Mexico weekly ledger., 1876-11-30
REPUBLICANS TO DEMOCRATS.

NEW ORLEANS, Nov. IS, ~1S76.-GEN-
TLEMEN: The majority of the undersigned,
to whom your note Of the 14th inst. was
addressed, only arrived in this city yester-
day evening. We have, therefore, been
unable to reply until this morning, and can
only regret that our communication should
have been given to the press Immediately
upon its delivery, and without the posi-
bIllty OF an answer accompanying 1t. You
remark that you are informed that we came
at the request Of the President to see that
the Board Of Canvassers make a fair count
Of the votes actually cast, and ask that we
meet and confer in order that such influence
as we possess may be eXerted on behalf of
such a canvass of the votes actually cast as
by its fairness and impartiality shall COM
mand the respect and acquiescence OF the
American people Of all parties. We join
heartily with you in cOunsels Of peace, and
in the expression Of an earnest desire for q
perfectly honest and just declaration of the
result OF the recent election in Louisiana
by its lawfully constituted authorities,
and we may add that we know no
reason to doubt that such a declaration
will be made; but we do not see the
propriety or utility Of a conference on the
basis and subject to the limitations you pro-
pose, for we have nc such duty imposed on
US, and, as suggested by the clause of your
note first quoted, we are at most requested
to be witnesses of what shall occur in the
canvass of the votes, without W. or legal
influence over the result, or over the means
by which, under the laws of Louisiana, the
result is to be determined. We can not
doubt that in this you, upon reflection, will
concur with us. We are here as private
citizens, with no official powers. We,
therefore, can not supersede or modify any
law Of this State, nor have we any right to
control or influence any Of its officers as to
the manner in which they shall perform the
ministerial or judicial duties imposed upon
| Them bV IFS laws. and Shnni1 wa hQInp
strangers and without official functions, at
tempt this, we would be condemned by the
people of every State in the Union for an
improper interference with local admins
tration.
The following extracts from the laws of
Louisiana show that the Canvassing Board
is expressly required in certain eases to eX-
ercise judicial, as we'll as ministerial func-
tiOns:
1.-THE sections here quoted provide for the
investigation by the Canvassing Board of all
alleged cases Of fraud, violence. etc., and
authorize the Board to exclude from the re-
turns the votes of all precincts where such
fraud or violence is satisfactorily proven to
have existed or taken place.
Hence if there are any facts requiring the
Judgment Of the Board upon the validity of
any election or returning as affected by such
rauds or violence, it would be a manifest
Interference with State rights and local self
government for persons like ourselves,
without official right, to attempt to influ-
ence or control its judicial election.
Had a corresponding board in the State
OF New York in 1868 been authorized to
pass upon the fraudulent returns of votes
of the city of New York that year, and q
delegation of citizens of Louisiana, how
ever respectable, attempted to influence it's
Judicial action Upon the facts presented to
it under the laws of that State, such an at
tempt would have been universally con-
demned. II the duties of the Canvassing
Board Of Louisiana were merely ministerial
or clerical, as in the case Of any officer
charged by law with the duty of verifying
and declaring the result of any election, and
investigating with no discretion, as when
the President Of the Senate counts and de-
"lares the votes of the Electors of the sever
al States in the election of President n
Vice-President, under the Constitution of
the United States, a different case would be
presented. It is, in our judgment, vital to
the preservation of constitutional liberty
that the habit of obedience to the
forms of law . should be sedu-
lousy inculcated and cultivated. and that
the resort to eXtra-constitutional modes of
redress, for even actual grievances, should
De avoided and condemned as revolutionary,
dlsorganizing, and tending to disorder and
anarchy. To reduce the whole question,
therefore, to the mere clerical duty of
counting the votes actually cast, as pro-
posed by you, in distinction from votes le-
gally cast and returned irrespective of the
question whether they are fraudulently or
violently cast, or otherwise vitiated, in
wolves a notification of the provisions of
the laws of Louisiana, which nave already
been adjudicated and declared valid by the
Supreme Court-would be wholly uniustif-
able here as well as in any other State of the
Union which had provided laws to protect
the rights of voters and the purity of the
ballot. We can not concur in your PROPOSE
tion for a conference on that basis. Very
respectfully,
John Sherman, Ohio. VIM. D. Kelley, Penn.
Stanley Matthews Ohio. John A. Kasson, Iowa.
j. A. Garfield, Ohio. E. W. Stoughton, n. Y.