The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-12-15
The Efforts of Grant to Inau-
gurate aDefeated Candi-
date for President.
Bottom Facts" as to the Stupendous
Fraud BY the louisiana Returning
Board.
Board.
The Conspiracy Of the Chandler Crew
Forcibly Denounced by the Visiting
Northerners.
(Concluded.)

DemocratIc-conserYative ticket that all the
proceedings of the board should be public,
and that interested candidates should have
leave to be present, by themselves or
counsel, at the opening of the returns,
with the right to inspect the same, was
refused, and certain rules were adopted,
against several Of which protests were
filed, and particularly against rule nine,
which declared that:
9. No ex-parte afidavits or statements
shall be received in evidence except as a
basis to show that such fraud, iutimida
ton, or other illegal practice. had at some
poll, requires investigation: but the returns
and afidavits authorized by law, made by
officers of election, or in verifcation OF
statements as required by law, shall be
received IN evidence as pTinlG f0cie
Under this rule several hundred ex- par
te atidavits were prepared and sworn to in
New Orleans charging intimidation and
other illegal acts in distant parishes, and were
then put into the envelopes enclosing the
supervisors consolidated returns, which
had been brought to the city of New Or
leans and kept open for the purpose. This
was done to support statements of intimi-
dation or other illegal acts interpolated by
supervisors, long after their consolidated
returns had been made out and sworn to
as correct and been filed with the proper
district clerk without any protest or alega-
ton OF intimidation or other acts of vio-
lence.
The proceedings of the board in execu-
tive session, to which we were admitted,
consisted in opening the returns from each
parish and examining the votes for presi-
dental electors. If no protest or obiec-
ton appeared among the papers, and there
was no outside protest from anyone, the
returns were sent to private room to be
tabulated by the clerks, all of whom were
Republicans, who
KEPT THEIR ACTION SECRET
If any protest was found among the papers,
or from outside parties, the returns were
laid aside, to be afterward considered by
the board in secret. In the few cases in
which there were charges of fraud, intimi
datlon, or other illegal acts, the candidates
or their attorneys were permitted to take
copies OF the charges, and testimony taken.
on written interrogatorles, was submitted, in
regard to such parishes.
Dec 2, after all the returns had been
opened. the board went into secret session,
and we were not permitted to see the com
pllatlon OF returns already made, nor to
know what rules the board adopted in
passing upon contested cases, nor the
processes by which it arrived at results.
We have been furnished triplicate, or a
certified copy of the duplicate statement
OF the commissioners of election at each
voting place in the state, from which has
been compiled consolidated statement of
the entire vote of the state for presidential
electors.
From this statement. which I'VE believe
to be accurate, the majority for the highest
Illden elector over the lowest Hayes
elector is 9,957, and the majority for the
lowest Illden elector over the highest
Hayes elector is $500.
The returns in our possession correspond
precisely, IN most cases, with those opened
by the returning board, The difference
In the aggregate arises mainly from the
tact that the board did not have all the re.
turns before it. The supervisors. all OF
whom were Republicans, many of them
employees in the custom house in New Or
leans, some non-residents of the state, and
one of them
UNDER INDICTMENT FOR MURDER,
withheld the statements of the com
mlssiOners of election in some instances
where Democratic majorities were given
amounting in the aggregate to about /, SOC
votes, The returning board refused to re.
ceive certified copies ofthe duplicates OF
these missing.returns FLED in the offices
OF the secretary of state and the clerks OF
the district courts, or to take any effective
measures to procure the originals.
The returning board, in proclaiming the
result OF the vote for electors, makes NO
statement of the votes cast in the several
parishes, but simply announces the aggre
gate vote for each elector in the state.
giving the Hayes electors maiorities vary
ing from 1896 to 4,7l2.
To accomplish this they disfranchise
1880 Democratic and 2,O42 Republican
voters. This announcement is made in
the face OF the fact that the statements
by the commissioners of election showed a
majority ranging from 1900 to 1857 for
the lllden electors. No attempt is made
to give reason for this arbitrary action
OF the board. nor is there any statement
to show what votes were counted and
what rejected. AS well might the
othcers canvassing the returns of the cleo
ton Tor presidential electors in Ohio or
Massachusetts declare the Tilden electors
In those states elected,
IN THE FACE OF THE FACT
that the returns showed majority for the
Hayes electors. We haye shown that it is
questionable whether the legislature of
Louisiana has made provision for the
appointment of electors at all: that if il
has made such provision, it has not vested
the returning board with authority to can
vass the returns of the votes cast for
such officers; aud that if it were possible
10 construe the statute as comforting such
authority on the returning board, then
the same statute limits the authority of
the board to the canyass and compilation
OF the statements Of votes made BY the
commissioners OF election" without au.
thorlty to reject any on account of intiml.
Cation or other acts of violence unless the
foundation therefor be first laid as provid-
ed 10 the Nt1t'Iir; that the evidence does
not disclose TIA, such foundation was laid
IN any instance. There is, however. eyi.
dence Go d'lrutts surreptitiously, TO Law
such iunin.dti u ter the consolidated re.
turns W. So competed. and that the sun-
erVlsofs oi election, IA many instances, un-
lawfully withheld their returns for that
purpose, and iuterpolated among them ex.
parte atfidavits, taken in secret in New
Orleans before United States cnmmis.
sloner' which the board has no jurisdiction
to consider.
The evidence taken on both sides, SO far
as 1t has been accessible to us, discloses d
state OF lawlessness in certain parishes
not 10 the state generally, about the cause