The daily gazette., 1876-12-15
From the n. y. Journal of Commerce,
Oregon. Vermont and Lou
iSiana.

oregon. Vermont and Lou
iSiana.
Our readers are fully prepared, by what
was said in these columns some weeks
ago, to consider the questions relating to
the electoral votes ia these States. We
then stated the prospect that these ques-
tions would become one of paramount
importance, and recommended that the
advice of the Supreme Court of the Unit
ed States should be obtained if possible.
Partisan journals on both sides are of
course taken by surprise at the new as
pect of the case, as yet we have nowhere
seen an intelligent statement of the ar
guments The Republican partisan press
has treated the Governor of Oregon to the
widest denunciation, and some of them,
the Tribune notably,take theposition that
the president of the Senate need not even
open the regular Oregon votes yet bear
ing the Governors certificate. That pa
peri somewhat excited language, threat
ems the Inauguration of Mr.. Hayes by
force, if necessary. This is of course the
extreme of folly, and no one will be i'm
pressed by such angry discussion, if it
can be called discussion. The vote of
Oregon will not be thrown into the waste
basket, nor will the vote Of Vermont cleo
| tor and two of the Louisiana electors (and
possibly some others) be counted until
the important Constitutional question
involved has been considered calmly by
| the most eminent legal minds.
A restatement of the case will be timely
now.
First, as to the facts. The Constitution
prohibits the appointment as elector of
any Senator, Represc ntative or office
holder under the United States Govern
ment. In three States at least the people
voting for electors voted for such office
holders. In each State these office-holders
resigned their offices after the election.
The Governor ofLouisiana and Vermont
knowing the facts, issued TO these office
holders certificates declaring their app.int-
ment as electors. In Oregon the Cover
nor refused to issue such certificate, and
issued his certificate to the three candi.
dates having the highest number of votes
Treating the votes cast for the Office -hsl
der as no votes. One of these candidate.
has been voted for on the Democratic
ticket.
/ There are two questions to be consider
separately. l. Were the Governors o
Vermont and Louisiana right, and i
their Constitutional, in issuing the certi
ficate TO the incompetent elector, or wa
. the Governor of Oregon right in refusin
. | ito
5 .. Was the Governor of Oregon rigl
! in treating the votes thrown in oppositio
to the Constitutional prohibition as vol
and no votes, and giving the certiticat
to the three candidates having the high
est number of voteso
II While we do not intend to express al
/ opinion on the second question, we hav
no doubt whatever as to the first, no
have we yet heard or seen any attempt t,
Justify the Governors of Vermont an,
!. Louisiana in issuing their certificates. |
is absurd to talk OF this matter as tricl
{ or a technicalty. No man who respect
the Constitution so regards it, and the vi.
tai import of the prohibition-vitalto tn
integrity, virtue and life of the Govern.
ment-will be seen at once i'll clear ligh
when the extent of the claim is sexamne,
1t is this, no less and no more: That MIR
, Hewitt, chairman of the Democratic Ma
tonal Committee and Representative il
Congress, might have been nominated a
an elector in New York, and Mr.. Chand
Ter, chairman of the Republican Nationa
Committee and aCabinet Secretary. will
all that official influence over fifty thous
and office-holders which he has latel,
withheld, might have been nominated il
Michigan; and these two persons, not
withstanding the Constitutional prohibi
tion, might have exerted all their oifica
power to elect themselves, and when sue
cessful, might resign their old offices ant
demand certificats as electors, and that i
would be the duty of the Governors to is
lsue the certificates. The case is the samt
whether the candidate be Representa-
tive, Cabinet officer or postmaster, ant
the Constitution prohibits every step il
the process of appointing such person al
elector. The certificate is void because
against the Constitution, is false becaus,
it declares that an elector has been ap
pointed whom the State had no power t.
appoint.
On the second question VIC propose to
state the arguments on both sides, for the
Information of our readers. This ques
ton involves the constitutionality of tn,
Electoral votes in Vermont, Louisiana
and Oregon, and the main point to b,
decided is, whether the candidates re.
ceiying the highest number of votes are
elected, without regard to votes cast fo
q Federal office-holder. 1t is conceded
on all hands that if there were no suct
votes, the plurality rule prevails, and i,
makes no difference what ticket the can
didates are on. If Republican candi.
date in New York had run ahead of De.
mocratic candidates, the Republican
candidate would be elected. and a Demo
crat who had the smallest vote would be
defeated. 1t sometimes occurs that sew
eral Electoral tickets are run as in the
late election, when the Cooper ticket was
the third, and in such cases the plurality
| rule prevails. The arguments of tho two
parties are these:
| l. The Republican Ciaim.--Tho win OF
the majority in Oregon, Vermont and
Louisiana being known, Hayes and
Wheeler have right to the votes of all
the electors in those States, The fact OF
electors being office-holders, who the
Constitution says shall not be appointed,
only operates to render them incompet-
ent to vote as electors until they shall
have resigned their offices. They may
be voted for and resign before receiving
their certificates. Their incompetpney
| ouubt only tn work in uanb Statn