Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-12-26

Idf t1c5s
The following Infamous document
will force its own and an appropriaf,
comment from the readers Of the AP
PEAL. No other party than the Rsdi
cal, and no other than the reconstruc.
ton system could originate the authors
OF so unblushing and impudent paper
in which there is svowed, without effort
at excuse, sentiments the reverse Of
those hitherto held in common by eiti.
zens Of both the great political parties
1t is an'i-Republican as well as anti
Democratic, and viii achieve for all the
parties privy to it an infamy and noto,
riety well earned and justly deserved:
New ORLEANS, December 25.-The
returning boards statement, inelosing
1 the labor of canvassing and compiling
/ the vote OF the State, given at the cleo
ton of the second of November last is as
! follows:
It's but Just and proper that thereturn
/ ficers should give statement OF tie diff
! ficulties attendant on their laboIs, and
! the principles laid down, drawn from
| law, to direct them in the discharge Of
their duties. Ia the first place, this
election was very loosely conducted by
] the commissioners of election, so
/ much so that not In one
tenth Of the polls in the State,
were the forms required by law observed
/ The law requires supervisors OF registra-
| ton to forward to the returning Off 3ers
the first list Of votes kept by the COM
missioners Of election; second, the state
ment Of persons voted for, and the num-
Der Of votes received by each; and third,
the tally sheets, all Of which the COM
missioneTs OF election are required to
furnish the supervisors, and they to for
ward TO the returning officers. In many
cases no lists OF voters were kept by the
commissioners, or If there was, they
were not forwarded to the returning
board by the supervisors, and many that
were forwarded to the returning board
we're not signed or sworn TO, as the law
requires. In many cases there was no
statement Of the persons voted for, and
the numbef of votes received by them
board, for the reason that none
were furnished by the commits
sioners of election to the supervisors,
apd many that were returned were nei.
ther signed nor sworn in, and in many
cases there were no tally-sheets forward
ed to the returning board to enable them
to test the accuracy of the statement OF
votes, aud iD some instances only tally
sheets were returned to the returning
board without list of votes or state
ment of votes, and they not signed or
sworn to as the law requires. This being
the case, il became necessary that the
papers received from the polling places
should be carefully examined. There
were over six hundred and fifty polling
places in the State, and there was a long
list of candidates. So it became a very
laboriOus duty, which occupied the board
nearly month, laboring from eleven
O'Clock in the morning to four in the
afternoon, and from seven to eleven
o'clock at night, every day. The law
requires that in such canvass andeom-
pilatiOn the returning officers shall OBJ.
serve the following order: They shall
compile, first, statements from all polls
or voting places at which there shall
have been fair, free and peaceable reg
1stration and election. Whenever from
any poll or voting place there has been
any riot, tumult, acts Of violence, in
timidation, armed disturbances, bribery, |
OF corruptinfluences which prevented, or |
tended TO prevent fair, free and peace |
able vote OF all qualified electors entitled |
to vote at such poll or voting place, such |
returning officers shall not canvass, |
count or compile the statement Of votes |
from such poll or voting place until /
from all other polls or voting
places shall have been canvassed and /
compiled. The returning officers shall
then proceed to investigate statements
Of riot, tumult, acts of violence, intimi-
datiOn, armed disturbance, bribery or
corrupt influences at any such poll or
voting place. The board has followed
This requirement Of the law, as it was
heir imperative duty to do, and in ex-
lmining proceedings OF commissioners
)f election forwarded to it by supervisors,
when either OF the counsel appointed by
he political parties objected TO tue count
If any poll, and laid before the poll auy
evidence to sustain such objections, such
POLLS were passed over and not canvassed
until the board had compiled the vote
rom all the polls not objected to in the
progress Of the examination. A large
number of polls were objected to, in
siudiDg some in twenty-seven of
he PARISHES, and all in some.
The grounds of the objection
10 some Of the polls were a failure OF q
substantial compliance with law, and
making returns 30 supervisors to some;
hat the returns of the commissioners
lad been changed after they had been
sRoAn n rho csarAarrrfcnro md for a orraafa,-
number that voters had been iniimid-
lted; that they did moi register OF vote,
Dr. were compelled TO vote differently
rom what they desired. Had the board
decided that anything like a strict COM
Dliance with the forms Of law in hold
ng the election, and making returns to
he supervisors would be required, the
fleet would have been that so many Of
he polls would have been thrown out
hat there would have been no election
n the State. The board then adopted
he rule that when the supervisor had
any evidence showing an elec-
ion was held, although il be only a
unsigned or sworn to, that
N the absence Of any evidence of fraud
lr intimidation it would compile the
vote as shown by such evidence or doeu-
ment, If it may be called evidence. This
iecisiOn disposed Of a good many protests
10 the reception of the polls, trat when
he substance OF the law had not been
observed, and evidence Of fraud and in
-imidatiOn was produced, the failure Of
substantial compliance with the forms
1f law was considered badge OF fraud,
and the poll was rejected. We believe
his to be a just and reasonable rule, and {
he board strictly adhered to it. In the !
Eases Of Carroll, st. Helena and ST.
ames parishes, where it was charged I
and proved that the returns made by {
he commissioners to the supervisors
lad been changed after they came into
he hands Of the supervisors, the hoard |
iOok evidence to ascertain the true state
lf the vote, and made compilation ac-
The question raised against !
4 greater number OF polls was charge {
1f intimidation 10 prevent the voters
rom voting and forcing them to vote
against their wishes. To establish this |
charge, a great mass Of affida7its were ,
iaEen, some applicable TO whole parishes
and some 70 particular polls, and mass