The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-02-06
BY TELEGRAPH
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION.
Fifth Days Session.

bhiu ~ was buBBebltu tDht CeTlhl0 phCkaBeb
of papers brought by the messenger into
the presence of the commission were be-
fore it as evidence. What those papers
contained was unknown to counsel on his
side and unknown to the commission. The
claim said they were before the commits
sion was based on the fact that were men
toned in one of the objections. The OBJ
jections were not pleadings, but simply the
act upon which reference arises. If volun-
teer DIRECTORS on one side or the other
could make up packages, the action would
be not in accordance with law. AS to
whether evidence before either of the two
houses is transmissable and may be laid be.
for the commission, is question subor-
dinate to that whether any could be re-
ceived. He reviewed the proposition and
said the extraneous evidence proposed was
not to show that the certificate of Stearns'
falsified, but to go into the record and to
say that somewhere between the deposit of
ballots IN the ballot box and the counting
canvass, between the counting and
state canvass, there had been
a mistake or fraud, that somewhere in the
process of the election from stage TO stage,
there had been matter for judicial inquiry.
If justice tolerated it, or the powers of the
commission allowed it, it would carry the
inquiry into all that related to the election.
That tho oarl;Goo.a nf Gtoorn. ,-oa - m
cordance with the act of 1899 was not
questioned, nor was it proposed on the
other side to show that the facts so certi-
fed did not exist, by excessive evidence.
1t wac further proposed to introduce evil
dence to show that Humphreys was
United States officer. This was a matter
of surprise, for it was a matter of discus
sion at the meeting of the canvassing board
Of Florida, and he read the testimony of
Humphreys that he had resigned ten days
before the election. His resignation had
been accepted, and the duties of the Office
discharged by the collector of Pensacola.
There was question whether the two
houses at The time of counting the votes
had any power now under the law for the
intervention of proofs.
Mr.. Evarts went on to say that his pro-
position was that at that stage the two
houses could not entertain the subject OF
proof, and that the process must go on
when all guards had been passed from the
people through the state authorities up to
the point the certificates must stand I'M
challenged and unimpeachable. In reply
to this question by Thurman, whether If it
should appear that four electors were men,
bers of congress their votes could not be
counted, he said there was no safe way ex-
cept to say that the injunction laid upon
the states did not execute itself, and if
the states did not execute it congress must
by law provide for its execution, and
that law did not now exist. Congress &C
cepted the certificates as the recorded title of
electors and go into searching inquiries in
relation to the merits of the two rival
claimants was judicial inquiry, to 60 into
which required plenary powers, and no ju-
dicial body could exercise that power ex-
cept properly constituted court with its
members appointed by the president and
confirmed by the senate. Farther, in the
question of contested elections the right of
trial by jury existed and could not be de-
MED. Assuming that the commission had
right to go into the question, he held that
not having the power to make judi
cial inquiry, it could not consider the ques-
ton, and cited case in which the COVER
nor of Maryland on similar grounds re-
fused to determine the terms of the attor-
ney general of the state. He opposed the
theory advanced on the other side
that the commission possessed quo
warranto powers. He cited the act of the
statcof Florida Of the second of February,
1872, relative to proceedings in quo war
ranto, which provides that when the attor-
ney general refuses, then the REALTORS may
make themselves parties to suit, but it
shall be in private suits and shall not be q
bar to suits commenced by the attorney
general in the name of the state. He read
the thirty first and thirty-second sections
of the Florida statutes, claiming that they
made the governors certificate the final de-
termination of the state. This the Hayes
electors had and the Tilden electors had
not. This was the final and. decisive
declaration of the state. All that pre-
ceded the deposit of the electoral vote
related to the qualification OF electors,
and after the votes had been deposited
with the federal government and in charge
of a federal officer. The netional govern
ment must respect the rights of states and
regard the action it had taken. From the
moment the certificates were seated no
power of the states could arrest it or re-
verse 1t and it must be opened and counted
as it was deposited. The trainers of the
constitution were not, he urged, wanting
In forecast or circumspection, but zealously
guarded against that peril Of monarchies OF
republics-''a disputed succession" This
was inslanced in the provisions that q
second election in the event of the failure
of first must be held before the fourth
of March. Safeguards were provided
all the way along from casting
of the ballot to the final determination
and at the same time to permit the pro-
ceedings to go on, but nowhere WAS 1t pro-
vided that progress of the ballo, should be
stopped by quo warranto proceedings.
Nowhere was there any proceedings that
permitted an election to be reacted. The
acts of congress provided that if state
shall tail to make an election on the day
appointed it may at subseqent day make
an election, which shows determination
to cherish the method Of progress! II there
was anything provided by the election
laws 1t was that there should be no recon-
sideration Of the action taken. Now said
Evarts our proposition as has been laid down
Wah