The New Orleans Democrat., 1876-06-22

New Orleans. The true returns OF the |
election could not be found at either |
place OF legal deposit. How came Mr.
r. X. Anderson to have them? He
testifies that he, obtained them
from the clerk OF the. court and had
had them under lock and key for
six months. Who made him the Gus
todian of those papers? No one. 1t is
testified. I believe, that Jackson and
Anderson deposited those returns with
the clerk OF the court. But Jackson was
himself the clerk Of the court. What
had become of these returns They
we're Not to be found. How came X. Il.
Anderson with this paper? He says
somebody gave it to him and he had
had 1t for fe-keeping. / will say that
this paper In form appears to be regular,
and meets the legal requirements oI an
election return. But, sir, events trans
uired at that poll which will not permit
this House to entertain its count for
moment. David Jackson, who presided
there as 'boss," evidently took lofty
view OF his duties as commissioner, Ior
ballot box seven or eight feet above the
ground in cabin with the door barred
and the window nailed up with Stats
about two or three inches apart.
The testimony Is that the tallest OF
those who assembled to vote by getting
close up could put his ballot In through
| the stats, while others thrust them In
on the ends OF sticks; that the ballot.
box and commissioners were out OF
sight OF the voters, and that money was
paid out at the window for votes by this
man David Jackson.
The law OF Louisiana says that the
ballot-box shall be deposited In manner
convenient to the voter and In his view
that the voter shall have the right to
nut the ballot in with his own hands :
that the commissioner Is the only per
son who may take the ballot from his
hand and it provides a penalty against
any one taking the ballot from the
hands OF the voter other than the CON-
missioner.
1t is shown that Cain Sartin, a distin-
guished colored statesman, and then
candidate for the Legislature, in the full
enjoyment OF his newly found fran
chises and glorying il. his right 60 vote,
voted frequently during the day. Caesar
Johnson and Noah Lane saw David
jackson buy votes and pay money for
them. and J. E. Burton swears that ne
saw David change votes, drop the real
ballot on the floor and substitute other
ballots, which he placed in the box !;
that he called Jacksons attention to
the fact. and David denied it; but when
witness pointed to the ballots that had
been dropped on the floor, he did not
deny 1t or answer, nor does he deny 1t
anywhere i'm this record. What credit
or faith can be given to the result at
this poll In the Law OF Elections (by
McCrary) it is laid down at page 335:
fan officer of the election Is detected in will
. ful and deliberate fraud upon the ballot-box,
the better opinion is that 1t will destroy the in.
tegrty Of HE official acts. even though the fraud
discovered be not sufficient of itself to affect the
result. y IT, for example. an election
officer having charge OF bailot-b3x is caught
in the act Of abstractng certain ballots ana sun
stituting others. although the number shown tc
have been abstracted be not sufficient TO affect
the result yet no confidence can be placed In the
contents Of ballot-box which has been In his
custody.
Yet we are asked to count that poll.
say, no matter how perfect In form,
no matter how perfectly that return
produced by r. X. Anderson may com
!, ply with the requirements of the cleo
! ton, the well-settled Jurisprudence ol
! contested elections, you cannot count
that return. Stained with Infamous
crimes and marked by total disregard
of law and decency, the return pro-
: duced by Mr.. r. X. Anderson, and sc
: confidently relied on by the sitting
for poll |, Carol parish.
Bear in mind that contestants major
ity is yet 1896 votes.
We come now to ward No. 2. There
is q perfect blank here; nothing; no re-
turn, no tally-sheet, no list OF voters, nc
statement whatever.
Mr.. Poppleton- No ballots.
! Mr.. Ellis Yes, sir. No ballots; not
the scratch OF u pen to show that an
election had ever been held at poll 2
: How does the contestee seek to supply
! the place of this suspiciously missing
! testimony? He swears witness. Who
/; is it? Why, no other than W. w. Ben
ham, the perjurer; man contradicted
t in the record half dozen times a con
victed forger and falsifier of returns
whose personal liberty to-day is an out
: rage upon the rights and dress OF the
. Penitentiary that vainly gapes for him
] and Benham swears that the returns
from the second ward were all regularly
and properly made and the vote was &C
and SO.
, Mr.. Speaker, right here | interpose q
J legal objection; and it is this, that
wherever the legal returns Of an election
{ are lost and the party wishes to supply
their place, what Is the legal course fol
him to pursue? In the first place he
| must show these returns were made; in
the second place he must show that they
are lost and beyond his reach and in
the third place he must furnish the best
secondary evluence WlCnIu Ills power u
) produce. This principle of law is toe
we'll settled to admit Of argument ol
dispute.
The best evidence OF an election is the
testimony Of the voters themselves as te
, how and for whom they voted. But fol
convenience the law has substituted AZ
ordinarily the best evidence the returns
, when properly kept and evidenced
> These returns constitute the prin,a facit
! evidence of election. Where they are
destroyed or lost, then the voters may
be called. by substitution Of law their Ell
though in q contest the returns would
8 be obliged to yield to the oaths of the
} voters. In the Second Ward Of Carroll
the returns, the ballots, the tally sheets
} were all gone. Who stole them it is i'm
possible to say. The evidence shows
{ that the crime OF the theft and destruc.