The Banner-Democrat. [volume] (Lake Providence, East Carroll Parish, La.) 1892-current, 1896-05-30
MIR WHY'S REPLY TO THE Elk.
ECUTIvE COMMITTEE.

4 To the Democratic Executive Committe
and the. Democracy of East Carroll
I parish
i am in receipt of copy of the reso.
buttons adopted by the Democratic Elk
ecutive Committee of the parish on the
21st instant, wherein my vote on the
examination and count Of the votes for
Governor is condemned and wherein |
am invited to explain my vote.
] gladly avail myself of the oppor-
ltunity, although the form of the reso-
buttons, which first condemn my action
and afterwards call upon me TO make
my defense. give color to the conclu-
sion that the body which assumed
jurisdiction to try me has prejudged
my case. without giving me an oppor-
tunity to be heard.
Having been nominated at a Dem
ocratic white primary by the same
vote by which the Executive Commit
to was chosen. can justly claim that
equally with this Committee repre-
sent the Democracy of the parish and
by the white Democracy am willing
to be judged.
| The preamble OF the resolutions re-
cites that .'Mr. WHY did unexpected
and without notice to his constituents
OF his party associates vote with the
enemies of the Democratic party. not
only to examine the returns. but also
against the seating of his party's candi-
date for Governor.
This preamble seems to assume that
on this occasion / should have given
notice to my constituents and party
associates and have them decide for
me the way in which should vote;
that the General Assembly ought not
matter whether right or wrong, l
should never vote as my conscience as
Il sworn officer dictates, if an enemy of
the Democratic party happens to agree
! with me.
To such unwarranted assumptions
cannot subscribe, and l reply that the
question on which voted involved an
Interpretation of our Constitution and
laws; that it was purely law-question
and not political question and that.
as sworn officer, | was as much in
duty bound to vote according to my
Interpretation of the Constitution rs
would be judge 10 decide n case be-
fore him according to the law as he
understood it. if one is to consider the
discharge of his duty and the respect of
his fellow men.
In condemning me for voting to
examine the returns" the Committee
entirely misapprehends the issue in
volved. In all the discussions of the
subject, have never heard it ques-
toned that the General Assembly had
the power "to examine the returns"
until this Committee has done so, as
the Constitution expressly provides
that the General Assembly shall meet
''to examine and count the votes"
The real point at Issue was to what
constituted "tbe returns meant by the
Constitution. Even the question of
going behind the returns was not
raised, as is shown by careful read
ing of the minority report. Though l
have my views OH the latter subject. l
will not here discuss it, as I have not
the space 10 do SO and as it is foreign
to the issue.
l repeat that the question of the
power vel non of the General Assembly
to 60 behind the returns and to inves
tigate the election in the various par
shes was not involved in the vote
taken by the General Assembly.
The relief asked for by the minority
report was that the General Assembly
should call for the production of the
returns in the Office of the Secretary of
State and use these returns in con-
nection with the compiled statements
of the boards of supervisors. The
granting of the request Of the minority
of the committee of tellers would not,
in my opinion, have meant an investi-
cation of the election in each parish
and would not have meant "going
behind the returns" l contend the
returns in the Office of the Secretary of
State to be as much a part of the ere
turns of the election" contemplated
by Article SO of the Constitution as
were the compiled statements of the
boards of supervisors and so cons!ru-
ing this article of the Constitution
would have violated my duty to have
voted otherwise than / did.
The resolutions of the Committee
recites that .'they most emphatically
disapprove OF the conduct of Mr..
WHY in SO voting against the Dem
ocratic party on this, the most vital
political question, likely to be present
ed at this session of the Assembly,"
| deny that voted against the DEM
ocratic party or in favor of any other
party. l deny that this is political
question. 1t is solely law-question
"a question above all parties. This
being law-question, for the decision
of which /, as "a member of the Gen
eral Assembly, was one of the judges,
l could not, interpreting the law as
did, have voted otherwise, without
violating my sworn duty and without
FORGETTING the respect of every honest
man. have not presumed to ques-
ton the honesty and Integrity of opln-
ion of any of my colleagues who Lave
differed with me on this question. l Il
am willing to concede to them the
same honesty of motive / claim for
myself. That / have not forfeited the