National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-16

And In this case one ofths circumstances TO b
Sse = that KsL;gE t. and sincs lsa IA
| Is In offce in accordance with the wish and In
tention Of the people, to use the language Of tn
clude that the Federal Govefnment should no
interfere In Q ease like that OF Hoffman when &C
cording 70 his hypothesis, 'Gnswold was elected
ana HOFFMAN canyssssd Into ONCE" and intsrfer,
| IN kellogg's case. We ought not TO interfere
when one Is in ONCE against the viii OF the peo-
PIE, OUT We should interfere where the ineumbent
ne assures US, Is In ONCE In accordance with the
wish and intention OF the people Il not the case
| OF Holman much stronger than that Of Kellogg
| ing the will Of the peoplef II we were 10 adop,
my friends new theory In either case NO should
nave commences N IN the case Of New York and moi
terrupt him at that pointY
Mr.. Frelinghuysen. Certainly.
Mr.. Carpenter. The vast difference between the
two cases cannot fail to strike the Senator. In
New York the Governor alone was questioned the
was not the law-making power. In LouIsiana
the whole law-making power Of the State was ID
the same condition, and that bogus government
may pass laws, may levy taxes, may repudiats
the State debt: and all those things may Be done
by men not elected. In New York they could no,
doit. That Is the difference in the magnitude O
the two cases do not say there is any difference
in the power, but as to the expediency Of exer
csing It In one case, the evils to be feared from Il
are totally different from what they are in the
Mr. Frelinghuyssn. My friend cannot have
failed to observe that have said nothing about
the Legislature OF Louisiana For all that have
said, he does not know but that am In favor Of
his bill, so far as the Legislature is concerned.
have only treated OF the Governors election, and
his remarks referring to the Legislature oil
Louisiana are entirely foreign to the subject we
Mr.. Carpenter. If that be so, there can be no
difference In the case where ono man holds q seat
In aLeglslature without an election and q case
where the whole Legislature hold without elec-
tioR.
Mr. Frelinghuysen II there is no difference be.
tween the Governor and one member Of the Legis-
lature, the remark is pertinent; but inasmuch as
the Governor is but one branch OF government, it
Mr.. Carpenter. He is not the whole law-making
power.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen. No; he is not.
Mr.. Morton. i suggest to the Senator, n he will
permit me. that II Kellogg does represent the
majority OF the people Of Louisiana, as seems to
lature represents the majority Of the people of
Louisiana.
Mr. Freilnghuysen. And the singularity fur
Kellogg out, although he represents the wish
and intention Of the people, because he has not q
majority of the votes, but would not turn Nc
this 10, 600 majority is good as against Keiiogg'
but worthless in favor OF McEnery.
But, MIR. President, passing by the question as
to the constitutional power ofOongress to do moro
than to preserve order and secure q republican
form OF government; passing by the question of
Warmoth, MoEnery and Kellogg, let US see
q new election.
The first thing to be established is that no one
was elected Governor, for II any one was, our
duty, IL we Interfere in any way, clearly is to in
stall the person so elected. On the 4th OF Noyem-
Der, 1872, an election took place. 1t had all the
forms Of an election registration, polls polllists,
were but two candidates, McEnery and Kellogg.
One Of those two men In fact had majority Of the
legal vo ties cast unless there was q tie and then
we have nothing to do with tho case, assthe con-
stitution Of Louisiana provides that In that event
the Legislature elects. One OF the two must have
had majority Of the legal votes; so the case can
not exist for election based on the fact that
no one was elected. II TO interfere, 1t must
be to ind out who was elected Governor and to
To ascertain who by majority of legal votes Is
entitled to an office, / had supposed was o matter
II for any the State courts have not juris
diction, or If SO corrupt that they cannot be
trusted, then If we are to interfere we must i'd
dress ourselves to the question, Who was eleoted?
It cannot be advocated that, where It is a mathe-
NAUTICAL certainty that one OF two candidates was
elected, Congress shall order new election, and
thus set premium on fraud. But Wo must find
out who was elected.
The question rs to who was elected Governor
does not seem to have attracted the attention of
the Committee on Privileges and Elections. There
were two things referred to that committee: first,
whether there was any government In louisiana,
and second whether the Legislature which elected
Mcmillan, or that which elected Ray, was the
true Legislature; and the attention OF the COM
mittee was directed to finding out which was the
was the true Legislature, and thus to decide
whether Mcmillan or Ray was primo fccie enti-
tied to the seat In the Senate which expired the
4th of March last and there is but little evidence
Is not more but the burden Of proof Is with those
who seek the removal of one who has Tor two
years acted as and claimed to be Governor.
submit that the moral evidence that McEnery
had not o majority OF the legal votes cast, and
that consequently Kellogg had, is, to my mind
tent carry that election by fraud Thisis appsr
ant and is conceded. 1t IL notorious that he,
elected Republican, was to give the State to the
Democracy, and return was to grace the
United States Senate. His Legislature, under
stand, attempted to elect him, but this project
was abandoned because It was thought 1t would
interfere with tho recognition Of the State govern
ment by the General Government. He appointed
q man named Blanchard to be register. That
man has made an affidavit. II the affidavit be
true his character Is such that no one can ap-
prove; If It be untrue, comment Is unneces-
sary. Blanchard appointed the supervisors
visor in each parish appointed three commits
sioners To these were added three freeholders,
who, with the commissioners, assisted the super
yisors Of the parish in counting the votes OF the
precincts. And we see At glance that Warmoth
could cheat Kellogg, but that Kellogg could not
cheat Warmoth or meEnery: One could cheat
whole State originated with and was controlled
by Warmoth. It is not denied that Warmoth
meant fraud, and that he had the power to effect
1t. There was one circumstance which afforded
great facility in carrying out this fraud. Almost
every Republican that came TO the polls to be
long to the Republican party he was a colored
man. There were some white Republicans, but
they were not so numerous that they were not
difficult to get registration, to secure the requi-
site Identification between tho voter and hisregis-
tration papers.
the purpose to cheat, and had the organized ma
chinery to effect their end. It looks as IL, after
all, the Republican majority was too great for
hav III ~ If ha Taf
Importance that he should satisfy the public that
McEnery had q majority, and how easily he could
have done so. Instead OF maneuyrelng 70 get a
to o legislative bill, which he, as Governor, had
carried for six months in his pocket, and signing
board that suited him, all he need to have done
was to call In twenty honest men in the State Of
Louisiana, Republicans and Democrats, take them
returns; add them up in the presence oftheseinter
ested parties" 1t was only matter Of addition.
They could have publicly added them up, showed
returns are false" all he need have done was to
send to the supervisor Of the parish whom he had
appointed, and request him to bring the ballot
are not false;i and If any one charged that the
ballot-box had been stuffed, or that there had
been votes distracted, all no need have done was
to send for the pOll-lsts and say, There are the
poll-lsts; they correspond with the BALLOTS and
ff any one charged that the poll-lists were false
In q given precinct Of such o parish, all he need
have done was to send a justice Of the peace to
that parish; every man who had there voted had
Endorsed on his registration papers the fact that
he had voted, and, II living man. he could swear
how he had voted.
Now, Mr. President, when one bent on fraud
has 1t in his power 10 prove to 8 demonstration
that his candidate Is elected, and shirks the in
vestgation IL is moral evidence irresistible, that
the Investigation would have proven that his can
didate was defeated.
Mr.. Carpenter. Will my friend allow me word
at that point?
MIR. Frelinghuysen. Yes, sir.
MIR. Carpenter. The Senator does not claim, OF
course that there Is any law authorizing any such
investigation, or that anybody would have been
indictable for perjury who should have come be-
fore that town meeting which he iniagines and
sworn falselyf
Mr. Frslinghuysen. That is the best answer
which can be made. But It is o matter perfectly
immatorial whether the twenty honest men, ten
Democrats and ten Republicans, whom he might
have selected, were oticiais or not the effect of
their discrimination would have been the ssme on
the public There Il in the case nothing that re-
quires any oath; it Is matter OF adding up the re-
turns, and o matter Of ocular demonstration
whether the ballots correspond with the returns;
and whether the poll conform with the ballots
in the box; and the only stu alton In which an a
davit could be required is that Of Q charge being
made that in some precinct the pollist was false,
and you would seek the voter with his registra-
tion paper with him, to ask him how he voted.
Some one could have been found under their laws
to take such atfldayit.
Mr.. President did not Warmoth know that In.
vestigaton would prove his candidate not eleotedT
At all events, Is there Affirmative proof that Nc
Emery was elected on which We can remove KEEL
loggf But instead Of doing all this, Mr.. Warmoth
comes to Congress, not to ask that his candidate
L. IlA.l Il AwUk ~ N AZ