New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-07-26
synopsis of the Debate In the Election
Gaze in the Senate Thursday.

synopsis OF the Debate In the Election
Gaze in Ihe Senate Thursday.
The following is the debate on the major
ity and minority reports of the case of P. B.
S. Pinchback, contrasting the seat of E. L.
Jewell, Senator from the Second District of
New Orleans:
Mr.. Campbell moved the adoption of the
majority report.
Mr.. Braughn said that as a lawyer and as
one familiar with the case, he had looked
upon the legal points raised by Mr.. Jewell
which were not entertained by the commit
tee, and that they were just. The law en-
titled him to notice of trial, which he
never received. To show that the fears en-
tertained by Mr. Jewell of not receiving
justice were well founded, he would say
that, notwithstanding the committee had
declared in solemn session that the testi
mony was illegal, it was nevertheless placed
in print on the Senators desks. A prejudice
EXISTED in favor of the contestant of Mr.
JEWELS seat; he regretted that he had to
accuse the committee OF Partially and
prejudice; he regretted that the fear of the
party whip was strong enough to make the
gentlemen say one thing and do another;
that they had shut their eyes to evidence
and Justice.
But leaving all these speculations aside.
| he was willing to admit that they had acted
| according to their conscience; he now con.
| fined himself to the law and evidence. The
l committee having declared that the evi.
dence which was given before notice to Mr..
| Jewell was illegal, and should not be con-
| sidered, he asked the Senate not to be influ.
enced by 1t, and cited the law upon the sub.
| ject. The law required that ten days no.
| tiCe should be given; had Mr., Jewell been
present not single point could have been
sustained; but Mr.. Jewell had abandoned
l A 4, L Il I
| justice. The opposite side brought in what
ever evidence they pleased, and it was only
a matter of surprise to him that the wit.
nesses had not done some harder swearing.
The evidence was only hearsay evidence.
| Was the Senate to shut its eyes to primd
tdoie evidence, and entertain fimsy and
miserable evidence? He would cause the
evidence to be published should Mr.. Jewell
be ousted, in order that the public
might Judge on what grounds he was
ousted. Referring to the evidence
of L. Letevre, Commissioner of Election at
engine house No. 8, he said even admit
ting that the ballot-bOX was stuffed, it did
not show that it was to the advantage or
prejudice of either Jewell or Pinchback.
The evidence of Mr.. Staes does not show
that propositions were made to him to stuff
a ballot-bOx, out that Boeimer, Commits
sioner at poll No. 2, precinct No. Is, had
told that other Commissioners had proposed
| 10 SIUll Lut DdllOl-DOA, anu DtSlut Lnhb bOel'
mer had told Staes that he could not say
positively that the ballot-boX had been
stuffed. Then comes the testimony of Mr..
Mollere, gentleman of honor, well known
to the community. He swears that L. L.
Jewell was connected with the official
printer ofthe late Secession Convention OF
Louisiana; he does not say in what manner,
whether AS partner, friend, or an EN-
ploye. But does that make Mr.. Jewell in
| eligible
Mr.. O'Hara arose and said that the cues
ton OF ineligibility was abandoned by the
committee.
Mr.. Braughn was well aware of the fact
and therefore Senators were not to base
; their opinions upon that question, but sim
ply on the question of fraud. Referring
to the statement Of Mr.. Mollert
that ne mad been informed by MIR. Field
the chairman of the Board of Registrars TO
the Fifth Ward, that they must defeat THU
constitution by fair or foul means, Mr.
Braughn wished to known why the com
Clissioners' testimony was not taken. Mr.
Mollere's evidence was only hearsay, ant
could not be entertained. Mr.. Jewell ha(
not introduced rebutting testimony, con
WINGED as he was that however respectable
might have been his witnesses their testi
l mony would not have been considered.
Mr.. 0'Hara, as a member of the com
= mittee, felt it his duty to make a few re
> marks. He could not understand how Mr.
> Jewel could make out a case on such eVi
, denCe as presented. In answer to the state
: ment that Mr.. Jewell had not produced an,
rebutting testimony because he did Rot eN
g pect justice, he had only to say that "sus
S picion rests upon the haunted" Mr.. Jewel
/. had asked that the committee take a specia
f oath, when the committee were alread
q bound by the official oath. The testimon,
a of Rigaud showed that witness had seel
= added to the Democratic tally lists 200 vote
= that were not tickets takensfrom the ballot
box.
: Mr.. OHara was about figuring the fraudu
/ lent votes from a document in his hand
: when Mr.. Ogden rose to point of order
The document was not part Of the II
= | port, and could not be used as testimony
!. The Chair would not take the respona
. bility of deciding the point, and left it t
the Senate.
q Mr.. Campbell thought this was not tn
?. proper moment to take vote OF the Senate
e The Chair decided otherwise.
!, Mr.. COPELAND said that the document wa
!, part of the report, and that if it was not il
a cluded it was through the error of some ont
: Mr.. Bacon was OF opinion that the onl
, evidence that could be received was thu
I which was embodied in the report.
i Mr.. Smith said that the reason why tn
evidence was not included was because of
o clerical error, or an omission of the printe
o The evidence was part of the report.
| MI LNhChs Nlub WISH " SD
a Mr.. President is simply this, if thi
u was evidence taken in this case, an
: through negligence on the part of the Clerl
IS or any other motive he has failed to have
n printed, and now it is sought to be rule
n out through a legal technicality, and b
t means of that technicality defeat the enc
, of justice, am opposed to such ruiin
u If this evidence was really taken before Ii
> committee, which have every reason
4 believe, although it may conflict somewh
Is with the technicalities Of the law, it shou
4 be received. l am surprised, sir, tn
10 gentlemen who appealed to the sense
t. right and justice on the part of those wi
,e are to be the judges in this case shou
avail themselves of so small hole to cray
4 out of, and should not be willing to me
u the issues squarely in the face.
y Mr.. Foute agreed with Mr.. Lynch, but c
le different grounds; the evidence of Lefev
CT on the supplemental report, as he called
le was not sworn to, and he would move
a put to the vote whether the testimoI
or should be received.
N The testimony was rejected.
"A Mr.. 0'Hara resumed his argument whit
~ had been interrupted through parliame
IN tary rules.
be IRe evidence bal bee2 rejected,