The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1875-01-29
The Louisiana RepOrt---Letter from
Mr.. Foster.

communication iron hon. Onarle8 tOHt
, er, Chairman of the sub-committe
l whose report on thepolitical situation il
Louisiana has during the past week beel
, the subject of so much controversy
Having criticized the committees repor
by comparing its conclusion with evi
dence from other sources, we give Mr.
, Fosters reply the advantage of an equal
'ilyprominent insertiOn
WASHINGTON, d. G., Jan. 81, 1875.
To the Editor Of the Leader:
Permit me to correct few inaccura
cies in your editorial of the 10Th inst.
with regard to the report made by tn,
committee which recently visited New
3 Orleans.
We reached New Orleans on the 3Otl
of December, instead of the 2Sth as yol
have it-at A. M. We held our frs
= meeting at 10 A. NJ, our second at l 81
p. NJ, nd our third at P. NJ, of thar
day. We remained in New Orleans
eight days One day was Sunday and
on that day we rested. We held two
meetings day for six days, and three
on the first day as above stated. Ou
day sessions usually began at 1870 or II
A. NJ. and were continued till or 5 P. NJ.
Our evening sessions were, generally,
from 7:30 or 8 o'clock till 11;30 or II
midnight. We examined in that time
ninety-five witnesses, (both parties be-
ing before MS by counseD, and arranged
to have further testimony taken before
a commissioner after we left. The com
mittee felt that they had not time to &c
into an exhaustive examination of the
whole political situation, as there were
only few weeks Of the present session
remaining in which to act upon any re.
port that might be made to Congress.
We therefore decided, and publicly an
nouncsd at our first meeting, that we
would investigate only the acts of the
Returning Board, the White League,
and Of course, incidentally, the affair of
the 14th of September, and the general
subject of intimidation.
In the article referred to, the following
passage is found: Complaints have
come from New Orleans ever since the
departure of the committee, that it
would hear only such witnesses as it
chose Judge Dibble, one of the most
prominent and intelligent Republicans
of the State, says that he was not per-
mitted to testify" All such complaints
assert that which is untrue. Judge
Dibble appeared before us as counsel
for the Republican party, and was placed
upon the stand, when he expressed a
desire to be examined, and testified at
length, without let or hindrance. A day
or two after we left New Orleans he ad-
dressed me nm open letter which APP
peared in the public prints, giving still
more in detail his views. He did not
complain in his letter that he was not
permitted to testify, nor do I believe
that he has ever made such an asser-
ton. fe 'r
In seven days the committee took evil
dence which will probobly make fifteen
hundred printed pages, 1t is matter of
regret with us all that we were not able
to inquire into everything bearing upon
the situation, but we found it impossible
to do 80. 'ir .v -
The committee spent probably three
hours in witnessing the proceedings in
the House of Representatives on the 4th
of january, after which we resumed our
session at the usual place the United
States Circuit Court Room in the Gus
tom House. ni1 riL.l e.. o' M
There is an intimation in your article
that as soon as the offer of arbitration
was made the committee abandoned the
investigation and returned to Washing
ton. On the contrary, the offer to sub
NIT to the arbitration Of the committee
was made the day following our arrival
in New Orleans. "a
The examination was, in all respects,
perfectly fair to all parties, and every
possible expedient to obtain the exact
truth from the witnesses wns exhausted
by the committee.
am by no means disposed toquestion
your right to criticize the finding of the
committee as embodied in our report
AS Journalist it is your duty as wen as
your privilege to criticize all such cases,
fully and freely. 1 address you solely
tor the purpose Of correcting errors into
which you have Inadvertently fallen.
Respectfully, CHARLEs Foster.
In response to the above, which is evi-
IDENTIFY written in fails and candid spirit,
we have only to say that at the time when
the subcommittee was at work in New
OilcuNn tso well 40 utuAnB TIC pGI1Ou IN
tervening between its departure from
that city and the presentation Of its re-
port, we watched with great care for all
external evidence concerning the i'm
preston the committee had made in New
Orleans and how It conducted the inves-
tigahon. Every one viii remember
with what a feelingof surprise it was
learned throughout the North that the
Committee after six days labor had re-
turned to Washington TO report on the
entire case. Before they were half way
home special kilograms from New Or
leans began TO complain that the com
nittee had examined only such witness
es as it chose, excluding others, and that
the Republicans generally in Louisiana
were very much dissatisfied with the
manner In which the proceedings had
had been conducted. The New Orleans
Republican editorially and locally gave
voice to this complaint before the slight
est hint had been given as to what sort
of q report they would make. Then
came the letter of Judge Dibble, in
which that gentleman was reported TO
have used these words. r.
"As counsel for the Republicans be-
lfore the subcommittee, l ought TO state