, 1877-02-10

WHOLE NO. 81.

were cited as instances of this action
He argued that the paramount question
before the commission was whether the
face of the returns is to be conclusive
and binding. The usual form OF stating
the question: "Can you 90 behind the
certificates :" is an erroneous form. The
question should he reversed 50 as to
read: "Can certificates 90 behind the
truth and conceal iti" There is no pre-
tense that the vote of the State was not
given for Tildtn and Hendricks, the sole
pretext for denying the fact being the
certificates of Governor Stearns. They
say that the truth can not be proven "a
against the certificates. This includes
the proposition that the two houses OF
Congress have no right, either separately
or together, to consider or INQUIRE into
any act which Governor Stearns NAV
certify to Congress Suppose Gov
crnor should become so debased as to
corruptIy and falsely certify to Congress
that one set OF electors had received a
majority OF the votes of the State, is
there no remedy The Constitution
nowhere declares that the certificate of
the Governor shall be conclusive against
all proof in regard to the election of the
President The Constitution distinctly
declares that it is the person having the
highest number of votes who shall be
declared elected, and it can not be ripbt-
fully said the certificates of the Governor
OF o State can override this provision of
the Constitution. Field cited the case
OF Barstow, OF Wisconsin, to show the
propriety OF the proceedings by Quo
u0ITdnto. IN that case the usurping
Governor was Ousted by the Courts, and
the rightful Governor installed in his
stead, case parallel to that of the Gov
ernorship OF Florida. Field regretted
there was no similar provision Of law
bearing on the question Of the Presi-
dcncy, and paid high tribute to the
foresight and craftsmanship OF one mem
ber of the commissions Morton-for
having discovered the latent difficulty 10
the question of a disputed Presidency
and labored earnestly for its settlement.
After recess Kasson addressed the
commission aud said: What is the case
before US First, u certificate comes to
Congress as required by the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States and in
coiormity to the statutes of Florida, Ger
tifying to the electoral vote of one com
Amonweslth, which my honorable friend
who last spoke Crucker) was pleased to
call the sovereign States of this Union.
That certificate is first opened and read.
There is second certificate opened in
joint meeting of the two houses of Con-
gress in which persons signing the same
precede their certiication by certificates
signed by an officer not recognized by
the laws Of the United States, nor by
the statutes OF Florida as the certifying
officer, he being Attorney General. The
second certities that there is no provis.
ion of law of Florida whereby the result
OF said returns can be certified to by the
Executive ot said State. Admitting
that the certificate, if IT has any force,
will show that his action is without law
and without sanction by the statutes of
the States. Third, the electors certify
to their own action, to their own quail.
tication, and they themselves notify the
Governor OF their election. That is Ger.
titlcate No. 2, q certificate OF uncertify.
ing persons in view of law, State and
national. That certificate was presented
and opened. The third certificate is
still more extraordinary, still more
wanting in the elements Of verifcation,
also demand, consideration. 1t is not
only er post .taeto, it is certified by an
officer not in existence until the func.
tions OF the office have been exhausted;
certificate which recites proceedings
subordinate and superior to the judici.
ary nf the State certificate which
caDyassipg board might under some cir.
cunEstances report TO the State officers,
CONCLUDED on page 8,