Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1877-02-21

substitute:
ResolUed, That evidence be receiv-
ed to show that 80 much of the act of
Louisiana establishing the returning
board for that state is unconstitution-
al, and that the acts Of said returning
board are void.
This was rejected by the following
vote:
Yeas-Abbott, Bayard, Clifford,
Field, Hunton, Payne and Thurman
-. Ndys-Bradley, Edmunds, FIRE.
linghuysen, Garfield, Hoar, Miller,
Morton and Strong-S.
Mr.. Abbott offered another substi-
tute, as follows:
Resolced, That evidence will be re-
ceived to show that the returning
board of Louisiana at the time of
canvassing and compiling the vote OF
that state, at the last election in that
state, was not legally constituted UNI
der the law establishing it, in this
that it was composed of four persons
of one political party instead of five
persons of different parties. Reject
ed by the same vote.
Mr.. Abbott then offered another
substitute.
ResolUed, That the commission will
receive testimony on the subject of
frauds alleged in the specifications OF
counsel for the directors to certifi-
Gates one and three. Rejected
by the same vote.
Mr.. Abbott then offered fourth
substitute.
Rcsolved, That testimony tending
to show the so-called returning board
Of Louisiana had no jurisdiction to
| canvass the votes for electors fol
president and vice president is ad.
missible. Rejected by the same vote
Mr.. Abbott offered o fifth, which
was rejected by the same vote, which
was as follows:
ResolUed, That evidence is admis
sable that the statements and affida.
Wits purporting to have been made
and forwarded to said returning
board in pursuance of the provisions
of section twenty-six of the election
law Of 1872, alleging riot, tumult, in.
timidation and violence at or near
certain polls, and in certain parishes
were false and fabricated and forged
by certain disreputable persons, un.
der the direction and knowledge OF
said returning board; that said re.
turning board, knowing said state.
ments and affidavits to be false and
forged, and that none of such state.
ments and affidavits were made in
the manner or form, or within the
time required by law, did knowingly
wilfnlly and fraudulently fail and
refuse to canvass or compile more
than ten thousand votes cast, as i!
shown by the commissioners Of cleo
ton.
Hunton offered sixth substitute
as follows:
RESOLVED, That evidence be received
to prove that the votes cast and given
at said election on the 7th of Novem.
Der last, as shown by the returns
made by the commissioners of cleo
ton for said polls and voting places
in said state, have never been com
piled nor canvassed, and that said
returning board never even pretend.
ed to compile or canvass the returns
by said commissioners of election, blu
that said returning board only pre-
tended to canvass the returns mad,
by the state supervisors of registra
ton. Rejected by the same vote.
A seventh substitute was offered by
Bayard, as follows:
RESOLVED, That no person holdins
an Office Of trust or profit under thu
United States is eligible to be ap
pointed an elector, and that this com
mission will receive evidence tendins
to prove said ineligibility, as Offered
by counsel for the DIRECTORS to certifi
Gates Nos. l and 3. Rejected by tn,
same vote.
Justice Field offered the fourth ant
last substitute, as follows:
Resolved, That in the opinion O
this commission evidence is admissa
BILE upon the several matters which
counsel for the DIRECTORS 10 certificate
Nos. l and 3 offered to prove. Thil
was also rejected by the same vote
and the question of the original or
der submitted by Hoar came up, viz
that the evidence offered be not re
ceived.
Payne moved to strike out thu
word "not." Rejected by the SAM
vote.
A vote on the original order wa
then taken, and il was adopted by tn,
following vote:
Yeas-Bradley, Edmunds, Freling
huysen, Garfield, Hoar, Miller, Nor
ton and Strong-S. Nays-Abbott
Bayard, Clifford, Field, Hunton
Payne and Thurman-7.
| After this conclusion had beer
reached by the commission, counse
were admitted, and the abo' e resolu
tons were read by the secretary.
As soon as the final vote had beer
taken, Justice Field moved that tn,
injunction of secrecy be removed
Adopted unanimously.
HOar inquired of the chair whether
any of the time to which counsel wer,
entitled under the order of the com
mission remained, or whether it hat
been exhausted?
The court reported that the time fol
DIRECTORS to certificates Nos. and
was exhausted, but on the part of tn,
DIRECTORS to certificates No. 2, he be.
lieved ten minutes remained but thu
time had been substantially exhaust
ed.
Payne moved that one hour be Civ.
en- each side for the respective counse
to sum up the case.
Garfield said that the order had
been already made that each side
should have four and q half hours
and that that time should be used al
they chose on the introductory qucs
ton. lie considered he ought te
stand on that order and should vote
against the motion. Counsel them.
selves had not yet asked it.
Judge Clifford inquired if they
were satisfied to rest their case.
Evarts said they were satisfied with
the case as it stood.
Justice Clifford asked if the oppos.
ing counsel also agreed to it, and
Judge Campbell said they had moth.
ing to add, under the circumstances
Commissioner Abbott under
stand you, Judge Campbell, to say
that the commission having ruled out
all the evidence you offered, you have
nothing to urge?
Judge Campbell-Yes, sir.
Justice Clifford said the motion
was then Withdrawn.
Morton moved that three members
of the commission be appointed to
prepare q report in the Louisiana
case, and that q recess of one hour be
taken.
Strong said that the question that
had been passed upon was the qucs-
ton of the admissability of evidence,
and he thought they now ought to
go into the merits Of the case.
Then, on motion of Commissioner
Hoar, the commission, at 80, went
into secret session for consultation.
Commissioner Payne moved that
one hour be allowed each side in
which to make arguments before the
commission.
Commissioner Garfield opposed
this.
Morton said unless counsel desired
it he should vote against the propO--
sition. He would not inyite counsel
to argue the question further.
Eyarts said his side had argued the