The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-07-23

Stephen Conon late OF the Kingdom Of Great Britain
be made citiz. Of the United States Of Americas and
having complied with all the conditions and requisites
othe acts Of Congress in such cases made and provided
for establishing uniform rule OF naturalization and the
oath 10 support the Constitution OF the United States OF
America and TO renounce all allegiance and fidelity TO
every foreign Prince Potentae, State or Sovereignty
whatever, being administered unto him in open Court
present the Hon. D. G Elliott, Judge of said Court he
the said Stephen ConloD, u.s. by virtue thereof and the
premises, declared and enrolled citizen OF the United
i States
the year Of Lord, thousand eight hundred and
and the sixty eighth Of the Independence OF
| the United States Of America.
SA'O Paper marked c. c. go oA
Received Parish OF Washington 80 day of January, A.
D., 1884, Of Mr. Stephen Conlon. OF New Orleans dol
cents in iu for his Parish and State Tax for ls4s
sixth Of an Of land situate and lying the
| Parish of Washington.
(signed) A. {. BIcKHAd, sheriff and exofficio
Collector OF Toxas Tor the Parish of Washington
The date and quantity (o lsnd) in the aforesaid
receipt, appears to have bsen written erasuress
ssea sr sls had ,s oy the
went receiving all egay qualified votes until John
Clarkson presented himself vote; he was objected to
for that his uralzation Certificate had been is
sued by Judge Elliott. He duly sworn, and testified
hat he American citizen. that Le had been in the
that he had resided the year. and In the
Ward six months last past and that he had paid
ticket marked Elliott retained the request Of Mr.
but not put into the ballot box wheeupon the
L process
John Clsrkson presented his vote under similar crcum
stances as Stephen Conlon, when lsimar proof similar
interogaons under oath, and similar gveo
ny the applicant with the exception that the receipt
appeared regular and the applicant stated his residence
in the United States to have been for upwards
and the Judges came to the decision they did in
the case OF Stephen CoDlon.
(sgned) JACOB PARKER.
| VIM C. AuLD, Secretary.
Immediately after the last aforesaid process verbal had
nssn signed A. Kelly Esq presented hm's and de-
jcted alleging that until Mr. Clarksons had been
concluded. no other could be considered Mr. Frere in
sisted that he would receive aud put in the ballot box
his responsibility whether Mr. Barker consented
not MIR. Barker said he would oppose any ply ST.
cal force to prevent him, but that he did he could
sign the certificate that the election had conduct
Cd according to the requirements Of aw whereupon the
Judges made andGsubscrbed separatesstasements, filing
A. D. Kelly presented himself and claimed to vote
Cd to put il in the box Mr. Barker obsc,sd considering
che Question: while the Inspectors had under consi
ders0n the application Of John clartson, who con;
be put in, which was the Case. Mr.. Kelly de-
handed Of Mr.. Barker to know il he did not
had other answer to give than the preceding, adding
the time that he had perfect conviction that Mr.
disposed Of whereupoa Mr. Freret said he would put the
vote in GA his responsibility Mr. Barker stated thar
er mot sy Ss he e
legally conducted (sgAed) JACOB BARKER
rhe sSove is the individual statement of Jacob Barker
one Of the Inspectors Of election
In reply to It, James p Freret the other Inspector, de-
cares that he did not consider alleged by Jacob Bar
kerr that any question under the consideration Of the
Inspectors at the time that A. Kelly presented his bal
his vote the question as to the right Of an
vdua to vote under certificate from Judge Elliott had
arsen but in my opinion that question had been disposed
The Inspectors had differed in relation to IT, and had
noted that difference in their process verbal as win sp
tho opinion inwriting that the Elliott good and
r; FreIst giving his opinion that y was bad
retained by the Clerk at the request Of Jacob Barker
After this occurrence A. Kelly, an old and respect
inspectors; jacob Barker refused to take IT, and when
asked by Mr. Kelly the cause said that he could not TAKE
another vote until the Elliott votc which had been
Question should be decided upon and that he considered
hat still under consideration j. Frert asked il any
one had any challenge make to Mr.. Kcys vote that
and that IL there were no challenge, he would pu,
he vote in the box. Jacob Barker was then asked by
bad perfect conviction that Mr. Kelly had right to
VOTE bat that ne had nothing else to say than what he had
which, according to his opinion, under considera
tion should be acted upon Upon this. J Freret de
clared that as Mr. Kellys vote was not challenged and
ne knew to tie good. and there nothing else be-
the inspectors than the question TO Kaly vote
would, under the circumstances, the proper
ser alleging that the vote Of Mr. Kelly put in the
he would not sign the Certificate Of the return OF the
iseminx The vote Of Mr. Kelly to be unanestioed put the
vote in The box (signed) JAS r. FRERET.
New leans. LIST July is44
Mr. Barker refusing to recognise any further proceed
ngs as the dongs Of the Inspectors. and the Secretary
saying be could act without two Inspectors, the fol
A Misunderstanding having arisen between the lnspec
tors in relation to the Elliott the Inspectors entered
INTO the Glowing sgresmen That all the legal votes
hereafter Offering. should be placed in separate box
the Elliott votes and that the Elliott should
.sp IN separate box that al Of Law arising
submitted to Judge Manrian for his opinion thereon AMI
such opinion should be obtained before cos the polls
mis- Judgment should control the coninct Of the
sll questions Of law otherwise the Of both
be- mingled and counted together it was
expressly agreed that the Elliott should not be
in the general return butts separate made
hem and the whole proceedings duly signed by both
Inspectors. (SignedD JACOB BARKER,
New Orleans, July lst, 1874
After making aforesaid agreement the election pro
Creased under the supernendece Of the two inspectors
and secretary ing which the following named indivi
Hen Corfjohn presented Themselves and claimed the
right to vote They were challenged the ground they
.rns answers make 10 ali oneson. hich sba" hs nro
pounded to them, touching their right to taken
by ALL and they all stated that they had obtained their
turazaon certificates from Judge Elliotts Court that
they citizens Of the United States that they had
sided in the state for year and in the ward sin
taxes the State Of Lonsara vi hin the last six months
whereupon the said james Freret refused to consider
them entitled VOTE and their ballots were marked Elliott
md retained agreeaby to the terms the aforesaid
ment
Great efforts made through the day TO obtain the
oil and opinion of Judge Mauranthey not being
the Poll closed at the appointed hour and
the ballots mingled by placing those from the second into
the first box when the inspectors proceeded to count
same and there appeared to have been received
| roa aIpREsxrTAIvzs CONGRESS FROM 2p pDTRIcr
Alcee Labrsnche received l3S votes B. Thibbdaux re-
ceived 2s5 votes. Jno Shdell received votes.
| ron REPRESENTATIVES, THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
/ xYotss Rectiped Yotes Received
| Guyarre 13l Lavergne 239
Johnson 13l Burthe 242
i Durrive 1873 Lathrop 23s
l Ramoa l27 Gardcr0 Q37