The New Orleans Democrat., 1876-06-22

the commissioners WHO Iudue !ic ICoutn'
to prove is contents; Does the gentle
Mr.. Ellis Undoubtedly 1t is the
proof BY parol OF the contents
Of document shown. to be lost
But in sthis case, under the weA-
settled rules of election contests, the
voters themselves should have been
called. The evidence OF Benham is not
secondary it Is tertiary in its charac-
ter. You have utterly failed to supply.
by the best evidence the loss or THEFT 0,
the returns; and l interPose the legai
objection and insist that Benham's evil
nence be excluded. But grant that this
evidence would be legitimate and regu-
lar and waive for the moment every OBJ
lection as to its admissibility, can you
believe Bepham? He swears that the
returns were fully and properly made;
but Montgomery, who was one OF the
commissioners at poll No. 2, swears he
signed no returns. Blount also proves
that he did not. Arroyo swore ana SO
did Montgomery that the signature oil
the latter to the returns before the Re-
turning Board was false and forged.
Who committed the forgery? Benham
admits that he placed those returns,
shown to be false and forged, and 30
admitted by this unwilling Returning
Board. The brother Of Benham was
detected some time after the election In
a house on Jackson street, three miles
from the Statehouse, with the lists ana
returns before him, which he was mani
pulating. w. w. Benham and q. U.
Benham are the forgers and perpetra-
tors Of this stupendous fraud;
Mr. Morey. There is nothing oil that
sort in the record.
Mr.. Ellis. Is there not =,
Mr. Morey. No, 1t was all excluded.
Mr.. Ellis Mr.. Speaker, / ask pardon
for going out of the record. | did SC
unwittingly. But I will say in justice
to myself that, whether in or out OF the
record, what stated was true. because
was one among those who heard OF y.
g. Benham's operations, and was con
suited as to the best means OF detecting
and Furnishing him for his fraud upon
the returns. Under the well-settle1
rule of law which / cited from MeCrary,
| tn man, w. w. Benham, convicted of
| perjury and forgery, detected in a delib-
crate fraud upon the election, has de-
stroyed all faith in his official acts and
character. .hasvitiated all theevidences OF
this election, and this House cannot be-
| lieye his returns even ii they were here,
much less can 1t accept and believe his
| parol testimony as to what those returns
were. Then oil proof as to the Second
Ward of Carroll having failed, we find
contestant still elected by nearly l4oo
majority.
And now we come to the third ward OF
Carroll parish. The three commission
ers were r. X. Anderson, Dubb Ander-
son and H. M. Bagley. The first OF these
worthless was the man who supplied
from his pocket the pretended returns
from the first ward. But he was unable
to produce any returns whatever from
the third ward, where he presided
Here, as in ward No. 2, all returns OF the
election and all evidences OF 1t are gone
r. X. Anderson testifies that he violated
the law in failing to make duplicate re-
turns. It also appears that the box was
| Providence; that the votes were not
counted until thirty-six hours after the
polls had closed. Here were plain, pal
pable violations OF the most peremDtory
requirements of the law which destroy
the prima facie character OF the returns
even il they were in evidence. Will
what patience shall we hear the law
breaker, II. X. Anderson, testify as tt
what these dishonored returns were
Mr. Bagley, one OF the commissioners
SwearS:
The ballots were not counted nor returns
made out until thirty-six hours after the clQsint
OF the polls. The official count upon which tn
returns were made was made ip Providence
thirty-six hours after the close OF the ne election
sion of the election and the names OF person
voted for called off; but there was no ofcla
count kept OF them at that time.
Again he says.
At the conclusion Of the tallying OF the vote
at the poll, and, think, without having cast vi
the taliies the ballot box. with the tally sheets
dence by 4. *. Anderson and Nelson Black well
Republican Deputy United States supervise
for said poll. to be Delivered 70 the Glefk Of Tn
and. with the other, commissioners recounte
the votes Finding them to correspond with tn
we MAGE "a dp cne anu See
Again he says
1 was not constantly with 1t. saw the box il
Providence on Tuesday evening, in possession
the Republican Dspy oof sSs bo1
OF Providence that evening. / do not know O
m my own knowledge where they took il.
Question. Why were you not with that box al
Answer. We. the commissioners agreed t,
put the box in the hands OF the said UnMite M
States Supervisor to bring to Providence. Thi
arranpement was made for our mutual convent
% o. In making your tally-list did you verif
it by the votes themselvesf
In regard to these returns Mr.. Arroyo
swears:
Question. The board did SO recognize these re
turns rs IOrGeFlcS!
Answer. That is, there were affidavits reat
before the board by these three gentlemen
stating the actual number OF votes cast In thei
res ective polls. and If there was any othe
statement it was false and their signatures Il
such statement forgeries.
Mr.. Zacharie also testifies:
Mr.. Bagley made a subsequent affidavit II
which he alleged that what purDorted TO be th'
correct returns from that poll was forgery, il
two respects: First, the signature purpOrtini
to be his was not his signature; and secondly
that the true, original tally had been mad
was made out In black ink. showing conclusive
ly that Mr. Bagley made two affldavits..
i Under such proof and the plain pro
visions of the law already cited, the
evidence as to the returns from poll
must be rejected.
But Mr.. r. K. Anderson does not ever
swear as to what the returns were. HI
wanders off into the mazes OF a some
what treacherous memory, and gives VI
''his recollection" OF the respective
| ,,o4oc - oov,4oefaa and contestant He