The New York herald., 1876-12-16

said peaceabe there on the day or the
ton, but Clover did not consider II saic 10 remain
4 surKRvlsoa nAKss nuxssir usxFrL
Clover told Morgan alter the election that he had
thrown out some boxes and elected threo republicans
TO tho Legsaturc conversed with Supervisor Leday,
OF La Fouche before and aitor tho election; Ied9y
told witness the parish was democratic, but t would
60 oil right: hc said he not there fos any foolish
ncss he would throw out enough polls 70 elect tho
advised not to go before tho Cong
Committee, ho would get his place back tho
Custom House II no tcstined
ROUGH usAGE Oy An ALGERISs DEMOCRAT.
John Petty lcoiorcd) testified that no resides In Al
gers voted me aemocra.ic css' ~ tns late sec'on
o. and beaten by coored men because he voted ths
Do nocrat,c ticket
rhe Senate committee will arrive tonight
THE RETURNING BoARD-ITs POWERS AND
UsURpATIoNs.
To rnr EDIroR OF rux HERALp:-
The report OF John NJ Palmer Lyman Trumbuli,
William Bgler, George b. Smith, George w. Julian
and p H. Watson on tho proceedings boiore the Lou
isiana Returning Board has just boon published. II
should be read by every citizen, and summary can
do justice II establishes conclusivcly the following
tacts-
Fsrs-Tho Returning Board threw out Is $50 demo
cratic to accomplish the result they pretended
TO arrive At An idea Of the Wholesale disfranchse-
ment thus attempted can perhaps be better realized by
considering that IN large State like Now York thS
100 OO0
Secoad-The Returning Board had not the slightest
warrant OF law for such under tho laws Loul
Siam. Under no possible construction OF those
ules can action be considered otherwise than
absolutely void aud, this being the case, It 10
tted TO any respect anywhere or from anybody. Tho
facts leave possible from this proposition
All the laws bearing ON this question are set out
full in tho report but are too long TO be gvcn in any
detail within our present limits These laws
present existence Louisiana authorizing
any election Tor Presidential electors II there Is
such law tho duty OF counting such vote directly
dcvolvsd on another authority than the Retaining
Board and that such other authority has power
provide oaDora.ey ior tho nannsr Of choosing pres,
Dental electors specifying how many shalt be chosen
at large and how many from districts, the qualihca-
tions for electors, the hng OF vacancies, and pro-
vidng also Tor simple count OF the votes CASE
nj q spocincd timo by the Governor, in presence
General and . district judge OF tho district
In which the scat OF government may be established,
or any Two Of them. The law OF 1872 and lts amend.
ments under which the Returning Board pretends 10
tho vote for Presidential electors makes pro-
ors OF reon. ana Vice Presaen er ouascs
tons, tho place whero they 10 meet, Tor nng
vacancies, but one section Of II as foliows-rhat
this shall take eocI from and after passage and
the ssmo are hereby, repealed"
DASxIEss CLAIM.
1t The strength Of this clause that tho Return.
Ing Board claim 10 take away the power Of couutDg
and to got tho right and throw votos II
Will be seen, however, that the CLAIM self
cannot be hold that the portion OF tho
1858. providing for tho count repealed, unless
admitted that the whole law ID repealed. tho
peal ~ the law above quoted is NOT implied but
piicit and involves all other laws the subject OF
elections and tho whole OF thon. IT, then, this law
Of 1872 establishing the Board, has any clIecs
at all on any portion OF the law of 1858, its
sweeps away the whole Of It, and II makes no pro-
vision for any Presidential election Msel il follows
inevitably can be held by law In LOUISIANA
that ihc Returning Board has jurisdiction 70
the votes or take any step reference TO hem
H. the other hand, the law OF 1877 has effect
the law q O vOta tanch
election must be counted by the body therein pro-
vlded and the Returning Board has nothing 70 do with
them, and the body wnom the duty OF counting is
intrusted has powor TO throw any any
cause. Tie Returning Board can impae themselves
either horn OF this dilemma which they may prefer
VOTE
The report before us however, not content with
proving mat the Returning Board cannot possibly
have any right TO count the vote ior Presidcnsinl
Electors under any circumstances, but proceeds 10
sessed the power with reference tho count uf
this vote that possesses In reference any other
onicsrs yet II did not have the slightest power TO
throw out tho vote under the undispuied circum-
OF this particular In the first place
Returning Board not legally constituted The law
tssas follows-
posca parties shall be the rssurinx officers for AL
and have the reurn Of ali
In OF vacancy by death resixn.cn otherwise
the residue OF the Board OF Returning Officers. :
II will be observed that tho duty OF the Board to
elect successor case OF the resignation Of any
member is absolute. Any refusal OF the
board 10 ,nko the steps required to con.
stltute itself loSul body destroys the 10.
gally OF The whole body and renders the entire pro-
cecdings OF such body oI no elect The present Board
CONSISTS OF only four members. M republicans the va.
Oscar Arroyo, In December. 1874. This vacancy tho
Board repeatedly refused 10 nl although they
pcatcdiy urged 10 comply with the mandate OF tho
law, and elect democrat. The same members con-
stu.cd the Returning Board in 1874 the va
csncy existed aud there the refusal NIL
OPINION OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.
committee OF the House OF Representatives COM
Marsiall and Potter, examined carefully the whole
proceedings OF the Board win reference to the election
OF 1874 aud said I'VE are constrained 10 declare that
the action OF tho Returning Board the whole, was
arbitrary, unjust aud, in opinion illegal" Aud IN
speaking OF this vacancy the Board, and Of the
fusa oi tho Board to Ill thoy said iur, ,her:'Your
committee think the law 10 tho constitution or the
Board, was not complied with" Here. then, Is the
authority Of republican committee OF Congress
posed Of such republicans Hoar Whcoler Fry. Eos
Ter aud Phelps tor the statement that this Iioara is
not legally constituted No act Of an Illegally const,
tutcd board To legal.
wnrS vorss NAY nx REJECTED
But further, even II the Returning Board had jurs
dction OF tho subject and IL had been legally
tutcd yet their action IN throwing out tnesc votes
would st have been absolutely under tho law
calling into existence this Returning Board and defn-
Ing s powers Ii perfectly PLAIN and eagy understood
Under t the Board bound to and declare the
votes actually cast except In the aud the
circuuisa specifically set out n tho law soit Tho
law dcvolvcs the very dccate and dangerous power
OF throwing out votes upou the Board, but 10 care
frl TO absolutely prohibit Its EXERCISE except in
cases, clearly pointed out IN tho Law. Before III.
board got any right 70 consider the question OF
throwing out votes certain things must have occurred
which arc clearly set out IN the law itself unoss
they do fact the Board has absolutely jurs
dicion 10 throw votCs; anu prctonded
based such prerequisite jurisdctionaI facts
absolutely void ns III takon by any iour people
within the Mole limit OF the United States. The law
PLAINLY c0mmands the proper commissioners and su-
pcrvlsors oi election 70 mako iu return, within q
specified time, OF tue result vi election and
10 deposit u IN tho post Office OF their own
parish, addressed 10 the Returning Board. In
4 uelut hat uf fod
throwing votes exist these supervisors aud
commissioners must state In detail Hl such
support such claim. and must do II on tho spot and
within timo named, aud attach u the
turns themselves aud must also procure corroborat
ing statements OF three Witnesses bo also made
within sucn time and also attached 10 tho rctuFnA
The complained OF must also have occurred within
the time specified IN the law.
Every provision OF the law prescribing every step In