New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-02-17

Mr.. Shellabarger said the clause requir-
ing the board to be composed of members
Ot different political parties was necessarily
directory, and not mandatory, for that wac
obvious when nan would change ME
political views. He oontended that the
duties of the Returning Board were ad-
ministrative and that its decision was final,
and had been SO decided in several cases by
the Supreme Court of Louisiana. He then
proceeded to discuss what he said he con-
sidered the main question end the real
question, which was whether the committee
had the power to go behind the Returning
Board, and which Rad been already con-
sidered in the Florida case.
Mr.. Edmunds asked if it was claimed
that the Florida board acted corruptlyy In
this case the allegation was that the ke
turning Board acted from corrupt motives.
But he did not understand that in the
Florida case corrupt motives were charged
Mr.. Shellabarger said he understood that
corruption was charged in that case. lie
complained that 1t was unjust and unfair to
say that thev were attempting to cover up
fraud and vilainy by Obiecting to the ad-
mission of evidence, and said language had
been used that was unworthy TO be spoken
before this tribunal.
1t was an insult to the intelligence of the
| commission to say that, because this was
ministerial action, that could not consider
| the question of fraud, that it was an effort
| to cover up fraud If, as Mr.. Carpenter
said, they could, after the fourth OF March,
| 60 to the case by quo IcarrdHto, to deter
| mine who was elected President of the
| United States, it i'll became him to charge
| that they were trying to make President
| by covering up fraud.
| On Thursday argument was resumed.
| Mr.. Evarts commended that the right to
cast its votes is with the State. Whatever
power the Federal government has, 1t held
through the terms of the Federal constltu-
ton, the whole matter belonging to the
State, and 1t was for the Federal govern
ment to count the votes after they had left
| the States, as in the Florida case; the COM
mission here bad no power to count the
| vote. He then contended there was no
proof that Levisee and Brewster were dis
qualified on the sixth of December, and pro-
ceeded to discuss the laws of Louisiana in
regard to the powers of the board and the
eligibility of State officers to be electors.
EvartE, after speaking over two hours,
said: l come now to state the disqualified
ton of Republican counsel, drawing heavily
on their time for argument of the main
question, and exhausting their force on the
question of excluding evidence and cram
ming the jurisdiction of the commission.
The main bearing of Mr.. Evarts argument
is that the State can not be tripped by pro
ceedings here.
Judge Campbell closed at five o'clock
After a short secret session, in which the
commission agreed to vote tomorrow al
four o'clock, it adjourned to ten, when II
will be open session
After fifteen minutes recess the commits
sion remained in consultation until half
past five o'clock, when it adjourned to II
A. NJ, having adopted an order that vote
should be taken on The admissiblity OF th(
evidence protfered at four o'clock in th'
afternoon, The secretary was directed Il
| 80, ooppral fhat rho dppigiOn of the com
mission would be communicated to then
at a quarter past forr. 1t ia understood
: there was no discussion upon the question
before the commission beyond the prelim
mary arguments
On Friday, Immediately after the door
were closed, Mr.. Morton submitted reso
| luton declaring that the votes of the Haye
l and Wheeler electors OF Louisiana shoui'
be counted, and assigned reasons, i've 0
: which are underetOOd to also cover tn
. | cases of Oregon and South Carolina. HI
, | resolution was adopted by vote OF to Z
: Justices Miller and Bradley, and Repre-
sentative Abbott, were then appointed
= committee to draft report tor presentation
O to Congress, and at quarter past 81
took a recess to seven o'clock.
&. The commission, by vote Of s to 7, dc
7 cided that no evidence can be received il
| the Louisiana case, except the electoral ceI
; ti6cates. Numerous propositions wer
made to take various kinds of evidence
s but all were rejected by vote of to Z.
Commissioner Payne moved to ALLOW
q counsel one hours time, but the coupse
D declined and the commission resumed il
Y secret session with view of reaching
l. final decision to night.
Y The following are the resolutions acte
4 upon by the commission:
i Mr. Hoar submitted the following:
Ordered, That the evidence be not II
ceived.
Mr.. Abbott offered the following as
' substitute:
J ReSolced, That evidence be received
6 show that SO much of the act of Louisian
: establishing the Returning Board for ths
q State is unconstitutional, and the acts {
the said Returning Board are void.
a This was rejected by the following vot'
: Yeas-AbbOtt, Bayard, Clifford, Fielt
u HuntQn, Payne, Thurman.
Navs-Bradley, Eimunds. Frelinghu,
d sen, Garfield, Hoar, Miller, Morton, STron
o S.
s Mr.. Abbott offered another substitute,
It follows:
V ResolUed, That evidence will be receive
l. | to show that the Returning Board of LOui
o lana, at the time of canvassiug and col
], piling the vote of that State, at the la
1t election in that State was not constitute
n under the laws establishing it, in this, thi
s il was composed of four persons CT one p
B. litical party, instead of five persons of di
70 terent parties.
g Rejected by the same vote.
4 Mr.. Abbott then offered another subs
l. tute:
'r Resolred, That the commission will 7
& ceive testimony on the subject of the frau,
q alleged in the specification of counsel f
u the ObiectOrs to certificates one and thre
= Rejected by the same vote.
IL Mr.. Abbott then offered a fourth subs
y tute:
rs Resoleed, That testimony tending to shO
that the so-ealled Returning Board of Lo
id islana had no jurisdiction to canvass Z
II votes for electors for President and vi
ID President is admissible,
as Rejected by the same vote.
IL, Mr.. Abbott offered fifth, which was I
It. iected by the same vote, which was as fC
gg lows;
g. Resoletd, That evidence ia admissit
III that the statements and affidavits, purpO
'e ing TO have been made and forwarded to
sd said Returning Board in pursuance of {
~ provisions of section twenty-six of the eli
IN tion law of 1872, alleging riot, tumult,
no timidation and violence at or near oerts
OF polls, and in certain parishes, were fa
~ and fabricated and forged by certain disl
on putable persons, under the direction a
no knowledge of the said Returning Boa
~ knowing the said statements and afiday
70 to be false and forged, and that none
IN such statements and atfidavits were ma
u in the manner or form, or within the til
ll required by law, did knowingly, williu
OF and fraudulently fail and refuse to eanva
OF or compile more than 10, 600 votes cast
is shown by the statements of ths votes
OF the commissioners of election.
ot Mr.. Hunton offered sixth substitute,