There were no returns received from the parishes of Saint James and Terrebonne. The entire vote from one box in the parish of Jefferson, which contained 555 votes for Gen. R. L. Gibson and none for L. A. Sheldon, was thrown out and excluded by us for evidence of fraud. And box No. 8, of the Third ward, for the parish of Orleans, which contained a small majority of republican tickets, was also thrown out for evidence of fraud. My recollection, which is not very accurate on this matter, is that the box contained about 100 republican majority.

With the above exceptions, the official election-returns for the second congressional district showed that L. A. Sheldon received 12,821 votes and Randall L. Gibson received 14,915 votes.

Q. Were these returns promulgated in any of the newspapers in this city-A. The compilations and the certificate of the result were published in the New Orleans Picayune, and I believe in some other papers, though I am not certain. I have a copy of that publication, which is correct, and which shows the result of the election as above stated. The vote in the respective parishes and wards of the city of New Orleans is as follows:

Q. Have you any knowledge where the official returns are, or where they may be found?-A. I have not.

B. R. FORMAN.

Offered in evidence, by Gen. R. L. Gibson, the report of the Committee of the Senate of the United States on Privileges and Elections, marked Report No. 457, third session of the Forty-second Congress, submitted by Mr. Carpenter, February 20, 1873, in relation to the con. duct of the election of the 4th of November, 1872, in the State of Lou isiana, and especially that part of said report and the evidence taken bearing upon the election for members of Congress in the second congressional district.

R. L. GIBSON, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he has made every effort to ascertain where the official legal returns of the congressional election of the 4th of November, 1872, in the second congressional district, could be found and obtained; that he has been unable to procure the same to introduce in evidence. And having been unable to procure them I reserve the right to introduce them before the Committee of the House of Representatives on Elections.

R. L. GIBSON.

There being no further evidence to be taken at this sitting, it stands adjourned until Monday the 16th, at 5 o'clock p. m.

E. NORTH CULLOM,

Judge Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

E. N. CULLOM, JR., Clerk.

In the matter of R. L. Gibson, contestant, vs. L. A. Sheldon, sitting member, for the second congressional district of Louisiana.

NEW ORLEANS, March 16, 1874.

Met pursuant to adjournment. Present, Hon. E. North Cullom, commissioner, and J. E. Austin, esq., representing contestant.

No witnesses being present, adjourned to meet March 17, 1874, at same time and place.

E. NORTH CULLOM,

Judge Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

E. N. CULLOM, JR., Clerk.

In the matter of R. L. Gibson vs. L. A. Sheldon, sitting member, for the second congressional district of Louisiana.

NEW ORLEANS, LA., March 17, 1874. Met pursuant to adjournment, at No. 5 Carondelet street. Present, Hon. E. North Cullom, commissioner, and J. E. Austin, representing

contestant.

There being no witnesses present, this sitting stands adjourned to meet March 18, 1874, at same time and place.

E. NORTH CULLOM,

Judge Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

E. N. CULLOM, JR., Clerk.

In the matter of R. L. Gibson, contestant, vs. L. A. Sheldon, sitting member, for the second congressional district of Louisiana.

NEW ORLEANS, March 18, 1874.

Met pursuant to adjournment. Present, Hon. E. North Cullom, commissioner, and J. E. Austin, representing R. L. Gibson, contestant. No witnesses being present, adjourned to meet March 19, 1874, at same time and place.

E. NORTH CULLOM, Judge Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

E. N. CULLOM, JR., Clerk.

In the matter of the contested election between Gen. Randall L. Gibson, contestant, and L. A. Sheldon, sitting member, for the second congressional district of the State of Louisiana, pursuant to an adjourned meeting.

Col. JOHN LYNCH, being first duly sworn by Judge E. North Cullom, declares and says, after notice according to law:

My residence is in the parish of Saint Bernard. I am theoretically a lawyer, but practically a planter.

Question. Were you or not a member of the returning or canvassing board of elections in the fall of 1872 ?-Answer. Yes, sir.

Q. How did you become a member of that board?-A. I became a member by appointment under legislative act constituting the board of canvassers of the State of Louisiana.

Q. Who were the other members of the board ?—A. The governor, H. C. Warmoth, P. B. S. Pinchback, lieutenant-governor, F. J. Herron, secretary of the State, Senator T. C. Anderson, and myself.

Q. Who were the members of the board at the time when you took action with reference to the election held on the 4th of November, 1872-A. The first meeting we held on either the 13th or 14th of November, 1872. Governor Warmoth, Lieutenant-Governor Pinchback, Secretary of State F. J. Herron, and myself were present.

Q. At the subsequent meeting, and how was the board organized ?— A. There is a provision in the law that when a member of the returning-board was a candidate for an office at any election, he was debarred from acting as a member of the board at such election. LieutenantGovernor Pinchback and T. C. Anderson were declared ineligible, and Pinchback withdrew; that left on the board Governor Warmoth, Herron, acting secretary of state, and myself.

Q. How were the vacancies filled? A. Governor Warmoth attempted to remove Herron, and appointed Jack Wharton. I did not recognize the governor's power to remove Herron, and, acting with Herron as a member of the board, we filled the vacancies by the appointment of James Longstreet and Jacob Hawkins; after which we retired from the governor's office and continued to act as the returning. board, until the supreme court decided that George E. Bovee was rightfully secretary of state, after which time he acted in the place of Herron as a member of the returning-board.

Q. Was not Mr. Bovee a candidate for office in the election held on the 4th of November, 1872 ?-My impression is that he was a candidate for some local office in his parish; I think for the office of police-juror. Q. Did Governor Warmoth recognize the board thus constituted as the legal returning-board of that election ?—A. I think not.

Q. Did he ever act with the board?-A. No, sir.

Q. Did he ever place before the board the official and legal returns of the election of the 4th of November, 1872, in pursuance of the laws of Louisiana made by the supervisors of registration?-A. He never placed any returns before this board.

Q. Did you or not make formal demand upon the governor of the State for these returns, and did he or not refuse to deliver the same? -A. Yes we made the demand, and the governor refused to comply with it.

(Gen. R. L. Gibson offers in evidence General Longstreet's letter on behalf of the board and Governor Warmoth's reply.)

Q. Did the governor of the State, at a meeting of this canvassing or returning board, open in their presence the statements of the supervisors of registration and election, and did you from said statements canvass and compile the returns so made of the election for Congress in the second congressional district of Louisiana?-A. Governor Warmoth never met with us after the first day; never submitted to us any returns. Our information was derived from other sources than through the governor. Q. What was the general principle that controlled your actions as a member of the canvassing board?-A. The primary evidence was illegally withheld by the governor, and, being opened by him without authority, became vitiated as primary evidence in our judgment. There was, therefore, no primary evidence existing, and we availed ourselves of the best secondary evidence that could be had. I believed that we

were in the midst of a revolution, and had to do the best we could under the circumstances.

Q. In your judgment, then, the condition of things made it impossible for you to conform to the election-laws of the State of Louisiana ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there not an injunction from the eighth district court for the parish of Orleans, prohibiting the board of which you were a member from making any canvass of the returns other than those made to the governor of the State and submitted by him to the board?—A. I do not remember.

(General Gibson offers in evidence the record in the case of Samuel Armstead vs. James Longstreet et al., No. 13596, eighth district court, being the injunction referred to.)

Q. Upon what basis did you make an estimate of the vote for Congress of the second congressional district of the election held on the 4th of November, 1872-A. We made no estimate. I don't understand what you mean by basis.

Q. How did you proceed to ascertain who was elected to Congress in the second congressional district at the election of 4th November, 1872, in the absence of the official returns withheld by Governor Warmouth-A. We had three classes of evidence before us in making the canvass of the State at large. These consisted of: 1st, The returns made to us by the United States supervisors of elections; 2d, copies of returns made to the governor by State supervisors of registration in some instances; and 3d, individual affidavits. My recollection is that in the second congressional district the evidence upon which we acted belonged to one or the other, or both of the first two classes. It is a matter of record, and I do not pretend to remember exactly.

Q. Do you recollect from how many polls in the district you had statements from the United States supervisors of election?-A. I do not remember; but very generally, from all the polls in the district. As it was a matter of record before the board I did not charge my memory with it.

Q. Were these statements made directly to the board from the local supervisors of election?-A. No, sir. They were made through the United States supervisor of elections, Mr. Woolfley, to the board.

Q. Do you not know that the law provided for one supervisor from each party at each place of voting-A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you speak of the returns of supervisors do you mean from both or one?-A. Both in some cases; generally one.

Q. Have you any knowledge yourself that he or they made the returns from the number of ballots?-A. I have no knowledge in regard to the matter except the returns submitted to the board, which is a matter of record.

The further investigation adjourned until to-morrow, at 5 o'clock p. m.

New Orleans, March 19, 1874, 5 p. m.

E. NORTH CULLOM, Judge Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

E. N. CULLOM, JR., Clerk.

In the matter of the contested election between R. L. Gibson, contestant, and L. A. Sheldon, sitting member, for the second congressional district of Louisiana.

NEW ORLEANS, March 20, 1874.

Met pursuant to adjournment. Present, Hon. E. North Cullom, commissioner, and J. E. Austin, representing contestant. There being no witnesses present, adjourned until March 21, 1874, to meet at same time and place. E. NORTH CULLOM, Judge Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

E. N. CULLOM, Jr., Clerk.

In the matter of R. L. Gibson, contestant, v. L. A. Sheldon, sitting member, for the second congressional district of Louisiana.

NEW ORLEANS, LA., March 21, 1874.

Met pursuant to adjournment. Present, Hon. E. North Cullom, commissioner, and J. E. Austin, representing R. L. Gibson, contestant. No witnesses being present, adjourned until Monday, the 23rd in stant, at 5 o'clock p. m., to meet at same place.

E. NORTH CULLOM, Judge Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

E. N. CULLOM, JR., Clerk.

NEW ORLEANS, March 23, 1874.

Present, the Hon. E. North parish of Orleans, and R. L.

Pursuant to the adjourned meeting of the 21st instant, the examina. tion of Hon. John Lynch was renewed. Cullom, judge fifth district court for the Gibson, contestant, as follows, to wit:

Question. In your testimony before the Senate committee, did you not say that the votes of the parish of Orleans, as made out by the supervisor of registration of the State, Mr. Blanchard, and the United States officer, under the charge of General Longstreet, corresponded? What do you mean by that?-Answer. I understand that duplicate tally-sheets were kept; one set by officers appointed by State authority, the other set by officers appointed by United States authorities, and that they substantially agreed as to the votes contained in the bal lot-boxes.

Q. Did the count of the returns thus kept by the State and United States officers for members of Congress in the second congressional district tally?-A. My recollection is, that substantially they corres ponded, but the evidence on which we acted, as a board, is a matter of record, and the precise shape in which it was in from the different voting-precincts, I do not remember.

Q. Did the statements furnished by the United States supervisors contain full returns of the votes cast for L. A. Sheldon and R. L. Gibson from each polling place in the second congressional district?-A. They were matters of record, and I do not pretend to recollect.

Q. Were the certified copies of returns sworn to by the State supervisors of registration and election?-A. I do not remember.

Q. Did you yourself make the compilation of the returns for Congress in the second congressional district, or test the accuracy of the compilation?-A. I did not make the compilation, and do not remember whether or not I tested the accuracy of the compilation for the second congressional district.