Q. Had you no arrangement with Hooper or Rafferty.-A. No, sir. Q. Had you been sworn when you went there that morning.-A. No, sir. Q. Were you sworn at all to act as return inspector that day.-A. I was not. They prevented me from being sworn. Q. Who pushed you out of the door.-A. That I can't say positive. He had a uniform on-a police uniform; all but the hat. Q. Did Addis or any other of the election officers order you to go, or make any objections to your remaining and acting as return inspector.-A. I don't remember any of them saying so. I was pushed out and could not get back again. Q. When you went around to the other door, after being pushed out, and met Rafferty, what was there to prevent you from going into the room again -A. Well, they were so boisterous and noisy in there, cursing and swearing, that I did not think it safe to go in. I don't consider Theodore Hackett- The last eight or nine years we have not held an election in that precinct without being disturbed by Theodore Hackett and others. Q. Did any one say or do anything to you that morning until you attempted to interfere in the way you have detailed in favor of Hooper.-A. No; for I went directly in the room, and there were no one there until they came. Q. When you were pushed out of the door, had the time for opening the election arrived.— A. No; I think it wanted a couple of minutes of it. Q. Was Ambrose Simpson outside of the window when he closed the shutters.-A. He was. Q. Was it not just the end of an hour, when the election is generally intermitted for a few minutes, for the purpose of transferring the ballots from the boxes for the hourly count.-A. That is more than I can state. I don't know the exact time. Q. Did you mean to leave the impression by your testimony in chief that Ambrose Simpson, seeing you, closed the shutters to prevent you communicating with the officers inside through the window.-A. I don't know of any other object he could have, for he never closed the window shutters when we were taking count of votes. Q. Did you go up to the window.-A. I did not. Q. Was there any further circumstances casting any impediment in the way of your acting as election officer except those you have detailed.--A. I don't think there is. Q. Did you afterwards go up to the window and offer to vote.-A. I did not. I was afraid to go there to the polls to vote for fear of bodily harm. Q. What made you afraid.--A. Because they had always been fighting around the precinct every election, and it is impossible to get our vote in when there was no disturbance without fighting it in--especially since the police station-house has been in that division. Q. How long has the police station-house been in that division.--A. Ten years, to my knowledge, and over. Q. Please give me the names of all the democratic electors out of the 100 that you have spoken of as being prevented from voting, who, to your personal knowledge, staid away from the polls through fear.--A. I can't name the whole 100; I can't name them. Q. (Question repeated.)--A. Well, I was one; I can't name a hundred men staying away from the polls. I didn't make that positive assertion. Q. I again ask you to name any democratic electors beside yourself who, to your personal knowledge, staid away from the polls that day through fear.--A. There were 23 democratic electors voted there, all told. Q. I again ask you to name any democratic elector besides yourself who you know staid away from the polls that day through fear.--A. Well, I heard different men say they did, but I have every reason to believe them; but I don't know. I could name some. Q. Please name them.-A. Frederick Farley, John Farley. I can't think of names; they slip my memory. Q. When did Frederick Farley and John Farley tell you they were afraid to go to the polls on the day of the last October election.-A. Frederick Farley told me on election evening that it was dangerous to go up there, and he did not go and vote; and John told me one day through the week, on Friday after the election, I believe. Q. Did either of them tell you by whom they had been threatened or deterred from going to the polls.-A. They did not. Q. After your return from court the second time did you remain in the neighborhood of the polls.-A. I went home; my home was in the neighborhood. Q. Could you see the window at which the votes were being received from your house.— A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether or not the election, after the polls were opened, was conducted quietly and peaceably.-A. Well, I was in court, with the exception of the time I was sent up by the judge. Then it didn't appear very quiet and peaceable; I don't know further. I have been lame some since that day over it. Q. On that occasion was not the disturbance you have mentioned confined to the barroom of the tavern, and the striking of Hooper in the street.-A. I think it was; in the barroom and in the street. Hooper made no resistance, nor I made no resistance. Q. Did you see a line of voters in any way interfered with.-A. No, sir. Q. Was Nathan H. Potts holding the position of telegraph operator at the station on the 13th day of October, 1868.-A. He was, on the 12th and on the 14th. Q. Do you not know that he resigned before and was reappointed after the election.— A. On the evening of the 12th and on the morning of the 14th I saw him at the telegraph operating. I think it is doubtful that he did. Q. Did you prosecute the men who put you out of the room for assault and battery.— (Objected to.)-A. Well, all the prosecution there was, was when the judge held them to bail. I didn't prosecute them. Q. Had you acted at any previous election in that precinct as an election officer.-(Objected to.)--A. Yes, frequently. I have lived there 19 years, and I have been election officer a good many times; a half dozen, anyhow. Q. Did you act as election officer under your election in October, 1867, at any time previous to October, 1868.--A. No; there were no elections. PETER B. BROWER. Sworn to and subscribed this 28th day of January, A. D. 1869. CHARLES M. CARPENTER, JAMES RAFFERTY, being duly sworn, doth depose and say: By Mr. FAUNCE: Aldermen. Question. Where do you live.-Answer. No. 426 Otis street, 10th division of the 19th ward. Q. Were you an officer of election in said division at the election held on the 13th of October last.-A. I was appointed as an officer; window inspector. Q. Were you the legal window inspector in said division at the last October election. (Objected to.) A. I was appointed by Mr. Henry the legally elected minority window inspector. Q. Please state under what circumstances you were so appointed.-A. The division was divided, and Mr. Henry being in the new division, he appointed me for the 10th. He said he couldn't act in the old division-live in one division and act in another. He appointed me for the old. Q. Did you act as window inspector in said division at the last October election.-A. No, sir. Q. Please state in your own way why you did not act as such officer, and all that occurred at the time you went to the polls for the purpose of acting on the morning of the 13th of October in said division.-A. I went to the polls about quarter before seven, and, getting ready to receive votes, I saw Mr. Addis in the room. He said that he was going to act as judge of the election on that day. Mr. Hooper sat on the chair; said that he was legally appointed judge, and was going to act as judge that day. Addis said that he was going to act as judge. They began arguing. Mr. Hackett, Sergeant Hackett, came in the room and asked Mr. Addis if he wanted the room cleared. Mr. Addis said he did. Mr. Hackett and one or two more officers got hold of Mr. Hooper and ran him out of the room. Then the crowd got in the room and Mr. Brower was run out. The return inspector and I, thinking I was going to share the same fate, I took the papers away with me, and we went down to the court; Mr. Brower, Mr. Hooper, Mr. Jones, and myself. Mr. Hooper and Mr. Brower went in the court-room, and I don't know of anything that happened there; but when they came out I went up with them in the car, and they told me (objected to) that the judge told them to go up and demand their place as election officers. We got out of the car Front and Norris streets and walked up as far as Otis. I told them to stand on the corner until I went up and changed my clothes. When I had come out of the house I looked for them, but could not see them. Then I started for the division house and met Mr. Jones, who told me to turn back; that they had beat Hooper and Brower, and it wasn't safe for me to go. Then, turning towards home, I locked on the other side of the street and saw Mr. Hooper under arrest. That is all. Q. Did you vote in said division at the October election.-A. No, sir. Q. For whom would you have voted for a member of Congress had you not been prevented from exercising your right as an elector.-A. Mr. John Moffet. Q. Were you or were you not kept away from the polls, on the 13th of October last, by the action of the police and the persons who were there assisting them.-A I was at court in the court-room some two or three hours waiting for the officers to be brought there by a warrant sent for them. I have got such a bad memory, I can't recollect that. Q. Why did you not vote in said division.-A. I thought there was no use in voting. I didn't think the men who were there had any right to be there, and therefore didn't go. Q. Please state how many qualified democratic electors of said division did not vote at the last October election.-A. Well, I judge from 70 to 75. Q. What has been the democratic vote of said division.-A. I suppose there was about 100 democratic votes polled in the November election; I judge there was that many. Q. Do you not know that there was not a large number of democratic electors in said division who did not vote at the November election. Q. Were all the officers who conducted the election alleged to have been held in the 10th division of the 19th ward on last October republicans.-A. They were all republicans. No cross-examination. JAMES RAFFERTY, JR. Sworn to and subscribed this 28th day of January, A. D. 1869. Aldermen. The majority, however, fail in their partial review of the evidence to look upon the proved and sworn declarations as to the force and intimidation-we may say riot-in this division. If any division vote in this congressional district ought to be declared void, this district should in our opinion have priority. The 4th division of the 17th ward is also impugned by the contestant. He claims 24 illegal votes by the sworn statement of Mr. Geo. Painter. Fourteen of these 24 alleged illegal votes are satisfactorily accounted for by the testimony of Mr. James Gilchrist, hereunto directly annexed: JAMES GILCHRIST, being duly sworn, doth depose and say: By Mr. HIRST, jr.: Question. Where do you reside.-Answer. I reside at No. 240 Oxford street, 7th division of the 17th ward. Q. Where did you reside at the time of the last October election.-A. In the 4th division of the 17th ward, No. 1349 Hancock street. Q. Mr. Painter, witness called on the part of contestant, has stated under oath that he compared the list of voters with the list of taxables in the 4th division of the 17th ward, with a view to ascertain how many voted whose names were not on the list of taxables, and in response to the question gave the following names: John McAllister, John McDonald, Joseph James O'Rourke, Thomas O'Rourke, E. F. Glacken, Patrick Kebler, Isaac Cohen, George Cohen, Thomas Landy, George W. Bornman, John Murphy, John Donnelly, Dominick Murphy, John Cook, Henry Black, Christian Steuben, Adam Goodfletcher, John Faber, and Walter Dewing; please tell me whether you canvassed that division and made inquiries as to these persons as to their being residents, and what was the result of those inquiries, giving them name by name and their residence.-A. I did canvass the division because I seen from one of the daily papers the evidence of Mr. Painter. I afterwards made it my business to go round to those parties to their residences. John McAllister resides in Palethorpe street above Thompson, on the west side of the street. He voted his first vote in October last. John McDonald, in Girard avenue, on the north side. The reason why that he don't appear on the assessment list is that there was a dispute arose at the extra assessment, and the assessors made up their minds that each party coming to get assessed should either show naturalization papers or take an affidavit before an alderman that they had a right to be assessed. Mr. McDonald being American born, and not requiring naturalization papers, and would not satisfy them to take an affidavit before an alderman, he was not assessed: but a great many in the division knew that he was a regular citizen; I did myself. Joseph James O'Rourke and Thomas O'Rourke both reside in Second street between Thompson and Master, on the east side of Second, and are regular voters. Edward F. Glacken resides in the same house, a brother-in-law to them. Patrick Kebler resided back of 1232 Mascher street, in the rear of Henry Black's. Isaac Cohen and George Cohen, his son, reside at 143 Girard avenue. The father told me that he and his son were both bona fide voters. Thomas Landy resided in Hancock street at the time I canvassed this, back of the first house above Thompson street. George Washington Bornman resides on the west side of Mascher, between Thompson and Master. John Murphy resided in Hancock street below Thompson, on the west side. John Donnelly resided in Palethorpe street below Master, on the east side, and voted on age, which I believe is a bona fide voter. Dominick Murphy, jr., resides in Second street, between Thompson and Master, on the east side. John Cook resides in Palethorpe street, between Thompson and Master, on the east side. Henry Black resides in 1232 Mascher street, on the west side. Christian Steuben resided in Hancock, below Master, at the October election, and after for some time. A musician by profession, Adam Goodfletcher, (there is another name nearly the same as this,) lives in Hancock street, between Master and Thompson. Baker by profession, John Faber, he resided with his father-in-law, Mr. Wolf, in Hancock street, between Thompson and Master, on the east side, at the time of the October electlon and some time after. Walter Dewing resides in Palethorpe street, with his mother, between Girard avenue and Thompson, east side. Q. Were not all the persons you have mentioned residents in the 4th division of the 17th ward at the time of the last October election, to the best of your knowledge and belief.—A. Yes, sir. This reduces the claim, Appendix D, even if clearly made out as votes improperly allowed, to ten, in this division. The minority, if time could be allowed, (which, by-the-by, has been refused, unaccountably, in this case,) would make a thorough and full examination of the testimony, so as to exhibit the exact result of the evidence taken; a cursory review of it makes it manifest that many of the votes called in question by Mr. Myers would be satisfactorily accounted for by Mr. Moffet. In the main it would appear, as we believe, favorable to Mr. Moffet. We are, however, forced to the review, upon examination as shown in large proportions, and we can thus overturn the result violently reached by the majority. Thus it will appear: Moffet's returned majority. Review of tally papers entitles him to... Admitted frauds against him-single votes proved in each individual case.. Actual majority as above for Mr. Moffet... Deduct: 127 5 33 185 Gain for Mr. Myers by re-examination of tally. 35 Illegal votes agreed to by both parties.. 30 65 Ascertained majority for Moffet... 120 Taking an enlarged view, by throwing out (as it should be by fair dealing) the 10th division, 19th ward, where the polls were taken possession of by an armed mob. 173 293 The minority, therefore, submit to the consideration and favorable action of the House the following resolution: Resolved, That the evidence does not warrant the displacement of John Moffet from the seat now occupied by him in this house, and that he is entitled to the same, and ask that they be relieved from the further consideration of the subject. SAML. J. RANDALL. 1st Session. No. 10. MOREY Vs. MCCRANIE. APRIL 6, 1869.-Laid on the table and ordered to be printed. Mr. PAINE, from the Committee of Elections, made the following REPORT. The Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the case of Frank Morey vs. G. W. McCranie, from the 5th congressional district of the State of Louisiana, in obedience to the following resolution of the House of Representatives, adopted March 22, 1869 Resolved, That in all contested election cases referred to the Committee of Elections in which it shall be alleged by a party to the case, or a member of the House, that either claimant is unable to take the oath prescribed in the act approved July 2, 1862, entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," it shall be the duty of the committee to ascertain whether such disability exists; and if such disability shall be found to exist, the committee shall so report to the House, and shall not further consider the claim of the person so disqualified without the further order of the House; and no compensation will be allowed by the House to any claimant who shall have been ineligible to the office of representative to Congress at the time of the election, and whose disability shall not have been removed by act of Congress- submit the following report: It was alleged in writing before the committee by said Morey, that said McCranie could not take the oath prescribed in the act entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," approved July 2, 1862. The committee thereupon, in obedience to said resolution, inquired into the said charge; and, upon the written admission of said McCranie, have found and do report to the House that G. W. McCranie, claiming the right to represent the 5th congressional district of the State of Louisiana in this house, is unable to take the oath of office prescribed in the said act of July 2, 1862. |