The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-11-29

vision and why it was deemed necessary by its
trainers. This authority is found in the
language of learned commentator upon
the federal constitution: 1.-THE reason WHY
the legislature of such state has this appoint
ing power is owing to the belief that the
wisdom and patriotism ofthis honor
able and responsible body will appos.1t
no one an elector but him who is eminentlv
qualified for an honorable and faithful
discharge of this patriotic duty as they have
the full means OF knowing the character and
qualifications of her citizens, who nost
likely, would honestly perform this branch
OF public service; and that those electors
may be relieved from the discharge of any
public responsibility but this, and entirely
free from temptation TO do wrong through
partiality or prejudice toward the candidates
for president or vice president il is wisely
provided in this clause that no senator or
representative in congress- or person holding
an Office OF trust or protitunder the United
States, shall be appointed an elector." alt
may however, have been part of the policy
of the provision quoted to prevent the en-
ployment of federal patronage in state
election" us Cal.,) l21. The reasons for this
provision are sound and ample. That
in selecting and voting for dis
qualified persons, both the letter
and the spirit OF the constitution
have been grossly violated there can be no
doubt, and the same might we'll be said of
an act of the legislature which would quail
ify disqualified person who had been
chosen to such Office. The Office OF post
master is one ''of trust or profit under the
United States;" he holds the office under
the party in power when chosen elector and
his subsequent election would not make
him entirely free from the temptation TO do
wrong through Partially or prejudice to-
ward the candidates for president and vice
president of The same political faith of that
party under which he held his Office In
addition to this, as has been urged by the
leading democratic papers, the choice of the
electOr is one made by the people when cast
ing their ballots and in this the people give
him all the power that he gets and no sub
sequent act of his will increase his powers
to hold the office nor change the power that
the people have given him; the people in
these instances have delegated their full
powers to persons disqualified from accept
ing it, The legislatures in these states
might, probably, have endeavored to provide
for the emergency which has arisen, if such
an unfortunate condition of affairs had been
anticipated, but the constitutional pro-
vision itself seemed a sufficient safeguard,
and as before intimated. there is
serious doubt if such an act
would not be in controvention OF the letter
and the spirit OF the constitution. But this
question is not material, as it was not
thought necessary by these states in their
cooler moments to provide for q contin-
gency that was already provided for. 1t was
never considered possible for it to arise. The
great wonder is that it was possible in those
great states, in the selection OF four or five
officers that vast conventions of wise men
should select disqualified men and without
thought of the great compact that binds
this Union.
The constitution provides that leach state
shall appoint, in such manner as the
L.. -. Al. Al
provision of course it could be provided by
state laws for the filling of vacancies. These
states have not provided by enactments that
the unlawful holding of an Office creates q
vacancy; that ii does not create vacancy
or that a subsequent removal of the obstacle
to his legal holding will render HE holding
of the office legal; in short. there is no
statute regulating the difficulties. In the
absence of statute upon the subject, COM
mon law and common sense should guide
us ont A common sense view of ii would |
be that the holding of the office legally or
illegally is not the question, but has the |
person been legally chosen to the office, and |
can person be said TO be the legally
chosen officer who is not eligible, who is net
competent. and in whom the people are ek-
pressly prohibited by the constitution from
making choice. 1t follows that these
states either lose the electors entirely, or
that the democratic candidates should be de-
clared the legitimate choice OF the people.
The states can not lose their full vote; one or
the other of the candidates has been chosen,
and the one that is eligible to the office,
and consequently capable of being chosen.
would naturally. seem the proper person
to hold the office and not the person
who is incapable of being a legitimate
choice. While he holds an office Of trust or
profit as TO being chosen to any other or
flee, he stands on the same footing with one
\ IL. IN
choice in either the spirit of the eonstitu-
ton has been violated. A common law
view of it would be, that in the absence OF
statute and without decision of the courts
of this country we should go TO the law Oh
England, the very foundation stone, OF
American law, and if the question !. mere
settled We are in duty bound TO accept It as
il is there decided. The EnShsh RUE Is
that the candidate receiving the minority
vote, if eligible, is elected over the UNI
eligible candidate who b<S recei'eu ma
jority of the vote, and subsequent resig
nation does not remove the causes OF aus
qualification. Tbs rule has been adopted
bv the courts * this country. where they
have had = occasion to act upon
the ouesdon, except in Wisconsin.
and tl,1re the bench was divided
Attorney General Taft argues that su, h |
shodld not be the rule; that 1.-THE funda- |
yfental rule with us is that the majority 1
shall rule, and that an election is the delib- |
crate choice of a majority of plurality OF |
the electors and any doctrine which opens |
the wsy for the minority rule in any case is
anti-republican." He admits that the Eng |
fish authorities are contrary to his opinion of !
the laws of this country but he fails to cite the
decisions of the states of Oregon California |
and Indiana, TO show what the doctrine in |
this country is. as far as adjudicated upon,
and it, as he says, the English rule would |
be entirely antagonistic to our institutions"
in iavoring the minority rule in any case,
what would Mr. Taft's opinion be as to the |
election of Polk, Buchanan and Lincoln. |
and the effort of MS radical friends to give |