New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-12-08

!.
prepare the statements then received and
opened for submission to the inspection OF
the legal returning officers, whoever they
might be. If he has erred in this respect,
it was ignorantly, and with no int ntion of
violating the order of THIS honorable court.
This respondent further says that in the
performance of his constitutional duty as
chief executive Of the State Of Louisiana,
he approved and signed, on the twentieth
November, 1872, an act Of the General As
8embIy of the State of Louisiana, copy OF
which is hereto annexed, and made part
hereof.
This respondent further says that he did
not for a moment conceive that the restrain
ing order inhibited him from exercising his
constitutional functions as Governor OF the
State of Louisiana in the issue OF commits
sions to any person whom he chose to com
mission as an officer of the State; such GER
tainly is not the language Of the order, and
if the act of issuing commissions to the
officers mentioned is Considered by the court
a violation Of said restraining order, hi
respondents distinctly and absolutely dis
agOws any intention TO disregard said order,
and saws he was advised by counsel that
the issue of said commissions by him, as
Governor of the State was not Inhibited by
the provisions of said order, which operated
TO restrain him only as a returning officer
of elections in regard to matters connected
with his duties as such returning officer.
II. G. WARM0TH.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
twenty second November 1872.
X LOEW,
United States Commissioner.
fAet No. 90, approved November 20, 1872.
already published, is filed here as part Of
the defendants ans TerI
Answers of F Il Hutch to heterogeneous
F. H. Hatch, answers respectfully to all
the foregoing interrOgatories, that since the
service upon him of the restraining order
Issued in this case, il fact since the filing of
the bill of complaint, he has done nothing
whatever as returning officer of elections,
and he answers al said interrOgatories in
the negative. +. II. HATCH.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, No
vember q, 1872. +. A. WO0LFLEI,
United States Commissioner.
!Answers Of Jack Wharton TO Interrogatories ]
Filed November -, 1872.
Jack Wharton answers respectfully ali
the foregoing interrOgatories that since the
issue of the restraining order or the filing
OF the bill Of complaint III this court he has
done nothing whatever as returning officer
Of elections. and he answers all said inter
r0gat0ries in the negative.
JACK WHARTON.
Sworn TO and subscribed before me No
vember -, 1872.
+. A. WOOLFLEY,
United States Commissioner.
| ANSWERS Of Durant DaPonte to interrcgatories.
Filed November -, 1872
w p Kellogg VS.. Fl. G. Warmoth ct al.
| United States Circuit Court, No $3.50.
Durant DaPonte being duly sworn de-
| poses and says:
In answer to interrogatory No. l, it is not
| true as to myself, nor within my knowledge,
as 10 any other defendant IN this case.
| III answer TO interogatOry No. :, have
not.
| In answer to interrogat0ry No. 3, have
not
| In answer to interrOgatory No, i, am
not aware OF the facts stated,
! In answer to interr0gatOry No. ), no.
DURAN DAPONfE,
| Sworn TO and subscribed before me No
| vember -. 49, -
| +. A. WOOLFLEl,
United States COMMISSIONER
IoIot' I'll r d a, e.su a4 ~ 9''o
z2,..rod o,d sToa Eoro,,,har % 49,,
| Circn;t CnIIr+ Of the I7n;ted @sates Dis.
+r;c+ ~. J onis;ana M William p
| 5taiiogy 80 II G Wafnotb OF a1s-xnd
r,n,, o"n,as tho comfIa3non+ bare;n hv 4 r
Rackwirb William II HINT and r e Ri,
mos lis eoIicitars and on sn9gestino to
| tie cn1rt thas 4he said defendants Jack
| Wharton and Frank H. Hatch, have failed
| TO comply with the order 81! this honorable
| court. ordering and requiring thea seve-
| rally TO true, full and complete answers
! make to the heterogeneous fled and exhib-
| tied in this cause upon the rule aud order
rnouirinp them to seyprally show cause
! why thew should nos severaity be attached
! and punished for contempt OF court, and il
! aDpcarinc their said several alleged answers
! are irpe!tect. partial. eyas.ye and indeti.
| mite.
Il il ordered ?has the said defendants.
| Jack Wharton and Frank II. Hatch. 90.
on or before /; a. NJ. OF Monday. the
| twpntv-ffth ,Iav Of November 4. II. 1872
! n writing. under their several res pccti7e
nornoraI 0aths, and according 10 the hest Of
| Heir several resnectiye knowledge. inform.
ton and belief, full, true and specific and
unevasiye answers make to each and every
! Of said written interrogatoIies so filed and
| exhibited in tdis cause.
f,.ra1,,,. r..+,.ro r.. ,..,.aor
| ~ 49,
', hec6lEeo' -No'ellpst p 4o1 = " Tue
IhIUeu oS"to9 LIZ suit or Nn tHG eollf
10y nio1 w anu col "a =" T'R4 III
| on "StcA w lidi Io1 anu = l@Ah -. A'"Vou ~
! hoh"ine INV 9Saln0 70 S"0H VI 'iioin III t" -
c'ty' peLSo ~ ~ 7r-r :, r,..- VIII,
- n. > IA1l1A1' oeP"'S "i7ilal'
answers OF + H. Hatch to InteTrogat1F.es.J
| Filed NovembtH y, 1877
Now comes +. III. Hatch, and for more
| specific answers to the lnterrogatolIes pro
| pounded TO him ia the matter of the rule 7
contempt IN this case, says
To the first ipterrogatory, no,
10 the second lnterrogatory, no.
10 the third 1nterrogat@ry, no.
ING req e'lh1uS oA"0I ""S lIoL 90EN7I oA