|F 375 
 L943 
 
 Copy 1 
 
 ^LOUISIANA AT 
 
 k. 
 
 ABSTRACT OF THE EVID 
 
 OF 
 
 k 
 
 GOVERNOR KELLOGG'S ELHGTION IN 1872, 
 
 FRAUDS OF THE FUSIONISTS. 
 
 TEXT OF THE PROTOCOL AND AWARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
 
 I 
 
 NEW ORLEANS : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE REPUBLICAN OFFICE, 94 CAMP STREET. 
 
 1875. 
 
\ 
 
THE LOUISIANA ADJUSTMENT, 
 
 ABSTRACT OF THE EVIDENCE 
 
 OF 
 
 I 
 
 AND THE 
 
 FRAUDS OF THE F UNIONISTS. 
 
 TEXT OF THE PROTOCOL AND AWARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
 
 
 
 NEW ORLEANS : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE REPUBLICAN OFFICE, 94 CAMP 8TRBBT. 
 
 1875. 
 
 >*K 
 


 THE LOUISIANA ADJUSTMENT. 
 
 
 New Orleans, November 27, 1875. 
 
 To enable our Republican friends in Congress to clearly under- 
 stand all the main points involved in the Louisiana case down to its 
 very latest developments, this statement has been compiled: 1 — giv- 
 ing a bird's eye view of the condition of political parties in the State 
 preceding and during the canvass of 1872; 2 — showing the relative 
 strength and popularity of the two candidates for Governor, Kel- 
 logg and McEnery; 3 — giving a synopsis of the leading frauds 
 perpetrated by the "Warmoth officials in forging, changing and 
 suppressing the returns of the votes actually cast, so as to make it 
 appear that McEnery and not Kellogg had been elected; 4 — insti- 
 tuting a comparison of the vote of 1872 with the vote of 1874, 
 showing by the figures, even as claimed by the Democrats them- 
 selves, Kellogg's election in 1872; 5 — giving a recital of the 
 persistent efforts made by Kellogg to have the returns fairly can- 
 vassed, and McEnery's equally persistent refusals and evasions; 
 6 — narrating a history of the rise and progress of adjustment, text 
 of the protocol agreed to and all that it implies, and, 7 — showing 
 that McEnery and the Democratic party, State and National, are 
 estopped by the terms of that protocol and the award made there- 
 under from any further prosecution of their claims as against the 
 present State Government, " known as the Kellogg Government." 
 
 ATTITUDE OF PARTIES IN 1872. 
 
 The relative position of political parties in the presidential and 
 State elections in 1872 will be best explained by the following brief 
 summary of political movements. Early in the campaign two con- 
 ventions were called to meet in the city of New Orleans. One was con- 
 vened by the Democrats, and after a turbulent session, nominated 
 John McEnery, of Monroe, for Governor. The other convention took 
 the name of Reformers, and was composed for the most part of old 
 Whigs, and prominent citizens opposed to the Slidell Democracy, and 
 
willing to subordinate party names and party considerations to the 
 reform of alleged existing abuses in the State Government. This 
 convention nominated for Governor George Williamson, of Shreve- 
 port, a native of the State, and now United States Minister to Cen- 
 tral America. In the following month Governor Warmoth, alienated 
 from the Republican party, and determined to cast in his lot with 
 the opposition, convened a so-called " Liberal '' convention, which 
 met in New Orleans, and nominated D. B. Penn for Governor. The 
 regular Republican convention then met at Baton Rouge, and nom- 
 inated Wm. P. Kellogg, for Governor. He was regarded as the 
 most available candidate, by reason of his record in the United 
 States Senate, in procuring the passage of several measures deemed 
 of the highest importance to the State — notably the Texas 
 Pacific Railroad, the Mexican Steamship Subsidy bill, and the 
 appropriation for removing the Red river raft — all very popular 
 measures. His efforts in the Senate in procuring the passage of the 
 amendment to the Enforcement bill, during the latter part of the 
 session of 1872, made him especially strong with his party in the 
 State. So strong was the feeling in his favor at that time, that a 
 committee of the reform party proceeded to Baton Rouge and 
 assisted in procuring the nomination of Mr. Kellogg, and in over- 
 coming his well known reluctance to accept the nomination. Sub- 
 sequently a portion of the Republican party nominated P. B. S. 
 Pinchback for Governor. From first to last, therefore, there were 
 five gubernatorial tickets placed in the field. As the campaign pro- 
 gressed, however, these five candidates were reduced to two, be- 
 tween whom the issue was ultimately decided. The Democrats and 
 Warmoth Liberals united, and formed a ticket called the Fusion 
 ticket, with McBnery for Governor, and Penn for Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor. Mr. Pinchback withdrew his claims in favor of Mr. Kellogg, 
 and accepted the nomination for Congressman at large on the regu- 
 lar Republican ticket. The Reform ticket was withdrawn, and Mr. 
 Williamson, the head of that ticket, published the following circular 
 letter, which was widely distributed all over the State: 
 
 New Orleans, La., October 25, 1875. 
 
 Sir: I am fully persuaded that it is impossible for us to hope for 
 reform if the head of the Fusion Ticket is elected. He comes into 
 office under such obligations to Gov. Warmoth and his cliques and 
 
5 
 
 rings, that it will be impossible for him, in my opinion, to break loose 
 from them. I say this much, although I believe him to be honest in 
 all his intentions. The only chance for reform in the State is by the 
 election of the Hon. Wm. P. Kellogg. He is certainly opposed to 
 Gov. Warmoth and all his cliques. He is honest and intelligent, and 
 has served the State ably in congress. I respectfully suggest that 
 you have tickets printed to carry out this idea, or that you insert 
 Mr. Kellogg's name for Governor in the ticket you vote, if this meets 
 your approbation. 
 
 Very Respectfully, GEORGE WILLIAMSON. 
 
 When the canvass fairly opened therefore, there were but two 
 candidates in the field for Governor, McEnery and Kellogg. 
 
 EELATIVE STRENGTH OF THE CANDIDATES. 
 
 The State was canvassed by the Republicans as it had never been 
 before, Mr. Kellogg going through the entire State. He was un- 
 derstood and known by all the colored people to be the candidate of 
 the united Republican party. McEnery was equally well understood 
 by them to be the candidate of the Democratic party proper. Mr. 
 McEnery's record as a member of the lower House of the Legisla- 
 ture of 1865-6 under the President Johnson regime, his participation 
 in the unanimous rejection by that body of the Fourteenth Constitu- 
 tional amendment, and in the passage of vagrant, labor, and other 
 laws enacted by them discriminating against the colored people, was 
 well known and thoroughly discussed. On the other hand some 
 hundreds of the leading business men of New Orleans, and many 
 planters in the country parishes openly advocated the election of Mr. 
 Kellogg. The New Orleans Picayune, then professedly conducted by 
 " the merchants of New Orleans," said editorially, " the nomination of 
 Senator Kellogg is a source of gratification to all good citizens;" and 
 the German Gazette, the only daily newspaper published in the 
 German language in the southwest, whilst supporting the Greeley 
 movement in National politics, advocated the election of " Kellogg 
 and Penn." It was a matter of public notoriety of which Congress 
 has properly taken cognizance thoughout the multiform investiga- 
 tions and debates which the Louisiana question has called forth, 
 that the condition of Governor Warmoth's support of McEnery 
 was that McEnery as Governor should exert his executive influence 
 to secure the election of Governor Warmoth to the United States 
 Senate, and it is apparent throughout every investigation that Gov- 
 
ernor Warmoth's immense power (he holding the entire election 
 machinery in his hands) was exerted principally in the direction 
 towards which his individual interests pointed, namely, to secure 
 the defeat of Kellogg by McEnery. Yet in every one of the numer- 
 ous official and unofficial counts and recounts of the votes cast, 
 made public by Governor Warmoth and his supporters, Kellogg is 
 shown to have run far ahead of every other person nominated on 
 the Republican ticket. 
 
 THE FRAUDS PERPETRATED— POINTS FROM MR. FRELINGHUYSEN. 
 
 The scope and objects of the conspiracy entered into to prevent, 
 as far as Kellogg was concerned, the will of the people, as actu- 
 ally recorded at the ballot boxes on the fourth of November, 1872, 
 from being given practical effect to, is so ably set forth in a speech 
 delivered by Hon. F. T. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, in the 
 United States Senate, April 14, 1874, that some extracts from that 
 address are here inserted. Mr. Frelinghuysen said: 
 
 On the 4th of November, 1872, an election took place. It had all 
 the forms of an election, registration, polls, poll-lists, ballots, returns, 
 registers, supervisors, etc. There were but two candidates, McEnery 
 and Kellogg. One of those two men in fact had a majority of the 
 legal votes cast unless there was a tie, and then we have nothing to 
 do with the case, as the constitution of Louisiana provides that in 
 that event the Legislature elects. * * * * 
 
 To ascertain who by a majority of legal votes cast is entitled to an 
 office, I had supposed was a matter over which the State courts had 
 jurisdiction. If for any reasons the State courts have not jurisdic- 
 tion, or if so corrupt that they can not be trusted, then if we are to 
 interfere we must address ourselves to the question, who was 
 elected 9******* 
 
 The moral evidence tlfat McEnery had not a majority of the legal 
 votes cast, and that consequently Kellogg had, is to my mind irresist- 
 ible. Warmoth had the purpose, the intent, to carry that election 
 by fraud. This is apparent, and is conceded. It is notorious that 
 he, elected a republican, was to give the State to the democracy, and 
 as a return was to grace the United States Senate. His legisla- 
 ture I understand, attempted to elect him, but this project was 
 abandoned because it was thought it would interfere with the rec- 
 ognition of the State government by the General Government. He 
 appointed a man named Blanchard to be register. That man has 
 made an affidavit. If ihe affidavit be true his character is such that 
 no one can approve; if it be untrue, comment is unnecessary. Blan- 
 chard appointed the supervisors in each parish or county, and the su- 
 pervisor in each parish appointed three commissioners. To these 
 
were added three freeholders, who, with the commissioners assisted 
 the supervisors of the parish in counting the votes of the precincts. 
 And we see at a glance that Warmoth could cheat Kellogg, but 
 that Kellogg could not cheat Warmoth or McEnery. One could 
 cheat. The organization of the election throughout the whole State 
 originated with and was controlled by Warmoth. It is not denied 
 
 that Warmoth meant fraud, and that he had the power to effect it. 
 
 ******** 
 
 It appears, then, that the McEnery party had the purpose to cheat, 
 and had the organized machinery to effect their end. It looks as if, 
 after all, the Republican majority was too great for them. Warmoth 
 knew that it was of the first importance that he should satisfy the 
 public that McEnery had a majority, and how easily he could have 
 done so. Instead of maneuvering to get a facile board of canvassers, 
 instead of resorting to a legislative bill, which he as governor had 
 carried for six months in his pocket and signiug it so as to create 
 a canvassing board that suited him, all he need to have done was to 
 call in twenty honest men in the State of Louisiana, Republicans and 
 Democrats, take them to the State House and there say, " Here are 
 the returns; add them up in the presence of these interested parties." 
 It was only a matter of addition. They could have publicly added 
 them up, showed the result, and if any one standing by said "Those 
 returns are false,'' all he need have done was to send to the super- 
 visor of the parish whom he had appointed, and request him to 
 bring the ballot-box and say, "There are the ballots; the returns are 
 not false;" and if any one charged that the ballot-box had been 
 stuffed or that there had been votes abstracted, all he need have done 
 was to send for the poll-lists and say, "There are the poll-lists; they 
 correspond with the ballots;'' and if any one charged that the poll- 
 lists were false in a given precinct of such a parish, all he need have 
 done was to send a justice of the peace to that parish; every man 
 who had there voted had indorsed on his registration papers the 
 fact that he had voted, and if a living man he could swear how he 
 had voted. 
 
 Mr. President, did not Warmoth know that investigation would 
 prove his candidate not elected ? At all events, is there affirmative 
 proof that McEnery was elected on which we can remove Kellogg ? 
 
 * * * Viewt- similar in some respects to those which I have 
 expressed are set forth in the report of my friend from Wisconsin; 
 for he agrees with me as to the vicious character of this election: 
 
 "A careful consideration of the testimony convinces us that, had 
 the election of November last been fairly conducted and returned, 
 Kellogg and his associates, and a Legislature composed of the same 
 political party, would have been elected. The colored population 
 of that State outnumbers the white, and in the last election the 
 colored voters were almost unanimous in their support of the 
 Republican ticket. Governor Warmoth, who was elected by the 
 Republicans of the State in 1868, had passed into opposition, and 
 held in his hands the entire machinery of the election. He appointed 
 the supervisors of registration, and they appointed the commission- 
 
8 
 
 ers of election. The testimony shows a systematic purpose on the 
 part of those conducting the election to throw every possible diffi- 
 culty in the way of the colored voters in the matter of registration. 
 The polling places are not fixed by law, and at the last election they 
 were purposely established by those conducting the election at 
 places inconvenient of access in those parishes which were known 
 to be largely Eepublican; so that, in some instances, voters had to 
 travel over twenty miles to reach the polls. The election was gen- 
 erally conducted in quiet, and was perhaps unusually free from 
 disturbance or riot. Governor Warmoth, who was the master spirit 
 in the whole proceeding, seems to have relied upon craft rather than 
 violence to carry the State for McEnery. In the canvass of votes, 
 which determined the McEnery government to be elected, the votes 
 of several Eepublican parishes were rejected.'' 
 
 * * * Mr. President, I further submit that, as might be 
 expected from the circumstances referred to, we have nothing 
 amounting to evidence that McEnery had any majority, and for 
 these five reasons: First, the question has at best been only inci- 
 dentally examined by the committee; second, from six out of fifty- 
 eight parishes we have no returns; third, from several of the parishes 
 the returns are forgeries; fourth, from one at least it is in proof by 
 an eye-witness that the returns were manufactured and sworn to in 
 blank before they were made; fifth, the preponderance of evidence 
 is that Kellogg and not McEnery had a majority of the votes cast. 
 Now I will say a word or two on each of these points. That the 
 committee did not give their attention to the question whether 
 Kellogg or McEnery had the majority, no matter what the resolution 
 says, is manifest from an examination of the case. Their attention 
 was given to the question which was the true canvassing board so 
 as to determine which was the true Legislature, in order that they 
 might determine whether Ray or McMillen was prima facie entitled 
 to be Senator; and if you want proof that this phase of the subject 
 has not been examined, you have only to look to the report. On 
 the last page of the book is this testimony; one witness, Mr. Ray, 
 says: 
 
 " I desire to call the attention of the committee to a statement. At 
 a suggestion made by one member of the committee yesterday, I 
 examined and found, and if the committee will act as experts they 
 will find that the commissioners of election in several cases in the 
 parishes have their names forged to the affidavits. For instance, 
 there is one from Madison parish, (exhibiting the papers) and so in 
 the parish of Grant also, and in the parish of Pointe Coupee and 
 the parish of East Baton Rouge, which, if the committee will exam- 
 ine as experts, they will find it very evident in some cases that they 
 were forged. 
 
 " The Chairman. We will now consider the evidence in the Louis- 
 iana investigation closed, as I am advised by both sides that they 
 have laid all the testimony before the committee that they desire to 
 present." 
 
 It is clear that the committee did not attempt to find out what re- 
 
9 
 
 turns were forged and what were not, for on the presentation of this 
 controlling fact the whole testimony was closed and the report is 
 based on the testimony as it then stood. Again, from six out of 
 fifty-eight parishes we have no returns — Iberia, Iberville, St. James 
 St. Martin, St. Tammany, Terrebonne — as appears by the certificate of 
 the Forman board found on page 81 of the report. It is said that 
 three of these six parishes were rejected because of violence. For- 
 man says so in his testimony on the seventy-sixth page. They have 
 given no evidence of the violence excepting in one case, and that is 
 spread out from the six hundred and fifth to the six hundred and 
 forty-first page — thirty-five pages of evidence relating to the alleged 
 violence in the parish of Iberville. This was a Republican parish 
 having a strong preponderance of colored votes. There were from 
 seven to eight hundred white votes and three thousand colored votes 
 registered. The white vote was made up, as we know, of Democrats 
 and in that parish of democratic planters. To their credit be it said 
 that there seems to have been no man in the parish who suited Mr. 
 Warmoth as supervisor, and a Mr. Tharp was brought from New Or- 
 leans and was made supervisor. The commissioners took the ballot 
 boxes with the poll-lists to Plaquemines. The colored men were or- 
 derly, but when voting was over they armed and followed the ballot- 
 boxes to Plaquemines. They claimed the right to go into the State 
 House. The sheriff prohibited them. They had a right to go in. 
 We would have gone in. They, intent and in earnest, watched that 
 ballot-box. When one party would grow weary others would relieve 
 them, and they stood at the windows watching the boxes. 
 
 In all the testimony of thirty-five pages there is no evidence of 
 one act of violence; and that is one of the three parishes the returns 
 of which were rejected because of violence. What the violence was 
 in the other two parishes, they have not had the grace to give us 
 one word of testimony to inform us. There was no violence. There 
 was no reason that the ballots should not have been counted and 
 the returns made up, excepting that it was a strong Republican 
 parish. I will show presently the effect of the exclusion of these 
 parishes. 
 
 The returns from several of the parishes are forged, but they all 
 go in to make up McEnery's majority, as we shall see presently. 
 The Senator from Wisconsin very fairly, in a calculation with which 
 I, having gone over the figures, entirely agree, makes a deduction 
 for those parishes. From one of the parishes the returns were man- 
 ufactured; and there my friend asks me for the evidence, and I 
 will trouble the clerk to read from pages 909 and 910 of the testi- 
 mony — that whioh I have marked. 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 State of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans, City of New Orleans. 
 
 Personally came and appeared before me, Robert H. Shannon, 
 United States commissioner in and for the district of Louisiana, 
 John P. Montamat, of the city and State aforesaid, who, being duly 
 sworn, doth depose and say that during the month of November, 
 
10 
 
 1872, and for four years before, he was a justice of the peace for 
 this parish of Orleans; that in the month aforesaid, after the elec- 
 tion held in this parish for Governor and other State and parochial 
 officers, " what date I can not recollect, but it was while they were 
 counting the votes at the State House, at the Mechanics' Institute, 
 situated on Dryades street," one Jack Wharton, also of this city and 
 parish aforesaid, came to my office, situated at 33 Exchange alley, 
 near Customhouse street, in this city and parish aforesaid, and request- 
 ed that I should go with him in a certain place in this city of New 
 Orleans, in order to administer the oath to one of the supervisors of 
 election in and for the parish of Madison. At said request I went 
 with Jack Wharton, who took me in a house situated on Gravier 
 street, somewhere near Baronne street; the entry-doors were closed, 
 and at the signal given by Jack Wharton, (three consecutive and 
 hard raps, ) the doors were opened. In the said room I saw one 
 Cahoon, whose first name I do not know, but whom I had seen be- 
 fore in this city; he, the said Cahoon, then and there informed me 
 that he was supervisor of election for the parish of Madison, ap- 
 pointed by Henry C. Warmoth, then Governor of Louisiana, and 
 that he wished me to swear him as to the returns of the late elec- 
 tion. I saw there several persons whom I did not know; they were 
 making up tally lists of the returns of the election for the parish of 
 Madison. The lists were signed in blank by the commissioners of 
 election. I inquired from Cahoon, the supervisor, how it was that 
 he had not prepared the lists and returns in the parish where he 
 came from. He told me that he could not count the votes there ; it 
 was a Republican parish, and that he had to run away because he 
 wanted to count the votes, and admit no one except a few, and he 
 would have it his own way, and would here in New Orleans return 
 such persons as he thought proper. I swore him to several tally 
 lists and returns. I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that the 
 greater part ot the tally lists were yet in blank when I swore him. 
 
 JOHN P. MONTAMAT. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this third day of February, 
 1873. 
 
 [seal] R. H. SHANNON, 
 
 United States Commissioner, District of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghoysen. Mr. President, let us look at the effect of the 
 facts I have called attention to upon McEnei'y's majority. They 
 claim for McEnery a majority of 9606. The four parishes where 
 there were forgeries and the six parishes from which there are no 
 returns, according to the Lynch board, give Kellogg a majority of 
 7295. Now take the 7295 majority in six parishes not returned and 
 in four in which the returns were forged from the 9606, and it leaves 
 McEnery's majority, as the Senator from Wisconsin agrees, 2611. 
 Now let us see what becomes of that 2611 majority. Let anybody 
 who wants to examine this read the three hundred and sixth page 
 of the testimony which was sent here with the President's message. 
 There is Caddo parish. The white registration was 1549 and Mc- 
 
11 
 
 Enery's vote 1837 — nearly 300 more than the white registration. 
 The colored registration was 3139 and Kellogg's vote 1576, or 1563 
 less than the colored registration. This shows fraud not before but 
 after the election. It points to a falsification of returns, for frauds 
 in keeping men back from the polls probably would not give Mc- 
 Enary 300 more votes than there were white votes registered. 
 
 Mr. Carpenter How can you tell whether a ballot was cast by a 
 black man or a white man ? 
 
 Mr. Freltnghuysen. No; but my friend's report states that the 
 colored men were Republicans, as a general rule, and the whiles 
 Democrats. Take Rapides parish. The white registry was 1011; 
 McEnery's vote was 1960, or 949 more than the white registration. 
 In Natchitoches the white registration was 1486, and McEnery's vote 
 1230; the colored registration was 1875, and Kellogg's vote only 55. 
 In Bossier parish the white registration was 578; McEnery's vote 
 953, or 375 more than the white registration; the colored registra- 
 tion 1795, and the vote for Kellogg 555. It is perfectly apparent 
 that the fraud was in the returns as well as in the manner in which 
 the election was conducted. 
 
 But again, take another view of these returns. There are fifty-eigh 6 
 parishes in Louisiana. In twenty-four — Ascension, Bienville, Calca" 
 sieu, Caldwell, Cameron, Carroll, Claiborne, Concordia, East Feliciana* 
 Franklin, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Livingston, Ouachita, Pointe 
 Coupee, Red River, Sabine, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John Bap- 
 tist, Tangipahoa, Tensas, and Orleans — which are those where there 
 is not much difference between the two boards of canvassers in the 
 result, in those twenty-four parishes by the Forman board there is 
 an aggregate of 36,679 democratic votes and 36,203 republican 
 votes, giving a democratic majority of 476. According to the Lynch 
 board the republican vote was 35,590 and the democratic vote 
 33,81 7, giving a republican majority of 1,673. The Forman board 
 gives a democratic majority of 476 and the Lynch board a republi- 
 can majority of 1,673, no very great difference for such an election; 
 average it, and call it a majority of 1000 for Kellogg. The vote was 
 close and the registration was correspondingly so. The white regis- 
 tration was 52,979 and the colored registration was 51,469. The 
 democratic vote and the white registration, the republican vote and 
 the colored registration correspond. 
 
 Now look to the remaining thirty-four parishes. By the Forman 
 board the democatic vote is in the aggregate 27,788; the republican 
 vote 20,170, giving a democratic majority of 7618. This is manifest- 
 ly a fraud, and is thus shown. In those thirty-four parishes the 
 registration of whites was 34,786, and that registration gives a dem- 
 ocratic vote of 27,788. The registration of the colored people was 
 42,879, and that gives a republican vote of only 20,170. If the 
 same ratio of republican votes- was given for the 42,000 colored 
 registered voters as of democratic votes given by 34,000 white regis- 
 tered votes, which was 27,788, the republican vote would be 35,000 
 instead of 20,170. * 
 
12 
 
 Now let us see what becomes of McEnery's majority. The differ- 
 ence between 35,000, the true vote by all the analogies of this case 
 and according to the Lynch board, and the 20,170 that the Forman 
 returns give for these thirty-four parishes is 14,830. Take from 
 that McEnery's majority of 9606, and it leaves Keliogg's majority 
 4924. Add to the 4924 the majority which Kellogg had in the 
 twenty-four parishes, and it makes Keliogg's majority 5^4. 
 
 You may turn this subject any way you please, and you will find 
 that Kellogg was not only the representative of the will and inten- 
 tion of the people, as the Senator from Wisconsin says, but that he 
 had a majority of the legal votes cast. 
 
 THE V/)TE COMPAEED WITH 1874. 
 
 The conclusion thus arrived at by the Senator from New Jersey, 
 from his analysis of the registration and vote of 1872 is more than 
 sustained by a comparison of the votes east in the parishes referred 
 to by him in the general election of 1872, as claimed by the Fusion- 
 ists or Democrats, and the votes cast in the same parishes in the 
 local election for State Treasurer, held in November, 1874, as also 
 claimed by the Democrats. As shown in schedule I, published below, 
 in thirty-four parishes in the election of 1872, namely: Ascension, 
 Bienville, Caldwell, Cameron, Carroll, Claiborne, Calcasieu, Concor- 
 dia, East Feliciana, West Feliciana, Franklin, Iberia, Jefferson, 
 Jackson, Lafayette, Livingston, Ouachita, Plaquemines, Red River, 
 Richland, St. Martin, St. Tammany, Sabine, St. Charles, St. John, 
 St. Landry, Tensas, Tangipahoa, Union, Vermilion, Vernon, Wash- 
 ington, Winn and Orleans, respecting which parishes the returns of 
 the Forman Fusion Board and of the Lynch Legal Board were sub- 
 stantially the same, (vide page 81 of report of Senate Committee 
 of 1873, and pages 1019-20 of report of Hoar Committee of 1875) 
 Warmoth's election officers of 1872 returned — 
 
 For McEnery 44,188 
 
 For Kellogg 40,018 
 
 Democratic majority ... 4,170 
 
 In the twenty-two remaining parishes, as shown in Schedule II, 
 published below, namely: Assumption, Avoyelles, East Baton Rouge, 
 West Baton Rouge, Bossier, Caddo, Catahoula, De Soto, Grant, La- 
 fourche, Iberville, Madison, Morehouse, Pointe Coupee, Natchitoches, 
 Rapides, St. Bernard, St. Helena, St. James, St. Mary, Terrebonne 
 and Webster, respecting which the Forman and Lynch Boards 
 
13 
 
 widely differed in 1872, there were cast, according to the claim of 
 the Democratic State Central Committee in the election of 1874: 
 
 For Dubuclet (Republican candidate for State Treasurer) . 29,248 
 For Moncure (Democratic candidate for State Treasurer) . 21,639 
 
 Republican majority 7,609 
 
 (Vide pages 1019-20, report of Hoar Committee.) 
 
 Taking the vote cast in these parishes in the election of 1874 as 
 being a fair indication of the vote in 1872, and adding Moncure 
 and Dubuclet's vote in these twenty-two parishes in 1874, as claimed 
 by the Democrats themselves, to the vote cast for McEnery and Kel- 
 logg, respectively, in the other thirty-four parishes in 1872, the re- 
 turns from which are conceded on both sides to be substantially 
 correct, gives McEnery a total vote of 65,827, against Kellogg's 
 69,266, a majority of thirty-four hundred and thirty-nine (3439) for 
 Kellogg. In instituting this comparison it must be borne in mind 
 that the election of 1872 was a general election for President as 
 well as for State officers, and is admitted on all hands to have been 
 the most peaceable election ever held in the State. In the words 
 of Senator Carpenter, " Governor Warmoth, toho was the master spirit 
 in the whole proceeding, seems to ham relied upon craft rattier than 
 violence to carry the State for McEnery." The election of 1874 was 
 purely a local one. It had been preceded by the terrible massacres 
 of Colfax and Coushatta, and the sanguinary riot of the fourteenth 
 September in New Orleans. The White League was in full force, 
 and intimidation and coercion were freely practiced toward the 
 colored voters. Under these circumstances the probability is so 
 great as to amount almost to an absolute certainty that in the twenty- 
 two parishes last named Kellogg and Grant, in 1872, received a 
 majority twice as large as the vote cast for the Republican Treasurer 
 in 1874. Respecting the latter election the Hoar Committee in their 
 report say : 
 
 Mr. Moncure, the conservative candidate for State Treasurer, 
 claims a majority in the whole State of about 5000. A far greater 
 number of Republicans than enough to overcome this majority must 
 have been prevented from registration or driven by terror from the 
 polls. 
 
 That the returns from these twenty-two parishes in 1812 were 
 fraudulent, and did not show the full Republican vote polled, is 
 
14 
 
 proved by the sworn testimony taken by United States Chief Super- 
 visor Woolfley, of which specimens are given in Executive Docu- 
 ment No. 91, House of Representatives, Third Session Forty-second 
 Congress, pages 111 to 131; also in a letter to the Attorney General 
 of the United States at page 50 of the same document, or may be 
 found in extenso in the report of the Chief Supervisor to the House of 
 Representatives. The vote cast by the same parishes in 1870, as 
 shown by a table published below, still further intensifies the proof 
 of the enormous frauds perpetrated in 1874. Yet, taking the re- 
 turns as made by the Democrats themselves, and claiming no more 
 Republican votes in 1872 in these twenty-two parishes, the returns 
 from which were in that year either forged, manipulated, or alto- 
 gether suppressed, than the White League allowed to be cast in 
 these parishes in 1874, there is still shown a clear majority for Kel- 
 logg of thirty-four hundred and thirty-nine (3439) votes in 1872. 
 
ir-oi-no L-. T. n ■— 
 I o -! — 2. 1 ~ 71 — ffi 2 
 
 I o 71 - * l^ rt ^* in t'^ 
 
 •psjox oW»* ofoft-TofcfoS 
 
 
 oi in c-.t-oojcjsz.';^ ?J ~ - K — -i — 
 
 — -? — = .3 -i - 71 
 — — » -^ r- — t- 
 
 Cj -H 7. T! ^ — 
 
 ri 1- 
 
 s2 
 
 •pajopo c« 
 
 co cm - 1- - -■ o ^ - ?, g " 2 ^ t; P 2 §23 S S o S S3 3 § i 
 :£ K & £2 £ So Soi - « » |8a to - - 
 
 -*f -p -J ;£J ^J« <5 fC 
 
 •^JIHAV 
 
 ■ l": 7* -r r? — — « xi -^ -n* * 
 
 S85!883S|g8J||gSlSlSllSJ 
 
 3D t- u- -o Q I oa 
 
 00" 00 
 cj I m 
 
 I 
 
 1-1 "3 
 
 ^Z3£C? mWWZ^Z '5 ?- 1 S I ! 3 
 
 ^^WlflMFls^iMsss 
 
 y o 
 
 o a 
 
 o~-rnsi--;t-f no o_3> JJ o»_pH_r3_c- p" w 
 
 •ttu.iqquaay; I - 
 
 -Jj »~ -> rt — — r-' 
 
 ~ X 
 
 StJfH'gPgeJ^O'S • • • • , 3 
 
 i »qo35 3 SSfifiM^pjjgog g « x » 5 x x x r 
 
 Cww^tta^w^ogwwssgsaB a s P ?. i s i s s i s = a s s 
 
TON 
 
 Tat 
 
 .812 
 3on- 
 -ex- 
 e or 
 will 
 lest 
 
 lon- 
 
 A. 
 
 ndi- 
 son 
 
 tere 
 
 770 
 out 
 
 Cel- 
 yas 
 
 at? 
 
 ,s a 
 
 ere 
 
 ier- 
 
 wn 
 
 3Ut 
 
 or 
 12? 
 
 ith, 
 bed 
 sh, 
 irp 
 
SCHEDULE >. 
 
 Table showing Registration and Vote of 1870 and Registration of 1874 and Vole as claimed by the Democratic Central Committee for 
 Treasurer in 1S74, in tvoenty-lwo parishes where it is claimed that votes wei'e changed or the returns fraudulent or forged as claimed by 
 Warmoth election officers. 
 
 Parishes. 
 
 Assumption 
 
 A vovcllos 
 
 Baton Rouge, East. . 
 Baton Rouge, West. 
 
 Bossier 
 
 ( iaddi 
 
 Catahoula 
 
 DeSoto 
 
 Grant 
 
 Iberville A 
 
 Lalourche 
 
 Madison . 
 
 Morehouse 
 
 Natchitoches 
 
 Point Coupee 
 
 Rapides 
 
 St. Bernard 
 
 St. Helena 
 
 si . James A 
 
 si. Mary 
 
 Terrehonne A 
 
 Wehster 
 
 Totals 
 
 Add Schedule I 
 
 Grand totals ! 153,353 
 
 Add Lincoln, parish created since 1872 
 
 76,823 90,781 ' 167,504 
 
 k * Population of Madison parish, census of 1870— White, 936; Black, 7,f>63. 
 
 Note No. 1— Vote for Kellogg in 1872, as per this schedule 69 !66 
 
 Vote for Me lOner \ in 1872, as per this schedule 65,821 
 
 Kellogg majority 3,439 
 
 NOTE No. -J — At election prior to ls7-2. to wit; For Auditor, 1870 — 
 
 Republican s polled vote of 65, 531 
 
 Democrats polled vote ot 'I 615 
 
 Republican majority 24,516 
 
 Note No. 3— A1 (diction subsequent to 1872, to wit, for Treasurer in 1874 — 
 
 Republicans polled vote of 70,444 
 
 Democrats polled vote of 68,584 
 
 Republican majority 1,860 
 
 A— Roturns as made to Forman Hoard, but disregarded. 
 
15 
 
 THE HOAE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION INTO THE ELECTION 
 
 OF 1872. 
 
 The manipulation of the returns by the Warmoth officials in 1872 
 was in fact so gross and apparent that very few even of the Con- 
 servative witnesses examined by the Hoar Committee, if cross-ex- 
 amined on this subject, ventured any palliation or denial. One or 
 two extracts from the testimony taken by the Hoar Committee will 
 suffice to show how that election was regarded by the more honest 
 Conservatives. 
 
 Henry Ware, a prominent planter of Iberville, called by the Con- 
 servatives, testified that he voted for Grant and Kellogg in 1872. 
 
 Cross-examined, (p. 629) he says: 
 
 By Mr. Frye: 
 
 Q. What was the vote for treasurer in your parish in 1874 ? A. 
 I do not remember. 
 
 Q. Was it 770 for Moncure and 2161 for the Republican candi- 
 date ? A. I do not recollect what it was, only I have every reason 
 to believe it was largely Republican. 
 
 Q. Have you any doubt that it was ? A. I have no doubt; there 
 were three tickets run. 
 
 Q. I am asking about the vote for State treasurer — whether 770 
 for Moncure and 2167 for the Republican candidate would be about 
 right, in your opinion ? A. I should think so. 
 
 Q. In 1872, I have the vote 691 for McEnery and 2239 for Kel- 
 logg; in your opinion, is that correct ? A. I should think that was 
 about correct. 
 
 Q. Who was the registrar there under Warmoth's appointment ? 
 A. I could not tell you who it was; I never knew him. He was a 
 man that did not live among us, I think. 
 
 Q. Here are the returns of the Forman board in 1872. Was there 
 any return made by the Forman board of any votes at all from Iber- 
 ville ? A. I don't see any there. 
 
 Q. There is none there ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the fact that Iberville parish was thrown 
 out by the Forman returning board ? A. I have heard it was, but 
 I never did know what the final result was. 
 
 Q. Then, if it was thrown out, Kellogg was deprived of 1500 or 
 1600 majority ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. There was no intimidation by black men of the whites in 1872? 
 A. Not that I know of. 
 
 One Tharp, sent as supervisor to Iberville parish by Warmoth, 
 made a statement on his returns that the colored people intimidated 
 the whites, and the Forman Democratic board threw out the parish, 
 although it gave Grant and Kellogg over 1500 majority. Tharp 
 was afterwards indicted, and fled to California. 
 
16 
 
 Dr. Alfred Duperier of Iberia, a native of the State, called for 
 the conservatives, testified that he voted for Grant and Kellogg in 
 1872. Cross examined by Mr. Frye, pages 610, 621, he said: 
 
 Q. Do you think that in the election of 1872 the Democrats, with 
 the aid of Warmoth, conducted the election regardless of honesty? 
 A. That is my opiniou. 
 
 Q. Do you think they were honest in the conduct of that election? 
 A. No, Siiv 
 
 Q. Do you think they conducted that election regardless of 
 honesty? A. Yes. 
 
 And in reply to Mr. Wheeler with regard to the vote actually cast 
 
 in the parish in 1872, he says: 
 
 Q. You said Grant received 300 majority in your parish? A. I 
 said, I think, he received 300 white votes. 
 
 Q,. Did not Kellogg receive the same number? A. Not quite 
 the same. I think his majority was a little less. 
 
 Q. You think Kellogg was elected Governor. Now, don't you 
 think that the President was right in restoring him the goverment 
 when it was taken away from him by revolution ? A. Those are my 
 views; if for no other purpose than to prevent blood-shed and anar- 
 chy, I think it was the right policy. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Q. Of the three remedies, recognition of the Kellogg government 
 by the national government, a provisional government, or a new 
 election, which in your judgment would be most acceptable to the 
 great body of the people ? A. I think the most acceptable to the 
 intelligent class of people in my section of the country would be the 
 recognition of the Kellogg government; that is with the Legisla- 
 ture returned as elected at the last election. 
 
 The vote of the parish of Iberia was thrown out by the Forman 
 Board for no known reason, except that the parish went Republican; 
 as was also the vote of St. James parish, which gave Grant and 
 Kellogg over 1200 majority. 
 
 It. P. Hunter of Alexandria, editor of the Caucasian, one of the 
 most violent "White League papers in the State, called by the Conserva- 
 tives and cross examined, pages 524-5 : 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Q. You said you were not informed about whether any number 
 of colored voters voted with you in the State in 1872, but in the 
 parish of Rapides they did not ? A. I do not think they did, sir. 
 
 Q. You do not think you had any negro votes ? A. Well, sir, a 
 few voted all the time. 
 
 Q. Then, will you tell me how it happens that in the parish of 
 Rapides, in 1872, the white registration being 1011, Mr. McEnery 
 received 1960 votes ? A. I can not tell you anything about 1872 at 
 
17 
 
 all, sir. I refused to participate in the campaign of that year, and 
 sedulously secluded myself at my home in the pine woods. 
 
 Q. But, Mr. Hunter, I understood you to state to this committee 
 in the beginning of your testimony that you resorted to what you 
 call the extreme remedy of organizing a white man's party, and 
 dividing it on the color line, which you admit generally would be 
 objectionable in principle, because your organization had the effect 
 to induce the colored people to join the white men in removing 
 those abuses which existed — that you say? A. Yes, sir; I think so. 
 Q. You also said, in reply to me, that your information did not 
 extend to the rest of the State, but Kapides parish alone. Now, I 
 ask you how you account for the fact that in Kapides parish in 1872 
 Mr. McEnery had 1960 votes, when the white registered vote was 
 only 1011, or substantially one-half his votes were either fraudulent 
 or came from colored men ? A. I tell you I do not attempt to ac- 
 count for it at all. Governor Warmoth had a way of doing things 
 that I do not attempt to explain or excuse. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe that extraordinary measures were resorted 
 to by the white man's party, and do you not believe that there was 
 in the parish of Rapides a fraudulent count for McEnery of at least 
 nine hundred votes in that return ? A. I would rather you would 
 excuse me from answering that question, because I can not answer 
 it from any information of my own. 
 
 Q. Well, you will see the inference which may be drawn? A You 
 may draw your own inference. I do not know anything about that 
 at all. 
 
 Q. My purpose was to point it out to you before any inference 
 was drawn, so that I might be sure you said all you could in regard 
 to it. A. I think I did so; all I can. 
 
 Q. In what you regard to be so important and ordinarily objec- 
 tionable a step as starting a white man's party, and drawing the color 
 line, with its tendency to perpetuate and stimulate this race antago- 
 nism, from which you have suffered so much, do not you think that 
 you ought at least to have informed yourself whether in your own 
 parish there were or not 900 colored votes cast for your candidates 
 at your last election? A. I had, judge, if you will permit me, a 
 pretty general idea of how the campaign of 1872 had been conducted, 
 without any specific data upon which to base my ideas. 
 
 Q. "Well, now, about that pretty general idea; was that general 
 idea that you had 900 colored votes in Rapides parish, or that the 
 900 votes returned for McEnery were fraudulently returned ? "Was 
 that your general idea on the subject ? A. My general idea on the 
 subject was that Governor Warmoth had a way of doing things that 
 did not suit me exactly. I did not go into it, and perhaps it was 
 not altogether fair. I have no doubt that is the condition of affairs, 
 if you state the statistics right. I am not familiar with them. 
 
 Q. I state what I understand was right. A. I never remember to 
 have seen their statistics. 
 
 Q. I understand the white registration in Rapides parish was 
 1011 and the McEnery vote was 1960, or 949 more than the white 
 
18 
 
 registration. A. I do not know anything about that; I never paid 
 any attention to it at all. 
 
 Q. I also understand that in Natchitoches the colored registration 
 was 1875 and Kellogg's vote only 55. Now, if that were true, 1820 
 colored voters must either have refrained from voting against you 
 or voted with you. A. Mr. Pierson, who has testified on this stand, 
 was Governor Warmoth's registrar in Natchitoches, and can explain 
 that. 
 
 Q Do I understand you as expressing your belief that the votes 
 returned and counted for McEnery in the year 1872 were to a large 
 extent fraudulently so returned or counted ? Do you believe that 
 the votes returned and counted for McEnery in 1872 were to a large 
 extent fraudulently so returned or counted? A. I can state there 
 were some irregularities. 
 
 Q. Well, you believe that, do not you ? Just state it. A. If you 
 press me on my oath, I will say yes, sir. I prefer not to answer the 
 question, because I had nothing to do with the politics of that year. 
 
 Andrew J. Gordon, (colored) of St. Mary's parish, called by the 
 Conservatives, testified (p. 623) that he voted for Kellogg in 1872, 
 and that the colored people generally voted the Republican ticket 
 that year; but he claimed that in 1874 a large number of colored 
 people in St. Mary's voted for the Conservatives. Yet, while in 
 1872 Grant and Kellogg were given only 128 majority in St. Mary's 
 parish by the Forman Fusion Board, in 1874, as admitted by the 
 Conservatives, the Republicans received 1098 majority in that same 
 parish. Gordon further testified that one Dr. White was War- 
 moth's supervisor of registration in 1872; the commissioners of elec- 
 tion were appointed by White, and the returns were made by him, 
 and White returned himself as elected Senator, and afterwards took 
 his seat in the McEnery Senate. 
 
 Hon. J. B. Elam, a native of DeSoto parish, called by the Conserva- 
 tives, and cross-examined by Mr. Frye, (p. 688) said: 
 
 Q. Do you believe that the honest vote of DeSoto in 1872 was 
 1450 Democrats and 444 Republicans? A. I do not think our ma- 
 jority was so large as that. 
 
 Q. That was the return of the Forman Board. Then you believe 
 there was cheating in regard to that majority ? A. It was much 
 larger than I expected. 
 
 Q. You know that the registered colored vote is larger than the 
 registered white vote, and you know that it has been shown that 
 there was not the same attempt made in 1872 to get the colored vote 
 for the Conservatives that was made in 1874 ? A. I think you are 
 mistaken in regard to that. There was a greater attempt to get the 
 colored vote in 1872 by argument and reasoning than in 1874. 
 
 Q. Was there any intimidation ? A. No, sir. 
 
19 
 
 Q. Do you believe that two-thirds of all the colored Republicans 
 in your parish voted the Democratic ticket in 1872, voluutarily ? 
 A. I think that all that did vote it in 1872 voted it voluntarily; and 
 if there was anything wrong in the result, it was from miscount in 
 some way. 
 
 Q. Don't you believe that there was a miscount ? A. Well, sir, I 
 hate to charge people with such a thing. I will say, however, that 
 the majority was a good deal larger than I expected. 
 
 Q. And you believe it was larger than the vote really cast ? A. I 
 believe it was larger than it ought really to be. 
 
 Governor Warmoth, in 1872, sent a man to DeSoto as supervisor, 
 notoriously to manipulate the vote of that parish in the interests of 
 the Democratic ticket. 
 
 The conclusion derived by the committee from this and other tes- 
 timony is thus expressed by Messrs. Hoar, Wheeler and Frye. After 
 alluding to the difficulty of making a direct and thorough investiga- 
 tion they say: 
 
 "But our best judgment is that Governor Kellogg was elected, 
 and we find that many of the more moderate of his oppo- 
 nents concede his election. There is no argument to show the 
 election of McEnery which is not met by one equally strong in proof 
 of the election of Kellogg. The registration shows a considerable 
 majority of colored voters, and it is not denied that Kellogg received 
 substantially all the colored votes, besides some thousand whites. 
 Taking the Democratic returns in 1872 for all the parishes, except 
 four, for which the returns are conceded to be forgeries, and six 
 others from which they threw out the returns for fraud and violence, 
 and get at the true vote in those parishes in any way you can, by 
 comparing the vote with the registration of white and colored voters, 
 or by taking the Republican and Democratic votes at the election of 
 this year, and it gives Kellogg a majority of several thousand. 
 Besides, Kellogg is now in office. The frauds, which make it impos- 
 sible to ascertain in any better or more satisfactory mode the true 
 will of the people, were perpetrated by the appointees of Warmoth 
 in the interest of McEnery. 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 " Kellogg is now in fact in office. The President has recognized 
 him, and states to Congress that from the best information he can 
 obtain he believes him to have been elected. The Kellogg govern- 
 ment is a fact; its legality is sustained by the judicial tribunals of 
 the State; it is in active operation in all its departments. Under it 
 the late State election has been held, and on its certificates must 
 depend, prima facie, the right to their seats of the Representatives 
 chosen from Louisiana for the next Congress. The McEnery 
 government exists only on paper. Its recognition would create the 
 most perplexing questions as to the legality of all public proceed- 
 ings had in Louisiana for two years past. The recognition of Kel- 
 
20 
 
 logg by the House will give peace and quiet to Louisiana until the 
 next election.'' 
 
 Messrs. Foster and Phelps who did not put any questions in rela- 
 tion to the election of 1872 to the witnesses examined by them, still 
 express their opinion that " the popular belief, taking both Conserva- 
 tive and Radical circles inclines, on the whole, to justify Kellogg 
 and Penn's claims," and they accordingly "do not wish to oppose 
 the recommendation that the administration of Governor Kellogg 
 be recognized." 
 
 CONFIRMATION FROM THE CENSUS OF 1872. 
 
 It is conceded on all sides that the colored citizens almost unani- 
 mously voted for Grant and Kellogg in 1872, and it is proved that 
 a very large white vote was polled in the same direction. Turning 
 to page 619 of the census of 1870 it will be found that out of the 
 total population of Louisiana in 1870 there were — 
 
 White males, twenty-one years and upwards 87,066 
 
 Colored males, twenty-one years and upwards , . . . . 86,913 
 
 A total of 173,979 
 
 But the total of male citizens is given at 159,001, a difference of 
 very nearly 15,000 to be deducted from the voting strength of the 
 whites, as by the results of the war all colored males above the age 
 of twenty-one years became citizens. Thus, deducting from the 
 total white males over twenty-one years, 87,066, this number of 
 aliens or non-citizens, 14,378, we obtain the aggregate of the white 
 voting population, 72,088, against an aggregate colored voting popu- 
 lation of 86,913, which shows a clear majority in favor of the colored 
 voters of 14,825, to which must be added the 4000 or 5000 whites 
 who habitually vote the Republican ticket, to say nothing of the 
 considerable number of colored men of such light complexion that 
 few persons would at the first glance question their color, and many 
 of whom are known to have been classed as white by the census 
 marshals in 1870. 
 
 THE REGISTRATION OF 1872 CORROBORATES. 
 
 The following statement shows the number of registered voters at 
 the close of registration October 28, 1872 : 
 
21 
 
 Parish. White. Colored. Total. 
 
 Ascensiou 1,148 3,296 4,444 
 
 Assumption 2,207 2,176 
 
 Avoyelles 2,139 2.188 4,327 
 
 Baton Rouge, East 1,489 1,559 3,048 
 
 Baton Rouge, West 397 859 1,256 
 
 Bienville 916 715 1,631 
 
 Bossier .... 
 
 Caddo 1,549 3,134 4,683 
 
 Calcasieu 702 166 868 
 
 Caldwell 541 586 1,127 
 
 Cameron 263 31 294 
 
 Carroll 572 2,073 2,045 
 
 Catahoula 1,065 992 2,057 
 
 Claiborne 1,373 1,293 2,606 
 
 Concordia 307 2,577 2,384 
 
 DeSoto 1,004 1,403 2,407 
 
 Feliciana. East 1,100 2,351 3,451 
 
 Feliciana, West 521 2,084 2,605 
 
 Franklin 522 507 1,029 
 
 Grant 616 733 1,349 
 
 Iberia 1,140 1,241 2,381 
 
 Iberville 740 3,296 4,036 
 
 Jackson 1,101 822 1,923 
 
 Jefferson 1,396 2,866 4,262 
 
 Lafayette 1,115 897 2,012 
 
 Lafourche 2,302 2,407 4,709 
 
 Livingston .... 
 
 Madison 1,718 2,007 2,725 
 
 Morehouse 694 1,339 2,033 
 
 Natchitoches 1,517 1,833 3,350 
 
 Orleaos 35,782 19,244 55,026 
 
 Ouachita 970 2.311 3,281 
 
 Plaquemines 673 1,699 2,372 
 
 Point Coupee 1,039 2,»07 3,840 
 
 Rapides 1,719 1,629 3,o4S 
 
 Red River 441 966 1,407 
 
 Richland 599 644 1,243 
 
 Sabine 711 151 8 2 
 
 St. Bernard 500 570 1,070 
 
 St. Charles 300 1,850 2,150 
 
 St. Helena .... .... 
 
 St. James 703 2,120 2,823 
 
 St. John Baptist 817 1,720 2,537 
 
 St. Landry 3,718 3,641 7,359 
 
 St. Martin 1,035 926 1,961 
 
 St. Mary 1,117 1,941 3,01-S 
 
 St. Tammany 624 700 1,324 
 
 Tangipahoa 917 613 1,530 
 
 Tensas 368 3,146 3,514 
 
 Terrebonne . . 
 
 Union 1,788 872 2,620 
 
 Vermilion ' 828 282 1.110 
 
 Vernon 717 79 790 
 
 Washington 543 168 71 1 
 
 Webster 854 862 1,716 
 
 Winn 755 135 890 
 
 Total : 86,672 94,407 181,179 
 
 As will be seen by the annexed certificates this registration was 
 taken exclusively under Democratic Fusion auspices: 
 
22 
 
 State of Louisiana, Office State Registkak of Voters, 
 
 New Orleans, September 8, 1873. 
 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing statement has been carefully compiled by 
 me from the final reports of supervisors of registration in the parishes above 
 named, as made to B. P. Blanchard, State Registrar of Voters in the year 1872, 
 at which time I was chief clerk to said B. P. Blanchard, and that the original 
 reports and final reports are now on file in the office of State Registrar of Voters. 
 
 WALTER S. LONG, 
 Clerk State Registrar of Voters. 
 
 State of Louisiana, Office State Registrar of Voters, 
 
 New Orleans, September 8, 1873. 
 
 I hereby certify that the original final reports of supervisors of registration, 
 from which the foregoing has been compiled, are on file in this office, and that 
 the compilation is correctly made. THOMAS LTNNE, 
 
 State Registrar of Voters. 
 
 The registration of 1870 showed over 23,000 excess of colored 
 voters over white. 
 
 It will be noticed that in the above compilation four parishes from 
 which there were no returns are omitted, viz: Bossier, St. Helena, 
 Livingston and Terrebonne. The population of Bossier parish by 
 the census of 1870 was, white, 3505; colored, 9170. The registered 
 vote of the parish in 1872, according to the report of the United 
 States supervisors, was, white, 587 ; colored, 1795. The vote of St. 
 Helena and Livingston parishes in 1872 was small. The population of 
 Terrebonne parish by the census of 1870 was, white, 6080; colored, 
 6172. The registered vote of this parish in 1872 was, white, 1201; 
 colored, 1608. In New Orleans the registered vote in 1872 was ex- 
 cessive and fraudulent, as is shown by the affidavits published in the 
 appendix. 
 
 CONFIRMATORY TESTIMONY OF THE FUSION REGISTRATION AND 
 RETURNING OFFICERS. 
 
 The State Registrar of Voters in the election of 1872 was B. P. 
 Blanchard, who was appointed by Governor Warmoth in 1870, as a 
 Liberal Republican. The then existing laws conferred upon this offi- 
 cer enormous powers, and one of the leading objects of the Fusion 
 combination was to secure the exercise of these powers for the defeat 
 of Grant, Kellogg, and the regular Republican ticket. Blanchard 
 acted with "Warmoth and the Fusionists in 1872, making all his ap- 
 pointments in their interest, but subsequently when Warmoth had, 
 been defeated of the Fusion nomination for the United States Senate, 
 and when it became evident that the Democratic party had thrown 
 
23 
 
 their liberal allies overboard, and only sought to gain the control of 
 the State government for themselves, Blanchard made an expose of 
 the manner in which the election of 1872 was conducted, and of the 
 frauds which were resorted to to defeat the will of the people as 
 actually expressed at the polls. His sworn statement together with 
 that of Walter S. Long, his chief clerk, will be found in the ap- 
 pendix (Exhibits B. and C.) 
 
 0. F. Hunsacker and S. M. Todd, two of the Warmoth Republican 
 State Senators elected in 1870, and holding over in 1872, joined the 
 McEnery Senate when it met in December of that year, and con- 
 tinued to act with that body during its sessions in 1873. When War- 
 moth approved the act repealing the law under which the election of 
 1872 had been held, which act he had previously refused to sign, but 
 subsequently promulgated in order to get rid of the Lynch returning 
 board, which the courts had just decided to be the legal one, the 
 board known as the Forman board was created by appointment of 
 the McEnery Senate under the provisions of this act, and Senators 
 Hunsacker and Todd were elected members of that board, Mr. 
 Hunsacker being chosen president. Their affidavits, showing the 
 manner in which the returns of the so-called Forman board were 
 prepared and canvassed, will be found in the appendix, (Exhibit D) 
 and particular attention is called thereto. It will be seen that these 
 members of the Forman board express, under oath, their conviction 
 that a fair, proper and correct canvass of the returns would have 
 shown that William P. Kellogg was elected Governor by the actual 
 
 votes cast. 
 
 POPULATION OF 1875. 
 
 The census of 1875, just taken, shows the population of the State 
 to be — 
 
 Colored 450,611 
 
 White 404,916 
 
 Excess of colored over white 45,695 
 
 This census is as fairly and accurately taken. So careful was 
 Governor Kellogg that there should be no just ground of com- 
 plaint or suspicion on this score, that he appointed a Democratic 
 clerk of registration in every parish of the State and ward of 
 the city, and nearly half of the officers to whom was committed 
 the taking of the census were Conservatives. 
 
24 
 
 KELLOGG'S DESIRE FOR A FAIR CANVASS — McENERY'S UNWIL 
 
 LINGNESS. 
 
 One important fact which must not be lost sight of in considering 
 the question of who was elected in 1872, is that Governor Kellogg has 
 at all times and on all occasions expressed a willingness to abide by a 
 fair canvass of the actual returns, conducted openly by fair-minded 
 and disinterested persons. Mr. McEnery and his friends, who from 
 the first have retained forcible and illegal possession of the original 
 returns, removing them on more than one occasion beyond the limits 
 of the State, have consistently declined each of these offers when 
 first made to them, only yielding an apparent assent afterwards 
 when some intermediate scheme of chicanery or violence attempted 
 by them had failed of its object, and when the conditions allowing 
 of a fair canvass with practical results no longer prevailed. When 
 the case was first taken before the United States Circuit Court, be- 
 fore any decision had been rendered or any order issued, Mr. Kel- 
 logg, through his counsel, Mr. William H. Hunt, one of the most 
 eminent members of the New Orleans bar, offered to submit his 
 claims to the decision of five reputable and disinterested citizens, 
 two to be chosen by Mr. McEnery, two by himself, and the fifth by 
 the four. At the time this offer was made the circumstances were 
 such that by mutual agreement it could have been carried into im- 
 mediate effect. Mr. McEnery declined the proposition, stating to 
 Mr. Hunt that Warmoth would not agree to it. Some months after- 
 wards, when an attempt, made in the meantime to take forcible pos- 
 session of the State House and install the Legislature returned by 
 the illegal Fusion Board had failed; when the legal Legislature 
 had met and counted the votes for Governor, declaring Kellogg 
 elected; when the Republican officials had been for some time 
 in possession of the government, and had been recognized by 
 the President, and sustained by numerous decisions of the high- 
 est courts of the State and of the United States, and when 
 an emphatic proclamation had been issued by the President 
 directing the United States forces to sustain the recognized State 
 Government of Louisiana against all such attempts at revolution- 
 ary violence as had recently been unsuccessfully tried in St. Martins- 
 ville, Mr. McEnery, under date of July 5, 1873, addressed to Gov- 
 ernor Kellogg a letter expressing his willingness to submit the 
 
25 
 
 pending controversy to the arbitration of five citizens. But any such 
 arbitration was at that time utterly impracticable, and could scarcely 
 have been regarded in any other light by Mr. McEnery. 
 
 THE CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY. 
 
 In the month of November, 1874, Governor Kellogg had addressed 
 to the President a telegram urgently requestiug that a committee of 
 Congress be sent down to the State, so that the very right of all the 
 points in controversy lorming what was then so generally discussed 
 as the Louisiana question, might be fully established. A committee 
 of the lower House of Congress was appointed consisting of Hons. 
 George F. Hoar, chairman ; William A. Wheeler, William P. Frye, 
 Samuel S. Marshall, Clarkson N. Potter, Charles Foster and William 
 Walter Phelps. In the latter part of December Messrs. Foster, 
 Potter and Phelps, constituting a sub-committee of this committee 
 appointed by Congress, came to New Orleans and after conducting 
 a hurried and partial examination were preparing to leave for Wash- 
 ington without entering upon the question as to who was elected 
 Governor in 1872. Governor Kellogg thereupon addressed to them 
 the following communication, which was read publicly during their 
 session of January 2, preceding the meeting of the Legislature, which 
 occurred on the following Monday : 
 
 State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 
 
 New Orleans, January, 2, 1875. 
 
 Hon. Charles Foster, Member of Congress, chairman of Sub-Committee on Louisiana affairs. 
 
 Sie : I have just been informed by one of the counsel engaged in the investiga- 
 tion now taking place before your committee, that you have decided not to include 
 the election of ^72 within the scope of your investigation. Permit me respect- 
 fully to suggest that the question whether or not Louisiana was carried by the 
 Republican party in the election of 1872 has been the disputed point which for 
 two years has agitated the State. Religiously believing that 1 was elected by a 
 majority of the votes actually cast at that election, I have struggled to discharge 
 the duties of my office amid difficulties such as few men have been called upon to 
 encounter. Nothing but a sense of duty has kept me at my post during all these 
 weary months of obloquy and misrepresentation. 
 
 Recently I telegraphed to the Pi esident urging that a committee of Congress 
 be sent here, believing that such a committee being upon the ground, with power 
 to send for persons and papers, could ascertain the right of this question, so far 
 as I ami (he government I represent are concerned. I am intensely anxious, aud 
 I think justly so, that there should be some solution of this difficulty. I believe 
 an investigation, that need not last many days, would reasonably satisfy any im- 
 partial mind whether I was elected in 1872 or not; but even by taking a general 
 view of the case, I think something might be done to elucidate the que-tiou. For 
 instance, if the committee were to take the returns of 1872, as made by both 
 boards, and contrast them with the returns of this year, as made by the Return- 
 ing Board, or as claimed by the Democratic party, with such facis aud details as I 
 think could be readily obtained, I believe a righteous conclusion could be arrived 
 
26 
 
 at. The census, and the relative registration, white and black, and the relative 
 vote in 1872 and 1874 would throw much light on tho matter, and I submit that 
 the returns from tho e Democratic parishes where, by the Fusion count of the For- 
 man board, we were allowed our reasonable minority vote in 1872, but where no 
 Republican vote, or scarcely one was permitted to be cast this year, might, prop- 
 erly be considered. 
 
 I have had no opportunity to examine in detail the returns of 1872 as made by 
 the F'usionists. These returns are probably accessible and their authenticity or 
 genuineness is susceptible of proof. Allow me to suggest as another mode likely 
 to aid in reaching a conclusion that the returns of 1872, as made by the Fusion 
 board be taken as correct wherever they do not widely differ from the returns of 
 the Lynch board, and wherever they do so differ, let the returns from these same 
 parishes this year, as claimed by the Democratic committee itself, be taken as 
 representing the vote of 1872. For instance, take the twenty-eight parishes where 
 both boards return the same candidates to the House, and adopt the returns of 
 the Foreman board. Then for the other parishes, where the two boards differed 
 widely, take the vote this year, even as returned by the Democratic committee. 
 This will be to concede returns in which, in many cases, the Republicans were not 
 credited with their full vote, but were deprived of votes actually cast by means 
 of fraudulent practices, as can be easily shown. These aspects of the case, to- 
 gether with other evidence procurable will, I believe, go very far to elucidate the 
 rights of this controversy. 
 
 Believing that the c >mmittee you represent has the confidence of the country, 
 I, speaking for myself, will gladly abide by its decision, if it can consistently go 
 into this much disputed question of the election of 1872, with the facts and figures 
 and other proofs believed to be available. I feel very strongly the necessity that 
 this important question should be determined in some decisive manner, and this 
 is my only excuse for presuming to offer these suggestions to your committee. 
 
 Permit me to add that I trust the opposition will be afforded full opportunity 
 before your departure to endeavor to make good some at least of the many allega- 
 tions of maladministration and corruption they have constantly sent abroad 
 with regard to myself. The records of the State are easy of access, and I will 
 cheerfully afford every possible facility for an inquiry both thorough and com- 
 plete, to the end that it may be known how far my administration is justly 
 chargeable with the many evils complained of. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient seivant, 
 
 WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 
 
 McENERY'S ACTION. 
 
 No notice was taken of this communication either by Mr. Mc- 
 Enery or his friends, ai the time. On the following Monday, Janu- 
 ary 4, a revolutionary attempt was made by the partisans of Mr. 
 McEnery to take forcible possession of the organization of the Leg- 
 islature, which attempt was frustrated under circumstances too well 
 known to need recital here. [See appendix, Exhibit A.] Then, and 
 not till then, Mr. McEnery became once more in favor of arbi- 
 tration. The following letter, dated the fifth of January, was 
 handed to the committee on the sixth: 
 
 New Oeleans, January 5, 1875. 
 
 Hon. Charles Foster, Chairman Sub-Committee of Congress : 
 
 Sie — Reposing perfect confidence in the judgment and impartiality of the 
 committee over which you preside, and auxious to have a speedy solution of the 
 difficulties which have grown out of the election of 1872, we now propose to sub- 
 
27 
 
 mit the whole question of the result of that election to your committee (the sub- 
 committee of three) for final determination. 
 
 We make $his submission in the interest of peace and good government, and 
 feel siucerely anxious that you should undertake the iuvestigation and determine 
 the matter belore leaving the State. 
 
 Very respectfully, etc., JOHN McENERY, 
 
 D. B. PENN, 
 JAMES GRAHAM, 
 H. N. OGDEN, 
 R. M. LUSHER. 
 
 THE SUB-COMMITTEE ACCEPTS. 
 
 The sub-committee responded by addressing to the parties in in- 
 terest the subjoined explicit inquiries: 
 
 New Okleans, January 6, 1875. 
 
 To Messrs. "William P. Kellogg, Acting Governor of Louisiana; C. C. Antome, Acting 
 Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana ; John McEnery, claiming the right to act as Governor 
 of Louisiana j D. B. Penn, claiming the right to act as Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana: 
 
 Gentlemen — The committee acknowledge receipt of propositions, either written 
 or oral, from each of you, offering, in view of tlie unhappy condition of affairs 
 in your State, to leave to their decision and arbitration the settlement of your 
 various claims. 
 
 The committee have about closed an investigation, made as thorough as their 
 limited time would permit, and are unwilling to return here to embark upon the 
 fresh task which your confidence would throw upon them, unless certainly as- 
 sured that their decision, whatever it might be, would be acquiesced in by each 
 of you, and by each and all of you accepted as a final declaration of your rights. 
 
 Under these circumstances, before further considering your proposition, we 
 desire to know. 
 
 "Will you, William P. Kellogg, if the committee decide that you were not 
 elected Governor, resign your office, and refuse to assume it except on the returns 
 of a popular election ? " 
 
 " Will you, C. C. Antoine, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
 Lieutenant Governor, resign your office and refuse to resume it, except upon the 
 returns of a popular election ?" 
 
 "Will you, John McEnery, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
 Governor, withdraw all claims to the office, and waive all rights which you think 
 you acquired by the election of 1872 ?" 
 
 " Will you, f). B. Penn, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
 Lieutenant Governor, withdraw all claim to the office and waive all rights which 
 you think you acquired bv the election of 1872 ?" 
 
 Per contra, will each of you accept or retain any office to which the committee 
 shall decide you were elected, so far as such acceptance or retention can be legally 
 accomplished. 
 
 Respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 CHARLES FOSTER, Chairman. 
 
 BOTH PARTIES BOUND. 
 
 Colonel McEnery replied: 
 
 New Orleans, January 6, 1875. 
 
 Hon. Charles Foster, Chairman Sub-Committee of Congress : 
 
 Sie — Your communication of January 6, 1875, is just received. To the first 
 interrogatory, which is in the following words : 
 
 "Will you, John McEnery, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
 Governor, withdraw all claim to the office and waive all rights which you think 
 you acquired by the election of 1872?" I answer, distinctly, yes. 
 
28 
 
 To the question, " Will you accept or retain any office to which the committee 
 shall decide you were elected, so far as such acceptance or retention can be 
 legally accomplished ?" I answer that I will. Kespectfully, etc., • 
 
 JOHN McENERY. 
 
 Governor Kellogg also answered: 
 
 State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 
 
 New Orleans, January 7, 1875. 
 Hon. Charles Foster, M. C, Chairman Sub-Committee of Congress: 
 
 Sir — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of 
 the sixth instant, asking me if the committee should decide that I was not elected 
 Governor, whether I will resign my office and refuse to resume it except upon 
 the returns of a popular election. 
 
 In reply I beg respectfully to refer you to my letter of January 2. I again ex- 
 press my willingness to abide bv any decision that may be arrived at by your 
 committee. 
 
 Very respectfully your ob't serv't. 
 
 WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 
 
 FURTHER INVESTIGATION INVOKED. 
 
 The Republican members of the Legislature felt that they were 
 not receiving justice at the hands of the Phelps and Foster sub- 
 committee, whose investigations were conducted mainly in a parlor 
 at the St. Charles Hotel, where no colored man could gain an en- 
 trance, and where few white Republicans could go in the then ex- 
 cited condition of public feeling without risk of insult or possible in- 
 jury, the room in which the committee met being daily packed to 
 its utmost capacity with members of the White League. They ac- 
 cordingly passed the following joint resolution: 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana, in 
 General Assembly convened, That we earnestly request the special committee on 
 Louisiana affairs appointed by the Hon. Speaker Blaine, December 15, 1874, to 
 visit this city at the earliest practicable moment, and institute inquiry into all 
 the facts connected with the present condition of affairs in this State ; and that 
 the Governor be requested to transmit this resolution by telegraph to the Hon. 
 George F. Hoar, chairman of said committee. 
 
 On the twelfth and thirteenth of January the Governor forwarded 
 the following telegraphic dispatches to the Hon. Mr. Hoar: 
 
 State of Louisiana, Executive Dzpartment, 
 
 January 12, 1875. 
 
 Hon. George F. Hoar, chairman Congressional Committee on Louisiana Affairs, Washing, 
 ton, D. C : 
 
 I, in common with all Republicans here, earnestly request that you and the 
 other members of your committee will come here immediately and thoroughly 
 investigate the whole situation, including the election of 1872, to the end that 
 the very rights of our case may be known. 
 
 WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 
 
29 
 
 State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 
 
 New Orleans, Jauuary 13, 1875. 
 Hon. George F. Hoar, M. C, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 Both Houses Legislature passed resolutions to day earnestly requesting your 
 committee to come down and make full investigation. 
 
 WM. P. KELLOGG. 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS COME IN. 
 
 In response to these requests Messrs. Hoar, Frye, Wheeler and 
 Marshall, forming the balance of the whole committee, came to 
 New Orleans, and on the twenty-second of January entered upon 
 an investigation, choosing for their place of meeting one of the va- 
 cant United States courtrooms, which would be accessible alike to 
 all, white or colored, Democrats or Republicans. As the inves- 
 tigation thus entered upon progressed, and it became apparent that 
 the Eepublicans would have an equal showing with their opponents, 
 and that the Democrats were losing the advantage they had gained 
 by the report of the sub-committee, the Democratic members elected 
 to the Legislature and the Democrats claiming to have been elected 
 who, after the failure of the Wiltz coup d'etat on the fourth of Janu- 
 ary, had been daily meeting in secret caucus, adopted the following 
 resolution, which was laid before the committee: 
 
 Besolved by this house caucus, composed of the conservative members, returned 
 by the returning-board, and those claiming to have been undoubtedly elected but 
 defrauded by said board, That desiring, in the interest of our afflicted State, to 
 have a solution of cur political troubles, and relying on the integrity and fairness 
 of the four gentlemen members of the congressional committee now in New Or- 
 leans, and in advance of any investigation on their part, we, as a body, hereby 
 ask them (if the task is not considered too onerous) to take the returns of the 
 election of 1871, together with all fair and relevant testimony, and upon such re- 
 turns and evidence declare what members of the legislature were fairly elected. 
 
 Resolved, That Hon. Louis A. Wiltz, speaker of the house, be requested to wait 
 upon said gentlemen and present to them a copy of this resolution. 
 
 Done in conservative house caucus this 23d day of January, 1874. 
 
 LOUIS A.' WILTZ, Speaker. 
 
 KELLOGG RENEWS HIS PROPOSAL— McENERY AGREES. 
 
 Governor Kelllogg renewed his offer to submit his claim to the 
 office of Governor to this committee, as he had previously done to 
 the sub-committee. These repeated offers called forth another com- 
 munication from Mr. McEnery and friends, under date of January 
 25, 1875, (p. 944 Hoar committee's report) in which, after referring 
 to the previous offers, they say: 
 
 "We now desire to express our perfect readiness to accept the full committee 
 as arbiters of the same matter, and to abide by its decision." 
 
/ 
 
 / 
 
 30 
 
 But in this communication it is characteristically suggested that 
 the returns should be taken to Washington, and opened and exam- 
 ined there, "so as to avoid any great interference with the congres- 
 sional duties of the committee.'' It is hardly necessary to make the 
 suggestion that in Washington the evidence of the fraudulent char- 
 acter of a large portion of the returns, which was all ready to hand 
 here, could not be produced, and that had Mr. McEnery chosen to 
 lay these returns before the committee, the bogus character of a 
 portion of them could have been established by a very few hours' in- 
 vestigation. 
 
 PROTOCOL OF ADJUSTMENT. 
 
 Eventually, after much negotiation, the following protocol was 
 drawn up and signed, the original being now in possession of Gov- 
 ernor Kellogg: 
 
 Whebeas, It is desirable to adjust the difficulties growing out of the election 
 in this State in 1872, the action of the Returning Board in declaring and promul- 
 gating the results of the election in the month of November last, and the organi- 
 zation of the House of Representatives on the- fourth of Januaiy last, and 
 adjustment being deemed necessary to the re-establishment of peace and order 
 in this State; 
 
 Now, therefore, the undersigned members of the Conservative party, claiming 
 to have been elected members of the House of Representatives, and that their 
 certificates of election have been illegally withheld by the Returning Board, 
 hereby severally agree to submit their claims to seats in the House of Represen- 
 tatives to the award and arbitrament of the gentlemen composing the Louisiana 
 committee, of which George F. Hoar is chairman, and consisting of the following 
 named gentlemen: George F. Hoar, William A. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Samuel S. 
 Marshall, Clarkson N.Potter, Charles Foster and William Walter Phelps, and 
 said gentlemen or a majority of the same, acting in their individual capacity, are 
 hereby authorized to examine and determine the same upon the equities of the 
 several cases; and when such award shall be made we hereby severally agree to 
 abide by the same, aad such of us as may become members of the House of 
 Representatives under this arrangement hereby severally agree to sustain by our 
 influence and votes the joint resolution hereinafter set forth. 
 
 ED. E. KIDD. 
 
 GEORGE M. STAFFORD. 
 
 RTJFFIN R BEASLEY. 
 
 JAMES BRICE. 
 
 E. F. X. DUGAS. 
 
 GEORGE A. KELLY, 
 
 EDMUND McCALLUM. 
 
 J. O. QUINN. 
 
 JOHN J. HORAN. 
 
 THOMAS R. YAUGHAN. 
 
 CHARLES SCHULER. 
 
 A. D. LAND. 
 
 WILLIAM F. SCHWING. 
 
 JOHN L. SCALES. 
 As a contestant for a seat in the lower House, I sign the above agreement. 
 
 W. H. KEYS. 
 
 JAMES JEFFRIES. 
 
 R. L. LUCKETT. 
 
 C. C. DUNN, 
 By A. H. Leonard, Agent and Attorney. 
 
31 
 
 And the undersigned, claiming to have been elected Senators from the Eighth 
 and Twenty-Second Senatorial Districts, hereby agree to submit their claims to 
 the foregoing award, and in all respects to abide the result of the same 
 
 F. S. GOODE. 
 J. B. ELAM. 
 And the undersigned, holding certificates from the Eeturning Board, hereby 
 severally agree that on the coming in of the award of the foregoing arbitrators 
 they will, when the same shall have been ratified by the report of the Committee 
 on Elections and cmalifications oi the body in session in the btate House claim- 
 ing to be the House of Bepresentatives, attend the sittings of said House for the 
 sole purpose of adopting said report, and if the said report shall be adopted and 
 the members embraced in the foregoing report shall be seated, then the under- 
 signed severally agree that immediately upon the adoption of said report they 
 will vote for the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, That said Assembly 
 without approving the same, will not disturb the present State go, eminent, 
 claiming to have been elected in 1872, known as the Kellogg government, or 
 seek to impeach the Governor for any past official acts, and that henceforth we 
 will accord to said Governor all necessary and legitimate support in maintaining 
 the laws and in advancing the peace and prosperity of the people of this State, 
 £nd that the House of Representatives as to its members as constituted under ihe 
 award of George P. Hoar, W. A. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Samuel L. Marshall, Clark- 
 son N. Potter, Charles Foster and William Walter Phelps shall remain without 
 change, except by resignation or death of members until a new general election, 
 and that the Senate as herein recognized shall also remain unchanged, except so 
 far as that body shall make changes on contest. 
 
 JOHN YOUNG, 
 
 E. D. ESTILLETTE, 
 
 A. D. LAFARGE, 
 
 G. L. HALL, 
 
 J. A. BLAFFER, 
 
 E. CABMOUCHE, 
 
 W. W. CARLOSS, 
 
 G. W. B. BAYLEY, 
 
 E. A. DUBR, 
 
 R. P. EDWARDS, 
 
 SEABORN JONES, 
 
 T. J. JOHNSON, 
 
 WILLIAM MA.GEE, 
 
 H. C. MITCHELL, 
 
 W. McALPIN, 
 
 THOMAS E. MEREDITH, 
 
 A. NUNEZ, 
 
 W. H. PIPES, 
 
 G. M. RICHARDSON, 
 
 JOHN L. SCALES, 
 
 D'. W. SELF, 
 
 W. P. SMITH, 
 
 CHARLES SCHULER, 
 
 Y. VIDRINE, 
 
 JAMES WEBB, 
 
 R. B. WALTERS, 
 
 M. SIBILSKI. 
 
 This protocol was not adopted without much opposition ; Mr. 
 McEnery, Mr. E. John Ellis, Congressman elect, and others made 
 violent speeches at a public meeting, in denunciation of this " sur- 
 render of their rights, " as they termed it, but the agreement was 
 ratified by a majority of the Democratic caucus, and in pursuance of 
 its terms, the Committee made the following award : 
 
32 
 
 THE AWARD. 
 
 New York, March 13, 1875. 
 
 The undersigned, having been requested to examine the claims of the persons 
 hereinafter named to sea*s in the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 State of Louisiana, and having examined the returns and the evidence before the 
 Returning Board, and much other real and written evidence relating to such 
 claims, are of the opinion, and do hereby find, award and determine— That F. 
 S. Goode is entitled to a seat in the Senate from the Twenty-second Senatorial 
 District; and that J. B. Elam is not entitled to a seat in the Senate from the 
 Eighth Senatorial District; and that the following named persons are entitled to 
 seats in the House of Representatives from the following named parishes, 
 respectively : 
 
 From the parish of Assumption, R. R. Beasley and E. F. Dugas; from the 
 parish of Bienville, James Brice; from the parish of De Soto, J. L. Scales and 
 Charles Schuler; from the parish of Jackson, E. E. Kidd; from the parish of 
 Rapides, Jas. Jeflries, R. L. Luckett and G. W. Stafford; from the parish of 
 Terrebonne, Ed. McCullum and W. H. Keys; from tbe parish of "Winn, George 
 A. Kelly. 
 
 And that the following named persons are not entitled to seats which they 
 claim from the following named parishes respectively, but that the persons now 
 holding seats from said parishes are entitled to retain the seats now held by them : 
 From the parish of Avoyelles, J. O. Quinn; from the parish of Iberia, W r . F. 
 Schwing ; from the parish of Caddo, A. D . Land, Thomas R. Vaughan and John 
 J. Horan. 
 
 We are further of opinion that no person is entitled to a seat from the parish 
 of Grant. 
 
 In regard to most of the cases, the undersigned are unanimous. As to the 
 others, the decision is that of the majority. 
 
 GEORGE F. HOAR. 
 
 W. A. WHEELER. 
 
 WILLIAM P. FRYE. 
 
 CHARLES FOSTER. 
 
 W. WALTER PHELPS. 
 
 CLARKSON N. POTTER. 
 
 S. S. MARSHALL. 
 
 THE ADJUSTMENT CARRIED OUT IN GOOD FAITH. 
 
 The award was duly transmitted to Governor Kellogg, and 
 though no stipulation to that effect was contained in tbe protocol, 
 or in any agreement entered into by him, still in order to show the 
 good faith of the Republicans and to secure as early as possible the 
 return of peace and prosperity which it was believed would result 
 from this adjustment, he immediately convened an extra session of 
 the Legislature to meet on the fourteenth day of April following. 
 The Legislature met on that day. The democratic members mani- 
 fested their confidence in the good faith of the republicans by taking 
 their seats and answering to the roll-call with Speaker Hahn of the 
 regular session in the chair, and the clerk of the regular session 
 calling the roll. The award and other papers with the petitions of 
 the contestants were referred to the Committee on contested elections 
 appointed at the regular session, no change being made in the per- 
 
33 
 
 sonnel of that Committee, except by filling a vacancy. They re- 
 ported to the House according to the terms of the award, when the 
 previous question was moved and carried by an almost unanimous 
 vote, the main question was ordered and the report of the committee 
 was adopted, whereupon the Republicans unseated, gracefully with- 
 drew, and the Democrats to whom seats were awarded were sworn 
 in and took their places. The joint resolution set forth in the pro- 
 tocol was offered by the Democratic member from Claiborne, and 
 was adopted with but eighteen (18) dissentients in a vote of one 
 hundred and seven (107), five of the eighteen being Republicans 
 who did not favor the adjustment. Subsequently, the Senator who 
 was declared by the award entitled to his seat presented himself 
 before the Senate, the colored Senator, who occupied his place 
 and who represented a district in which the colored people were in 
 the majority, withdrew, and the Senator declared elected by the 
 award was sworn in and took his seat. The joint resolution recog- 
 nizing the Kellogg government, previously passed by the House, 
 was adopted by the Senate, was duly signed and promulgated, 
 and forms Act No. 1 of the extra session of 1875. It is set forth in 
 full in the Appendix as Exhibit F. See also Exhibit E. 
 
 DEDUCTIONS. 
 
 It is submitted that the facts herein set forth, regarded from any 
 logical point of view, show clearly: 
 
 1. That Kellogg was elected Governor of Louisiana in 1872 by the 
 votes actually cast.* 
 
 2. That Governor Kellogg has at all times courted an investiga- 
 tion into his election, offering to abide by the result of that enquiry, 
 and that Mr. McEnery has assented to these proposals only when 
 his case seemed most desperate. 
 
 3. That as a matter of fact, both Kellogg, and eventually Mc- 
 Enery, did agree to submit their respective claims to the governor- 
 ship, first to the Foster sub-committee, and afterwards to the entire 
 committee, of which Hon. George F. Hoar was chairman. 
 
 ♦If it be claimed that the seating of George A. Sheridan, Fusion candidate for Congress- 
 man at large on the last day of the session of the Forty-third Congress, is inconsistent with 
 the assumption that Governor Kellogg was elected, it is only necessary to refer to the fact 
 that Sheridan nowhere in his brief claims that Kellogg was not elected and that the returns 
 of the Fusionists themselves (vide pp. 81-82 Senate report,) show that Kellogg ran 1571 ahead 
 of Pinchback, Sheridan's competitor, and more than 1000 votes over Pinchback less Mc- 
 Enery's vote over Sheridan, and according to the returns of the Lynch (legal) Returning 
 Board, Kellogg received 3943 votes more than Pinchback. Vide pp. 190 & 203 Senate Report. 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 4. That a large majority of the Democratic members and those 
 claiming to be members of the General Assembly, in a formal proto- 
 col signed by them, agreed to submit the claims of those of their 
 number who were contestants to the arbitrament of the Congres- 
 sional committee, of which Hon. George F. Hoar was chairman, 
 agreeing that if the aw ard made by this committee should be car- 
 ried out in good faith by the Republicans, they, the Democrats, 
 would unite with the Republican members in the passage of a joint 
 resolution recognizing the Kellogg government. 
 
 5. That the Congressional Committee, composed of Hon. George 
 F. Hoar, chairman, W. A. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Charles Foster, 
 William Walter Phelps, C. N. Potter and S. S. Marshall, 
 acting upon the terms of this written protocol, which decl ared 
 the object of said protocol to be the final settlement of the con- 
 troversy growing out of the elections of 1872 and 1874 in Louisi- 
 ana, made an award regarding the claims of certain persons to 
 seats in the Legislature, which award was transmitted to Governor 
 Kellogg and was carried out in good faith by the Republicans. 
 That thereupon the Democratic members of the General Assembly 
 united with the Republicans in the passage of the joint resolution 
 set forth in the protocol of adjustment recognizing the Kellogg 
 government and providing that the status of both branches of 
 the Legislature as established by the award (one- half of the 
 Senate thus recognized having been elected on the same ticket 
 with Governor Kellogg in 1872,) should not be disturbed until the 
 next general election, and providing further that this Legislature 
 should accord to Governor Kellogg all necessary support in main- 
 taining the laws, which act was duly approved and promulgated and 
 forms Act No. 1 of the extra session of 1875. 
 
 In conclusion it is submitted that Mr. McEnery and his friends 
 are estopped in all honor from further questioning the title of Gov- 
 ernor Kellogg as Governor of Louisiana; first, because Mr. Mc- 
 Enery agreed to submit his claims to the Congressional Committee, 
 and a majority of this committee have expressed their opinion that 
 Governor Kellogg was elected in 1872; secondly, because his own 
 partisans in the present Legislature, constituting a majority in the 
 lower House, which Legislature is accepted on all sides as the un- 
 disputed Legislature of the State, have almost unanimously passed 
 
35 
 
 a joint resolution recognizing Governor Kellogg as Governor of the 
 State; thirdly, because Mr. McEnery has always professed to desire 
 some settlement of the heretofore pending controversy which would 
 bring peace and quiet to the State, and it can not be denied that these 
 results have followed from the adoption of the adjustment; and lastly, 
 because Mr. McEnery aud his friends, as zealous and consistent up- 
 holders of the doctrine of State rights, will surely not ask the Con- 
 gress of the United States to interfere and by its action to annul the 
 solemn act of the recognized and unquestioned Legislature of a 
 sovereign State iu a matter pertaining exclusively to its own domes- 
 tic affairs. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 Beport on the Proceedings of the Fourth of January, 1875. 
 
 New Orleans, January 11, 1875. 
 
 To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the 
 State of Louisiana: 
 
 _ Gentlemen — Your committee selected to prepare a statement of the revolu- 
 tionary proceedings that transpired in the hall of the House of Representatives 
 on Monday, January 4, 1875, beg leave to submit the following statement, and 
 recommend that it be immediately forwarded to the Congress of the United 
 States. Respectfully, 
 
 JAMES S. MATTHEWS, 
 CHARLES W. LOWELL, 
 GEORGE DRURY, 
 W. F. SOUTHARD, 
 R. R. RAY. 
 
 The returns of the election held November 2, 1874, as promulgated by the 
 proper returning officers thereof according to law, showed that there were elected 
 to the House fifty-three Republicans and fifty-three Democrats, and there were 
 five seats for which the returning officers had made no returns and had referred 
 the decision of their right to hold them to the General Assembly. The whole 
 number of the House of Representatives is 111. A quorum is a majority of the 
 members elected, and was at that time fifty-four — -the quorum when the whole 
 number is seated is fifty-six. 
 
 A few days prior to the day fixed for the meeting of the General Assembly, a 
 posse of unauthorized persons secretly kidnapped A. J. Cousin, a Republican 
 member, and by force and violence conveyed him out of the city under color of 
 a pretended charge of embezzlement of $15, across Lake Pontchartrain to a dis- 
 tant parish, where they held him in confinement until after the day for the meet- 
 ing of the General Assembly. They afterwai'd released him, the very men who 
 made the charge going on his bond, and acknowledging that their object in ar- 
 resting and detaining him was to break a Republican majority. Certain parties 
 in the meanwhile, sought by the payment of several thousand dollars to certain 
 Republican members to bribe three of them to vote for the Democratic nominee 
 for Speaker. Attempts were made to kidnap other Republican members. 
 
 Public and repeated threats were made for weeks previous to the fourth of Jan- 
 uary of violence and assassination toward certain Republican members of the 
 General Assembly. These threats and menaces were repeated, confirmed and in- 
 dorsed by the press of the opposition throughout the State. In consequence of 
 information in his possession that organized violence was intended to be use 1 to 
 influence the organization of the House, the Governor placed the State House 
 under the military command of General Hugh J. Campbell, of the State militia, 
 who was ordered to assist and sustain the police. Under this order General H. 
 J. Campbell excluded from the building on Monday all but officials of the State 
 government, members of the General Assembly and persons claiming to be mem- 
 bers, judges, members of Congress and members of the United States civil, mili- 
 tary and naval service. 
 
 The constitutional provision to govern the organization of the House is as fol- 
 lows: 
 
38 
 
 Article 23. The House of Representatives shall choose its Speaker and other 
 officers. 
 
 Article 34. Each house of the General Assembly shall judge of the qualifica- 
 tions, elections and returns of its members; but a contested election shall be 
 determined in such manner as may be prescribed by law. 
 
 Article 36. Each house of the General Assembly shall keep and publish, 
 ■weekly, a journal of its proceedings, and the yeas and nays of the members on 
 any question, at the desire of any two of them, shall be entered on the journal. 
 
 The law governing the organization of the House is as follows: 
 
 Section forty- four, act No. 98, approved November 30, 1872: That it shall be 
 the duty of the Secretary of State to transmit to the Clerk of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives and the Secretary of the Senate of the last General Assembly, a list 
 of the names of such persons as, according to the returns, shall have been 
 elected to either branch of the General Assembly ; and it shall be the duty of the 
 said Clerk and Secretery to place the names of the Representatives and Senators 
 elect so furnished upon the roll of the House and of the Senate respectively; and 
 those Representatives and Senators whose names are so placed by the Clerk and 
 Secretary respectively, in accordance with the foregoing provisions, and none 
 other, shall be competent to organize the House of Representatives or Senate. 
 Nothing in this act shall be construed to conflict with article thirty-four of the 
 constitution of the State. 
 
 At 12 M. Monday, January 4, 1875, the State House being surrounded by an 
 excited crowd of several thousand persons, the members assembled in the hall of 
 the House, and the Chief Clerk called the roll of the House. Immediately after- 
 ward, or a little before the Clerk had finished the announcement of the number 
 of members who answered to their names, which was 102, Mr. Billieu. Repre- 
 sentative from Lafourche, moved that L. A. Wiltz, Re- resentative from Orleans, 
 be elected temporary Speaker. The Chief Clerk replied that the legal motion 
 was to elect a Speaker. Mr. Billieu, paying no attention to the protest of the 
 Clerk, proceeded hurriedly to put his own motion against the protest of all the 
 Republican Representatives. The motion was put in a quick and excited man- 
 ner, and not in a loud voice, and was voted for only by a portion of even the 
 Democratic members. The negative was not put at all. Mr. Wiltz had previously 
 taken a position near the Clerk's desk, and as quick as thought upon the putting 
 of the motion, -without waiting for any announcement of the vote, he sprang to the 
 Speaker's desk where the Clerk was standing, seized the gavel from his hand, and 
 pushed the Clerk violently off the stand and declared himself temporary Speaker. 
 Following him was W. T. Houston, first justice of the peace, parish of Orleans, 
 who took from his pocket a book looking like a Bible, and proceeded to go 
 through the form of administering an oath. 
 
 Mr. Wiltz, as temporary Speaker, assumed to administer the oath to the mem- 
 bers en masse, against the protest of Republican members. Some Democratic 
 member then made a motion to elect a Mr. Trezevant as Clerk. Mr. Wiltz put 
 the motion and declared it carried. 
 
 Mr. Trezevant at once sprang forward and took the Clerk's chair. 
 
 Immediately after, in a hurried and excited manner, a Mr. Flood was elected 
 Sergeant-at-Arms, upon motion of a Democratic member; also, a motion was 
 made from the same side of the House thi-t a number of assistant sergeants-at- 
 arms be appointed by the Chair, which the Chair declared carried, when a large 
 number of persons at once appeared, wearing badges on which was printed "As- 
 sistant Sergeant-at-Arms." While all the above motions were being put, Repub- 
 lican numbers objected, and called for the yeas and nays, all of which was dis- 
 regarded by the acting Speaker. 
 
 Colonel Lowell, Republican member, made the point of order that the consti- 
 tution of the State allowed any two members to call the yeas and nays on any 
 motion. Mr. Wiltz decided the point of order not well taken. (See constitu- 
 tional provision above. ) 
 
 The pretended House then proceeded, in defiance of the law, to swear in five 
 additional Democratic members, to wit: James Bright, of Bienville; Charles 
 Schuler and John L. Scales, of De Soto; C. C. Dunn, of Grant, and George S. 
 Kelley, of Winn, by which the Democrats gave themselves a majority. 
 
 The Republicans protested against this violence and lawlessness, but their 
 
39 
 
 protests were disregarded. The Democrats tbwi assumed to elect a permanent 
 Speaker. Mr. Wiltz declared himself elected after going through the usual 
 form, having received, as he claims, fifty-five votes, which included the five men 
 seated in violation of law. the Republican members withdrawing and not voting, 
 as they deemed the proceedings illegal. About the time of the withdrawal of the 
 Republican members of the House, Mr. Wiltz gave or caused instruction to be 
 given to the persons assuming to be sergeants-at-arms not to allow any one to 
 pass out of or to enter the House. Great commotion at once ensued, and quite 
 a number of knives and revolvers were drawn and displayed in a threatening 
 manner. Most of the Republican members had already left the room amid great 
 confusion, when Mr. Dupre, of Orleans (Democratic member), moved that the 
 Speaker be requested to call on the United States troops to preserve the peace of 
 the House. The motion prevailed, and a committee, of which Mr. Dupre was 
 appointed chairman, was appointed to wait on General De Trobriand and re- 
 quest the interference of United States troops to preserve the peace. In a short 
 time the committee returned, accompanied by General De J^robriand and staff. 
 Upon the appearance of General De Trobriand on the floor, loud applause came 
 from the Democratic side of the House. General De Trobriand moved to the 
 Speaker's desk, and Mr. Wiltz stated in substance the reason for his being sum- 
 moned, and informed him of the impossibility of his being able to enforce order 
 and preserve the peace. 
 
 General De Trobriand in substance (the committee being unable to get the 
 exact words) asked Mr. Wiltz whether it was not possible for him to preserve 
 order and keep the peace, without calling calling upon him as a United States 
 officer. Mr. Wiltz replied that it was impossible; that he had already instructed 
 his Sergeant-at-Arms to do so. General De Trobriand then took action in the 
 matter, and quiet was restored with little trouble. Mr. Wiltz then assured Gen- 
 eral De Trobriand that his coming had prevented bloodshed, and as your com- 
 mittee is reliably informed, on motion, thanked him in the name of the General 
 Assembly of Louisiana for his prompt response to the summons of the House, 
 and the General retired. The Republican members then signed and presented 
 the following application to the Governor, requesting the legal members be put 
 in possession of the hall. 
 
 New Orleans, January 4, 1875. 
 Hie Excellency William P. Kellogg, Governor: 
 
 Sru— The undersigned, members elect of the House of Representatives of the 
 General Assembly of this S<ate, assembled at the hall of the House, in the State 
 House, at 12 M. this day, and answered to the call made by the Clerk. Imme- 
 diately thereafter the chair was forcibly taken possession of, in violation of law, 
 and an attempt was made to organize the House contrary to law. We can not 
 obtain our legal rights unless the members elect are placed in possession of the 
 hall. Whenever the hall is cleared of all persons save the gentlemen elected we 
 will proceed to organize. We therefore invoke your aid in placing the hall in 
 possession of the members elect, that we may attend to the performance of our 
 duties. Respectfully, 
 
 James S. Matthews, parish ot Tensas. 
 
 E. W. Dewees, parish of Red River. 
 
 E. L. Pierson, parish of Natchitoches. 
 O. S. Hunsaker, parish of St. James. 
 V. Dickenson, parisn of St. James. 
 
 P. Jones Yorke, parish of Carroll. 
 
 C. W. Lowell, parish of Jefferson. 
 
 J. D. Jourdain, seventh ward, parish of Orleans. 
 
 R. R. Ray, parish of East Feliciana. 
 
 J. Ross Stewart, parish of Tensas. 
 
 L. J. Souer, parish of Avoyelles. 
 
 Samuel Thomas, parish of Bossier. 
 
 F. Marie, parish of Terrebonne. 
 James Randall, parish of Concordia. 
 William Crawford, parish of Rapides. 
 J. J. Johnson, parish of Caddo. 
 
40 
 
 Isaac Sutton, parish of St. Mary. 
 
 Henry Demas, parish of St. John the Baptist. 
 
 C. W. Keating, parish of Caddo. 
 J. E. Parker, parish of Jefferson. 
 
 George Gracien, fifteenth ward, parish of Orleans. 
 
 L. Butler, parish of Ascension. 
 
 Cain Sartain, parish of Carroll. 
 
 G. H. Hill, parish of Ascension. 
 
 J. M. Carville, parish of Iberville. 
 
 J. S. Davidson, parish or Iberville. 
 
 William Ridgely, parish ol Concordia. 
 
 John De Lacey, parish of Rapides. 
 
 E. D. Triplet, parish of East Baton Rouge. 
 
 George Drury, parish of Assumption. 
 
 E. A. Hubeau, parish of Jefferson. 
 H. Raby, parish of Natchitoches. 
 
 J. Connaughton, parish of Rapides. 
 William Murrell, parish of Madison. 
 
 D. C. Hill, parish of Ouachita. 
 
 W. F. Southard, parish of Ouachita. 
 
 F. R. Wright, parish of Terrebonne. 
 Emile Honore, parish of Pointe Coupee. 
 J. P. Wilson, parish of East Baton Rouge. 
 L. W. Baker, parish of Bossier. 
 
 W. G. Lane, parish of East Baton Rouge. 
 
 R. Poindexter, parish of Assumption. 
 
 M. Hahn, parish of St. Charles. 
 
 F. A. Woods, parish of West Baton Rouge. 
 
 A. B. Levisee, parish of Caddo. 
 
 J. W. Armstead, parish of West Feliciana. 
 
 Milton Jones, parish of Pointe Coupee. 
 
 A. E. Milon, parish of Plaquemines. 
 
 L. A. Snaer, parish of Iberia. 
 
 F. M. Grant, parish of Morehouse. 
 
 S. R. Pile, parish of St. Mary. 
 
 R. F. Guichard, parish of St. Bernard. 
 
 I have consented to sign this document on the ground that the Conservative 
 members of the House have set a precedent by appointing a special committee 
 to wait on General De Trobriand, who immediately appeared at the bar of the 
 House, escorted by said special committee. 
 
 ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 
 
 Representative of St. Bernard. 
 
 This was signed by fifty-two legally elected and returned members. In re- 
 sponse to this application the Governor applied to the military force of the 
 United States to assist his officers in expelling intruders and disturbers of the 
 peace, and preserving older, which assistance was rendered, and by it order 
 was restored. The Republican members returned to the hall. 
 
 When the members returned to the hall, following General De Trobriand, at 
 his request and under his protection, and attempted to follow him through the 
 door, the sergeant-at-arms at the door, at the order of Mr. Wiltz, closed the door 
 in their faces, and forcibly prevented them from entering— and they were not 
 allowed to enter until the attention of General De Trobriand was called to the 
 fact ; and at his order the Republican members were admitted, and the five in- 
 truders were expelled. 
 
 The Democratic members, with Mr. Wiltz at their head, then withdrew, and 
 the House then proceeded to organize according to law. 
 
 State of Louisiana, 
 Office of Secretary of State, 
 New Orleans, January 6, 1875. 
 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing fifty-two signatures are the genuine signa- 
 tures of members declared duly elected to the House of Representatives of the 
 
41 
 
 State of Louisiana, as certified to me by the Returning Board of said State, and 
 as by me certified to the Clerk of said House of Representatives as required by 
 law - P. G. DESLONDE, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 I certify that the foregoing protest contained the genuine signatures of fifty- 
 two members of the House of Representatives whose names are upon the list 
 furnished me by the Secretary of State, in conformity with law, and I further 
 certify that all said members answered to their names at the roll call made by me 
 at twelve o'clock M. on Monday, the fourth day of January, 1875, being a 
 
 majority of all the members present. 
 
 WILLIAM VIGERS, 
 Chief Clerk House of Representatives. 
 
 EXHIBIT B 
 
 Sioorn Statement of B. P. Blanchard, State Register of Voters under Warmoth. 
 
 United States of America, District of Louisiana, State of Louisiana, city of 
 New Orleans — Be it known, that on this second day of September, A. D. 1873, 
 personally appeared before the undersigned, a United States Commissioner in 
 and for the District of Louisiana, duly commissioned and sworn, Brainard P. 
 Blanchard. who being duly sworn deposes and says: That he was appointed by 
 Henry C. Warmonth, Governor of the State of Louisiana, to the office of State 
 Registrar of Voters, being also, by virtue of said office, ex-officio Supervisor of 
 Registration in and for the parish of Orleans; that he filled the said office during 
 the years 1870, 1871 and 1872; that in the last named year he was in full political 
 sympathy with the Liberal movement, and subsequently, upon the fusion of the 
 Liberal and Democratic parties with what was known as and styled the Fusion 
 party, and in conjunction with others of the same political party he devised plans 
 for carrying the general election in the State of Louisiana on November 4, 1872, 
 in favor of the said Fusion party and their candidates for presidential electors, 
 Congress and State and municipal offices; that, with this object in view, he pro- 
 posed to take advantage of all the powers conferred upon him by the acts of the 
 General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, numbered respectively acts Nos. 99 
 and 100, approved Mai ch 16, 1870, and known as the registration and election 
 laws of 1870. 
 
 That in furtherance of this scheme he caused a careful compilation to be made 
 of the lists of deceased male persons over twenty-one years of age who had died 
 since the close of the registration in 1870, which lists were required by law to be 
 furnished to him by the sextons of the various cemeteries in the parish of 
 Orleans, and that said lists, so compiled, were carefully collated with the regis- 
 tration books and the registry number and the election precinct in which the 
 deceased was registered were noted. That instead of carrying out to the full 
 letter the provisions of section seven of the registration law above referred to he 
 caused to be erased from the lists of registered voters only the names of such 
 deceased electors as were well known in the community, and in cases where the 
 deceased was an obscure personage (a large majority of the whole number being 
 composed of such) he caused to be made out a duplicate registration certificate 
 in his name, the same to be retained and used at the general election as herein- 
 after set forth. That for this purpose he caused to be printed facsimiles of the 
 blank forms of duplicate registration certificates used in 1870, which were in a 
 different style of type from those intended to be used in 1872, in order to have 
 them filled up with the names of deceased electors as above stated. That the 
 number of duplicate certificates, so filled up for the purpose aforesaid was as 
 follows, more or less : For the — 
 
 First ward 76 
 
 Second ward 85 
 
 Third ward 243 
 
42 
 
 Fourth ward 48 
 
 Fifth -ward 61 
 
 Sixth ward 52 
 
 Seventh ward 69 
 
 Eighth ward 35 
 
 Ninth ward 17 
 
 Tenth ward 51 
 
 Eleventh ward 44 
 
 Twelfth ward 21 
 
 Thirteenth ward 16 
 
 Fourteenth ward 7 
 
 Total 855 
 
 Deponent further says, that to his knowledge a large number of certificates of 
 registration had been issued in 1870, in the names of fictitious presons; that he 
 caused a careful examination of the books of registration to be made, and of 
 other records and memoranda in his possession, to ascertain the number of such 
 fraudulent registries, and also made efforts to ascertain in whose possession such 
 papers in the names of fictitious persons were, and that he obtained possesion 
 of some two thousand of such papers, and in relation to such of said papers as he 
 could not obtain possession of the following course was pursued: When ever 
 he ascertained that they were in the hands of persons belonging to the Republi- 
 can party, he then, and during registration, caused the said fictitious names to 
 be erased from the registry lists as fraudulent; but in all cases where he ascer- 
 tained that such papers were in the possession of persons in the interest of the 
 Fusion party, he instruced the assistant supervisors of registration not to erase 
 such fictitious names from the books, in cases where he had confidence in those 
 officers, but in cases where he had reason to suspect the fidelity of any assistant 
 supervisor to the Fusion cause, or to believe that any of them would not assist in 
 or abet such manipulation, he prohibited them from making any erasures what- 
 ever, reserving that work for himself or assiguing it to some confidential clerk or 
 confidential agent whom he could implicitly trust, as will more fully appear by 
 the documents hereto annexed, and marked "A" and "B." 
 
 Deponent further says that he was aware of the existence of large numbers of 
 fraudulent naturalization papers issued in 1868 by the clerks of district courts in 
 the parish of Orleans and other large parishes, and that in 1870, in his circular 
 of instructions to supervisors of registration, he directed them not to register 
 any person naturalized between July 4 and October 24, except such as were natu- 
 ralized in the Frst and Second District Courts of the parish of Orleans; that the 
 number naturalized between the dates above cited was reported by his predeces- 
 sor, Hon. William Baker, chairman of the board of registration, in his report to 
 the General Assembly, dated New Orleans, January 10, 1869, as follows: 
 
 Tables showing the number of persons registered in each ward (first excepted) of the 
 parish of Orleans, who were naturalized between July 4 and October 24, 1868. 
 
 Ward. Number. 
 
 First ward (no record) 
 
 Second ward 538 
 
 Third ward 903 
 
 Fourth ward ■ 320 
 
 Fifth ward 989 
 
 Sixth ward 359 
 
 Seventh ward 423 
 
 Eighth ward 484 
 
 Ninth ward 540 
 
 Tenth ward 438 
 
 Eleventh ward 333 
 
 Eight bank (Algiers) 161 
 
 Total 5488 
 
43 
 
 » 
 
 And that the result of these instructions not to recognize the validity of such 
 naturalization was made manifest by the result of the registration of naturalized 
 foreigners in 1870, the registration for Orleans parish in that year being entirely 
 new and complete. 
 
 Table showing the number of persons naturalized between Julv 4 anrl October 24, 
 1868, and July 4 and October 28, 1870, registered in 1870. 
 
 Precinct or Ward. 186S 1870. Total. 
 
 First 96 70 166 
 
 Second 142 145 287 
 
 Third 223 149 372 
 
 Fourth 100 53 153 
 
 Fifth 134 141 275 
 
 Sixth 65 58 123 
 
 Seventh 150 85 235 
 
 Eighth 178 110 288 
 
 Ninth •••• 197 93 290 
 
 Tenth 107 102 209 
 
 Eleventh 106 87 193 
 
 Twelfth 54 46 100 
 
 Thirteenth 26 18 44 
 
 Fourteenth 15 7 22 
 
 Fifteenth 43 11 54 
 
 Total 1636 1175 2811 
 
 As will more fully appear on pages sis, seven, eight and nine of a report to the 
 General Assembly of Louisiana, by the deponent, as State Registrar of Voters, 
 dated January 31, 1871 — a printed copy of which is hereto appended, and marked 
 "C." That the reason for such ruling by the deponent in 1870 was that he knew 
 that these naturalization papers, fraudulently issued, were iu the hands of per- 
 sons inimical to the Republican party, with which party he was at that time 
 politically affiliated; that the judges and clerks of courts were in 1868 entirely, 
 and in 1870, with only two exceptions, members of the Democratic party, and 
 that he consequently endeavored to prevent the use of said fraudulent naturaliza- 
 tion papers by the Democratic party; that he repeated the instructions to super- 
 visors of registration in this regard in his pamphlet of instructions in 1872, 
 pages seven and eight — a printed copy of which is hereunto annexed and marked 
 "D;" but upon the fusiou of the Liberal and Democratic parties deponent, know- 
 ing that large numbers of said fraudulent naturalization papers were in the hands 
 of Fusionists and could be used in the interest of the Fusion party, revoked his 
 previous instructions as will appear by circular No. 5, issued by deponent, hereto 
 annexed and marked "E," and that the result of such change iu his ruling was 
 that a large number of such papers fraudulently issued were used by persons 
 registering in 1872: 
 
 Table showing the number of persons naturalized between July 4, 1868. and October 
 24, 1868, and July 4, 1872, and October 28. 1872, added to the registry lists in 
 1872, in each election precinot, parish of Orleans: 
 
 Precinct. 1868. 1872. Total. 
 
 First 114 140 254 
 
 Second 131 202 333 
 
 Third 242 395 637 
 
 Fourth 93 212 305 
 
 Fifth I8 7 421 608 
 
 Sixth".'.'.'.'.'.' 92 228 320 
 
 Seventh 75 183 258 
 
 Eighth 129 173 302 
 
 Ninth 175 202 372 
 
 Tenth 143 159 302 
 
 Eleventh 102 118 220 
 
 Twelfth 44 56 100 
 
39 
 
 51 
 
 29 
 
 49 
 
 64 
 
 127 
 
 44 
 
 Thirteenth 12 
 
 Fourteenth 20 
 
 Fifteenth 63 
 
 Total 1622 2621 4243 
 
 And deponent firmly believes that a large number of the naturalization papers 
 issued in 1872, to the extent of 2000, at least, were improperly so issued. 
 
 Deponent further says that he instructed the assistant supervisors of registra- 
 tion for the parish of Orleans that in all cases where persons who had been 
 registered in 1870 in other wards than those in which they resided in 1872, and 
 who should apply for registration on account of change of residence, to require 
 such persons to surrender the certificates of registration of 1870 to them (the 
 assistant supervisors), to be by them returned to the office of deponent, State 
 Kegistrar of Voters, ostensibly for the purpose of cancellation and erasure on the 
 books, but in reality to be preserved and voted on at the ensuing general election, 
 in the manner hereinafter set forth, and that this course was pursued and per- 
 sisted in notwithstanding the formal protest of the United States supervisors of 
 election, one of which is hereto annexed and marked "F." The certificates of 
 registration so returned deponent caused to be examined and sorted out in his 
 office, and such as were not marked or checked in any way by the United States 
 supervisors of election were preserved to be voted upon in the wards from which 
 they were originally issued, and only such were returned to the ward officers for 
 cancellation and erasure as were deemed unfit or unsafe for use by repeating 
 voters, as is more fully shown by the affidavit of H. L. Downes, hereto attached 
 and marked " G." The number so cancelled was to the following extent only: 
 
 Firat precinct 80 
 
 Second precinct 43 
 
 Third precinct 101 
 
 Fourth precinct 79 
 
 Fifth precinct, record lost 
 
 Sixth precinct 115 
 
 Seventh precinct 83 
 
 Eighth precinct, record lost 
 
 Ninth precinct 14 
 
 Tenth precinct 36 
 
 Eleventh precinct 103 
 
 Twelfth precinct 11 
 
 Thirteenth precinct 
 
 Fourteenth precinct 12 
 
 Fifteenth precinct 2 
 
 Total 579 
 
 Deponent further says that he also instructed assistant supervisors of registra- 
 tion, in the parish of Orleans, that whenever they found upon the registry of 
 1870 names of persons making their marks (X), and supposed to be negroes and 
 not known personally to them, to procure two persons, registered voters in their 
 respective wards, to prepare a list of such names and make an affidavit that they 
 "had reason to believe and did believe" that the persons named therein were not 
 residing in the ward on the tenth day preceding the election, and the assistant 
 supervisors were directed to erase from the lists of voters all names put down in 
 said affidavits, and this was done, although the law made it the duty of the Board 
 of Metropolitan Police Commissioners to cause a canvass of the city of New Or- 
 leans, and prescribed that the names of such persons as should be reported by 
 them as "not found" only should be stricken from the registry list. Such affida- 
 vits were made in form similar to the one hereto annexed and marked "H," and 
 resulted in the erasure from the books of the following number of names, sup- 
 posed to be all colored men, namely: 
 
 First ward 182 
 
 Second ward 36 
 
 Third ward 280 
 
45 
 
 Fourth ward 309 
 
 Fifth ward * .' . " * '.'.'. 223 
 
 Sixth ward ' '..'..' . 353 
 
 Seventh ward '. 38 'J 
 
 Eighth ward 164 
 
 Ninth ward 122 
 
 Tenth ward 12 
 
 Eleventh ward 40 
 
 Twelfth ward '. ... 153 
 
 Thirteenth ward 51 
 
 Fourteenth ward 17 
 
 lifteenth ward 144 
 
 Total 2472 
 
 In this connection see affidavit of James Parker, hereto annexed and marked. 
 
 That this course was pursued notwithstanding the fact that the Board of Po- 
 lice Commissioners did, in obedience to the provisions of section fifty of the elec- 
 tion law, cause a canvass of the city to be made (as will appear by the document 
 hereto annexed and marked I) and reported the names of persons "not found," 
 and said names were by said deponent published in the official journal of the 
 city and State, but that no names were erased from the list in consequence of 
 such reports, but solely upon the affidavits above mentioned. Deponent further 
 says that from the outset of registration in 1872, he was in constant communica- 
 tion with the Democratic and Liberal campaign committees, and conjointly with 
 them instructed the supervisors and assistant supervisors of registration through- 
 out the State verbally, in addition to written or printed instructions, from time 
 to time, to facilitate in every manner the registration of all white men known or 
 supposed to be in favor of the Fusion candidates, and to throw every possible 
 obstacle in the way of colored applicants for registration, such as requiring them 
 to produce two witnesses to prove their identity and residence, delaying them by 
 unnecessary questions and by other means, and that in compliance with such 
 verbal instructions the assistant supervisors of registration would and did fre- 
 quently select from the crowd of applicants for registration white men known to 
 them as Democrats or Fusionists, and register them, and then close their offices 
 before the hour prescribed by law, on the pretext that they were summoned to 
 court or some similar excuse, thus leaving the colored men, many of whom could 
 ill afford to lose their time, unregistered. The result of such instructions, and 
 action consequent thereon, was the addition to the register list of a large excess 
 of whites over colored men, as appears from the following table: 
 
 Table showing the number of white and colored voters added to the registration of 
 the parish of Orleans, in each precinct, in 1872. 
 
 Wards. White. Colored. Total. 
 
 First 1,379 324 1,703 
 
 Second 1,672 418 2,090 
 
 Third 2,518 882 3,400 
 
 Fourth 1,H3 407 1,550 
 
 Fifth 1,712 597 2,309 
 
 Sixth 1,359 474 1,833 
 
 Seventh 1,256 638 1,894 
 
 Eighth 903 212 1,115 
 
 Ninth 1,133 201 1,333 
 
 Tenth 1,479 442 1,921 
 
 Eleventh A 1,278 404 1,683 
 
 Twelfth 593 192 785 
 
 Thirteenth 311 154 465 
 
 Fourteenth 144 125 269 
 
 Fifteenth 458 299 757 
 
 Grandtotal 17,338 5,769 23,107 
 
 Being entirely out of proportion to the relative number of the two races in the 
 city as shown by the late census. 
 
46 
 
 Deponent further says that in order to annoy and hinder colored men in regis- 
 tering he instructed the assistant supervisors to throw every possible obstacle in 
 the way of the United States supervisors of election and deputy marshals ap- 
 pointed to represent the Republican party, such as refusing them access to the 
 books or permission to remain behind the railing, etc., and the assistant super- 
 visors were further instructed that whenever any considerable number of uegroes 
 were waiting for registration they should raise some frivolous objection to the 
 action of the United States officials and refuse to submit to the requirements of 
 the enforcement acts, which conduct frequently resulted in the arrest of assistant 
 supervisors and the closing of their offices some times for the entire day, large 
 numbers of voters being thus deprived of registration. That these instructions 
 were carried out will appear more fully by the documents annexed and marked 
 K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, S, T and U; and that, in addition to the cases mentioned 
 therein, there were many other arrests of assisant supervisors in consequence of 
 adherence to said instructions, of which depodent has at present no record. 
 
 Deponent further says that commissioners of election for the parish of Orleans 
 were all appointed by him from among persons known to be in the interest of 
 of the Fusion party, and strong partisans thereof; that on the second of Novem- 
 ber he received from S. B. Fackard, on behalf of the Republican State Central 
 Committee, a communication, hereto annexed and marked V, requesting the 
 appointment of one commissioner at each poll to represent the Republican party, 
 but that deponent refused to accede to the request, as will appear by his answer 
 to said Packard, hereto attached and marked W; that the commissioners of 
 election were instructed to facilitate, in every possible manner, the voting of 
 persons known to be Fusionists, or who should offer to vote the Fusion ticket, 
 and to obstruct and hinder the voting of Republicans; that they were instructed 
 that whenever any person offered to vote the Fusion ticket they should not ques- 
 tion him closely, but should suggest to him the requisite answers, and should de- 
 cide quickly. 
 
 Deponent further says that the polling places throughout tho parishes were 
 selected with the view to the convenience of Fusion voters, and were located as 
 remotely and as difficult of access as possible from the neighborhoods chiefly 
 inhabited by colored men; that whenever a poll was located in a colored neigh- 
 borhood the commissioners were selected from persons notorious for their hos- 
 tility to colored men, and said commissioners were instructed to hinder and 
 delay all colored electors to the full extent of their power. 
 
 Deponent further says that in each ward of the city of New Orleans he em- 
 ployed persons whom he intended to appoint commissioners of election, and 
 whom he did subsequently so appoint, whose instructions were to prepare written 
 lists in advance of the names ot all deceased persons (being voters) and of the 
 wards in which they resided, whose names had not been erased from the registry 
 lists as prepared by him, the said deponent; that these lists were ordered to be 
 prepared upon paper similar to that provided for keeping the written lists of 
 voters at the election, as required by section eleven of the election law of 1870, 
 and they were instructed to strike from the poll list in advance the names of 
 such persons, as required by section twelve of the above quoted law. Said com- 
 missioners were also instructed to see that a number of Fusion ballots corres- 
 ponding to the number of names thus erased from the lists were placed in the 
 ballot boxes in their respective polls, so that the written lists and the number of 
 ballots should tally exactly at the counting of the votes; they being left to devise 
 their own mode of carrying out these latter instructions, but, the better to 
 accomplish the object sought, they were instructed to open their polls in advance 
 of the hour designated by Jaw, so that when voters presented themselves at the 
 regular hour it should appear that some votes had already been cast; and these 
 commissioners were also instructed to insert the list previously prepared as 
 aforesaid, sheet by sheet, among the lists kept during the day, making the run- 
 ning numbers correspond; and that these instructions were obeyed to the letter 
 in eveiy instance, and that the names of 855 deceased persons, obtained and 
 prepared as before related, were so erased and fraudulently marked as voted, and 
 the same number of Fusion tickets were thus voted at the said election. 
 
 Deponent further says, that by a forced and strained interpretation of section 
 forty-one of the registration law, he appointed about three thousand persons in 
 
47 
 
 the city of New Orleans, who were known to be violent partisans of the Fusion 
 party, among them several of bad and dangerous character, to act as "peace 
 officers" to take charge of the ballot boxes in the city of New Orleans, as further 
 appears from the documents hereto annexed and marked X, Y and Z, and that to 
 some of these men were intrusted the certificates of registration of 1870, which 
 had been surrendered by persons who had removed to other wards, and collected 
 and sorted out as hereinbefore described, and also with such fraudulent certifi- 
 cates of registration of 1870 as were in the possession and control of himself, or 
 of persons in the interest of the Fusion party, for the purpose of voting thereon, 
 and that said certificates of registration were so voted on, to the knowledge of 
 deponent, to the extent of 3500 votes, as is also shown by the deposition of Wal- 
 ter S. Long, hereto attached, and marked AA. 
 
 Deponent further says that the supervisors of registration appointed through- 
 out the State were all in the interest of the Fusion party, and were selected not 
 onfy on that account, but because of their supposed willingness and ability to 
 carry the election in favor of that party, by whatever manipulation was possible 
 and necessary under the registration and election laws; that in parishes where 
 there was known to exist a large Republican majority, the supervisors were, in 
 most cases, persons sent from New Orleans to the parishes in which they were to 
 act, and men well known for their personal recklessness and unscrupulous charac- 
 ter, and familiar with all the machinery used in manipulating elections and the 
 powers conferred upon supervisors of registration by the laws; that said super- 
 visors were instructed, verbally or otherwise, to impede in every possible manner 
 the registration of colored voters, in such ways as closing their offices when large 
 numbers of negroes were waiting for registration, alleging that they were out of 
 blanks when in truth they were amply supplied, removing their offices to remote 
 points, notifying only white men ol their location and giving no notice to the 
 negroes; giving notice of the location of the office at one point, and establishing 
 it at another without notice; establishing polling places without due notice, and 
 so as to facilitate the casting of a large Fusion vote, and obstructing the voting 
 of Republicans, especially ot colored men; that to further carry out the before 
 recited determination to carry the election at any risk, deponent, without au- 
 thority of law, directed that a new and complete registration should be made in 
 the parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, St. James and Tangipa- 
 hoa, each of which parishes was known to contain a large Republican majority, 
 and a large excess of colored over white population, on the pretext that the books 
 of previous registration could not be found, said books having been previously 
 purposely made way with. In this connection deponent refers to the documents 
 hereto attached and marked respectivelv: AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, Al, 
 AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX and AY, to show 
 both the manner in which the new registration was ordered and inaugurated, and 
 the spirit in which it was carried out. The result of this action will be made 
 evident by a comparison between the registration and election statistics of 1870 
 and 1872, as shown by the following statement: 
 
 Comparative table ot statistics of registration and election in the paria'aes of East 
 Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, St. James aud Tangipahoa in ttie years 1870 
 and 1872. 
 
 Registered in Republican vote in 
 
 Parish. 1870. 1872. 1870. 1872. 
 
 East Baton Rouge 3099 3048 2440 1168 
 
 West Baton Rouge 1367 1256 702 445 
 
 St. James 3498 2723 1873 843 
 
 Tangipahoa 1868 1530 845 Gil 
 
 Total 9832 8557 5860 3067 
 
 Thus showing a decrease of the number of registered in 1872 from that of 1870 in 
 these four parishes of 1275, and a falling off of the Republican vote of 2793, for 
 that the Fusionists registered their lull vote there can be no doubt. 
 
 Deponent further says that in several other parishes in which a large colored 
 majority existed, the opening of the books of registration was delayed by various 
 means for a considerable period after the time prescribed by law, September 2. 
 
48 
 
 Thus in Carroll parish, containing in 1870 a registered vote of 351 whites to 1588 
 colored, the registration was not opened until October 12; Iberville, not until 
 September 17; St. James, September 12; Natchitoches, September 17; Franklin, 
 September 18; Winn, September 23; Caldwell, September 26; Cameron, Septem- 
 ber 30; Vernon, September 20. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of St. Landry, one of the largest and 
 most populous parishes in the State, and in which the supervisor exhibited a de- 
 sire to afford fair facilities for registration to all classes, he was constantly 
 checked and hindered by directions to move his office to points remote from the 
 districts in which the negro population had a respectable ratio, and to establish 
 his office at places where there were but few negroes or white Republicans, as will 
 appear bv the documents hereto attached, and marked AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, 
 BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BK. 
 
 Deponent further states that he instructed the supervisor of registration in the 
 several parishes to annoy and resist the United States supervisors of election in 
 every manner possible, and that in most of the parishes his instructions were 
 carried out and registration thereby greatly delayed, especially in the parish of 
 West Feliciana, a very strong Republican parish, as will appear by the documents 
 attached hereto and marked BL, BLL, BM, BN, BO, BP, BQ, BB, BS, BT and 
 BU, and in regard to other parishes by those papers annexed and marked BV, 
 BW, BX, BY, BZ and B2. 
 
 Deponent further says that, besides the selection of supervisors on account of 
 their political bias, many of them were appointed who were caDdidates for office 
 on the Fusion ticket at the general election of November 4, 1872, for the purpose 
 of stimulating them to extra exertions to cause themselves to be returned, and 
 thus contribute to the general success of the entire Fusion ticket; that among 
 the number J. H. Simmons, of Claiborne, was a candidate for police juror; G. 
 H. Guptill, of Cameron, was a candidate for police juror; R. T. Carr, of De Soto, 
 was a candidate lor sheriff; G. D. Wells, of Livingston, was a candidate for 
 recorder of his parish; P. E. Lored, supervisor's clerk for Lafourche, was a can- 
 didate for justice of the peace; E. L. Pierson, of Natchitoches, was a candidate 
 for the House of Representatives ; I. G. P. Hoey, of Rapides, was a candidate for 
 the House of Representatives; A. Chalarie, of Plaquemines, was a candidate for 
 sheriff; A. Estopenal, of St. Bernard, was a candidate for sheriff; G. W. Coombs, 
 of St. John the Baptist, was a candidate for justice of the peace; R. C. White, 
 of St. Mary, was a candidate for Senator; Charles E. Steele, of Tensas, was a 
 candidate for clerk of court (his brother being a candidate for district attorney) ; 
 George L. Stinson, of Winn, was a candidate for recorder; Thomas Duffy, assist- 
 ant supervisor fourth ward, Orleans, was a candidate for clerk of the Fourth Dis- 
 trict Court; Thomas Fernon, same for seventh ward, Orleans, was a candidate 
 for Representative; W. C. Kinsella, same for ninth ward, Orleans, was a candi- 
 date for Representative, and C. C. Piper, clerk, thirteenth ward, was a candidate 
 for constable. Seventh Justice Court, all of whom were elected by their own 
 count, except Thomas Fernon; that the question being raised whether supervisors 
 were eligible as candidates and vice versa, deponent received from the chairman 
 of the Democratic campaign committee the communication hereto annexed and ' 
 marked CA, to which he returned the reply hereto annexed and marked CB, and 
 that this decision was made to encourage supervisors to become candidates and 
 to return themselves elected. 
 
 Deponent further says that he issued from time to time circulars of instruc- 
 tions to supervisors and assistant supervisors of registration for their observance 
 and guidance, copies of which are hereto annexed and marked CC, CD, CE, CF, 
 CG, CH, CI, CK, and in addition thereto, with a view of preventing the United 
 States supervisors ot election and other officials appointed and acting under the 
 enforcement acts of Congress from taking any cognizance whatever ol the results 
 of the election for State and parish officers, he issued to all supervisors of regis- 
 tration a confidential letter of instructions, hereto annexed and marked CL, 
 which, for greater security and secrecy, he caused to be sent to them by the 
 hands of trustworthy agents, who were previously instructed by him as to the 
 details necessary to be worked up to accomplish the object aimed at, namely, the 
 success of the Fusion ticket at the general election; and that he prepared and 
 supplied to the supervisors and assistant supervisors of registration throughout 
 
49 
 
 the State two sets of blank forms of tally sheets, statements of votes, etc., one 
 set of which was to be used for returns for presidential electors and members of 
 Congress, and the other for State, parish and municipal officers only, with the 
 intent of so manipulating the vote for the latter candidates that those running on 
 the Fusion ticket' should be returned and declared elected in parishes where the 
 vote showed a majority cast for the Eepublican candidates for Congress and 
 presidential electors. 
 
 Deponent further says, that in order more effectually to defeat and counteract 
 the effect of the supervision and inspection of the registration and election by 
 the United States officials, he sent to all supervisors a telegraphic dispatch, a 
 copy of which is hereto attached and marked CM, which instructions deponent 
 believes were faithfully carried out in a majority of the parishes, with the effect 
 of excluding a large Republican vote at the election. 
 
 Deponent further states that in the parish of Terrebonne, containing a large 
 excess of Republican voters, the supervisor of registration originally appointed 
 Mr. C. A. Buford, a resident of the parish; having been taken sick, he was super- 
 seded by F. J. Stokes, a resident of Nbw Orleans, who was familiar with all the 
 advantages possible to be taken by supervisors of registration under the State 
 laws; that said Stokes, upon assuming charge of the office, gave out that he had 
 no blanks, though an ample supply had been furnished to him, as is shown by 
 documents hereto attached and marked CN and CO; and that said Stokes, with- 
 out warrant of law, did issue a notice to all registered voters of that parish to 
 come forward and submit their certificates of previous registration to his inspec- 
 tion, to be countersigned or visaed, else they would not be allowed to vote on 
 them, as is shown by a printed copy of his notice hereto attached and marked 
 CP; and that the said Stokes did in this and many other ways hinder and im- 
 pede the registration of Republican voters; and that said Stokes, knowing that a 
 large Republican majority had been cast at the election of November 4, 1872, did 
 fail and refuse to make a count of the ballots in three or more boxes, but fled to 
 the city of New Orleans, leaving said boxes uncounted, alleging intimidation, but 
 really with the avowed purpose and design of having the return of said parish 
 thrown out by the returning board, and the Republican vote cast consequently 
 excluded from the count, which was done; and furthermore, that the general 
 bearing and demeanor of said Stokes toward Republicans was overbearing and 
 arbitrary in the extreme, so much so that it was made a subject of complaint by 
 parties in the Fusion interest, to the effect that Stokes' manner and action were 
 injuring the party. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of Madison, which always contained 
 a large excess of Republican voters, no returns of the election were made ac- 
 cording to law, but that the supervisor of registration, W. J. Cahoone, a resi- 
 dent of New Orleans, sent to the parish because of his known skill in the mani- 
 pulation of elections, knowing that there had been a large Republican majority 
 cast at the election, fled the parish at night and came by rail to New Orleans, 
 bringing with him only fragmental memorandas, such as tally sheets, check lists, 
 etc., from which he proceeded to fabricate his returns of the election of that 
 parish; that for that purpose deponent furnished the said Cahoone with the nec- 
 essary blanks and directed his clerk to instruct and assist the said Cahoone in 
 making out said fictitious returns; that said Cahoone prepared said fraudulent 
 returns in a room on Gravier, near Baronne street, in the city of New Orleans, 
 and made oath to them before J. P. Montamat, at that time Third Justice of the 
 Peace for the parish of Orleans, having previously signed tbe names of the com- 
 missioners of election thereto as having beeu sworn to before him in the town of 
 Delta, parish of Madison, as supervisor of the parish; that said returns, as deli- 
 vered to the Returning Board, did not exhibit the true vote cast in Madison par- 
 ish at the election aforesaid, but showed a decrease from the actual Republican 
 vote cast of about 550 votes, and that said Cahoone merely returned on said 
 fabricated returns the vote for national and State officers, and omitted therefrom 
 the vote cast for parish officers, in order that such officers might be appointed by 
 the Governor, and thus prevent the Republican candidates, who were in reality 
 elected, from obtaining their offices. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of Iberville, also a parish largely Re- 
 publican, the supervisor of registration, J. L. Tharp, a resident of New Orleans, 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 and familiar with the manipulations of elections, finding that a large Republican 
 majority had been cast at the election, induced the commissioners of election to 
 refuse to sign the returns, alleging intimidation, for the purpose of having the 
 returns of election from that parish thrown out by the Eeturning Board, and 
 the vote of said parish for all local officers, which was 2239 Republican to 722 
 Fusion, was excluded and thrown out by the said board, as expected and intended 
 by said Tharp. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of St. Martin the supervisor, 0. Dela- 
 houssaye, Jr., knowing that a majority of Republican votes had been cast at the 
 election, abandoned his office, leaving one box uncounted, alleging intimidation 
 and armed interference of the negroes, in order to have the vote of that parish 
 excluded by the Returning Board, as appears by the telegram hereto attached 
 and marked CQ. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of St. James the supervisor originally 
 appointed, D. F. Melville, beiEg suspected by the Fusion campaign committee of 
 favoring some of the Republican candidates, was summarily removed, and J. C. 
 Golding, a resident of New Orleans, was appointed in his place, and* that said 
 Golding, knowing that the Republican candidates had received a large majority 
 of the vote cast at the election, failed to finish counting the vote, abandoning 
 three or more of his boxes, and returned to New Orleans with the avowed intent of 
 having the entire vote of the parish thrown out on account of intimidation, and 
 the Returning Board did so exclude the entire vote of that parish for local 
 officers. 
 
 Deponent further states that the consequence of the action of said supervisors 
 of registration in the parishes of Madison, Iberville, Terrebonne, St. Martin and 
 St. James is shown by a comparison of the number of votes registered and of 
 votes cast in 1870 and 1872, as follows: 
 
 Comparative table of statistics of registration and election in 1870 and 1872 in the 
 parishes of Madison, Iberville, St. Martin, Terrebonne and St. James: 
 
 00 00 H 00 *2 
 
 .a oi .9^ .2 s 
 
 fe 2 °° £& S* 
 
 pabish. .s > .a °« >*g . 
 
 1 § 1 si . lag 
 
 <*> a "o a a a u -, 
 
 wi ft 'So ftSj ftg'S 
 
 MM « M P3 
 
 Iberville 3,354 1,496 4,036 2,239 2,239 
 
 Madison.*.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 2,120 1,269 2,725 1,756 1,227 
 
 St. James 2,498 1,873 2,723 1,852 843 
 
 St. Martin 1,481 525 1,961 718 
 
 Terrebonne 3,981 1,422 *... 1,593 .... 
 
 Tota l 13,344 6,585 11,445 8,158 4,309 
 
 Thus showing that with an increase of the number of registered voters in these 
 parishes (Terrebonne excepted, from which no reports were made to the deponent 
 by Stokes), of 1992 voters, the Republican vote, as returned by the Lynch board, 
 was 3849 greater than the same vote as counted in joint session of the Fusion 
 Legislature, and that the entire Republican vote of two parishes, St. Martin and 
 Terrebonne, was not only totally excluded from the returns of the Fusion Return- 
 ing Board, but was also excluded in the count of the votes for Governor and 
 Lieutenant Governor in joint session of the Fusion Legislature at Odd Fellows' 
 Hall, all of which was the natural consequence of the action of the supervisors of 
 registration in said parishes, as hereinbefore set forth. 
 
 Deponent further states that in the parishes of Rapides and Natchitoches, in 
 which the registration of 1872 was new and complete, in consequence of the for- 
 
 *Not reported. 
 
51 
 
 mation of the new parishes of Vernon and Red River from their territory, and in 
 both of which the supervisors were Fusion candidates for the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, the registration reported by them was as follows : 
 
 White. Colored. Total. 
 
 Rapides 1719 1629 3348 
 
 Natchitoches 1517 1833 3350 
 
 As appears from the reports of said supervisors hereto annexed and marked CR, 
 CS, and that the returns of election as made by said supervisors, viz: J. G. P. 
 Hooe and E. L. Pierson, were as follows: 
 
 Kellogg. McEnerv- 
 
 Yapides 1169 1960 
 
 Natchitoches 550 1250 
 
 Showing manifest frauds in those parishes of about 700 votes in Rapides, and of 
 about 1200 in Natchitoches (in favor of the Fusion ticket), as it has been well 
 established by the testimony taken before the committee of the United Slates 
 Senate, and by other ample evidence, that very few colored men voted the Fusion 
 ticket. The manner in which these frauds were accomplished is clearly set forth 
 in the report of said Senate committee, pages 306, 307 and 308. 
 
 Deponent further states that in the parish of Webster the supervisor of regis- 
 tration, E. C. Bright, in carrying out the instructions received from the depo- 
 nent, refused to submit to the inspection of the United States supervisors of elec- 
 tion, as is shown by the testimony taken before said Senate committee and to be 
 found on page twelve of their report, and the documents attached hereto and 
 marked CT, CU, the result of which action was that said supervisor of registra- 
 tion made the returns of the election in that parish to the returning board as 977 
 for McEnery, against (>22 for Kellos;g, while the report of the United States su- 
 pervisors shows a vote of 377 for McEnery, against 824 for Kellogg, a difference 
 against the Republican vote cast of 202 votes. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of Morehouse, at poll N°- 4, at which 
 a Republican majority was cast, the box was tampered with before it was 
 counted, so that when it was opened more ballots were found in the box than 
 there were names on the written list required by section eleven of the election 
 law, the intention of the supervisor of registration being to have that box thrown 
 out and have a small Fusion majority in the parish for the State ticket of some 
 eighty-three votes; otherwise there would have been a Republican majority in the 
 parish of about the same number. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of Jefferson the box from the poll 
 held at Camp Parapet (or Colcord's) was either while en route to the office of the 
 supervisor of registration, at the courthouse of said parish, or after having been 
 deposited there, opened or otherwise tampered with and fraudulent Fusion 
 ballots deposited therein to the number of about 400, to replace an equal number 
 of Republican ballots taken out which were known to have been voted, which is 
 further shown by the documents hereto annexed and marked CV and CW. 
 
 Deponent further says that in the parish of Claiborne, the supervisor of regis- 
 tration, J. E. Scott, being suspected of complicity with the Republican candi- 
 dates in that parish and congressional district, was removed from office, and one 
 J. H. Simmons appointed to replace him; that said Scott did not turn over to 
 said Simmons the records of his office, but that said Simmons did, nevertheless, 
 hold the election in the parish of Claiborne without books or other formal evi- 
 dence of his official position, and did conduct the said election without poll 
 books, poll lists or other necessary blanks required by law to be used, as is shown 
 by the document hereunto annexed and marked CW and CWW. 
 
 Deponent further says that in addition to instructing verbally the commis- 
 sioners of election for the parish of Orleans, he issued for their guidance the cir- 
 cular of instructions hereto annexed and marked CX. 
 
 Deponent further says, that in the parish of Orleans, besides the fraudulent 
 and duplicated certificates of registration given to persons to be voted on, in the 
 manner already described, duplicate ballot boxes were provided for the different 
 ■wards, as follows: Two to the third ward; two to the eleventh ward; one to the 
 thirteenth ward; one to the fourteenth ward; two to the fourth ward; two to the 
 
52 
 
 fifth ward ; two to the eighth ward ; one to the fifteenth ward ; labeled and marked 
 ready for use in the same manner as those actually used on the day ot election; 
 see deposition of W. L. Catlin, hereto attached and marked CZ; with the inten- 
 tion of having said boxes filled with a large number of Fusion ballots, and a 
 compaiatively small number of Republican ballots, and of substituting them for 
 the boxes actually used, in cases where there was reason to suspect that said 
 boxes contained a Republican inajoi'ity; aud deponent has reason to believe, and 
 does believe, that many, if not all, of said duplicate boxes were used, from cir- 
 cumstances which occurred during the night after the election, and during the 
 counting of votes at Mechanics' Institute; and the manifest discrepancy between 
 the Fusion vote and the Republican vote in the boxes when opened, for instance, 
 in the third ward, poll number four, the vote as counted was 384 for McEnery 
 against 96 for Kellogg, and there were eighty more ballots in the box than names 
 on the written list required by section eleven of the registration law; at poll num- 
 ber five, same ward, the vote as counted was 438 for McEnery against 72 for 
 Kellogg, a totally disproportionate number for the locality where the poll was 
 held. Both of these boxes were counted by the Fusion Returning Board, although 
 formal protests were filed in each case by the United States supervisors of elec- 
 tion. 
 
 At poll number eight, same ward, which was located in a neighborhood 
 densely populated by negroes, the commissioners placed fifty Republican ballots 
 in the box after the closing of the polls, so that when couuted there were found 
 365 ballots in the box and but 316 names on the written list, and the vote was 
 for McEnery 24, for Kellogg 338; that iu consequence of these discrepancies and 
 the large majority against their ticket, the Fusion Returning Board excluded the 
 count of this box in making their compilation of the returns. 
 
 In the eleventh ward, poll number one, when counted, showed 311 votes for 
 McEnery against 40 for Kellogg, although this box was located near the levee, 
 where a large number of colored laborers reside; and at poll number five, same 
 ward, the vote was for McEnery 306, for Kellogg 106. The count of both these 
 boxes was also protested against by the United States supervisors, and the figures 
 are totally irreconcilable with the political complexion of any portion of that ward. 
 
 At poll number six, of the same ward, where a majority of Republican votes 
 had been cast, additional Republican ballots were put in the box to cruise a dis- 
 crepancy between the number of ballots in the box and the number of names on 
 the written list, and thus have the vote of that poll thrown out by the Returning 
 Board, and that the vote of said box was 115 for McEnery against 200 for Kel- 
 logg, and the poll was excluded by the Fusion Returning Board. 
 
 In the thirteenth and fourteenth wards circumstances do not point so clearly 
 to the substitution of boxes as in the cases of the two wards above cited, but the 
 inference is strong that they were used, as the returns show a large reduction 
 from the Republican vote of 1870, and a corresponding or greater increase in the 
 Democratic or Fusion vote. 
 
 In the fourth ward, which was largely Republican in 1870, at poll number one, 
 located in the immediate vicinity of the sugar sheds and lower steamboat land- 
 ing, always thronged with colored laborers, the box contained 315 votes for 
 McEnery against t»2 for Kellogg; at poll number eight, same ward, the vote was, 
 lor McEnery 189, for Kellogg 94. No notice was given for the location of the last 
 poll until the morning of the election, and it was not found by the United States 
 supervisors, representing the Republican party, until noon. 
 
 In the fifth ward, also heretofore Republican by large majorities, poll number 
 one, as counted, was 350 for McEnery against 118 for Kellogg; and poll number 
 nine, same ward, 237 foi. McEnery against 70 for Kellogg. These polls were 
 situated at the two extremes of the ward, the former near the levee and French 
 Market, always thronged by colored men, and the latter in the rear of the ward. 
 where but few persons live, and those principally colored market gardeners. 
 
 In the eighth ward, the box from poll number one, also located near the levee, 
 and in the neighborhood of the old Pontchartrain railroad depot and the Port 
 Market, contained, for McEnery 298, for Kellogg 24. The box from poll num- 
 ber four, same ward, contained, for McEnery 353 votes against 89 for Kellogg, 
 and on the close of the polls, when the commissioners of election were bringing 
 the box to Mechanics' Institute, the United States supervisor for the Republican 
 
53 
 
 party was thrown out of the cab, and there is no doubt that the duplicate box 
 was then substituted for the original one. 
 
 Deponent further says, that after the receipt of all the ballot boxes of the 
 parish of Orleans at the Mechanics' Institute on the night of November 4, 1872, 
 he was about to proceed to make the count of the votes in the same manner as 
 that in which he had already instructed the supervisors of registration in the 
 country parishes to proceed, viz: "To count the electoral and congressional 
 first, and then to deny to the United States officials the right of supervision and 
 inspection of the count of the ballots for State, parochial and municipal officers," 
 and had already caused several boxes to be opened and the counting of ballots 
 commenced, when General James Lougstreet presented to him the communica- 
 tion hereto attached, and marked CY; that on receipt of said demand he at first 
 declined to accede to it, and caused the boxes already opened to be closed aud 
 resealed and the counting suspended, but after consultation with prominent 
 members of the Fusion party, and several interviews with General Lougstreet 
 and others representating the Republican party, he fiully consented to the can- 
 ditions demanded, but that he did so for two reasons only, viz: First, that he 
 feared armed interference on the part of the United States authorities in the event 
 of refusal or non-compliance with the demands or requests made upon him; and 
 second, that from his knowledge of the manner in which the registration had 
 been conducted nnd his instructions as before narrated had been carried out, as 
 well as from his knowledge of the number of fraudulent votes cast for the Fusion 
 candidates at the election, and the number of prepared boxes substituted for 
 genuine ones, he had so much confidence that the Fusion ticket had carried the 
 city by a majority sufficiently large to more than overcome any unforeseen failures 
 in the country parishes; therefore, he prelerred to submit Lo the inspection de- 
 manded rather than risk a conflict between the State and federal authorities and 
 jeopardize the success of his party. 
 
 Deponent further says that during the counting of the votes, which was 
 resumed on the morning of November 5, every possible obstruction was thrown 
 in the way of the United States supervisors of election and others representing 
 the Republican party ; that they were discourteously treated in many instances, 
 every advantage taken of them when absent even momentarily, and whenever 
 they protested against any proceeding they were told that all protests must be 
 made in writing before any attention would be paid to them, and when such 
 written protests were filed they were taken possession of by deponent or his 
 clerks and assistants aud destroyed, or otherwise made away with, in order to 
 prevent the Returning Board from having any knowledge whatever of the filing 
 of such protests, and any action on the part of said board detrimental to the 
 Fusion interests in consequence thereof; that said United States supervisors and 
 other officials were allowed admission into the hall of said Institute only upon 
 passes signed by deponent or his chief clerk, and even then were required to 
 exhibit their commissions to the policemen on guard at the door for identifica- 
 tion; that admission was freely given to candidates for office upon the Fusion 
 ticket, and almost invariably denied to Republican candidates, and every other 
 possible studied annoyance offered to Republicans and their friends and repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 Deponent further says that in counting the votes of the parish of Orleans, 
 assistant supervisors and commissioners of election were instructed, when count- 
 ing "scratched" tickets, that whenever the name of a Fusion candidate was 
 erased and the name of a Republican candidate substituted therefor, that unless 
 the name substituted corresponded letter for letter with the name of the Repub- 
 lican candidate for the office voted for, as printed on the straight or regular Re- 
 publican ticket, such ballot was not to be credited to the said candidate, but 
 tallied as "scattering;" but whenever they found the name of a Republican can- 
 didate erased oj scratched and the name of a Fusion candidate substituted, the 
 manner of pro&eding was reversed, and the ballot credited to the Fusion candi- 
 date, without regard to the initials or orthography ot the name of such candidate, 
 as printed on the regular Fusion ticket, and that these instructions were, in the 
 majority of instances, thoroughly and systematically carried out. 
 
 Deponent further says that from the facts and statistics before related in this 
 deposition, it is shown that the total number of votes gained to the Fusion ticket 
 
54 
 
 in the parish of Orleans by means of fraudulent manipulation of registration 
 papers, voting on the names of dead men, and by the substitution of duplicate 
 and fraudulent ballot boxes, amounted to 6737 votes, divided as follows, viz : 
 Number of duplicates issued in the names of deceased voters and voted on 
 
 for the Fusion ticket at the election 855 
 
 Number of certificates of registration fraudulently issued in 1870, and of 
 certificates of registration surrendered by persons removed from tbe wards 
 in which they were registered in 1870 and voted upon for the Fusion ticket 
 
 in 1872 3502 
 
 Number of Fusion ballots contained in boxes substituted for the ones 
 
 actually used at the election, about 3181 
 
 Against Republican ballots placed in same boxes to avert suspicion 801 
 
 Or a fraudulent majority of Fusion votes in said boxes of 2380 
 
 Total given to the Fusion party by frauds 6737 
 
 And that the loss in votes to the Kepublican party by fraudulent means was 
 3010, divided as follows : 
 Number of names of colored voters erased from the registry by fraudulent 
 
 affidavits without sanction of law 2472 
 
 Number of Republican ballots contained in two boxes thrown out by the 
 
 Fusion board on account of stuffing by the commissioners 538 
 
 Total loss to the Republican party by frauds 3010 
 
 And that in the country parishes, so far as set forth by deponent in the fore- 
 going portions of this instrument, the Republican vote was reduced by the 
 fraudulent means hereinbefore narrated to the extent of about 9314 votes, divided 
 as follows: 
 
 Republican votes excluded by fraud in the parishes of East Baton Rouge, 
 West Baton Rouge, St. James and Tangipahoa, consequent upon the 
 
 new registration ordered and made in those parishes 2793 
 
 Republican votes cast but not counted in the parishes of Iberville, Madison, 
 St. James, St. Martin and Terrebonne, in consequence of the refusal of 
 the supervisors of registration to count the vote, or the abandoning of 
 
 the boxes by said supervisors, about 3849 
 
 Republican votes cast but not returned as counted in the parishes of Natchi- 
 toches and Rapides, about 1900 
 
 Loss to Republican vote by fraud and violence in Webster parish, about .... 202 
 Loss to Republicans by exclusion of poll four, in Morehouse parish, about. . 170 
 Loss to Republicans by exclusion of Camp Parapet poll, parish of Jefferson, 
 left bank, about 400 
 
 Total reduction from the actual Republican vote, as shown or estimated 
 above 9314 
 
 Deronent further says that on the night of the sixth of December, 1872, his 
 office of State Registrar of Voters was forcibly taken possession of by P. B. S. 
 Pinchback, then holding possession of the building used as a State House, and 
 acting as Governor of Louisiana; that in anticipation of such seizure deponent 
 and his clerk and employes had removed from said office such important papers, 
 records ami documents as they had time to remove to a place of security, but in 
 consequence of the sudden manner in which such seizure was made he was forced 
 to leave iu the said office numerous papers, records, documents and memoranda, 
 intelligible only to himself or his clerk, bearing upon the subject of frauds com- 
 mitted at the general election of November 4, 1872, in parishes other than those 
 embraced in this deposition, and also containing details of frauds committed in 
 parishes hereinbefore mentioned, for which the figures are expressed approx- 
 imately, and he has ascertained that said documents, papers, etc., were accident- 
 ally destroyed in the confusion of affairs existing at that time. And deponent 
 believes and avers that were those memoranda, papers, etc., now attainable, he 
 could exhibit and show further frauds committed in several parishes not herein 
 asseverated. Deponent further says that he believes, and has reason to believe, 
 
55 
 
 and knows that had not the fraudulent practices as above recited been resorted 
 to and made use of by persons in the interest of the Fusion party, and for the 
 benefit and advantage of said Fusion party as hereinbefore set forth, and had the 
 election returns been fairly and properly made by the supervisors throughout the 
 State, and had the large Republican parishes which were thrown out unjustly, 
 unfairly and for the purpose of reducing the Republican vote, been counted, as 
 they should have been, the candidates for presidential electors, members of Con- 
 gress and State officers upon the Republican national and State ticket would 
 have shown to have been elected by a large majority of the votes cast in the 
 State at the election held on the fourth of November, 1872. And deponent further 
 says that he believes, has reason to believe, and knows that the Republican 
 national and State tickets received a considerable majority of the votes actually 
 cast at the election held on the fourth day of November, A. D. 1872, in the State 
 of Louisiana. B. P. BLANCHARD. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me on this second of September, 1873; and I 
 hereby certify that the affiant, B. P. Blanchard. was State Registrar of Voters, 
 etc., during the years 1870, 1871 and 1872. 
 
 Witness my hand and seal, at the city of New Orleans, on the day first above 
 named. F. A. WOOLFLEY, 
 
 United States Commissioner. 
 
 [Note. — The exhibits referred to are very voluminous and are omitted. They 
 are mostly originals, and are on file with the depositions.] 
 
 EXHIBIT C. 
 
 Sworn Statement of Walter Sully Long, Chief Clerk of the State Registrar of Voters. 
 
 United States of America, District of Louisiana. — Personally appeared before 
 me Walter Sully Long, who, being duly sworn upon his oath, states as follows: 
 
 From March, 1872, to January, 1873, I was chief clerk to B. P. Blanchard, 
 then holding the office of State Registrar of Voters for the State of Louisiana. 
 In that capacity I was in the fullest confidence of my chief, and was aware of all 
 and every transaction of a political nature in the office during the campaign of 
 1872. 
 
 The necessity of carrying the election for the Fusion party was frequently a 
 matter ot discussion between Blanchard, myself and others, and a plan of opera- 
 tions was finally adopted at my suggestion and carried out as follows: 
 
 I. The sextons' monthly returns of burials of persons over the age of twenty- 
 one years were carefully compiled by wards, the registration number ascertained 
 and noted, and a list made of them. 
 
 II. A thorough examination was made of the registry books of 1870, in order 
 to ascertain the number of names of fictitious persons registered in that year. 
 In every ward where the persons having control of these false registry papers 
 were acting with the Fusion party, these names were used; but in wards where 
 the supervisors of 1870 were not acting in harmony with the Fusion party, par- 
 ticular care was taken to prevent their using the fraudulent papers, and to detect 
 any attempt at so doing. 
 
 III. A system was established requiring all persons who had been registered 
 as voters in 1870, and who had subsequently removed, to deliver up their papers 
 of that year before receiving certificates of registration in 1872. These were sent 
 to the office of the State Registrar of Voters every week, and were carefully sorted 
 out by myself and others, and all that showed no evidence of having been ex- 
 amined by the United States supervisors of election were set aside to be used by 
 repeaters on election day. 
 
 IV. During the ten days preceding the election a list was made out by me of 
 the registry numbers and names of the dead, removed and fictitious persons be- 
 
56 
 
 fore described and given to each assistant supervisor of registration for the city 
 wards. 
 
 Two or more persons in each ward, who were to serve as commissioners of elec- 
 tion, were set to work making lists of those names upon sheets of paper similar 
 to that designed to be used on the day of election in keeping the written list of 
 voters required by law at each polling place. 
 
 V. The poll lists were printed, containing the entire registration of both 1870 
 and 1872. No erasures were made until the Saturday and Sunday preceding the 
 election, when the names that could not be made available for the Fusion cause 
 were crossed off in black pencil on the lists for certain polls in each ward and in 
 number to correspond with the written lists of names above alluded to. 
 
 These preliminaries having been completed, it was a mere question ot manual 
 dexterity on the part of the commissioners of election to get within the box a 
 number of ballots to correspond with the names crossed off in black from the 
 printed lists and written in advance upon the tally lists. 
 
 The estimate of the number of votes required to carry the election was as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 For the first ward, 500; second ward, 500; third ward, 1000; tenth ward, 500; 
 eleventh ward, 500; twelfth ward, 250; thirteenth ward, 100; fourteenth ward, 50; 
 making a total of 3400 for the up town wards; and for the fourth ward, 300; tilth 
 ward, 500; sixth ward, 500; seventh ward, 500; eighth ward, 600; ninth ward, 600; 
 fifteenth ward, none; a total of 3000, and an aggregate of 6400; to this must be 
 added the number of papers to be voted on by "repeaters," which was estimated 
 at 2000. 
 
 VI. The number of fraudulent votes actually counted, and which can be proved 
 by own testimony and that of other persons concerned is — ■ 
 
 In the first ward 281 
 
 In the second ward 243 
 
 In the third ward 803 
 
 In the tenth ward 306 
 
 In the eleventh ward 330 
 
 In the twelfth ward 101 
 
 In the thirteenth ward 98 
 
 In the fourteenth ward 26 
 
 Total up town 2188 
 
 In the fourth ward 186 
 
 In the fifth ward 155 
 
 In the sixth werd 336 
 
 In the seventh ward 
 
 In the eighth ward 393 
 
 In the ninth ward 244 
 
 In the fifteenth ward 
 
 1314 
 
 Grand total 3502 
 
 Beyond this the papers given to repeaters were about 2000. I can not at pres- 
 ent remember the exact number, but I think that 1400 were given out to be used 
 in the First, Fourth and Sixth Municipal Districts, and 600 to be used in the 
 Second and Third Districts. 
 
 I further know and can produce, I believe, the men who acted as commissioners 
 of election at the polls in each ward where fraudulent votes were cast or counted 
 at the general election of November 4, 1872. 
 
 WALTER S LONG. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me this fourth day of September, 1873, at New 
 Orleans, Louisiana. F. A. WOLFLEY, 
 
 United States Commissioner. 
 
51 
 EXHIBIT E>. 
 
 Sworn Statement of Oscar F. Hunsaker, Chaii man of the Fusion- Warmoth Return- 
 ing Board, and Samuel 21. Todd, a member of the same Board. 
 
 [See canvass of Fusion Returns published in Senate Report, pages 81, 82, and 83, 
 purporting to have been signed by Hunsaker and Todd. ] 
 
 State of Louisiana, City of New Orleans. — This day personally appeared be- 
 fore me, William Giant, United States Commissioner, Samuel M. Todd and 
 Oscar F. Hunsaker, residents of the State of Louisiana, who first being duly sworn, 
 depose and say: That they were members of the State Senate of the State of 
 Louisiana, sitting in the Mechanics' Institute on the ninth day of December, 
 1872; that afterward, to wit, on or about the tenth day of December, 1872, said 
 deponents left the Senate sitting at the Mechanics' Institute, and uuited with 
 the assemblage known as the McEnery Senate, sitting at Lyceum Hall, in the 
 City Hall building of the city of New Orleans; that the Senate of the said Mc- 
 Enery assemblage proceeded to organize, and that on or about the date last 
 named said Senate proceeded to elect a returning board, or board of canvassers, 
 who were to correct, canvass and compile the returns of election for State officers, 
 presidential electors, etc., under the act approved by H. C. Warmoth, November 
 20, 1872; and said deponents, ts wit: S. M. Todd and O. F. Hunsaker, together 
 with S. M. Thomas, B. R. Forman and Archibald Mitchell were elected as said 
 board ; that the said board proceeded to organize by the election of 0. F. Hun- 
 saker, one of said deponents, president thereof; that the said returns were then 
 produced from trunks and carpet-bags in a small room, on an upper floor of the 
 St. Charles Hotel; that said returns were brought to said room by one O. D. 
 Bragdon, who appeared to be in possession of the same; that said returns had 
 been opened, compiled and canvassed before they came into the possession of said 
 deponents and the other members of the board; that although said deponents did 
 carefully examine said returns and made themselves cognizant of the nature of the 
 same, and the mode and manner in which said returns were compiled, and the result 
 sought to be shown, yet said deponents neither jointly nor separately, nor in any 
 way whatever, signed or authorized any person to sign for them the purported 
 canvass of returns known in the congressional report on Louisiana affairs as the 
 •'Forman returns," dated December 11, 1872, by which returns it was made to 
 appear that John McEnery was elected Governor, and that the Fusion State 
 ticket was elected; neither did they or neither of them at any time consent or 
 agree that said purported canvass was or is correct, or authorize the publication 
 of the same in any manner whatsoever; that soon after the meeting of said board 
 of canvassers, above referred to, one of said board — to wit: S. M. Thomas — left 
 the city, and if he ever resigned as a member of said returning board it was not 
 known to either of said deponents, nor did said O. F. Hunsaker, as president of 
 said board, ever at any time receive any indication or any communication of the 
 resignation or withdrawal of said S. M. Thomas from the said board of canvass- 
 ers; and that neither of said deponents ever met or participated in any can- 
 vass of said returns after said S. M. Thomas left the city, nor did 
 they ever authorize any person or persons to do so for them; said de- 
 ponents further state that by the pretended canvass cf said returns as 
 published without the consent of said deponents, the returns from the follow- 
 ing parishes are shown to have been entirely thrown out, to wit: St. Martin, 
 Iberia, Terrebonne, Iberville and St. James; that the said parishes were and are 
 well known to be largely Republican, the two parishes of St. James and Iberville 
 alone giving more than 2500 Republican majority; that there was no sufficient 
 proof or good reason why said parishes should have been omitted; that had the 
 vote of said parishes been included in the publication of said purported returns, 
 as of right it should have been, it would have added several thousand votes to 
 the Republican ticket; and deponents further say that a fair, proper and correct 
 canvass of said returns would have shown that William P. Kellogg was elected 
 Governor of Louisiana at the election held on the fourth of November, 1872, and 
 said deponents verily believe that said William P. Kellogg was elected Governor 
 of the State of Louisiana by the actual votes cast at said election. 
 
 OSCAR F. HUNSAKER, 
 SAMUEL M. TODD. 
 
58 
 
 United States of America, District of Louisiana. — On tLe sixth clay of Sep- 
 tember, 1873, personally appeared before me, Oscar F. Hnnsaker and Samuel M. 
 Todd, known to me as the persons they represent themselves to be, members of 
 the Senate of the State of Louisiana, and late members of the so-called Fusion 
 board of State canvassers, known and designated in the United States Senate 
 report on Louisiana affairs as the "Forman Board," who, being duly sworn, de- 
 clared on oath that the facts stated by them in the foregoing affidavit are true 
 and correct. 
 
 WILLIAM GRANT, 
 United Sates Commissioner. 
 
 EXHIBIT E. 
 JOURNAL OE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 
 
 AT THE 
 
 EXTRA SESSION, CONVENED APRIL 14, 1875. 
 
 HOUSE. 
 
 First Day's Proceedings. 
 
 House or Representatives, ? 
 New Orleans, April 14, 1875. \ 
 
 Pursuant to the proclamation of the Governor convening the Legislature in 
 extra session, the House was called to order, Speaker Hahn presiding. 
 The Clerk read the following proclamation: 
 
 NA, } 
 
 375..) 
 
 extra session — proclamation bt the governor. 
 
 State of Louisiana, ' 
 Executive Department, 
 New Orleaus, March 24, 1875. 
 
 Whereas, the existing condition of public affairs presents, in my judgment, an 
 extraordinary occasion within the meaning of article sixty-four of the constitu- 
 tion of the State, I, William P. Kellogg, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by 
 virtue of the power in me vested by the constitution and the laws enacted there- 
 under, do hereby convene the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana to 
 meet in extra session at the State House in the city of New Orleans, on Wednes- 
 day, the fourteenth day of April, 1875, at the hour of twelve o'clock M. ; and in 
 accordance with act No. 19 of the General Assembly of Louisiana, approved 
 February 16, 1870, 1 hereby indicate ten days as the length of time for which said 
 session shall continue, commencing Wednesday, April 14, as aforesaid, at the 
 hour of twelve o'clock M., and ending Saturday, April 24, at the hour of twelve 
 o'clock M. And I do further specify the following objects of legislation which 
 shall take precedence of all other business which may be brought forward at such 
 extra session: 
 
 1. Joint resolution in relation to the adjustment of the political difficulties 
 heretofore existing in this State. 
 
 2. Revenues of the State, and the mode of collecting and disbursing the same. 
 
 3. Amendment of the funding law with respect to the number of members 
 composing the Funding Board, and with respect to the manner of preventing the 
 funding of illegal obligations of the State. 
 
59 
 
 4. Revenues, financial condition and government of the city of New Orleans. 
 
 5. Relief of the commerce of New Orleans from excessive port charges, fees, 
 etc. 
 
 6. To consider the incorporation of the Board of Trade of New Orleans. 
 
 Given under my hand and the seal of the State hereunto attached, this twenty- 
 fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and seventy-five, 
 and of the independence of the United States the ninety-niuth. 
 
 WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 
 By the Governor: 
 P. G. Deslonde, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 The roll was called, and the following members responded to their names: 
 
 Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Armstead, Butler, Baker, Carville, Crawford, Con- 
 naughton, Cousin, Drury, Davidson, Dewees, De Lacey, Dickenson, Demas, 
 Floyd, Guichard, Gantt, Grant, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hill of Ouachita, 
 Hubeau, Honore, Hunsakei 1 , Jourdain, Johnson of Caddo, Johnson of De Soto, 
 Jones of Pointe Coupee, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, Martinet, Matthews of 
 Tensas, Murrell, Milon, Marie, McAlpine, Parker, Pierson, Poindexter, Piles, 
 Randall, Ridgely, Ray, Raby, Rochon, Richards, Stewart, Sutton, Southard, 
 Snaer, Sartain, Souer, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Wilson, Woods, Wright, Yorke — 61. 
 
 Sixty-one members present and a quorum. 
 
 The following named gentlemen, who were returned by the Board of Return- 
 ing Officers as members of the House, and whose seats are not contested, were 
 sworn in by the Speaker: 
 
 Messrs. A. A. Maginnis of Orleans, John Young of Claiborne, A. Nunez of 
 Vermilion, W. W. Carloss of Webster, James Webb of St. Landry, M. T. Martin 
 of Lafayette, D. W. Self of Sabine, G. W. Richardson of Calcasieu, M. Sibilski 
 of Orleans, L. A. Wiltz of Orleans, H. C. Mitchell of Claiborne, J. A. DeBlanc 
 of Orleans, G. W. R. Bayley of Orleans, Bolivar Edwards of Tangipahoa, C. T. 
 Seaman of Orleans, W. H. Pipes of East Feliciana, George W. Dupre of Orleans, 
 E. A. Carmouche of St. Landry, G. D. Wells of Livingston, William Magee of 
 Washington, E. A. Durr pi' Cameron, R. B. Walters of Catahoula, E. L. Bower 
 of Orleans, W. P. Smith of Union, T. J. Johnson of Lafourche, J. Billieu of La- 
 fourche, A. D. Lafargue of Avoyelles, Thomas E. Meredith of Caldwell, J. A. 
 Blaffer of Orleans, E. D. Estdette of St. Landry, J. L. Matthews of Franklin, R. 
 P. Edwards of Richland, Edward Booth of Orleans, Charles Byrne of Orleans, 
 B. C. Elliott of Orleans, G. Pascal of Orleans, Charles Roman of Orleans, W. J. 
 Hammond of Orleans, G. L. Hall of Orleans, C. L. Walker, of Orleans, Charles 
 E. Schenck, of Orleans, John A. Gilmore of Orleans, Charles Kummel of Orleans, 
 Jules Aldige of Orleans, W. B. Koontz of Orleans. 
 
 MESSAGE FEOM THE SENATE. 
 
 The Secretary of the Senate announced that the Senate was organized and 
 ready for the transaction of business. 
 
 Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved that a committee of three members be 
 appointed to wait upon the Governor and inform him that the House was organ- 
 ized and ready for the transaction of business, and that the Chief Clerk be 
 directed to inform the Senate to the same effect. 
 
 The Speaker appointed the following members as the committee to wait on the 
 Governor : 
 
 Messrs. Souer, of Avoyelles; De Blanc, of Orleans, and Hill, of Ouachita. 
 
 Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, offered the following resolution, which was read: 
 
 Whereas, R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, of the parish of Assumption; 
 James Brice, ot the parish of Bienville; J. F. Scales and Charles Schaler, of the 
 parish of De Soto; E. Kidd, of the parish of Jacksou; James Jeffries, R. C. Luck- 
 ett and G. W. Stafford, of the parish of Rapides; Edward McCullom and W. H. 
 Keys, of the parish of Terrebonne, and George A. Kelly, of the parish of Winn, 
 respectively claim that they were elected at the last general election in this State 
 to seats in this House from their respective parishes, but that said seats were not 
 awarded to them by the Returning Board; therefore, be it 
 
 Besolved, That the Committee on Elections and Qualifications be directed to 
 inquire into the validity of said claims respectively and report their conclusions 
 to the House at its next sitting. 
 
60 
 
 Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved for a suspension of the rules so as to con- 
 sider the resolution, on which the yeas and nays were demanded, with the fol- 
 lowing result: 
 
 Yeas — Booth, Byrne, Burkhardt, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Butler, Baker, Billieu, 
 Carville, Connaughton, Carmouche, Cousin, Carlos, Dupre, DeBlanc, Drury, 
 Durr, Davidson, Dewees, DeLacey, Demas, Bolivar Edwards, R. P. Edwards, 
 Estilette, Elliott, Floyd, Guichard, Grant, Gracien, Hall, Hill of Ascension, Hill 
 of Ouachita, Hubean, Honore, Hammond, Hunsaker, Jourdain, Johuson of 
 Caddo, Johnson of DeSoto, Johnson of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Jones of 
 Pointe Coupee, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, Lafargue, Maginnis, Meredith, 
 Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Matthews of Tensas, Martin, Murrell, Milon, 
 Marie, Magee, McAlpine, Nunez, Pascal, Parker, Pierson, Piles, Pipes, Roman, 
 Richardson, Randall, Ridgely, Ray, Raby, Smith, Stewart, Sutton, Self, South- 
 ard, Snaer, Souer, Seaman, Sibilski, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Voorhies, Vidrine, 
 Wiltz, Wilson, Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, Wright, Yorke, Young— 94. 
 
 Nays — Armstead, Crawford, Dickenson, Martinet, Sartain — 5. 
 
 Rules suspended. 
 
 Mr. Ray, of East Feliciana, raised the following point of order: 
 
 That under rule thirty-four, governing the House, the Committee on Elections 
 and Qualifications appointed at the last regular session does not lie over, and 
 that it has no power to act according to the resolution. 
 
 The Speaker ruled the point of order as not being well taken. 
 
 Mr. Murrell, of Madison, moved the previous question on the adoption of the 
 resolution . 
 
 The main question was ordered and the resolution adopted. 
 
 The Speaker laid before the House the following communication, which was 
 read and referred to the Committee on Elections and Qualifications: 
 
 Clerk's Office, "i 
 
 Honse of Representatives of the Uoired States, > 
 
 Washington, D. C, March 8, 1875.) 
 
 Sie — I have the honor to inclose a certified copy of resolutions adopted by the 
 House of Representatives at its late session respecting affairs in Louisiana. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 edward Mcpherson, 
 
 Clerk House of Representatives of the United States. 
 
 Hon. M. Hahn, Speaker House of Representatives of Louisiana, New Oi leans, Lou- 
 isiana. 
 
 Forty-third Congress, second session, Congress of the United States, in the 
 House of Representatives, March 1, 1875: 
 
 Mr. George F. Hoar submitted the following, which was agreed to: 
 
 Whereas, Both branches of the Legislature of Louisiana have requested the 
 special committee of this House to investigate the circumstances attending the 
 election and returns thereof in that State for the year 1874 ; and 
 NINE8 
 
 Whereas, Said committee have unanimously reported that the Returning Board 
 of that State, in canvassing and compiling said returns and promulgating the 
 result, wrongfully applied an erroneous rule of law, by reason whereof persons 
 were awarded seats in the House of Representatives of Louisiana to which they 
 were not entitled, and persons entitled to seats were deprived of them; 
 
 Resolved, That it is recommended to the House of Representatives of Louisiana 
 to take immediate steps to remedy said injustice, and to place the persons right- 
 fully entitled in their seats. 
 
 Resolved, That William Pitt Kellogg be recognized as the Governor of the State 
 of Louisiana until the end of the term cf office fixed by the constitution of that 
 State. 
 
 Attest: EDWARD McPHERSON, Clerk. 
 
 Mr. Stewart, of Tensas, moved that a committee of three be appointed to wait 
 upon the Governor to request him to communicate to the House the character 
 and nature of the award made by the congressional committee. 
 
 Pending the motion the House was adjourned until to-morrow at twelve 
 o'clock M., on motion of Mr. Dewees of Red River. 
 
 WILLIAM VIGERS, Chief Clerk. 
 
61 
 
 Second Day's Proceedings. 
 
 House of Representatives, ? 
 New Orleans, April 15, 1875. \ 
 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Speaker Hahn in the chair. 
 
 The roll was called and the following members answered to their names: 
 
 Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Aldige, Armstead, Booth, Byrne, Bayley, Blaffer, 
 Bower, Butler, Baker, Billieu, Carville, Crawford, Connaughton, Carmouche, 
 Carlos, Cousin, Dupre, DeBlanc, Drury, Durr, Davidson, Dewees, DeLacey, 
 Dickenson, Demas, Boliv&r Edwards, K. P. Edwards, Estilette, Elliott, Floyd, 
 Guichard, Grant, Gantt, Gracien, Gilmore, Hall, Hill of Ascension, Hill of Oua- 
 chita, Hubeau, Honore, Hammond, Hunsaker, Jourdain, Johnson of Caddo, 
 Johnson of DeSoto, Johnaon of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Jones of Pointe 
 Coupee, Kountz, Kummel, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisse, Lafargue, Maginnis, 
 Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Matthews of Tensas, Martin, Murrell, 
 Milon, Marie, Magee, McAlpine, Martinet, Nunez, Pascal, Parker, Pierson, Poin- 
 dexter, Piles, Pipes, Roman, Richardson, Randall, Raby, Richards, Ridgely, 
 Rochon, Ray, Smith, Stewart, Sutton, Self, Southard, Snaer, Sartain, Souer, 
 SeamaD, Sibilski, Schenck, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Walker, Wiltz, Wilson, 
 Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, Wright, Yorke, Young— 107. 
 
 One hundred and seven members present and a quorum. 
 
 The reading of the journal was dispensed with and it was adopted. 
 
 The following communication was read: 
 
 To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: 
 
 At the regular session of the General Assembly, I was seated as a member of 
 this House from the parish of St. Landry, subject to contestation. I was induced 
 to take my seat because I thought there were such irregularities in the St. Lan- 
 dry election as entitled me to it; because many of my friends desired me to do 
 so, and because I thought St. Landry ought to have at least one Representative 
 in the House. I intended at the time to remain, or withdraw, according to cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 Since the adjournment of the regular session, the committee to whom was 
 referred the Louisiana troubles have made an award as the baais of a final ad- 
 justment. My remaining in the Homse might prove an impediment to the har- 
 monious executiou of this adjustment, aud I do not wish to be an obstacle to its 
 success. 
 
 I therefore beg leave to withdraw from membership in this House in favor of 
 the Hon. Yves Vidrine, whose election was recognized by the Returning Board. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 ELBERT GANTT. 
 
 Mr. Pierson moved that the resignation of Mr. Gantt be accepted. 
 
 Carried. 
 
 Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved that Mr. Vidrine be seated. 
 
 KEPOKTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES. 
 
 The Committee on Elections and Qualifications submitted the following report, 
 which was received: 
 
 Committee on Elections and Qualifications, ) 
 New Orleans, April 15, 1875. £ 
 
 To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: 
 
 Your Committee on Elections and Qualifications, to whom was referred the 
 following resolution, viz: 
 
 Whereas, R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, of the parish of Assumption; 
 James Brice, of the parish of Bienville; J. F. Scales and Charles Schuler, of the 
 parish of De Soto; E. Kidd, of the parish of Jackson; James Jeffries, R. C. Luck- 
 ett and G. W. Stafford, of the parish of Rapides; Edward McCullum and W. H. 
 Keys, of the parish of Terrebonne, and George A. Kelly, of the parish of Winn, 
 respectfully claim that they were elected at the last general election in this State 
 to seats in this House from their respective parishes, but that said seats were not 
 awarded them by the Returning Board; therefore, be it 
 
62 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Elections and Qualifications be directed to 
 inquire into the validity of said claims respectively, and report their conclusions 
 to the House at its next sitting. 
 
 Beg leave to report that said R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, James Brice, J. 
 F. Scales, Charles Schuler, E. E. Kidd, James Jeffries, R. C. Luckett, G. W. 
 Stafford, Edward McCullum, W. H. Keys and George A. Kelley are respectively 
 entitled to seats in the House of Representatives, by them respectively claimed 
 from their said respective parishes, and that the members now occupying seats 
 in the House, viz: Joseph Connaughton, William Crawford and John De Lacy, 
 of the parish of Rapides; George Drury and R. Poindexter, of the parish of 
 Assumption; J. J. Johnson and E. S. Tyler, of the parish of De Soto; F. Marie 
 and F. R. Wright, of the parish of Terrebonne, and Winfield Hood, of the parish 
 of Jackson, are not entitled to the seats now held by them. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 W. G. LANE, Chairman; 
 
 L. W. BAKER, 
 
 P. JONES YORKE, 
 
 E. L. BOWER, 
 
 J. E. PARKER, 
 
 H. RABY, 
 
 G H. HILL. 
 
 Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved the adoption of the report, and called for 
 the previous question thereon. 
 
 On which tlie yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 
 
 Yeas — Aldige, Booth, Byrne, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Baker. Billieu. Car- 
 mouche, Carloss, Dupre, DeBlance, Drury, Durr, Dewees, Demas, Bolivar Ed- 
 wards, R. P. Edwards, Estilette, Elliott, Guichard, Grant, Gracieu, Gilmore, Hall, 
 Hubeau, Honore, Hammond, Hunsaker, Jourdain, Johnson of Caddo, Johnson 
 of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Kountz, Kummel, Keating, Lane, Lowell. 
 Levisee, Lafargue, Maginnis, Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Mat- 
 thews of Tensas, Martin, Murrell, Milon, McAlphine, Magee, Nunez, Pascal, 
 Parker, Pierson, Poindexter, Piles, Pipes, Roman, Richards, Richardson, 
 Rochon, Randall, Ridgely, Raby, Smith, Stewart, Self, Snaer, Souer, Seaman, 
 Sibilski, Schenck, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Vidrine, Walker, Wiltz, Wlison, 
 Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, Yorke, Young— 85. 
 
 Nays — Armstead, Butler, Carville, Crawford, Cousin, Davidson, DeLacey, 
 Dickenson, Floyd, Hill of Ouachita, Johnson of De Soto, Jones of Pointe 
 Coupee, Martinet, Marie, Ray, Sutton, Southard, Satain — 18. 
 
 Carried. 
 
 The main question was ordered. 
 
 On the adoption ot the report the yeas and nays were ordered, with the follow- 
 ing result: 
 
 Yeas— Aldige, Booth, Byrne, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Baker, Billieu, Car- 
 mouche, Cousin, Carloss, Dupre, DeBlanc, Drury, Durr, Dewees, Demas, Boliv«x 
 Edwards, R. P. Edwards, Estilette, Elliott, Guichard, Grant, Gracien, Gilmore, 
 Hall, Hubeau, Hill of Ascension, Hunsaker, Hammond, Honore, Jourdain, John- 
 son of De Soto, Johnson of Caddo, Johnson of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, 
 Jones of Pointe Coupee, Kountz, Kummel, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, La- 
 fargue, Maginnis, Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Tensas, Matthews of Franklin, 
 Martin, Murrell, Milon, Magee, McAlpine, Nunez, Pascal, Parker, Pierson, Poin- 
 dexter, Piles, Pipes, Raby, Richardson, Randall, Ridgely, Roman, Rochon, 
 Richards, Smith, Stewart, Self, Snaer, Souer, Schenck, Seaman, Sibilski, Tyler, 
 Triplet, Thomas, Vidrine, Walker, Wiltz, Wilson, Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, 
 Wright, Yorke, Young — 90. 
 
 N a y S — Armstead, Butler, Carville, Crawford, Davidson, DeLacey, Dickenson, 
 Floyd, Hill of Ouachita, Martinet, Marie, Ray, Sutton, Southard, Sartain— 15. 
 
 Carried. 
 
 Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved to reconsider the vote whereby the report was 
 adopted, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 
 
 Carried. . 
 
 The following named gentlemen were sworn in as Representatives of their re- 
 spective parishes: 
 
63 
 
 Messrs. R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, of the parish of Assumption; James 
 Brice, of the parish of Bienville; J. F. Scales and Charles Schuler, of the parish 
 of De Soto; E. Kidd. of the parish of Jackson; James Jeffries, C. W. Luckett and 
 G. W. Stafford, of the parish of Rapides; Edward McCullom and W. H. Keys, 
 of the parish of Terrebonne, and George A. Kelley, of the parish of Winn. 
 
 Under a suspension of the rules, Mr. Young, of Claiborne, introduced House 
 bill No. 1, joint resolution relative to the recognition of the Kellogg government, 
 which was placed on its first reading. 
 
 The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time and 
 considered as being engrossed. 
 
 Under a further suspension of the constitutional rules the bill underwent its 
 third reading. 
 
 On its final passage the yeas and nays were demanded, with the following 
 result : 
 
 Yeas — Armstead, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Butler, Baker, Billieu, Brice, Beas- 
 ley, Carmoucbe, Cousin, Carloss, DeBlanc, Dugas, Durr, Dewees, Dickenson, 
 Demas, R. P. Edwards, Estillette, Floyd, Guichard, Grant, Gracien, Hall, Hill 
 of Ascension, Bill of Ouachita, Hubeau, Honore, Hammond, Jourdain, Johnson 
 of Caddo, Johnson of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Jones of Pointe Coupee, 
 Jeffries, Kidd, Kelley, Koontz, Keys, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, Lafargue, 
 Luckett, Maginnis, Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Matthews of 
 Tensas, Martin, Murrell, Milon, Magee, McAlpine, Martinet, McCullum, Nunez, 
 Parker, Pierson, Piles, Pipes, Richardson, Randall, Ridgely, Ray, Raby, Rich- 
 ards, Rochon, Smith, Sutton, Self, Snear, Souer. Seaman, Sibilski, .Scales. Staf- 
 ford, Schuler, Triplet, Thomas, Vidrine, Wilson, Woods, Walters, Webb, Yorke 
 Young— 89. 
 
 Nays — Aldige, Booth, Byrne, Carville, Dupre, Davidson, Bolivar Edwards, Gil- 
 more, Kummel, Pascal, Roman, Stewart, Southard, Sartain, Schenck, Walker, 
 Wiltz, Wells— 18. 
 
 The bill was finally passed, its title adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to 
 the Senate for concurrence. 
 
 Mr. Young, of Claiborne, moved for a reconsideration of the vote taken on the 
 final passage of the bill, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the 
 table. 
 
 Carried. 
 
 SENATE. 
 
 First Day's Session. 
 
 Senate Chamber, ) 
 New Orleans, April 14, 1875. $ 
 
 In pursuance with the following proclamation, the members of the Senate, a 
 branch of the General Assembly of Louisiana, met at the Senate Chamber in 
 New Orleans: 
 
 PROCLAMATION BY THE GOVERNOE. 
 
 NA, ) 
 t. [ 
 
 375.) 
 
 • State of Louisiana, 
 
 Executive Department, 
 New Orleans, March 24, 1875. 
 
 Whereas, the existing condition of public affairs presents, in my judgment, an 
 extraordinary occasion within the meaning of article sixty-four of the constitu- 
 tion of the State, I, William P. Kellogg, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by 
 virtue of the power in me vested by the constitution and the laws enacted there- 
 under, do hereby convene the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana to meet 
 in extra session, at the State House, in the city of New Orleans, on Wednesday, 
 the fourteenth day of April, 1875, at the hour of twelve o'clock M. , and in ac- 
 cordance with act No. 19 of the General Assembly of Louisiana, approved Feb- 
 ruary 16, 1870, I hereby indicate ten days as the length of time for which said 
 session shall continue, commencing Wednesday, April 14, as aforesaid, at the 
 hour of twelve o'clock M., and ending Saturday, April 24, at the hour of twelve 
 o'clock M. And I do further specify the following objects of legislation which 
 
64 
 
 shall take precedence of all other business which may be brought forward at 
 such extra session: 
 
 1. Joint resolution in relation to the adjustment of the political difficulties 
 heretofore existing in this State. 
 
 2. Revenues of the State and the mode of collecting and disbursing the same. 
 
 3. Amendment of the funding law with respect to the number of members 
 composing the Funding Board and with respect to the manner of preventing the 
 funding of illegal obligations ot the State. 
 
 4. Revenues, financial condition and government of the city of New Orleans. 
 
 5. Relief of the commerce of New Orleans from excessive port charges, fees, 
 etc. 
 
 6. To consider the incorporation of the Board of Trade of New Orleans. 
 
 Given under my hand and the seal of the State hereunto attached, this twenty- 
 fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and seventy-five, 
 and of the independence of the United States the ninety-ninth. 
 
 WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 
 By the Governor: 
 
 P. G. Deslonde, Secretary of State. 
 
 At 12 M. the Senate was called to order by the Hon. C. C. Antoine, Lietenant 
 Governor of the State and President of the Senate. 
 
 The roll of the Senate having been called, showed the following: 
 
 Present — Messrs. Allain, Anderson, Blackburn, Blunt, Breaux, Brewster, 
 Burch, Cage, Chadbourn, Crozier, Detiege, Eustis, Gla, George, Green, Grover, 
 Harper, Kelso, Kelly, Masicot, Ogden, Pollard, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, 
 Twitchell, Weber, White, Wharton, Whitney, Young — 31. 
 
 Absent — Messrs. Alexander, Dumont, Herwig, Landry, Sypher — 5. 
 
 The President announced that there was a quorum present. 
 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Tarlton. 
 
 The foregoing proclamation was then read. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Allain, the Secretary was instructed to inform the House of 
 Representativeslthat the Senate was organized and ready for business. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Whitney, the President appointed the following Senators, 
 to wit: Messrs. Whitney, Cage and White, to inform the Governor of the State of 
 the complete organization of the Senate in extra session convened, and that the 
 Senate was ready to receive from him any communication his excellency might 
 desire to make. 
 
 The Senate committee, after waiting upon the Governor, reported that they 
 attended to the duties assigned them, and that his excellency informed the Sen- 
 ate that he would send in his messages hereafter. 
 
 Fourth Day's Session. 
 
 Senate Chamber, ) 
 New Orleans, April 17, 1874. ) 
 
 The Senate met in accordance with adjournment, and was called to order by 
 Hon. C. C. Antoine, Lieutenant Governor of the State and President of the Sen- 
 ate. 
 
 On call of the roll the Senators were as follows : 
 
 Present — Messrs. Anderson, Blunt, Burch, Brewster, Cage, Chadbourn, Cro- 
 zier, Eustis, George, Gla, Greene, Grover, Harper, Kelly, Landry, Masicot, Og- 
 den, Pollard, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Sypher, Weber, White, Wharton, 
 Young — 26. 
 
 Absent — Messrs. Alexander, Allain, Blackburn, Breaux, Detiege, Dumont, 
 Herwig, Kelso, Twitchell, Whitney — 10. 
 
 Prayer by the Rev. Charles Dardis. 
 
 The Secretary commenced to read the journal, aud, on motion, the further 
 reading was dispensed with. The journal was corrected and adopted. 
 
 ******** 
 
 Mr. Cage, as a question of privilege, moved that the case concerning the sena- 
 torial seat of his colleague, the Hon. Oscar Crozier, be referred to the Committee 
 on Contested Elections, as his colleague desired a full investigation of the question. 
 
65 
 
 Upon the motion of Mr. Bnrch the motion of Mr. Cage, by consent, was 
 amended as to read : "' \ 1Q award concerning said seat" be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Elections, witli nstruct i° ns to report immediately as to the right »f Mr. 
 Goode to said seat. 
 
 5 
 
 SPECIAL REPORT. 
 
 Mr. Allain, chairman of the Committee on Elections, submitted the following 
 as a privileged report: 
 
 Committee on Elections and Qualifications, ? 
 New Orleans, April 17, 1875. \ 
 To the Honorable President and Members of the Senate: 
 
 In the matter of the contest of F. S. Goode to a seat in the Senate from the 
 eighth senatorial district of the State of Louisiana, referred to your Committee 
 on Elections, your committee are of opinion that said F. S. Goode is entitled to 
 said seat, and recommend that said F. S. Goode be sworn in as Senator from 
 said district. Very respectfully, 
 
 THEOPHILE T. ALLAIN, Chairman; 
 A. J. SYPHER, 
 E. L. WEBER, 
 WILLIAM HARPER. 
 **** * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Blunt asked leave to make a written minority report on Monday next. 
 The Senate refused. 
 
 On call of the yeas and nays the Senate voted to adopt the majority report by 
 the following vote: 
 
 Yeas — Allain, Breaux, Brewster, Burch, Cage, Chadbourn, Dumont, Eustis, 
 George, Gla, Greene, Grover, Herwig, Harper, Kelly, Kelso, Landry, Masicot, 
 Ogden, Pollard, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Sypher, Weber, White, Whitney, 
 Young— 28. 
 
 Nays — Blackburn, Blunt, Wharton — 3. 
 
 Absent and not voting — Alexander, Anderson, Crozier, Detiege, Twitchell — 5. 
 
 The President declared that the Senate had accorded the seat of the eighth 
 senatorial district to Hon. F. S. Goode. 
 
 Mr. Burch moved that Mr. Goode be invited to take the required oath and take 
 his seat in tli6 Senate. 
 
 Adopted. 
 
 Mr. Goode was escorted to the President's desk by Messrs. Cage, Robertson 
 and Burch. and, after taking the required oath, took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Robertson called up House joint resolution No. 1, relative to the recogni- 
 tion of the Kellogg government. 
 
 The bill was read the first time. 
 
 The constitutional rule was suspended by a four-fifths vote and the bill read 
 the second time. 
 
 The bill was adopted on second reading. 
 
 The constitutional rule was suspended by a four-fifths vote, the bill read the 
 third time, and finally adopted, with its title, on the call of the yeas and nays, 
 by the following vote: 
 
 Yeas— Allain, Blackburn, Blunt, Breaux, Brewster, Burch, Cage, Chadbourn, 
 Dumont, Eustis, Gla, Goode, Greene, Grover, Harper, Kelso, Masicot, Pollard, 
 Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Sypher, Twitchell, Weber, White, Whitney, 
 Young— 27. 
 
 Nays — George, Ogden, Wharton — 3. 
 
 Absent and not voting — Alexander, Anderson, Detiege, Herwig, Kelly, Lan- 
 dry — 6. 
 
 Mr. Whitney moved to adjourn until Monday, April 19. 
 
 The Senate voted to adjourn. 
 
 The President declared that the Senate stood adjourned to meet at 12 M., Mon- 
 day, April 19, 1875. P. E. BECHTEL, 
 
 Secretary of the Senate. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 66 
 
 EXHIBIT F. ■■■¥HSr!BiS I 
 
 014 544 674 ' 
 ACT No. 1. EXTRA. SESSION. 
 
 Joint resolution relative to the recognition of the Kellogg government. 
 
 Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, That said Assembly, 
 without approving the same, will not disturb the present State government, 
 claiming to have been elected in 1872, known as the Kellogg government, or seek 
 to impeach the Governor for any past official acts, and that henceforth we will 
 accord to said Governor all necessary and legitimate support in maintaining the 
 laws and in advancing the peace and prosperity of the people of this State, and 
 that the House of Representatives as to its members as constituted under the 
 award of George F. Hoar, W. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Samuel L. Marshall, Clark- 
 son N. Potter, Charles Foster and William Walter Phelps, shall remain without 
 change, except by resignation or death of members until a new general election, 
 and that the Senate as herein recognized shall also remain unchanged, except so 
 far as that body shall make changes on contest. 
 
 (Signed) E. D. ESTILETTE, 
 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 (Signed) C. C. ANTOINE, 
 
 Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate. 
 Approved April 21, 1875. 
 
 (Signed) WILLIAM P. KELLOGG, 
 
 Governor of the State of Louisiana. 
 A true copy: 
 
 N. Durand, 
 
 Assistant Secretary of State. 
 
 7 
 
375" 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 544 674 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 Lig-Free® Type I 
 Ph 8.5, Buffered