New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-02-24


turning Board are judicial in their nature;
that they can not, under the constitution OF
Louisiana, be conferred, and hence this law
goes by the board for that reason. Let me,
IN the first place, give you reference in
the case of the State VS.. Hufty Eleventh
annual report, which was decided in 1885,
quote that in order to get you away back
of these unhealthy influences that are al.
legged to have pervaded this case since the
rebellion. In all these cases which give
you the question of the validity of this law
giving power to the Returning Board is in
Volved, although, perhaps, in no one
OF them, certainly not in all of
expressly made. But it was involved, and
in each one of these cases it was decided
that it is a valid law, and that the quasi
judicial powers that are conferred upon the
Returning Board are entirely competent to
be conferred by the constitution of Louis.
iana Counsel also referred to CoOley's
Constitutional Limitations (p. 623) in verifi
cation of what he had claimed, holding
that, according to this authority, in every
one of these cases there were special statu-
tory tribunals, and, in most of them, they
were not the courts. / come now to the
real question in this case, and really the
only question there is, and that one is de-
cided Dy what you have just decided in the
case of Florida, and that is, whether or not
it is competent for you to go behind the ae
ton of the Returning Board of Louisiana
for the purpose of finding out what hap
pened in its exercise of the jurisdiction be-
slowed by statute. l will not restate what
has been decided in Florida. want
to say that any intimation that when we
deny the power of going behind the finding
OF the board we are thereby covering up
frauds or seeking to escape something, is, 1
submit, unutterably unjust. It has not
even the semblance of fairness in it, Why3
was surprised with my friend StoughtOn at
the loud denunciatiOn in which our friend
on the other side INDUCED yesterday. l
/ say the language was not worthy of my
friend. II is not surely worthy of this tri-
bunal. Why do l cay thatY First of all,
because it is beginning the whole question
to say that you have right to try the
| questions of fact that disclose this
fraud in this tribunal. II is an insult
| to your intelligence to say that because as
mere counters and mere ministerial officers,
because you can not go into frauds that,
therefore, it is an attempt to cover up
| fraud. Why look at it a moment in another
/ light This first argument of the gentle
men contains in itself true felo de Sc
| How loud-mOuthed was their declaration
when they were talking about frauds in the
Returning Boards What was that fraud
1t was fraud committed by them being
| mere ministerial officers fraud committed
in usurping jurisdiction and going behind
the returns from the precincts and counties
and undertaking to throw out votes in vio-
| lRtion of law. There was case where
fraud could not be inquired into according
to your law. Stand up to it now and take
it's consequence. 1t is right, and it is right
Just because OF what you put into your re-
| port in 1872, to wit: that the two houses
combined have not the powers of a quo
igarrGHtO court. You can not go behind the
| returns therefore. You can not talk to me
| about our position being one designed either
by logic, law, or merit to shut out frauds. II
ill-becOmes our friend to talk to us about
this being an attempt to put q man into the
presidency of the United States by fraud
Then, in another case we find these gentle
men coming and saying, ooh! Mr.. Kellogg
is the Governor of Louisiana, and therefore
he is no electOr; and then the next moment
you have them coming forward and say
ing, "Ohl he is TO officer at all; he is not the
Governor of Louisiana, but MCEnery u.s.
To such strange positions gentlemen mos
eminent are driven, in this frantic endeavo
to trample down or to escape from the ia
miliar requirements of law.
Mr.. Abbott would like to ask a ques
ton, What do you make of the provision
that any person interested in the OppOsi
ton by reason of being a candidate, shall
be allowed a hearing on making applica
ton within the time allowed for Forwarding
the returns of said election? Can the essen
tial right of persons interested in an Offic
to be heard before the Returning Board b.
pre- served if you regard this-if you regar
this as merely directory and essential
Mr.. Shellsbarger-I answer that, first b.
saying that this suggestion, addressed t
the consideration of evidence, that it is
useful provision beyond all doubt. 1t is
proper provision to be obeyed, but, it bein
mere question or suggestion, going to tn
convenience, it is not of essence. Becaus
: this is a political process: because it is
step in government as distinguished from
trial of private rights of citizens in courts
b because it is that, therefore, in every sue
= | case you will find the law directory. Loo
at the reason of the thing. Is it pOssibl
: that you are going to hold with that san
violence that rendered it impossible
vote, and at the same time rendered it in
possible for officers safely to make the
affidavits in their returns that they can nj
do at another time3 Beware before yC
come to such conclusion. If you do
Q you will have to do it in the face of the LAY
8 now conclude this argument by an all
/ sion to what has been the weight and bu
y den on the other side. 1t is in regard
!, this alleged outrage in the State of Louii
. ana. Why, gentlemen, can you shut 20
ewes to what is now, if not the saddest, Ct
u tainly one of the saddest chapters in Anne
j. can histOry2 By actual count through Il
/ aid of General Sheridan, it is now set dov
IA as a part of your history that in til
Is blighted and blasted State of LOuisia
four thousand and odd citizens have be
murdered-murdered by plan, murdered
= system, by organization; murdered Tor {
70 purpose of putting down the right of t
10 black man to vote, and that thing has be
70 going on and on through these dark a
30 terrible years. 1t was my misfortune, e
e tlemen, to go once myself in 1866, to d
ne State, sent by the Congress OF the Unit
o. States, and / took the testimony of hi
g. dreds of men, and when l was taking il
"a literally sat with my feet in pools of
70 man blood, shed in putting out the II
e, government of the State of Louisiana, a
oy they did put it Out-oh, right well and
OF fectually. Gentlemen of America, J
us have written IN the last fifteen year
ne grand history for your country in
50 general aspects. John Bright, OF e
On land, once said to me: "Sir, l hs
. been part of the British government u
49, for thirty years. In that time we have G
as Quoted great affairs. We have extend
,re the right of Englshmen to vote; we hi
ne abolished the rotten borough system;
50 have emaneipated the Jews; we have
as waited our colonies; we have extended
OF right of the children to be educated" {
OF SO he went on in grand catalogue,
ey; concluded by saying: "Sir, nOtwithsta
he, ing what l have said about my cOuntr,
to say to you that you have dwarfed,"
I'M he brought his hand down on the table Y
hat startling emphasis, "yOu have dwarfed
that we have done in the life of the Bri
ion nation by what you have enacted in
'ct- last ten years of your life. You have ga
ma the life of the last, the one republic Of
the earth, and you have put out of your col
tuition, and thereby ultimately out OF
its earth, the chattelzatiOn of the hui
the soul" Was 1t not grand tributef
es- me say to You now, If this career OF y