of said third congressional district legally cast at said election for a Representative in the Sixty-second Congress, although on the face of the returns it is so made to appear owing to the erroneous rulings and decisions of the several moderators of the several electors' meetings in said district, and their failure to understand, interpret, and construe the law under which said election was held, as more particularly set forth in said paragraphs " fourth," " sixth," " seventh," and " eighth," fol- lowing. Third. That the undersigned contestant at said election received more law- ful votes for Representative in the Sixty-second Congress cast by the lawful, legal, and duly qualified electors of said district than did you, the said con- testee, although, on the face of the returns the contrary is made to appear through the lack of skill and the failure of the moderators of said electors' meetings to understand and construe the law as stated in the preceding para- graph. Fourth. At the said congressional election held in said third congressional district, as aforesaid, on the 8th day of November, 1910, all of the electors of said third congressional district were required by the laws of the State of Connecticut, to wit; chapter 250 of the public acts of said State passed at the January session, 1909, of the general assembly of said State, to cast their votes for Representative in Congress upon a form of ballot containing the names of all the candidates of all the political parties for Representative in Congress^ and also the names of all the candidates of all political parties for all other State and local offices to be elected on said day and printed and furnished said electors by the secretary of said State of Connecticut, and said form of ballot had never before been used by the electors of said congressional district in a congressional election in said State and district; but always theretofore the 2 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. electors of said third congressional district, by tlie laws of said State liad been required in the election of Representatives in Congress in said district to use separate party ballots printed by the several political parties on blank paper furnished by said secretary of state, on which were and were required to be printed only the names of the candidates of a single political party, and on which the names of the candidates of other political parties were prohibited to be printed. And on said new ballot there was printed in addition to the names of the several candidates of all political parties to be voted for, as afore- said, certain instructions to voters required by said chapter 250 of said public acts of 1909, which said instructions were faulty; not in harmony with said act of 1909; misleading and confusing both to the voters and to the modera- tors or presiding officers of election in the several towns and voting districts in said third congressional district, and not such as fairly and reasonably to guide the electors in voting. And the said moderators or presiding officers of the several towns within said third congressional district of Connecticut, and the moderators or presiding officers in the several voting districts of the said towns having more than one voting district therein, were unskilled and did not understand said new and untried ballot, nor the instructions thereon printed, nor the meaning of said law of 1909, nor the proper interpretation and construc- tion thereof; and they, the snid moderators and the electors of said third con- gressional district, were misled by said faulty and misleading instructions printed on said ballot, as aforesaid, and said several moderators or presiding officers did erroneously rule and decide that more than 750 ballots regularly deposited in the ballot boxes used at said congressional election in the said third congressional district, and clearly expressing the intention and will of the electors casting the same to vote for and select the undersigned contestant as their Representative in Congress, for said third congressional district, to be illegal and void ballots, and that said ballots should not be counted as ballots or votes in favor of the undersigned contestant ; and because of said erroneous rulings and decisions of said several moderators said several legal ballots were not counted for any person and were cast out and rejected and the same were not credited to the undersigned contestant in the tabulation or count of the A'otes for or in his favor, and were not returned as votes for the contestant or for any other person or candidate to the secretary of state with the other votes east and counted at said election, and the canvassing board did not count tlie same as votes, or include them in their count or consider the same as ballots or votes in making their declaration set forth in paragraph " Fifth " following. Ilfth. On November 30, 1910, the secretary, treasurer, and comptroller of the State of Connecticut, in conformity with section 1688 of the general statutes of the State of Connecticut, canvassed and counted the votes for RepresentatiA'e in Congress for said third congressional district as returned from said several towns in said third congressional district, and notwithstanding more than 10,.5O0 electors of said third congressional district had lawfully cast their law- ful ballots in fnvor of this contestant and with intent to elect him as the Repre- sentative of said district in the Sixty-second Congress, declared that the under- signed contestant received only 9,933 votes, and that you, the contest ee, received 10,011 votes, or a plurality of 78. and that the other candidates for said office of Representative in Congress for said district received the following and only the following votes : Edwin Perkins Clark, 557 : James M. Young, 344 ; Louis Wengarth, 96; J. C. Vallette, 2; whereas had all of the ballots legally cast as aforesaid but rejected as void by reason of the said erroneous rulings and de- cisions of said moderators or presiding officers as set forth in paragraph fourth, been counted and returned to the Secretary of State with the votes which were so returned, the undersigned contestant would have received on the face of the returns more than 10.500 votes for said office, and would have been by the can- vassers of said election declared elected to said office instead of you, the said contestee. Sixth. That at said congi'essional election held in said third congressional district on the said 8th day of November, 1910, in addition to the ballots legally cast, counted, returned and canvassed there were regularly and legally de- posited in the said several ballot boxes in said several towns constituting said third congressional district 753 ballots, more than 500 of which were upon the erroneous ruling and decision of the said several moderators in said several towns, decided to be illegal and void ballots, and all of said ballots, because of said erroneous rulings and decisions, were rejected, cast out, and not counted for any candidate on said ballots; and more than 500 of said ballots errone- ously rejected as being illegal and void by said moderators, as aforesaid, were lawfully cast and marked, with the intent of the electors casting the same, to JODOIlsr vs. HIGGINS. 3 t vote for the undersigned contestant, and with the purpose and intent of electing him as their Representative in the Sixty-second Congress. That had said sev- eral ballots been counted as cast the undersigned would have received a plu- rality of more than 400 votes and would have been entitled to be and would have been declared elected to said office of Representative in Congress, instead of you, the said contestee. Seventh. That of the said 10,011 ballots counted as votes for you, the said contestee, in the said several towns in said third congressional district more than 300 ballots were marked contrary to the provisions of said chapter 250 of said public acts of 1909, and were thereby rendered illegal and void and should have been rejected and cast out as void ballots; but all of said 300 and more ballots were ruled upon by said moderators in said congressional district and by them erroneously decided to be valid ballots, and they were counted as legal votes for you, the contestee, and returned to the secretary of state as valid votes and so counted by said board of canvassers; whereas had said 300 and more void ballots so counted for you been rejected as void your vote would have been returned to the said secretary of state as less than 9,700 instead of 10.011, and this contestant would have been by the said board of canvassers declared elected to the office of Representative in Congress insteadi of you, the contestee. Eighth. That at said congressional election held as aforesaid in said third congressional district, by reason of the lack of skill of the said moderators of the several electors' meetings in said district and their failure to properly construe and Interpret the provisions of the said chapter 250 of the said public acts of 1909. there were counted and returned as votes in your favor certain illegal and void ballots which should have been rejected and not counted because marked contrary to the provisions of said chapter 250 of said public acts of 1909 ; and there were cast out and rejected as void by said several moderators certain legal ballots which should have been counted and re- turned as votes for and in favor of the undersigned contestant, the number of which ballots follow : Towns. Bozrah Colchester East Lyme Franklin Griswold Groton Lebanon Ledyard Lisbon Lyme Montville New London Norwich North Stonington Old Lyme Preston Salem .Stonington Voluntown Illegal ballots counted for con- testee. 12 5 15 17 10 5 4 5 20 150 75 25 10 7 4 32 5 Legal ballots for con- testant rejected as void. Waterford . Ashford Brooklyn. . Canterbury Chaplin Eastford . . . Hampton. . Killingly . . , Plainfield . . Pomfret Putnam Scotland. . . Sterling Thompson. Windham . . Woodstock. Total. Illegal ballots counted for con- testee. 602 Legal ballots for con- testant rejected as void. 4 2 7 8 2 3 3 45 35 4 32 2 1 7 10 7 515 And had said 515 ballots rejected been counted for and in favor of this con- testant, and the said illegal ballots counted for and in favor of you, the said contestee, been declared void and rejected as of right they should have been, the vote of the undersigned contestant on the face of the returns, and in fact, would have exceeded 10.500 votes, and your vote would have been less than 10.000 and this contestant would have been declared elected the Representative of said third congressional district in the Sixty-second Congress. Ninth. That at said congressional election held in the said third congressional district at the electors' meeting in the town of New London more than 100 legal ballots were cast and marked wih a cross mark in the circle above the Repub- lican column, bearing also a cross marjc at the left of and in the voting space opposite the name of this contestant in the Democratic column, all of which of right should have been but were not counted and returned as votes for this contestant; but whether said failure to count said ballots as votes for this 4 JODOIN VS. HIGGIlSrS. contestant was owing to the erroneous ruling of the moderators of the several wards in said town, or through errors on the part of the counters of said elec- tion in counting or tabulating said ballots and votes, this contestant has not been able to ascertain, nor has he knowledge as to the number of such votes in the several wards of said town, and reserves and insists upon the right to make his proof of said facts without here alleging the same with more particularity. And you, the said contestee, will also please take notice that the said ballots cast both for you and for this contestant for Representative in Congress as in the preceding paragraphs mentioned, both those counted and those rejected, are, have been, and are now kept under seal and so beyond the power of this contestant to examine and count; wherefore this contestant can not specify more particularly the exact numbers of the ballots counted and of the ballots rejected than as stated in the preceding paragraphs, nor has it been possible for the contestant to ascertain and state with more particularity the number of void ballots counted and the number of legal ballots rejected in particular voting districts or wards in said several towns; but having stated the facts relating to said ballots with as great particularity as he could ascertain the same without access to the ballots themselves, this contestant reserves and in- sists upon the right to take testimony and to examine the ballots in all the ballot boxes used in said congressional election held on said November 8, 1910, and to prove from the ballots themeselves, upon examination thereof, and upon a true construction of the law under wliich they were cast, the exact number of lawful votes cast both for you, the contestee, and for this contestant, without further or more speciiic statement in this notice. Dated at Norwich; Conn., this 23d day of December, 1910. Raymond J. Jodoin, Contestant. Norwich, Decemder 23, 1910. United States of America, State of Connecticut: Herbert E. Draper, being duly sworn, says that he is deputy to the sherifC of the county of New London in the State of Connecticut, and that on the 23d day of December, 1910, he duly served the above and foregoing notice of con- test, by leaving with and in the hands of the Hon. Edwin W. Higgins, the contestee, a true and attested copy of the above and foregoing notice of contest of the election of the said Edwin W. Higgins as a member of the House of Representatives for the third congressional district of Connecticut, at Norwich in said State of Connecticut. Herbert E. Draper. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23d day of December, 1910.. [SEAL.] Chas. F. Thayer, Notary Public. Pees: Miles travel, 20 cents; copy, $2.25; service, 12 cents; indorsements, 24 cents ; total, $2.81 ; paid by R. J. Jodoin, contestant. Herbert E. Draper, Deputy Sheriff. To Raymond J. Jodoin, Connecticut. Sir: In response to your notice that you intend to contest my election as a Representative to Congress from the third Connecticut district at the general election held in said district on the 8th day of November, 1910, I answer as fol- lows: First. That your notice of contest was not given in accordance with the Revised Statutes of the United States, chapter 105, inasmuch as you do not state in your specifications, with a single exception, why the ballots or any of them alleged to have been illegally cast and counted for me were illegal and should not have been so counted, nor do you state why the ballots alleged to have been lawfully cast for yourself at said election and illegally rejected were so rejected; and inasmuch as you allege that you know the number of such ballots alleged to have been illegally counted and rejected in the several towns as set up in your specifications, you must know, of course, the grounds on which such ballots were so counted or" rejected, and your notice should have given me this information, under the act of Congress, in order to fairly apprise JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 5 me of your reasons for claiming tliat I was not elected and you were elected at said general election. Second. Without in any way waiving the right to take advantage of the errors, uncertainties, and imperfections above mentioned in your notice of con- test, but expressly saying and reserving unto myself said right, I further answer : Third. It is admitted that the law under which said general election was held was a law passed by the General Assembly of Connecticut and approved the 24th day of August, 1909, and that the said general election was the first at which an election for Congressman had been held in said district under the provisions of said law; but it is averred that town elections were held under said law throughout said district and State prior to said general election, and that great pains were taken to inform the voters as to the provisions of said law and the manner of voting correctly under its provisions both before said town elections and before said general election. And further the moderators, counters, and all the election officials of the several towns and voting districts, of the third congressional district of Connecticut uniformly followed in deter- mining the validity of the ballots cast in the election of Representative to Congress in the third Connecticut district on November 8, 1910, the written opinion of the attorney general of the State given at the joint request of the chairman of the Democratic State central committee and the Republican State central committee construing the statute in order that the moderators at the different electors' meetings throughout the State might have some uniform standard by which to judge the legality of the ballots cast and this non- partisan opinion and the instructions issued and widely circulated by the Republican and Democratic State central committees in conformity to the said opinion fully advised the election officials and the electors on said ballot law and the political committees of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, State and local, the moderators and election officials, were in agreement and accord in their construction of the ballot law and agreed fully as to the mean- ing and intent of said statute, all of which agreements were fully carried out by he election officials of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in their count of the votes cast and no partisan question as to the meaning and intent of said law was raised by any party during the progress of said election and the casting, counting, and tabulation of the result of said ballots. Fourth. That notwithstanding the steps taken, as set forth in the third article of this answer, errors were made in the counting and tabulation of the ballots cast for Representative in Congress in said third congressional district at said general election, held November 8, 1910, whereby ballots cast for me for Repre- sentative to Congress in said district were unlawfully rejected and not counted and illegal ballots cast for you were unlawfully counted and recorded. Fifth. By the provisions of the statutes of this State the boxes containing the ballots cast at said general election in said third congressional district on the 8th day of November, 1910, are held under seal in tlie town clerk's offices in the various towns in said district and by reason of that fact I am unable to specify with particularity and accuracy and to fully describe the ballots which were unlawfully cast and counted and recorded for you in the several towns in said district, and the ballots which were lawfully cast but not counted and recorded for me at said general election in said district, but upon such informa- tion as I have been able to obtain from election officials and others I believe and therefore aver that in each of the towns mentioned in the specifications of your notice, and also in the town of Sprague, more than a majority of the ballots rejected and not counted were ballots lawfully cast for me and should have been counted for me in ascertaining the result of said election; and that in each of the towns mentioned in your specifications and also in the town of Spraguo there were ballots, the number of which I ha\e been unable to obtain, which were unlawfully cast and counted and recorded for you. Sixth. Your eligibility for Representative to Congress as stated in your notice is admitted. Seventh. With the exceptions stated in the foregoing articles of this answer I deny each and every one of tlie allegations made by you as fully as if each allegation and each ground of contest vrere specifically denied. Wherefore, in case a recount should be had, I ask that such recount shall embrace the ballots cast for Representative in Congress in each and all the towns in said third congressional district and that the mistakes above set forth be corrected, and I assert that I received, at said election in such district, held 6 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. on November 8, 1910, more votes than were received by yon and a greater plu- rality of tlie votes hnvfnlly cast than credited to me in the official returns. Dated at Norvrich, Conn., this ITth day of Jannary, 1911. Edwin W. Higgins, Contestee. The above and foregoing is a duplicate of the original answer of the contestee gi\eu me by his hand this 17th clay of January, 1911, for service upon Raymond J. Jodoin, of Sprague, Conn. Hereekt E. Drapes, Deputi/ SJicriff for New London County. It is hereby stipulated between said contestant and said contestee as follows: 1. That Exhibit 1 hereto annexed is substantially a true copy of the ballots used for the election of the State officers of the State of Connecticut, Repre- sentative in Congress for the third congressional district, for judges of pro- bate for the probate districts in said congressional district, for State senators for the senatorial districts in said congressional district, and representatives to the general assembly from the various towns in said congressional district, and for justices of the peace in said towns in said district. 2. That the ballots cast in said various senatorial districts, probate districts, and towns, were alike, mutatis mutandis, substituting the various names of the various nominees for said various officers. 3. That Raymond J. Jodoin, the contestant, was the Democratic nominee regularly nominated, whose name was printed upon all the ballots used in said congressional district at the election for Representative in Congress for said district in said Sixty-second Congress of the United States. 4. That Edwin W. Higgins, the contestee, was the regular Republican nom- inee, whose name was printed upon all of said ballots used in said district at said election for Representative in Congress in said district. 5. That said ballot as used in said election was novel to the voters of said district; that said ballot had never been used before at any election in said district for the election of a Representative in Congress to the United States, although a similar ballot had been used in most of the towns in said district at the preceding October election held for the election of town officers, and that there was a diversity of opinion amongst competent attorneys and judges as to the proper construction of the law as to said ballots and as to the effect of different marks and the location of the same upon said ballots and as to what ballots should be rejected for various causes. 6. That at said election and under the law of the State of Connecticut the moderators at the electors' meetings in the various towns on November 8, 1910, were the judges authorized to judge and pass upon the various ballots cast at said election for Representative in Congress and the other officers, State and otherwise. 7. That Exhibit 2 hereto annexed is a true copy of the opinion of the attorney general of the State of Connecticut given at the request of the respective chair- man of the State Democratic and State Republican committees, and that the same was widely printed in the various newspapers of the State and widely circulated amongst the voters of said third congressional district. 8. That at said election, notwithstanding the circulation of said opinion of the attorney general of the State, the moderators at the electors' meeting in the various polling places in said towns in said district disagreed as to what ballots were valid and what ballots were invalid under said law. 9. That in many voting districts it is probable that the moderators were mistaken in their decisions as to the validity or invalidity of ballots cast for said office of Representative in Congress from said district, and that without opening the boxes and examining the ballots therein it is impossible to deter- mine the extent of such mistaken decisions. 10. That no poll book or record of any kind was kept under the law of the State of Connecticut or was by said law I'equired to be kept showing whaf^ votes were rejected or the causes for the same. 11. That under the law of the State of Connecticut the moderators in said various voting places in said towns are required to put a memorandum upon the back of all ballots that are rejected, stating the causes thereof; that «aid JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. T % ballots and the memoranda tlii-reon and tlie causes of rejection are placed in said boxes and said boxes are securely sealed, so that the ballots rejected and the causes for rejection can be ascertained and known only by opening said boxes and examining said ballots. 12. That it is impossible to tell with accuracy what ballots has-e been im- properly counted or rejected for the contestant or contestee without opening said boxes and examining said ballots. 13. That both the contestant and the contestee agree that the boxes be brought into the custody and control of a notary public, acting for and in the place of the said Sixty-second Congress and of its committee on contested elections. 14. That said contestant desires that said boxes be opened and said ballots examined and recounted and that the lawful and correct count of said ballots be ascertained thereby without objection on the part of the contestee. 15. That said contestant and contestee waive any question of formality or sufficiency of the pleadings as to said matter of contest and agree that all issues are properly raised and presented for the opening of said ballot boxes and for a recount of all the ballots cast at said election for the office of Repre- sentative in Congress for said congressional district in said Sixty-second Congress. 16. That said contestant and contestee stipulate and agree that Warren B. Burrows, a notary public, shall act as such magistrate and notary for the issuing of all subpcenas for the impounding and holding of said ballot boxes until the same be lawfully demanded and called for by the House of Representa- ' fives of said Sixty-second Congress or its duly authorized committee. 17. That said contestant and contestee agree and stipulate to assist in every way in expediting and facilitating the recount of said votes. 18. That said contestant and contestee stipulate and agree to waive any and all claims which they or either of them might make under any of the pleadings or any part of the proceedings for the determination of said question so that a full recount of all ballots cast for Member of Congress from said congressional district in said Sixty-second Congress may be had. 19. That Exhibit 3 hereto annexed is a true copy of all the papers and rec- ords in the matter of the application of William J. Kennedy before Hon. Samuel O. Prentice, Hon. John M. Thayer, Hon. Alberto T. Roraback, judges of the supreme court of errors, authorized under section 1685 of the general statutes of Connecticut, to recount the ballots cast at congressional elections in said State and to correct any errors in the rulings of the moderators or any mistake in the count of said votes, and that Exhibit 4 is a true copy of all the papers and records in the matter of the application of Lewis before Hon. Sam- uel O. Prentice, Hon. John M. Thayer, Hon. Alberto T. Roraback, judges of the supreme court of errors, and that Exhibit 5 is a true transcript of all the proceedings at the hearings on said applications. 20. That certified copies of all the records concerning the returns of said election and the canvass of the votes as required by the laws of the State of Connecticut to be on file in the office of the secretary of the state, together with all decisions rendered or given by any court or courts of the State of Connecticut concerning the ballots in question or any ballots cast in said elec- tion in any part of the State of Connecticut may be offered by either the con- testant or the contestee before the Congress of the United States or its com- mittee without objection, and when so offered shall be received as a part of the record. 21. That said contestant and contestee stipulate and agree that said ballots in said boxes, and the memoranda thereon, and the various exhibits mentioned In this stipulation, including tthe returns or records on file with the secretary of the State of Connecticut, and said decisions of courts constitute the evidence and all the evidence which is competent for the determination of said contro- versy between them as to the choice of the electors in said congressional dis- trict of a Member of Congress for said third congressional district in said Sixty-second Congress. Raymond .T. .Jodoin, Contestant. Edwin W. Higgins, Contestee. Norwich, Conn., March 16, 1911. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. Exhibit 1. This ballot shall be marked with a pencil having black lead. To vote a straight ticket, make a cross mark " X " within the circle above one of the party columns. To vote a split ticket; that is, for candidates of different parties, the voter shall make a cross mark " X " before the name of each candidate for whom he votes, not appearing in the column which he has designated by an " X " in the circle at its head. In case two representatives are to be elected from any town, any elector may split such ballot by placing a cross mark " X "" in the voting space on the left and before the names of the two candidates for whom he desires to cast his ballot, such mark to be in addition to the mark required to be placed within said circle. If the ticket marked in the circle for a straight itcket does not contain the names of candidates for all offices for which the elector desires to vote, he shall, in addition to the cross mark " X " made in the circle hereinbefore re- quired, vote for candidates for such offices so omitted by making a cross mark " X " before the names of the candidates for such offices in another column on this ticket, or by writing the name, if not printed upon the ballot, in the blank column, under the title of the office. Any other mark than the cross mark " X " used for the purpose of voting will render this ballot void. If you tear, deface, or wrongly mark this ballot, return it and obtain another. o o o KEPUBLICAN. DEMOCEATIC. SOOALIST. Governor. Governor. Governor. □ Charles A. Goodwin. n Simeon E. Baldwin. D Robert Hunter. Lieutenant governor. Lieutenant governor. Lieutenant governor. D Dennis A. Blakeslee. D Andrew J. Broughel. D William Applegate. Secretary. Secretary. Secretary. D Matthew H. Rodgers. n Zalmon Goodsell. D Elva Reeve Bloor. Treasurer. Treasurer. Treasurer. D Costello Lippitt. n Edward T. Brown. D James J. Mclntyre. Comptroller. Comptroller. Comptroller. D Thomas C. Bradstreet. n John M. Brady. D Emil Goris. Attorney general. Attorney general. Attornej'^ general. D John H. Light. D Taleott H. Russell. No nomination. Representative at large. Representative at large. Representative at large. D John Q. Tilson. n George P. Ingersoll. D Samuel E. Beardsley. Kepresentative in Congress. Representative in Congress. Representative in Congress. O Edwin W. Higgms. D Raymond J. Jodoin. D Edwin Perkins Clarke. Sherifi. Sheriff. Sheriff. D Sidney A. Brown. D Lawrence Ashcroft. D Charles Trimbach. Senator. Senator. Senator. D John H. Davis. D Charles S. Avery. D Fred Holdsworth. Judge of probate. Judge of probate. Judge of probate. D Nelson J. Ayling. D Thomas M. Shields. D Albert Boardmen. Representatives. Representatives. Representatives. D Henry W. Tibbits. D Frederick Dearing. D Walter H. Wolverton. D Albert J. Bailey. D John F. Craney. D Rudolph A. Krohn. Justices of the peace. Justices of the peace. Justices of the peace. D Wallace S. Allis. D Franklin H. Brown. D Daniel Polskey. D John C. Averill. D Edward T. Burke. D James P. Donnelly. D Herman Alofsin. D John J. Corkery. n Eugene Carroll. D Albert J. Bailey. D John F. Coughlin. D Samuel Lambert. D John H. Barnes. D Jeremiah J. Desmond. D Arthur F. Fulton. D Willis A. Briscoe. D Roderick M. Douglas. D Amos A. Browning. n Joseph T. Fanning. D S. Ashbell Crandall. D William F. Hill. D John Eccles. D Charles V. James. □ Currie Gilmore. D Thomas J. Kelly. D John D. Hall. D Gilbert. S. Raymond. D Edwin W. Higgins. D Thomas A. Robinson. □ George E. Parsons. D Thomas M. Shields. D Henry H. Pettis. D William H. Shields. D Donald G. Perkins. D Charles F. Thayer. D Lee Roy Robbins. D Seneca S. Thresher. D Thomas A. Robinson. D William Weldon. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. o o o PKOHIBITION. SOCIALIST LABOR. BLANK COLUMN. Governor. Governor. Governor. D Emil L. G. Hohenthal. n Frederick Fellermann. D Lieutenant governor. Lieutenant governor. Lieutenant governor. D Benjamin F. Beardsley. D John T. Riggs. D Secretary. Secretary. Secretary. D Charles J. Faneher. D Albert H. Gierginsky. a Treasurer. Treasurer. Treasurer. n Charles B. Allyn. D Henry Finken. D Comptroller. Comptroller. Comptroller. D Ray K. Linsley. D Joseph Marek. D Attorney general. Attorney general. Attorney general. D Wilbur G. Manchester. D Emanuel Sherman. D Representative at large. Representative at large. Representative at large. D William P. Barstow. D Max Feldman. D Representative in Congress. Representative in Congress. Representative in Congress. D James M. Young. D Louis Weingarth. □ Sheriff. Sheriff. Sheriff. D David T. Donahue. D Thomas McGarty. □ Senator. Senator. Senator. D William Crowe. n No nomination. D Judge of Probate. Judge of prodate. Judge of probate. D No nomination. n No nomination. D Representatives. Representatives. Representatives. D Robert McNeely. D No nomination. D D S. Howard Mead. D D Justices of the peace. D Justices of the peace. D Charles S. Storms. Justices of the peace. D D William C. Noyes. D No nomination. D □ Daniel C. Graham. D D Frank Haglund. D D Joseph J. Fields. D D Levi S. Saunders. D D Louis A. Frazier. D D Frederick J. Haglund. D D Sterling Nelson. D D Robert McNeely. D n Amos A. Baldwin. D S. Howard Mead. Exhibit 2. THE CONNECTICUT BALLOT LAW — OPINION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN H. LIGHT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF ELECTION OFFICIALS AND ELECTORS — RENDERED UPON THE JOINT REQUEST OF THE CHAIRMEN OF THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEES. Hartford, 'Novem'ber 3, 1910. Hon. ]MiCH.\EL Kenealy, Cliairman Eepublican State Central Committee, and Hon. Charles W. Comstock, Cliairman Democratic State Central Committee. Gentlemen: Agreeable to your request, and in order that tlie moderators at the different electors' meetings throughout the State may have some uniform standard oy which to judge the legality of ballots cast, I submit the following opinion : To preface what I have to say, I will first call attention to the language of our supreme court in certain ballot cases, which may serve in construing the present law. In the case of Flanagan v. Hynes (75 Conn., 584), the court held that— " The ultimate purpose of the statutes regulating the exercise of the right of suffrage is to secure an orderly and faithful expression and registration of the 10 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. popular will upon tlie questions submitted for decision. If ballots are to be rejected and voters thereby disfranchised, it should be because the legislature has seen fit to require it in the interest of an honest suffrage, and has expressed that requirement in unmistakable language. It should not result from doubtful judicial construction, from a too strict regard for the mere letter of the statute, or from a resort to nice or technical refinements in the interpretation or appli- cation of the law." In the case of Fields v. Osborne (60 Conn., 549), the court say: " There can be no question but that the legislature intended to say that a ballot which fails to accord with certain specifically enumerated requirements should be void, Irrespective of all considerations as to the intent or effect of such failure. It considered uniformity an important means of preventing fraud. * * * It is not within the province of the court to say what the consequences of the failure to conform shall be ; the act itself fixes that." And the court further held that it was their duty to construe the statute so that the voter shall not be deprived of his vote except upon a plain and unam- biguous provision of the law. In the case of Coughlin v. McBlroy (72 Conn., 107), the court say: " Marks upon the face of ballots which appear or are shown to have been made accidentally, and not for the purpose of indicating the voter, and 'changes, for the existence of which a reasonable explanation consistent with honesty and good faith either appears upon the face of the ballot, or is shown by proof, did not render the ballots void." In passing upon the legality of a ballot the first question to be considered by the moderator is. Does the ballot conform to the statute? In answering this question he may consider himself relieved of any obligation to inquire as to the necessity or reason of the requirements of the statute, and that he Is not at liberty to dispense with any of the requirements of the statute. The legislature has seen fit to throw around the ballot box such safeguards and regulations as it deemed proper, and it is the duty of the citizen to conform to the same. I will now take up in order the provisions of the statute. HOW TO VOTE A STRAIGHT TICKET. Any elector may vote a straight ticket by placing the cross mark " X " within the circle ;it the head of the party ticket (or column) which he desires to vote. The ballot shall be marked with pencil having black lead. It is advisable for the elector to use the pencil to be found in the booths. HOW TO VOTE A SPLIT TICKET WHESE THERE IS ONLY ONE MAN TO BE ELECTED TO EILL A PARTICULAR OFFICE. To vote a split ticket is to vote for candidates of different parties. An elector may split his ballot by making a cross mark " X " at the left and before the name of each candidate for whom he desires to vote not appearing in the party column which he has designated by a cross mark " X " in the circle at its head. HOW TO VOTE A SPLIT TICKET IN CASE TWO OR MORE PERSONS ARE TO BE ELECTED TO FILL THE SAME OFFICE. In towns where two representatives are to be elected any elector may split his ballot by placing the cross mark " X " in the voting space on the left and before the names of the two candidates for whom he desires to cast such ballot, such marks to be in addition to the mark required to be placed within the circle at the head of his ticket; that is to say, in case a Republican desires to vote for one candidate on the Democratic ticket for representative, and one on his own ticket, he should place the cross mark "X" in the voting space on the left and before the name of each of said candidates, viz. the candidate on his own ticket, and the candidate on the other ticket, such marks to be in addition to the mark required to be placed in the circle at the head of his ticket ; and in case he should desire to vote for the two candidates on another ticket for repre- sentatives he may do so by placing the cross mark " X " in the voting space on the left and before the names of such two candidates, such marks to be in addi- tion to the mark required to be placed within the circle at the head of his ticket. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 11 HOW TO VOTE FOR ONE OK MORE CANDIDATES WITHOUT VOTING A PARTY TICKET. All elector may vote for oue or more candidates without voting a party ticket by using tlie blank column. Tlie law provides tliat — "An elector may write in said column the name of any person for whom he desires to vote for the office designated, in the space where such name may be written, and such ballot shall be counted for the person whose name is so written." If an elector should desire to vote for one of the candidates to fill the office of governor, without voting a party ticket, he may do so by writing the name of such person in the blank column on the line under the title of " Governor," and such ballot shall be counted for the candidate whose name is so written. This illustration may serve for all of the candidates for the several offices named on the ballot. HOW TO VOTE WHEN THE NUMBER OF NAMES ON THE BALLOT FOR A PARTICULAR OFFICE DO NOT EQUAL THE NUMBER FOR WHOM AN ELECTOR IS ENTITLED TO VOTE. The law provides that where the names of two or more candidates for the same political iiarty and for the same office appear printed on said ballot, and the number of names on said ballot for such office does not equal the number for whom the elector is entitled to vote, he may make the cross mark "X" in the space at the left of the name of any candidate of any other i^arty column for whom he desires to vote, or he may write in the proper space in the blank column the name of any person, not printed on said ballot, for whom he desires to vote. This provision covers a case where, for instance, a party has failed to make nominations for representatives. An elector may vote for one or both of the representatives of another party by making the cross mark " X " in the voting space at the left of the name or names in any other party column for whom he desires to vote, or he may write in the space in the blank column the name of any person, not printed on said ballot, for whom he desires to vote — that is, he may write in the name of a candidate who has not been nominated by any party. HOW TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF A BALLOT. The law provides that — " If any ballot shall contain any mark or device other than as hereinbefore provided, so that the same may be identified in such a manner as to indicate who might have cast the same, or shall be folded otherwise than as delivered to the voter by the ballot clerk, the ballot shall not be counted, but shall be kept by the moderator and returned to the town clerk in the ballot box in a separate package from the ballots counted at such election." In passing upon marked ballots the moderator should keep in mind the lan- guage of Chief Justice Hall in the case of Coughlin r. McElroy, cited above, that '* marks upon the face of ballots which appear or are shown to have been made accidentally, and not for the purpose of indicating the voter, and changes for the existence of which a reasonable explanation consistent with honesty and good faith either appears upon the face of the ballot or is shown by proof, should not render the ballot void." I am of the opinion that moderators in the discharge of the duty of constru- ing the ballot law should keep in mind that an elector should not be deprived of his vote except upon a plain and unambiguous provision of the law. Respectfully submitted. John H. Light, Attorney General. Exhibit .3. To the Hon. John INI. Thayer, a .iudge of the supreme court of errors of the State of Connecticut, comes "William J. Kennedy, of the town of riainfield, county of Windham, and State of Connecticut, and complains and says: 1. That he is and on the Sth day of November, 1910, was an elector residing^ in said town of Plainfield. 2. That on said Sth day of November, 1910. an electors' meeting was held in said town of Plainfield and in all the other towns in New Loudon County and 12 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. Wiudliam Countj^ constitiltiug tlie third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, for the election of a Eepresentative in Congress for the said third congressional district. 3. On said day and at said election Raymond J. Jodoin, of the town of Sprague, in New London County, and Edwin W. Higgius, of Norwich, in said New London County, were regularly chosen candidates for the otilce of Repre- sentative in Congress for said third congressional district of Connecticut. 4. No election for Representative in Congress has ever before been held in said third congressional district under the law in force on November S, 1910, nor in the form or manner or with the form of ballot required by the existing election law of Connecticut, and the moderator in said town of Plainfield, and the moderators of the several electors' meetings held in the said several towns in said third congressional district did not fully understand the meaning of said law nor the proper interpretation thereof, and erroneously ruled and decided that certain ballots regularly deposited in the ballot boxes in said town of Plainfield and in the several towns in said congressional district and express- ing the intention and will of the electors casting the same to vote for and select the said Raymond J. Jodoin as their Representative in Congress were not legal ballots and that the same should not be counted as ballots or votes in favor of said Raymond J. Jodoin, and the same were not counted by the election count- ers in the said several towns, but were by reason of said erroneous rulings of said several moderators rejected and not counted as ballots or votes for any person, and the same were not credited to the said Raymond J. Jodoin in the tabulation or count of the ^ otes for or in his favor. 5. The returns from the several towns comprising said third congressional district show th;it the said Edwin W. Higgins received 75 votes more than were received by the said Raymond J. Jodoin, and only 75 more votes, and that no other person received as many votes as either the said Edwin W. Higgins or the said Raymond J. Jodoin. 6. That on said day in addition to other ballots legally cast and counted 32 ballots were regularly deposited in the ballot box provided at said election In said town of Plainfield for the reception of the lawful ballots cast at said electors' meeting, each bearing the name of Raymond J. Jodoin as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress, and so marked by the electors who so deposited the same as to express their intention and will to vote for and choose him, the said Raymond J. Jodoin, as their Representative in Congress. 7. Said 32 ballots described in paragraph 6 were ruled upon by the modera- tor of said electors' meeting and by him decided to be unlawful and void bal- lots, and the same by reason of said decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not counted in favor of said Jodoin for said office. S. All of said 32 ballots were legal ballots and expressed the intention and will of the electors casting the same to elect the said Raymond J. Jodoin to said office. 9. That in the town of Putnam, in Windham Coimty, there were 52 ballots regularly deposited in the ballot box provided at the election on said date, each bearing the name of said Raymond J. Jodoin as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress, and so marked by the electors who deposited the same as to express their intention and will to vote for and choose him, the said Jodoin, as their Representative in Congress, all of which were likewise ruled upon by the moderator in said electors' meeting in said Putnam, and by him decided to be unlawful ballots, and the same by reason of said erroneous decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not counted in favor of said Jodoin for said office. ^^ ^ „ . 10. That in the town of Killingly. in Windham County, there were 60 ballots regularly deposited in the ballot box provided at the election on said date, each bearing the name of said Raymond J. Jodoin as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress, and so marked by the electors who deposited the same as to express their intention and will to vote for and choose him, the said Jodoin, as their Representative in Congress, all of which were likewise ruled upon bv the moderator in said electors' meeting in said Killingly, and by him decided to be unlawful ballots, and the same by reason of said erro- neous decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not counted in favor of said Jodoin for said office. . , . ^. ^ -, 11 That in the first voting district of the town of Norwich, m New London County there were 50 ballol:s regularly deposited in the ballot box provided at the election on said date, each bearing the name of said Raymond J. Jodoin as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress, and so JODOIN VS. HIGGINS, 13 marked by the electors who deposited the same as to express their intention and will to vote for and choose him. the said Jodoin, as their Representative in Congress, all of which were likewise ruled upon by the moderator in said electors' meeting in said first voting district of the town of Norwich, and by him decided to be unlawful ballots, and the same by reason of said erroneous decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not counted in favor of said Jodoin for said office. 12. That in the second voting district of the town of Norwich, in New Lon- don County, there were 30 ballots regularly deix)sited in the ballot box pro- vided at the election on said date, each bearing the name of said Ravmond J. Jodoin as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress," and so marked by the electors who deposited the same as to express their intention and will to vote for and choose him, the said Jodoin. as their Representative In Congress, all of which were likewise ruled uix)n by the moderator in said electors' meeting in said second voting district of the town of Norwich, and by him decided to be unlawful ballots, and the same by reason of said eri-oneous decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not counted in favor of said Jodoin for said office. 13. That in the third voting district of the town of Norwich, in New Lou- don County, there were 30 ballots regularly deposited in the ballot box pro- vided at the election on said date, each bearing the name of said Raymond J. Jodoin as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress." and so marked by the electors who deposited the same as to express their intention and will to vote for and choose him. the said Jodoin, as their Representative in Congress, all of which were likevv-ise ruled upon by the moderator in said elec-tors' meeting in said third voting district of the town of Norwich, and by him decided to be unlawful ballots, and the same by reason of said erroneous decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not couutetl in favor of said Jodoin for said office. 14. That iu the fourth voting district of the town of Norwich, in New London County, there were 15 ballots regularly deposited in the ballot box provided at the election on said date, each bearing the name of said Raymond J. Jodoin, as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress, and "so marked by the electors who deposited the same as to express their intention and will to"^ vote for and choose him, the said Jodoin, as their Representative in Congress, all of which were likev/ise ruled upon by the moderator iu said electors' meeting in said fourth voting district of the town of Norwich, and by him decided to be malawfiil ballots, and the same by reason of said erroneous decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not counted in favor of said Jodoin for said office. 35. That in the fifth voting district of the town of Norwich, iu New London County, there were 2.5 ballots regularly deposited in the ballot box provided at the election on said date, each bearing the name of said Raymond J. Jodoin, as candidate for the office of Representative in Congress, and so marked by the electors who deposited the same as to express their intention and will to vote for and choose him. the said Jodoin, as their Representative in Congress, all of which were likewise ruled upon by the moderator in said electors' meeting in said fifth voting district of the town of Norwich, and by him decided to be un- lawful ballots, and the same by reason of said erroneous decision and ruling of said moderator were thrown out and were not counted in favor of said Jodoin for said office. 16. That had the said several ballots rejected in the said several towns been ruled to be legal ballots as cast and intended by the electors casting the same the same would have been counted by the election counters in said several towns in favor of the said Raymond J. Jodoin as candidate for Representative in Congress, and he, the said Raymond J. Jodoin, would have been credited with more than 200 votes for said office in addition to the votes which were in fact declared to be legal votes and counted in his favor for said office, and he would have been elected to said office. 17. In counting the ballots cast at said electors' meeting iu the several towns in said third congressional district, and in tabulating the same by the counters of said election, mistakes were made in the count of ballots cast for the said Raymond J. Jodoin whereby the said Raymond J. Jodoin was not credited with all the ballots cast in his favor by the electors at said election, the number of which can not be ascertained without a recount of all the ballots cast at said election. 6008—11 2 14 JODOIlSr vs. HIGGINS. 18. The complaiuant lierein is entitled to be represented in tlie Congress of the United States by the person for whom the greater number of electors of said district lawfully cast their ballots at said election, and is aggrieved by said rulings of said moderators whereby said several ballots were declared illegal and void and not counted, and by the said mistakes in the count and tabulation of the votes lawfully cast at said election. Wherefore the complainant prays your honor forthwith to order a hearing to be had upon this complaint and to take all other and further steps and pro- ceedings thereon as is provided by section 16S5 of the general statutes, to the end that the proper tribunal thereunder may be convened to hear and deter- mine the auatters herein alleged: that the ballot boxes used at said electors' meeting in said Pla infield, also in Norwich, Putnam, and Killinglv, shall be opened; that the ballots in said boxes so declared illegal by the said moderators and rejected and not counted as ballots in said town of Pla infield, and in the towns of Putnam, Norwich, and Killingly, be examined and declared legal bal- lots, and that a recount cf all the ballots cast at said electors' meeing'in said town of Plainfield, and also in said towns of Putnam. Killingly, and Norwich, be made. And as in duty bound the complainant will ever pray. Dated at Norwich, Conn., this 11th day of November, 1910. William J. Kennedy, By Chas. F. Thayer, His Attorney. The foregoing complaint having been brought to the undersigned, a judge of the supreme court of errors, it is ordered that a hearing be had upon said complaint at the superior courtroom in the courthouse at Norwich, on the 16th day of November, 1910, at 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon, and that notice of said hearing be given to Edwin W. Higgins, of said Norwich, and Raymond J. Jodoin, of Sprague, by some proper oflicer leaving with or at their last usual places of above a true and attested copy of the original complaint, and of this order, on or before the 12th day of November, 1910. Dated at Norwich, Conn., this 11th day of November, 1910. John M. Thayer, A Judge of the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut. Towns of Sprague and Norwich, November 12, 1910. State of Connecticut, 'Neio London County, ss: Then and there by virtue hereof I made due and legal service of this com- plaint and order of a hearing to be had upon said complaint at the superior courtroom at the courthouse at Norwich on the 16th day of November, 1910, at 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon, by leaving a true and attested copy hereof at the usual place of abode of the within-named Raymond J. Jodoin in the town of Sprague, and I also, on the same said 12th day of November, 1910, left a like true and attested copy hereof with and in the hands of the within-named Edwin W. Higgins. in said town of Norwich. Attest: Herbert E. Draper, Deputy Sheriff. Fees: Miles travel, $2; copies, $3.50; service, 24 cents; indorsements. 36 cents; total, $6.10. In re application of William J. Kennedy before Plon. John M. Thayer, Hon. Alberto T. Roraback, and Hon. Samuel O. Prentice, judges of the Supreme Court of Errors. ANSWER. In the above-entitled proceeding comes Edwin W. Higgins, respondent therein, and makes answer to the matters alleged in the complaint as follows: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint are admitted. 2. The allegation in paragraph 4 that no election for Representative in Con- gress has been held in said district under the law in force on November 8, 1910, is admitted. The rest of said paragraph is denied, except that it is ad- mitted that certain ballots cast in said town of Plainfield were rejected foi illegality. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 15 % 3. Paragraph 5 is admitted so far as it alleges that 75 more votes were re- turned for said Higgins than for said Jodoin, but it is denied that said Hig- gins received no more than 75 votes in excess of those cast for said Jodoin. 4. As to the allegations of paragraph 6 the respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief, and will leave the complainant to his proof. 5. As to paragraph 7 the respondent is wihtout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and will leave complainant to his proof. 6. Paragraphs S. 9, 10, 11. 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are denied. 7. Paragraph 17 the respondent is without information sufficient to form a belief, and will leave complainant to his proof. 3. As to paragraph 18, it is admitted that the complainant is entitled to be represented in the C(mgress of the Tnited States by the person for whom the greater number of electors of said district lawfully east their ballots at said election, but denies the rest of said paragraph. 9. And for further answer to the complaint the respondent says: That he is informed and believes, and therefore avers, that at said election there were votes in the several towns in said district cast for said Higgins which by the rulings of the moderators were rejected as illegal ballots and which were valid ballots and should have been counted for said Higgins, and that while this respondent is without information as to the character and number of such ballots, yet from such information as could be obtained he avers that the number of such votes would materially affect the result of a recount of ballots. AYherefore this respondent prays that a recount may be made of all of the rejected ballots in the various towns in said district and the tabulation of the votes cast therein be corrected in accordance with the result of such recount, and, further, that a recount of all the ballots cast in said district may be made and the errors therein, if any, be corrected. Respondent, By William F. Henney, M. Kenealy. His Attorneys. Office of Clerk of Superior Court. State of Connecticut, Comity of New London, ss: I, George E. Parsons, clerk of said court, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the petition and answer in the cause named therein, as appears on file. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said court, at Norwich, in said county, this 16th day of June, 1911. [seal.] George E. Parsons, Clerk. State of Connecticut. Office of the Secretary. To the honorable Secretary of State: This certifies that on the 11th day of November, 1910, pursuant to section 1685 of the general statutes, a complaint was brought to the undersigned, John M. Thayer, a judge of the supreme court of errors, by William J. Ken- nedy, an elector of the town of Plainfield, in W^indham County, in the third congressional district, claiming that at the election for Representative in Con- gress held on the 8th day of November, 1910, in said district, errors occurred in the rulings of the moderator and in the count of the vote for such Repre- sentative in said town ; that pursuant to said statutes a hearing upon said com- pJoint was ordered to be had on the 16th day of November, 3910, at 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon in the superior court room in Norwich, within said district, and notice ordered to be given to the candidates whose election might be affected by the decision upon such hearing, which notice was duly served ; that the undersigned, Samuel O. Prentice and Alberto T. Roraback. judges of the supreme court of errors, designated by the chief justice for that purpose, and John M. Thayer, the judge to whom said complaint was brought, proceeded to hear said complaint at the time and place designated, when the complainant and one of the candidates at said election for said office appeai-ed by counsel and were heard thereon, and sufficient cause for opening the ballot box in said 16 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. town and reconuting the ballots therein having been shown, said ballot box was opened by ns and a recount of the ballots therein cast for Representative hi Congress was made, and it was found that errors in the count of such ballots and in the rulings of the moderator were made in said town at said election. Whereupon we find and certify, as a result of our finding and decision, that the following persons, voted for for Representative in Congress at said elec- tion in said town, received the number of votes set opposite their names, re- spectively : For Edwin W. Higgins 316 For Raymond J. Jodoin 327 For Edward Perkins Clarke 9 For James M. Young 2 For Louis Weingarth 4 We further certify that we have deposited said complaint, with the answer filed thereto, with the clerk of the superior court for New Loudon County at Norwich. Dated at Norwich this 21st day of November, A. D. 1910. Samuel O. Prentice. John M. Thayer. Alberto T. Roraback. Received and filed November 23, 1910. Matthew H. Rogers, Secretary, By DwYER. State of Connecticut, Office of the Secretary, ss: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of record in this office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and aflixed the seal of said State, at Hartford, this 15th day of December, A. D. 1910. [seal.] Matthew H. Rogers, Secretary. New London County, Nov. 8, 1910. District No. 3. Edwin W. Hig- gins. Ray- mond J. Jodoin. Edward Perkins Clarke. James M. Young. Louis Wein- garth. J.C.Val- lette. New London 1,508 1,677 81 209 240 67 223 518 149 84 66 103 212 149 141 125 54 133 666 93 216 1,534 2,131 116 118 152 36 345 529 41 65 80 69 262 79 135 113 26 206 619 58 278 68 132 1 3 37 62 1 3 28 3 2 24 18 1 14 24 Norwich Bozrah . . Colchester 1 1 Franklm Griswold 3 55 1 6 Groton 4 3 Lisbon 1 Lyme 1 2 3 1 3 Montville ... . 2 Old Lyme 2 3 Preston 17 127 2 10 5 35 2 31 Stonington Voluntown 1 Waterford . . . 6 Total 6,714 6, 982 432 235 81 1 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 17 Windluim County, ]\'or. S, 1910. District No. 3. Edwin W. Hig- gins. Ray- mond J. Jodoin. Edward Perkins Clarke. James M. Young. Louis Wein- garth. A. L. Pitts. John Doe. Putnam 478 849 55 121 94 70 71 114 465 316 138 68 130 172 156 363 887 96 162 86 20 33 25 484 327 90 19 119 206 34 24 69 3 3 1 4 8 35 1 6 Windliam Ashford Brooklyn 2 24 1 1 Canterbury Chaplin Eastford . . . ; Hampton 1 3 9 2 1 2 4 Killinglv 18 2 2 3 Plainfleld Pomfret 1 Scotland Sterling Thompson 9 5 6 Woodstock 1 Total 3,297 2,951 125 109 15 . 1 1 State of Connecticut, Office of the Secretary, November 30, WW. We, the imdei'sigued, having canvassed the retnrns of the presiding oflBcers of the electors meetings in the towns comprising tlie several congressional districts of this State, hereby declare the following-named persons elected Representatives in the Sixty-second Congress of the United States : District No. 1, E. Stevens Henry : district Xo. 2. Thomas L. Reilly ; district" No. 3, Edwin W. Higgins ; district No. 4, Ebenezer J. Hill. Matthew H. Rogers. Secretary. F. F. Patten, Treasurer. Thos. D. Bradstreet, Comptroller. State of Connecticut, Office of the Secretary, ss: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of record in this office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the seal of said State, at Hartford, this 15th day of December, A. D. 1910. Matthew H. Rogers, Secretary. Edward A. Pinkney's application for a recount, before Hon. Edwin B. Gager, a Judge of the Superior Court, December 7, 1910. decision and judgment. Edward A. Pinkney, a candidate for the office of selectman as first named upon the Republican ticket at the town election for the town of Redding, held October 3, 1910, has brought his application for a recount of the ballots cast for select- men under the statute in such case made and provided. The application was. returnable November 22. 1910, at 10 o'clock. Only counsel for the applicant appeared, but I was informed that the other candidates were in the room and that no opposition was made to a recount, but, on the other hand, it was de- sired by all parties concerned. A recount was thereupon ordered, and the town clerk was directed to produce the ballot box in court on the 23d day of November, 1910, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon. The ballot box was produced and Judge Booth and Deputy Sheriff Crofut were, by consent, appointed counters, and they thereupon proceeded to count the ballots, and made report upon the same day. Two liundred and twenty-six ballots were found in the box. As to 119 of these there appeared to be no question as to their validity. This left 107 ballots which were reported to be passed upon by me. Time was taken to examine these ballots, and now. on December 7. 1910, I make the following finding, viz : The counters found in the ballot box, and turned over to me, a package of 16 ballots marked by the moderator as void, and indorsed " No cross in circles 18 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. or both circles marked " An examination of tliese ballots shows that 9 of them were properly rejected for the following reasons : Three ballots had no mark Avhatever. Two ballots had the two circles marked. Two ballots had one circle marked and a cross mark not indicating any vote. One ballot had crosses over the middle of the name and no circle cross. One ballot had three line star in the circle. The other 7 ballots had no circle cross, but all were properly crossed for two or more candidates, and should have been counted. It is not imperative that there should be a cross in a circle, as the statute provides for this cross only in case the voter desires to vote a straight ticket. It is to be borne in mind right here that this is a recount for selectmen. Un- der the statute a ballot may be void in toto, or as in case of selectmen, or wher- ever two or more may be voted for. a ballot may be void as to those officers and good as to the rest. The statute provides among other things, in section 15, that " if any ballot shall contain a greater number of names voted for any office than is provided by law it shall render such ballot void, as to such office only." Forty-three ballots were found in which a cross mark was made in one of the circles, and the name of one or the other of the candidates for selectmen was checked upon the ticket which had no cross mark in the circle, and no name was checked in the column under the crossed circle. The statute provides, in section 2, that where there are two or more candi- dates for the same office on one ballot, and a person who has crossed the circle desires to split the ballot, he shall put a cross mark opposite the name of the person for whom he desires to vote. So that, for instance, if a person having crossed the Republican circle should desire to vote for only one selectman upon the Republican ticket he will put a cross mark as against the name of the person he desires to vote for, and marking this name will operate as a refusal to vote for the person whose name is not marked. The statute does not in ex- press terms mention a case like the one we have, but, applying the reasoning of the statute as applied to a split ballot to the case of a split ticket where two or more candidates for the same office are to be voted for, it would seem to follow that a voter casts his vote for the person whose name is checked, and this operates as a refusal to vote for any person for that office whose name is not checked. Otherwise he appears to vote for three selectmen, which, where but three are to be elected, would render the entire vote for the selectmen void. It follows that the 43 ballots of the kind referred to should be counted for the person whose name is checked upon the ticket. Fourteen ballots were not straight, but were checked as provided by the statute, and need no comment. As to 16 ballots the only question was whether a plus mark in the circle in- stead of an X rendered them void. I hold them good. One had a double X mark ; held good. Two had rather peculiar cross marks, but not such as to indicate an attempt to make a distinguishing mark; held good. One had the circle crossed and one grand juror crossed; held good. This makes 203 valid ballots. As to the remaining ballots other than those already accounted for in the package marked by the moderator, it is found that one is invalid because there are no marks whatever upon it; two are invalid because a line has been drawn through the name of a candidate; one is invalid because cross marked in the circle and the name of the auditor in the same column is checked, the statute making no provision for such a mark ; two are invalid because they contain in the circle distinguishing marks other than a cross mark; one is invalid be- cause it contains a blue pencil cross mark in the circle; and five are invalid because the circle is crossed and a name already printed is written in the blank space; one is invalid because it has a distinguishing mark, the figure 3, in the corner of the ballot; and one is invalid because a cross mark is over a name. In all these cases the ballots are invalid because marked otherwise than as provided by the statute. We have, then, the following results: Ballots invalid and not rejected by the moderator as invalid, 14; ballots invalid and rejected by the moderator, 9; being a total of 23 invalid ballots Deducting this number from the total of 226 ballots, it leaves 203 ballots to be counted for one or two selectmen, as the case may be. Certain ballots had the names of both selectmen first on the list crossed. This is a valid ballot for each, but ineffective as a vote for first selectman, the votes for the two offsetting each other so far as the relative positions are concerned. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 19 The counters made a count of the valid ballots, and reported the vote for selectmen as follows: Charles Sanford, 104; Walter P. Rowland, 92; Elbert M. Sanford, 81; Edward A. Pinkney, 79. Chillies Sanford's name stands first on a plurality of the ballots cast, and he is therefore elected, first selectman and ex officio agent of the town. Charles Sanford, Walter P. Rowland, and Elbert M. Sanford are the duly elected selectmen. It is therefore adjudged that the petitioner, Edward A. Pinkney, was not legally elected a selectman of the town of Redding, at the town election, held October 3, 1910, and is not entitled to the certificate of election prayed for in his petition. Edwin B. Gager, A Judge of the Superior Court. charles a. quintard v. daniel f. toomey. Bridgeport, Fairfield County, October 31. 1910. The Court: Perhaps I should, before taking up the several classes of ballots, the validity of which is questioned, indicate in a general way some of my views that I have come to. It has been said in Fields f. Osborne, in the Sixtieth Connecticut, in respect to the ballot laws then iu vogue : " TTiere can be no question but that the legis- lature intended to say that a ballot which failed to accord with certain spe- cifically enumerated requii-ements should be void, irrespective of all considera- tions as to the intent or effect of such failure ; that it considered uniformity an important means of prevening fraud, and there were certain matters in which uniformity could be expressly provided for; but that it is not within the prov- ince of the court to say what the consequences of the failure to conform shall be; the act itself fixes it." Judge Carpenter, delivering the opinion of the court in Talcott v. Philbrick, in the Fifty-ninth Connecticut, says: "What has the legislature required? Does the ballot conform to the statute? We are relieved of any obligation to inquire as to the necessity or reason of this or that requirement: and we are not at lib- erty to dispense with anything that is required, whatever the reason for it may be, or even if without any apparent reason at all. The legislature has spoken, and obedience is our first and only duty. It is at liberty to throw around the ballot box such safeguards and regulations as it may deem proper, and it is the duty of the citizen to conform thereto. Some inconvenience is not too great a price to pay for an honest, pure ballot." Now, this act under consideration is by no means as clear, it seems to me, as it ought to have been made. It has provided a means of voting and a method. One of the particular means is the use of a ballot provided for the voter by authority of the State and a pencil having black lead, and the method is to use that pencil upon the ballot in the way indicated by the statute. The law says how a straight ticket shall be voted; in other words, how the voter shall manifest or indicate his desire to vote a straight ticket. Clearly a straight ticket is the ticket of a given party containing all of the candidates of such party for the offices to be voted for. The law says: "To vote a straight ticket, he (the voter) shall place a cross mark witliin the circle at the head of the ticket which he so desires to vote." There seems to be no way to indicate the desire of the voter to vote his or a full and complete straight party ticket other than to make the cross mark wihin the circle at its head. The use of any other mark or method for that purpose would seem clearly to invalidate the ballot. Now, then, the law provides for splitting the straight ticket in case two or more are to be elected to the same office, such as constables, grand jurors, alder- men, or councilmen. as in this case, and as to candidates for such office on the straight ticket, as it appears to me. It says: " In case two or more persons are to be elected to fill the same office, any elector may split such ballot by placing a cross mark in the voting space on the left and before the names of such can- didates for whom he desires to cast such ballot, such mark to be in addition to the mark required to be placed within said circle." Section 2, from which I ha^e quoted, first provides for voting the straight ticket. When any elector ^hall desire to vote a straight ticket he shall place a 20 JODOIN vs. HIGGINS. cross mark \^ilbiii the circle at the heart. Now, " In case two or more persons are to be elected to till the same otfice, any elector may split such ballot." What ballot V He may split the straia;ht ballot, or the straicht ticket, clearly, In that case where two or more iiersons are to be voted for for the same office. Now howV "He may split such ballot by placing a cross mark in the voting space on the left and before the names of snch candidates for whom he desires to cast snch ballot, such mark to be in addition to the mark required to be placed within said circle." As I interpret the statute, there is no apparent indication of a purpose on the part of the general assembly to depart from the hitherto jirivilege of an elector to vote for one or more of the candidates of his party upon the ballot; that the voter is still at liberty to cast a ballot at a general election for a single candidate upon his ticket; that it was not the purpose, whatever may be said as to the power of the general assembly to resort to such a purpose, that it was not the puriJose of the general assembly of 1909 to abridge or limit the hitherto right of an elector in that respect. So that, as applied to this case, where there are six persons to be elected as councilmen. and a Repub- lican voter or Democratic voter desires to vote the straight ticket of his party, except as to two or one or more of those candidates for councilmen u]x>n his party ticket, he may do so by putting his cross mark in the circle at the head and a cross mark in the voting space at the left and before the name of such of the councilmen as he desires to vote for upon liis party ticket upon his straight ticket ; and so marking the ballot, he excludes the count of that ballot for the names of the councilmen not so marked. Or if the voter desires to vote for one or more of the candidates for such office upon his straight ticket and for one or more whose names are not printed thereon, he may. in addition to the cross within the circle at the head of his straight ticket and in addition to the cross mark placed by him in the voting space at the left of the names upon his straight ticket for whom he desires to vote for such office, place a cross mark in the voting space at the left of such candidate or candidates as he desires to vote for for such office appear- ing in any other column, or he may write in the blank column under the proper designation therein of such office such name or names as he desires to vote for for such office. It does not seem to me that the instructions provided for to be printed upon the stub of the ballot have fairly and reasonably contemplated the splitting of the straight ticket in case of two or more persons to be voted for for the same office. In the event that the voter desires to split the straight ticket with reference to offices for which only one person is to be elected, the law says : " In the event that any elector desires to vote for any candidate other than as herein- before provided " — that is. it has provided for voting the straight ticket, and next provided for s])littiug the straight ticket in cases where two or more are to be voted for for the same office. Now. then : " In the event that any elector desires to vote for any candidate other than as hereinbefore provided, he shall, in addition to the cross mark made in the circle as hereinbefore re- quired, indicate such choice by placing a cross mark in the voting space on the left and before the name of such candidate for whom he desires to cast such ballot not appearing in tlie column which he has designated by an 'X' in the circle at its head." Here in this case the voter desiring to vote the straight ticket, with certain exceptions as to offices for which only one person can be voted for, he should put the cross mark within the circle at the head of his straight ticket, and in addition thereto put a cross mark within the voting space at the left of the name of the candidate for a given office in another column or ticket, or may write the name of a person not appearing upon the ballot in the blank column in the space designated for such office. I am not to be understood thus far as holding or deciding that the cross mark must be within the voting space in the cases mentioned. As to that, in view of the instructions being faulty, as I regard them, and not fairly in harmony in this respect with the statute going before. I think that if the voter in splitting his ticket or in the use of the cross mark places it fairly before the nasne of the candidate to which it is to be applied, even though without the voting space, it should not be treated as void for that reason; otherwise, as Brother Hurlbutt has well said, the legislature providing for these instructions, to confront the voter as he is about to exercise his elective franchise, would have trapped him into disregarding the requirement, if there was such a re- quirement in the law, of putting the cross mark within the voting space, would JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 21 liave misled him, would Iiave iudicated to liim as he loolved at it that iu the vise of this cross marlv tor that imrpose it would be sufticieut to put it before the name, whether within the voting space or otherwise. As far as I am con- cerned I should hold that he did not render his ballot void by not having his mark within the voting space, because the legislature has left that an element of uncertainty, as it seems to me; for it would have been as easy to have said that he should put that mark within the voting space there as to say to put it before the name. The voter has before him, as he goes to vote, these general instructions that, in so far as they cover the particular circumstances under which the voter desires to exercise his privilege, should be relied upon im- l)licitly by the voter. The mark contemplated by the statute is to be a cross mark; not cross marks, but a cross mark. This may or should be done by first making a mark and then making another mark so that it shall cross the first mark. Bouvier says, speaking of a cross, "A cross such as commonly made for a signature by persons unable to write their names." "Any other mark than the cross mark used for the purpose of voting shall render this ballot void," say the instructions. In another place the statute says, "Any ballot marked in any manner other than as provided in this act, and any ballot bearing any mark other than the vn to have been made accidentally, and not for the i)iiri)ose of indicating the voter, and changes for the existence of which a reasonable explanation consistent with honesty and good faith either appears upon the face of the ballot or is shown b.v proof, do not render the ballots void under the provisions of section 9." They cite in that opinion Phelan r. Walsh (62 Conn.). In that case of Phelan v. Walsh, the court say. as Brother Hurlbutt has 'juoted, that there is " A presumption that every voter has complied with the law and done no act which should deprive him of his vote." "Accidents and mistakes may cause many ballots to be distinguished from others. In all such cases care should be used that the rights and convenience of the voter are not unnecessarily interferred with." Again: "There are two classes of marks. One is where a plausible reason is or may be suggested for their existence con- sistent with honesty and good faith ; the other, where no such reason can be suggested. The former will rarely be allowed to invalidate a ballot unless it appears that it was in fact used for corrupt purposes; the latter unexplained, will generally be presumed to be for corrupt purposes." The language of the court in Stale r. Bossa, in the Sixty-ninth of Connecti- cut, has already been quoted by Brother Hurlbutt. In Flanagan v. Hynes, in the Seventh-fifth Connecticut, 584. the head note is as follows; "The ultimate purpose of statutes regulating the exercise of the right of suffrage is to secuie an orderly and faithful expression and registra- tion of the popular will upon the questions submitted for decision. If ballots are to be rejected and voters thereby disfranchised, it should be because the legislature has seen (it to require it in the interest of an honest suffrage, and, has expressed that requirement in unmistakable language. It should not re- sult from doubtful judicial construction, from a too strict regard for the mere 22 JODOIN VS. HIGGIJSrS. letter of tlie statute, or from a resort to nice or tecliuical refiuements in the interpretation or application of the law." Now, a word as to the blank column. The law says that " On the right of each ballot shall be a column in which shall be printed only the titles of the offices for which candidates may be voted for." " Such column shall be desig- nated as blank column." " Any elector may write in such column the name of any person for whom he desires to vote for the otiice designated in the space where such name may be written, and such ballot shall be counted for the can- didate whose name is so written." Now, there seems to be a slight qualification of that feature of the statute by this subsequent language in the law : "Where the names of two or more candi- dates of the same political parly, and for the same office, appear printed on such ballot, and the number of names on such ballot for such office does not equal the number for whom any elector is entitled to -sote, he may make a cross mark in the voting space at the left of the name of any candidate in any other party column for whom he desires to vote, or he may write in the proper space in the blank column the name of any person not printed on such ballot for whom he desires to vote." So it seems to follow that if in case two or more persons may be voted for for the same office, and the full number of candidates for such office are printed upon the ballot, the voter may, if he so desires, use the blank column exclu- sively by writing therein the name or names of any person for whom he desires to vote for the respective offices, whether such names be printed on the ballot or not, and without putting any other mark upon the ballot. Hon. Gardiner Greene, Judge of the Supei-ior Court for the State of Connecticut: The petition of Edward E. Bradley, of the town of Stonington, county of New London, and State of Connecticut, respectfully represents : 1. That the annual town meeting of the town of Stonington for the election of town officers for the ensuing year was duly and legally warned and held on the first Monday of October, 1910. to wit, on the 3d day of said October. 2. At said annual meeting there were to be elected three selectmen to hold office for the term of one year, that being the total number of persons holding the office of selectman in said town, and being the number elected at the last annual meeting of said town, whose terms of office expired on said 3d day of October. 3. Henry A. Stable, of said town, and your petitioner were candidates for the office of selectman, nominated by the Republican Party, and their names were placed in the Republican columns of the official ballot, used at said election in the order named, and Fernando Wheeler and the respondent, Heman J. Hold- redge, of said tovsm, were candidates for the office of selectman nominated by the Democratic Party, and their names were in the Democratic column of the official ballot used at said town meeting, in the order named, and said persons so named in the Republican and Democratic columns of said official ballot used at said meeting received more votes for the office of selectman than any other persons balloted for at said election for said office of selectman. 4. In said town of Stonington there are five voting districts ; said districts being known as the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth districts. 5. The total number of ballots cast for the office of selectman of said town, as counted and declared by the moderator of said town meeting, were, for : Stable 696 Your petitioner, Edward E. Bradley 591 Wheeler 642 Holdredge 621 6. The ballots cast at said election and so allowed and counted by said moderator for the candidates in the said voting districts, as appears by the following table: First district. Second district. Third district. Fourtti district. Fifth district. Stable 131 146 197 186 389 322 243 189 17 19 59 28 146 91 123 194 13 13 20 24 JODOIN VS. HIGGIISrS. 23 % 7. Said Stable was, by said moderator, declared elected first selectman of said towu, and said Holdredge and said Wheeler were by said moderator de- clared as selectmen of said town. 8. Tbere were cast in tlie fouitb district 89 ballots bearing a crossmark " X " within the circle above the Republican column, and also marked with a cross- mark "X" in said Democratic column, opposite and in the voting space on the left and before the name of said Holdredge, whose name appeared in said column as candidate for selectman as aforesaid. 9. Said 89 ballots, marked as aforesaid, were counted for the said Holdredge, and added to. and became a part of. the total vote declared for said HoMredge as aforesaid by said moderator. 10. Said ballots, marked as aforesaid, should not have been counted, and were not lawfully cast for said Holdredge because the same were not marked in accordance with chapter 250 of the public acts of Connecticut of 1909. 11. If said 89 ballots had not been counted for said Holdredge said Hold- redge's total vote at said meeting would have been 532, and your petitioner's vote would have remained as aforesaid; that is, 591. thus giving to your peti- tioner a plurality of the ballots cast at such meeting for the office of selectman. 12. Your petitioner believes and claims that he received a plurality of the ballots cast as aforesaid at said meeting for said office of selectman, and that he was elected to said office, and should have been declared so elected by the moderator of said meeting. Your petitioner prays your honor to hear and determine said petition, and if the allegations hereof be found true that your honor may give a certificate to that effect under the seal of the court entitling your petitioner to hold and exercise the powers and duties of said office of selectman of said town of Stonington for the term next ensuing and from and after said meeting. Dated at Stonington, Conn., this 23d day of November, 1910. Edward B. Bradley, Petitioner. Town op Stonington, November 23, 1910. State of Connecticut, County of New London, ss: Then and there personally appeared Edward E. Bradley, the person who subscribed the foregoing petition and made oath to the truth of the allegations of said petition, before me. Joseph F. Joseph, Notary Public. Upon the foregoing petition of Edward E. Bradley, it is ordered by the undersigned that said petition be returned to said undersigned, as judge of the superior court for the State of Connecticut, and the hearing therein be had on the 8th day of December, 1910, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, in the Bar Library room in the county courthouse, in the city of Norwich, and that notice hereof be given to said Heman J. Holdredge, of said town of Stonington, by some proper officer serving upon him or by leaving at his usual place of abode a copy of the within and foregoing petition at least six days before the return day named herein, and him summon to appear at said time and place and show cause, if any he have, why the prayer of the foregoing petition should not be granted. Gardiner Greene, Judge of the Superior Court. To the sheriff of the county of New London or his deputy, greeting: By authority of the State of Connecticut you are hereby commanded to make due service and return of the within and foregoing petition and order upon said Heman J. Holdredge, according to the terms of said order. Hereof fail not, but due service and return make. Dated at Norwich, this 1st day of December, 1910. Gardiner Greene, Judge of the Superior Court. .24 JODOIN vs. HIGGIKS. Town of Stonington, Decemher 2, A. D. 1910. State of Connecticut, Comity of New London, ss: Tlieu and there I left at the usual place of abode of Hemau J. Holdredge a true and attested copy of the within and foregoing petition, order, citation, notice, and entire process, with my indorsement thereon. J. H. Tubes, Deputy Sheriff. Fees : 36 miles .travel, $3.60 ; 1 copy. $1.50 ; 1 service, 12 cents ; 2 indorse- ments, 24 cents; total $5.46. EDWARD E. BRADLEY V. HEMAN J. HOLDREDGE. Before Hon. Gardiner Greene, a judge of the superior court, December 8, 1910. DEMURRER. The respondent in the above-entitled cause or contest demurs to the com- plaint therein : 1. Because it appears on the face of the said Edward E. Bradley's said peti- tion or complaint that the said town meeting for the election of selectmen in said town of Stonington. wherein the decision of said moderator complained of was rendered, was legally warned and held ; that the only ballots claimed by the said Bradley in his said complaint to affect the result of said election M^ere 89 in number and contained the cross mark X within the circle above the Republican column and also a cross mark X in the Democratic column opposite and in the voting space on the left and befoi-e the name of the respondent Hold- redge. and it is not in said complaint stated, alleged, or made to appear that said 89 ballots or either of them bore any other mark or marks than the cross mark X in the said circle above the Republican column and the said cross mark X in the voting space to the left of the said respondent's name, or that they or either of them lacked any mark or cross-mark required by law. 2. Because upon the facts by the said Bradley alleged in his said complaint or petition the said 89 ballots therein described were, as matter of law, correctly ruled upon and counted for said resiwndent Holdredge by the said moderator of the said town meeting, and each and all of said 89 ballots were as matter of law, lawfully and correctly marked to constitute a split Republican ticket for and valid votes in favor of the respondent, Heman J. Holdredge. 3. On the facts therein alleged the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought. The respondent thereupon prays .judgment that said complainant be dis- missed with costs to the respondent. Heman J. Holdredge, By Chas. F. Thayer, Benj. H. Hewitt, His Attorneys. Petition of Edward E. Bradley for a Certificate of Election as a Selectman OF Stonington, Before Hon. Gardiner Greene, a Judge of the Superior Court, April 5, 1911. memorandum on demurrer to the petition. Edward B. Bradley, of the town of Stonington, a candidate for the office of selectman of the town of Stonington at the town election on October 3. 1910, being the second candidate named for that ofHce on the Republican ticket, brought his petition, dated November 23, 1910, to the undersigned, as a .judge of the superior court, praying that a certificate might be given to him entitling him to hold and exercise the povA'ers and duties of said office in accordance with the statute. To this petition, as amended, the respondent has demurred as on file. The sole ground of objection raised by the petitioner to the validity of the moderator's declaration that the respondent was duly elected was that 89 bal- lots were counted for the respondent which, as petitioner claims, were void and should not have been counted at all. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 25 i These ballots each had a cross within the circle at the top of the Republican ticket, no cross opposite the name of either of the two Rei)ublican candidates for selectmen, a cross opposite the name of the respondent on the Democratic ticket, and no cross opposite the name of the Democratic candidate for first selectman, or anywhere on said ballots except as aforesaid. The petitioner claims that this state of the ballot amounts in law to an attempt by the voter to vote for three candidates for selectmen, i. e., both the Republican candidates and the respondent, and is therefore void, so far as relates to all candidates for selectmen, under the provisions of section 16, chap- ter 250. acts 1909. The respondent claims that this state of the ballot means in law that the voter has voted for the respondent only. The meaning of the ballot so marked depends upon section 2 of said chap- ter 250. This section first provides that the voter desiring to vote a straight ticket shall put a cross in the circle at the head of the ticket which he prefers, and the subsequent provisions allow him to indicate a preference for particular candidates on other tickets by making crosses at the left of the names of such candidates. The effect of a cross at the left of a name of a candidate on another ticket is to discard the corresponding candidate on the preferred ticket. There is no question made that this is the effect in case of an office where only one person can be elected, but it is claimed that a different rule prevails where two or more persons are to be elected to the same office, and where the voter can vote for only two, as in case of selectmen. Does the statute make a different rule in the two cases'? The statute states three cases, and provides how the voter shall act in each. The first case is that of the straight ticket, in which case the voter puts his cross in the circle at the top of his ticket, and makes no other mark. The second case is that where two or more persons are to be elected to the same office and the voter wishes to split his ticket. This is the present case. The statute contemplates that the voter shall be attached to some one party and desires to split only as to one or more offices, for it speaks of the mark indi- cating the split as to be "in addition to the mark required to be placed within said circle." The voters in this case complied with the statute to this extent by each placing a mark in the circle at the head of the Rei)ublican ticket. The direction as to how the voter shall indicate his split is as follows : "Any elector may split such Ijallot by placing a cross mark in the voting space on the left and before the names of such candidates for whom he desires to cast such ballot." etc. This clearly means that the voter shall place a cross mark in the voting space on the left and' before the name of each of such candidates for whom he desires to cast such ballot. There is no requirement that these marks are to be restricted to either ticket. There can be no question that if the voter in the present case had placed marks before the names of both Democratic candi- dates, or of one Democrat and of one Republican, he would have complied with the statute. It is unreasonable to claim that in order to exercise his right to vote for selectman he must necessarily vote for two and can not legally vote for one. The statute says expressly that the voter is to put the mark before the names of candidates for whom he desires to vote. This does not mean to forfeit his vote for the man whom he desires unless he votes for the man whom he does not desire. The statute means that he may vote for as many candidates for the office in question as the law allows him to vote for, or any part of that number, but can do so only by placing a cross mark in the voting space on the left and before the name of each candidate whom he desires to vote for, whether all the candidates he desires and can legally vote for are on another ticket, or whether part are on another ticket and part on his own ticket. This view of this second case mentioned in the statute is in harmony with the provisions of the third case, which covers all situations " other than as herein- before provided," where, to split, the voter is required to mark a candidate on another ticket whom he wishes to vote for, and leave unmarked the candidate on his own ticket whom he does not wish to vote for. The instructions re- quired by the statute to be printed on the stub of the ticket harmonize with the part of section 2 which precedes such instructions and has been already con- sidered. 26 JODOIN" vs. HIGGIlSrS. It follows from this coustruction of tlie statute that the respondent was legally elected and so declared. The demurrer is sustained on all its grounds. Gardiner Greene, A Judge of the Superior Court. Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court. State of Connecticut, County of Neio London, ss.: I, George E. Parsons, clerk of said court, do hereby certify that the fore- going is a true copy of the petition, demurrer, and memorandum on demurrer in the cause named therein. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and aflSxed the seal of said court, at Norwich, in said county, this 16th day of June, 1911. [SEAL.] George E. Parsons, Clerk. In re the contest of Raymond J. Jodoin, contestant, against Edwin W. Higgins, contestee, to be declared elected a member of the Sixty-second Congress of the United States for the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. stipulation. It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the contestant and contestee that the following documents connected with, and a part of, said contest shall be printed : 1. The notice of contest of said Raymond J. Jodoin, contestant, dated De- cember 23, A. D. 1910, as served by Herbert E. Draper, as appears by his cer- tificate of even date therewith. 2. The answer of said contestee, dated January 17, A. D. 1911, as served by said Herbert E. Draper, as appears by his return of even date therewith. 3. The stipulation between the contestant and the contestee, together with Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, thereto attached, which stipulation is dated the 16th day of March, A. D. 1911. 4. The certificate of Matthew H. Rogers, secretary of state for the State of Connecticut, in the matter of the petition of William J. Kennedy for a recount of ballots of the town of Plainfield, dated December 15, 1910. 5. Certificate of Mathew H. Rogers, secretary of state for the State of Con- necticut, dated December 15, 1910, together with and certifying to the return of the board of convassers, canvassing and setting forth the returns of the presid- ing officers of electors' meetings in the towns comprising the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, which canvass of said board is dated November 30, 1910. 6. The decision and judgment in Edward A. Pinkney's application for recount, dated December 7, 1910, by the Hon. Edwin B. Gager, judge of the superior court for the State of Connecticut. 7. Copy of decision by William H. Williams, judge of the superior court for the State of Connecticut, in the matter of the contest of Charles A. Quintard v. Daniel F. Twomey, dated October 31, 1910. 8. Certified copy of the record of the petition of Edward E. Bradley, of the town of Stonington, against Heman J. Holdredge before the Hon. Gardiner Greene, judge of the superior court, with certificate attached thereto, dated June 16, 1911. 9. The following deposition of William I. Allyn, which is practically the same and characteristic of all of the various depositions taken before said magistrate, offered for the purpose of identifying and establishing the integrity of the ballot boxes and the ballots contained in the various ballot boxes referred to in the respective depositions and cast at the election for Congressman in question: I, WILLIAM I. ALLYN, of the town of Ledyard, in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawfiil age. being duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and says: Q. What is your name? — A. William I. Allyn. Q. Where do you reside? — A. In the town of Ledyard, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 27 % Q. What official position do you hold in tbe town of Ledyard? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you beeu towu clerk of the town of Ledyard V — A. Eleven years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November. 1910 V — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Ledyard on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Ledyard on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State oflaces of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Ledyard for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two — one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress, held November 8, 1910, in the town of Ledyard? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them ? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tor's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — ^A. They are. Q. Were those boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The ballot box and the stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evi- dence with all the contents and are marked as follows: Ballot box, " Exhibit No. 1 " ; stub, " Exhibit No. 2," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. W^iLLiAM I. Allyn, Deponent. 10. This stipulation between the parties. 11. The certificate of the magistrate before whom the depositions were taken. The Contestant, Raymond J. Jodoin. By Charles F. Thayer, Hull, McGuire & Hull, His Attorney. New London, Conn., July 21, 1911. Wm. F. Henney, Michael Kenealy, .John P. Carpenter, Charles B. M. Lindsay, Attorneys for Edioin W. Higgins, Contestee. By Charles B. M. Lindsay, 28 JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. Town of New London, July 21, 1911. State of Connecticut, 2Vew London County, ss: I, Warren B. Burrows, of the town of Groton, county of New London, State of Connecticut, a notary public in and for said said State, hereby certify as follows. 1. That I am the person designated in the stipulation made between the con- testant and contest ee in the above-entitled matter, as magistrate, a notary pub- lic, for issuing of all subpoenas for the impounding and holding of the ballot boxes to be used in this matter and for the taking of the depositions herein mentioned and hereto annexed. 2. That said depositions were taken before me by agreement of the contestant and contestee and their counsel, and at the taking of said depositions said con- testant and contestee were represented and were heard through their counsel. 3. That the following depositions were taken, the deponent in each case being the town clerk of the town in which he resides. Said depositions, including the exhibits named therein and noted herein after the name of the deponent : NEW LONDON COUNTY. Town. Exhibits. Ballot box. Stub box. William I. Allyn Ernest C. Russell Charles B. Holton Charles A. Gallup William Marvin Henry L. Bailey John "C. Turner Elias B. Hinckley John Condren Elam A.Kinnie Charles J. Abell George V. Shedd Samuel G. Hartshorn. Charles A. Williams. . Calvin A. Snyder Charles N. Chappell. . Wareham AV. Bentley John Welsh Charles D. Wolf Arthur P. Cote Charles S. Holbrook. . Ledyard East Lyme Old Lyme Waterford Lyme Groton New London Stonington Colchester Voluntown Lebanon Preston Franklin Salem North Stonington . Montville Bozrah Griswold Lisbon Sprague Norwich 1 3, 4 7 8,9 12 14, 15, 16 20, 21,22,23, 24. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 56,57 60 62 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 2. 5,6. 10, 11. 13. 17, 18, 19. 25, 26, 27,28, 29. 35, 36, 37, 38,39. 41. 43. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53. 54J. 58, 69. 61. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74. WINDHAM COUNTY. Sessions L. Adams James E. A. Knowlton Oscar F. Atwood Frank Hoxsie Andrew N. Litchfield.. William H. Burnham. Arthur M. Keith Wallace Covell John B. Bacon Orrin W. Bates Dyer S. Elliott Frank E. Barrett Frank P. Fenton David Flagg Plainfield . . Ashford Brooklyn . . Canterbury Chaplin Hampton . . Easyford. . . Pomfret Scotland . . . Sterling Thompson . Woodstock. Windham.. Putnam 4. That a copy of the notice of contest and of the answer of Edwin W. Higgins, the returned member is prefixed hereto; that the stipulations between the parties, the certificate of Samuel O. Prentiss. Alberto T. Roraback, and John M. Thayer, judges of the supreme court of errors, the certified copy of the report of tiie canvassers of the returns of the electors" meetings in New London and Windham Counties, and the several decisions of the judges of the superior court, in election cases, are annexed hereto by agreement of counsel of contestant and contestee. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. ^ 29 5. That the several deponents whose depositions are hereto annexed were duly summoned to appear before me, the undersigned, at the time and place when the said depositions were taken; said subpoena being left with the de- ponent or at his usual place of abode at least five days before the day on which the attendance of the witness was required by said subpoena. 6. The testimony of the witnesses as given in the subpoena together with the questions proposed by the counsel for the contestant and the contestee was re- duced to writing in the presence of each deponent and in the presence of the counsel for the contestant and contestee and the said depositions were duly signed and attested by the witnesses, and I further certify that each of said deponents were duly cautioned and sworn and examined on oath by me. In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and seal on the date above written. [SEAL.] Warren B. Burrows, Notary Public. I, WILLIAM I. ALLYN, of the town of Ledyard, in the county of New Lon- don, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is you name? — A. William I. Allyn. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Ledyard, in the town of Ledyard, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Ledyard? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Ledyard? — A. Eleven years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. I was'.- Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Ledyard on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the even- ing of said Sth day of November, 1910? — ^A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Ledyard on the Sth day of November. 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the elec- tion of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A.. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Ledyard for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of 'Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — ^A- Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Ledyard? — ^A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said electors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — ^A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The ballot box. and the stub box hereinbefore mentioned, are offered in evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows : Ballot box, " Exhibit 6008-11 3 so JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. No. 1;" stub box, " Exhibit No. 2;" and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. William I. Allyn, Deponent. EARNEST C. RUSSELL, of the town of East Lyme, in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and says : (Q. What is your uameV — A. Earnest C. Russell. Q. Where do you reside V — A. East I^yme, in the town of East Lyme, in the •'coxmty of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Con- :necticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of East Lyme? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of East Lyme? — A. Seven years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of East Lyme on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the even- ing of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes aild stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of East Lyme on the :8th day of November, 1910?— A. Two. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Rei)resentatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — ^A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town •of East Lyme for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Four. Two ballot boxes and two stub Ijoxes. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8. 1910, in the town of East Lyme? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They -are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you, as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The two ballot boxes and two stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows: Two ballot boxes, " Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 " ; two stub boxes, " Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 " ; and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Ernest C. Rxjsskll, Deponent. I, CHARLES B. HOLTON, of the town of Old Lyme, in the county of New I^ndon, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and -sworn, depose and say : Q. What is youi- name? — A. Charles B. Holton. Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. Old Lyme, in the town of Old Lyme, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district, of the State of •Connecticut. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. i 31 Q. Wlijit official iiosition do you hold in the town of Old Lyme? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Old Lyme? — A. Three years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the tOA^m of Old Lyme on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the offtcials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Old Lyme on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Rein-eseutative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecti- cut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deix)sited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Old Lyme for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Con- necticut? — A. I will; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. One box ; the stubs were placed in the same box with the ballots after they were counted. Q. Is this box now in the condition in which you received it? — A. Yes. Q. Is this the only ballot box used at the election for Representative in Con- gress held November S, 1910, in the town of Old Lyme? — A. It is. Q. Where has it been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. AVhere have yon kept it? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom was it delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elector's meeting. Q. Is this box in the same condition as when received by you"? — A. It is. Q. Was this box locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as it is now? — A. It was. Q. Has this box been changed or in any way tampered with since it was de- livered into your custody as town clerk"? — A. It has not. The ballot box hereinbefore mentioned is offered in evidence with all its con- tents and is marked as follows: Ballot box, " Exhibit No. 7," and bear the signa- ture of the notary public, Warren B. Burows. Charles P. Horton, Deponent. I, CHARLES A. GALLUP, of the town of Waterford, in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Charles A. Gallup. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Waterford, in the town of Waterford, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Con- necticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Waterford? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Waterford"? — A. Since the year 1898. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Waterford on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910? — ^A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Waterford on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. Two. 32 JODOIN vs. HIGGINS. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — ^A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — ^A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes at said election in said town of Waterford for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — ^A. Two ballot boxes. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Con- gress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Waterford? — A. They are the ballot boxes, and the stub boxes will be produced on the 10th of April, 1911. Q. Where have they been since election? — ^A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office at my residence. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tor's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — ^A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The two ballot boxes and two stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows : Two ballot boxes, " Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9 " ; two stub boxes, are to be produced and marked "Exhibits Nos. 2 and 11,'" and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Charles A. Gallup, Deponent. I, WILLIAM MARVIN, of the town of Lyme, in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. William Marvin. Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. Hamburg, in the town of Lyme, in the county of New London,' in the third congressional district, of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Lyme?— A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Lyme? — A. Fourteen years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Lyme on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of the said Sth day of November, 1910?— A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Lyme on the Sth day of November. 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representath-e of Congress on said date?— A. One ballot box and one stub Q Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressioual district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the same ballot with the names of the candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — A: They were. Q. And of course were also deposited in one ballot box at the election?— A. They were. . . _ , Q Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election m said town of Lyme for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Con- necticut?— A. I have the ballot box, but not the stub box. JODOHSr vs. HIGGINS. 33 % Q. How many have yon here? — A. One ballot box, and I will brins the stub box, and have il marked before the close of hearing. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which yon received them?— A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Con- gress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Lyme? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said electors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were locked and sealed, but never signed. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The ballot box produced and stub box to be produced, as hereinbefore men- tioned, are offered in evidence, with all the contents, and are marked as follows : One ballot box, " Exhibit No. 12 " ; one stub box, to be marked as " Exhibit No. 13," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. William Marvin, Deponent. I, HENRY L. BAILEY, of the town of Groton, in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Henry L. Bailey. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Groton, in the town of Groton, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Groton? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Groton? — A. A little over three years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Groton on the Sth day of November, 1910?^ A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the morning of said 9th day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the oflScials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. ■ Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Groton on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. Three. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecti- cut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Groton for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Con- necticut? — A. I will; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Six — three ballot boxes and three stub boxes. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November S, 1910. in the town of Groton? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the registrars of voters for the three districts, and the keys to same were delivered to me by the mod- erators. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. 34 joDoiN vs. HIGGIlSrS. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — ^A. They have not. The three ballot boxes and three stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are of- fered in evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows: Three bal- lot boxes, " Exhibits Nos. 14, 15, and 16 "' ; three stub boxes, " Exhibits Nos. 17, IS, and 19." and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Henry L. Bailey, Deponent. I, JOHN C. TURNER, of the town of New London, in the county of New London, in the State of Counecticut, of lawful age being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. John C. Turner. Q. Where do you reside? — A. New London; in the town of New London, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of New London? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of New London? — -A. Since October 6, 1910. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November. 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors" meeting held in the town of New London on the Sth day of Novem- ber, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening- of the said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of New London on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. Five. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative in Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of the candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — A. They were. Q. And of course were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of New London for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will; here they are. Q. How many have you here?— A. Ten — five ballot boxes and five stub boxes. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November S, 1910 in the town of New London? — A. They are. Q. Whre have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the City Hall in the town of New London in a place set apart for that purpose. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said electors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are, I believe. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by yoii as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into yoiir custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. to my knowledge. The five ballot boxes and five stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows: Five ballot boxes, " Exhibits Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 " ; five stub boxes, ".Exhibits Nos. 25, 26. 27, 28, and 29,*' and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. John C. Turner, Deponent. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 3^ % I, ELIAS B. HINCKLEY, of the town of Stoiiiugtou, in tlie county of New London in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your nameV — A. Elias B. Hinckley. Q. Where do you reside? — A. In the town of Stonington, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Stonington V — A. Towns clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Stonington? — A. Twenty years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors" meeting held in the town of Stonington on the Sth dav of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of the said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Stonington on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. Five. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative in Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of the candidates for State offices of the State of Connecti- cut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Stonington for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut?— A. I will; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Ten; five ballot boxes and five stub boxes. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November S, 1910. in the town of Stonington? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk, Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's oflice. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said electors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The five ballot boxes and five stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are offered, in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : Five ballot boxes.. •• Exhibits Nos. 30, 31, 32. 33, and 34 " ; five stub boxes, " Exhibits Nos. 35, 36,. 37. 3S. and 39,"' and bear the signature of the notary public. Warren B. Burrows. Elias B. Hinckley, Deponent. I, JOHN COUDREN. of the town of Colchester, in the county of New London, In the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. John Coudren. Q. Where do you reside? — A. In the town of Colchester, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Colchester? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Colchester? — A. Since January 1, 1910. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Colchester on the Sth dav of November, 1910?— A. I have. 36 joDoii^ vs. HIGGIlSrS, Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to j'ou on tbe eve- ning of the said Stli day of November, 1910? — A. Tliey were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Colchester on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress for the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And of course also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. Ttiey were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Colchester for Member of Congress for the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will; here they are. • Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Colchester? — ^A. They are. ■ Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office in my place of business. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they ■are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed, or in any way tampered with, since .they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : One ballot box, "Exhibit No. 40;" one stub box, "Exhibit No. 41," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. John Coudben, Deponent. I, ELAM A. KINNE, of the town of Yoluutown, in the county of New London, In the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Elam A. Kinne. Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. Voluntown, in the town of Voluntown, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Voluntown? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Voluntown? — A. Five years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Voluntown on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said 8th day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — ^A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Voluntown on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of the candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the JODOIlSr vs. HIGGINS. 37 same ballot with the names of cancliclates for State ofBces of the State of Cou- uecticut? — ^A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said, election in said town of Voluntown for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two, one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November S, 1910, in the town of Voluntown? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — ^A. By the moderator of said elec- tor's meeting. . Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box, and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows: One ballot box, "Exhibit No. 42;" one stub box, "Exhibit No. 43," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. El AM A. KiNNE, Deponent. I, CHARLES J. ABELL, of the town of Lebanon, in the county of New Lon- don, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Charles J. Abell. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Lebanon, in the town of Lebanon, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Lebanon? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Lebanon? — . . Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Lebanon on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — ^A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Lebanon on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Conjiecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Lebanon for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — ^A. I wiU — here they are. Q. How many have j'ou here? — A. One ballot box, and I will bring the stub box before close of hearing. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Con- gress held November S, 1910, in the town of Lebanon? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — ^A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them ? — A. In the town clerk's office. 38 JODOIN vs. HIGGINS. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elector's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you'i — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by yon as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : One ballot box " Exhibit No. 44 ; " one stub box to be marked " Exhibit No. 45," and bear the signature of the notai-y public, Warren B. Burrows. Charles J. Abell, Deponent. I, GEORGE V. SHEDD, of the town of Preston, in the county of New Lon- don, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Geoi-ge V. Shedd. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Preston; in the town of Preston, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Preston? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Preston? — ^A. Four years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Preston on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said 8th day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — ^A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Preston on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of representative of Congress on said date? — ^A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of the candidates for representatives In Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Preston for member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two, one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Ai'e they all the boxes used at the election for representative in Congress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Preston? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the towa clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said electoi''s meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box. hereinbefore mentioned, are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : One ballot box, " Ex- hibit No. 46 " ; one stub box, " Exhibit No. 47," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. George V. Shedd, Deponent. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 39 I, SAMUEL G. HARTSHORN, of tlie town of Franklin, in the county of. New London, in tlie State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Samuel G. Hartshorn. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Franklin, in the town of Franklin, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Con- necticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Franklin? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Franklin? — A. Nearly 36 years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November. 1910 ?^A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Franklin, on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the even- ing of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Franklin on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the elec- tion of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of the candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — A. They were. Q. And. of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — ^A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Franklin for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box, and I will bring in stub box before close of hearing. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Con- gress, held November 8, 1910. in the town of Franklin? — A. They are. Q. Where have they -been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. 'Where have you kept them? — A. In a room above the town clerk's office, used for that purpose. Q. By whom were they delivered to you"? — A. By the moderator of said elector's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They wei'e. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box. and one stub box, hereinbefore mentioned, are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : One ballot box, " Exhibit No. 4S " ; one stub box, to be marked " Exhibit No. 49," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Samuel G. Hartshorn, Deponent. I, CHARLES A. WILLIAMS, of the town of Salem, in the county of New Lon- don, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age. being duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and says : Q. What is you name? — A. Charles A. Williams. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Salem, in the town of Salem, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Salem?— A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Salem? — A. In all, 20 years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. 40 JODOIN vs. HIGGINS. Q. As sucia town clerk have you the custody of tiie ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held m the town of Salem on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910? — ^A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Salem on the Sth day of November, 1910? — ^A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of the candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — ^A. They were Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were, I suppose. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Salem for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two ; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them ? — ^A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910. in the town of Salem? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you l^ept them? — In the town clerk's office in my house. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elect- or's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows : One ballot box, " Ex- hibit No. 50 " ; one stub box, " Exhibit No. 51," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Charles A. Williams, Deponent. I, CALVIN A. SNYDER, of the town of North Stonington, in the county of New London in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Calvin A. Snyder. Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. North Stonington, in the town of North Ston- ington, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. W^hat official position do you hold in the town of North Stonington?— A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of North Stonington?— A. Since year 188S. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of North Stonington on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of North Stonington on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date?— A. One ballot box and one stub hex. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 41 % same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Couuecticnt? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will yon product all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of North Stonington for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut V — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Con- gress held November S, 1910, in the town of North Stonington? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elector's meeting. Q. Are these boxes In the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. W^ere these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows: One ballot box, " Exhibit No. 52." one stub box. " Exhibit No. 53," and bear the signature of the notary public. Warren B. Burrows. Calvin A. Snyder, Deponent. I, CHARLES N. CHAPPELL. of the town of Montville. in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — ^A. Charles N. Chappell. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Montville, in the town of Montville, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Con- necticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Montville? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Montville? — ^A. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November. 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have yon the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Montville on the 8th day of November^ 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the eveninjj. of the said 8th day of November, 1910? — ^A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Montville on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of the candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And of course were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Montville for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Con- necticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — ■ A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910. in the town of Montville? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. yfhere have you kept them? — A. In the town hall. 42 joDoiisr vs. higghsts. Q. By whom were they delivered to yon? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tor's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes loclfed, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any waj^ tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : One ballot box, " Exhibit No. 54 " ; " Ehibit No. 54i," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Charles N. Ohappell, Dcijoiient. I, WAREHAM W. BENTLEY. of the town of Bozrah. in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Wareham W. Bentley. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Bozrah. in the town of Bozrah, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Bozrah?- — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Bozrah? — A. Sixteen years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November. 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk, have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Bozrah on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening •of said Sth day of November, 1910? — ^A. They were. Q. Were the liallot boxes and the stub boxes returned to you by the otficials In charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Bozrah on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Repi-esentative in Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub hox. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connec- ticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Bozrah for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I, will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. One ballot box. The stubs were deposited in this box. Q. Is this box now in the condition in which you received it? — ^A. Yes. Q. Is it the only box used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Bozrah? — A. It is. Q. Where has this ballot box been since the election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept it? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom was it delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elector!^' meeting. Q. Is this box in the same condition as when received by you? — A. It is. Q. Was this box locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as it is now? — A. It was. Q. Has this box been cliauged or in any way tampered with since it was de- livered into your custody as town clerk? — A. It has not. The one ballot box hereinbefore mentioned is offered in evidence, with all its contents, and is marked as follows : One ballot box, " Exhibit No. 55," and bears the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Wareiiam W. Bentley, Deponent. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 43 % I. JOHN WETiSH, of the town of Griswold, in the county of New Loudon, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful ;!ge. being duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and says : Q. What is vour nanieV — A. John Welsh. Q. Where do you reside V — A. Griswold — in the town of Griswold, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Con- necticut. Q. What othcinl position do you hold in the town of (xriswoldV — A. lowji clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Griswold V — A. Since October, 1900.^ Q. W^ere you such town clerk on the Nth day of November. 1910 V — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Griswold on the sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. W^ere the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Griswold on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. Two. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Griswold for member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut ? — A. I will ; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two ballot boxes, and I will bring in the two stub boxes before close of hearing. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Rejiresentative in Congress held November 8, 1910. in the town of Griswold? — A. They are. with the two stub boxes, which I will bring. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. 'Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said electors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The two ballot boxes and two stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence, with all the contents, and are marked as follows: Two ballot boxes, •' Exhibits Nos. 56 and 57 " ; two stub boxes to the marked " Exhibits Nos. 58 and 59," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. John Welsh, Deponent. I, CHARLES D. WOLF, of the town of Lisbon, in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age. being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — ^A. Charles D. Wolf. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Lisbon, in the town of Lisbon, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Lisbon? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Lisbon? — A. Since year 1905. 44 jODOiiSr vs. higgins, Q. Were you such town clerk on the Stli clay of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Lisbon on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said 8th day of November, 1910? — ^A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the oflBcials in charge of the election in said town ? — ^A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Lisbon on the 8th day of November, 1910? — ^A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot, with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — ^A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — ^A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Lisbon for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — -here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two, one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Lisbon? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — ^A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — ^A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you?— A. By the moderator of said elector's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — ^A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows : One ballot box. "Exhibit No. 60;" one stub box, "Exhibit No. 61," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Chas. D. Wolf, Deimnent.' I, ARTHUR P. COTE, of the town of Sprague. in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, de- pose and say: Q. What is your name? — A. Arthur P. Cote. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Sprague, in the town of Sprague, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Sprague? — ^A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Sprague? — ^A. Since year 1906. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have yoii the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Sprague on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the even- ing of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q.'How many election districts were there in the town of Sprague on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS. 45 » Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State oflaces of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election?^ A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Sprague for member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. One box at election — one ballot box and one stub box were used, and after election ballots and stubs were placed in this box. Q. Is this box now in the condition in which you received it? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1930, in the town of Sprague? — A. They are. Q. Where has this box been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept it? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom was it delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elector's meeting. Q. Is this box in the same condition as when received by you? — ^A. It is. Q. Was this box locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as it is now? — ^A. It is. Q. Has this box been changed or in any way tampered with since it vpas delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. It has not. The one ballot box hereinbefore mentioned is offered in evidence with all the contents, and is marked as follows : One ballot box " Exhibit No. 62," and bears the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Arthur P. Cote, Deponent. I, CHARLES S. HOLBROOK, of the town of Norwich, in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Charles S. Holbrook. Q. Where do you reside? — A. Norwich, in the town of Norwich, in the county of New London, in the third congressional district of the State of Con- necticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Norwich? — ^A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Norwich? — A. Since year 1900. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — ^A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Norwich on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the even- ing of said 8th day of November, 1910? — A. No; but were returned on the morning of 9th day of November, 1910. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Norwich on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. Six. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were all deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Norwich for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Six ballot boxes, and I will send six stub boxes before close of hearing. 6008—11 4 46 JODOIN" vs. HIGGINS. Q. Are tliese boxes now in the condition in wliicli j^on received tJiem? — ^A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November S, 1910, in the town of Norwich? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tor's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — ^A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed, or in any way tampered with, since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The six ballot boxes, and six stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows: Six ballot boxes, "Exhibits Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, ancl 68; " six stub boxes, to be marked "Ex- hibits Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Ohas. S. Holbrook, Deponent. I, SESSIONS L. ADAMS, of the town of Plainfield, in the county of Wind- ham, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Sessions L. Adams. Q. Where do you reside? — A. In the town of Plainfield, in the county of Windham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Plainfield? — ^A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Plainfield? — ^A. Twenty-five or twenty-six years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Plainfield on the Sth day of Nov^ember, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said 8th day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Plainfield on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box, Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Plainfield for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — ^A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — ^A. Yes; subject to opening by order of three judges of supreme court as shown by seal. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Con- gress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Plainfield? — A. They are. Q. Where 'have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk, with the exception of the time they were in Norwich before three judges of the supreme court. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the vault in the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said electors' meeting. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS, 47 % Q. Are these boxes in the same couditiou as when received by yon? — ^A, They are, with the exception as^ stated before. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not, with the exception as stated before. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows: One ballot box exhibit marked "A," one stub box exhibit marked '"AV and bear the signa- ture of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Session L. Adams, Deponent. I, JAMES E. A. KNOWLTON, of the town of Ashford, in the county of Wind- ham, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. James E. A. Knowlton. Q. "Where do yon reside? — A. In the town of Asliford, in the county of Wind- ham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Ashford? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Ashford? — A. About two years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — ^A. I was. Q. As such town clei-k have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Ashford on the Sth day of November 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Ashford on the Sth day of Nove]nber, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date?— A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — A. They were. Q. And, of course, were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Ashford for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — ^A. I will; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two ; one balolt box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative iu Con- gress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Ashford? — A. They are. Q. Where have thej^ been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office, in the town vault. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes iu the same condition as when receiAed by you? — A. They are, with the exception that the name Roscoe H. Wright was written after re- ceived by me. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were, with exception stated in answer to question 20. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentionad are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : One ballot box ex- hibit, marked " B ; " one stub box exhibit, marked " B\" and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. James E. A. Knowlton, Deponent. 48 jodoijst vs. higgins. I, OSCAR F. ATWOOD, of the town of Brooklyn, in the county of Windham, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Oscar F. Atwood. Q, Where do you reside? — ^A. In the town of Brooklyn, in the county of Windham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Brooklyn? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Brooklyn? — A. This is my sixth year. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Brooklyn on the Sth day of November,^ 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said Sth day of November, 1910?— A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Brooklyn on the- Sth day of November, 1910?— A. Two. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative to Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Con- necticut? — A. They were. Q. And of course were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — ^A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Brooklyn for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut?— A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Four; two ballot boxes and two stub boxes. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — ^A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November Sth, 1910, in the town of Brooklyn? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — ^A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderators of said elector's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you?— A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were deliyered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The two ballot boxes and two stub boxes hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows : Two ballot boxes exhibits marked "C" and " D ;" two stub boxes exhibits marked "O^" and " Di," and bear the signature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Oscar F. Atwood, Deponent. I, FRANK HOXSIE, of the town of Canterbury, in the county of Windham, in the state of Connecticut, of lawful age being duly cautioned and sworn depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. Frank Hoxsie. Q. Where do you reside? — A. In the town of Canterbury, in the county of Windham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Canterbury? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Canterbury? — A. Four- teen years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November. 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Canterbury on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A.' I have. JODOIISr vs. HIGGINS. 49 i Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Canterburj^ on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the elec- tion of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district .of Connecticut, printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — A. They "were. Q. And of course were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Canterbury for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — -A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two ; one ballot box and one stub box and the stub is inside the ballot. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8th, 1910, in the town of Canterbury? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — ^A. By the registrators of said ■elector's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows : one ballot box exhibit marked "E." Stub box exhibit not mai'ked, as it is inside the ballot hox, and bear the signature of the notary public Warren B. Burrows. Frank Hoxie, Deponent. I, ANDREW M. LITCHFIELD, of the town of Chaplin, in the county of Windham, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — ^A. Andrew M. Litchfield. Q. Where do you reside? — A. In the town of Chaplin, in the county of Wind- ham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Chaplin? — A. Town ■clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Chaplin? — A. Five years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk, have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the ■electors' meeting, held in the town of Chaplin, on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the even- ing of the 8th day of November, 1910? — A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Chaplin on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the elec- tion of Representative in Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representative in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut, printed upon the 50 JODOIN vs. HIGGI]SrS. the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — ^A. They were. Q. And, of course, were also deposited In one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Chaplin for Member of Congress, from the third congressional district? — ^A. I will ; here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress, held November 8, 1910, in the town of Chaplin? — A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — ^A. In my custody as town clerk. Q .Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed, when received by you as they are now? — A. They were; with the exception that there was no lock on ballot box. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box, and one stub box, hereinbefore mentioned, are offered evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows : One ballot box, exhibit marked " F ;" one stub box. exhibit marked " F,^ " and bear the sig- nature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Andrew M. Litchfield, Deponent. I, ARTHUR M. KEITH, of the town of Eastford, in the county of Windham, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, de- pose and say : Q. What is your name? — ^A. Arthur M. Keith. Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. In the town of Eastford, in the county of Wind- ham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Eastford? — ^A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Eastford? — A. Since year 1901. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Eastford, on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Eastford, on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecti- cut? — ^A. They were. Q. And of course were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Eastford for 3Iember of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these"^ boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — A. Yes; I was the moderator at said meeting. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Eastford?— A. They are. JODOIN VS. HIGGINS, 51 i Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have yon kept them? — A. In the town cleric's office, in my house. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tors' meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you ? — A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by yon as they are now ? — A. I locked, sealed, and- signed the name as moderator on the boxes, and they have not been changed since. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents, and are marked as follows: One ballot box exhibit, marked " G " ; one stub box exhibit, marked " G\" and bear the sig- nature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. Arthur M. Keith, Deponent. I, WILLIAM H. BURNHAM, of the tOAvn of Hampton, in the county of Wind- ham, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn, depose and say : Q. What is your name? — A. William H. Burnham. Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. In the town of Hampton, in the county of Windham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Hampton? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town of Hampton? — A. Since 1882, with the exception of one year. Q. Were you such town clerk on the Sth day of November, 1910? — A. I was. Q. As such town clerk have you the custody of the ballot boxes used at the elector's meeting held in the town of Hampton on the 8th day of November, 1910?— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and stub boxes returned to you by the officials in charge of the election in said town ? — A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town of Hampton on the Sth day of November, 1910?— A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress on said date? — A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecti- cut? — A. They were. Q. And of course were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will you produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Hampton for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two ; one ballot box and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them? — ^A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used at the election for Representative in Congress held November Sth, 1910, in the town of Hampton? — ^A. They are. Q. Where have they been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elector's meeting. Q. Are these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — ^A. They are. Q. Were these boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with since they were delivered into your custody as town clerk? — A. They have not. The one ballot box and one stub box hereinbefore mentioned are offered in evidence with all the contents and are marked as follows: One ballot box 52 jODOiisr vs. higgins. exhibit, marked " H " ; one stub box exhibit, marked " Hi," and bear the sig- nature of the notary public, Warren B. Burrows. William H. Buenham, Deponent. I, WILLIS COVELL, of the town of Pomfuet, in the county of Windham, in the State of Connecticut, of lawful age, being duly cautioned and sworn; depose and say : Q. What is your name? — ^A. Willis Covell. Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. In the town of Pomfuet, in the county of Wind- ham, in the third congressional district of the State of Connecticut. Q. What official position do you hold in the town of Pomfuet? — A. Town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk of the town ot Pomfeut?--A. Six years. Q. Were you such town clerk on the 8th day of November, 1910? — ^A. I was. Q. As such town clerk, have you the custody of the ballot box used at the electors' meeting held in the town of Pomfeut on the 8th day of November, 1910— A. I have. Q. Were the ballot boxes used at said election returned to you on the evening of said 8th day of November, 1910? — ^A. They were. Q. Were the ballot boxes and the stub boxes returned to you by tJie ollicials in charge of the election in said town? — ^A. They were. Q. How many election districts were there in the town on the 8th day of November, 1910? — ^A. One. Q. How many ballot boxes were used in each voting district for the election of Representative of Congress o^h said date? — ^A. One ballot box and one stub box. Q. Were the names of candidates for Representatives in Congress from the third congressional district of Connecticut printed upon the same ballot with the names of candidates for State offices of the State of Connecticut? — ^A. They were. Q. And, of course, were also deposited in one ballot box at the election? — A. They were. Q. Will j^ou produce all the ballot boxes used at said election in said town of Pomfuet for Member of Congress from the third congressional district of Con- necticut? — A. I will — here they are. Q. How many have you here? — A. Two; one ballot and one stub box. Q. Are these boxes now in the condition in which you received them ?- -A. Yes. Q. Are they all the boxes used in the election for Representative in Congress held November 8, 1910, in the town of Pomfuet? — A. They are. Q. Where have they have been since election? — A. In my custody as town clerk. Q. Where have you kept them? — A. In the town clerk's office in my house. Q. By whom were they delivered to you? — A. By the moderator of said elec- tors' meeting. Q. Are, these boxes in the same condition as when received by you? — A. They are. Q. Were the boxes locked, sealed, and signed when received by you as they are now? — A. They were. Q. Have these boxes been changed or in any way tampered with .