The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-11-18

would, IL received, have materially
changed tho result, involves two
moustrOus propositions: First, that the
votes of those who actually did vote are
to DO rejected. or, in other words, that
those persons are to be disfranChsed; sec
ondlv, that it is to DO assumed that those
who did not vote would have so voted as
materially to change the result. Such u
power, in the hands Of INSCRIPTIONS men,
it is obvious, can be exercised 80 a. to pro-
duoc any legal declaration that is desired
But this is not all. We wish to direct the
attention OF our readers to the character
and form of the evidence on which the Re-
turning Board is to act in throwing out
returns. In regard to this, according to
one construction of the law, the evidence
may be gathered after the local Commits
sioners of Election have made their re-
turns, and of course, therefore, IL may
be manufactured to suit the exigency.
According to another construction, this
evidence must be a part of the record
sent up by the local Commissioners of
Election. But, under either construction.
the point to be determined by the Central
Returning Board only requires them TO
find that the purity and freedom of the
election at the particular poll was ma
terially interfcred with, or that "sufli-
cient number" of tho qualified electors
were prevented from registering or vot-
ing " to materially change this result"
The provision which prescrbcs the evil
dence on which the Returning Board is TO
reject the votes OF any precinct is the fol-
lowing: The local Commissioner of Flee
ton IS to make a statement under oath of
all the facts which show riot, tumut. and
SO forth, and OF the effect produced thereby,
(which statement shall also he corrobO-
rated under oath by three respectable
citizens, qualified electors OF the parish !"
and the statement is to be annexed " by
the Commissioner of Elections to his
returns of the election "by paste wax,
or some adhesive substance, that the same
can be kept together There is no court
or other tribunal III the civilized world,
outside of Louisiana, or some other State
under carpet-bag dominion, that would
not construe this provision to mean that
the affidavit Of three citizens which is to
"corrobonte" the afidavit of the Commits
sioncr of Election. must be annexed to and
made part of his return. The idea that
| lills VI lht lllCt ClAlLtllS II 10
be gotten up afterward and not made
a part Of the record-an idea which II Is
said by the Cincinnati Commercial the Re-
publicans mean to insist upon-is simply
monstrous. Yet we are given TO under
| stand that it Is about to be claimed that
| the citizens may make their statements to
the Board at any time before the final can
wasting. Ii is admitted that in the contest
over the legislature in 1874, the so-called
WHEELER Compromise Committee decided
that tue testimony of citizens should have
accompanied the returns of the local COM
missioners. But then II is announced that
| this Interpretation OF the law has no bind
ing effect in the present controversy, and
that the Returning Board will put their
| Board decides to receive the testimony OF
citizens not made part of the record at the
time OF certifying the votes it can easily
| become the legal conclusion that HAYES
has carried the State by IA handsome ma
| jorty" as the Cincinnati COmmcrci al
claims.
such are the means by which this result
is to he produced, aud which the CONNER
cidl thinks are not questionable means. -
! The country Will come TO a different cou-
! clusion, aud Will hold the Republican
party responsible for any result that Is
reached by such means.