New Orleans Republican., 1876-12-14

The -Houee 'congroesional COMMITTEE
found itself prepared to take testimon,
yesterday morning, and . few, minute
after eleven O'Clock called the names o
witnesses, the most important being thos'
Of members Of the Returning Board ani
its clerks. Ex-Governor Wells was the lrs
called to the stand, and he promptly re
sponded to all interroga.ories>
Mr.. Harlbut offered the following pro
test, according 60 notification made laa
Tuesday, which was read: ..,.a
The undersigned members df the com
mittee on Louisiana affairs, now in sessior
at the city Of New Orleans, respeotfully
present THE, their protest. and ask that il
may form part of the record of the pro
ceedings Of the commit tee, and in support
of the Same they set forth and show the
following grounds: 4s
That the House of Representatives of the
United States does not possess any juris
dictien to inquire into the late election in
Louisiana for the purposes set forth in the
res, luton appointing this committee.
II is not believed that any person will as-
sert such jurisdiction as to the members of
the State Legislature or as TO State officers.
The ephere of action of these parties is re-
moved from any possible connection with
the House of Representatives, nor, in fact,
ton to take any cognisance Of that class of
officers or their election. ~
The same may be said with equal force
- to members elect of the next House of
Representatives as to whom the resolution
is silent and whose election can only be in
quired into by the House to which ttey
have been elected.
$Io L.
to presidential electors a. to whom this
committee is specifically directed by the
resolution to inquire, for we aro charged to,
Investigate the recent election therein and
the aoti0a of the Returning or Canvassing
Board in reference thereto, and 70 report
all the facts essential to IN honest return of
the votes received by the electors of the
said States for President and Vice Presi.
dent of the United Htates."
Upon this portion of the resolution the
UNDERLINED desire to present their views q
concisely - possible. s5
Tho single question for us II to determine
what arc the constitutional provisions on
this subject, not whether those provisions
are wise or unwise.
Az the undersigned understand the con
stitution of the United Statee, it appears
that the purposeUf creating the Electoral
College was TO provide body wholly with
without the control of the Federal au-
thority in any form. It seems evident that
it was not the purpose Of the trainers Of the
constitution to submit the choice OF the
President and Vice President to popular
vote, nor even to what We now understand
by an election.
A body Of men were to be selected by
who should exercise the
privilege of choice upon their own personal
Judgment, for these high officers. 1t was to
be an intefmediate and Independent body.
This 10 evident from the WHOLE scope of
the articles relating to electors, and 70 al
most u n,cessarily implied in tho title of the
office-for they were to be electors-snd to
be An elector means to have freedom of
choice.
Gradually, in practice. ~ the doctrine of
universal suffrage prevailed, the dig1 ity
and importance of the Office has dwindled
and the office itself degenerated into mere
agency; and, although the provisions of the
have remained unchanged. and
the legal status and capacity of choice have
not been altered in form of law, yet it
would be deemed dishonorable and dis
graceful for an elector to vote otherwise
than as indicated by the people who have
elected him. In other words, the constitu-
tion has in practice been modified py pub
lie opinion.
But the most important inquiry bearing
upon the present subject is, how are these
stitution, and where is vested the power of
scrutiny into their election in States whore
that mode Of appointment has been
To our minds the constitution is specific
and clear: Each State shsll appoint"
etc., 'in suoh manner - the Legislature
may by Law direct"
No other power can appoint.
And the ssats may adopt any mode Of sp
DO wer Of the Legislature % to the mode is
absolutely without limit The only reaer-
walton 10 that they shall not hold any Office
under the United States.
It would seem that tho most sedulous
care had been taken to affirm in this par
tlcular Case the doctrine of State rights,
and IN inspection of the debates will
show tho reasons given st the time.
In the particular case before us the state
popular election ~ the mode of appointing
electors, and this is IN exercise of constitu-
tional power clearly within their compe-
tency, and in conformity with the DRIFT OF
public opinion.
The election of presidential electors oc.
eurs under the law ct the same time with
the State elections, and by the law the
names of all persons voted for, for all OIL
ces, are upon q single ballot. All are gov
same officials, counted and ascertained by
the Same tribunals, declared by the same
authority, and the whole process, from regis
tration to the publication of the result and
the commissioning of the candidates de-
clsred elected, is entirely under the State
laws, administered by State officers, and
determined by State authority.
In all the States of the Union, 90 far -
known to the undersigned. there 10 Q tri'
bunal Of final adjudication which canvasses
and declares the result of all electi0ne, and,
in fact, some such tribunal appears to be Of
absolute necessity in the very nature OF
things; and that tribunal, by Whatever
name it may be denominated, 10 State
tribunal. Its powers vary in different
States, according to the demands of the
eituation and the provisions Of law by
which it 10 governed, but all Of them have
power to examine, TO correct, or tor lawtol
IN the State of Louisiana this tribunal
has by law been invested with very large
powers and provided with . special juris-
Sictiop, and 10 known to the laws OF the
State as tho Board of Returning Officers OF
Elections.
With the reasons which induced the Legis-
lature to confer this remarkable jurisdiction
We have nothing to do. 1t is sufficient that
they have done 80, and We have no doubt
that the history OF the State will show .
necessity existing for the constitution
of the board and the grant of power.
The object in this case, 40 in all others,
in this State, must be presumed to be to
guarantee the freedom of elections. At all
events the action of the State LsgiAlature
in tho matter is in our judgment final ana
cOnclusive.
To this board, under the existing laws,
tho returns of election for presidential cleo.
tors come up for revision, along with, and
% an inseparable part Of, the proceedings
at the Last general election.