The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-22
MOORE vs.. GAGE.
T1Oy CASE or TINE ElGH'TH
DISTRICT.
Gage and His Counsel Withdraw irosn the
Committee Room.

cage and His Counsel Withdraw iro,n the
COMMITTEES Room.
The Senate Committee ON Elections met last
night Present Senators Zacharie chairman,
Allan, Dumont, Garland, Grover, Texada,
O'Donnell and White and absent, Mr.. Bryant.
The chairman stated that the case Of Moore
VS.. Cage was taken up according 10 previous
agreement.
It was agreed that the plaintiff should open
aud close the argument after the evidence
had been submitted
The secretary read the petition Of Isaiah ID.
Moore, the contestant, setting forth that the
sitting member Cage was not legally elected,
and also read the notice of contest In which
the points were raised Of intimidation, fraud,
illegal voting, noncompliance with law In the
location Of boxes, etc
Mr.. Jonas, counsel for plaintiff. offered OK
parte aftidavits taken after due notice had
been given
John Ray, ESQ, counsel for defendant, OBJ
jected, AS 1t was not In accordance with exist
ing laws governing contested elections, and
urged that the committee had been reorgar-
lied since 1877; consequently 1T was ques-
ton now for the committee to decide whether
the testimony was admissible or not. He
claimed that his client could not, In 1877, APP
pear and for those reasons that the case was
now for the first time set for trial
The chairman announced that 1t was in the
| recollection of members of the committee that
| the evidence had been fled
Mr.. Jonas argued that the evidence had been
| filed in 1877. after due notice. and that II Mr..
Cage was not there it was his own fault.
The chairman requested that the room he
| cleared that the points raised might be con-
sidered
| The doors were opened again in half an
hour when the chairman announced that the
committee had decided to receive rs part Of
| the record fled the eS parte affidatits alluded
to, reserving the right as to the effect OF such
affidavits.
Mr.. A. r. Knobloch, Of counsel for plaintiff,
presented and read other at1davits and tes-
timony taken at Thibodaux on January and
certified 30 as taken under commission and
with the customary notice attached.
| Mr.. Ray objected 10 the introduction Of the
| evidence. stating that no testimony was taken
as authorized by the commission, claiming
| that they were mere documents certified toby
| n commissioner but did not deny but that the
documents alone could be received by the
committees. He claimed, too. That Y raised The
point that Mr.. Cage was ineligible on the
ground that he had not settled In full his
school fund accounts with the State. which
point had not been raised before and could not
| be raised now and quoted article "a of the con-
| stitution I'm support of his argument. Again
he quoted section 1881 of Rays Revised
Statutes. which provides that the contestant
| must state on what grounds he contests the
election upon, and no other grounds could be
| admitted.
Counsel urged that under that law the com.
| mittee could not properly take cogniaanoe OF
| this point.
| Mr. Jonas claimed that the evidence was
taken In conformity with the law and in the
/ presence of the defendant. who did not object
| to any part Of 1t, hence II was admissible.
| The documents. he claimed, showed that ut
| the time of Mr.. Cages election he was Gus
| todian of public funds; that he had not settled
| with the State, and that his bond was not can.
celed.
| In the original petition and notice 81 contest.
he claimed. Mr.. Moore gave him notice OF the
| points raised by the counsel on the other side
and that having as n custodian OF public
funds Of the parish Of Lafourcha and having
not settled. the votes cast for Mr.. Cage tbet
Mr., RAY read The notice of contest served
upon Mr., Cage and argued that. the, point 81
neigibility was not mentioned In the notice
consequently it could not be raised now ex
cept BY resolution of the Senate. and that this
! documents could be received only by the com
, mittee.
On motion the room was cleared again foi
| consultation
J When the doors were opened the chairman
announced that the committee had concluded
that the documents would be admitted II
form rem ipsdm reserving any objection al
to the merits Of the papers.
Mr. Texada moved that argument Of coun
sci be limited to one hour on each side
Carried.
: Mr.. Ray objected to the decision OF the com
. mittee. and said that under the instruction
OF his client he would have nothing futthe
to do with the case.
Mr.. Gage then, with Mr.. Ray, Withdrew
. from the ROOM but not until the counsel 10
, plaintiff had volunteered TO give Mr. Gag
two days time to produce rebutting evidence
, Mr. Robertson. Of counsel for plaintiff. the
: began his argument, quoting os the principa
. point In his argument the following amend
: ment (adopted) to the constitution.
FART. =. No person, who at any time ma
have been collector of taxes, whether STATE
. parish or municipal, or who may have beel
: otherwise intrl1sted with public moneys, sha
t be eligible to the General Assembly, or to an,
+, Office Of profit or trust under the State gov
! eminent, until he shall have obtained dis
, charge for the amount II such collections an
7 for ali public moneys with which he may hay
: be en- intrusted.'
9 The argument was continued for nearly nj
9 hour when the committee adjourned.
ID