The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-01-16
Wells; still less of
any intimidation of Mr.. '
the electors Of the parish.
II 15 ~ - Al a i,

any intimidation of Mr. Wells; still less o
the electors Of the parish.
1t so happened that the parish was taken a.
a sample parish of intimidation; many wit
nesses from which of both parties were exam
ined with reference oft They show beyond
question that there was full, free, fair and
peaceable election and registration there.
| There was no evidence of any intimidation OF
voters practiced on the day of the election,
although it was asserted that intimidation OF
colored men before the election had been
effected by threats of refusal to employ them,
or to discharge them if they voted the Re.
publican ticket; no evidence either of dis
charge or of refusal to employ was produced.
| Certain witnesses, themselves every one
Office holders, testified generally to such ac-
ton, but hardly any one was able to specify
a single instance in which he had heard ANY
EMPLOYEE so THREATENED OR DISCHARGED, or
knew of any employee being SO threatened or
discharged. Not single colored man through
out the entire parish was produced to testify
| either to such threat or to the execution of
| such purpose, either before or after the
| election.
The action of the Returning Board in the
parish OF Rapides alone changed the political
complexion Of the lower House, but their &C.
ton in other parishes was equally objectiona-
BILE. For instance, in Iberia parish it was
| claimed before your committee that tho vote
of poll No. in that parish had been rejected
on account of intimidation, but the papers
produced by the clerk of the board showed no
such proof whatever. One of the counsel,
Mr.. Ray, produced some affidavits which he
declared had been submitted to the board by
another of the counsel, Gen. Campbell.
The Conservative counsel insisted these
papers had never been before the board. OPP
portunity was given to the Republican coun-
sci to show that the paper had been submit
ted, but the testimony offered for that pur-
pose by them so tar, however, from establish
ing that fact established the reverse
1t was then asserted the returns were re-
jected because the accounts Of the election
were not delivered to the Supervisor of Regis
tration within twenty-four hours after the
close Of the election, which was o'clock Oh
the Sd day Of November; whereas it appeared
that both in the morning and afternoon of the
Sd day of November, search was made for
this Supervisor of Registration for that parish
in order to deliver to him these returns, and
he was not to be found until after o'clock,
but as soon as he could be found on the eve
of that day, they were offered to him, and
again re-offered the next evening, but were
| refused to be received.
This same Supervisor of Registration re-
refused to receive these Conservative ones, on
the grounds that they were too late, and the
Returning Board, although it had held, as to
the other polls in the State, that the returns
were not to be rejected merely because they
were sent too late, rejected the returns from
this POLL thereby changing the representa-
ton of the parish from Conservative to Re-
publican. So in the parish of DeSoto, the
returns show a Conservative elected by over
one thousand majority.
It was alleged that the Supervisor of Reg
istration had brought the returns to New Or
leans and had left them with a woman of bad
character, who offered to produced them on
payment of one thousand dollars. The Con-
Sentative committee took legal proceedings to
compel their production, but the court held
that it had no jurisdiction to that end. They
then caused to be produced before the board
the duplicate of these returns from the Office
of the Secretary of State, together with the
tally sheets, poll lists, ETC., filed there accord
ing to law.
These duplicates correspond exactly with
the alleged result of the compiled returns
which the said woman had produced; and of
these alleged facts undisputed proof was also
submitted to the board. Nevertheless the
board refused to count the vote for that
parish.
and 164 Republican votes were cast, upon a
verbal protest that the Registrar of Elections
was not properly qualified. Of which tie only
proof was that he had failed to forward his
oath of office to the Secretary of State, al
though there was no pretense that the election
was not fair representation of the will of
the people, the whole vote of the parish was
rejected and the case referred to the Legisla-
ture.
SO in Terrebonne parish, where there was
a Conservative majority, it was proved that
the Commissioners of Election, through mis-
of their duties, inclosed all the
returns in the ballot-boxes and deposited them
with the clerk of the court, with whom the |
law required the boxes to be left. The Judge |
of the court thereupon issued mandamus,
the clerk to take the returns |
from the boxes and forward them to the Sec |
rotary of State, which was done. Neverthe- |
less the board rejected the returns from these |
polls, thereby giving the parish to the Repub- |
icans, with the result of changing Repub-
lican Senator, two Republican members Of the |
Legislature and the Republican parish officers.
Without now referring to other instances
we are constrained to declare that the action |
Of the Returning Board, on the whole, was
arbitrary, unjust, and in our opinion illegal,
and that this arbitrary, unjust and illegal |
action alone prevented the return by the
board OF majority of Conservative members
TO the lower House.
Upon the general subject of the state of
Affairs in the South, and as to whether the al
legged wrongs to colored citizens for political
offenses are real or were asserted without due
foundation, your committee took such proof as
The opportunity offered. Both parties agreed
upon four parishes as samples of the condi-
ion Of affairs in that respect in the State. Of
these, owing to the impossibility Of procur-
ing witnesses from the locality in time, your
committee were obliged to confne their spe-
,ial examination to the two parishes most &C
,essible.
As to these they received all the testimony
that was offered, and in addition received all
that was on hand in New Orleans,
offered by either party, as to the condition of
Affairs in other parts of the State. As
whole, they are constrained to say that the
charged is not borne out by the
acts before u.s. No general intimidation of
Republican voters was established; no col