Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1877-07-27
A Statement by the Louisiana Return
ing Board.

A Statement by the Louisiana Return
ing Board.
The members of the Louisiana Return.
ing Board have sent the following letter
to the New York Herald:
NEW ORLEANS, July 10, 1877.
We make this statement of facts In re.
gard to the action Of the court in the pro-
ceedings against the Returning Board.
The criminal proceedings against the
Louisiana Returning Board have created
considerable comment in the newspapers
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 sig
nificance, but which, when carefully
examined in connection with extraneous
circumstances, shows an object and q
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. So in the mean
time it would be impossible for the board
to vindicate themselves by a speedy
trial. The records of the court do not
show that the Grand Jury found or pre-
sented a bill of Indictment against the
Returning Board. 1t appears that on the
10Th of June, 1877, the District-Attorney
presented an information against the
members of the Returning Board, charg-
ing them with uttering and publishing
as true certain altered false paper and
counterfeited public record, the returns
of the parish of Vernon of an election
held for Presidential electors, knowing
the same to be false, altered, forged, and
counterfeited.
Now, the Grand Jury then in exist
ence was not discharged until the last
day of June. Then, why was it the
Grand Jury did not find and present a
bill of indictment in so important case?
Why did the District-Attorney file pre-
sentiment in this case when the Grand
Jury was in session? 1t is we'll under.
stood here that the Grand Jury refused
to find bill of indictment in this case,
and that upon their refusal to do so that
the District-Attorney filed the informa-
ton.
1t is rare fact beyond denial that the
Grand Jury was in session when this in.
formation was filed (June 15), and con-
tinued in session until the last of the
month, aud that they did not present q
bill of indictment against the Returning
Board. Consequently it is fair to con-
clude that they did not find evidence
sufficient to justify it. 1t seems this
matter of the Returning Board was
to ha g
Jury in the charge of the Judge soon
after they were impaneled, so they had
ample time and opportunity to act on
it, but the District-Attorney, without
any examination of the case before any
examining court, or having any-evideRce
taken down of his own accord, filed the
| information in this case.
So it is an error in the press of the
country when they say bill of indict.
ment has been found by Grand Jury
against the Returning Board. 1t is only
an information by the District-Attorney
But another important fact in the his
tory of the affair appears, and it is this:
The information was filed in court on the
18th of June, but it was kept on the Sc
cret files of the court, and capiases did
not issue until about the 9th of July,
when the parties gave bail. Before this
time it was known that the Judge had
obtained from the Governor leave of alb
sence for ninety days, and that he would
adjourn court on the 9th of July for nine
ty days, and that in the meantime moth.
ing could be done with these cases in
court, and the defendants would have tC
rest under the charges until the court con
vened in the fall. There is method anG
design in this. If the District Attorney
had been desirous of having the parties
errO--F Fut'vo- HsNAsvasj ------~l
the 18th of June, as the Judge especially
alluded to the case in his charge to thu
Grand Jury three months ago; and if the
parties had been notified of the informa
tion as soon as it was filed they cOulC
have called for trial, as the court sa
until the 7th of July; but the whole mat
ter was delayed and seemingly purpose
ly, until the court was about to adj jour-
before the parties could have an oppor
tunity to defend themselves.
The charge in the information is of {
false return of the Presidential electors
no allusion to the return being false a:
to any State or local candidate. So il
would appear that the object was to cas-
doubt on the returns of the Presidential
electors. The whole charge in the in
formation is predicated on the changes
said to have been made in the Supervis
ors' consolidated statement of the vote OF
Vernon Parish.
j. MADISON WELLS,
THOMAS j. ANDERSON,
G. CAsANAvE,
LOUIS KENNER