New-York tribune., 1876-12-08
THE PITH CT TIE MATTER.

The questions at issue in the Presidential
dispute are now clearly set forth. On the
face of the official returns, MesSrs. Hayes and
Wheeler have majority of the electoral
votes. But it Is claimed:
/. That the return from Oregon, giving three
votes for Hayes, is irregular and illegal, be-
cause not signed by the three persons to whom
the Governor gave certificates.
IL. That the return from Louisiana which
should be counted is not the one signed by
the electors holding certificates, but the one
signed by persons who claim that they were
elected and are said to have been elected by
another person, who claims to have been
elected Governor some years ago.
We cannot conceive of q case more simple
than that of Oregon. An electoral college,
like legislature, or board, or any other legal
body of any kind, is obliged, when it enters
upon its duties, to verify the qualifications of
its members, and n majority necessarily de-
cides. This power is unequiyocally given to
fine electors by the law which requires them
10 fill vacancies in their number, for that IN
wolves the power to determine whether yacan-
cies exist The electors met minority found
that one person who had not been legally elected
was present, holding an illegally issued certiti-
cate. The majority thereupon declared that
this person had not been legally elected that
a vacancy existed, and proceeded to fill
that vacancy. No man will dispute that
tbev could have done this, had the
certificate by a mere clerical blunder been
made out to John Jones, instead Of John ii.
Jones. No sane man will deny their power to
right the wrong, if, in mere wanton rascality,
the Secretary of State had made out certlii-
cate for a man who received no votes or mi
nority of votes Their power to decide upon
tbe qualifications of a member is not less clear
when the Governor, in violation of long es-
toblished rule of law, by the Democrats them
selves acted upon elsewhere, declared per-
son TO be elected who, according to his own
canvass and declaration, had not received a
majority of votes.
In Missouri, for example, q Democrat re-
ceiyed majority of votes who was not legally
| oualiied For the purpose OF forcing the
| Democrats to declare the true rule of law, the
| Republican opponent claimed the election
The claim was denied first by the Democratic
Governor and Secretary of State, and after
ward by the Democratic electors themselves,
ON the perfectly Impregnable ground that a
man aaanst whom the majority voted cannot
be elected by the fact that the one for whom
tbe majority voted Is ineligible. As Connecti-
cut Judge pithily observed, in deciding similar
case. "Whatever may be doubted, it is per-
fectly certain that the people did not want
'Uou." A majority vote for an Ineligible
candidate is simply an election of nobody
Having acted upon this rule, and properly, In
the exclusion of minority claimants in MIS-
souri, and elsewhere, the Democrats must also
abide by it in Oregon. Indeed, If it were pos
sible to reverse that rule thus letting in
Democrat who was not elected in Oregon, the
same reversal would let in the Republican
claimants in Missouri and two other States,
and SO deprive the Democrats of many votes
as the whole State of Oregon casts.
What rcmainsf single question of fact
whether in certain precincts Of louisiana tho