The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-01-24
The Proceedings of the Return
ing Board Considered.
Mr.. Cavanac and Mr.. Zacharie's
Statements.
Wells has Prepared a Reply to
the Report Of Foster Sub
Committee.


rhould be allowed to CROSS witnesses
Il was finally agreed that they should. "a
scHAKLEs cAyANAc.
Was one Of the committee appointed to witness
the canvassing OF the returns Of the election by
the Returning Board. Was present at all the
proceedings, except at those held with closed
doors. Followed sthe cxnyassing throughout
closely, and compared the certified copies OF the
returns in the possession Of zEitness with those
canvasie d by the board.
The witness here entered fulrexplanation Of
the election law, and the disposition made of the
votes by thee Commissioner of Election, and then
canzaSsed and compiled by the Returning Board
Concerning the matter Of protests. Il was usual
with me boarfto first canvass and compile re-
turns beIore considering protests when entered
The first fraudulent returns were from the parish
Of st. James.
Underwood, the Supervisor of the parish, and
Bovee approached witness Eith propositions to
the effect that the returns in the possession OF
Underwood could be so arranged as to return
onoDemocrst and one Republican to the Legis-
lature. This arrangement would be made for 8
consideration. Underwood was arrested with
the returns in his possession, and they had been
falsitied: At one poll alone, in the parish, one
hundred votes we're added in favor of the Repub,
lican candidate. The returns from the parish of
st. Helena were also fslsiied. -
) At polls Nos !, and 5, of this parish, the re-
turns ere changed and affected the result of
the election very materially in favor of the Re-
publicans. These changes were made by erasing
the original figures and the substitution Of
others. The Supervisor of the parish made Aft
davlt that the returns had been falsified and
changed after he had placed them in the hands
of the Returning Board, and the several commits
sioners OF election affirmed and made afidavits
70 the effect that the returns had been changed
andfalsified after being placed by them in the
hands of the Supervisor. >.
1.-The Returning Board refused to hear the testi-
mony Of these parties, but received their affida-
Wits: In the parish of Sabine there we're two
candidates, Self and Smith. At several of the
polls in this parish, changes and erasures were
made upol the returns in favor Of Smith. The
reports OF the Commissioners of ! Election
throughout the parish, which formed q part of
the parish returns, were proven to BE- forgeriess
The originals had been destroyed and these sub
stituted to conform with the changed papers.
This was proven concluSive3y.
=, IN me parish OF Carrol4 there was information
tilted copies Of returns could be obtained. for the
reason that none had been fled with the clerk
Of the court The. Conseryati ves obtained tally
lists kept atthe several polls, snd it was asoer-
tanned that the votessat several polls we're
Commissioners Of Election III that
parish made affidavit that the returns canvassed
by the Returning Board were changed, falsifed.
and, in some instances, forged outright. In the
case Of the parish of DeSoto, the returns were
never given in to the Board, and it wasreported
that the Supervisor was endeavoring to sen Their
The Conservatives offered to the board certi-
fed copies OF the returns on file with the Clerk
OF tho Court OF the said parish. but the Presf-
dent OF the board ruled that the board could
only canvass the original returns. The Con-
servatives proposed that the board should order
the ballot-boxes brought forward and the votes
counted. '"u
This was refused, although it had been donain
certain polls in wards seven and ten
Of the parish, Of, Orleans. y -.fs1nTrs
The result in thus throwing out the1pariaA of
DeSoto took from The Conservative candidates
for Treasurer, Congress and the State Senate, q
majorityof 1o42 votes. cast for them in the said
parish. :.
It was understood with the members of the Re-
turning Board, that the respective counsel should
inspect packages containing the returns Of any
parish in order that it might be ascertained if all
affidavits and other papers filed in the case were
present. ktA ELL <H a
In several instances the Conservative counsel
we're not allowed Is make this inspection, and it
vas ascertained that papers6led in the interest
IF the Conservatives had been distracted.
The returns as canvassed and compiled BY the
Returning Board show that forty lone RepuDh-
ans ian u and sl1tyeigA Democrats were elected to
Democrats End fifty -four Republicans
IN the Senate the returns showed ten Democrats
md eight Republicans; the PRONUNCIATION shows
hat ten Republicans and eight Democrats were
eturned.
In the case OF the parish OF Lincoln there was
protest filed by Bay with the Returning Board,
etting forth that certain parties, colored Repub-
ic1ns. had not been allowed to VOTE It was
ound by an examination Of the poll lists that
lozen or more OF these persons claiming to have
'een intimidated had really voted, although their
James appeared to an affidavit wherein they
laimed to have been prevented from exercising |
heir right Of suffrage.
In the case OF the parish OF TerrebOnne the |
at polls 3, 8, 10 and II, through q
Of the law, placed their returns |
q the ballot-boxes. Application was made to the |
district Court Tor an order to have the boxes |
pened and the papers taken out. The clerk re- |
used to obey the order, and was removed by |
udg6 Beattie, and anothe rclerk appointed, who |
the papers and transmitted them to the |
returning Board. The board was reluctant to
anvass these returns, claiming that they had |
ct CINE through the proper channel They |
Iere canvassed and compiled, however, but in
ecret session of the board they were thrown |
ut This changed the result Of the election in |
al $ol Go, Il