The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1892-04-16
A FINAL APPEAL.
Address to the Democracy of the
State.

Democracy of the State from which we
make the following extracts:
When the count of Concordia was
reached, the contest which had been
filed against the returns from that par
ish, after they had been closed and for
warded, was rejected by the committee
on the ground that no vote could be
questioned before the committee which
had not been challenged at the poll, and
of which no mention was made in the
commissioners returns.
The same ruling was made with ref
erence to the contest for the parish of
st. Bernard, where the commissioners
returns were regular and gave no notice
of contest.
In the parish Of st. James the con-
tested box was purged of illegal votes,
because the commissioners in signing
ception and stated the grounds upon
which the voters had been challenged.
In the parish of St. Mary the illegal
votes which the committee rejected
were contested by the commissioners
and the contest forwarded with the re-
turns.
In the parish of Sabine one of the
boxes was purged of 100 illegal votes,
manifestly forged on the returns after
they bad been signed.
In all these parishes it will be seen
that all lawful votes were counted, the
illegal votes only being excluded. But
in the consideration of the contest
against the sixth, eighth and ninth
wards of the city of New Orleans an
opposite rule was applied.
In the first poll of the sixth ward,
giving the McEnery ticket majority of
cSn
mitted to contradict their official re-
turns, which certified that only 81 votes
had been challenged, and gave it as
their opinion that half the votes polled
was illegal; Notwithstanding the testi-
mony of witnesses well acquainted with
the voters, who swore that the vote was
lawful, all were excluded from the
count and canvass by the committee,
because it was supposed that half should
have been excluded by the commits
sioners.
In the second poll of the eighth ward,
giving sos majority for the McEnery
ticket, the entire vote was excluded
from the count and canvass because
some thirty persons were found to state
that they had voted for Foster, and this
was in excess of the number returned
for him, 80 having been so returned, and
it being claimed that he had received
81. No fraud was alleged; none prov
ed, and every commissioner and officer
connected with the election swore that
no illegal vote was received and none
counted, except as cast. Yet sos voters
were disfranchised because, at most
thirty people either misrepresented the
: ticket they had voted or mistake in
I the count had been made to that extent.
! But the necessities of the case required
! that the Foster vote in this box should
/ be counted, while all those cast for Nc
Emery be excluded, because otherwise
Messrs. Cunningham, Pickett and Heard
would have been defeated, even after
I the sixth and ninth wards were disfran-
! chised.
i In the second precinct of the ninth
jority of 400 votes, the whole vote was
thrown out because the commissioners,
majority of whom were appointed by
the Fostercampaign committee, refused
to permit MIR. Zengel, a Foster manager
in that ward, to bring with him to wit
ness the count an individual objection
able to the commissioners. 1t is moi
pretended that Mr.. Zengel himself was
denied admittance on the contrary, he
was invited to enter, but because he re
fused to do so the voters of that precinct
were disfrancbised, not because of any
fraud alleged Or proved to have beer
committed, but because in thejudgment
of majority of the committee, it coulC
have been committed, aud they, there
fore, presumed it had been done, con.
trary to every rule of the law ano
evidence.
In the third and fifth precincts Of the
] ninth ward it appeared that the McEn'
anS q a
of those representing the Foster ticket
agreed to increase the vote by adding
names to the poll lists of persons who
had not voted and divide the vote be
tweenthe etwocandidates,s ,soas MOTTO atfec
the result, the object being to increase
the representation of the ward in thu
!, party conventions. The fraudulen
vote was proved with exactness th'
validity of the remainder was not deni
ed; yet the whole was excluded-th'
honest voters disfranchised because o
the frauds of those whom the Foste
committee had appointed to hold th,
election and over whom the voters hat
no control.
J The final result is that by usurpatiol
of power not granted toit the committee
of seven attempted, by adopting th'
methods Of the Wells Anderson Return
ing Board of Infamous memory, to re
verse the result of the election, defea
the will Of the people and declare
!. ticket confessedly beaten the nominee
of the party. As the edicts of the Re
T turning Board were expected to b
: maintained by Federal power, SO tn
8 edict of this Returning Board is expecte,
to be maintained by an abuse OF tn
election laws of the State and fraudu
lent suppression of the will OF the peo