The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1877-02-14

uOn OF my rights, ana the committee nave no
power to force me to answer questions Whilst
am under the sentence ofthe house.
Mr, FIsld-1ou rejected 100 votes and up
ward. Were they rejected for any cause other
than alleged intimidation?
Witness-I decline to answer.
Mr.. Field-Did you not know that the rejec-
ton of 100 votes was part of conspiracy to
give the electoral vote to party not entitled
to it?
Al leave that for yourself to answer.
Odd you take part in any such con-
spiracy? Ifs
A.-Does that conclude your question?
Sh r answer the question or not
conduct on the part of a witness should be
tolerated in the committee.
The Chairman-The question is whether the
committee shall require the witness to an
swer.
Mr.. Tucker-The sentence of reprobation
should be put on the witness for not answer
Witness-Then am vassal-
The Chalrman-Keep order, sir
Mr.. Seelye remarked that IL was unani-
mously decided this morning, so far as the
authority of the committee went, that the
witness should answer the questions.
MesSrs. Lawrence and Burchard concurred
with Mr. Seelye.
Mr.Field Ctothe chairman)-Is 1t not a case of
contempt and misdemeanor under the laws of
the District of Columbia for witness to re-
fuse TO answer questions propouhded by
Mr.. Field-The witness is contumacious in
the highest degree. Mr.. Field then exhibited
to the witness statement showing the num-
Der of votes rejecIed In several parishes at
tested by Mr.. Abel, secretary of the returning
board. Objection was made to the paper.
The question being taken the objection was
overruled by strict party vote. The state
ment showed that the board rejected l,763
Kellogg and 1920 McEnery electoral votes.
also attested to by Abel. showing that the SUI
pervisors of registration returned 1871 Kel-
logg and 81, 5l5 McEnery electoral votes. Also
a certificate of the returning board certifying
election Kellogg electors.
that they received 1915 votes, and that the
McEnery electors received 0,50s votes.
Mr.. Lawrence asked the witness whether
the return from Vernon parish, as compared
with the tabulated statement, was different
from the original returns, and was it done
with his knowledge or appreciation.
The witness replied ii was not, nor had he
any knowledge ii was done with the approba-
ton OF any other member of the board, and
he also denied the truth of Littlefeld's state
ment that he directed the returns to be altered
so as to elect Hunter and Andrews judge and
district attorney. They were his personal
Mr.. Field Intercepted the witness about the
paper the former had exhibited, but the wit
ness declined TO answer. O. n
Q.-Because you are under duress are you
unwilling to tell the truth?
Witness-I am never Unwilling to tell the
truth.
. Q.-Then why do you not answer?
Witness-When the contempt is removed
will. Not till then.
Q.-You were asked just now whether you
threw out the votes for the reasons which
were founded on the evidence satisfactory TO
yourself. VIII you answer?
A.-That embraces the whole question, and
therefore decline,
OWN you answer?
Al tell you decline.
Are you not willing to testify whether
your board threw out 10000 and odd votes hon.
estly or dishonesty?
Al am willing when relieved from the
contempt of the house.
Q.-Are you willing TO do sc. now?
Al can not answer the question until re-
heved from such contempt.
R.-Are you now willing to answer the
question whether in throwing out 10000 and
odd votes your board acted honestly or dis
honestly?
Ave acted in conformity with the law.
Q.-In throwing out votes?
Ave threw them out for fraud, intimida-
tion and violence at the polls.
Q.-Were any thrown out because of irregu-
larities?
Al think Grant parish was excluded.
Q.-Any except that?
Al think not.
Q.-Was there single objection TO the votes
on ground they were not actually cast?
Q.-Then they must have been thrown out
on the ground of intimidation?
Amen were forced to vote contrary to
Q.-Had you any witnesses. before your
board to prove that any particular voters were
induced to vote contrary to their wishes?
Alt was impossible 10 have oral testi-
mony. The board adopted rule that testi-
mony should be taken by both parties.
Q--Dlu the VOTERS themselves testify Inal
they voted under compulsion? Was such evil
dence furnished you?
Al think so.
OWN you say that the proof was furnish
ed you that 100 different voters had voted Un-
der cOmpulsiOn contrary to their judgment?
Al do not know how many. think there
was evidence of the fact. There may have
been 100 or 5OO-or more-who said they We're
forced to vote contrary TO their wishes.
On further examination witness said no
votes were rejected except in consequence of
intimidation.
Among other things Mr.. Field called the at
tention of the witness to the fact that IL APP
peared that in the parish of Concordia, Josephs,
one of the republican electors, received $50
votes, while the certificate of the returning
board credited him with 2,53S votes.
The witness replied IL was in evidence that a
troop of horsemen seized the ballot-box from
the commissioners of the election, who made
up the returns from their count and sent them
in.
Mr. Field asked the witness whether he did
not say before the Morrison committee that
this happened in Madison.
Witness replied yes; ana something of the
kind in ConcordIa. .
Mr.. Field called the attention of the witness
to the fact that while the board, by throwing
out 10000 votes. cast for Tilden electors, gave
the electoral vote for Hayes. The witness
omitted to account for their act of thus giving
the latter 5000 or 1000 majority.
In response to questions by Mr.. Lawrence the
ticket only such votes as ii was entitled 70 re-
ceive; that they took no votes from the DEM
ocrats contrary to law
The committee then adjourned.