The Houma courier. (Houma, La.) 1878-1939, 1892-04-16

CHARLES A. BUTLER,
Committee.
JOHN s. YOUNG,
chairman
ARTHUR MGUIRK,
Secretary
New Orleans, Feb. "a, 1892.
The commissioners returns were
forwarded to the chairman of the
committee, as provided by the rule,
and on the 18th ultimo. the commit
tee assembled, opened them and
commenced the "count and canvass"
thereof.
When the count of Concordia was
reached, the the contest which had
been filed against the returns from
that parish, after they had been
closed and forwarded. was rejected
by the committee which had not
been challenged at the poll, and of
which 10 mention was made in the
commissioners returns.
The same ruling was made with
reference to the contest for the
parish of st. Bernard. where the
commissioners returns were regu-
lar and gave no notice of contest.
In the parish of st. James the
contested box was purged of illegal
votes, because the commissioners in
signing the returns protested
against their reception and stated
the grounds upon which the voters
had been challenged.
In the parish of ct. Mary the lille.
gal votes which the committee re,
jected were contested by the com
missiOners andthe contest forward
ed with the returns.
In the parish ofSabine one of the
boxes was pGrged of 100 Illegal
votes, manifestly forged on the re
turns after they had been signed.
In all these parishes it will be
seen that all lawful votes were
counted, the illegal votes only be-
ing included. But in the cOnsidera-
ton of the contest against the sixth,
eighth and ninth wards of the City
of New Orleans an opposite rule
wa applied.
In the first poll of the sixth
ward giving the McEnery ticket "a
majority of 757 votes, the commits
sioners we're permitted to contra.
dict their official returns, which
certified that only 81 votes had
been challenged, and gave it as
their opinion that half the vote pol,
was Illegal, Notwithstanding
the testimony Of witnesses well ac-
luainted with the voters, who
SwOre that the vote was lawful, all
we're excluded from the count and
,anvasSed by the committee, be-
cause it vas supposed that half
should have been excluded by the
commissioners.
In the second poll of the eighth
ward, giving sos majority for the
McEnery ticket, the entire vote
vas excluded from the count and
canvass because some thirty per
IONS were found to state that they
lad voted for Foster, and this was
excess of the number returned
or him, 80 having been so return
I'd, and it being claimed that he
lad received 81. No fraud was al
eyed; none proved, and every
commissioner and officer connected
vita the election swOre that no il
egal vote was received and none
counted, except as cast. Yet sos
7Otes were DISTINGUISHED because
most thirty people either mis-
represented the ticket they had
'oted or a mistake in the count
lad been made to that extent. But
he necessities Ofthe case required
hat the Foster vote in this box
be counted, While all those
asst for McEnery be excluded, be-
ause otherwise aiessrs. Cunning
am, Pickett and Head would have
cen defeated, even after the sixth
nd ninth wards were DISTINGUISHED.
In the second precinct Of the
ward, giving the McEnery
cket a majority of 400 votes, the
hole vote was thrown out because
le commissioners, a majority OF
HON we're appointed by the Eos
campaign committees, refused to
'rmit MIR. Zengel, a Foster mana
r in that ward, to bring with
m to witness the count an indi
dual Objectionable to the commits
,ners. It is not pretended that
F. zengel himself was denied adj