New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-16
49, NEW ORLEANS SATURDAY, JANUARY l6 1875

them. The counsel for the Republics,
| committee reserved the right to make ex
planation upon this point, but offered none
The affidavit was dated the blank day O
December, 1874. 1t appeared that Cover
nor Wells was not himself ip the parish @,
the day of the election. and though at tb,
opening of their first session your commit
tee declared their intention to examine int,
the action OF the Returning Board, Cover
nor Wells never came forward as a witness
At the close of our proceedings, leave wal
| asked that his deposition might be giyer
in. This was declined. and Mr.. Wells wa,
invited to appear before the committee, bu
he never came. Leave was also given fol
taking his testimony by commissioner it he
declined, but was not avalled Of Your com
miftee are, therefore, constrained to de-
clare that the action Of the Returning
Board in rejecting these returns in tht
parish OF Rapides. and giving the seats for
that parish to the Republican candidates
was arbitrary, unfair and without warrant
OF law. If the committee were to 90 behind
the pspers before the board, and consider
the alleged charge of intimidation upon the
proofs before the committee, their finding
would necessarily be the same.
1t was asserted in Governor Wells aft.
davit that the NcEnery officials had
usurped the offices of the parish and thereby
intimldated voters. Immediately after the
fourteenth Of September, when the Kellogg
authorities in New Orleans were put out
by the Penn authorities, certain changes
took place in some of the parishes. When
the news from New Orleans reached these
parishes the McEnerv officials demanded
their places of the Kellogg officials, and
they we're at once given up.
When the federal government inter-
tAl %1<.A I'LL
ties, the Kellogg officials demanded and re-.
ceived back their places; but in Rapides
some time seems to have elapsed before the
Kellogg officials took their places back.
Indeed, the McEnery register of deeds
was still acting as such when your commit
tee was in New Orleans. the Kellogg reg.
lister never having come to reclaim the
place. which was said to be worth nothing
now in Rapides.
The Kellogg clerk was Mr.. Wells son:
having yielded his place to the McEnery
competitor in September, he does not ap-
pear to have reclaimed it, and he was 40.
cordingly sent for after the election to come
from his residence, some miles distant, to
sign the returns of the election, which he
did. Your committee are at loss to see in
their action any intimidation of Mr.. Wells:
still less of the electors of the parish. 1t so
happens that the parish was taken as q
sample parish of intimidation, many wit
neeses from which, of both parties, were
with reference to It,
They show beyond question that there
was full, free, fair and peaceable election
and registration there. There Was no evi.
dence of any intimidation Of voters prac-
tlced on the day Of the election, although it
was asserted that intimidation of colOred
men before the election had been effected
by the 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 pro-
duced. Certain witnesses, themselves every
one Office holders, testified generally to
such action, but hardly any one was able
to specify single instance in which he had
heard any employe so threatened or dis
charged. or knew of any employe being SO
threatened or discharged.
Not single cOlOred man throughout the
entire parish was produced to testify either
70 such a threat or to the execution of such
! purpose, either before or after the eleo-
ion. The action of the Returning Board in
The parish of Rapides alone changed the
Dolitica! complexion of the lower house,
equally objectionable. For instance, IN
IBERIA parish it was claimed before your
committee that the vote of poll No. in
hat parish had been rejected on account of |
but the papers produced by !
he clerk OF the board showed no such proof |
whatever.
One of the counsel, Mr.. Ray. produced |
ONE affitavits which he declared had been !
ubmitted to the board by another of the !
counsel, General Campbell. The Conserva-
i've counsel insisted thai these papers bad !
ever been before the board. Opportunity |
vas given to tne Republican counsel to !
hot ho ho6
ut the testimony offered for that purpose (
y them go far, however, from establishing
hat fact established the reverse. 1t was !
hen asserted the returns were rejected
ecauee the accounts Of the election were
OF delivered to The supervisor of
egistfation within cwenty.four hours
fter the close Of the election which
,as on six o'clock on the third day Of
'ouember; whereas it appeared that both
, the morning and afternoon of the third
ay Of November search was made for this
npervisor Of registration for that parish in
rder 70 deliver to him these returns, and
9 was not to bo found until after six
clock. but that as soon as he could be
'und. on the eve of that day. they were
tered to hin, and again reofered the next
forming, but were refused to be received.
his same supervisor of registration re.
lived other Republican returns after he
ad refused to receive these Con-
,rvative ones on the grounds that they
ere too late: and the Returning Board,
though it had held as to tha other
,lls in the State that the re.
rms were not to be rejected
erely because they were sent too late,
jected the returns from this poll, thereby |
ranging the representation of the parish
ON Conservative to Republican. So in
g parish Of De Soto the returns show a
elected by over 1000 majority.
was alleged that the supervisor OF regis
alton had brought the returns to New |
rleans and had left them with woman of
I'd character. who offered to produce them
! payment Of $1,000. The Conservative |
took legal proceedings to com. :
i their production, but the court held :
at it had no Jurisdiction to that end. They :
en- caused to be produced before the :
ard the duplicate of these returns fl ON :
9 office of the Secretary of State, together
th the tally sheets, poll lists, etc, filed >
ere according to law. These duplicates J
rrespond exactly with the alleged result :
the compiled returns, which the said >
'man had produced, and of these alleged
,ts undisputed proof was also submitted '
the board. Nevertheless, the board re- :
sed to count the vote for that parish. So !,
Winn parish where 404 Conservative and !.
Republican votes were cast, upon q | n
! bal protest that the registrar of elections
- not properly qualified. of which the y
ly proof was that he had failed to forward :
) oath of office to the Secretary of State, =
hongh there was no pretense that the n
ction was not fair representation
the will of the people, the whole vote of g
, parish was rejected and the case re. =
red to the Legislature. So in Terrebonne !,
ish, where there was a Conservative a
jority, it was proved that the commits. Il
ners of election. through misapprehen. a
OF their duties, inclos-d all the returns +,
the ballot boxes and deposited them with | r.
clerk OF the ccu,t. with whom the law 9,
,uired the boxes to be left. The judge of o.
c"nr. theren pom issued mandamus | q
umaSfiNO th,. clarE o., toLA hn rotur,. |