New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-05-29
ERROR IN TIE CONCLUSION.

lever " uhNe Suo oOotcA A''~A- >" IVA 81
Democracy. We will state the verde: in
substance, from memory:
We find. said .hs committee. that the re.
turns and evidence as presented 20 as. II
they show au7 Legal result az all, Gisc.ose
that kellogg was not elected. and sha'
McEnery was elected by fraud.
To be elected by fraud IS .: e21rse
equivalent tc no: being elected a: al, Tor
fraud vitia.es everything il favor OF the
side tina. employs it, Now while ;ae re-
turns, as presented to the COMMITTEE IN
uuestionably showed exactly VIA: Is stated
above. it does no: follow tia: ether the
committee, the Senate. Q: the State OF
;.ouis;ana is % he conc!1d.l b: such
showing.
Without. any reference to VIA: TIE
three trunks :u.i Of :ajc.a.ed returns may
have shown, it is absolutely Certain that
AZ election vas he'd in this State accord
ing to law. TLe Tesu!t c. tina: election
nus: have been the choice by the people
Of one 0. the other Of the candidates. IN
less there vas tie. whicI nobody "a
ieees. Ei:he: Kellogg was elected, CT else
,IcEre:y. BIZ: tie friends 0: tie latter.
who had entire charge and unlimited con-
tro! O. the ba!.ot-Loxes, tally sheets. ETC.,
were unable to satisfy az Impartial! tri-
bunal that lie hal 4 majority 0: le5a!
votes. On tie contrary, i: appeared con-
clusively TIA: tie reporte! majority vas
figured up Iy re,or:ing to various
Illegal practices. tie details OF which
are not given. Tha:e is 10 dub:
tina: AIcEne-y received many thousand
iega! votes. and that he IS entitled 70 the
full benefit, has RICH: to have them
counted, and L they outnumbe- the legal
votes given 70, Kellogg. he should have
the Office. Bu. as his friends found 1t
necessary to re sort to fraud to show that
lie had majority AZ all, they have raised
very strong presumption tia: without
the accession Of the fraudu,en: votes for
McEnery. c. the rejection Of legal votes
for Kellogg. the latte: would have been
elected. This presumption can only be
rebutted by d:rec: evidence tina: there was
no necessity to- cheating. and that i: was
only done 70. fan or from force
Of habit. Eoweve. this may have
been the honest voters CT Louisiana re-
paired 10 tue polls CT election day and
cas-: their ballots. That the result was
not known within a reasonable delay. long
enough to count the ballots. was 10
faul: Of theirs. Those Of beth parties lad
a right to have proper count: and It the
officers charged with the duty were too
corrup. or incompetent 70 do it. they
should have been set aside aid others ap-
pointed in their places. In 70 event. ex.
cept case of tie. ought the people Of a
State be called upon to do their worl: over
again. The whole question should have
been sen. tacl; to this State by Congress
with directions tina: the count should
be made ove-, and tia: all homes: bal.
lots should be counted and none others.
and that tie returns should be mads
from the actr.a! numbe. OF votes legally
cast. Congress. or rather the Senate
Committee on Privileges and Elections.
should have assumed that legal result
had been accomplished b: the people at
the election. and that nothing remained
but to find out what TIA: was. As the
pretended returns that were offered il
evidence showed that i, Was necessary to
resor: to fraud 70 beat Kellogg. All slow
the fvoriie o: the supervisors Of regissra-
ton, commissioners Of election and al!
others who had had Laod il making
them up. was ahead. the committee would
have been fully justiie! il tie conclusion
that. without this extraordinary resort to
illegal practices Of al kinds. Kellogg
would have come OF. ahead. And as Id
suspicion Of fraud in the matter attached
either to Ke!.o;, OF his friends, i would
hare beer quite proper t. declare tia: he
was elected. reservi1S to NeEnery tie
right Of contest.
Al SGSo - 400 tAS AISiOAISLS NCulu
have the privilege OF coming forward and
proving tina: their tickle: was elected with.
out counting TIE fraudI!en: votes. il they
could. liz which case they coU.d either
claim the Offices or lay their case before
Congress. Then. too. they would have
the advantage. which before they lacked,
Of coming into court with clean hands.
But they have further damaged their
cause by favo-;ny the idea Of new cleo.
ton. thereby showing TIA: they have nc
great confidence in their chances for sue
cess under t.: las: If they were salts.
fed they had e!ec.ed their t.cke:
they would hard: care to Incur tie risk
and expense Of another con:es: il tie
face Of the wc!i-kuown odds against them.
Some Of tie wiser OF tie Democrats
openly declare they d, rot wan: & new
election at al. but y-o.es, to prefer mar
tial law. Ila tLs9:y w.. whit tx
proceed ;:ndoubtei.. ..ccept, =. f.ct TIA.
tLe.. t.cAe: vas f.il:r defeated: az: that
Success for them IL a I to-. ,.c.:.: would
be Impossible. As :l.or car 10: obtain
the prize themselves they arc willing to
comp-ouisa o. ally p,an tia. W.. deprive
tie sucoesst.:. party Of il.
We conclude. therefore, tia: Is tie re-
turns prove tia: i: Was necessary t; resort
to fraud t. n-akc a majority aprea. for
the Fusion ticket. they show tia: tie Re.
pUblicaUs carried the S:..e. Otherwise.
the parties who conducted tie election be-
ing all FUs;on:s.s. and determined to win