The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-12-27
p.a,, ,.s,,ing.Boarsaz,s Lar.

. -Ne
rYwAY rRuHBuftLt OPINION OF TIE LEoALI.
TT orsTHE LOUISIANA c1svAssEEgg, ACTON los! D
TO the editor efthe Ns'0 York Eus"'"g
Post: I ,.,. ...4,n.
you say: .,o+
the sentimental wrong In Louisiana Is
Sair Offset to the sentimental wrong In ore
eon have failed utterly to show that the
proceedings Of the Cronin college were ac,
cording TO State law, as the proceedings Oh
the Returning Board clearly were. -
have nothing to say In reSara 70 oas-
gon, but your statement thas enc pfoce aa.
ings Of the Returning Board OF Loulsiana
were clearly according to STATE Ia" canho''
! think, be sustained.
In the paper issued by the VISITING Denio-
Gratis December 9Th it was SHOWN tnas sne
Returning Board had no jurisdiction under
tho State law over the canvass Of votes for
nresidential electors. presume you would
admit that II four justices OF the peace were
to assemble in New Orleans and canvass the
vote OF that State for presidential electors
without statutory authority for so DONG
their canvass would be without lurlsd'c-
ton. and the result proclaimed by them en-
titled to no, respect whatever, Unless the
Returning Board is vested with statutory
authority to CANVASS the vote for preslden.
t;al electors It's canvass is equally Wlthout
jurisdiction, and the result 1t has proclaimed
enuaIlv unentitled to respect. Section 2 OF
the Louisiana statute OF 1872, giving the
Returning Board power "to make the re-
turn of nil elections" is presumably limited
to the elections mentioned in the first sec
ton Of the act, among which the election
for presidential electors is not named.
A previous law OF 1870, providing Tor
the appointment OF presidential electors,
directed the canvass Of the returns for those
officers to he made by "the Governor IN
presence Of the Secretary OF State the Az
torney-G eneral, and district Judge OF the
district in which the seat OF government
may be established, or any two OF them.
RI the provision Of the act OF 1872 giving
the Returning Board authority "to make
the returns Of all elections" repeals by inn
plicution the provisions in the act OF Is'o
giving that power to the Governor, &C,
does it not follow that the provision OF sue
list section OF the same act OF 1872, which
declares I" that all other acts on the subject Of
election laws be and the same and are hereby
repealed," repcals absolutely and entirely all
other provisions Of the act Of 1870 provid-
ing the manner OF appointing presidential
electors? Can it be that the words call
elections" in the I'd section refer to part OF
the act Of 1870, and the words Gall other
acts on the subject Of election law" in the
fist section do not refer to the act OF 1870!
Does the clause in the I'd section OF the act
Of 1872 repeal by implication part OF the act
OF 1870, and the clause in the list section
not repeal the other provisions OF the act OF
1870? r,.
No opinion was expressed IN the paper OF
December 9th as to whether the law pre-
viding for the appointment OF presidential
electors in Louisiana was repealed by the
act OF 1872 or not, but it was insisted mat
the act Of 1872 either repealed the whole OF
the law of 1870 or it did not repeal any of
if. This position seems to me indisputable !;
and it follows that the Returning Board has
no Jurisdiction to canvass the vote for presl-
| Dental electors, because il the act OF 1870
is repealed there is no provision for the
election OF presidential electors; il not re-
| neaIed. the Governor and State officers, and
not the Returning Board, make the can
yass. Your statement, therefore, that the
proceedings OF the Returning Board in
| Louisiana were according to State law is an
assumption Of the very point in contro-
| yersy.
The paper of December 9th further shows
that even il the Returning Board had arl-
thoritv to canvass the vote for presidential
electors it would have no jurisdiction to
throw out votes on account of intimidation
or violence unless the foundation had been
laid therefor by 4 statement OF the commits
sioners of election or supervisors OF regis
traton within the time and in the manner
prescribed in the statute, which is twenty
four hours from the closing of the polls il
made by the commissioners, and within
twenty-four hours Of the time OF receiving
the returns from the commissioners II mace
by the supervisors OF registration, and that
no such statements were made by either
within the time and in the manner required
by law.
The object of Limitation as to time was to
prevent the manufacture OF statements after
the result Of the election had been ascer-
tanned, as we'll as to afford time to meet the
charges. 1t is not true, as suggested In
some quarters, that there is no limit as to
the time within which the supervisor is to
make his statement. Section 43 requires
the supervisor to make out his consolidated
return and forward the same by mail to the
State Returning Board within twenty-four
hours from the time he receives the returns
from the VI CiCCttOii, diu oSS'
ton 2G requires him to forward his statement
as to intimidation, ETC., when he returns hi:
consolidated return. 1t is therefore clear
that the statement of violence, ETC., which
is to accompany the return, must be made
out within the twenty-four hours. State
ments which do not accompany the returns
and are not made in twenty-four hours, can.
not legally come before the Board, nor can
it properly entertain jurisdiction OF the
same.
After careful examination OF the Lou
isiana statutes it seems to me clear that the
proceedings of the Returning Board in
Louisiana in canvassing the votes for cleo
tors of President and Vice-President were
not according to the law OF that State.
Yours, respectfully,
-a LYMAN TRUMBULL.
Chicago, December II, 1876.
The Next Senate.