The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-05-22
The Fraud.


The House of Representatives of the
.. s. Congress have at last opened the
ball, in the Florida investigation, in
the matter of the grand Fraud, and be.
low will be found the first steps taken
therein I
Mr.. Potter, of New York, rose to a
question of privilege, and presented
preamble and resolution based upon
the resolutions. of the Legislature of
the State of Maryland, in relation to
the presidential title, The preamble
recites that the State of Maryland,
through her Legislature, has declared
that due effect has not been given to
the electoral vote of that State by rea-
son of fraudulent votes cast in Florida
and Louisiana; that the affidavit of L..
ID. McLin, lately published, showed
gross frauds in the State of Florida
and there were fraudulent returns in
that State, and E. F. Noyes, now Uni
ted States Minister to France was
party to said alleged fraudulent re-
turns. 1t recites further, that frauds
were perpetrated in East Feliciana and
other Parishes of Louisiana; that the
statement of j. H. Anderson and E. L.
Webber showed that frauds were per
petrated there. 1t also alleges false
md fraudulent acts on the part of the
Louisiana Returning Board, and as
serts that John Sherman, now Secre-
tary of the Treasury, had a knowledge
of said frauds.
With a view ascertaining the truth
or falsity Of said allegations it is re-
solved that select committee of ele.
ven members he appointed by the
Speaker to inquire into the aforesaid
allegations of false and fraudulent re-
turns of the votes in Louisiana and
Florida, together with all the facts
connected Herewith; that said COM
mittee shall have power to send for
persons and papers; to detail snb.com-
mittees to visit the States of Louisiana
and Florida, and authorizing said sub
committees to administer oaths; that
said committee be authorized to sit
during the sessions of the House or du-
ring the vacation, and that they have
leave to report at any time.
Mr.. Conger, of Michigan, made the
point of order tibet this was not a ques.
ton OF privilege. It bore nothing on
its face that showed it was question
of privilege. Besides, it changes the
rules of the House, and gives unusual
privileges to subcommittee of the
House, such as the laws do not war
rant. Itempowers the subcommittee
to administer 0aths, and that was q
violation of the rules.
i Mr.. Potter said if ever there was
question of privilege presented THU
was certainly one. A sovereign STATE
comes here with the declaration tina
due effect was not given to her electo
raj votes by reason of frauds ant
fraudulent returns, and they ask tina
the matter may be investigated. ]
this was not question of privilege
then nothing could be such. A sub
iect of this magnitude was certainly
; question of privilege.
Mr.. Hale said questions of privileg
! were treated of directly by the rules
and they were enumerated, and thi
did not involve a question of privileg
j under the rules. If this was q ques
ton of privilege at all it must com
under one of the heads enumerated il
the rules. 1t was not q question Q
privilege; it was merely an expression
, of opinion. He would await wit
, some solicitude the decision of til
Chair. If this resolution means tina
> an investigation is to be gone into a
to the title of the President, and look
81 : q
. ing to impeachment, then it must be
question of privilege; but as a mer
expression of opinion it is not such
3 Mr.. Garfield, of Ohio, said the gen
' tleman put in the claim of priyileg
r because of the fact that his resolution
f was based on memorial of sovereig
|, State. Memorials of q Legislature di