The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-02-07

lV,UVO VOleS was part OIL conspiracy u
give the electoral vote to a party not en-.
titled to ii. A. l leave that for you to
answer.
Q, Did you take part in amy such con
spiracy? A. Does that conclude your
question:
The Chairman-oh, answer the ques.
ton or not.
Mr.. Tucker-We will take a vote tc
see II such conduct by witness should
be tolerated in the committee.
The Chairman-The question is wheth.
er the committee will require the witnes
to answer.
Mr.. Tucker-The sentence of reproba.
ton should be put on the witness for not
answering.
Witness-Then am a vassal.
The Chairman-Keep order, sir.
Prof. Seelye remarked that it was
unanimously decided this morning, so
far as the authority Of the committee
went, that the witness should answer the
questions.
Messrs. Lawrence and Burchard con-
Cured with Prof. Seelye.
Mr.. Field to Chairman-Is it not n
case Of contempt and misdemeanor un.
der the laws OF the District OF Columbia
for the witness to refuse to answer ques.
tions propounded by committee?
ChairmHn-lt is.
Mr.. Field-The witness is contuma,
cious in the highest degree.
Mr.. Field then exhibited TO witncs:
statements showing the number Of votes
rejected in the several parishes, attested
to by Abel, Secretary Of the Returning
Board.
Objection was made TO the paper. The
question being taken the objection was
0verruled by strict party vote. The
statements showed that the Board rejected
the 1853 Kellogg and lO,2SO McEnery
electoral votes.
Another paper was exhibited to the
witness and also attested by Mr.. Abel
showing that the Supervisors Of Regis
tration returned 1877 Kellogg and 80,
5l5 McEnery electoral votes. Also
certificate Of the Returning Board, certi
flying to the election Of the Kellogg elec,
tors and that they received.75, ,lS5 votes
and McEnery's electors received 7O,50E
votes.
Mr.. Lawrence asked witness whether
il the returns from Vernon parish, as
compared with the tabulated statement
were different from the original returns
it was done with his knowledge or ap'
probation?
Witness replied that it was not, mol
had he any knowledge that it was done
with the appreciation OF any other mem
ber OF the Board; and he also denied the
truth OF Littleiield's statement that ht
directed the returns TO be altered'so al
to elect Hunter and Andrews, Judge and
District Attorney. They were his per,
sonnl but not political friends.
Mr.. Field Intercepted the witness
about the papers the former had exhibit.
ed, but witness declined to answer.
Q. Because you are under duress are
you unwilling to tell the truth? A.
am never unwilling to tell the truth.
Q. Then why do you not answer? A
When the contempt is removed / will an,
swer, but not till then.
@. You were asked Just now whether
you threw out votes for reasons which
were founded On evidence satisfactory to
yourself. Will you answer? A. Tha
embraces the whole question, and there
fore decline.
@. Are you not willing TO testify wheth
er your Board threw out the 10000 ant
odd votes honestly or dishonesty? A.
am willing when relieved from the con
tempt Of the House.
Q, Are you willing to do so now? A
can't answer the question until relieved
from such contempt.
q. Are you now willing 10 answer thu
question whether in throwing out the 10,
600 your Board acted honestly or dishon
estly? A. Weacted in conformity will
the law.
Q. In throwing out votes? A. w
threw them out for fraud, intimidation
and violence at the polls.
@. Were any thrown out because o
other Irregularities? A. think til n
Grant Parish was excluded.
| q. Any except that? A. | think not
il q. Was there asingle objection to I'll,
votes on the ground that they were no
actually cast? A. None.
| Q. Then they must have been throw
out on the ground Of intimidation? A
Men were forced TO vote contrary to thci
wishes.
i q. Had you any Witnesses before you
Board to prove that any particular voter
were induced TO vote contrary to thei
wishes? A. 1t was impossible TO hay,
oral testimony. The Board adopted
rule that the testimony should be takel
by both parties.
@. Did the voters themselves testif
that they voted under compulsion? Wa
such evidence furnished to yon? A.
think 30.
@. Will YOU say proof was presented
that several different voters had vote,
under compulsion contrary to their judg
ment? A. l don't know how many;
think there was evidence OF the iacl
there may be hundred or more who sal
they were forced TO vote contrary to thei
wishes.
In further examination he said IL
votes were rejected except in consequence
Of intimidation.
Mr.. Field called the attention Of tn
witness TO the fact that it appeared in tn
parish of Concordia that Josephs, one O
) the Republican electors, received 1856
votes, while the certificate OF the Return
ing Board credited him with 2,53S votes
Witness replied that il was In evIdenc
that troops OF horsemen seized the ballo
, box from the trustees Of the election, VIII
made up the vote from their count ant
sent them in.
Mr.. Field asked the witness whethe
he did not say before the Morrison Com
mittee that this happened in Madison.
Witness said yes, and something of til
kind in Concordia also.
Q Mr.. Field called his attention to til
fact that while the Board by throwin
out 10000 votes cast for the Ti!den elet
tors gave the electoral vote for Hayei
/ the witness omitted to account for thei
. act Of thus giving the latter 5000 or 400
! mai.
In response to question by Mr.. Law
renee, witness said the Board gave {
!. Hayes only such votes as he was entitle
to receive. That they took no votes irol
o the Democrats contrary to law.
r New ORLEANS, February G.-Prepar.