St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1880-07-24

sorted to by the Court, before whicl, thc contest
is pending. III this case the Irregularities and
| uncertainties as to The validity OF the returns
Of the Leonville commissioners, the doubt
| arising on their inspection au,. cil thoir faces
| as to whether either OF the papers was of itself
/ an entire return Or whether together they made
up and constituted the legal return, Justified
| the Introduction OF c&tiinsic evidence 10 prove
| the facts III regard to these returns, II irreyu
! larity i'll the returns OF errors OF form therein
| cannot be explained by cNtriusic evidence ana
/ rre41t!arity and error are fatal defects Whch
operate to vitiatc the election It Wouiu follow
/ by logical reasoning that W!lCn the returns a1e
| regular III form, they will he conclusive, and
being SC on their face cannot hc attacked. TIsc
! consequence would be that til" votes would b"
! bound by the returns OF the commissioners,
| and bad and corrupt men could with npnnitJ,
| if they were disposed, substitute their WILL us
set forth by the returns, for that OF tic people,
| and these returns being Sicranont"l. coUid not
| be attacked even investigated, either with "a
view to show their ncorrcctn@ss through fraud
or otherwise, and on the other hand, to es-
| tabish their correctness, and the right OF con
! test would then he a barren right from which
no remedy could follow.
| In this case the issue as to he regularity
| irregutarity OF The returns being before the
Court the allegations OF fraud, error &c, bcing
| also made and evidence that score intro,
duced, the Court had the night and properly
re>ortcG to the means Of determining the true
vote cast at the iAnnville POLL, By opening the
| ballot box and counting the ballots. To Justify
| this and to entitle the ballots to consideration
as evidencinS the true vote, it was necessary
| to prove that the box containing them had not
| been tampeled with, that its contents were ;ho
same as when sealed and closed by The com
missfoncrs. and the requirements oI law as 10
its custody and preservation had been complied
with The ballots i'll this box were counted III
| Court in presence of tile JUDGE and jury, this
| count showed q different result from that set
forth III either Of the statements and returns or
| III the aggregate statements il construed and
taken together, i'll the return, of the Recorder.
| The question then to be decided whether
| the Recorders return, based upon these state.
| ments of the commissioners, was the true
return Of the votes cast at tic LGonvi!lc poll,
and did the ballot box contain the ballots ;s
cast by the voters at that poll, and had it or not
| been tainpered with.
A careful examination Of all the testimony
satifies me that the box opened III Court con-
| tanned all the ballots which had hati been cast
on the day of election at the LGonyiilo poll and
none Others that it had not been ttlnlpcrctl
with, that the ballots counted on the trial
were the ballots as cast by the voters, and that
| the result of these votes was lis for Duson,
and 243 for Thompson, and these being respect
| lively added to the votes received by them at
the other polls OF the parish viz: Duson 1859,
Thompson 2713, gave Dlson 1854 and Thompson
2o56 votes, and Duson WAS therefore elected by
a majority over Thompson of 20 votes.
| The testimony shows that the box was in the
custody of the proper officer and his deputies
and that the presumption that officers perform
their duty under tho naXim on,i.i0 pressure
| M,ttt' rite 0cta, applicable to them, is .iusti-
| fed by their positive testimony that The
| box had not been tampcred With, and that il
was produced and opened in Court on the trial
| just us it was received by them from the CON
Inissoners. Consideration Of all tho testimony
adduced as to tho identity OF the box and ab,
sence of interference with the ballots coi,yincc5
lnc OIL these points. l cannot allow mere sur
misses and vague suspicious unsupported by
| positive testimony on substantial facts to out
weigh the evidence which has convinced me.
| Whllc not Ill any manner aSSalng the integ-
rity OF the jury, or the sincerity OF their belief
Ill tiic cpIItCtUtS, I'll tItlf CONCLUSIONS tho
/ facts and testimony, and disposed to accord
great weight to the findings iureg on questions
of fact submitted to them, aln still compelled
on my own investigation and consideration of
the facts and testimony in the record, to differ
with them i'll my conclusions ; but tlit,idenco
i'll that respect is entirely overcome by the
learnest and solemn conviction III my own mint
of the correctness of the views which [ have
taken. l, therefore, see no reason for dstuIbin.
the decree of the court rendered herein, and
with these reasons for concurrence in the
Decree think the re-nearing applied for, should
be refused.
The Chief Justice concurs iii this opinion
BY CHIEF JUSTICE BERMUDEZ.
On application for reEearing the MA joriy of
the court seeing reason to disturb the decree
previously made, it is ordered that the aprli-
cation for Il re-hearing he refused with cost.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE BERMUDEZ.
On an intlmaton OF counsel, that i'll tho
reasons of the Court, OyCrrulinc the motion tn