The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-02-15
FLORIDA BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
A Specimen of Mr. David Dudley Fields
Argument.

toral Commission, Mr.. David Dudley
Field said:
There is no pretence that the true and
lawful vote of the State of Florida was
not given for the Tilden Electors, but
the. sole pretsxt4 that, the truth cannot
be proved as against the certificate OF
Stearns. That trtith is rolled ups and
concealed in thatScerti6cate, and Con-
gress, whether acting in separate houses
or Joint house, cannot consider any act
which is certified by Stearns. You may
ask, in the first place, upon what founda-
ton that as you are told that you are to
take that certificate as conclusive eyi-
deuce against Everything that could be
proved on the other side? By what rule
Of evidence-by what doctrine of law
are you deprived Of the right to examine
into the TRUTH Is it not a universal rule
that every Judge is invested &c necessitate
with power to take all pertinent evidence
in respect to facts upon which his judg-
ment is to be pronounced, unless there be
someepositive law declaring that certain
certificates. or other documentary. evil
dence shall be conclusive? "Show me-"
said Mr.. Field, 'the positive law which
makes the certificate of Stearns evidence
against truth /? Where:is itT' It is not
in the Constitution, that is certain; it is
not in the laws of the State of Florida,
that.is. certain. rs it in any law of Con-
gfass? The only law | know Of bearing
on it is the,act of 1892, re-enacted in the
Revised Statutes, which states that the
Executive Of the State shall deliver to
the Electors a certificate that, they are
Electors, but it does not state that it shall
be the truth. Suppose ] offer to prove
that certificate is wholly false and fab
ricated for the purpose of cheating.
Take, lone. of the. oldest and proudest of
States of this Union, the State of Massa-
chusetts, of which my friend Nj. Com
missioner Abbott is so worthy represen-
tative. Suppose that the honored Gov
ernor of that State should become so
debased and fallen as to certify that in
the recent election the Tilden and Hen.
ricks Electors had received majority of
the votes of the people of Massachusetts,.
Does any man mean to tell me that you
cannot prove that certificate to be false'2
Where is the law to support such a state
ment? Nay, more. If an act of Con-
gress had declared thatcthst, certificate
should. be conclusive, that act would be
unconstitutional and for'this reason, the
Constitution declares or asserts that the
person haeing the highest number of
votes shall be President-not the. person
declared to have the highest number of
votes. You cannot, therefore, manufac'
ture certificate to take from the person
actually having the highest number of
votes such rights as he is entitled to by
these votes, and if you were, by an act OF
Congress, to declare in the most positive
terms that the. certificate of the Governor
should be. conclusive against, all proof,
yof would transcend the limits of organ
ie law, Youcannot say that the certit-
cate of the Governor of Massachusetts,
for example, should override the votes of
the Electors Of Massachusetts. You
could not do so if. VOL. would, and ! am
sgsessysous would not Lyon seould.. The,
lanehage Of. the actsof Congress isltot as
strong as the language of State law gen.
erally as to the canvass of votes. Take
the case of Wisconsin, There "a Jaw Of
the State had declared that the State cam
vassers should determine, certify, and
declare the result-should declare who
!, was Governor. A man got into the office of
Governor upon such certificate declar-
ing that he was elected. A rival claim
ant brought up the case upon a writ of
quo. aoarra,to. The first party had MS
position and claims advocated by the
ablest counsel of the State of Wisconsin.
His argument was: You cannot inquire
into the case, because the certificate of;
the State canvassers is conclusive. mo"
says the Court, in an opinion which does
them immortal honor, and which will re-
main living moriurnelIt of the patriot
ism of that Court and its inaexible de-
termination of purpose as long. as the re-
port shall last "The title of the Cover
nor depends upon the votes of the people,
upon those little ballots placed in ballot
boxes declaring the supreme will of the
people. 1t is not who shall be certified
by a board of canvassers, but who have
been poted for by the people" The Court
declared that the claimant was entitled
to the Office, and it elected the usurping
Governor. What is this commission to
do? Its to declare whether any and what
votes. are votes provided by the Const!-
tuition, not to declare what are those votes
certified by Governor Stearnes. You are to
certify what are the lawful votes upon
which President of forty-five millions of
people is to be declared elected and to be
inducted into Office. Is it not implied
that writ Of quo ararranto to try the title
of the President of the United States is
within the purview of the Constitution?
Can anybody doubt it !? The .Constitu.
ton has declared that the personahaVing
the highest number of votes shall be
President; not the person certified to. It
has not invested any tribunal with exclu-
siyeppwer2 sNoinatter how determined
by,ahy pfcliminary authority, there still
remains,the right to enact'a law giving
the right to the exercise of a writ of quo
uarranto. No such law exists, ain sor-
ry to say, and, i'll might be permitted
to say so, it ought to exist / ought
not to say, perhaps, but must say it in
TRUTH that. it is no small reproach to
craftsmanship that for one hundred years
no law has been provided to meet the
emergency with which we are now
brought face to face. / know that one
eminent member of this commission
(Senator Morton) has labored assiduous-
ly and zealously to have such law
passed, and of all the titles to which he
canlay claim for respect, am sure that
that will be remembered hereafter to his
honor, and after the struggles of the
passing hour have closed, when the time
shall come when men may look at his
grave, they will not remember him by
the contest in which he was engaged, but
rather that in the service of his country
he labnred, although hitherto unavailing-
ly, to achieve beneficial result. But
whether there be 81 law emitting to a
writ Of quo warranto or not i'll the case
of a President, L think all parties will
agree that such law would be constitu-
tional and if a law to provide for writ
of quo warranto would be constitutional,
.la - &c oonct;tutiora1 for anv other