493 



LOUISIANA. 



and in view of the possible consequences of its ad- 

 judication, we have closely observed its proceed- 

 ings, and have carefully weighed the force of a large 

 mass of the testimony upon which that adjudication 

 has been reached. Members of the board, acting 

 under oath, were bound by the law, if convinced by 

 the testimony that riot, tumults, acts of violence, or 

 armed disturbance did materially interfere with the 

 purity and freedom of election, at any poll or voting- 

 place, or did materially change the result of the 

 election thereat, to reject the votes thus cast and ex- 

 clude them from their final return. 



Of the effect of such testimony the board was 

 the sole and final judge, and if in reaching a con- 

 clusion it exercised good faith and was guided _by 

 an honest desire to do justice, its determination 

 should be respected even if upon light proof a dif- 

 ferent conclusion might have been reached by other 

 tribunals or persons. To guard the purity of the 

 ballot, to protect the citizen in the free and peaceful 

 exercise of his right to vote, to secure him against 

 violence, and especially murder, when he attempts 

 to perform this duty, should be the desire of all men 

 ana the aim of every representative government. 



If political success shall be attained by such vio- 

 lent and terrible means as were resorted to in many 

 parishes in Louisiana, complaint should not be 

 made if the votes thus obtained are denounced by 

 judicial tribunals and all honest men as illegal and 

 void. 



The report was signed by John Sherman, 

 Ohio; E. W. Stoughton, New York; J. H. Van 

 Alen, New York ; Eugene Hale, Maine ; J. A. 

 Garfield, Ohio; Cortland Parker, New Jersey; 

 W. D. Kelley, Pennsylvania; Sidney Clark, 

 Kansas ; J. 0. Wilson, Kansas. 



The Democratic witnesses made their report 

 on the same date, to Abram S. Hewitt, chair- 

 man of the Democratic National Committee. 

 It took the ground that the returning officers 

 were unworthy of confidence; that they had 

 violated the law in refusing to fill the vacancy, 

 and in their whole manner of conducting the 

 canvass of contested returns; that they had 

 accepted as proof of fraud and intimidation in 

 distant parishes affidavits manufactured in 

 New Orleans; that their action had been par- 

 tisan and one-sided from first to last, and that 

 the result announced was a fraud upon the 

 people of the State. Its conclusions were 

 briefly expressed in this statement : " With 

 the law and such facts before us as have 

 been disclosed by the action of the Returning 

 Board, we do not hesitate to declare that its 

 proceedings as witnessed by us were partial 

 and unfair, and that the result it has an- 

 nounced is arbitrary, illegal, and entitled to 

 no respect whatever." 



The signers of the report were John M. 

 Palmer, Lyman Trumbull, William Bigler, 

 George B. Smith, George W. Julian, and P. H. 

 Watson. 



The Returning Board itself issued an address 

 to the country on the 12th of December. It 

 was as follows : 



The Returning Board of the State of Louisiana 

 claim, first, that under the provisions of the law they 

 are returning officers of all elections held in said 

 State ; that there are in law nnd in fact no returns 

 of any election held in said State until first exam- 

 ined, canvassed, and compiled by them ; that state- 

 ments furnished by the Commissioners of Election 



are simply statements of votes purported to have 

 been cast, and that, until the fairness and legality of 

 voting at that poll or precinct have been passed upon 

 by the returning officers, no validity attaches to any 

 such statement. 



In strict compliance with the laws of the United 

 States and of this State, the returning officers of the 

 State of Louisiana have proceeded to examine, can- 

 vass, and compile, a statement of votes purported 

 to have been cast in this State, at a general election 

 for President and Vice-President of the United 

 States, held on the 7th day of last November. The 

 votes purported to have been cast in the parishes of 

 Grant and East Feliciana have been ignored entirely 

 in the official canvass. 



In Grant Parish not one form of law was ob- 

 served ; there were no legal supervisors or Commis- 

 sioners of Election, and the vote taken was as infor- 

 mal as votes taken on a railroad-train. 



In East Feliciana the returning officers were un- 

 able to find one poll at which, from the evidence be- 

 fore them, they could certify that a full, free, and 

 fair election was had. 



In the parish of East Baton Rouge the returning 

 officers canvassed and compiled the votes of three 

 polls, situated in the city of Baton Rouge, where 

 there was military protection afforded; also three 

 other polls, situated immediately on the river, where 

 there was comparative immunity from intimidation. 

 Evidence as to intimidation by murder, hanging, 

 whipping, and other outrages as aflfecting the vote at 

 other polls, was so conclusive that the returning of- 

 ficers unanimously rejected the votes stated to have 

 been cast at those polls. In the adjoining parish of 

 West Feliciana six polls were rejected on similar 

 conclusive evidence. In the parish of Ouachita eight 

 polls were rejected ; while in the city of Monroe, the 

 parish-seat of that parish, the statements of vutes 

 cast were accepted Bacause voters there were meas- 

 urably protected from violence by the presence of 

 United States troops. The United States Deputy 

 Marshal in charge of the ballot-box at one of the 

 rejected polls was shot, and throughout the whole 

 parish there prevailed a systematic intimidation, 

 murder, and violence, toward one class of voters, 

 white as well as black, of such character as to have 

 scarcely a parallel in the history of this State. In 

 the adjoining parish of Morehouse the statement of 

 the votes reported to be cast in six polls was also 

 rejected on similar evidence. Polls were also rejected 

 in the parishes of De Soto, Bossier, Franklin, Clai- 

 borne, and Calcasieu, upon clear evidence of fraud, 

 not rebutted by evidence before the returning of- 

 ficers. J. MADISON WELLS, 



THOMAS C. ANDEKSON, 

 G. CASENAVE, 

 LOUIS M. KENNER. 



Soon after the meeting of the Federal Con- 

 gress in December a special committee was ap- 

 pointed by each House to make an investiga- 

 tion of the election in Louisiana. The com- 

 mitteeof the House of Representatives arrived 

 in New Orleans and held its first session on the 

 12th of December. In reply to a subpoena 

 duces tecum, the returning officers made a pro- 

 test against this attempt of a committee of the 

 House of Representatives of the United States 

 to invade the rights of the State by demanding 

 possession of their archives with a view to re- 

 view the action of her tribunals without any 

 legal or constitutional right. They declined 

 to give up their records, but offered to allow 

 them to be copied for the committee. The 

 committee of the Senate arrived and began 

 operations on the 18th. Both the House and 

 Senate committees were divided into several 



