New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-12-05
THE LOUISIANA BiRG AIN.

At last we have a supplement- 10 the cipher us
patch disclosures The translation OF those doc
uments proved beyond dispute that Democratic
agents in 1876 did actually arrange for the pur-
chase of electoral votes in Oregon, South Caro-
lima and Florida, though the bargains 1cll
through. Whether the persons who proleSsed
to he ready to deliver the votes would have done
so. or could have done so, has always been doubt
full. 1t is at least conceivable that they were
cheating the Democratic managers by holding
out false hopes. But the Democratic managers
believed that it was possible to buy those
States, and negotiated with full intent to do
so. The wonder has been that they did not
appear to have made any similar bargain IN
Louisiana Democratic statesmen have often
stoopcd to the groundcsS assertion that 1T was
impossible for them to buy Louisiana, because
the returning board in that State mad ueeh
bought by the Republicans.
The statement of Mr.. H. l.. White, long known
to TRIBUNE readers exceptionally com
pctent and trustworthy witness, which we pub
lish to-day on Inc 18th page of our extra sheet,
casts a food Of light on that matter. lie was
present at a small dinner party on Decent er
10, 1876, at Washing on, when General Rich
ard TAYLOR of Confederate note, made impor-
tant statements TO Mr.. Hewitt and other gentle
men present Taylor declared that he knew
the Louisiana Returning Board could have been
bought, because he personally had concluded Il
bargain to buy its vote for Mr.. 1llden lie
named the price to be received 10y The members
of the board. and declared that the transaction
would have been completed, and Mr. Iildcn
would have been elected by this Infamous
crime if The money had been placed at his dis
posal as Lad been agreed. According TO his
statement, persons who had contracted to fur
nish the money became alarmed, when they
realized that a Congressional investigation was
certain, and feared that they would be punished
for their share in the crime AS they drew out
and refused to put up the money, the trans
action became impossible.
This is the only ground, ii is now safe to say
on which Mr.. Hewitt or any other Democrat has
ever hecn able to assert that the Louisiana Re-
turning Board was corrupt, or was purchased
by Republicans. At this distance of time, it is
plain that the story of General Taylor is no
proof whatever against the members of the
board. That Mr. Wells. the chief of the
board, hated the Democrats with rare in
tensity, and meant TO defeat them if IL lay in
his power, all the world now knows. 1T was
mislead them, and throw them off their guard
if by any means he had power to do so. Hence
the sta ement Of General Taylor, that Wells
and others promised to sell their votes for
given sum of money, is not proof that they
would have done so, if the money had been
furnished On the contrary there is the strong
est reason for believing that they intended at
the end to deceive the Democratic mana gers
and 10 leave them in the lurch. even if there was
any pretence of readiness TO accept brIbe.
On the other hand. here is sufficient evidence
against General Taylor and his Democratic
associates in his own confession. OF their pur-
pose, his statement is conclusive proof. They
meant to buy the Presidency, and tried to do
it. and believed they were able to do it, whether
Mr. Wells or anybody else deceived them Or
not But because some Of the subscribers to
the corruption fund became alarmed. the ne
go'iaion fell through in that instance as in
others 1t is well TO have this evidence that
IN Louisiana, as in other disputed States in
1876, the Democrats did their utmost to secure
electoral vo es by corruption. And it is quite
in accordance with the known frailty OF human
nature that, having failed to perpetrate crime
themselves, they were swift to conclude that
somebody else had done what they had tried
10 do.