object to the taking of any testimony under the notice of contest served by the contestant, for the reason that said notice presents only questions of law, which have been already passed upon, and because said notice contains no specification of any particular fact as is required by law, and especially as the issues sought to be presented can only be determined by record evidence, to be found in the office of the secretary of state of the State of Louisiana, and that being the best evidence must be produced, and when produced, cannot be contradicted by parol evidence. In said notice only two issues of fact are presented: 1st. As to whether the legal board of returning officers had the proper evidence before them on which to make returns. The returns are only to be lodged in the office of secretary of state, to be used by the returning officers, and when said board has once made a report to the secretary of state the record of such report becomes the best and only evidence of the result of the election and cannot be disproved by parol evidence. The only remedy left the defeated candidate is to allege specific acts of fraud or mistake or voting done by illegal persons, and until such specific acts are alleged in the notice no testimony whatever is admissible, and as the notice in this case is without such specifications, no testimony whatever can be adduced. As to the second point, "that the returns show the contestant elected," is an allegation of a general nature, and if any proof can be admitted under it, which is denied, it must be the general proof to be furnished by the record in the office of the secretary of state, of the return made by the legal board of returning officers, there being no provision of law requiring the returns of the commissioners of election and registers of voters to be retained after the board of returning officers have completed their labors. The whole thing is then merged in the finding of the returning board, and the record of such finding required by law to be made and kept by the secretary of state is the highest and only evidence of the result of the elections, and cannot be disproved by parol evidence, and such finding must remain and the result thus dis closed must stand, unless specific allegations of fact not embraced within the record are made and established by satisfactory testimony. The evidence sought to be taken is not only in violation of these wellknown rules of law, but does not tend in the slightest degree to estab lish any specific allegation of fact, and as no specific allegation of fact is contained in said notice, it is wholly irrelevant and inadmissible on that ground. L. A. SHELDON, Per DON A. PARDEE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Second Congressional District, State of Louisiana: R. L. GIBSON, CONTESTANT, vs. L. A. SHELDON, SITTING MEMBER. To Jacob Hawkins and others, New Orleans, La.: In the matter of the above-contested election, you are hereby notified to be and appear before the honorable E. North Cullom, judge of the fifth district court, parish of Orleans, and especially commissioned under act of Congress, to take testimony in the above-entitled contested case, at the hour of 1 p. m., at No. 5 Carondelet street, in the city of New Orleans, on Monday, 16th day February, 1874, to testify on behalf of R. L. Gibson, and fail not under penalty of the law. E. NORTH CULLOM, Judge Fifth District Court, Parish of Orleans. [Indorsements.] United States of America, second congressional district, State of Louisiana, R. L. Gibson, contestant, vs. L. A. Sheldon, sitting member. Serve on Jacob Hawkins, James Longstreet, John Lynch, H. C. Warmoth, Jack Wharton, Benjamin R. Forman, Archibald Mitchell, F. R. Southmayd, J. M. Cass, A. Ward, E. Hillborn, H. Gallagher, H. C. Brown, James Beggs, and J. S. Beens, all residing in New Orleans. Received February 10, 1874, and on the same day, month, and year I served a copy of the within summons on General James Longstreet and Judge Jacob Hawkins in person. Sheriff's fees, $1. Returned same day. S. E. CROZAT. Received February 10, 1874, and on the same day of the same month and year I served a copy of the within summons on F. R. Southmayd, by leaving the same at his domicile, corner Delachaise and Carondelet streets, in the hands of Mrs. Southmayd, a person apparently over the age of fourteen years, living and residing in said domicile; said F. R. Southmayd being absent at the time of service. All of which facts I ascertained by interrogating said Mrs. Southmayd. Returned same day. Sheriff's fee, 50 cents. C. O'DONNELL, And on the same day of the same month and year, I served a copy of the within summons on James Beggs, by leaving the same at his domicile, on General Taylor, between Camp and Chestnut streets, in the hands of Mrs. Beggs, a person apparently over the age of fourteen years, living and residing in said domicile; said James Beggs being absent at the time of service. All of which facts I ascertained by interrogating said Mrs. Beggs. Returned same day. Sheriff's fee, 50 cents. C. O'DONNELL, Deputy Sheriff. And on the same day served a copy of within summous on John Lynch in person. Returned same day. Sheriff's fees, 50 cents. HENRY BENIT, On the 10th day February, 1874, served copies of the within notice to take testimony on the following persons, and in the following manner, to wit: On Mr. Archibald Mitchell in person; on Mr. H. Gallagher in person, and on Mr. E. Hilborn in person. Mr. A. Ward I served by leaving the same at his domicile on Constance street, between Josephine and Jackson streets, in the hands of Mrs. Ward, (his wife,) a person apparently over the age of fourteen years, living in said domicile, A. Ward being absent from home at the time of this service. The above facts I learned by interrogating said Mrs. Ward. J. M. Cass I also served by leaving the same at his domicile, No. 478 Baronne street, in the hands of Ellen Condlin, a person apparently over the age of fourteen years, living and residing in said domicile, Mr. J. M. Cass being absent from home at the time of this service. The above facts I learned by interrogating said Ellen Condlin. Twenty-one words erased; approved before signing. A. RANDOLPH, Deputy Sheriff. On the 10th day of February, 1874, served true copies of the within notice to take testimony on following persons, to wit: On Jack Wharton, B. R. Forman, and H. C. Warmoth in person; on H. C. Brown by leaving the same at his office at water-works, on Dryades, between Canal and Common, in hands of clerk in said office; said H. C. Brown being absent from office at the time of said service. Returned same day. JOS. BOURGEOIS, In the matter of R. L. Gibson, contestant, vs. L. A. Sheldon, sitting member for the second congressional district of Louisiana. FEBRUARY 21, 1874. Met at No. 5 Carondelet street, New Orleans. Hon. E. North Cullom, commissioner for contestant, present, and J. E. Austin present, representing R. L. Gibson. Hon. G. A. Brice and Don A. Pardee not appearing at the hour to which the taking of the testimoney was continued at the last meeting, namely, 12 o'clock m.; and after waiting for them until twenty-five minutes past 1 o'clock p. m., the commissioners proceeded to take the testimony of the witnesses present. General Gibson files notice marked H; also notice marked I. Protest marked K filed by commissioner at the request of General Sheldon's attorney. JAMES LONGSTREET, sworn by Hon. E. North Cullom and examined by J. E. Austin, esq., says: I reside at present at the corner of Baronne and Josephine streets, in the fourth district of this city and within the second congressional district. Question. Were you a member of what was known as the Lynch returning-board during the last canvass ?-Answer. Yes. Q. Who constituted that board with you?-A. Governor Warmoth, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Heron, Judge Hawkins, and myself. After the decision of the courts in the case of Bovee, he took the place on the board occupied by General Heron. Q. Did Governor Warmoth ever act with the board?-A. He never appeared in the board so far as I know. Q. You had occasion to make returns for members of Congress ?—A. Yes. Q. Will you state what returns you had before you at the time you made your report returning those members of Congress or of the member of Congress for the second district ?-A. I am not able to state the returns we had before us. Being a matter of record, I never charged my memory with it. Q. Have you any knowledge of the whereabouts of those returns upon which you made the statement?-A. I have not now. They were left in charge of the secretary of state. Q. What returns, if any, do you remember to have had for any por tion of the parish of Orleans-that part of it which lies in the seeond congressional district?-A. I don't know really what returns there were for that. Q. Do you remember what returns you had before you for the parish of Jefferson, if you had any ?-A. I do not. Q. Do you remember what returns, if any, you had from the parish of Saint Charles?-A. I do not. Q. From the parish of Saint James ?-A. I do not. Q. From the parish of Lafourche, do you remember that?-A. No. Q. From the parish of Terre Bonne ?-A. No.. Q. Those are all that constitute the second congressional district under the election-law of the State of Louisiana, which was in existence at the time of this election; did your board have any returns what ever from any of those parishes, or from any wards in the city of New Orleans, in accordance with that law?-A. My understanding of the technical meaning of the term returns-legal returns-requires the returns shall be sent to the governor, and by him opened in the presence of the board. The governor never appeared before the board, and I believe that the courts decided that that was the legal board; so that as the governor never appeared before the board, and never brought any returns, under the technical meaning, I suppose there could not have been any returns. Q. Then I understand you to say that the election-returns required by the law of Louisiana, under which this election was held, were never in possession of your board at all?-A. I intend to say that, as I understand it to be, legal returns must be brought by the governor, first must be duly forwarded to the governor, and by him be laid before the legal board. As the governor never appeared before that board and never brought any returns according to my present understanding of the conditions of the term "legal returns," there were none presented to the board. Q. You are familiar with the election-laws of Louisiana. They require that the returns shall be signed by the supervisors, commissioners of election, and forwarded-one copy to the governor, to be filed with the secretary of state, and one copy, I believe, with the clerk of the court. Now, what I want to get at is whether those returns required by that law were ever in the possession of your board at all?—A. There were some returns in the possession of our board that were signed by the United States supervisors and by the State supervisors; but as they did not come before the board as the law requires—for I understand that they should be forwarded to the governor and by him presented to the board-I suppose they would not fulfill the conditions required of "legal returns." That is my present understanding of the technicalities of the law. Some time ago, speaking of these terms, giving evidence, I think I gave my evidence to the effect that I believed those were legal returns. But my opinion now is, technically speaking, that they were not "legal returns," and could be legal returns only as I stated; that they should be duly forwarded to the governor, and by him presented to the board. Q. Did your board have any of the original returns that were forwarded to the secretary of state's office by the supervisors of election as required by law?-A. I don't think they did. Q. Then these estimates were made how ?-A. They were made upon such returns as we had, and on affidavits that were sent in. Q. Do you remember what sort of returns these were that you had, and how they came into your possession-only in reference to this sec ond congressional district I mean?-A. I do not. Most of my time in the board was taken up during the canvass in answering writs of the court, and in and out from the board probably half a dozen times in the day. Q. You say a good many of these estimates were made upon affidavits filed?-A. I did not say a good many, but I said all these affidavits were taken into account. Q. Do you remember about how many affidavits were before your board?-A. I do not. Q. How were those affidavits made?—A. They were made on blank printed forms. I don't know by whom furnished. Q. Do you know how they came into the possession of the board— whether they came through the governor or the secretary of state?—A. They came through the clerk of the United States court. I think his official capacity at that time was United States supervisor and clerk of the United States district court. His name is Wolfley. Q. You cannot say what proportion of those affidavits belonged to the second congressional district?-A. No. I don't know that there was one. Yes, I believe I do know. There were some in reference to this box up at Camp Parapet-I think there were some, but I am not positively certain. Q. You say you were in and out a good deal during the sitting of the Lynch board. Were these returns compiled by clerks of the board, or by a majority of the board present all the time?-A. I think there was a quorum present all the time-that is, in examining the papers. They then handed them over to the clerks, and they were tabulated by the clerks. Q. Do you remember how these returns were sent to your board that you received? Were they made up from the recollection of the supervisors, or were they sent regularly through the secretary of state's office, or were they delivered to you by the governor ?-A. They were sent, I think, directly to the board. I don't think the governor delivered any. In fact, I am quite sure he did not deliver any at all. I never heard of his being there. Q. Do you know whom they were signed by-whether signed by the supervisors or not?-A. I do not. I presume they were signed by the United States supervisor. Q. Did you take any testimony of commissioners of election or supervisors with reference to the votes in the different parishes before your board?-A. Yes. Q. Were not some of the estimates made up upon such testimony, and were not some of the returns based on the testimony taken from these parties?-A. That I do not know. Q. Mr. Lynch, in his testimony before the congressional committee, says that the board had no official returns before them whatever. Do you know where those official returns were ?-A. I do not. Q. Do you know where they are now ?-A. No. Q. Did they ever come into the possession of your board at all?—A. Not that I know; I suppose by "official returns" you mean what I call "legal returns." Q. Yes; those in possession of Governor Warmoth.-A. I don't know where they are. Q. At the time the board known as the Hatch-Daponte board was constituted, were you a member of the Lynch board at that time, or were you elected afterward?-A. I believe I was a member of the board at that time. As I understand, I was elected at the first meeting of the board. |