Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1876-11-17
Republicans Reply to The Democrats
at New Orleans.
THEY NON.CONCUR IN THE DEM.
0CRATIC PROPOSITION.
Because the Laws Of the State
Forbid Such Steps.

The following is the reply OF the republicans to
the communication iiom the democrats inyit-
| Ing conference
NEW ORLEANS, November l6.
Gentlemen-The majority of the undersigned,
to whom your note of the l4th inst. was address
ed, only arrived in this city, yesterday evening
We have therefore been unable to reply until this
morning, and can only regret that your communi-
cation should have been given to the press imme-
dately upon its de livery and without the posi-
| blity of an answer accompanying it. You re-
mark that you are informed that we come at the
request of the President to see that the board OF
canvassers make fair count of the votes actually
cast, and ask that we meet and confer, in order
| that such influence as we possess may be exerted
on behalf of such q canvass of the vote actually
cast, as by its fairness and mpartalty shall COM
:nand the support and acquiescence of the Ameri-
can people OF all parties.
We join heartily with you in counsels of peace
and in the expression of an earnest desire for a
perfectly honest and just declaration of the results
of the recent election in Louisiana, and by its
lawfully constituted authorities, and may add
that we know OF no reason to doubt that such q
declai alton will be made. But we do not see the
propriety or utility of q conference on the basis
and subject to the limitations you propose, for we
have no such duty imposed on u.s. and, as suggest
ed by the clause of your note first quoted, we are
at most requested to be witnesses of what shall
occur in the canvass of the votes, without power
or legal influence over the result or over the
means by which, under the laws of Louisiana, the
| result is to be determined. We cannot doubt that
in this you will, upon reflection, concur with US.
We are here as private citizens, with no official
position. We therefore cannot superscribe or
| modify any law of that State, nor have we any
right to control influence any Of its officers as
to the manner in which they shall prescribe min
isterial or Judicial duties imposed upon them by
its laws and should We being strangers and with
out official functions, attempt this, we should be
condemned by the people of every State in the
Union for an improper interference with local ad-
ministration.
The following extract from the laws of Louis
lana shows that the canvassing board is expressly
required in certain cases to exercise judicial as
well as ministerial functions;
Section g. That in such canvass and compila-
ton the returning officers shall observe the fol-
lowing order: They shall compile first the state
ments from all the polls or voting places at which
| there shall have been fair, free and peaceable
| registration and election. Whenever from any
poll or voting place there shall be received the
statement Of any supervisor of registration OF
| commissioner of election in the form as required
by section 26 of this sct an affidavit of three or
more citizens Of any riot, tumult, acts of violence,
intimidation, armed disturbance, or corrupt infu-
ence, which prevented or tended to prevent fair,
free and peaceable vote Of all qualified electors
| entitled to vote at such polls or voting places.
Such returning officers shall not canvass, count,
or compile the statements from such poll or vot-
ing place until the statements from all other polls
or voting places shall have been csnvassed and
compiled. The returning officers shall then pro-
coed to investigate the statement of riot, tumult,
acts Of violence, intimidation, armed disturbance,
bribery or corrupt influences at any such poll or
voting place. And if from the evidence Of such
statement they shall be convinced that such riot,
tumult acts Of violence, intimidation, armed dis
turbance, bribery or corrupt influence did not
materially interfere with the purity and freedom
l of the election at such poll or voting place, or did
not prevent q sufficient number Of qualified voters
| thereat from registering or voting to materially
Ill. a r II. A.
| not otherwise said returning officers shall
| canvass and compile the vote of such
| polls voting places with those previously can
vassed and compiled, but if the said returning
officers shall not be fully satisfied thereof it shall
be their duty to examine further testimony in re-
gard thereto, and to this end they shall have the
power to send for persons and papers. IT, after
such examination the said returning officers shall
be convinced that said riot, tumult, acts of vio-
lence, intimidation, armed disturbance, bribery
or corruptve influences did materially interfere
with the purity and freedom of the election a,
such polls or voting places, or did prevent a sui-
cient number of qualified electors thereat from
registering and voting, to materially change the
result Of the election, the said returning officers
shall not canvass or compile the statement of the
votes of such poll or voting place. but shall ex
clude them from their returns, provided, that any
person interested in said election, by reason of be-
ing a candidate for office, shall be allowed hear
| ing before said returning officers upon making
1
| wording of returns Of said election. Hence, il
there any facts requiring the judgment of the
| board upon the validity of any election return
| ing, as effected by such frauds or violence, it
would be manifest interference with state rights
and local self-government for persons like our
selves, without official rights TO attempt to inhu-
ence or control the judicial election. Had cor
responding board in the State Of New York. in
1868, been authorized to pass upon the fraudulen,
returns Of the votes of the city of New York thai
Il nd leapafpn nj 81 of / nps 10 mn
however respectable, attempted to influence III
Judicial action upon the facts presented to it uadcl
| the laws of that State, such attempt would have
been universally condemned. If the duty of the
| canvassing board Of Louisiana were merely min
| isterial CLERICAL as in case of any officer
| charged by law with the duty of verifying and
declaring the result of any election, and invest-
eating with no discretion, as when the President
of the Senate counts and declares the votes of the
electors of the several States in the election oil
President and Vice President under the consttu
| ton Of the United States, different case would
| be presented. 1t is, in our judgment
vital to the preservation of constitutions
| liberty that the habit of obedience tC
the forms Of law should be sedulously cultivated
and that the resort to extra constitutional modes
| of redress for even actual grievances should be
| avoided and condemned as revolutionary, disor-
ganizng, and tending to disorder and anarchy
| To reduce the whole question, therefore, to the
mere clerical duty of counting the votes actually
| cast as proposed by you in distinction from the
votes legally cast and returned irrespective OF the
question whether they are fraudulently or vo-
| lently cast or otherwise vitiated, involves q multi
fication of the provisions of the laws of Indiana
which have already been adjudicated as valid by
the supreme court, and would be wholly unjusti
| fable here as well in any other State Of thu
Union which had provided laws to protect tn,
rights of voters and the purity of the ballot. W,
cannot, therefore, concur in your proposition 10
| q conference on that basis.
| Respectfully yours,
| (SignedD
| John Sherman,
Hanley Matthews,