The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-19

II
tervene, and that Gdrys had been the
voting place for several years Gpntestee
ought to show that there was good reason not
to hold the election Mt Gudry's. His witness,
Il Guarentera the deputy sheriff. says that
on the morning OF the election aon OF
Guidry's told him his father did not
wish his house to he used as poll
and he had not been paid for ita
| use on former occasions. but no also stated
that neither tho epmnis sonar nor himself
made any request of Mr.. ilitry, that they
| did not examine the hoasa. anl dit not insist
on holding the election In 1t. Mr. Edward
Guidrv testified that he was thu owner OF the
property that he had authorized no one to
| refuse the use of his house for the election,
| that his residences was back from the road
and the house In question about two arpents:
| that he was at home all day. that no one
| called to see him In references TO the house,
| that the house In question Is twenty -four feet
long and s xteeu willie aud Ia I'll vilad into two
| equal sized rooms, that in ono room we're
about five barrels of tinhuled peas aud from
| twenty to twenty five harrals Ut corn In the
shtlek. and In the other we're two ptows aud
one harrow, aud that those would not have
been IN the way, and that the polls could
have been conveniently and eas'lY kept, as Ii
ought to have been kept there, that there
was another vacant house the adjoining
property OF Mrs. Durand. which was unslsr
| his control, and han sometimes been used A9
a polling place, which could have heeu used,
and that this house Is only s,lua two arpents
from the house above mentioned In view OF
| these facts your committees nave reached the
| conclusion that thnra was no reason why the
election was not held at T. iward Gudrys.
and that 80 election was helh in that ward ms
above stated. and they submit that the legal
proposition involved is sustained by the asl-
thorttioS.
Time and place are of the substance OF an
election The laws aud ordinances Of the
proper authorities fixing thu polling places
are mandatory. The election might as we'll
be held in day different from the appointed
one "a at a place diff rent from the one fixed.
See sections D-1n4 uf act No IS OF 1877;
4 MeGrary ia II, III, Chadwick vs.. Miller,
Penn. State Rep 49,. Brightley's election
cases o. g5i Howard vs.. Cooper seth Coop
er'a Bartlett 1 contested elections. 1884 10
1865 pp 27e29l Wehra vs.. Wilton. 90 A. 6tal
Nor is it considered that section % OF act No.
4 ~ Is appeable here That section Is but the
written expression Of the principle often be-
fore consecrated by decisions Of our own and
other courts, that no Irregularities and ilIe-
gallties that go not to the subst .nes or as-
santials Of an election shall vitiate unless IN
jury ia proved Hare there Was no election:
| what ia pretended tp have been one Is per-
feet nonentity; In the laws eye the election
claimed has never had any existence. That
which is not and has never been cannot be VI
tatad. Gteeuld as we'll be said thst. had the
commissioners seen tit to hold the election on
the third ~ fourth Of December, section %
would have thrown Its shield over itani would
have made it good until proof OF injury, but
that would be absurd. 1t Is annpunead In Nc
Crazy page IA. that the nudity Of an election
resulting from such a change Of polls can be-
avoided only ty the Contastee proving that
call persons entitled to vote did actually at
tend and vote at the Illegal place. This the
contested has not done. To the contrary, 1t la
in proof that rnore than 4ps votes registered
In the ward in question, aud that only 2Ss ac-
tually voted.
! Your nmittae further report that d num-
Der et non-registerei persons voted In iberia.
/, Vie n IIfnh ~ rpGiIpnt
sons ia proof Of which the poll books and the
tally sheets and the list of voters we're placed
In evidence aud eorroborated by Individual
evidence II Is further adduced IN evidence
that persons voted on affidavit, whose names
did not appear on the registration books.
also, that persons residing In one ward voted
In another ward than that In which they re-
sided and In which they were registered.
! Tho total Of non registered and non-resl-
! dent persons who voted as above is thirty
eight which we find should be deducted from
contestee's count. because they voted m vlo-
laton ot prohibitory law. In this connection
we refer TO the following laws and authori-
, tbs. First Sections 81 aud Is OF act No. 53
provide that persons not registered shall not
: be permitted to vote See constitution o.
1865 section ~ Second SECTIONS a. 70 and
II al act No -, aud section "a OF Act No. 1Qs
of 1877 provide that persons shall not vote
, elsewhere than In their own wards Third
l Section 40 of act No 101 prohibits issuance OF
certificates of registration in the 1try par
ishes. and there Is no existing law permitting
unregistered persons to vote on affidavit.
Section 30 OF act No iot provides for keep
. ing open of registration books for inspection.
otto and section II for the proceeding by man
tlamus against the registrar.
Fourth The registry law making registry
condition precedent to the right to vote Is
not Unconstitutional, MGGrary, ~ 8; Cooley
1, 757 3.
Fifth Want Of registry vitiates the cleo
tion. and To vote one must he registered Nc
~ n 4 nm
! Laws aud Practice. 80, The laws requiring
, registry and that every person shall vote In
his own ward, as Is we'll known. WAS adopted
I to prevent fraud, and your committee have
' no hesitation in reporting such votes as null.
9 and la recommending the deduction from con-
y testant's count In tbs parish OF Iberia. In
this connection they remark that they have,
In determining whether the above named
1 the original registration books. and not to the
T poll books merely. Some other Irregularities
J under the other allegations mentioned are In
! proof. as appears from the poll books, the
: tally sheets and tho lists OF voters at the
different polling places In regard to number
of ballots and OF votes, etc, upon which
I your committee have thought 1t unnecessary
! to report They report also that In the par
s ishes of ST. Martin and Iberia the RepuDll-
cans had control Of the election, that In the
Z fourth, fifth and seventh wards persons voted
\ on aflidavlts. the names Of all whom (Which
) were not found in the registry books have
been Included In the foregoing lists. AS to
: the parish Of Lafayette, No question wac
} before the COMMITTEES. yet contestse has on
the witness stand admitted that In 30 far rs
] he knows the election WAS fair.
J From the foregoing ths following statement
j Is made.
T Vote in district for Rard ........=..... 3,031
4 Deduct for Iberia ....s==.. ....@.1.-.....3 S
, Deduct for st. Martin .,..,..,,.....-...6 s
ion
o Total for Rinrd .................,2 Q, Te
Vote in district for Perry ....,... Oh
t Majority for Perry Observation-Disclosures. 81
, Your committees therefore recommend the
z adoption of the following resolution.
, Rpaoired That A. +. Rard WAS on Dscsm-
, ber O. 1873 and still Is ineligible as a member
! of the State Senate, for want of the actual
! residences required by article 70 OF the State
constitution. .