are not permitted to enjoy the usual safeguards in a hearing of this kind.

Mr. WARE. May I say this to you, sir? I am not prepared to present an argument or to discuss this matter fully with you, at this time. However, I would say this, that this is in the nature, or rather is a legislative inquiry as distinguished from an adversary proceeding. It is an inquiry into the election of November 4, 1952, in relation to the office of the United States Senator. In relation to that contest, a petition has been filed and a legislative inquiry is being made under the constitutional authority of the Senate into this election. There are no rights as far as the parties are concerned, either on the part of General Hurley or on the part of Senator Chavez to make inquiry. That is the job of the Senate and its committee which is duly authorized to make that inquiry. As far as adversary proceedings are concerned, I might say that is not the nature of this proceeding and never has been the nature of these proceedings.

If you look into the historical background of election contests from the earliest time, you do not have adverse proceedings nor do you have adversary proceedings before any congressional committee. It is merely an inquiry as distinguished from a proceeding. It may take the nature of a quasi-judicial body from time to time and other times it may take the nature of an administrative function, but it is purely a legislative inquiry as distinguished from an adversary proceeding. Mr. HANNETT. I have read very carefully the history of each of the contests. I participated in one one time, Chavez versus Cutting. I filed a petition and I filed a bill of particulars. Opposing counsel filed a petition to dismiss and was heard by the full committee and argued the motion to dismiss filed by the late Senator Cutting, and in that proceeding it was all out in the open and we had full opportunity to be heard on the questions of law as well as the questions of fact. And, may I say, at this time that we are not waiving our motion to dismiss, and at this time we are filing a motion for a bill of particulars. We are confronted with this situation. The petition filed here charges a great many things, fraud, misconduct on the part of election officials and illegally voting and many things, but in no instance has the name of a single voter, not the name of one voter has been set up in this, personally, who cast a vote, an illegal vote; not the name of a single election official who cast an illegal vote; not the name of a single precinct in the State where any misconduct took place or any law violated.

I don't believe that in all fairness we should be called upon to go ahead with a bar recount without knowing what precincts, what persons, what votes, so that we may prepare. This recount goes through and takes 6 months or 7 months and then we find ourselves confronted by the committee in Washington and a report that I understand we are not going to be permitted to see, we are not going to be in a position to fully and fairly present the side of the client. May I, at this time, read into the record our motion for a bill of particulars?

Mr. WARE. If I may say this, your bill of particulars motion is out of order at this time, due to the fact that this bill of particulars, the purpose of these conferences as stated, and the authority upon which I am holding the conferences is based upon the authority of the committee to make inquiry into the election, which they have done.

No charges have been made by the committee. The committee is merely making inquiry into an election, not into any personal rights of any one, merely an election inquiry, the general election, November 4, 1952. These conferences, sir, are being held for the purpose of determining what the laws of New Mexico are in relation to elections and the purpose of the conference this morning is called to consider an agenda. Your petition for a bill of particulars or your motion for a bill of particulars should be sent to the chairman of the subcommittee in Washington.

Mr. HANNETT. It is in his hands this morning

Mr. WARE (interrupting). I have no authority to accept the filing of a petition, nor would it be considered filed until it is in the hands of the chairman.

Mr. HANNETT. It should be in his hands at this time.

Mr. WARE. That is the tribunal that you will have to take that up with, sir, not this meeting.

Mr. HANNETT. We don't want to appear to be obstructionists but it probably will be our position before we proceed in this recount that we would like to have an opportunity to argue before the committee, our motion for a bill of particulars. We are at a loss, now, to know what we are confronted with except the wild, vague and scurrilous charges set forth in the petition, without the name of an illegal voter, without any particulars at all.

Mr. WARE. I fail to see, Governor, just what specifically your charges in relation to a bill of particulars, or your desiring a bill of particulars has to do with what the law of New Mexico is. That is the purpose of these conferences to try and mutually agree. We have given you an opportunity to mutually agree as to what the laws of New Mexico are in relation to various subjects. For instance, what is a legally qualified voter? That is what we are here for, to determine that between ourselves and try to mutually agree as to when a person is properly registered; as to when a ballot is properly marked. That is the purpose of these conferences. It has nothing to do with any specific charges in relation to any specific allegations. It merely has to do we are trying to determine between ourselves what the law is in relation to those particular items. It doesn't have any relation at all to any charges that were made.

Mr. HANNETT. Very well, sir. With that understanding in mind and not waiving our motion to dismiss, not waiving our motion for a bill of particulars, we are happy to proceed with it, so far as I know. I want to confer with associate counsel determining what the law is. We want it distinctly understood that it is our purpose to ask the committee to pass on the bill of particulars before we actually participate on the recount. With that understanding, we are ready to go ahead with opposing counsel to determine whether or not the various things that you have mentioned-we want to point out also at this time

Mr. WARE (interrupting). Yes, sir.

Mr. HANNETT (continuing). That under the laws of the State of New Mexico, both statutory and as used in our supreme court, the petition is not a valid petition, would not be under the laws of the State if we are going to be governed under the laws of the State.

Mr. WARE. Would you hold those arguments for the committee? I believe you have presented these arguments to the committee. I

do not have the authority to consider any of these matters. I merely have the authority to hold a conference in relation to the laws, to try and determine what the laws of New Mexico are and I would appreciate it if you would hold those arguments for the committee.

Mr. HANNETT. I am just making my record as I go along.

Mr. WARE. May I say, your making a record at this time is out of order because we are here to consider the laws of New Mexico in relation to the election of 1952 and not the other matters in relation to filing and so forth. You are making them before a group without jurisdiction. I have no jurisdiction to consider those matters. My authority in this particular conference is to hold the conference between the parties, in order that they may come to some mutual agreement as to what the laws of New Mexico are in relation to the election. Mr. HANNETT. Yes, sir; we want to make our records so we can take a copy of this record we are making before the committee.

Mr. WARE. That may well be, but I would say it is out of order at this time.

Mr. HANNETT. There is one further thing I want to mention. That is, the constitutional and statutory provisions which protect the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. We desired to be placed in the category of unwilling participants in a proceeding which can have no other effect than to completely destroy the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. Now we are ready to proceed.

Mr. WARE. Fine. We will now have passed out to you a proposed agenda for the holding of these conferences. I would like to read to you the proposed agenda:

RECOUNT CONFERENCES, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, GENERAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 4, 1952. IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS CHAVEZ, UNITED STATES SENATOR, CONTESTED BY THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. HURLEY

1. Definition of New Mexico law.

2. The general organization of the recount, including the mechanics of counting ballots.

3. Legal fees.

4. Compensation to be paid by the United States Senate.

5. Voting machines.

6. Special problem in relation to Lincoln, Otero, and Dona Ana Counties.

7. Legally qualified voters:

(a) Registration.

(b) Citizenship.

(c) Criminality.
(d) Insanity.
(e) Residence.

(f) Death.

8. Problems in relation to legally cast ballots:

(a) Ballots from which the visible number has been detached.

(b) Ballots not marked in pen and ink or indelible pencil.

(c) Ballots which have been spoiled and mutilated.

(d) Ballots which have distinguishing marks and are thereby identifiable

to interested persons.

(e) Ballots not marked with a cross.

(f) Ballots from which the visible number has been detached.

(g) Ballots which are unfolded in the ballot box.

(h) Ballots cast by persons voting more than one time.

(i) Ballots where the cross mark is outside the party circle or the
marking box and various degrees of such markings.

(j) Ballots with two different types of markings, such as:
Cross Mark in party circle and tick mark in a box

(k) Ballots marked for both candidates.

(1) Ballots marked for one candidate, with legal mark and for the other candidates with an illegal mark.

9. Affidavits of assistance and problems related thereto.

10. Problems related to precincts having no ballot numbers in the poll books or affidavits of registration and unqualified voters.

11. Discrepancies between the number of ballots found in the ballot box and the number of voters listed in the poll book.

12. Persons entitled to be present at the recount and rules of conduct.

Are there any questions in relation to the proposed agenda?

Mr. HANNETT. I would like to ask what is meant by "definition of New Mexico laws"?

Mr. WARE. Broad question. It is what we wish to consider in determining these various legal questions involving the election laws of New Mexico. I believe you and I had a discussion on that point in your office. I thought it would be well if we started the confer

ence

Mr. HANNETT (interrupting). I assume the matters involved are the definitive ideas that you are trying to reach?

Mr. WARE. That is right.

Mr. HANNETT. No. 1, covering everything?

Mr. WARE. That is right. Two covers what we are going to consider in New Mexico law, substantive law, procedural law, or adjective law whichever you want to call it. Any additions, proposed additions to the agenda?

Mr. HANNETT. Will there be a recount of the boxes already counted by General Hurley?

Mr. WARE. The decision of the committee was to conduct a recount of all the ballots in the State of New Mexico. Are there any further questions or proposals in relation to the agenda?

Mr. HANNETT. None. I suppose if any further considering the New Mexico law that occurs to us after this gathering, we can also submit? Mr. WARE. Absolutely, they may be presented at any time. The same is true-I would like to make this statement at the conference that I have so stated to Governor Hannett and to Mr. Adams, that any evidence which would be pertinent in relation to the inquiry into the 1952 general election in New Mexico may be presented to the staff of the subcommittee at any time. We would be only too pleased to have it or confer with either parties at any time we are called upon to do so.

Mr. ADAMS. I assume that the general purposes of these conferences will be to discuss matters of procedure in connection with the recount and the law that will be applied in determining what ballots should be counted and what ballots should not be counted?

Mr. WARE. That would be a correct statement.

Mr. ADAMS. I think the proposed agenda includes those items. I don't have anything at the present time to add to the agenda. As Mr. Hannett has suggested, there may be other things that will occur to us. I wanted it understood that whatever would be added later would be in connection with those general subjects of what the law is, with reference to counting ballots and the procedure that will be adopted by the committee in making a recount.

Mr. WARE. That is correct. It was my understanding with Governor Hannett and Mr. Adams that this meeting this morning will be purely for the purpose of considering the agenda and thereby aleviate the heavy work schedules of counsel of both sides. If there are no

questions about the agenda, may I propose a second meeting date. I believe it has been discussed between counsel and that May the 4th is the next available time, I believe.

Mr. HANNETT. May the 4th I will be in Mineral Wells, Tex. May 11 will be the earliest date that I can be present.

Mr. ADAMS. I will be available May 4 and any other date that the committee suggests. I would like to make this comment, that we are not going to make any progress in connection with the recount. I think we should get started at the earliest possible time. If present counsel is not available, I think that other counsel should be chosen to represent them. It may be that, from time to time, I shall not myself be available to attend some of the conferences, but if I am not I will find someone else to take my place. I know there are a great many matters to be discussed and there probably will be considerable disagreement between counsel for the parties as to the law of New Mexico, what it is, and as to the methods of procedure there will be disagreement, and I anticipate that these later conferences will take quite a little time. So, I would earnestly request that we get on with them, just as soon as possible, and keep at them until we have either agreed or disagreed, and the committee has had an opportunity to make a decision on the matters that we are unable to agree upon. Mr. WARE. Governor?

Mr. HANNETT. This comes up on very short notice, sir. I have commitments and associate counsel has commitments to clients.

Mr. WARE. Governor, it was my understanding when I talked to you the last time, May 4 was the suitable date to proceed.

Mr. HANNETT. You are entirely mistaken. At no circumstances would I agree to meet because I have known for a long time that I have to go to Mineral Wells, Tex.

Mr. WARE. Is it possible for other counsel to be present?

Mr. HANNETT. I don't know.

Mr. WARE. There are six counsel sitting at the table.

Mr. CHAVEZ. It was my understanding that Governor Hannett advised you the other day as to my commitments, Mr. Montoya and I. Mr. WARE. It was my understanding, at that time, that your commitments would be completed by May 4.

Mr. CHAVEZ. No; we leave tomorrow in a contest case in San Juan County, which probably will take 10 days. I have a case following that which is set for May 5.

Mr. WARE. May I ask the gentlemen if it is not possible for you to postpone some of the matters? Having been an attorney I know in many, many cases it can be postponed. The business of the Senate is being held up as a result of this. We must try to ask you that you consider that the Senate's business should take preference at this time. I hope that you gentlemen can rearrange your schedules.

Mr. CHAVEZ. That would be all right with the average case, but, for instance, in this contest case that we have in San Juan County Mr. WARE (interrupting). I understand your problem.

Mr. CHAVEZ. No; just a moment. I don't believe you know what the facts are. The judge in that district was disqualified and the supreme court designated a judge from the southern part of the State. Mr. WARE. I am saying I understand your particular case.

Mr. CHAVEZ. He is coming over. It isn't just the case of the regular

cases.