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

Office of sheriff, as the then sheriff was a can
didate for reelection, proceeded to compile
the returns of the votes cast for said Office in
| the whole parish and to make returns thereof
to the secretary of State, and that i'll compiling
the vote of the Leonville precinct, he considered
and counted the two documents herein above
described as one return, or as q continuous
| statement OF the votes cast for sheriff at that
precinct; and which two statements added
| together making the following vote Thomp-
son 292, Duson i06, and it also appears that the
| vote as thus counted, added to that OF all the
other precincts of the parish, foot up the fol-
| lowing final result for sheriff: Thompson 3O05,
Duson 2945, OF q majority of 20 for Thompson
The record also shows, that on the 8th of De-
ccmber the three commissioners subscribed and
handed to the clerk written statement i'll
which they declared in substance that the two
sheets handed by them as above recited to the
clerk are one continuous tallS--shcct and that
the two sheets must be added together to show
the full vote received by each candidate at the
Leonvile precinct.
| All other allegations charges of fraud, irreg-
ularities, and counter charges of conspiracies
to swindle, andof ballot stuffing contained i'll the
pleadings, are strenuously advanced and posi-
| lifCIy AtHlSA ny buC ICSlstClINc parties WHO
| introduced on each side, countless documents
and numerous witnesses, all of which forms a
volumnous record of bitter venom and CALLING
acllmony, which 1t is fortunately unnecessary
to consider for a correct decision OF the cause
| The election of 1879, was carried on under the
provisions of act No. IS, of the legislature of
1877, extra session. Section 20 prescribcs that
the election shall begin at o'clock A. M., and
| close at o'clock P. NJ. Section Il provides
that if within one hour after the time fixed none
| Of the commissioners appointed by the police
/ jury, has made his appearance, the persons
present shall hold a meeting, and select three
commissioners to preside at the election.
In this case, the commissioners at the Leon
vile precinct, were selected by one Individual,
4 L. Durio, and without allowing to the alb
sent commissioners the delay OF one hour, re
quired by the section quoted.
1t is conceded that no violation of a directory
law on elections shall vitiate the election, but
this irregularty is shown for the purpose of
establishing the continuous and wanton viola
ton of law which characterized the foundation,
as we'll us the crowning act OF the election held
at that precinct.
No attempt is made by the defendant to ex-
plain, much less to justify the unusual and lille
gal haste to organize a poll during the abse nee
OF the regularly appointed commissioners; the
rumor to the effect that these commissioners
would refuse to act, for the reason that on #
previous similar occasion the parish had re-
fused or failed to compensate them for their
services, Is no justification of this fragrant
irregularity, and as the instigator of the pro-
ceedins, Durio, is shown by the evidence to
have been political foe of Duson, his motive
is easily conjectured; and the subsequent CON
duct and acts of commissioner Carricre at
| whose house he had slept on the night before.
shows that he was wise in the selection of his
man, i'll order to carry out his design. But pro
ceeding further; the question to be solved is
| this: which Of the two documents handed by
the commissioners is the legal return OF the
| votes cast at the Leonvlle precinct or is there
any return at all from that precincts
| While concluding that the correct rule in
American elections favors a liberal construc.
| ton of laws governing returns of elections, and
| that to give effect to the vote of the citizens
the violation of directory law by an officer
cannot justify the rejection of the votes cast at
the polling place, yet it is equally clear, as
stipulated in section 10, of act 5s of 1877, that
the election is vitiated, when it is impossible to
votes at the polling place where the election
| is contested.
1t is also an elementary rule of law, that
when an act is to be done in writing the in
strmnent must make proof of itself, and this
rule is essentially applicable to returns of cleo
| tions. The rule is laid down by McCrary. law
of elections, section 50, in substance as follows
"The canvassing or return judges must receive
and count the votes as shown by the 1et,o.ns
and they cannot 80 behind the returns for a,u
purpose, and this necessarily implies that if q
| paper is presented as a return, and there is g
question as to whether it is u return or not
they mast decide that question upon the face o
The paper ITSELF"
| If in this case the recorder, acting as return
ing officer in the election for sheriff. had beer
guided by this rule, when he came to consider
the effect of the two documents, which are
described above, he would have seen that botl
documents purported to be itself, separately
and singly, the return of the votes cast at the
Leonvi!le precinct; neither paper could by
itself show that it was TIE return, to the exclu
sion of the other, and neither of the documents
shows Oh Its face, or contains in any shape OF
form, any information, statement or indication
tending to show that the one was the beginning
and the other the continuation of the return OF
statement OF votes polled at that precinct
SO as to justify the addition of the two together
SO as to get at the correct vote poled; the very
reverse appears, because to each document il
appended the sworn declaration of the three
commissioners that the votes therein Tailed
and added are the votes that were deposited il
the box on the I'd of December, 1879.
i Where then did the recorder obtain his infor
nation that the two sheets addeol together
contain the votes cast at the Ieonville precinc
OH that daya
4 Defendants deny that the officer derived hi
information from che statement subscribed by
the commissioners on the Stll of December, i,
which they pretend to convey that information
Admitting this theory, the question recurs agar
as to his source of information in the premises
Tt must then be from the verbal statements o.
the commissioners or of one or two of them.
If such is the case, he then received evidcnc,
out of or dehors the paper itself, or of the tw'
papers separately or Jointly, and in thus doin!
} he performed an act reprobated and forbidden
: by law.
1t will not be gainsaid that after deliyerin: