The New York herald., 1877-02-07
they rejected for any cause other than alleged

/, Tho witness--f decline TO answer
Q Did you not know the rejection OF IL, 900 votes
10 the party not entitled TO ~ A. leave nat tor
yourself 10 answer.
@ pd you take part 10 any such conspiracy 4
Does that conclude your question:
| Thc chairman-oh, answer the question not.
Mr. ruckcr-we VIII take the vote TO II such
conduct Oh the part Of the witness should be tolerated
| In the committee
! The chairnan--rhe question is whether tho COM
Mr. rucxer-rhc sentence 0, reprobation should be
put on the witness for not answering
Witness-Then am d vnssaL
| The Chairmap--keep order, str
Mr Seelyo remarked it was unanimously decided
this morning SO far as the authority Of the committee
Nessrs- Lawrence and Burchard concurred With Pro-
iessor Seciyc
tempt and msdemcanor under the laws Of the District
OF Columbia tor witness refuse 70 answer cues.
lions propounded oy committec'
The Chairman--ltis
The witness-You cannos deter me-
| The Chairman-You WI. be accom- modated.
witaess-l am wiling 10 be accommodated
| Mr. Fieid-rhe witness is contumacous in tho high
est degree
rHs vorxs RRJEcTEn
Mr. Field then exhibited TO wtnesa Q statement
showing the number or rejected In the several
parishes atested by Charles s. Abel the secretary Of
! the Returning Board
| Objection was made 10 the paper
Question being TAX en- the objection was overruled by
! party vote The statement showed that the
! Board rejected l,76a Kellogg and l0,2so AcEnery
Another paper was exhibited TO the witness, also
atested by Mr. Abe. showing that the Supervisors Of
Registration returned 76.7l' Kellogg and So 5l5 McEn
electoral also ihe certificate OF the Return
/ ing Board certifying 70 the election OF the Kellogg
sectors and that they received i35 votes aud that
The McEnery electors received 70, sos votes
! LIrrLEfiELDs
| hr Lawrence asked the witness whether II the
return from Vernon parish, as carried INTO the tabu
lated statement different from the original return
| II was done win his knowledge or approoationg
knowledge ~ was done with the approsaslon Of sny
other member OF the Board, and he also denied the
truth OF Ltleheld statement thai he directed returns
TO be altered as TO elect Hunter and Andrews Judge
and District Attorney. they were hts personal. but
! not political friends
| Mr. Field .nlcrrogated the witness the papers
the former had exhibited, out witness declined to
answer.
Q Because you arc under duress are you unwilling
witness-I am never unwilling 10 tell the truth
| Q Then why do you not answer
| Witpess-When the contempt removed Will
! answer, but not Till then.
Q. You we're asked just now whether you throw out
votes tor which founded evidence
isactory TO yourself; Will you answery A. That en-
braces tho whole question ana therefore decline
Q. VIII you answerY A. tell you decline.
| q. Are you not willing to testify whether your
! Board threw TO- 900 odd votes honestly or dshon-
estiy A. am willing when relieved from contempt
| @ Are you willing do nowS A. cannot
answer the question until relieved OF such contempt
| @ Are you now willing tn answer the question whe
ther throwing TO- 900 and odd your Board
acted honestly or dishonestyg A. W. acted in con-
| O. In throwing out votes A. We threw them out
! for fraud intimidation and violence at the polls
/ Q. We're any thrown out because OF irreguarty
| A. think Grant parish was excluded.
| O. Any except thatS A. ] think not
q Was there single objection to the votes on the
ground that they were not actually cast? A. None.
Q. Then they must have been thrown out tho
ground ofintimdations A. Many were forced to vote
q. Had you any witnesses before your Board TO
prove that any particular voters induced TO vote
contrary 10 their WISHES? A. II was Impossible TO
have oral testimony. The Board adopted rule that
testimony should DO taken by both parties
q. Did the voters themselves testify that they voted
under compuislong Was such evidence furnished 10
A. think
Q. will you say that proof was presented to you
that 100 different voters had voted, under compuson,
contrary 10 their judgment? A. do not know how
many; think there was evidence OF tho fact; thero
may be 100 500 or more who said they forced
To vote contrary to their wishes.
In iurther examination witness said votes
rejected except IN consequence OF intimidation, and.
among other things Mr. Field called Tho attention OF
the witness 10 the fact that II appeared that in the
parish OF Concorda Josephs, one Of the republican
electors, received 800 votes who IN the certificate
oil the Returning Board he credited with 2 53S
votos to which witness replied that it evidence
the Commissioners OF Election, who made up the e.
turns from their count and sent them in.
Mr.. field asked witness whether he did not say be-
fore the Morrison committee that this happened in
Madison
Witness replied-Yes; and there was something of
the kind In C0ncorda also.
Mr. Field called the attention OF The witncss TO the
fact that while The Board, by throwing out TO- 900
Tiiden electors gave the electoral
Hayes the witness omitted TO account their act In
thus giving the latter 5, 600 or 4, 900 majority
In response to questions by Ar. Lawrence the wit
ness said Board gave Hayes ticket only such
entitled to receive; that thoy took
votes from the democrats contrary to law.
The committee adjourned until Tomorrow
THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE LOUISIANA
suB-coMMTTEg-EyFoRT TO BREAK DowN
LrTTLEFIELD-- OF TIE CLERKS OF
THE RETURNING BOARD
WASHINGTON, Feb 9. 1877.
The House Louisiana sub committee met to-day Mt
eleven O'clock and began the Investigation by the exam
nation of Charles s. bcIl who testified that he had
sided New Orleans 1871 the secretary the
late Louisiana Returning Board; knew LittcGeld; re-
commended him among four clerk for the Board ;
recommended him a. his t.t,leholds) request there
were objections the par, OF the Board TO his ap.
pointment, which dispeed at witness solicta.
ton.
Senator Mcdonald objected TO the questions on the
ground that they could not call witness to break
down the previous testimony OF one Of their
nesses both having been called by the party.
After some discussion 1t decided proceed with
the examination
Witness continued:-From the parish OF Vernon
there were no returns received from the commits
soners; never knew OF any paper from there except
the con sodated statement the Supervisor; dincd
with the Board on sunday, tho Sd OF December ali
turned to the office OF the Board; Ltlencld his
erasures the rst lntimation lad OF any loss
from the Vernon paper was from l.tleneld;
after the House committee arrived Llticfied
told witness that he had destroyed the Yer
papers when the request made
them he said iha, no had ordered HIM TO destroy
the papers, Lttiehcd promised to make the returns
good, which he did; the return from Vernon parish
opened in the presence OF the Board and the
mittee from the Worth, and examined and a;terward
published; did not see i'd atcrward, until he
met HIM here; the transfer OF polls ana OF Vernon
parish would have effect upon The election OF any
candidate
CROss-ExAMixED.
In answer to Senator McDouaid--DId not know Lit
tletelu until last summer; saw him nearly every day ;
In the Legislature when first went 10 LOUISIANA
from the parish OF rosscrc; took his seat January
ISL held the Oncc tor two years. held tue olice OF
Superinte ndeut OF Education at the time; /;
aftcrward went New Orleans; nrst
Inspector the Custom House; received hs appoint
the Collector, Colonel Casey; held the Office
for year; had two or three hours work whenever
IN. which happened once In two or three