New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-02-15
MR.. TRUMBULES ADDRESS.
OFFERS OF DEMOCRATIC PROOF.

Mr.. TrumbuIl followed with address in
behalf Of the Democrats He first offered proof. He
said he would prove that william p. Kellogg, VINO eerti-
fed as the Governor Of the State of Louisiana The a
rontmcnt OF the electors, was the same William T. kel-
logg who by said certificate was certified TO have peen
appointed an e'ector
Justice Clifford inquired if be proposed to state all his
offers OF proof at once.
He replied in the negative, but said be wanted TO call
two Witnesses.
Evarts objected on TIC ground OF lts lntunissl-
biHty.
Mr. Trumbull claimed his right TO be heard on the
question.
Commissioner Strong stated that if counsel would offer
in writing all that he proposed TO prove 1t would spy
very much the labor of the Commission
Mr. Trumbull inquired the argument upon the intro
dnc ion Of testimony would lie limited to 10 minutes.
Commissioner strong replied that the Commission
would quite willing to hear all that was proposed 10
be offered whole.
Mr. Trumbull assentcd TO Commissioner stronGs view
of the case and certified his readiness to offer the whole
testimony with the understanding that II cOuld
be offered a whole or in part
Mr. Evarts then said:
The only proposition Of evidence that has been made to
the Commission prove that Mr.. Kellogg, who alr
pear in the certificate opened by the President of the
S,nae TO Governor and who appears also TO be elec
mssion Of any evidence relating the certificates that
opened by the President OF 'he senate as MAJ
Gates tend that they were nor me same person o.
the suggestion OF Judge Strong to make AL yo oels al
VI BS S' Mr.. Trrmbu-At the same time ard in part
The Presiding Justice then directed MI TrumDull to
proceed. he did so, as follows:
We Offer to prove said Mr.. Trumbu that Kellogg WAS
not duly appointed one Of the electors IN the Sale III
176 and that the certificate il untrue IN fact To snow
The offer to prove by certified copies OF the i!s' mae
out signed ana W'rn 70 ~ rT e in the said sttc
and delivered by said commissioners 10 TIC Cr OF INC
nietirt Cont Wherein sad polls est.b shed, eN-
Parish of Orleans ana IN Ilat parish I!iN are
delivered to the Secretary Of the State tAt tc Sld
49, for each and every Of lie Mcncri electors.
That form testimony involves the mcnts 10 some eX
Your donors win remember that by the law Of Louisi
the elections Of are ec HTS hey TO
judges of election in most states. In,ie
IT, Governor appoints the supervisors FOR each PAX
sh and each of these supervisors appoints al the com
nisoneTa Of election and TIE commissioners OF e'e
desie1ated a many places OF holding elections as they
please ana fix the points where the ecc'io are 10 nc
mrnt You may that Il places the entire inii-
chery of election in the hands Of TIC Governor and n
IL in evidence here at these supervisors were all OF one
party The commissioners OF election are REQUIRED w
TIRE law to be Of different pSres pnI .e 2yovrs Tat
this canvassing board for the STATE which uhd we law
tes is required 70 canvass the returns of the commits
fioners OF election. They take an os'n tnaf az
vntsSs made by the commissioners OF election.
These commissioners required by Law TO maze out
pos These 20 TO the supervisor OF registration 0i thc
parish from winch he makes up e9ns0a rerS f
the state offer in this instance Is to prove 10y
a. nv The commissioners of election that TIE majority
given 10 what u denOmDated as the Ilineh eettOlS
Tare X IT pardon me il very briefly state my
Of what this tribunal Is, and what It's dutles are -,
youa question The action is said TO be IN the canvass
ing board The action OF that board and the results al
which they arrive, not before us, think
Mr. Truinbull-we propose 10 present them before you
. tEat is one Of our propositlcns :, l., M, h,ro ne
tfgsou -
Hr TrurnbuI-PerhaPs will he better understood ana
the Commission will better understand the state o. inc
ease II anticipate little what we propose 10 that re-
gard 10 connection with the certified copies 81 sad s
We Offer proof that the Returning Board which pre-
tended 10 canvass the said election under the act OF No
Yember 1872 did not receive from poll voting place, OF
parish in said state have before them any slateeh
iy any supervisor registration commissioner Of
election Ia any form as required by SAID act
FRAUDULENT CANVASS.
We further Offer TO show. thirdly that In many in
stances the Supervisors of Registration OF the several
parishes wfully aud frauducDtly omitted from their
col sodated statement all mention OF the votes gwen at
certain polls votng2laces within their respective
parishes shown TO them by tie returns and papers
OF the Returning Board 10 said Supervisors by the Com
misioners OF Election. and required by law and that
sal supervisors OF Registration did, as by law required
ret lrn sad Returning Board, with Their consolidated
statement he llss, paiers ana rtsrs rreds ~ Wy tei
the several polls and yOtngpaces omitted as Aforesaid
from said consolidated statement OF said Supervisors
and that said Returning Board gilfuy and frauduent
neglected aud refused TO make any canvass OF LIE major
IL omitted, estimate tneni ~ I'D
retended determination that the said Kellogg duly
elected an electOT the election Aforesaid.
Fourth We offer 10 show that by the returns OF SAID
Returning Board and that by the result OF the Vong IL
supeared that Keogg received 3,453 Iese votes for
eiector than the other ticket
F.nh We further offer 20 show that the Returning
Roard and counted votes IN favor of Kellogg
12A votes which were shown " have been gwen ut
any DOLL OF voting place In the state either BY the conso
dted statement by the lists tally sheets or returns
s,yh We offer prove thai the votes cast, as shown
IN The returns, have never been complied
Nor eId that the Returning Board never even
Setended 20 compile the returns made, but