I will now elaborate a little on some of the "charges" or rumors mentioned above relative to the election of November, 1966 and the election process of the Virgin Islands: 1. That the General Election of November 8, 1966 was "fixed"-it is impossible for me to visualize how this can be done with the system of checks and balances provided by law. The Election Officers must account for all ballots given them; the Election Officers are instructed to make certain that there are no markings, etc. on the ballots when they are given to the voters; all the Election Officers at a polling place do not have the same party affiliation or beliefs, and they take an oath to perform their duties in a faithful and impartial manner, all as provided by Sections 153 and 157 of the Election Code of the Virgin Islands, which said Sections are modeled almost verbatimly from the Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated. Additionally, the Election Officers were all given written instructions relative to their duties and rights on Election Day (See Exhibit 11 attached to the Report to your Committee submitted by Mr. Neville Thomas, Chairman of the Board of Elections of St. Thomas), and were also orally instructed at instructional meetings scheduled by Boards of Elections, the Supervisor of Elections and/or the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands; they were also advised to contact any of the above-named three sources for any additional information needed. Another reason why I cannot see how an election can be "fixed" is that Section 552 (b) of the Election Code of the Virgin Islands provides that "Each political party or political body which has nominated candidates in and each nominated independent candidate, may appoint three watchers at any general election for each polling place in which the candidates of such party or body, or such independent candidate, are to be voted for . . ." Most of the watchers are peers of the candidates or of the political party or political body which nominated the candidates, and in most cases these watchers are more vocal, impetuous and inexorable than the candidates. Here it should be noted that some of the candidates were nominated by more than one political party or body and were therefore entitled to have a double amount of watchers, which opportunity was well taken care of by these persons or entities. 2. Another charge was that several hundred votes were counted which were not cast by the voters-this is a mere product of some person or persons imagination or was facetiously mentioned to imply wittily that the Supervisor of Elections and/or some other election official or officials were practicing hexerei or were "gifted" with magical powers to be able to remove the ballots actually marked by the voters and substitute others marked by the "magician" and his or her cohorts-and all this in the presence of watchers. How ridiculous! Again, as mentioned before, all ballots given to the Judges of Election must be accounted for. The Supervisor of Elections and the Boards of Elections have no contact with the ballots from the moment they are delivered to the Judges of Elections before the election, until the ballots have been tallied after the close of the polls. The ballots are tallied, counted, canvassed, computed, opened all at the polling place at which they were cast; and this is all done under the scrutiny of and within the sight and hearing of all the election officers and the watchers. The Election Officers then prepare a "Statement of Votes Cast", as prescribed by Section 625 of our Election Law, showing the number of votes cast for each person, the total number of ballots received from the Board of Elections, the number of ballots cast, the number of ballots declared void, etc. The statements for the 1966 General Election, duly executed by the Election Officers, are on file. In no case did any of the statements reveal that any election officer refused to sign the statement, which was his or her right to do if he or she had seen irregularities during the election. Too, none of the statements reveal that candidates for election received more votes than was in anywise possible. It should be mentioned, however, that it is possible that "Unauthorized" persons voted, especially after a certain Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the Judge of the District Court at 4:30 p.m. on the day of the election, November 8, 1966. The papers on file in the District Court in this matter is hereto attached as Exhibit No. 1. Here it should be observed that the Honorable United States Attorney, Almeric Christian, was the petitioner in this matter; that I never saw a copy of the Petition filed in the matter until June 10, 1967 when I asked the Court for a copy of the papers on file, neither did I know until that date that the Judge of the Court had entered an Order of Dismissal on December 9, 1966. I knew as early as November 3, 1966 that the Honorable United States Attorney, Almeric Christian, was conducting an investigation presumedly on "election irregularities" when he addressed a letter to me requesting certain information; I know further that Mr. Christian was continuing this investigation or had commenced a new investigation up until a few weeks ago; and I know that Mr. Christian will continue to investigate and will file the necessary charges and make his final reports to the Department of Justice and/or your Committee should he uncover any violation of a law or laws. 3. Another "charge" was that voters eligible to vote were turned away from the polls or denied their right of franchise-it is possible that at several polling places, especially in St. Croix, that a voter's card was not found at the first polling place at which he appeared. However, if it was found after checking the complete records in the Office of the Boards that this voter was eligible to vote, he was given top priority to vote at the polling place where his card was located. Many of us might not agree with the law, but in the Election Code of the Virgin Islands at Section 581 (b) it is stated that if "for any reason" the registration of a voter has not been transferred to the polling district of his new residence, the voter shall be permitted to vote only in the polling district in which he is registered and formerly resided. Some of the errors in this connection may be the fault of the Boards of Elections, but in the majority of the cases the voter was inconvenienced chiefly because he did not take advantage of all the opportunities available in familiarizing himself with his polling place prior to Election Day. The Boards of Elections determined the polling places to be used for the General Election, and Public Notices of these Polling Places were published in the newspapers; were posted in public places, including the Post Offices in the Territory; and were mimeographed in bulk so that any voter could obtain a copy. As required by law, these notices were published in the newspapers THREE (3) weeks before the Election. (I have prepared a comparison of voters participation in the General Elections of 1964 and 1966, which is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 2. You will note that there were 16,887 persons eligible to vote according to the records, and that 13,692 or 81% voted in the 1966 election, as compared to 77% in the 1964 election). The Election Code of the Virgin Islands, Section 91, directed each Board of Elections to prepare duplicate registration cards for all electors who were registered to vote prior to the effective date of the Election Code of February 20, 1963. In many instances the data on the old records was not complete, but since the law stated that the registration cards must be filled out to the extent possible from the data on the existing files and records, this was done. Again, particularly in St. Croix, several of the addresses were noted as "Christiansted Country Area", "Frederiksted Country" and the like, which was too broad and vague an address; also, according to Section 116 of our Election Law, the Boards of Elections are directed to cancel the registration of voters who have failed to vote at two consecutive general elections. The names of the voters removed, according to this Section after the 1964 General Election were posted in public places in each district and many of the persons re-registered. However, others just felt that they could appear at the polls on election day and demand their right to vote at that time. I would like to comment on a statement made by one Mr. John C. Asmussen, seen in an Open Letter in the November 15, 1966 issue of the Daily News of the Virgin Islands. Mr. Asmussen alleged that the naturalization data for several persons or voters was not found or noted on the registration card of the elector found in the District Register of voters at the Charlotte Amalie High School Polling Place where he was appointed to work as an Inspector of Elections. This, again, might be true and is because the complete data was not on the old records when the cards were prepared pursuant to the provisions of Section 91 of the Election Code. Mr. Asmussen made this charge and several other charges in the Open Letter mentioned, but the records do not show that he challenged any voter, which was his DUTY as an Election Officer and his RIGHT as a voter to do, especially since he took the Oath of an Inspector of Elections, which among other declarations exhorted him not to admit any person to vote, except that he firmly believed to be registered and entitled to vote according to the provisions of law. The Legislature of the Virgin Islands passed a Bill on April 19, 1967 directing the Boards of Elections to conduct a check-up of each registered elector in their respective Legislative District . . . in order to correct the the General Registers. This Bill was approved by the Governor of the Virgin Islands (Act No. 1988) on May 22, 1967; and the Chairmen of the Boards and I have already met with the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands to map out and discuss plans relative to the early commencement of this duty, which we all consider very urgent, important and necessary. 4. Another "charge" was that the ballots used at the General Election of November 8, 1966 were complicated, confusing and decorated with pictures of Presidents or party slogans. A copy of the ballot, which was prepared according to the provisions of Section 492 of the Election Code of the Virgin Islands, sub-section (e), is hereto attached as Exhibit No. 3. The only difference between this exhibit and the Official Ballot used for the General Election of November 8, 1966 is that the Official Ballot for Members of the Armed Forces was printed on GREEN paper and the ballots used at all the polling places in the territory were printed on WHITE paper. (Section 492 (e) of the Election Code of the Virgin Islands is modeled exactly after Section 293 (d) of Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated. Concerning the symbols on the ballots-each recognized political party had the right to submit a symbol, and the symbols on the ballots used for the General Election of November 8, 1966 were filed by the Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands and the Republican Party of the Virgin Islands, the only two recognized political parties which had nominated candidates for the said General Election. It is the opinion of the Supervisor of Elections that the ballots were prepared according to law; that the ballots were clearly printed and understandable; that the vast majority of the voters had no difficulty in understanding the ballots; and that the voting instructions printed, posted at the polling places, and given the populace when the Supervisor of Elections appeared at TV Station WBNB prior to the election (I appeared on TV on November 3, 1966) were also understood. As an example, the records show that of the 6,929 ballots cast in St. Thomas only 33 ballots were declared spoiled in their entirety, only 9 were declared invalid or spoiled insofar as the At Large Section of the ballots were concerned, and only 13 were found invalid or spoiled insofar as the District Section of the ballots were concerned. 5. I believe that in Mr. Asmussen's above-referred to Open letter of November 15, 1966, he stated or implied that in the 1964 General Election 765 votes were changed as a result of the recount, and, since the said letter was published on November 15, I assume that he was implying or insinuating that the same results would be manifestly revealed at the recounts then set for November 16, 17 and 18, 1966. Appendix II of a letter dated November 25, 1966 addressed to Honorable Stewart L. Udall by the Governor of the Virgin Islands shows that there was no truth in Mr. Asmussen's allegations as to a vote change of 765 votes for any candidate, and it also shows that after the recount or recounts held in 1964 the composition of the Sixth Legislature of the Virgin Islands, as announced when the ballots were first counted and tallied remained the same. (See Exhibit No. 4). The same is true concerning the results of the 1966 General Election and its subsequent recounts, as is shown by Exhibit 5 attached hereto. As I stated when I first commenced this dissertation, it is impossible for me to elaborate on every point or aspect of the General Election held in the Virgin Islands on November 8, 1966, or to comment on every procedure, justify every alleged misdeed or irregularity, or anticipate all the questions or answers to questions circulating. However, I will sum up my testimony or statement by saying that "Elections are regulated entirely by statutes, and the intent of the voters must be expressed in the manner provided by the statutes and in no other manner"; that the General Election held in the Territory of the Virgin Islands on November 8, 1966 was conducted according to the provisions of applicable law, more specifically referred to as the Election Laws of the Virgin Islands; that the General Election of November 8, 1966 was conducted in a fair and impartial manner; and that voters in the Virgin Islands have proven that they are politi cally matured, from the interest they evinced before, during and after the election activities relative to the said General Election of November 8, 1966. The Election Code of the Virgin Islands might not be the best, but is the best we have ever had, and as Judge Walter A. Gordon, then Governor of the Virgin Islands, rightfully said in July, 1957 when our present Virgin Islands Code Annotated was enacted "Perfection is never reached in a work of this kind; changing circumstances will require changing the laws." It was about this same Code that the Honorable John D. Merwin, the then Chairman of the Special Judiciary Committee of the Legislature stated "We are acutely aware of the great good we as legislators can confer on the people of the Virgin Islands by adopting this Code. We are certain it is not a perfect instrument. But we know its imperfections, revealed in its application to our every day problems, can be improved from time to time by proper amendments . . ." These two quotations from learned men were chosen to emphasize that I know, and I am sure all or many of our present Senators in the Seventh Legislature of the Virgin Islands know, that the Election Code of the Virgin Islands is not perfect and that necessary amendments will be made from time to time and may be made even before we ever are given the opportunity to vote for our own Governor. We know that "Modern life multiplies the forms in which the desires and wishes of a person may come to expression"; if we substitute the word "community" for "person" in this quote, we will then realize that necessary amendments to the Election Code of the Virgin Islands, and all the other laws of the Virgin Islands, the various States and the United States proper, as a matter of fact, will be needed as we become more and more "modern; sophisticated and advanced". Many of the decisions, interpretations or rulings made by the Supervisor of Elections may not be pleasing to voters and others, but it should be always foremost in the minds of the critics, that the Supervisor of Elections has made that decision or made that ruling, and that the person or persons aggrieved have their rights to appeal or challenge that decision in some legal way, the same is true concerning decisions made by the Boards of Elections. We all know further that no one assigned to any position will ever be able to please everyone. A good example of this can be found in the judicial process of our United States-litigants continue to appeal matters all the way up to the Supreme Court from the lowest court of the Territory, and we all know that should another court higher than the Supreme Court be created persons will appeal decisions of the Supreme Court and, believe it or not, some of the decisions of the Supreme Court will be reversed. It is my hope as Supervisor of Elections, and also as a native and resident of the Virgin Islands, that this is the first and last time that any Congressional Committee or any outside group or groups will ever be sitting in our Territory of the Virgin Islands to "investigate” any alleged election irregularities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EXHIBIT No. 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS (Civil No. 327-1966) ALMERIC L. CHRISTIAN, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, PETITIONER v. HENRITA TODMAN, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS ORDER It appearing that the Restraining Order issued by this Court on the 8th day of November 1966 has expired, and there being no further purpose to be served by its discontinuance, and no further application having been made for additional injunctive relief. It is ordered that this proceeding be, and the same is, hereby dismissed. Dated: December 9th, 1966. WALTER A. GORDON, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS (Civil No. 327-1966) ALMERIC L. CHRISTIAN, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, PETITIONER v. HENRITA TODMAN, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Whereas, in the above named cause it has been made to appear by the verified complaint filed herein, which was on this 8th day of November, 1966 presented to the Honorable Walter A. Gordon, Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, that a restraining Order preliminary to hearing upon motion for a preliminary injunction should be issued, without notice, because immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the plaintiff, acting on behalf of various registered and duly qualified voters in the Virgin Islands of the United States, before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon, in that elections are presently being conducted in the Virgin Islands of the United States pursuant to the Organic Act of 1954, in that the Respondents and others acting pursuant to their orders and directions are falsely claiming that certain registered and duly qualified voters are not qualified to vote, in that said voters offered to take the oath prescribed in Title 18 V.I.C., Section 586, and in that the Respondents and others acting pursuant to their orders and directions are wrongfully refusing the said voters to cast their respective votes. Notice and a hearing before entering a Temporary Restraining Order should not be required because if said voters are not allowed to cast their respective votes prior to the closing of the polls in the Virgin Islands of the United States at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on this date, said voters may be disenfranchised from their respective votes. Now, therefore, on motion of the Petitioner, It is ordered that the Respondents, Henrita Todman, Supervisor of Elections, Neville Thomas, Chairman, Board of Elections for the Districts of St. Thomas and St. John, Nathaniel Hewitt, Chairman, Board of Elections for the District of St. Croix, all Judges of the Board of Elections for the District of St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, and each of them, and their agents, deputies, and all persons acting by, through or under them or either of them, be, and they are hereby, restrained until the closing of the polls in the Virgin Islands of the United States on November 8, 1966 from refusing to receive the vote of any voter desiring to cast a ballot in the election of this date in the Virgin Islands of the United States if said voter, upon being challenged, offers to and does give the oath prescribed by Title 18, V.I.C., Section 586. This Temporary Restraint is on condition that a bond be filed by Plaintiff herein in the sum of $1.00. Issued at 4:30 o'clock p.m. this 8th day of November, 1966. WALTER A. GORDON, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS (Civil No. 327-1966) ALMERIC L. CHRISTIAN, U.S. ATTORNEY, PETITIONER v. HENRITA TODMAN, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS; NEVILLE THOMAS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN; NATHANIEL HEWITT, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF ELECTIONS, DISTRICT OF ST. CROIX; AND ALL JUDGES OF THE BOARDS OF ELECTIONS FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER The petition of Almeric L. Christian respectfully shows to the Court and alleges: 1. That your petitioner is the United States Attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands. 2. That pursuant to section 47 of Title 18 of the Virgin Islands Code, the Office |