New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-24
u STATE or LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS TUESDAY NOVEMBER 1874
was held and that there was no fraud per
mot tod

was held and that there was NO fraud per.
petrated.
Counsel on the Democratic aide saw tba.
thle board may disregard the irregularities.
or the Noncompliance with the forms of
law, which characterize the city returns in
this case: IL 40. what Formally NAV they
not disregard! If no list Of voters ie made
out. Aligned and sworn to. as required hy
law. what evidence is there Of the number
OF persons who votedf If no list Of the
names OF the persons voted for and the
number OF votes received by each. is made.
signed and sworn TO. as required by law,
what evidence is there of the persOns voted
Tor and the number Of votes received 6y
each. II there is no tally lists kept. as re-.
qulred Dy law. how is the Returning Board
!" count the votes received by each candi.
uatel All these records and memoranda
are absolutely necessary to enable the Re.
turning Board to make proper returns of
the election. and are required by law to be
produced to them, and the absence Of apy
OF them destroys the chain of evidence
which IL essential to enable the board to
make legal returns. and NAV propsrlv
arouse suspiciOn Of fraui unless the ali.
sent papers are accounted tor. in which
case ,ts contents may possibly be supplied
by other evidence; bnc where there is no
evidence that such formalities were ever
complied with by the commissioners, or evi.
dence that they did not comply, the election
so tar as to that poll is void, and should be
rejected.
| will call attention TO the ground an
which the Senate Committee on Privileges
and Elections Of the United States held
that the returns of the election Of 1872 by
the Lynch Returning Board were not legal.
1t was that the legal returns required 70 be
made by the supervisors of registration
were not before that board, and that with.
out them no legal returns could be made
by the board. The same principle will an.
ply to the city election. 90 tar a. the re.
turns TO the Returning Board are NOT in
conformity to. law, it is the same as though
no returns had been submitted to the board
1t was held by the Senate committee that
the Returning Board could not make legal
returns based on any other evidence than
the returns required by law to be mada to
them.
The argument OF the attorneys for the
Democratic party. that the Returning
Board may make legal returns Of the elec.
.iOn. when the forms required by law 70 be
observed in holding elections. have been
omitted. leads to the conclusion, that if none
OF the forms have been complied with, that
the board may get the evidence on which
to predicate their return from other sources.
which is in direct conflict with the decision
Of the United States Senate Committee
above quoted. Then, if the returns must be
predicated on the evidence Of the fOrmaiities
required by the election laws, must not all
the essential forms be observed. If any can
be omitted. which one9
The object OF election laws is to ascertain
the will or the voter and to avoid fraud.
and since there has been such general and
grave charges Of fraud against the officers
appointed to conduct elections in this state
and former Returning Boards that it be.
comes the more necessary to require strict
compliance with the forms of law. az il is
only by this that frauds can be avoided and
detected. and when We see such universal dis
regard OF the forms and safeguards thrown
around elections ty the election officers in
this CITY. Is suspicion of fraud in the conduct
OF the election naturally arises, and should
cause the Returning Board to act strictly
according to law, to avoid that which the
law was intended to prevent. fraud at ths
election.
The general principles BY which return.
ing officers Of elections should be governed
are laid down in the authorities cited by
the counsel of the Democratic party in their
brief in this case, and are not here contro.
verfed. but it is to be observed that, "a
Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations"
observes. that those laws in each State vary
SO much that no general rule can be laid
down to apply to all in detail.
The law 0f this State on the subject is !
perhaps different from that in any other |
State. and vests in the board greater powers !
tnan those in any other State. 70 the only !
'a'e guide for this board is to follow the !
aw under which 1t vas organized. and to |
larry it out in its true spirit and intention.
mat is, to ferret out and expose frald in I
he election in any shape it may assume.
Inc Republican counsel in this case earn. |
,stly protest. that il tho Returning Board |
should .e compelled, in consequence of ;he /
almost universal disregard Of the forms OF |
aw in conducting the election in this city. |
o make returns Of the election in this city |
atney than Ges fare there has been no legal
lection here. that this rule shall not be
made to apply to the country. parishes
when disregard of tOrms may Justify the /
of fraud in the conduct Of the
lection and the returns to this board.
Respectfully submitted.
JOHN RAY.
CHARLES w. LOWELL.
statement OF the polls at which the forms |
OF law were not complied with, and the I
particulars in which the forms of law
were not complied with accompanying
the brief OF the Republican counsel before !
the Returning Board.
Polls from which no lis: Of voters was re.
nrned: We only find that the list here r.
erred to was returned in four cases. leav.
a. ia polls from which this list was not
Polls from which the ''list Of the names of
ersons voted for. and :hc offices for which
hey were voted for. and the number of
otes received by each" etc. were not
gned by the commissioners: First ward
oil seven. Fourth ward--PolI three. Fit. |
.enti, ward-Pol! two.
Polls from which the ''1ist Of the names |
persons voted for" etc. were sworn to
lore than twenty four hours after the elec. !
on: Second ward-Polls three. four. five,
ght and eleven.
ie persons voting nor Of the persons voted !
IT produced to the Returning Board, only !
10 tally sheets nnswOrn 70: Second ward
oil twelve. Ninth ward--Poll eight |
!eventh ward-Poll one. Fifteenth ward
oils two, four.
Polls from which ''lists Of tho names Of
,1sons voted for" etc, were sworn 70 be.
re the United States supervisors or super
sors Of election, persons not authorized I
administer Oaths: Third ward-Polls
70, four. five. nine, eleven. fourteen, fif-
en-. Fourth ward-Polls one. two, four. t
ven. Fifth ward-Poll four. Sixth ward .
,lls one. three. four. tive, six, seven. n
inth ward-Polls four, seven. Tenth
one. two. three. six. seven.
eyenth ward-Pols two. three. five. six. t
thirteenth ward-Polis two. three. Eit. a
pnth ward-Polls four. five. six. seven. :,
Polls from which the list of persons voted =
+ We're not pretended 10 be sworn t":
lird wara--Pyu three. Fifth ward-P,Ils r
e. two. six. seven. Ninth ward-Poll five. $
nth ward-Poll> eight. nine. three.
eventh ward-Poll four. seven. Twelfth
two. three.
kp hat . sOa&;cv ]