The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-11-17
LOUISIANA.
From the New York Herald Cor
RESPONDENT.

NEW YORK, Nov. 1.-THE HeralPs
special from New Orleans says the gen.
eral impression Is gaining ground that
the Republicans wish to delay action
until the result In Florida is conclusive
ly ascertained. In the event Of Tilden's
success In Florida, or even in South
Carolina, it is likely the Returning
Board here will decide in accordance
with the already published returns.
Otherwise Hayes and Packard will cor
tainly be returned. The reply of the
Democrats to the letter Of the Republl-
cans is looked for with much interest.
The Democratic visitors regard the let
ter of refusal TO their request for repre-
sentatives at the sessions Of the Return
ing Board as calculated to inspire the
public mind of the North with the con.
victiOn OF intended unfairness and par
tiality. 1t is evident that the Returning
Board intends to count the vote with
closed doors.
The Forthcoming Democratic Re-
ply.
NEW ORLEANS, Nov. 1.-THE Demo-
cratic Committee to prepare a reply to
the Republican letter were at work to a
late hour last night. In their reply the
Committee will admit that they had no
official power or right to interfere with
internal affairs Of the State Of Louisiana,
but they are present as representatives
of the Democratic party to meet repre-
sentatives of the Republican party for
the sake Of seeing an honest count Of
the votes actually cast. They assume
this object as mutual. The Committee
deny that the Vice President has author
ity to count the Electoral votes, and as
sert that this right is vested solely in
the Senate and House. They also deny
that the Returning Board OF Louisiana
can be safely trusted with the manipu-
lation of the election returns, and de-
clare their intention of demanding a
representation at the time when the
vote is being counted.
The Republican Visitors Reject
the Conference Proposition.
The Northern Republican gentlemen
here answer the invitation of the North.
ern Democrats for briet conference of
the subject of the vote OF this State in
substance as follows:
We join heartily with you in counsels
OF peace and in the expression of an
earnest desire for perfectly hon
est and just declaration OF the results OF
the recent election in Louisiana by its
lawfully constituted authorities, and we
may add that we know Of no reason to
doubt that such a declaration will be
made; but we do not see the propriety Or
utility of conference on the basis and
subject to the limitations you propose,
for we have no such duty imposed upon
US as suggested by the clause of your
note. Firstly are at most requested to
be witnesses of what shall occur in the
canvass OF the votes without power or
influence over the result or over means
by which, under the laws of Louisiana,
the result is to be determined. We can
not doubt that in this you upon refec-
ton Will concur with US. We are here
as private citizens with no official pow
ers. We therefore can not supersede or
modify any law Of that State, nor have
we any right to control or influence any
OF its officers as to the manner in
ministerial or judicial duties
imposed upon them by its laws, and
should we, being strangers and without
official functions, attempt this we should
be condemned by the people of every
State in the Union for an improper 1n-
reference with local administration.
The laws OF Louisiana show that the
Canvassing Board is expressly required
in certain cases to exercise judicial as
well as ministerial functions, hence it
there are any facts requiring the judg
ment oil the Board upon the validity Of
any election returns as effected by such
frauds or violence, it would be mani
fest interference with State rights and
local self-goVernment for persons like
ourselves, without official right, to at
tempt to influence or control its ju-
dicial action. Had corresponding
board in the State of New York in 1858,
been authorized to pass upon
the fraudulenl returns of votes in the
City of New York for that ear, and had
delegation of citizens OF Louisiana, how.
ever respectable, attempted to influence
Its judicial action upon the facts pre-
sented 10 it under the laws of the State,
such an attempt would have been uui.
versally condemned. If the duties of the
Canvassing Board of Louis ana were
merely ministerial or clerical, as In the
case of an officer charged by law with
the duty of verifying and declaring the
result OF an election, and invested with
discretion, as where the President of
the Senate counts and declares the
votes of the Electors Of
the several States in the election of
President and Vice President under the
Constitution of the United States, diff
ferent case would be presented. 1t is,
in our Judgment, vital to the preserva-
ton of constitutional liberty that habit
of obedience to the forms Of law should
be sedulously inculcated and cultivated,
and that the resort to eXtra-constitu-
tional modes OF redress Tor even actual
grievances should be avoided and con-
demned as revolutionary, disorganizing,
and tending to disorder and anarchy.
To reduce the whole question, there
fore, to the mere clerical duty of count
ing the votes actually cast, as proposed
by you, in distinction from the
votes legally cast and returned, irre-
spective OF the question whether they
are traudulently and violently cast or
otherwise voted, involves notification
of the provisions of the laws OF Louis
lana, which have already been adjudi-
Gated as valid by the Supreme Court,
and would be wholly unjustiti lble here as
in any other State of the Union, which
has provided laws to protect the rights
of voters and the putty of 9 the
ballot. We can not therefore concur in
your proposition for a conference on
that basis.
Very Respectfully,
JOHN SHERMAN, Ohio,
STANLEY MATTHEW'S, Ohio,
j. A. GARFIELD, OHIO,
WV d. KELLEY Pam