The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-07-23
LOUISIANA ELECTION.
T0THE PUBLIC.
THE ELLIOTT VOTES.

THE ELLIOTT VOTES.
The circumstances attendant on the recent cleo
ton having become the subject OF public discussion
1t Is important that the precise facts of the
should be known. |, therefore, have to request a
perusal of the return made by the Inspectors for
the First Ward OF the Second Municipality, copy
OF which IS hereuntO annexed.
II having been generally reported that the Wing
Inspectors had agreed not to receive the votes Of
persons holding certificates OF alIzatlon ISSUED
by Judge Elliott, | called upon James P. Freret,
Esq, my associate TO superntend the election, the
day previous, to know II he had determined to
ect such votes without enquiry as their validity.
HIS reply was, that he had SO determined, and that
ne would not listen to any arrangement or compro
mise in relation thereto.
considered IT my Imperative duty to refrain
from preJudging any case which might be present
ed TO the Inspectors tor their decision, and commu
nlcated those opinions TO the Democratic citizens
Of the Ward, notifying them OF the determination
er to receive any vote objected TO by him, however
well the validity Of the certificate might be es
tabllshed.
Having received my appointment from the Hon
Charles Maurian, Judge Of the Parish Court, to
whom the return of the election was to be made,
considered il proper Tor the inspectors to be guided
by his opinion on all law points which might be
presented and about which they might differ; and
In case my associate would not yield thereto,
felt compelled to resign my office, that might not
be an obstacle to the receipt Of the vote OF any c
zen legally entitled TO the elective franchise.
Entertaining such opinions, | addressed a letter
to Judge Maurian, In words following:
"NEw ORLEANS, LIST July, 1914.
" Hon. CHARLES MAURIAN, Judge Of the Parish Court:
"DEAR SK-Unable to have the election conducted &C.
cordng the requirements Of law wish your advice
the matter and have therefore to ask personal favor
immediate attendance at the Poll Of the First Ward
Second Municipality the St. Charles Hotel that
may be appointed in my place your explanation
OF the law should not enghten the Inspectors to
duce them to harmonze the proper be pursued
L dear ii
Your obedent servant,
JACOB BARKER"
in the hands Of Judge Maurian early in the day
not being successful, agreed to such course OF
proceeding is detailed in the return Of the In
spectors, and as, in my opinion, would be most
likely to counteract the effect OF the aforesaid de-
termination PREJUDICE the cases to be tried, ano
such as would facilitate the election, secure to all
the free exercise OF their elective franchise, and
consgn to rest hereafter the question as to the e-
enable Congress, the Convention and the Legisla-
ture, to have the whole matter before them, Al
to decide advsedy on the qualifications Of all per
sons claiming to have been elected In the latter
think have succeeded, although there were but
five Elliott votes received-one OF which was fol
the entire Wing ticket, and the other four the en-
tire Democratic ticket. It however remains to be
seen when the action of those bodies shall be HAD
on the matter. -se1as8
do not know Of any law requiring the produc-
ton Of naturalization papers: TO other qualifica
tons, the oath OF the voter is deemed to be suf
cient; and if sufficient as to the requirements of
who has the power TO make difference unknown
TO the lawl The penalty tor perjury relied on fol-
protection, and the fear OF delay conducting cleo
tons, has induced our lawmakers 10 yield TO the
argument Of convenience IN not lnteIp0siDg any
other restriction, and are we to be told that the oat
| of French, German, or an Irish citizen, is no
entitled to the same faith as If born in New Eng
land when the oath Of the latter, without certif
cate, is taken to be satisfactory evidence Of hi.
having become citizen Of Louisiana by the year,
residence required by the Constitution.
Those persons who approve OF my associates
having placed in the ballot box the vote oil Mr.
Kelly, in defiance OF my positively expressed will
should remen Der that had the same right to hay.
placed in the ballot box the Elliott votes, in def
ance OF his positively expressed will. Had done
so, what would have been the public opinion!
If the refusal OF one Inspector to receive vot.
presented, disposed OF the question as to that vote
how does 1t happen that the refusal OF the other In
equally dispose of the question asto that other
place OF which II is claimed that while the refusa
of rejected the vote and disposed OF the ques
ton, the refusal OF the other conferred the right
single Inspector 10 deposlte the ballot IN the boz
in defiance Of the other.
1t seems to me that the rule to be sound and ten
ale should work both ways
Hsw far the putting Mr. Kelly's vote into the bal
lot box may vtlate the whole election, is yet to b.
decided. Should such be the result, those who 81
bosterousy urged the Inspector to put In that vote
will have to thank themselves, and may perceiv.
the impolicy OF intermeddling IN claInorous ant
frantic manner, with the duties OF public 0fficer
who should be left to act calmly and CONSIDERABLY
on the resp possibility oi their Oaths.
1t will be seen by the process verbal, that did
not object to the impeachment OF any Elliott cerl
cate presented, or that might be presented all
contended tor was, that without evidence they
could not be deemed fraudulent.
Tue naturalization papers retained were not IN
vesigated or read by the inspector until after tht
,lla <Ic ttpo fan nj flolP hay hun
issued by Judge Elliott; no evidence was adduced
that they were part OF the l74S inquired about b,
the Senate, or Of the - impeached
Mr. Conlon, about whose vote the first difficulty
arose, had resided in this city fourteen years, ant
had been, as he supposed, legally naturalzed by
Judge Elliott-suppose he had purchased an Amer
lcan ship, and taken out register in his owr
aame, would Just public allow s,.. that ship :,
lowing the validity OF the certificate to be inves
gated? If not, they would not allow his citizen
ship In any case to be impeached without proof anc
without trial. JACOB BARKER.
INSPECTORS RETURN.
New ORLEANS, ST. CHARLxs HOTEL, LIST July, 1874.
The Poll for the Election be held this day for The first
Wardefthe Second Municipality:
The Poll opened under the inspection OF James
Frere and Jacob Barker VIM C. AUDI Score airy, at II
o'clock and all the legally quaifed voters who offered FOL
sen,ed and d. handed the right VOTE his natra
zaon papers having been issued by the City Court
Lafayette over which Judge Elliott presided at the time
his vote was on that account objected to- when the fol
lowing proceedings took place.
stephen Conlon presented himself and claimed the rgh
vote his right being challenged the oath admins
teredhe that he had resided in the State for
year Immediately preceding the election superaddng thai
he had bsen resident Of the city Of New Orleans for
y fourteen years. that he had resided in the ward sir
Immediately preceding the election, that he had
paid the State within the last year. and being ask
ed he was adopted citizen Of the United States said
he was and papers hereunto appended mark
ed A. and D. whereupon James r Frere Esq. of the
Judges Of election objected TO receiving the same and
f.nC norIx he ltd0 iuain od m hsin
received and proposed to hear any evidence going TO M
impeachment that might be offsred-where upon MIR
Freret stated that had been impeached by the Senate
Of Louisiana that he would not listen to any testimony
beyond that his certificate Of naturalization was from
Judge Elliot-Mr Barker denied that il had been i'm
peached and demanded proofthe said Stephen Conlon
being further nterrogated whether he had paid tax 70