The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1877-07-18
The Louisiana Retaining Board.
A Statement from Its Me smbers.

A New Orleans dispatch to the New York
Herald says; President Wells of the board
and General Anderson, on being requested to
furnish their views to the Herald, declined to
make statement, but drew up the follow.
ing letter, which was subsequently signed also
by Kenner and Cazanave, and which is given
as their official reply:
New ORLEANS, July u, 1877.
L make this statement of facts in regard to
the action of the court in the proceeding
against the returning board. The criminal
proceedings, against the Louisiana retarn-
comment in the newspapers through
out the country. 1t is stated
the members of the returning board have been
indicted by the grand jory in New Orleans for
perjury and forgery. There is an error in this
statement which at first blush might seem to
be no significance, but which, when carefully
examined in connection with extraneous cir
cumstances, shows an object and studied
design in the law officers of the state to present
this case to the country at the particular time
when the court had or wss about to adjourn
and the case could not be tried until the court
convened lin the fall. So in the meantime it
would be impossible for the board to vindicate
themselves BY speedy trial. The records of
the court do not show. that the grand Jury
found or presented a bill of indictment against
the returning board. 1t appears that on the
10Th of June, 1877, the district attorney pre-
sented an information against the members
of the returning board, charging them With
'uttering and publishing as true a certain
altered, false paper and counterfeited. public
record, the returns of the parish of Vernon of
an election hold for presidential electors,
knowing the same to be false, altered, forged
and counterfeited.
Now, the grand jury then In existence was
discharged until the last day in June. Then
why was it the grand jury did not find and pre-
sent bill OF indictment in SO important q case?
Why did the district attorney file q present.
ment In this case when the grand jury was in
session? lt is well understood here that the
grand jury refused to file bill of indictment in
this case, and that upon their refusal to do so
the district attorney filed the information.
1t is fact beyond denial that the grand Jury
was in session when this information was filed
(June 15) and continued in session until the
last OF the month, and that they did not pre-
sent bill of indictment against the returning
board. Consequently it is fair to conclude that
they did not find evidence sufficient to justify
1t. 1t seems this matter of the returning BOARD
was brought to the attention of the grand jury
In the charge of the judge soon after they were
impaneled, so they had ample time and oppor-
funity to act on it, bat the district attorney,
without any examination of the evidence taken
down, OF his own accord filed the evidence in
this case.
So it is an error in the press of the country
when they say bill of indictment has been
found by grand jury against the returning
board. 1t is only an Information by the dis
trict attorney.
But another important fact in the progress of
the affair appears, and it is this. The informA-
tion was filed in court on the 18th Of JUNE, but
it was kept on the secret files of the court, and
capiases did not issue until about the 9th day
OF July, wheDsthe parties gave bail. Before
this time it was known that the judge had OBJ
tanned from the government leave of absence
for ninety days, and that he would adjourn
court on the 9TH of July for ninety days, and
that in the meantime nothing could be done
with these cases in court, and the defendants
would have to rest under the charges until the
court convened in the fall. There is method
and design in this. If the district attorney
had been desirous of having the parties brought
to speedy trial he knew as well the facts three
months ago as he did on the 10Th of June, as
the judge especially alluded to the case in his
charge 10 the grand jury three months ago; and
IL the parties had been notified Of the inform
alton as soon as it was filed they could have
called for trial, as the court sat until the 7th
OF July; but the whole matter was delayed
and seemingly purposely, until the court was
about to adjourn before the parties could have
an opportunity to defend themselves.
The charge in the information is of false
return OF the Presidential electors and makes
no allnsion to the return being false as to any
statement or local candidate So it would APP
pear that the object was to cast doubt on the
returns for Presidential electors. The whole
charge in the information is predicated on the
changes said to have been made in the super
vlsors consolidated statement of the votes of
Vernon parish.
J. MADISON WELLS,
THOMAS j. ANDERSON.
G. CAZANAvE,
LOUIS M. KENNER