New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-11-19


Louisiana, to witness the action Of this
Board. These gentlemen promptly obeyed
this eumm0ns. This action implied, in the
strongest terms, either that the Demo
cratic party distrusted the action Of this
board, or expected. BY their presence, to
control its action. Seeing this move on the
part of the head of the Democratic party
the President invited distinguished Repub
licans from different parts of the Union to
repair to New Orleans. to be present also
to witness the action of the board.
Now the Democratic leaders act in such
Q way a. to create Q distrust Of the action
of this board, and then set up their OWL
action, and the effects of it, a. an evidence
of "widely prevalent distrust of the 40
ton of this board" They manufacture, by
their action, the dlstrust, and then allege
that a. evidence of it, and remind the Re
publ;cans, who see no evidence on which tG
base this distrust in advance of the action
of the board, that they should join with
them in confirming this distrust. Such &C.
ton is unjust to the board, and highly Of
fensive to . legally constituted State tri
bunal. But this is not all these distinguished
Democrats have to say on the subject.
They say 1.-The constitution of the board
has not been changed since it's returne
were set aside by . congressional com.
mittee, of which the Republican candidate
for the vice presidency was 3 member" 1t
is the first time We have heard that . con-
pelate jurisdiction over purely State
officers. and it is news to us that the con.
gressional committee of which Mr.. Wheeler
was . member set aside the returns of this
board. This committee, of which Mr..
Wheeler was . member, in their report to
the House of Representatives, which ID
signed by Mr.. Wheeler, in commenting on
the powers and action Of the Returning
Board, under the statute, page twenty one
We xre all clearly of the opinion that the
Returning Board had no right to do any.
thing except to canvass and compile the
returns which were lawfully made to them
BY the local officers, except in cases where
they were accompanied BY the certificates
of the supervisors or commissioners pro
vided in the third section"
The committee proceed to say: "The
board took . different view Of its powers,
and proceeded to threw out the votes from
many polls where they found intimidation
was to defeat persons whom, on the returns,
they should have declared elected, and to
elect persons who should not have been
declared elected" They 60 on to say: 1.-THE
Returning Board claims that in this pro-
ceedlng they acted under an honest belief
that they were right in their construction
of the law, and that they were giving effect
to the true will Of majority Of the people
OF Louisiana, and that in their construction
they followed the precedent set by the Dem
Ocratic or Fusion Returning Board of 1872.
We believe they did follow such prece-
dent. We have no doubt that they be-
lieved they were defending the people Of
Louisiana against fraud on their constitu-
tional rights.'
The above statement of the committee
shows that they differed in their construc-
ton of law defining the duties and powers
of the Returning Board, from the board,
but this committee did not assume to have
any power to set aside the action of this
board, and it may be well questioned
whether the board did not place th. proper
construction on their powers. They had
Democratic precedent for their construc-
with their views. They were State officers
acting under the sanction of official oath
and responsibility, over whom the con-
gressional committee had no control.
There is nothing in this language of the
committee to justify the distrust of the
board, implied or rather alleged by the dis
tlnguished Democratic, now present from
other States.
But, say they, the board has not been re-
organized since the election Of 1874 The
Supreme Court of this State has held the
Returning Board Q constitutional body, and
that its decisions are to be respected until
set aside by the courts or the respective
houses Of the Legislature. The board was
organized according to law, and
it's organization 10 made perpetual Vacan-
cies, when any occur, are to be filed by the
residue of the board. So it can not be said
the board is not now legally organized.
Unless present members Of the board re-
sigo, there is no legal authority to change
it. The vacancy now existing, occasiOned
by the resignation Of the Democratic mem
ber, will, no doubt, be filed a. the Law di-
rects, before any votes are counted. What,
then, is meant by saying the CONSTITUTION
Of the board has not been changed since
the returns were set aside by the congress
ional committee"
Another evidence of distrust alleged is
that one of the members of the board was
} candidate at the late election. This does
1ot render him ineligible under the law,
md no fears need be entertained that he
will attempt to count himself in, 90 he
openly admits he was defeated. and does
lot contest the election of his opponent.
Under the circumstances this 10 Q mere
rival ground of distrust.
It is also objected - ground of distrust
hat one of the members of the board 10 Q
Federal officer, holding IN appointment
nder the Prosident. This ID NO legal
reund Of insligibility, and it 10 farfetshed