The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-12-15

statement OF the Clalm-anu lnl5 Is inc SUD
stance of the claim on which Cronin bases
the validity Of Iii, electoral college,
enough to refute it.. When to this is add
cd the fact that Cronin was not duly and
legally elected a presidential elector aud
was, in fact, usurping the office, his whole
claim fades away like the basele;s fabric Of
a dream, and the acts and votes of his go
called electoral college go with it,
That Cronin was not duly and legally
elected, that he was utterly destitute of all
power or authority to act as q presidential
elector, does not seem to us 10 admit of
shadow of doubt. Conceding that Watts
was ineligible, and there il no doubt that
he was il eligible, it does not by any means
follow that Croniu, who received the next
highest number Ct votes, was elected. Iu-
deed the whole current of American au-
thorities, with a solitary exception, as well
as the law Of elections, as settled by both
the national senate and house of represent
atives, are to the contrary. Watts was not
elected, neither was Cronn. Unless the
well settled law of the United States IS
overturned, Cronin was an usurper, and
his acts as presidential elector were utter
ly without authority of law.
This brings us to tic really serious rart
of the matter. If Cronin was not elected,
neither was Watts And the same is true
of So,lace in Vermont, and of the ineligible
electors in New jersey, North Carolina and
Missouri. The voting for an Ineligible
man, while it did not elect the person hav-
ing the next highest number of votes,
nti her did it create vacancy" IN the
meaning of the statute of the United States,
or the statutes Of Oregon and the other
| states named 1t il absurd to talk about
"eletting vacancy"-and yet when we
say that Watts was not elected but that
vacancy was ere, ted, We commit the sb-
surdtY Of saying that "a vacancy was
"elected." The result waa that the people
"failed to n axe a choice on the day fixed
fJr the appointment Of electors.
Tie difficulty with the matter is, that
while congress has authorized the several
states to provide for filling vacancies which
may occur after the election, and, also, TO
provide the manner in which electors shall
be chosen when any state shall have held
San eleclion for the purpose Of choosing
"elettois and shall fail to MAKO a choice %
on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November, Oregon, Vermont and the other
states named have provided for filling va
cencies, but not for the manner of pro.
ceeding when an election has been regular
ly held and there has been failure to make
a choice. Watts, Sollace and the others
were not appointed, because the copstitu-
ton declares they shall not be, the people
simply failed to make \ choice. and fol
such cases no provision has been made by
law. Our Vermont law makers, when
they undertook to fix up the SoIlacc case,
evidently did not see the point, and, conee'
quently, their new statute fails to con
"nect."
1t was all plain sailing enough, il Watts
and Sollace and the others had remained
| III uOllt1 lOI lAIoC MuO Iul ~ NO with Tx
counting of the votes, tue declaration oi
the result, and the issuing of certificates
and, even,the electoral colleges Themselves
had nothing TO do with this question Of ell
, igibilily They had no power to go behirC
the certificates, and SO lhe simple absence
of an elector, returned as appointed, wonlC
have created such vacancy as they vert
authorized to fill. But when they assume
to 60 behind the certificates, inquire into
the question of eligibility, find that per
son returned as an clector was ineligible
and declare that "vaCa1cy" exits, theil
declaration is, in effect, no matter wha
words they use, not that vacancy" ex
lists, but that there has been allure t
elect and neither the laws Of Oregon
Vermont or the other safes named confe
upon the electoral college the power to fl
out their number in ouch case. Rhode
Island has provided for such case. Cor
LES eligibility was inquired into, by tue su
preme court, ard the state legislature wa
convened, In special session, to elect as il
case where the people had failed to max,
a choice.
But suppoHng that the several electoEa
colleges in assuming judicial powers ant
passing upon the question of eligibility ex
ceeded their powers, and 50 their acts wer,
extra judicial, 80 to speak, and void-wha
then? 1t follows that the pretended ap
, | - II
conferred no authority on the appoln.ees t.
act. This would throw them back on tn,
J original appointment, which, being in vi
olation of the express terms of the consli
} tuition, was, also, void.
, We have. so far, taken no account OF tht
! so called designations" of these ineligible
electore, Iecause, as it seem TO us, they d,
not have the 'or' of resignl,ions. To b.
/ valid as such, hey must, as it seems to US
/ have been in VIII ing and com municated L
the executive Or secretary of state. Al
: office, if we understand it, must be resign
ed to the power cJnferng it, or to the pro
per representative of that power. A judg
of the supreme court has the right to re
sign, but the declala ion made in court, :"
"resign, does not constitute res gnation
, A selectmau may resign, bit his declare
ton in mass meeting that he resigns will
not take effect as such, A governor ma,
lay down his office, but his public declara
: ton that he resigns will rot vacate his OF
flee. Aud the same is true of every othe
officer from United States senator down
unless presidential elector may be an OK
ception-which is hardly reasonable.
II we are right upon the questions In
volved in this Oregon case, there should
, be authority somewhere to investigate ant
determine the mniter and go nnfnrcn tn