canceling ballot-box. The only difference between the turret F and the one, F', here shown is that the top is lower, and, for additional security, has an angle lug, fé, cast upon it alongside the ballot-opening, to receive the end of the angle-plate w, which is secured to the under side of the top and projects up against the top of the turret to lock the ballot opening when the turret is turned after the election is closed. By making the angle w of heavier material the lug f may be dispensed with.

I have shown what I believe to be the best form of my invention; but it is obvious that certain structural changes may be made without departing from the spirit of my invention. For instance, the corner-pillars A may be omitted and the meeting edges of the sides joined together; or the sides may be a single piece molded or pressed to the proper form.

The peculiar registering and canceling mechanism shown is not claimed herein, as it is to be made the subject of a separate application.

I claim

1. In a ballot-box, the combination of the top and bottom, grooved to receive the sides, the top having an opening to receive a removable turret, the removable turret fitting said opening, the plate C C' secured, respectively, to the top and bottom, the bolts D and nuts c, for securing the box together, and one or more locks for securing the turret in place substantially as shown and described.

2. The combination, substantially as specified, of a ballot-box secured together from the inside and having an opening for access to the interior, with a removable turret adapted to be secured in and to close said opening, and one or more locks to secure the turret against removal.

3. The combination of a ballot-box secured together from the inside and having a circular opening to receive a removable and rotary turret, the turret adapted to enter and close said opening, and having its side perforated to receive lock-bolts, the lock or locks secured to the under side of the top in a position to lock the turret in position to receive the ballots, or in the position shown after the ballots are cast to lock the ballot-opening, substantially as shown and described.

4. The combination, substantially as specified, of the grooved top and bottom, having in addition to the grooves depressions to receive the columns A, the glass sides B, the metal plates C C', bolts D and non-rotatable nuts c, for securing the box together, the removable turret, and the locks for securing the turret in the top-opening.

5. The combination of the top and bottom, grooved and recessed as shown, the glass sides and metal-bound columns, the plates C C', bolts D and nuts c, for securing the box together, the removable turret, and locks for securing the same in the opening, substantially as hereinbefore set forth.

6. The combination, substantially as specified, of the top and bottom, grooved, as set forth, to receive the sides, the plates C C', bolts D and nuts c, for securing the same together, the handles E, passing through the top, and plates C, and the nuts e, for securing the handles and assisting to secure the plates C' to the top, with the removable turret and locks for securing it in place.

7. The combination of a ballot-box secured together from the inside and having a circular opening in the top, the turret F, having a flange f, to rest upon the top of said box, and perforated rim below said flange to enter said opening, locks secured to the under side of said top in a position to have their bolts shot into said perforations, registering mechanism secured within said turret and having an actuating-shaft projecting through said turret and beyond the side of said box, and a cross-head secured upon said shaft, to rotate it when turned with the turret parallel with the side of the box, and to bear upon the top of the box and prevent rotation of the shaft when the turret is turned to bring said shaft diagonal to the box-top, and locks to hold the turret in either position, substantially as specified.

8. The combination of the ballot-box having a circular opening in the top, the turret F, fitted to turn in said opening, the plate w, secured to the under side of the box and projecting beyond the ballot-opening in the turret, to uncover or cover said opening as the turret is turned in one or the other position, and a lock or locks to hold the turret in either position, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.

Witnesses:

RICHARD G. WOOD.

GEO. J. MURRAY,

MARY L. MURRAY.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROSVENOR:

Q. How long had you known Senator Sherman?-A. I had known Senator Sherman, personally, since 1883. That is, to be well acquainted with him. I have known of him practically all my life.

Q. You and he during last summer were on terms of friendly relations to each other? A. Yes; I never had any other relations with him that I know of.

Q. Mr. Sherman had written a letter from Paris, immediately after your nomination, strongly indorsing your nomination and pledging his support to it-a letter

written to me and published ?-A. I believe there was such a letter. I do not recollect as to the particular degree of strength in it. The letter will speak for itself, if you will be kind enough to produce it.

Q. I suppose I can get it from some file. Senator Sherman had returned to this country before the publication of anything connected with the ballot-box matter?A. But not before I had my interview with Mr. Halstead. At the time I got the paper I did not know when Senator Sherman was coming home. I say that because almost every day in the newspapers the inquiry is propounded why I did not apply to Senator Sherman in the matter. Senator Sherinan was 3,000 miles across the water and I was very busy at that time.

Q. Did he not return to Washington on the 8th of September?—A. I do not know. I think not. I think it was later. Was it not later?

Mr. GROSVENOR. I think not.

The WITNESS. Let us fix the date if we can.

Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Halstead was in New York when Senator Sherman arrived there.

The WITNESS. You think it was the 8th of September?

Mr. GROSVENOR. I think it was about the 8th; I am not quite certain.

The WITNESS. My impression is that it was a week or two later.

Q. Immediately on Senator Sherman's arrival here in Washington the papers spoke of it--A. Yes.

Q. There was a serenade given, and there was a speech made by him at the time ?— A. Yes.

Q. You never did call Senator Sherman's attention to that paper at any time?—A. No, sir; I never did.

Q. Immediately after he was received here he went to Mansfield, his home?—A. I do not know. I think he did. I have no particular recollection about it.

Q. Do you recollect how early he made his appearance on the stump in Ohio?—A. On the 10th of October; three weeks before the campaign ended.

Q. Major McKinley lives in Ohio and was there all the summer?-A. I know that he lives in Ohio. I do not know where he was all the summer. I know that he went on the stump in September. His first speech was about the 14th of September.

Q. And he spoke substantially up to the end of the campaign, up to the death of his brother?-A. Yes; and he did splendid work, too.

Q. You did not call his attention to the paper?-A. No, sir; I did not.

Q. You and he were very friendly ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And always have been?-A. Our relations were always very pleasant. I never had any personal acquaintance with Major McKinley. He resided in one part of the State and I in another. I knew him as a leading Republican, whom I met once or twice a year at conventions and public places. I had no personal acquaintance with him beyond that.

Q. With reference to Major Butterworth, you and he lived in the same Congressional district, I believe?-A. Yes.

Q. Your relations with Major Butterworth were not so friendly ?-A. My relations with Major Butterworth were entirely pleasant, so far as I knew, until about the time of my nomination, when indications to the contrary appeared in some published interviews of his if they were properly reported. That was the first intimation of an unpleasant feeling on his part; there never was any on mine.

Q. You did not call his attention to that paper?-A. No; he did not get back from Europe for a month afterward.

Q. But he did not go to Europe until after you had considered this matter?-A. I do not know when he went. I was on the stump from the 1st of July, and none of these gentlemen were until about October, and some of them in the middle of October.

Q. I want to ask you if at the time of the Gainsford meeting you did not make a statement; I can not give you the exact place or date, but it was during that trouble or controversy, whatever it was; I do not know how to designate it

The WITNESS. I understand what you mean

Mr. GROSVENOR. Did you not say then that you believed that Wood was a liar or a man unworthy of belief?

The WITNESS. I have no recollection whatever of seeing Mr. Wood at any time about that matter. I do not think that Mr. Campbell will say so. We were settling up some controversy, I think, about stock, and I would certainly not call Mr. Campbell's client a liar to his face without expecting a fight or something else right there, and I have no recollection of it. It is professional duty sometimes to believe the op. posite side at fault. If I made such a remark it was only in that sense, but a man night make such a remark and soon forget it.

Q. There was nothing in his relation to the Gainsford controversy that gave you an insight in his character?-A. Nothing whatever. It was the Hall & Wood Carriage Company, and he was only a partner. He was in the company with Edward C.

Hall. I knew Mr. Hall very well. He was a son of Joseph L. Hall, and had been a near neighbor of mine. I knew him very well-an estimable man.

Q. Then you started into the ballot-box matter without any preconceived opinion of him, one way or the other?-A. Nothing at all that I can recall.

Q. You never understood him to be a man of suspicions character?-A. On the contrary, I supposed him to be a man of good character-of ordinary good character. Q. You had the ordinary presumption about him that applies to every man?-A. Yes; I thought he was a hard-working man, an inventor-possibly a man somewhat eccentric. I do not know whether I got this notion before or after, but I have got it now. Of course, it is a little difficult for me to recall exactly my impression of him at that time; but at that time I had no idea that he was a man who would come and from improper motives misrepresent other men.

Q. But he was not a man whose statements you would have taken on any important measure without some voucher or recommendation?-A. I knew no reason why I should not have taken his statement; but I had already the statement of another man absolutely reliable (as I supposed), made on the 27th of June.

Q. Mr. Hadden?-A. Yes.

Q. Did he name Wood at that time in connection with it?-A. I do not remember, but he probably did.

Q. Hadden at that time did not mention anybody as being connected with the contract except McKinley and Butterworth ?-A. And J. E. Campbell.

Q. Did he say that Campbell was interested in the contract?-A. He said that Campbell had introduced a bill, and that there was a contract in which J. E. Campbell, Benjamin Butterworth, and William McKinley were interested; and when I questioned it he told me that he saw the paper with their names signed to it, and said that there were other names which he did not recall.

Q. My recollection of what you said is that Hadden spoke of Campbell as having introduced the bill and spoke of those two men as being interested in the contract; and I think you stated that Mr. Hadden told you so as early as the 27th of June?-A. Yes, the 27th or 28th. I think now it was the 27th.

Q. And you called his attention to it again some time in July, and Mr. Wood caine to you the 13th of August?-A. Yes.

Q. On the 13th of August, as I have it down?-A. Yes, on the 13th. I fixed the date only through the telegrams. I have no other way of fixing the date.

Q. After you had been engaged with Mr. Wood for a considerable time in this negotiation, Wood wrote you a letter saying that for the first time he knew what you wanted?-A. Yes; he wrote me that letter after I saw him at the Gibson House, when I was there to help receive President Harrison.

Q. Do you recollect the date of that letter?-A. I think it was the letter dated September 1. [After referring to the letter-book.] Yes, September 1.

Q. He said in that letter: "I believe I know for the first time exactly what you do want." What did you say to him in answer to that?-A. I said nothing in answer to that. But that relates to the conversation I had with him at the Gibson House, in which he insisted-not insisted, but remarked-that he thought it was the new contract I wanted instead of the old one.

Q. And he means to say in the letter of September 1 that now for the first time he understood that you wanted the old contract and not the new one?-A. Yes. That was his fault, however, and not mine, for I had never asked but for the one paper.

Q. You never had seen any other or different contract than the one lying here?—A. No, sir; I only heard of it from him.

Q. You never heard of it from any other source but Wood?-A. No, sir.

QYou never tried to get that paper?-A. No, sir; I never tried to get it. He said he thought that was the one I wanted and the one I was trying to get, but I disabused his mind of that.

Q. You understood that statement of his to be merely a misunderstanding of what you wanted?-A. Yes; an honest misunderstanding.

Q. You stated to the committee that when he came there and you expressed some dissatisfaction, or some displeasure that he had not brought you the paper which he had claimed he could put his hand upon, he seemed to be in some confusion? The WITNESS. No, sir; you are confounding two statements of mine. Mr. GROSVENOR. Then I am in confusion.

The WITNESS. Excuse me; it was my fault, perhaps, if you did not understand it. I stated as clearly as I could that the first time Mr. Wood visited me, on the 13th of August, he appeared somewhat confused, when I (after getting through with the smoke-inspectorship business) asked him about this contract.

Q. That is, he did not want to know what you were talking about?-A. He did know it, manifestly; and I did not want to convey any other idea. The moment I mentioned it his face colored and he partly turned away, as if he were touched in a tender spot. His manner may have been affected.

Q. Did you tell him where you had got your information - A. No, sir; I told him nothing about it.

Q. That, then, the 13th of August, was the first time that any word passed between you and him directly? --A. Or indirectly, either.

Q. So far as you know?-A. Except my telegram which I have put in evidence. And not only did I not tell him the source of my information, but I did not tell him my information. I let him tell his story, and he told the same story that Mr. Hadden did.

Q. State briefly what he did say about the contract at that time?-A. He said that there was a contract in existence behind the ballot box bill; that it consisted of several papers which fitted into each other and which had to be read together to be entirely intelligible; that each man had a piece of the contract for himself; and that James E. Campbell, Major McKinley, and Major Butterworth were all on the paper. He spoke of Senator McPherson, either then or subsequently (I do not recall exactly), and told me that J. E. Campbell had a three-twentieths interest in the con

tract.

Q. Did he tell yon that anybody else had an interest?-A. I do not recollect. He told me then as to the general character of the contract, and that in the new contract that was made the capital was increased from $100,000 to $300,000. He told me that they intended to get Governor Alger into it, and that he was expected to go to Michigan with the document and get the governor into it.

Q. Have you stated everything you know in reference to any gun contract?—A. I think I have, although if my mind were refreshed I might possibly think of something else.

Q. The result of it all is that no such connection has ever been shown between Mr. Campbell and anybody as to that contract?—A. No; unless these papers have some relation to it.

Q. Then he never was connected with it any way, except as appears on the face of these papers?-A. I know nothing about the gun contract, except so far as I have already indicated. It was the ballot-box matter that I was after. It seemed much simpler and more accessible. Wood told me in the beginning that he had no interest in the gun contract; that he had no right to the papers, and could not get possession of the papers; but he said all the time that from the Patent Office he could get information which would clearly indicate the relation of Mr. Campbell to the gun contract.

Q. He told you on the 13th of August that some part of this contract was where he could get his hand on it?-A. He stated either then or later that a third paper was a contract between the Hall & Wood Ballot-Box Company and John R. McLean; and that that contract was in the safe of the Hall & Wood Company in Cincinnati. He afterwards told me that before McLean authorized a public denial of his relations to it, he telegraphed to Cincinnati to a man named Legowsky (a man whom I did not know) and that Mr. Legowsky went to the Hall Safe and Lock Company and made inquiry whether that contract was still in the safe.

Q. All of this was the statement of Wood to you?-A. Certainly. It was merely his statement. I do not attach any importance to his statement, beyond giving it as he gave it to me.

Q. He said that the contract was in the hands of Powell Crossley-A. Yes.

Q. Who is Powell Crossley?-A. An attorney in Cincinnati.

Q. A reputable lawyer?-A. Yes; a very reputable lawyer.

Q. Republican or Democrat?-A. Republican.

Q. He has been at some times in business relations with Major Butterworth ?—A. He has been his partner; I do not know whether he is so now or not.

Q. Wood having said to you on the 13th of August that he had a right to this paper, did you not think that the manner in which he baffled and delayed you was a little suspicious?-A. He did not baffle me particularly about it as I observed; but I did notice that there was more delay than I wished; and I attributed it to a reluctance on his part (possibly on reflection) to furnish the paper.

Q. But after a while he told you that the contract was not in Cincinnati ?-A. Yes; when he went to Mr. Crossley's office and found that he was out of the city he could not do anything, and had to wait until Mr. Crossley returned. I did not see him again until I saw him at the Gibson House, and then he told me that he had learned that the contract had parted from the possession of Mr. Crossley and was in Washington-that is, this contract. At any rate when he understood that it was the old contract I wanted, he said that that was in Washington and that he could write and get it.

Q. Did he tell you who had the custody of it here?-A. No; I do not know that he did specifically, but I got the impression from the beginning, when he commenced talking about its being here, that it was in Mr. McLean's possession.

Q. You did not think that Mr. McLean would give up a contract that would attack Campbell in his campaign in Ohio, did you?-A. Not knowingly; I did not suppose he would.

Q. How did you expect that Wood would get possession of it?-A. That was Wood's business. He said that it was his paper as well as McLean's.

Q. Did he make any explanation as to how the paper came to be transferred from the custody of Powell Crossley to Washington without his (Wood's) knowledge?—A. No; it might be that he was under the impression that it was the new contract I wanted, and that was in Powell Crossley's possession; and when he learned that it was the old contract that was wanted he said right away that that was in Washington. He told me about both contracts in the first interview.

Q. And then be proposed to come here and get it?-A. No; he said he would write over here and get it.

Q. That was as early as the 21st of August?-A. That was the 21st of August, exactly.

Q. What papers did he give you on that day?—A. He gave me three State contracts, as he called them; and he gave me the papers relating to the gun contract. Q. And you told him that those papers were of no use?-A. I told him they were not the papers I wanted.

Q. What were those State contracts?-A. One is a contract for the State of Ohio; one is a contract with this man Charles A. Lehman, for the State of New York, I think; and one is a contract for the State of Michigan. I got a letter from Mr. Wood, after I saw him in Cincinnati after the election, asking me to return those State contracts which he had given to me at the Gibson House. I just glanced at them and saw what they were and told him that I had no time to read them there; but that I would carry them home and read and return them, and I intended so to do; and they remained in my possession until after the election, when Wood wrote me a letter, asking me to return the State contracts, and I sent them to my law partner, Mr. Black. I have the receipt here showing that he delivered them back. The receipt says that the first of them is a contract of the ballot-box company with Charles J. Smith for the State of Michigan. The first paper is as follows:

Mr. BLACK:

NOVEMBER 25, 1889.

DEAR SIR: Let Mr. Chambers have those State contracts; also other papers.

R. G. WOOD.

When Mr. Black wrote to me of Mr. Wood's request he told me that he wanted back the State contracts and the "Dear cousin" letter. I never had the "Dear cousin" letter. The next paper is as follows:

Copy.

Rec'd from L. C. Black the following papers:

NOVEMBER 26, 1889.

(1) Contract of Ballot-Box Company with Chas. J. Smith for State of Michigan. (2) Contract of Ballot-Box Company with Charles Lehman. (3) Option given by Ballot-Box Company to Miller Outcalt for State of Ohio. WM. F. CHAMBERS, Attorney for R. G. Wood.

I have here a letter from Wood dated 15th of November, 1889, which I will also put in evidence. [Reading].

J. B. FORAKER,

Governor State of Ohio :

CINCINNATI, OHIO, November 15, 1889.

DEAR SIR: I must insist that you do not have any of the State contracts published, but return them to me at once; also send that filter back, I have a much better one. Send the papers to Black's office or Hadden's. I am bringing two suits against Times, Star, and Post. Send filter to Peters for shipment.

Respectfully,

R. G. WOOD.

I at once sent back the filter as he requested and sent on to Mr. Black, as he desired, my instructions to deliver to him these contracts, but I took copies of them before Í did so. I brought one with me and the other two are at my home. I shall write for them to-day.

Mr. GROSVENOR. If you desire to put the Ohio contract into the record it can be done now.

The WITNESS. I have not the slightest desire about it. I only want to show that I account for the paper. There was another circumstance that made me think it possible that it might have some bearing on this matter.

Q. These contracts did not rest on any act of Congress ?-A. No, sir; not at all.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Who was interested in the ballot-box contracts for these different States ?-A.

I do not know. I suppose the same Company-the Hall & Wood Company.

Q. Was Wood interested in them?-A. Yes; I understood he was interested all the way through.