New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-26

of the frauds committed previous 70 IL
election, that result utterly reverses wins
was the wish and intention of that peopl
-. = - EOS =. -. ~ = ~.
"My belief is, that if any judicial cou,
to-day had Jurisdiction Of the question
Louisiana, the result of that election, Q
held, that is to say, the result of the ballot
McEnery was elected; but am equally we
persuaded that the result misrepresents tn
will and the intention Of the people of tina
State on that election day, and that it wa
in consequence of these frauds and obstacle
in the way of registration, and the fraudu
lent location of voting places, that Warmot
was able to carry that State by from 5000 t.
5000 majority in favor of McEnery.
And in his speech of the fourth of March
II do not think that McEnery was in fac
elected, although the returns show that b.
was"
Mr.. President, shall Congress in it's inter
ference disregard the claims of Warmott
under the constitution of Louisiana, disre
gard the claims of McEnery, who had Mint
or ten thousand majority, and turn out O.
office one who is now quietly dischagins
the duties there and has been since 1872
when we are told by the very mover of this
with the wish and intention of that people,
l can not come to that conclusion.
The Senator from Wisconsin, in speaking
| of the election in New York in 1868, saws:
"Griswold was elected, but Hoffman was
canvassed in as Governor of that State"
| And he says that we should not interfere
in that case, mot because Congress did not
| possess the power, but because such a case
| would not Justify the exercise of it, In
deed, each case must be judged of by it's
own circumstances and surroundings, and
while Congress ought not to exercise this
power on slight occasions, or to correct
mere irregularity not productive of impor-
Jant consequences, yet in case like this it
would seem that if Congress possessed the
power it ought to be exercised"
And in this case one of the circumstances
to be considered il that Kellogg is, and
since 1872 has been, exercising the duties
of his otfice-that he is in office in accord
ance with the wish and intention of the
people, to use the language of the Senator.
1t is strange that my friend should conclude
that the federal government should not in
uerfere in a case like that of Hoffman, when,
according to his hypothesis, "Griswold was
elected and Hoffman canvassed into Office"
and interfere in Kellogg's case. We ought
not to interfere when one is in office against
the will of the people, but we should inter-
fere where the incumbe mt. he assures us, is
in Office in accordance with the wish and
intention Of the people. Is not the case of
Hoffman much stronger than that of KEEL
logg: Hoffman incorporating and Kel-
lOgg representing the will of the people? If
we were to adopt my friends new theory,
in either case, we should have commenced
in the case of New York, and not in that of
Louisiana.
Mr.. Carpenter-Will my friend allow me
to interrupt him at that point!
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-Certain
Mr.. Carpenter-The vast difference be-
tween the two cases can not fail to strike
the Senator. In New York the Governor
alone was questioned; the Legislature was
not questioned. The Governor was not the
law-making power. In Louisiana the whole
law-making power of the State was in the
the same condition, and that bogus govern
ment may pass laws, may levy taxes, may
repudiate the State debt; and all those
things may be done by men not elected. In
New York they could not do it, That is
the difference in the magnitude of the two
cases. do not say there is any difference
in the power. but as to the expedienoy of
exercising it in one case, the evils to be
feared from it are totally different from
what they are in the other.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-My friend can not
have failed to observe that / have said
nothing about the Legislature OF Louisiana.
For all that have said, he does not know
but that am in favor of his bill, so far as
the Legislature is concerned. have only
treated Of the Governors election, and his |
referring to the Legislature of |
Louisiana are entirely foreign to the sub
ject we are discussing.
Mr.. Carpenter-That may be go, there |
can be no difference in the case where one |
man holds a seat in Legislature without |
an election and case where the whole |
hold without election.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-It there is no differ
ence between the Governor and one member
Of the Legislature, the remark is pertinent;
branch of government, it is not pertinent.
Mr.. Carpenter-He is not the whole law
making power.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-No;h he is not.
Mr.. MOrtOn-I suggest to the Senator, If
be will permit me, that if Kellogg does rep
resent the majority of the people OF Louis
ANA, as seems to be conceded, it is equally
certain that the Legislature represents the
majority Of the people of'Louisiana.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen-And the singuiarlty
further about my friends plan is that he
would turn Kellogg out, although he rep
.esents the wish and intention Of the peO-
ole, because he has not a majority OF the
votes, but would not turn McEnery in, who
has 10000 majority, so that it seems this
10, 900 majority is good as against Kellogg,
)ut worthless in favor of McEnery.
But, Mr.: President, passing by the ques.
ion as to the constitutional power of Con
,ress to do more than t. preserve order and
ecure republican form of government;
passing by the question of Warmoth, Nc
Emery aud Kellogg, let us see whether q
'ase is made in which we should order
lew election.
The first thing to be established is that no
me was elected Governor, for if any one
vas, our duty, if we interfere in any way,
learly is to install the person so elected.
IN the fourth of November, 1872, an elec-
ion took place. 1t had all the forms OF an
lection, registration, polls, pOll-lists, bal
OTIS, returns, registers. supervisors, etc.
here were but two candidates, McEnery
nd Kellogg. One of those two men in fact
lad majority of the legal votes cast unless
here was tie, and then we have nothing
o do with the case, as the constitution of
louisiana provides that in that event the
legislature elects. One of the two must
ave had majority of the legal votes; so
ased on the fact that no one was elected.
we are to interfere, it must be to find out
Tho was elected Governor and to place him
q Office
To ascertain who by majority of legal
otes is entitled to an Office, had supposed
7as matter over which the State courts
ad no jurisdiction. If for any reasons the
tate courts have not Jurisdiction, or if so
orrupt that they can not be trusted, then
we are to interfere we must address our
elves to the question, Who was elected 1t
al not be advocated that, where it is q
certainty that one of two
andidates was elected, Congress shall order |
new election, and thus set premium on
aud. But we must find out who was
ected.
The question as to who was elected Gov.
rnor does not seem to have attracted the |
ttentlon OF the Committee on Privileges