The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1877-02-17

Admit Evidence IN 90 tho COnstitu.
uonaiitS OF the board ana Eligi-
biiity of Electors.
The commission, by eight to seven,
decided that no evidence can be no.
ceived in the Louisiana case, except
the electoral certificates. Numerous
propositions were made to take various
kinds of evidence, but We're all rejected
by vote Of eight to seven.
The following are the resolutions
acted upon by the commission
MIR. Hoar submitted the following /:
ordered, That the evidence be not
received.
Mr.. Abbott offered the following as
q substitute
Resolved, That evidence 90 received
to show that 30 much of the act of
Louisiana establishing the returning
board for that State is demonstrations
al, and the acts Of the said returning
board are void.
This was rejected by the following
vote: Yeas--Messrs. Abbott, Bayard,
Clifford, Field, Hunton, Payne and
Thurman. Nays-Messrs. Bradley,
Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Garfield,
Hoar, Miller, Morton and Strong.
Mr.. Abbott offered another substi.
tute, as follows:
Resolved. That evidence will be re-
ceived to show that the returning
board of Lousian, at the time OF can
wasting and compiling the vote of
that State at the last election In that
State, was not constituted under the
laws establishing 1t, in this that it
was composed OF four persons of one
political party, instead of five persons
OF different parties.
Rejected by the same vote.
Mr.. Abbott then offered another sub
stitute;
Resolved, That the commission will
receive testimony on the subject of the
frauds alleged in the specification of
counsel for the DIRECTORS to certificates
one and three.
rejected by the same vote.
Mr.. Abbott then offered fourth
substitute:
Resolved, That the so.called return
Ing board of Louisiana had no juris-
diction to canvass the votes for electors
for president and vice president is I'D
missiblc.
RpiantpI hv tha anna ynia
Mr., Abbott offered q fifth substitute
which was rejected by the same vote,
which was IN follows:
Resolved, That evidence is admissi-
BILE that the statements and aflidavits
purportng to have been made and for
warded to said returning board, in pur-
suanee Of the provisions OF section 20,
of the election law of 1872, alleging
riot, tumult, intimidation and VIC.
lence, at or near certain polls and in
certain parishes, were false, and were
fabricated and forged by certain dis
reputable persons, under the direction
and knowledge OF the SAID returning
board; that said returning board,
knowing the said statements and atfi.
davits to be false and forged, and that
, such statements and aflidavits were
made in the.manner or form within the
time required by law did, knowingly,
willfully and fraudulently fail and re-
fuse to canvass or compile more than
ten thousand votes cast, as is shown
by Enlightenment votes Of the com
missioners Of election.
Mr.. Hunton, offered the sixth sub
stitute, as follows:
Resolved, That evidence be received
to prove that the votes cast and given
at the said election on the 9TH of No
vember last, as shown by the returns
made by the commissioners of election
for the said polls and voting places in
said State, have never been compiled
nor canvassed, and that the said re-.
turning board compiled or pretended
10 compile or canvass the returns by
said commissioners OF election, but
that said returning board only pre-
tended to canvass the returns made
by the State supervisors OF registra-
ton.
Rejected by the same vote.
A seventh substitute was offered by
Mr.. Bayard, as follows:
Resolved, That no person holding
an Office of trust or profit under the
United States,is eligible to be appoint
ed an elector, and that this commits.
sion will receive evidence tending to
prove said ineligibility AZ offered by
the counsel tor objections to the certiti.
Gates numberOne and three.
Rejected by the same vote.
Justice Field offered the eighth and
last substitute, as follows:
Resolved, That, in the opinion of the
commission, evidence IL admissible
upon the several matters which the
counsel for DIRECTORS make to numbers
one and three and offer to prove.
This was also rejected by the same
vote, and the question on the original
order submitted by Mr.. Hoar came up
viz: That the evidence offered be moi
received.
Mr.. Payne moved to strike out the
word "not." Rejected by the sam,
vote.
The vote on the original order wa,
then taken, and 1t was adopted by the
following vote:
Yeas-Messrs. Bradley, Edmunds
Frelinghuysen, Garfield, Hoar, Miller
Morton and Strong-S.
Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Bayard, Cliff
ford, Field, Hunton, Payne and Thur.
man..
After the conclusion had beer
reached by the com mission, the coun'