Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1877-07-25
LOUISIANA.
A Protest from the Members OF the
Returning Board Against Some "MiS-
representations

Returning Board Against Some ''MiS-
representations
The members of the Louisiana re-
turning board have sent the following
letter to the New York HeuM,
New ORLEANS, July Is, 1S77.-Wc
make this statement of facts III regard
to the action of the court in the pro-
cecdings against the returning board.
The criminal proceedings against the
Louisiana returning board have created
considerable comment in the newspa-
pcrs throughout the country. 1t is
stated that the members of the returning
board have been indicted 10y the grand
jury in New Orleans for perjury and
forgery. There Is an error in this state
mcnt which ut first blush might seem
TO be of no significance, but which,
when carefully examined III connection
with CNtrancOuS circumstances, shows
an object and II studied design in the
law offices of the State to present this
case to the country at the particular
time when the court had or was about
to adjourn, and the case could not be
tried until the court convened in the
fall. 50 in the meantime it would be
impossible for the board to vindiCatc
themselves by speedy trial. The
records of the court do not show that
the grand jury found or presented II
bill of indictment against the returning
board. 1t appears that ON the 18th of
June, 1877, the District Attorney pre-
scented an information against the mem
hers of the returning board, charging
them with uttering and publishing rs
true Il certain altered false paper and
counterfcited public record, the returns
of the parish Of Vernon of the election
held for Presidential electors, knowing
the same to be false, altered, forged, and
countcrfetcd.
Now, the grand jury then in existence
was not discharged until the last day OF
June. Then, why was it the grand Jury
did not find and present Il bill of in
dlcmCnt in SO important case? Why
lid the District Attorney file present
ment in this case when the grand jury
WAS in session? 1t is we'll understood
here that the grand jury refused to find
Il bid of Indictment III tins case, and
that upon their refusal to do SO the
District Attorney filed the informa-
ton
1t is a fact beyond denial that the
grand jury was III session when this in
formation was filed (June 15.) and con-
tinued in session until the last Of the
month, and that they did not present =
bill of indictment against the returning
board. Consequently it Is fair to CON
cludc that they did not find evidence
sufficient To justify it, 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 impaneIcd 50 they had
ample time and opportunity to act on
it, but the District Attorney, without
any examination of the case before amy
examining court, or having any cyi-
dcncc taken down of his own accord,
filed the information in this case,
So il is an error IN the pres, of the
country when they say a bill OF mdict-
ment has been found 10y grand jury
against the returning board Ii is only
an information 10y the District At
tomey.
But another important fact in the
history Of the affair appears, and it is
/ this The information was filed in
court ON the 10th of June, but it was
/ kept ON the secret files of the court, and
I emphasizes did not issue until about the