Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1878-07-25
LOUISIANA.
ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC
CASE EXPL0LED.
The MOdus Operandi Of Protests
and AfIidaVits-The Law Clear
Iy Explained
Special Correspondence of the Gin. Gaz.

New ORLEANS, July s.
There will be an effort undoubtedly to
make good deal of capital out of the closing
testimony of the week just past, as had be-
fore the subcommittee at the hands of United
States Circuit Court Clerk Wolfley, a synopsis
of which appeared in your dispatches of Sat
urday mornings issue. Mr.. Woltiey officiated
as government Supervisor of Elections, and as
such, acting in concert, of course, with the
State authorities, exercised a general super
vision over the election and count for Elec-
tors and members OF Congress. Mr.. Wolfley
appeared in court with a large bundle of orig
inal protests and affidavits, supposed as those
acted upon by the Returning Board.
The old stereotyped claim was set up at
once that the papers are pertaining to State
elections belonged of right in the keeping of
the Secretary of State. Woltiey, strangely
enough, did not seem to know as to whether
as Supervisor he had any rights in the prem
ises or not. His package of papers, mostly
originals, was incomplete. He had loaned
many of them for the purpose of being copied.
He did not know whether or not they had
been used by the Returning Board. They
had not all been returned.
The point number one, as here sought by
the Democrats, and of the fact of which they
express much surprise, is that the papers as
used by the Returning Board were not all
originals; that in fact, the affidavts in partic-
ular, used in support Of the protests, were
generally copies. This point sedulously
sought after is the particular point, and the
only one in fact, as sought in the testimony Of
Judge Harris. 1t will be shown a little
further on as, in effect, no point at all.
An examination of the papers brought out
another of the seeming objective points of the
committee. The protests were generally of
different date from the accompanying afida-
Wits. The names of the witnesses, as appear
ing in the affidagits, were found interlined in
the face of the protest.
The interlineation was found not infre-
quently, to be in a different hand and ink
from that Of the document. The protest of
Weber, of Feliciana, for instance, was thus
particularly scanned. The document appear
ed as duly certified of date of November Is,
1876. The affidavits, as attached thereto,
and constituting, of course, the basis Of proof.
were found as varying in date, from Novem-
the parties appearing in the affidavits appear
ed again in the protest as interlined upon its
face. The interlneation was unquestonably
in different hand from the paper itself, as it
was also in different ink. The point here
made by the Democrats of the committee,
and which is evidently to be insisted upon, is
that the interlineation forms no part of the
original protest; that the protest in no wise
covers the af1idavits; that the affidavits are
thus barred as proof; that the protest, as such,
is consequently valueless.
The names, as interlined and appearing up
on the aflidavits, are understood rs included
in the witnesses of Secretary Sherman.
. The explanation in the matter of the vary
ing dates, as also in that of the interlineation,
is simple enough. 1t will none the less, in all
probability, be absent in the showings of the
committee. The protest, to begin with, in
point of law, forms a feature of itself. 1t is
the filing of the original papers or notice in
court. The affidavits come in as the succeed
ing papers in support of the case. The pro-
test thus calls for and enforces hearing. The
affidavits are to Se on hand when the hearing
comes on. The protest, for instance, in this
particular case-that of Weber, of Feliciana-
was an Immediate necessity. The witnesses
in support of the charges were not on the
moment to be procured. The affidavits were
made out as soon and as fast as the witnesses
could be made available. They were filed as
made with the protest, of which they thus
became part. The affidavits complete, the
names of the witnesses were iIterlned upon
the face of the protest. The interlineation,
of necessity, perhaps, is IN different hand
and ink from that of the protest, as originally
fled
The protest is thus complete for hearing
by the board. That is the whole of the case
in nutshell, of which the Democrats are dis
posed to make so much ado. There is one
point just here, too, and it covers the whole
of the case on the Republican side. The Re-
turning Board was, in effect, court. tex
ercised as such its full judicial powers. 1t
was, moreover, for the particular purposes for
which it was created, court of final juris-
diction.