Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1876-11-22
THE PEOPLES JUDGMENT.

uutSuaotC poS'<s~o - S~y~~S
the final making up of their minds
about the election embrcglio, the
people will ignore all the fine legal
points that have been raised, aud con-
sider only which of the candidates
has the largest honest vote. The
people cannot consider anything OF
the kind. To do SO they would have
to sc, aside the electoral system. Ac-
cording to that system, one OF the
candidates might have vast mslori-
ty Of the popular vote and the other
one be still rightfully elected. The
fact is, the people, as the matter
stands now, or in any shape that it is
likely to assume, are poorly compe-
ten, to form we'll grounded opinion
at all. The knots are for lawyers and
iurists to unite. IS they promise to in
yolve some of the incest points Of
constitutional procedure. As TO
whether mans name being spelt
wrong in the returns should dis
qualify him from being an elec,or.
aud as TO whether the postmasters
elected ough, rightfully to hold, etc,
the equity of common sense may be
sufficient to decide. But the law
underlics, or overtops, all. The peo-
ME are unable to construe the law.
That must be done by men specially
qualified. In Short the people are
less competent to judge OF the
business Of the result in this
election than in any that was
ever held. Who but a man presen,
to hear the testimony before the
Louisiana Returning Board can say
whether any parishes ought to be
thrown out or no, in the count And
who but a man familiar With the
statutes aud constitution of Louisiana
Can tell whether the board performs
its duty legally or mott tpoa these
things hangs the rightful success or
defeat OF one of the candidates. One
cannot form satisfactory conclusion
upon them without u knowledge of
Il =.
There is another legal aspect that
is likely to be presented in this
dilemms even more difficult of solu-
tion than any of those mentioned. Ii
touches the liberty of the Presi-
dent of the Senate with the
returns from the Electoral Col
leges. II his functions are TO count
The votes in presence of a joint session
OF both Houses, with the privilege to
eliminate az discretion, orif Congress
has the right to cast cut the vote Of a
State, are questions. A logical inter
probation of the electoral system does
no, seem to give any such power to
Congress. That system, as we said
in a former issue. carries State
Rights on the face of it. State Rights
means that State alone shall be
competent to say whether her elec-
tors ars properly constituted or
not. The right of untrammeled suf-
frage must be looked after by the ma
tional government before the election
comes of. The result belongs wholly
TO the State, to carry out the logic of
the system. When the election of
electors is properly certified to by tue
State authorities, there should lie ne
appeal Otherwise there would be
no reasonable conformation, and the
whole plan should be changed. Ii
the electoral system has the idea of
nation about it, and not of coated-
Grafton, then the State lines should
be disregarded in Presidential con-
test
The cases cited where Congress
threw out the votes of States THAT of
Arkansas in 1872 especially scarcely
apply to the present situation. There
was an error in the form of making
the returns from that State. The
vote of Missouri s.thrown out in
1912 because the electors were voted
for before the State was formally ad-
mitted. These are technical irregu-
larities, such as courts take eosni-
xance Of. The vote of Louisiana Was
thrown out ut the last election, in re
The reason, We believe, was frauds in
the process. But il appears to US,
and it will appear the same to the
majority OF people, that State