492 



LOUISIANA. 



the forms of law was considered a badge of fraud, 

 and the poll was rejected. We believe this to he a 

 just and reasonable rule, and the board strictly ad- 

 hered to it. 



In the case of Carroll, St. Helena, and St. James 

 Parishes, where it was charged and proved that the 

 returns made by the commissioners to the super- 

 visors had been changed after they came into the 

 hands of the supervisors, the board took evidence 

 to ascertain the true state of the vote and made the 

 compilation accordingly. The question raised against 

 the greater number of the polls was on the charge 

 of intimidation to prevent voters from voting and 

 forcing them to vote against their wishes. To estab- 

 lish this charge a great mass of affidavits was taken, 

 some applicable to the whole of the parishes, and 

 some to particular polls, and a mass of counter-affi- 

 davits was also filed. The general facts proved on 

 this point establish that about May, 1874, a military 

 organization known as the White League was estab- 

 lisned in this State and permeated every neighbor- 

 hood; that the object of this organization was to 

 prevent colored men from voting unless they could 

 be controlled to vote the Democratic ticket, and to 

 prevent them from holding office ; and, further, to 

 compel the Republicans holding office under the 

 present State government to abdicate their offices, 

 and to prevent the Republican party in this State 

 from organizing, with a view of concentrating their 

 party at the late election, and expel the white Re- 

 publicans from the State unless they would desist 

 from organizing the Republican party in this State 

 and withdraw from the active support of that party. 

 The means taken by this White League organization 

 to accomplish the above purposes are shown to have 

 been by threats that, if the colored voters did not 

 vote the Democratic ticket, they should be expelled 

 from the plantations on which they were farming, 

 be deprived of their crops, be excluded from renting 

 lands hereafter or of being employed, and deprived 

 of their rations, or credit to obtain them, and lead- 

 ing colored men were threatened with death if they 

 persisted in organizing the Republican party; and 

 white Republicans threatened with personal vio- 

 lence, proscription in business and socially of them- 

 selves and families, and with hanging if they per- 

 sisted in organizing the party with a view to the late 

 elections. This organization in armed bands, in 

 many parishes in the State, carried their threats of 

 personal violence into effect by killing some Repub- 

 licans, whipping and ill-treating others, and com- 

 pelled the parish officers holding office under the 

 present State government to abdicate their offices. 

 This was particularly the case in all the Red River 

 parishes, most of the Teche parishes, and in the 

 parishes between the Red and Washita Rivers. 



All the above acts, resorted to by the White-League 

 organization to carry out their purpose, were clear 

 violations of both State and United States laws, and 

 would subject the perpetrators of the acts to im- 

 prisonment in the penitentiary, so odious are they 

 to the sense of the people. These acts of intimida- 

 tion, which prevented a fair, free, and peaceable 

 election in the parishes of St. Mary and Grant, were 

 so general and overwhelming that the board felt 

 compelled to throw out every box in these parishes, 

 and in many other parishes where there was satis- 

 factory proof that intimidation had been used at de- 

 signated polls, so as to prevent a fair, free, and 

 peaceable election at such polls, and they were ex- 

 cluded from the compilation as the law requires. 

 When the friends of a political party, such as the 

 "White-League organization is toward the Demo- 

 cratic party, shall -clearly and generally violate the 

 laws of the country to control an election in their 

 interests, it is but just and proper that, when they 

 are shown to have brought such acts to bear on an 

 election, they should not be permitted to profit by 

 them, and such is the intention of the law. The 

 board, however, in this case did not exclude any 



poll from compilation except on satisfactory proof 

 that such violation had been perpetrated, and that 

 it had the effect of intimidating a sufficient number 

 of voters to change the result of the election. As 

 all these acts to produce intimidation had been per- 

 petrated in favor of the Democratic party and against 

 the Republican party, the polls excluded from com- 

 pilation generally gave majorities in favor of the 

 Democratic party, and their exclusion from compi- 

 lation reduced the vote of that party, and in some 

 instances had the effect of returning representatives 

 and other officers of the opposite party different 

 from the returns made by the supervisors. This is 

 the natural result of an illegal attempt to accomplish 

 an object, and is no fault of the board. 



The counsel of the Democratic party protested 

 against the counting of certain polls in the parishes 

 of Natchitoches and Bossier, on the grounds that 

 United States troops were expected at the polls on 

 the day of election, or did actually visit the polls 

 on the day of election, in order to assist the United 

 States Marshal to arrest persons charged with viola- 

 tions of the United States law, and that, in conse- 

 quence, a great number of Democrats did not attend 

 the polls and vote, for fear of arrest by the United 

 States troops. Even if such facts had been fully 

 proved as alleged, we do not see that there was any 

 violation of the law in United States troops doing 

 so. Certainly, a person charged with a crime against 

 the United States law cannot say he is intimidated 

 by the fact that the United States Marshal was try- 

 ing to arrest him. It is his own fault if he is guilty, 

 and he cannot urge his crime as protection. Persons 

 not conscious of their guilt would not flee from the 

 presence of a United Marshal and his posse of United 

 States soldiers. This is preposterous, and we did 

 not consider this a good ground of intimidation. 



There were no returns of the election from the 

 parish of De Soto by the Supervisor of Registration, 

 as the law required. Persons interested produced 

 the clerk of the court with such papers as were by 

 law intrusted to him, and offered them as the returns 

 from the parish. The board decided that they could 

 not receive, canvass, and compile such returns. The 

 parties in interest applied to the proper court for a 

 mandamus to compel the board to receive the can- 

 vass and compile those returns, but upon trial the 

 court sustained the ruling of the board. The same 

 principle was acted upon in the Terrebonne case. 

 There was no supervisor in the parish of Winn, the 

 one appointed for that parish having been expelled 

 from the parish, and an unauthorized person assumed 

 to act. They could not recognize such lawlessness. 



The board submits to the Legislature and people 

 of this State the result of their investigation, with a 

 consciousness that they have properly discharged 

 their trust. J. MADISON WELLS, President. 



The results as returned by the board, exclud- 

 ing the returns of those polls and parishes that 

 had been thrown out by this board, show that 

 69,544- votes were cast for Dubruclet, the Re- 

 publican candidate for Treasurer; and 68,586 

 for Moncure, making the majority of the for- 

 mer 958. Fifty-four Republican and fifty- 

 two Conservative members of the Legislature 

 were returned ; the election of five members 

 was not determined, but referred to the Legis- 

 lature for decision. The five constitutional 

 amendments recommended by Governor Kel- 

 logg and approved by the Legislature were 

 .ratified beyond dispute, as it was admitted 

 that this ratification would not be defeated by 

 the votes of the polls and parishes which had 

 been rejected. 



When the report of the Returning Board 



