The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-15
WELLS TALE.
THAT WHICH HE TOLD ny TELEGRA PIE
TO THE NEW YORK HERALD.

He Attempts to Roar Like Lion, but
tt sounds Like some thlng Else.
On yesterday morning the DEMOCRAT stated
Exclusively that J. Madison Wells had
EXPLAINED HIS IDEAS
of the ''nformations" filed against the Return
ing Board in a telegram Of some length to the
New York Herald. AS it was signed only by
Wells, IL of course may not. or it may, express
the views Of the other members Of the board.
The telegram alluded to is as follows:
New ORLEANS, July 10, 1877.
Editor OF the New York Herald
Sri make this statement OF facts, in regard
to the action OF the court in proceeding against
the Returning Board. The criminal proceedings
against
THE LOUISIANA RETURNING BOARD
have created considerable comment in the news
papers throughout the country.
1t is stated the members Of the Returning
Board have been indicted by the Grand Jury in
New Orleans for perjury and forgery. There is
an error in this statement which at first blush
might seem to be OF no significance, but which
when carefully examined in connection with ex-
traneous circumstances, shows an object
AND STUDIED DESIGN
in the law officers OF the State, to present THE
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. 30 in the meantime it would be i'm
possible for the beard to vindcate 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,
Il appears that on the 10Th Of June, 1877, the
District Attorney presented an information
against the members of the Returning Board,
charging them with "uttering aud publishing as
true, certain altered false paper and
ooUNTERFEITED PUBLIC RECORD,
the returns Of the parish of Vernon, OF an cleo
ton held for presidential electors, knowing the
same to be false. altered, forged and counter
fete1. Now, the Grand Jury. then In existence
was not discharged until the first day of June;
then why was it the Grand Jury did not find and
present bill OF Indictment in 80 important q
case2 Why did the District Attorney file pre-
sentiment in this case when the Grand Jury was
in session. II Ia well understood here that The
Grand Jury refused to find bill Of indictment in
this case, and that upon their refusal to do 30,
that the District Attorney fled the information.
was in session when this information was filed,
June 49, and continued In session until the last OF
the month, and that
THEY DID NOT PRESENT A BILL
OF Indictment against the Returning Board. CON-
sequently it is fair to conclude they did not find
evidence sufficient to justify.
II 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
impsneled, go they had ample time and oppor.
tuhity to act upon it, But the District Attorney.
without any examination OF the case before any
down, OF his own accord filed the information ip
this case. So 1t is an error in the press of the
country when they say bill Of indictment has
been found BY grand jury against the Return
ing Board. It is only an information by
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
Bnt another important fact in the progress of
The affair appears, and it is this: The informs-
was kept on the secret files of the court, and
,apiases did not issue until about the 9Th day of
July, when the parties gave bail. Before this |
lime It was known that the judge had obtained |
lays and that he would adjourn court on the 7th |
If July for ninety days, and that In the meantime
nothing could be done with these cases in court,
Ind the defendants would have to rest under the |
,harges until court convened IN the fall.
There Is
METHOD AND DESIGN IN THIS.
II the District Attorney had been DESTROYS Of |
having the parties brought to q speedy trial, he
new az well the facts three months ago as he
lid on the 10Th Of June, IS the judge specially
Illuded to the case in his charge to the Grand
Jury three months ago; and If the parties had
'een notified OF the information ss soon as 1t was
lied, they could have called for trial. ss the court
at until the 7th Of July. But the whole matter
7as delayed, and seemingly, purposely, until the
curt was about TO adjourn, before the parties
ould have an opportunity to defend themselves. |.
he charge in the information lie OF return OF
he Presidential Electors, and makes no allusion
0 the return being false as to any state or local
sndidate. SO it would appear that the object
'as to cast
DOUBTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.
The whole charge in the information is predi-
ated on the changes said to have been made in
he supervisors consolidated statement of the |
otes OF Vernon parish.
ey,ir NJ