The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-30

siiered aa such, and to attempt to support
which proof was introduced, are confined to
poll No y iii said tenth ward.
II said poll were thrown ont altogetherfI
have received b majority Of the votes cast In
aaid ward No legal On competent proof has
been produced to show that any fraud was
committed during the counting OF said bal
lots, as alleged.
The entire difficulty seems to have arisen
from the fact that after the first count Of the
1873 votes at said poll there was d recount Ut
said ballot, which resulted III q change or diff
ference CT about eighteen or twenty votes
There is no proof before this committee to
show whether the error occurred In the first OF
second count Ut the said 12s votes. There were
three commissioners OF election at this poll,
TO wilt: Mesars. Sickfort. Mahar and Nixon,
the deputy sheriff; Mr.. O'Brien, and son "
the commissioner, Maher, acted as clerk. n Of
one of these five persons have been able to e.
tabish what oecasoned tho difference In
the two counts.
A citizen of the name Of Mahoney, repre-
senting the interests Of the contestants, was
admitted into the polling booth To witness the
counting of the ballots. there was no ocEa-
sion for this act on the part Of contestants
or their representatives. as Pill parties or op-
posing interests were already represented by
the i've persons already named. Had not the
said Mahoney obtained admission Into the
room, as above stated, neither King nor any
other citizen would have been admitted Into
said room. and then It IL believed that no
dispute Ut difference would have taken place.
All the commissioners have sworn to the
correctness Of and signed the official returns,
without objection 81 protest; except one
Sekfort, they are estopped from denying their
correctness. Sickfort represented the con-
testants, supported their ticket and voted for
them. In his testimony he WIS unable to ex-
plain what occasioned the difference In the
two counts. He was unable to testify to any
fraud having been committed. We there
fore, disregard the charge Of fraud, there be-
Ing no proof whatever 10 sustain said Charge
Full effect must consequently be given to
The official returns CT the sworn officers Of
election. No force or effect can be attached to
tho parte aifidavits which contestants OBJ
Ialned. They must be disregarded.
The doctrine governing this matter Ia cor
reetly laid down In Ramsey vs.. Galloway, Is
A. AGA.
The Supreme Court of the State In that pro-
eeeding correctly held: tThe evidence does
not show an error to have been made by the
In their official returns Of the
votes polled In the ward In question. But II
ioes not appear whether the mistake had
,een committed on the first any more than
be given both official returns OF the
Wa consider that under the fact and the law
hat the sitting members. Messrs. James Me- |
Jonnell and John Phelps, are entitled TO their |
seats In this Convention. having received a I
majority of the votes cast ut said election, |
md accordingly report III their favor. consid- |
ring that they are Justly and legally elected I
delegates to this Convention and as such en-
titled to retain their seats.
j. q. WHITE,
HENRY IHIAPELLA, /
CHAS. BYKNE,
II. q. WARMOTH,
r. Il. STAMPS