New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-06-01
The Contested Election Case OF Spencer
VS.. Mercy.

The Contested Election Case OF Spencer
VS.. Morey.
The following is from the Washington
National Republican Of May IS:
The debate on this case yesterday, which
will be concluded to-day, developed the fol.
lowing facts: Mr. Morey was seated on Q
certificate which gave him about HOO ma
jority. The evidence, as shown by the mi
nor!ty report, reduced his majority to 1896.
The msjority report destroys this majority
by throwing out one entire poll in C0ncor-
dia pariah. in v hich the vote cast was: For
Morey, Republican, AL; for Spencer, Dem
ocrat, 81; majority for Morey, 4O4; and by
rejecting the votes of the three principal
polls in the parish of Carroll, in which the
vote was: For MOrey. 1893; for Spencer,
49,; majority for Morey, 1909.
In regard to the vote cast at the poll,
which the majority report rejects, in Con-
cordia parish, the testimony of the three
commissioners Of election agrees that the
election was free and fair, and the returns
show the true result of the votes cast. No
other evidence was taken, and the contest
ant does not allege any fraud, but the
commissioners testify that the old law re-
quired them to take the ballot box to the
county seat and count the votes, and they
had not the copy of the new law with
them. and, though one of them thought the
new law required the votes to be counted
at the polling place, they all agreed finally
to take the box to the county seat, a. the
old law requires. and there to count the
vote. To reject this poll, where there is
even no allegation of fraud, is without q
precedent in the history of contested cases
in Congress.
In regard to the polls in Carroll parish,
the contestant does not claim that he re-
49, a.. IS <I,ax hy,H< hnk = L.
election in this parish should be thrown out
entire. The evidence shows that there was
no election held freely and fairly; that the
votes were counted and returns made out
that MOrey received nearly all of them; all
of the Republicans and about halt of the
Democrats in this parish supporting Mr.
Morey. There was no Democratic ticket
run il this parish. There were two Repub-
lican tickets for local officers, but the evi.
dence shows that both factions supported
Mr.. Morey. The friends Of the defeated
candidate for State Senator stole the ballot
boxes and altered the returns 90 as to show
that the defeated candidate was elected.
This charge was made to the State Return
ing Board, who took the affidavits of the
Democratic commissioners of election and
corrected the returns by their evidence, and
returned the candidates who were properly
elected.
The evidence OF these Democratic COM
missioners of election. which was taken to
impeach the CORRECTNESS of the returns,
showed that Mr.. Morey received a majority
of 1890 in the parish, which, however, is
not taken by the committee, though their
evidence is taken to impeach the correct
ness of their returns. The theory of the
majority report is that the evidence is sutii.
Gent to positively establish the exact vote
for either party in this parish, and they
therefore decide to report it.
Many leading Democrats have expressed
dissatisfaction with the report, and think
the proper thing to do is to remand the case
for additional testimony, to wit, the testi-
mony of the individual voters themselves,
which neithlr party has taken. but which
can be had. and which will positively de-
termine the result.
The contestant not only took no evidence
to establish his vote, and made no claim to
having received q majority of the votes,
but objected to contestee taking any evil
dence at all to establish the result, on the
ground that the returns themselves were
the only legal evidence. The contestant is
a self-contessed minority candidate, and
the House has, over and over again, refused
to seat q minority candidate. The result
in this case will be looked tor with great
interest.