The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-21

nd al tnaaitted he had received money lfpui
mad au ani was for that reason suppo'1aan III
Hlve..' 9Th This man also boasted tnat ne mao
Hlse.. 1an fraudulent ballots Iof
voted "a a. ,pas seen bv one witness to vote
Rlrel .,anlent papers for Rivet Mt poll No. 2
len rasu,har shown that al poll No. the oil
N - 1,ii ..iiaatinn who were Riyets appointees
tefs oI t Z, aiow witnesses, friends Ut Angus
Bfdseui y nreaent at the counting of the votes
HI " II II Il, direct violation ot the election law
geetohh a J taking II from the voters hant
every Y pa nnrpnse. While this Ii not direct
lDr wv. ii the law il certainly VI yes an op
fi0lapai',ts far examination of the ballot and
pofsa.l,.'inp another, which Is very suggestive
sipsssa,,s,ujant intent, when coupled with ths
o. lL y esa;tabtt1H II Ii ahere referred tn.
Il dlipee all this IL appears. First, that Mr.
From llt,, a,d pledged to abide by the primar,
ts ssia, pledge he exacted from the Others
eec y, h. felt secure of being nominated him
WIZ wv THAT he pretended to support the regu'
WI ~ ;tlaket np to Saturday night prior to tht
WITHIN n. I'm and by that means obtained the ap
II etg,salfopnt of his friends and supporters ut
Il N aaanoils and the form and style III the regu
n man1th|ckpt, and that he then broke his faith
n WI ran Iii opposition
n While we do not think this Convention
II .Aould take part IN party strife we 90 thinl
s;sstlt should signify its ahhorrence Of decep
| VA and fraud. Where a person is shown tt
IVA acted In bad faith and to have broken
u sisire offered by himself and In his own In
4 Er@k and to have covertly placafded t y,
j sprthrow of the regular candidate Whlle III
a ~ falsely pretending to support him, your
Il rmmIttee cannot bring themselves TO recon-.
sand that person as Il trustworthy me,hoei
This Convention. With party realty we
Ssyp nothing at present TO ~; but we &c 10.
III equally absolved from the obligation to
gs.Intan the principles Of good faith and
4 tsssytt fn honorable pledges,
Emitting everything charged by the con-
aatanf MI Aug,lstin's record ls clear and
ssssIsmnpachable, while the changes On the
E s5a1p sheats. the missing ballots from the box
M was robbed, and the checks IN the poll
ssfa placed opposite the names OF twenty
4, garsuns who had not voted, are all sus.
ssiHle of explanation, under the authority
Viii, MeCrary, paragraph 1876.
Wishpd. TO refuse this explanation and 10
..a,lne that these things We're committed
I'm fraudulent intent, without the oath OF
M angle witness, would he a violation of all
VnIaa II evidence that would be shocking in
Il Nv mai nartisan court, and certainly not be-
ssnInr the members Of this Convention.
INIT ht when In addition to returns we have
III noaitIyn oaths of all Of the officers of elee-
I'M Ii that poll that no fraud was commit
| WI and that the changes were made w cor
ss} errors, your committee are unable To
VI. N how they would hp warranted In aSsum-
asand that these five (5) officers OF election
M onInmitted both fraud and perjury
Faunv is not committed without cause or
hierpet RI was clearly not the interest OF
lf' Angustin's friends to mob poll one. 1t
+ neouajlv clear that 1t was the interest of Mr.
gyetis faction to throw out that poll, or re-
1n, the VOTE as he had known majority at
fNother polls when the row commenced.
q Mare therefore forced to conclude that the
q Aaufhanee at poll one, and the consequent
n hpuularities must be presumed to have been
Emmittpd In the interest Of the party 70 10
huphtted by them, and that party was Mr..
4 RWt. lSee McGrary, par 1922
4 TNlr committee have andeavOred to give a
Z hirs and full hearing to both parties To this
AMIest, and while there are certainly grave
4 rasons To suspect fraud has been committed.
q nh not IN any case absolutely and conclu-
aulv shown on either side. The only recon-
nmdaiion your committee could make, If we
Ind come TO the conclusion contended fer by
ia omtestant. would be that the Governor
Zhnqaested 10 call new election. Ia refer
las e. the deduction of ballots, as proposed
, b. mntestant. Mr.. MeCrary, the authority
HM which he specifically relies, says tpar. $500
al Ina legislative body having power to or
aHa new election, and In any other tribunal
having the same power, it will doubtless
rnsnlly be regarded a. safer and more CON
hadYe TO the ends of justice to order such
MEelection than to reach result by the APP
8{ NICAti0n Oh the rule above stated"
We conclude, therefore. that the contestant
knM shown conclusively any fraud which
lMA warrant our setting aside the official
kMine, and as a new election at this time
y tald not be advisable, we recommend that
kNntestant's application be dismissed and
tat Mr. Augustin be confirmed.
RESPECTFULLY submitted,
CHAS. BYRNE.
I. b. STAMPS.
4 HALL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
New Orleans. May i. 1879. !
N he Honorable President and Members
d the Constitutional Convention Of the
waite OF Louisiana.
gailemH The undersigned, Of your Com
A nas On Contested Elections, beg leave To
hfRt ID the case Of III. j. Rivet vs.J. N.
\ Agretn,
1he contestant, Mr.. Rivet, was candidate
q aaDemoeratie primary election for sena-
eM delegate and was defeated by large
nadadty, and that he afterwards presented
y name at an election as candidate for rep
Tentative delegate.
That while 1t is held that the above facts are
Irrelevant TO the matter at issue, still the un-
9nlened cannot hut connect them with other
noe elected, that Mr.. Rivet having acquired
much influence In the ranks OF the Democratic
i MHg was thus enabled to suggest the names
number Of the commissioners that were
Z enolnhd at some Of the polls Of his ward.
hal thaeEidence shows that Mr.. Rivet took
alfcmlnsat and active part III his own behalf,
pIler y and On the day VI the election; that
smoaeothef allegations. that Of one Of the wit
nss 81 Nr, Bouligny, is To the effect that
d 4. II. aisef was by him seen to give what he
y sut'es vas some money, as n compensation
services to be rendered or rendered, to one
+ Saloon keeper. residing on the levee:
g % the day OF election.
iost said Hess hoasted that he had voted
q zA@ OF Fraudulent registration papers
WI one hundred-in the interest of Mr..
~ although the above evidence is not
" aaently corroborated to have full force
Eanaersigned cannot but entertain a belief
There may have been illegal voting IN
ssateTest oi Mr.. Riyet at some Of the POLLS
sae nth ward Of Orleans
taat Oh the ether hand TX II shown M the
&c satisfaction Ut the undersigned that
aection returns at poll one in said fifth
Nhaye been altered and do not show the
- insult of the vote there given, by which
Augustn is declared to have been
laas the evidence. however, shows that Mr..
S. sSstn is unconnected with any of the de-
y u 20 the election. and did not take SO active
n Nominent a part in its conduct as did
aponent, Mr.. Rivet.
~ the majority claimed by Mr. Rivet.
IN a0rrectien of what he chargesa fraud
~ return in said polls, would elect him
sne fifty votes.
View OF the above facts the undersigned
- h.,4 l AJf bAf sh.S