The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-17


Ia two hundred and forty-two. while the mum
her of names marked voted on the poll book
ID only one hundred and seventy-three. sew
eral names are marked voted on the poll book
which do not appear on the lst0t voters, ana
there are q large number OF names on the list
OF voters which are not on the poll book at
all. From a comparison OF these various
lists 1t would appear that contestants claim
that eighty-two illegal votes We're received ut
this poll The list Of voters and tally-sheets
are not signed and sworn to by the commits
sioners as required by law, which fact, taken
in connection with the other matters referred
to, iustities the presumption that the returns
were fraudulent. u,
swpre that ut least one-third OF the white
voters Of the ward did not vote; that at the
close OF the count ten tallies were added to
contestee without q recount. on the claim OF
his friends that mistake had been made.
The fact that such q large proportion OF the
voters did not attend the election Ia this
ward. In which the polling place was illegally
changed, suggests the reason OF the law pro-
hibitng q change within prescribed time.
The evidence iustitias the presumption that a
large proportion OF the legal voters in the
three wards IN which the polling places were
changed did not attend the election. because
the changes do not seem to have been Rener-
ally known. In the interest Of justice, and as
precedent, the law should be rtgldly en-
forced In this Instance.
Asa matter Of law, all the authorities on
the law ot elections agree that an election
held at place other than that fixed by law
ID absolutely null, and has no legal effect
whatever--thes same as an election held on q
day different from that fixed BY law. IL
every eector Id the district had voted for
contestee on Monday Instead OF Tuesday ne
would not be the Senator, however apparent
! II might be to the practical MUD that he was
the choice of the people for that position
| Their choice must be legally expressed 20
give II legal effect This would be equally
true II every elector In the district had voted
| for contestee on tho right day, but at places
other than those fixed by legal authority. 1t
a part of the votes had been cast on the
wrollg day or at the wrong place. surprising
the fixing to have been legal aud undisputed,
| it Ia evident they could not be counted, and
the votes cast on the day ana Mt the places
| fixed by law would alone be considered, and
| the candidate receiving majority 81 these
would have been elected, and would be rec
ognized IA the legal Senator without regard
! to the Illegal votes Of either rlass-thOse cast
on the wrong day or those cast at the wrong
places.
Your committee respectfully maintain and
| reassert that the election In wards one, two
and five of the parish Of Iberville was held
at places other than those fixed by law. and
Is consequently absolutely null. No account
whatever can be legally taken Of the votes
pollei Id those three wards, and the result OF
the election must be ascertained from the re-
turns from the other wards. and those from
the parish Of West Baton Rouge. we hold
that It Is the same as II the commissioners
had held the election at the wrong places Ia
those wards without any pretense OF
legal authority, because the pretended ordi-
nance of October 25, 1879, Ia al absolute nulli-
ty The police Jury could not legally act ex
prescribed by law. at public meeting
legally appointed and held at the
COURTEOUS. seat Of government 1a,na,,a !
whereas TIL this pretended tha nance
Jury at an irregular meeting at the house 81
one OF the members, elk milee from the court
house. Besides, this pretended ordinances, In
so far MS It purports 70 change the polling
places in wards one, two and five. contra
venes a prohibitory law, and according TO the
wellsettIed Jurisprudence Of this State is an
, absolute nullity-must be regarded as no or
dinance or as not having been passed at all
!. Section II Of act No 5s OF the extra session
1877 postX,ey prohibits Rece 2res ontns
prior to general election. Police iuries only
have such powers as may be conferred upon
them BY law. Surely. then. II will not be
commended that they can exercise powe.
authors Of all their power-that they
can do the very thing the law prohibits them
from doing, says In terms they shall not DO
The recognition OF such an act would be I
vicious precedent fraught with danger. no
only to the purity Of elections, but also to al
the important local interests that are neces
; sarily entrusted, to q greater or less extent
to police juries. If they eifectually exercis,
this power, which is not only not delegated
r but actually prohibited to them, why. car
they not do any other illegal act2 LII the
Senate recognizes and gives effect tothes
illegal acts why should not the courts2
4 The language Of the law is not Academia
or ambiguous. 1t was clearly the intention
: of the Legislature to recognize and enforce o.
important principle of public policy to pre-
Al.A N.>e, At.aNvv
been for years sapping the foundation 81 "a
elective system. The idea underlying thi
, provision of our law Is that the electors nav
4 the right to know where to cast their ballots
i that the location of the polling places shout
I be as public as familiarity and UNIVERSAL
4 known as the location Of the courthouse an
a all public and governmental offices. 1t wa
4 evidently contemplated that the polltn
: places ought to remain the same one electio
after the other. SO there would be no doubt
a the public mind as to their location, as Other
a wise we could have no assurance OF fui
/ fair and free vote. They therefore PIC
: hiblted any change within six months priC
/ to any general election, 80 as to guard as we
5 as practicable against want OF tnformatio
4 as to the location Of the polling places.
r Experience In this instance fully demon
9 strates the wisdom Of this provision Of t.
y law. 1t Is we'll known that many voters d
not read their parish paper; besides the av'
u rage citizen not particularly interested In II
j. business usually neIoIe tue pollce Jul y Soui
t not be blamed for want Of knowledge OF Il
~ change Of the polling places In this instanc
j. although he might subscribe for and read tn
i paper In which the proceedings contained
q this ordinance was published five or 9
e weeks before the election, because the la
# prohibits the change, and he could Their
$ fore not reasonably be required to
Il on the look ont for 1t. Be this {
q 1t may, the evidence before US shows as
/ matter of fact, notwithstanding the public'
l. ton of the police jury proceedings, it WI
i generally understood up to the day OF ele
y ton that the election would be held at Il
o old polling places, where the two previo,
y elections had been held. The evidence shov
). that great many persons went to the Q
II polling places to vote, and only learned Of Y
e change BY inquiring that day. 1t imprac'
l. cable to ascertain how many electors were thu
4 deprived of their votes, went to the usu
y places, and not finding the polls open ther
l. did not go to the places to which they h'
% been changed. Some Of the most intelige
$ and prominent men in the parish did n
know of the changes and went to the wror
n, 49,, ~. lao rnnI ut the changes on the wa