The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-07-12

left the assembly Republican in both branches
and still left two Hayes electors in the minor
ity.
Butler-Thereupou the Board proceeded to
give the screw another twist?
Witness-That is not my testimony.
Q-HOW much in the returns as returned by
the board did the lowest Hayes elector run be-
hind Packard2
nor of 401 while two Republican electors, Hsv-
isse and Joseph, were in q minority.
The committee at lao took recess until 2.
p. m.
After recess the examination of witnesses
was continued.
out any alteration or revision or the throwing
out of any parishes, who appeared elected,
Tiden or Hayes electors?
A-The Tiden electors had majority be-
lieve on the face of the returns of votes as cast
in the different parishes originally and so did
Nichols.
By the Chairman-I suppose it was perfectly
notorious after election what the face of the re-
turns showed, throughout the state?
Ayes sir. In about ten days after the
election.
Butler-Did you telegraph to Florida any
statement as to how the state had gone at any
time before the 9th of December?
telegraphed two or three times perhaps
that it had gone favorable.
Q-From what source did you obtain the in-
formation?
A-From my knowledge of the result of the
election as indicated by returns from different
parishes and the notorious fact that in certain
parishes there was degree of terrorism that
believed would show the absence of fair cleo
ton and justify the Returning board in throw.
ing out the vote. My opinion was 10 relation
to the general result only. | teegraphed to
friends in Florida to that effect and also to
Mr.. Chandler Of the National Republican Com
mittee.
,.Q-Did you get any information direct or in
direct from the Returning Board as to how the
returns footed up as they thought.
A-No sir l cannot say did. All the infor-
nation had was that accessible to the visiting
committee and others. The Returning Board
In all cases where the parish was not disputed
electors and SO many for the Tilden electors,
but where there were charges of Irregularities
those parishes would be set aside for further
action.
(Which were the disputed parishes that
were laid aside?
Al think they were II in number where
there was more or less intimidation claimed.
Q-Now laying aside those that were qQes-
toned, how did the polls stand in those parish
es that were unquestioned?
A-T0 the best of my knowledge and belief
think the returns from the unquestioned par
ishes would give majority to the Republican
ticket throughout. In IL of the parishes where
there was more or less intimidation, and in five
of which, namely,-East and West Feliciana,
Ouachita, MorehOuse and East Baton Rouge
the Republicans were thoroughly terrorized,
the colored registration was 1926 and the
white registration 20360, showing a colored
majority OF registered voters of 5000. The vote
in these IL parishes as cast on the face of the
returns which there was no dispute about, was
1890 Republicans only and 81 123 Democrats.
That is,. these IL parishes with colored ma
j0rity of nearly 1000 gave Dem ocratic MAORI
ty of 10, 153. That is the basis of the intimda-
ton. In the 40 parishes where we all agreed
there was no intimidation and the election was
fair and peaceable, the colored registration in
1876, which was about the same as the previous
year, was 1899 and the white registration
72,034, showing a coored majority of Is $685.
These 40 parishes returned the following vote j:
Republicans $4,000, Democrats SO, 1892, giving a
Republican majority of 5000 and upwards.
These are the undoubted statistics complied by
me from official papers.
Kellogg having stated that the registration
of 1876 was that of 1874 corrected aud amended
was asked what intimidation had to do with
altering the registration in 1876. and answered,
ST do not think it had SO much to do with
altering the registration. 1t probably had not
much to do with that except that the new
colored men would not come forward aud
register
Q-It would only then affect the accretons
in the parish and those thrown out on account
of death and removal?
Q-The bulldozers never affected the regis
tration then?
A-No sir, of course not,
Witness was next questioned about the
organization of the Nichols government al d
the scenes which followed in New Orleans,
and then related at length the events con-
nected with the selling by force of the court
buildings and breaking up of the court and
subsequent appointment of judges by Governor
Nichols as their successors.
O-Aftar Pack ard. n al fhrootapod IN opna,l
to the Supreme court to determine the legality
of his election did not President Hayes destroy
the quorum Of the court by appointing Mr..
King collector?
and his taking the oath of office did destroy
the court on the ground that the taking of one
office is a virtual and legal surrender of the
other:
Q-Then what Nichols did by force Presi-
dent Hayes confirmed by appointing him
collector. Was he the same Mr.. King who
after he had been in office a little while and
the court was destroyed had his name with
drawn, and his name not acted on by the
Senate?
Ale is the same man.
Q-And Mr.. T. 81. Morgan who was one of
tne JUDGES VINO held over, was appointed by the
resident to be judge of an International court
in Africa? Was he not translated into that
position?
Al believe he was appointed to such a po-
sition.
Q-Just about that time, was it not?
Alt was about May of last year, think.
Q.Ihen when Morgan and King had been
appointed Packard had not much chance with
the Nichols judges had he?
Al don't think he had.
Q-I want to ask you in all solemnity this
Do you believe from your knowledge of what
took place that there was any other reason for
appointing Mr.. King collector than to get him
out OF that court 80 that Packard would not
have his rights tried by legal court?
Hiscock objected to the question and Butler
argued its pertinency and that he had right
to ask the witness if he does not believe the
reason OF the appointment of Mr.. King was
substantially for the purpose Of breaking up
that court
Hiscock thought it was hardly competent for
any one to swear as to what Influenced the
PRESIDENT IN making an appointment or what
operated on the mind of Gov. Nichols in his
action in the matter.
By Butler-I will ask you then if you know
on whose recommendation Mr.. King was an.
pointed?
Al think he was appointed on the recon-
of Thomas g. Anderson, and rec
commended him also. That the President did
or did not appoint Mr.. King with reference to
his connection with this course 1 cannot of
course say, but know that Mr.. King was an
old resident and above all he was an old line
Q-Did Boulds Baker recommend him?
(Laughter.)
Al should not be surprised if such was the
case.
Q-Do you know who recommended Judge
Morgan to the position he obtained?
Al think he was appointed by Mr. Evarts
upon his own motion.
Q-Was not the question mooted about Gov.
Packard's appealing to the Supreme Court be-
fore the court was broken up?
Al think the matter had been discussed
by himself and friends before that.
Q-Do you remember whether Kings name
was withdrawn about the time Boulds Baker
returned from Texas Qaughter?)
Al DO not. His name was never sent in.
There was an extra session of the Senate after
wards and Lawrence's name was sent in for
collector. 1t was said King declined at the last
moment in order to relieve the President of ali
but not L think until it was I'm.
ierstood that be would not be reappoiuted.
The committee at 435 adjourned until Friday
morning.
Potter's Reply to Sherman.
The following letter explains itself:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE,
INV IN. 1879