PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



73? 



entering on that investigation. They announced thU 

 conclusion ; and that, therefore, they w<>ul<t i\>. 

 eeed to an examination of the u<-t-> of tin- lii-turning 

 Board of the State In respect of thu luto election, ana 

 tlu-n to uii nuniiry in njim-ni-i! to tin; Wliii.- League. 

 Tlii- l:i\v provide! tlmt tin- Umrd shull consint of five 

 persons, " representing all parties." It consisted at 

 tii.- ..|..-iiiii'.' of their list session of five Kepublioaos, 

 upon tin- ivMtfimtion of one of whom (Oenenal Long- 



, Mr. Arroyo, a Conservative, wan taken to nil 

 ..vuney. Alter protesting against the action of 



*rd, in secret session. Mr. Arroyo resigned, 

 before the conclusion of the Inborn of the board, and 

 In-. |>lace wad not filled, so Unit, as your conuuittue 

 think, ii,.- luw a* to the constitution of the board was 

 not compile. I \\itl:. The election laws of Louisiana 



. I . r u Supervisor of Registration, who appoints 



M deputies for each ward in New Orleans, and 

 lor ..no Supers is<>r of Kegistration for each parish in 

 the State. The officers were all appointed by Gov- 

 ernor Kellogg. In addition to these supervisors, the 



jurors, the local authorities of the parishes, ap- 

 pointed three Commissioners of Election for each poll 

 in the parish, and there were also two United States 

 supervisors appointed by the District Judge of the 



i Stutea for each poll. The law further provided 

 tlmt in case of such violence, intimidation, or corrup- 

 tion at or near cither poll, either during registration or 

 election, preventingafair,free, peaceable and full vote, 

 the Commissioners of Election, if the occurrence was 

 on election day, the Supervisors of Kegistration, if on 

 the day of registration, should make a full verified state- 

 ment of the occurrence, forward the same with and 

 annexed to the returns; and further provided that 

 when the Returning Board, in canvassing the returns, 

 should come to any poll where the returns were ac- 

 companied by such, a protest, they should not can- 



ount, or compile the statement of voters from 

 such poll until the statements from all other polls 

 had been canvassed and compiled. The Conserva- 

 tive counsel objected that the board on reaching the 

 returns from such protested polls read and become 

 informed of those returns before laying them hside to 

 take up the other polls. They insisted that the pur- 

 pose of the law was to prevent the commissioners 

 from knowing what the results at the polls protested 

 against were, in order that when they came to ex- 

 itniiuu the polls protested against they might do so 

 without being biased by knowing what was the re- 

 sult returned ; and they objected that in these cases 

 of protest the board had proceeded to read the re- 

 turns, add up, and compile them, and then defer 

 their determination of the case until after having 

 acquired knowledge of how the returns protested 

 against would affect the elections. On the other 

 hand, the Republican counsel insisted that such a 

 course was impracticable ; that the object of the law 

 in deferring any determination of the results of the 

 polls protested against until the returns from the 

 other polls were canvassed, was merely to enable the 

 board to ascertain whether the result of the disputed 

 returns would affect the election, however decided, so 

 that if they would not the board might be spared 

 the labor of considering this protest. Your com- 

 mittee have not found it necessary to come to any 

 determination upon that question. 



The election embraced but one State office. The 

 chief struggle was over the election of members of 

 the State Legislature and parish officers, and in tin -.-e 

 elections local and personal considerations as well as 

 national and State politics entered. 



The returns by the Commissioners of Election, 

 compiled and forwarded by the Supervisors of Regis- 

 tration, gave the Conservatives a majority of 29 

 members out of a total of 111 members. In only 

 three instances were there any protests accompany- 

 ing the returns. Tho Returning Board was in ses- 

 sion for many weeks. As finally announced, their 

 findings gave, as Governor Kellogg reckoned it, 53 

 membea to the Republicans, and 50 members to 



VOL. xiv. 47 A 



the Democrat*, of whom, however, one WM regarded 

 M not staying Democrat. The board nude no de- 

 cision an to the remaining five scats. The public 

 Hitting! of the Returning Board were attended by the 

 ooooMl of the Republican and Conservative Bute 

 Committee!. Objections were received from the 

 counsel of the respective parties to the return* from 

 different polls. The objecting party was generally 

 allowed to produce evidence to support the objection, 

 un.l the other party to reply by affidavit*. A dy 

 was fixed when these proofs were to be closeJ. 

 After these public sessions the board went into pri- 

 vate, or, as they were called, executive sessions, where 

 the proofs and matters in dispute were dis< < 

 and a decision arrived at. Tho minutes of the Ixmrd 

 are very meagre. They contain little more than a 

 record of its meeting, going into executive session, and 

 its adjourning, and some formal public orders. They 

 contain no minutes whatever of the proceedings in ex- 

 ecutive session, and furnish, therefore, little light upon 

 the tindingsof the board. The Parish of Rapides chose 

 three members to the Legislature. The returns elected 

 all three Conservatives. When the proofs closed the 

 only paper filed with the Returning Board was the 

 affidavit of the United States Supervisor that th 

 tion was in all respects full, tuir, and free. It wa 

 not known in the parish that any contest existed 

 against those members. They left their homes and 

 proceeded to New Orleans, to DO present at the open- 

 ing of the Legislature, no intimation of contesting 

 their seats or objection to their election having been 

 given by their opponents. At one of their hist ses- 

 sions, the Returning Board declared all the Republi- 

 can members elected from that parish. When the 

 papers of the Returning Board were produced before 

 your committee there was found among them an 

 affidavit by Mr. Wells, the president of the board, 

 declaring that intimidation had existed at certain 

 polls in that parish, and that the returns from those 

 polls should, therefore^ be rejected. The counsel for 

 the Democratic Committee testified that they had no 

 opportunity to contradict the statements of this paper : 

 that they had never seen or known of it before, and 

 that upon an examination of the papers before the 

 board, when the proofs closed, it was not among them. 

 The counsel for the Republican Committee reserved 

 the right to make explanation upon this point, but 



offered none. The affidavit was dated day of 



December, 1874. It appeared that Governor Wells 

 was not himself in the parish on the day of the elec- 

 tion, and though at the opening of their first session 

 your committee declared their intention to examine 

 into the action of the Returning Board. Governor 

 Wells never came forward as a witness. At the close 

 of our proceedings leave was asked that his deposi- 

 tion might be given in. This we declined, and Mr. 

 Wells was invited to appear before the committee, 

 but he never came. Leave was also given for taking 

 his testimony by a commissioner, it he declined to 

 appear; but this was not availed of. Your com- 

 mittee are, therefore, constrained to declare that the 

 action of the Returning Board in the rejection of these 

 returns in the parish of Rapides, and giving the seats 

 for that parish to the Republican candidates, was ar- 

 bitrary, unfair, and without warrant of law. 



If the committee were to go behind the papers be- 

 fore the board and consider the alleged charge of in- 

 timidation upon the proofs before the committee, 

 their finding would necessarily be the same. It was 

 I in Governor WeUs's affidavit that the Mc- 

 Enery officials had usurped the offices of the parish, 

 and thereby intimidated voters. Immediately alter 

 September 14th, when the Kellogg authorities in New 

 Orleans were put out by the Penn authorities, certain 

 changes took place in some of the parishes. When 

 the news from New Orleans reached those parishes, 

 the McEnery officers demanded their places of the 

 Kellogg officials ; they were at once given up. When 

 the Federal Government interfered and unseated the 

 McEnery authorities, the Kellogg officials demanded 



