The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-10-14
THE AEKLEN INVESTIGATION.


To the Editor of the Democrat:
| have been for many years q resident and
voter in tho congressional district now repro
eented by Mr.. Acklen. and I ieel a deep interest
in tho political and personal character of the
representative of The district In Congress. VIII
you allow mo. through your columns. to ask
invest igation, two reports Of which are pub
lished in your issue of the thirteenth instant
[ wish to know which Of these two commissions b,
was first asked to investigate? Was i not the
| comm ission composed Of Messrs. VoOrhies
Penn. Keuner, etc BY their publication, these
b9f@9 o h95 nd bands on to Mr.
Aclllen their opinion. advising him to with
draw from the canvass, on the third or fourth
dates by deductine the tive days claimed by Mr.,
Ackon to- produce additional testimony from
the date Of the second decision. which was the
Now were Messrs. Hahn Smith Dibble. etc,
| requested by Mr. Acklen to examin ne the affda-
wits after Mr.. Acken received the opinion or
Democratic committee, which decision fully
condemned bis conduct by asking him to with
draw from the cnnvass? Was not Mr.; Acklen
convinced that no whitewashing could be ex-
pected from the Democratic commi ttee. and that
it would be necessary to look elsewhere for
Whitewashing
Was It not then that Mr., Acklen thought of the
| expedient Of forming what he terms Repub-
licau committee. to secure bleaching process
ut their bands? It WIS known and spoken of
by the newspapers that Messrs. Voorhies, Penn.
Kenner. etc were Investigating this seduction
matter at Mr., AckGen's request. Did Mr.. Acklen
Il Democrat. was not satisfied with, or was fear .
ful Of the result of the investigation by his po-
litical end personal friends. and that he had
wise and improve the opinion Of the Demo-
cratic committed? Had Mr.. ,Acklen so informed
these Democrats, as he calls them. that he had
invited q Republican committee to supervise
their decision. would not the Democrats have
Immediately closed the investigation and turn
cd their bucks on Mr.. Acklen? What are the
rft ip,f thniv
decisions? Had not the Democratic committee
every ossb!e motive to excupato Mr.. Acklen?
He is their candidate and two Of this committee
are members. Of tho state Democratic Central
Committee. Is it not to be supposed that al
their. promptngs would be- to exculpate their
candidate2 Most nesuredy.
Must not the evidence against Mr.. Acklen
have been very strong, when the committee,
composed Of six influential Democrats. one of
trai Committee. we're constrained by that evi-
dence to condemn their own candidate? Now
what was the motive Of tho Republican com
mittee to 50 fully exculpate Mr.. Acklen? Was
, it to keep Mr.. Acklen In the. field, with these
| damaging allegations against him. SO us insure
an easy victory to the combined votes Of the Re-
understanding between Mr.: Acken and these
Federal office -holdars-Smith, Hahn Morris
Marks and Jack, ,Wharton-as to. Mr.. Acklon's
| future course in Congress. which justiies these
| Federal office holders in protecting Mr.. Ack-
| lens reputation =?
Mr.. Acklen says he did not wish this investi-
|
wished 1t decided solely as q social question.
| Are Dibble, Morris Marks and A. J. Sypher 50
| eminently pure in their social positions as to
| be fit Judges of this matter as q social question?
| Has not Mr.. Acklen frequently asserted that his
political combinations are SO perfectly made in
all the parishes In his district as to insure his
election Is this, excuIDation by the Louisi-
! ana Federal office holders Of Mr. Acklen the re-
suit OF these, combinations. or Is the exculpa-
ton one of the factors in the combination? !
| have no doubt the public would be much en-.
| lightened by Il truthful answer to these uues
tions. One or two more questions, and [ am
| done.
Was the same evidence presented to both
| committees: and If SO. how could such different
conclusions be arrived at by the two commit
tees? Was not the certificate Of exculpatior
signed by the Federal of1iceholder first signeC
| by Smith and Hahn alOne and showed to sev
| eral persons, and day or more afterwards
| signed by the others2 Was there any meeting
and comparing of evidence by the so-caleG
Republican committee? This was done by the
| So called Democratic committee. I now call or
| both these committees to give the reasons o.
| their different conclusions-both cannot be
| right Which is the conclusion based on the
| evidence andthe facts2 Gentlemen, the public
calls on both committees for the facts and the
| public will then Judge for itself. I ask the Dem
ocratic Central State Committee to act In this
| matter. PUBLICUS.