The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-12-12
THE RADICAL CONSPIRACY Re
. VEALED.

~ tive by fifteen or twenty majority Barrln
some clustering and fictitious pretenses b
- the truculent official Journal to keep up tn
sinking courage of its dispirited following.
: was credited, among the more honest Rad
{" Gals, that four Congressman and the Stat
Treasurer had also been elected by the Con
sentative party.
!. There was d hope amid the general disma
/. and disaster, that the constitutional amend
ments had been saved, and it was proposed
. that the action Of the Returning Board, as t.
final results Of election, should be SO far de
layed as to secure an opportunity for Con
0 gressional interference in Louisiana affairs
! and to gain time in which the defeated part!
might gracefully adjust itself to its new sur
+ roundings. The interval in which these contin
gent ends might be accomplished has caused
lull in political excitement, during which
the prostrated but villainous spirit of the polit
ical Adventures who have SO long oppressed
our people, has revived and busted itself in
connecting and initiating schemes for rein
Sailing in power the men expelled by the
popular vote
Day by day the action of the Returning
Board has excited the suspicious Of the honest
masses, especially in the unanimty and readi-
ness with which they have neutrslized the
will OF the voters in more than score Of Con-
servative parishes, by entertaining frivolous
protests in connection Herewith; until the
action OF to-day, in reference to the returns
from DeSoto parish. has made. what was
heretofore q suspicion Of wrong, certain
conviction OF fraud
The Returning Board yesterday in the
face Of the precedent established in canvass
| ing certain polls in the parish of Orleans. re-
fused to receive. canvass and pass upon the
official returns of the parish Of DeSoto.
when the same We're presented BY the legal
| custodian thereof, the Clerk of the District
Court OF the parish
Under the election law the commissioners
of election were required to make duplicate
statements OF the results of the voting at
each poll in the parish, each statement to be |
duly certified under oath-one to be deposited |
with the Clerk of the Court. and the other
forwarded by the Supervisor to the Secretary
Of State, and by him to be placed before the
State returning officers for canvass, compila-
ton and PRONUNCIATION. Each of these state
ments, relative to the election, made by the
commissioners, was an original, and not
dignity and official value.
As a matter OF history, Bean, the Super
visor Of Registration, placed properly yeri-
fled statement Of the votes cast in the parish
of DeSoto, with the Clerk of the Court, but
failed to place 4 similar statement Of votes
with the Secretary Of State, though state
ment for that purpose was made and brought
to this city. This treacherous Radical official
makes way with the official statement, alb
seconds, and when his dereliction as an Off /.
Ger, is about to operate a great wrong upon
The voters of the parish, the Clerk of the
Court the legal custodian Of similar official
statement of votes. produces the same for the :
consideration and action of the Returning
Board.
This august board which under the con- :
'truction of the Supreme Court of the State.
possesses powers land discretions upon mat
ers of election SO large and sacred, as that its
Iction and finding cannot he revised bv the
supreme judicial tribunal Of the State, acting Il
lnder the sanctities of their oaths, and pass II
ng upon the most sacred rights Of the SOW tt
reign people, even their political franchi- fe
es declines to receive the official statements
the votes cast in De Soto on the frivolous C
rounds, first that said returns had not come c,
efore them through the prescribed channel, n
'-wit: the hands OF Supervisor Bean; again, m
,at these statements were copies, and not tb
fficial, and that they were er parie Je
Conceding honesty in the returning officers
| this enumeration Of the grounds upon IN
hich the returns from DeSoto were rejected, ~ a.;
10 stupidity that suggests such reasons for &C
leir action. is astounding. Conceding in de
lligence in the State Board, the impudence vo
I'd etirontery that attempts. under such 30
ansparent pretexts, to defraud a people of 1ie
eir rights, is transcendent. F6
The very contingency contemplated in the SEC
DIVISION of the statute that required the de- re
sit with the clerk of the court. of a dupli-
te statement of the votes cast, has th
isen IN this case. This deposit was nee TIC
sary t" protect the rights Of the peo-
9 against either the volunta1F or in II
ntional loss of the official ta.ement
rected to be placed in the hands Of the Sec
tary of State, by the Supervisor If said Gle
6cer' either lose or destroy the statement in gu
s hands, the clerk in the contemplation of 70
e law, was not only prepared, but on proper w
mand by competent authority whether tn,
at authority should b. the court of the dis Vol
ct determining titles to Office, or the Re- me
rning Board canyassing and making re- w
rms of votes as the basis of title-was El
iged to produce the statement in his DOS
ssion.
The statements in the hands of the clerks
originals. not copies. are not er parie, nor ! 1a
lvidual, but official and valid; and all this So,