New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-23

| n stcA tWO ticketS win Dis reglstratlC
, papers. which dropped on the floor, an
jackson put IN only one of the two; one
the tickets was red and the other whit
and he put in the red ticket"
MIR. jackson swears that the election W.
carried on fairer than ever saw it befor
MIR. Burton, the candidate for sheriff, wa
present during the entire day, he was in tn
room all the tiuH; | heard no complain
made by him whatever, he was there whe
We commenced counting the votes until W
closed, and signed one of the tally lists an
af.erward erased his name.
This is the sum and substance OF the test
lnony Gu the suite of voting with stuck
and at the high window, and of the irregl
laritles at said election. except the test
!n0ny OF two witnesses offered by the plair
tIifs IN regard to other irregularities. Henr
Atkins testiies az follows: II saw one ma
cast more than one ballot On that day; h
cast three to my knowledge; and aske
him why he did it, and he said he was dom
it for other persons" On cross examination
he states: 1.-The man who voted seyera
times was Cain Sartain: Cain Sartain tol,
me that they were for other persons; o
these ballots the commissioners ca!let
names and passed back the registration
papers, and DID not call Cain Sartain,
name; handed in tickets the same as Sar
tam, and the commissioners refused unit
| l called their remembrance to Sartain, ant
| they then allowed me to do the same;
was Il candidate on the opposite ticket.
| Caesar johnson testifies: II saw ballet.
| handed up very high; could not see where
| they went to- with the papers that were
| returned some had money returned with
| them; some one had one. some had two
and come had three bills; l heard two cry
| ont, 'Dh, jackson greenbacks,' and when
The papers came back they had greenbacks
with them
II testimony 80 absurd and incredible
could demand any notice, il IS sufficient to
say that 1t is contradicted by nearly every
witness who testified in regard 10 what
occurred at that precinct. Mr.. Burton, one
OF the plaintiffs. was at that precinct and
near the box. aud he has testified in this
case. but he does not say a word abou,
bribery. His testimony is in substance that
he saw Mr.. Jackson change one vote, and
that the window was six feet ten inches
high when he measured it,
It is evident from the foreg oing evidence
that the Irregularities ehown thereby re-
suited from want of information on the
part Of the officers of the election and that
said irregularities did not in any manner
affect the result of the election.
In regard to ward Nc. =, the irregnlari-
ties seem to be that one Of the commission
ers did not sign the returns because he
Thought 1t was not necessary; and the cor
recfness OF the returns were not sworn to
N the presence OF all the commissioners.
and the counting OF tho votes was not con-
pleted within twenty four hours after the
election.
At ward No. the voting on sticks and at
high window had to reach no to hand his
ballot 10 the commissioners, was certainly
novel, but the excuse for this is given in
tho foregoing evidence; and the evidence
leaves no doubt Oh our mind that the bal
lots were fairly deposited in the Dallot-box;
hat no fraud was perpetrated at the cleo
tion, and that the votes were honestly
The fact that the ballot box
could not be seen by those voters who
stood near the window. can not be a cause
@ annul the election. In Augustine vs.
Eggestcn, II An. }65, this court said: The
mere position of an election box without
my resulting injury does not avoid an
election
Now, conceding what the defendant ad-
nltted to avoid continuance. "that the |
eturns made out for election in this parish |
we're not made out and sworn to as the law |
equlres, and that the ballots for ward No. |
Will not show the same result as the Re |
urns, can that defeat an election in the
'arlsh 1t has been often decided that the
allure to comply with the directory clauses
t an election law will not annui an cleo
ION; courts can aot atfix to the omission a
onsequence which the Legislature has not
liked. An, 81; 10 An, 132; act of 1873.
/. 10. There is an essential difference be-
ween the act of voting and the police pro-
isiors to secure the evidence of the act.
/ the votes be deposited the object of the
lection Is attained. and its validity can not
9 affected by the non observance OF the
irectOry provisions. Is An, 3Ol.
The act nf 1879 M QS vrou;dao f,n |
unishment OF those who violate it's pre-
siens, and the criminal courts of the State
ave cOgnizanca Of such matters. The law
pes not authorize the election to be set |
'lde, except for fraud, intimidation. vic
noe or corruption at or before the election,
Id then only when such fraud, violence,
etc, had the effect to change
e result of the election. Errors of judg.
ent are inevitable, but fraud, intimid alton
I'd violence the law can ard ehould provide
.alnst.' Cooleys Limitations, 62l. The
me author says: when an election is
us rendered irregular, whether the irregu- :
Ilty shall avoid it or not must depend ,,
Deraily upon the effect the irregularity ;
ay have had II Obstructing the complete :
preston OF the popular will or the pro !.
ction OF satisfactory evidence thereof ;
ectlon statutes are TO be treated as other :,
'tutes, but with a leaning to liberality, in :
NV OF the great public purposes which
~ accomplish, and except where they
ecitcally provide that a thing shall be =
ne in the manner indicated and not =
lerW:se their provisions, designed for the =
ormatiOn and guidance of the officers. y
'st be regarded as directory only, and the =
ctiOn will not be defeated by a failure "
comply with them provided the irregu- y
ity has not hindered any who were en- :,
ed from exercising the right of suffrage, | !,
rendered doubtful the evidences from :,
lch the result was to be declared" 6lS: -
l it was said in People vs. Cook, IA Barb. +
!; and 8 N. Y, 81, that any irregularity in ),
an election, which does not de- h
We legal voter of his vote, or admit a y
qualified voter 10 vote, or cast uncer. .,
nty on the result. and has not been oc-
Toned by the agency of a party seeking
derive benefit from it, should be over p
ked IN proceeding to try the right to III
office depending on such election. This g
Q is an eminently proper one, and it fur az
hes very satisfactory test az to what is al
entail and what is not in election laws, re
when a party contests an election on u
ground OF these or any similar irreg- of
arltles, he ought to aver. and be able to az
W, that the result was affected bv them" I'll
,ley's c. LIN, p. 6l9; Is An, lis. al
he plaintiffs do not allege that they were ga
'ted they DO not allege or attempt to ~
We that the Irregularities complained of ga
nged the result of the election; and oy
're the defendants offered to prove what en-
actual vote was at each precinct in the lu
sh. as shown by the count of votes at IN
polls. the plaintiffs objected, on the &c
ind that the ballot boxes were not pro IN
ed. and this objection was sustained, en-
the facts that the plain 10
had alleged in their petition that the tic
OF boxes had not been returned to and or
t in the clerks Office, as required by ex
/, and that plaintiffs had sworn that the mi
OF boxes had been 50 tempered with trt
the ballots go changed or altered as to
Ter them unreliable. Judge Cooley says: ar
hnv <l,o hall L. / 0tt