The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1878-06-06
THAT INyEsTIGATIoN.

THAT INVESTIGATION.
The Potter investigation has com.
meneed by the examination Of their
principal witness, James Il. Anderson,
Of Louisiana, who was in 1876 super
visor Of the Parish Of East Feliciana.
That parish, il will be REMEMBERED, ia
largely composed Of colored people
AID 10 previous elections had given
from one to two thousand republican
majority. In 1876 the usual number
Of democratic votes were returned and
only very small number Of republican
votes. Anderson signed and swore TO
a protest against the vote being count.
ed on the ground that no fair election
had been held on account of BULLDOG.
ing and intimidation. This, under the
state law, gave the returning board
power TO examine into the facts and ii
decided to reject the votes OF this
parish, Again in January, 1877, An.
derson testified before the Senate com.
mittee that there was intimidation in
that parish and that even his own life
bad been in danger and described one
attempt at assassination. Now this
same Anderson testi6es that the cleo
ton was perfectly free and fair in that
parish, that be signed the protest
through fear or hope of reward extend.
ed by visiting republicans and that the
democratic vote should have been al
lowed and Tildsn elected.
II is needless TO say that such eyi.
dence as this would be held entirely
worthless by an impartial jury in a
court Of law A man who under oath
fatty contradcts himself is not worthy
Of belief under any circumstances. The
returning board at that election in its
examination of the facts found very
strong evidence Of intimidation, on
which it threw out the vote, and not on
the statement or protest Of Anderson.
Anderson further states that he was
promised reward by John Sherman,
now Secretary OF the Treasury, and by
Stanley Mathews, now Senator, but
that he has been ignored and neglected
and consequently has determined 10
make clean breast of it. This is an
additional reason why he should not be
believed II he would swear 10 a lie
for the hope Of reward once what rea'
sons exist why he would not swear to a
lie for the hope OF a reward now, or il
not for the hope Of reward. at least on
the receipt OF a reward Having been
taught by his former experience he
would probably insist on receiving
cash in hand" this time. Look at him
in whatever light we may the spectacle
is not pleasant one. He is like toe
many men thrown to the surface 10 Z
disturbed state Of politics, who arc
ready 10 yield 10 temptation and the
less any party or individual has to DC
with such a man the better for them.
Although the unsupported testimony
Of Anderson is worthless be claims e
have abe copy Of letter from Secreta
Try Sherman and documents" from
Matthews offering him positions under
the government Whether these letters
are genuine or not is not yet certain
II they are there is nothing IN then
that necessarily duplicates those off
ciak 10 any dishonorable practices
Sherman's pretended letter is dated ter
days alter the count was made in Lou
isiana, at which time Anderson claimed
that be dare not 60 back 10 his parish
Tor fear Of his life aud that he had NJ
means Of living. and il is fact tha
Weber, who vas one Of bis associates
and who went back to the parish. wa
soon after assAs' mated. There i
aothiag IA the evidence thus far 4
show that. II their was fraud in III
election retarns. Hayes bad the remot
est connection with them. or that th'
electoral vote Of Louisiana, according
10 the laws Of that state. ought not I
be given to Hayes. Ii is evident ths
20 investigation can be satisiActor'
and carry any weight with il that doe
nol 20 10 the bottom Of the matter sni
fnd cut whether there was intinidA
tion in that and other states. Th
etlienoe on that point would be con
tiicsing and Il would Be almost impos