Year: 1878

piteously entreated them to give him some
chance Of earning his bread elsewhere. His
story had every appearance of truth and his
plausible manner won their sympathies.
They believed that man who had sacrificed
everything and imperilled his life in order to
secure full and free expression of the will of
the people of Louisiana was deserving of re.
ward, and they were inclined to use their in
fuence to secure him place in the public
service. These were the valuable services
he professed to have rendered, and that is
how he secured his recommendations, But
when the true character of the man was dis
covered he was refused an appointment.


All the documentary evidence he presents
substantiates this view of the case. Had his
services been of the wicked kind the Demo.
Gratis profess to think they were and had re-
ward been promised him for services of that
character, the bargain would have been car
ried out. Those who encouraged him in his
nefarious work would not have dared to ig.
more him. The fact that they did ignore him
as soon as the truth about him became known
is the strongest evidence that they had no
knowledge of his true character at the time
he enlisted their sympathies by his piteous
story. Even the documents in the possession
OF Stanley Matthews afford no proof to the
contrary. Senator Matthews appears to have
been persuaded that Anderson was priyy to
Democratic conspiracy to carry Louisiana,
and that repenting of his wickedness he de-
livered up the papers on which the conspiracy
was based. That Senator Matthews acted
like a fool in crediting this story is evident,
and that it was unwise and dishonest in him
to recommend man of this character for a
federal office is also evident. But there is not
a particle of proof that he knew of any plan
to falsely count the vote of Louisiana for
Hayes.


The testimony of Anderson amounts to
nothing. That of Judge Levisse is of little
more importance. He testiies that the
Democrats attempted to bribe him ard failed.
That was known long ago. 1t is notorious
that the Democrats sought to buy up certain
members OF the electoral college. Judge
Levisse further testifes that he never signed
the third set of Louisiana returns. It is a
matter of no consequence if he didn't. He
signed the first set giving the electoral vote
of the State to Hayes and Wheeler. That set
was accepted by the Electoral Commission,
and upon it they based their decision. The
facts in the case are these: 1t was thought
that there was some clerical omission in the
first set and the messenger who brought it
hurried back to Louisiana to have the mis-.
take corrected. As the electors could not be
got together some one, it does not appear
who, signed the names of the absent ones TO
the amended return. This amended return
was simply duplicate of the substance o,
the first one. 1t was irregular and indefen-
sible, but it did not change the result of the
vote of the college, nor was it intended to.
Had it never been presented the vote of Lou
isiana wo1ld have been counted for Hayes all
the same.


The result then of the investigation so far
has only been to prove that there are rascals
in Louisiana, which was known before; that
Senator Matthews is fool, which was
strongly suspected before; and that the DEM
ocrats tried to bride supervisors of elections
and members of the electoral college. If any
body except Anderson and the Senator from
Ohio are hurt it is certainly the Democracy.