Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-12-08

New Orleans to report to the President. Tn
members Of that committee were not publi
| officers If they were, the President invltet
none but members of his own party to servt
on the committee. The attempt to put TIN
garments of Office on this thing would not do
Senator Edmunds said that the third sec
ton Of the second article of the constitution
Of the United States directs the President {,
transmit to congress, from time to time, in
formation as TO the state of the Union. HI
! was commanded to perform that duty, anC
was bound TO obey it. The President, to oh
tam information IN regard to one Of the
States Of the Union, invited certain citizens tC
go there to get such information, and after he
had obtained it, he communicated it to con
greSs. He believed it was of a character
which justified him in transmitting it to con-
gress. He argued that it had never, in the
history Of the government, been usual to re-
fuse to PRINT information sent In by the Pres
ident
Senator Bayard said it was usual to print
documents sent to the senate by the Presi-
dent, but these papers were not official, and
did not pretend to be official They are not
accompanied by any recOmmeC ,a.aIion aaIiion of the
President callins for the action of congress.
The office Of President OF the United States
no more connected him with the election in
any State than the office of senator connected
hlm with such election. Therefore the whole
:.cuon Of the President in sending a commit
tee to New Orleans was without warrant of
law. Ii the two committees in Ne% Orleans
had co-operated and destroyed the partisan
features, there would have been a combined
scrutiny OF the count, the country would have
had at least an attempt to agree upon the law
and the facts. If there should re a delay
until the testimony of the other side was
presented 50 thai both might be printed and
go out together, he would not object. He
desired that every fact be made public in con-
nectlOn with this Louisiana case. In the po-
slhon the senate was now placed there must
be no shuffiing. Every senator must stand
upon the rock of law and truth.
Senator Sargent SAID that the senate had
been told that there must be no shuffiing, no
party trick, on the part of this Presidential
matter; that the people would not tolerate
any such things. He concurred in these
these statements. He then alluded to the
action of the governor of Oregon in issuing
a certificate Of election to Cronin, on account
Of the alleged ineligibility of Watts, and said
that the people Of the State of Oregon had
been defrauded out of an intelligent vote
which they give by this action of the gov
| ernOr. This was a partisan trick; it was
shutilng. He then quoted at length
| from the laws of Oregon, and argued that
under the laws of the State, in the case
Of vacancy from any cause, whether inehgi-
| bility or otherwise, other elections were au-
thorized to fill such vacancy. He also quoted
| from decision of the New York court of
appeals to the effect that person receiving a
minority OF the votes cast at an election
could not be considered elected on account of
| the inehgibilmy of another candidate. Re-
S1,r1,I ,a,,f ha
stupendous trick for part san ends had ever
been played than this act of the governor of
Oregon? The trick had been worked up,
and the whole electoral college had been
shuffled out of sight. He thanked God that
one whole centennial of the American people
had passed before their history recorded
an instance like this. He also quoted from
the case of Vance against Abbott, contested
election case before the senate, in which the
| senate decided that the disabilities of Vance
did not have the effect of electing Abbott, his
opponent, to a seat in the senate from North
Carolina. The Democratic senators were
unanimous in holding this view and support
ing the decision. He next read from the Law of
Oregon requiring the governor to deliver to
the electors the.T certificates, and said instead
Of the governor doing 80 he delivered them
| to Cronin. He asked if any senator could
Senator Merrimon said there had been
many respectable decisions both ways on the
subject of whether the person receiving the
next highest number of votes was elected in
case of the inehgibihty of the person receiv-
| ing the highest number
| Senator Mitchell denied that the governor
fof State, mere ministerial officer, had
right to defeat the will of the people as had
been done by the governor of Oregon.
Senator Sargent said he hoped the Demo
Gratis would examine the nefarious
proceedings of their governor in Ore
gon, and when they would clean their
skirts of that action then let them
denounce the returning board in Louisiana
When he saw the whole electoral college in
the State destroyed he was prepared to be-
lieve that the Democratic party would do
almost any thing to get possession of the
government. The Republican party would
not accept control of the government il they
got it by fraud. The Republican party desired
power, but only by the fair, unbiased, unin-
Inundated voice of the people. He Sargent
would not adhere to party which built itself
up by fraud.
Mr.. Morton said a case could not be found
where majority candidate had been elected
on account of the ineligibility of the person
receiving a majority of the votes cast. The
question had been settled Just the other way
in the senate, and had also been so decided
in the house of representatives in the case of
John Young Brown, of Kentucky. He then
quoted at length from English and American
authorities following on the subject, and also
referred to the case of Abbott against Vance,
contestants for seat from North Carolina.
Abbott claimed to be elected because Vance
was disqualified, but the senate held that
/ -
and Abbott was not elected. The same prin-
ciple had been settled in the case of Yulee, of
Florida, many years ago; also IN the case of
| General Shields, of Illinois. He Morton
would not allow himself at this time to char
acterize this transaction of the governor of
Oregon. He believed there were four or five
instances where Democratic electors were dis
qualified at least to the extent of Watts in
Oregon. The conduct of the governor of Ore
gOn could find no justification in law, in NOR
ais, or in the tolerance Of the people of the
United States.
Senator Thurman also quoted extensively
| from the cases of Abbott, Shields and others,
! and said he was not prepared to discuss this
subject now. He read from the constitution
the clause declaring no person holding an
Office of trust or profit under the United States
shall be appointed an elector, etc, and said
whether others knew of the disqualification of
an elector or not. He was not prepared to
say whether the man receiving the next
! highest number of votes was elected on ac-
count Of the ineligibility of one receiving a
higher number. That was another question,
| which he Thurman would not 90 into now.
| Senator Edmunds said that he had seen it
/ stated in the newspapers that the governor of
| Oregon had undertaken to say that the man
| whom the people declared elected was not
elected he [Edmunds did not believe this,
and if this should be true, was it Democratic
virtue and reform? He did not wonder that
| the honorable senator from Ohio Thurman
/ said that he would hold up little before
arguing in favor of such action as that of the
| governor of Oregon. He read from various
| legal authorities to show that the practice
in both this country and England had been
I Just the opposite TO the doctrine maintained
! by the governor of Oregon.
| The question being on the report of the
committee on printing. to print the depOsi-
/ tions taken in Louisiana, and sent to the
| President by Senator Sherman s committee, it
was agreed to-yeas 40, nays 13-Senators
Key, MDonald, Randolph, Wallace and
Herman voting with the Republicans in the
affirmative
Senator Mitchell submitted the following
q