New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-01-28

/ "~AOA V1eGeO0 49, &C., VOjOCs0 WIZ WA
accompany the Bourbons in their war TO
State Sovereignty.
CHANGE OF FRONT.
It may. or it may not be worth while t
convict the Democracy with inconsistent.
in connection with matters of public
policy, but it is necessary to preserve tn,
facts OF history to occasionally keep TIL
memory refreshed upon the events of. thu
past We're the result at any time to de
pend upon such conviction the means ani
abundant evidence are always at hand
The authorized organs Of the party are
now making fierce war upon the acl
which provides for q Returning Board
At the same time they neglect through
ignorance or oversight to inform theil
readers that the law was approved as a
special means of controlling the election
of 1872, in the Democratic interest On
the twentieth Of November, 1872, more
than two weeks after the election, and at
the earnest solicitation of the Democratic
leaders, the act was taken from the ex-
ecutive safe, received the finishing
touches, and was promulgated as the law
of the land. The intent OF the advisers
of the Governor at that time was to get a
returning board in the interests Of the
Democracy, and about whose legal status
there could be no dispute.
Previous to this approval a contest be-
tween the Herron-Lynch and the Hatch
Da Ponte boards had been waged, with
decided advantage to the former. Under
this law, Governor Warmoth set aside
what was known as Hatch-Da Ponte
board, and new one, composed of Messrs.
De Ferret, Wilt, Isabelle, Austin and
Taylor. They were subsequently super
seeded by the McEnery Senate in Odd Eel
lows Hall, which pretended to elect, un-
der the provisions Of the second section
of the act, another, consisting of Messrs
Forman, Mitchell, Southmayd, Hunsaker
and Thomas. The two last named gen.
tlemep, however, did not accept.
The fact that all the proceedings under
the three Returning Boards appointed in
the Democratic interest came to nothing
is due to bad cause rather than want of
zeal. The party is none the less respon-
sible for the law. It may be called a
measure which was employed as an en-
CINE to defeat the Republican party. We
regard it as piece Of captured ord
nance, which has been utilized to protect
the Republican garrison from the shotgun
policy of the enemy. So long as violence
is employed IS the chief plank in the
Democratic platform, so long will it be
necessary to place barrier between the
frauds Of the canvass and the coveted
offices. To surrender the great safeguard
which the right to revise the doings on
election day gives the Returning Board
would be to surrender the constitutional
light Of suffrage to the overwhelming
power Of force. A peaceable district has
40 reason to fear the scrutiny of any Re-
urning Board. A turbulent one, where
n the rights of the unarmed majority are
labitually trampled upon by furious par
isans, armed to the teeth, does not de-
erve legal sanction to their lawless acts.
J Mess, therefore, some satisfactory sub
titute for the Returning Board be Of |
cred, the Republicans will be compelled, |
n sheer self defense, to hold on to it with
al the tenacity in their power.
One Of the election bills which has been
repaired for the present session, contains
omplete and. wholesome provisions to
'rotect the purity and freedom of cleo
ions. It provides for board of FIVE;
hree to be appointed by the Governor,
nd two by the House of Representatives.
III those politicians who are clamoring
Or the abolition of the Returning Board,
a ay az we'll make up their minds that it
vill not he done. This instrument, cap
ured from the Democracy, is too useful
n protecting voters in their right to have
heir wishes made effective, and candi-
ates who are the undoubted choice of
heir constituents in their right to offices,
, be given up. A demand tor the sur
snder Of this safeguard is virtually an
rider to disbanl the Republican party in
his State.