The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-12


81 the first two boxes there were any ballots for
congressman counted, or that while counting
me last bax any other ballots than those Tor
when the box was intended were counted.
DANIEL NICHOLSON
sworn-I am one Of the defendants In this case,
and was commissioner OF election at the court
house poll In Shreveport on the fifth Of Novem-
per last, took legal advice IN regard 10 .ne
use OF the three boxes at that poll. In using
three boxes acted with no intention ot innu-
encing the election Of Congressmen.
bs boses 9y yo 6o
Was some time within about ten days q me
election that the use Of three boxes was decided
understood it TO be- my duty to use three boxes.
and took legal advice to be more certain be,
ieve that | consulted Capt Bell tlrst IN regard
to the boxes. got no orders from the Demo-
cratic executive committee, and never attended
any meeting OF the committee. am not posi-
I've at The fh@ az t ESs1 av eeF uP
the election. Mr.. Blanchard went with me to
ECol. Holllngswortb g to get the boxes. don't
Remember whether they were iron bound or
not. NV conversation with Capt. Bell was sim
ply. as now remember 1t, o question and an
swer relative to the legality and propriety Of
missioner Of election, which the sheriff admin
istered to me.
tlon oil ballots cast for members Of Congress
were counted without regard to boxes. / did
not read the election law. but had II read to
me.
sworn. ] was In Shreveport at the last cleo
tion. and acted 8 a commissioner at the court
house poll, and remained there until under
stood from MIR. Fleming that Mr.. Leonard said
we need not stay there. found the three boxes
there when went there | saw no difficulty or
intimidation or means used to preveat voting
am a Republican.
A. II. LEONARD
recalled. As soon as | saw that three boxes
were placed at the court house poll. and also at
the eagine-house poll. L consulted with two or
three Leading Republicans , 70 retire and abstain T
would be Killed. was present when the Re-
publican ticket was prepared. All Of the names
This his closed Tie testimony ii the case. and II
was then submitted 10 the jury.
The arguments OF counsel In submitting the
case were merely recaptulations OF the testi-
mony already adduced. Judge Woods CON
lined the arguments strictly to the facts of the
! case.
In submitting the case for the prosecution
District Attorney Leonard said. after reading
the sections of tho revised statutes upon
which the indictment Is based that with refer
ence to the case he thought thar the govern
ment had established the fact that a general
election was held in the State Of Louisiana,
parish of Caddo. and city Of Shreveport: that
The defendants IN this case acted as commits
sioners or clerks, and that further they claimed
70 manage the election rs they saw fit. and that
by all this clear violation OF the law was es
tabished. There was some evidence TO the Of
feet that the boxes were used with an intent to
limit the authority Of the United States super
yaor. He did not think that there was in This
STATE q lawyer valutng his reputation who
won d give written opinion to the effect that
act NO. 81 was not repealed by act No. 81. and
that act No, % i not now the general. election
law. Mr.. Nicholson. one OF the defendants
tells you that he acted as commissioner with
al imperfect knowledge Of the election law.
Judge Egan, of counsel for defense. followed.
His argument. in substance, was TO the effect
eourt, unnecessarily, He differed widely from
upon this case. The Congress- of the United
States was empowered to legislate upon the
time, manner and places OF elections for its
The jurisdiction OF this court extended only
TO the election of members of Congress. He
differed from the district attorney in regard to
act NO. 81. He Mr.. Egan) believed that act to
be still IN force. and oplned that any prominent
LAWYERS called to pass upon thatquestion would
90 decide.rc&
In his opinion act No So was mainly intended
to repeal act No. 80 Of 1879. better known as the
Returning Board law. Acts No. 81 and No. IS
provided only for the election of state and par
sh officers. and any other, officers. whose cleo
ton was not provided for In these acts. should
be elected according to the manner prescribed
ton was the fret held In this State under the
law OF 1877. and the defendants being new to
their duties took legal advice upon the. points
substantiate the allegations OF the second
count. 1t was necessary to prove that the de-
PENDANTS By their acts attempted or intended to
tnHueDce the election OF congressman: this
could only be matter OF Intention.
Mr. Luzenberg followed for the defense He
have been wiling iii 70 submit hs ess s
but that in justice to defense had desired TO pre-
cent some testimony. He did not believe that
the prosecution would attempt to prove the sec
ond count. as there was no evidenc%which
could bs considered as tending to substantiate
1t. or the defendants. Chase was merely clerk
Of the election and could not be held as party
to the acts committed. and the case was conse-
auently narrowed down TO Fells and Nicholson,
and the former knew nothing of the purpose OF
" or 1Irrh m
only finding them when he reached the poll.
The statement said to have been made by Mich
bTea T sb ag 70 tpH 9 be that 6y sh P
United States supervisor to the congressional
box; Il had not been proven that any one was
evidence pointed to the fact that each end every
voter was allowed to exercise his privilege.
The, evidence addnced IN the case he consid-
cred to be OF such a nature az TO completely
negative every allegation contained In the In
dictment.
Hon. b. +. Jonas. for the defense. said that
there was really 80 little In the case that it
seemed to him absurd that so many of the
counsel should address the Jury upon the mer-
its Of the case. The offenses which the defend
ants were alleged In the indictment to have
committed only came within the jurisdiction oil
the court SO far as they were otfenses against
the Revised Statutes and laws Of the United
States He considered the case to be merely
technical, and thought there was but little In it,
As did the gentlemen who preceded him. he
regarded act No. So az still in force With re-
States, the ,offense could only have been com
mitted by the defendants In regard to the vot-
ing for the congressional candidate. and it was
clearly and conclusively sh wn by the testi-
mony OF the witnesses that no vo ter had been
interfered with or prevented from casting his
ballot according to his choice. IL the defend
ants had sought legal advice In good faith. and
In that way acted upon. they could not be con-
sidered as cupable.
The greater part of the argument was devoted
to an calculation Of the section Of the Revised
Statutes Of the United. States relative to the
election of members of Congress.
MIR. Leonard then closed the case finally. He
reiterated the charge Of violation of the stat
utes by the commissioners. and of their duty as
it was therein expressed. He believed in the
testimony that he had heard In the case, and
from that was OF the opinion that the defend
ants were guilty. and wound no q long appeal
to the jury with the hope that they would SO
1nd them.
JUDGE WOODS CHARGE.
Gentlemen ofithe Jurv-The defendants In this
case are charged In an indictment containing
two counts. TIE first count alleges that at the
general election for members of Congress. held
OF the fifth Of November. 1873 In the Fourth
Congressional District, In this State. Daniel
Nicholson and Samuel Fells were the commits
sioners of said election, and the other defend
ant Thomas b. Chase. was clerk thereof; and