f party spirit, which has carried then
even to the extent of intimating that the Secretary of the Treasury
was party to the pranks of an eccentric woman who dropped a parcel
of letters to set the local politicians of New Orleans agog--a
woman who was called before the committee a long time as a witness,
but who was neither called, examined, nor cross-examined by the
minority, who, however they might share the public amusement at
the performance, entirely declined to take part in it.

"A considerable number of gentlemen who visited New Orleans, either
at the request of President Grant or of the national or local
campaign committee, were called, and testified as to the purpose
of their visit and their procedure during it.

"Adhering to our purpose of leaving the majority to frame issues
on which they were willing to proceed in investigating, we did not
seek to examine into the particulars of the conduct of the Democratic
visitors in Louisiana. To let the testimony show the original
resolutions of inquiry to be both useless and mischievous, serving
no purpose but the spread of unjust scandal, seemed to us, in view
of all former inquiries in the same direction, the proper course
to pursue.

"Messrs. Sherman, Garfield, Hale, Kelley, and others were examined,
and their testimony was compared with that by which it was attempted
to impeach their motives and their conduct. Their account of their
action is consistent and frank. They believed that their party
had rightfully a good claim to the fruits of the election in that
state. They also believed that the notorious violence and intimidation
which had in former years disgraced that state had been again
practiced in the campaign of 1876. They approved the action of
the returning board in deciding, under the powers given them by
law, to declare null the pretended elections at precincts and polls
where evidence of such interference with the freedom of election
had occurred. We do not find that they attempted to control the
board or to dictate their action. We do not find that they attempted
to dictate to witnesses or to procure false testimony to place
before the board. We do not find that they were in any way more
partisan or less scrupulous than the similar party of gentlemen
who then represented the Democratic party. The attempt to single
out Mr. Sherman for special attack seems to us to have had no
original foundation but the testimony of James E. Anderson, and
th