The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1877-03-13
The Arbitrary Arbitrators.

There are persons, notably young and
ardent Republican attorneys, who regard
it as piece of great impertinence for any
but a profound lawyer to question the
soundness of the decisions made by the
Court Of Arbitration
A large majority ef, the people are not
profound lawyers, but they have some
crude notions Of common justice and
common honesty. II our form of gov
ernment is anything more than u sham,
this majority has right to control its ad
ministration, They have right to en-
tertain an opinion and to express it when
the administration is taken from them by
fraud.
AS mere laymsn we do not pretend to
understand the technical hairspitting by
which majority of the Court finds that a
gross fraud is too sacred thing to be in
vestigated. We cannot follow the Court
throughits labyrinth of argument, but
we can see thati's conclusions overthrow
the plainest principles of Justice. And it
is perhaps not great presumption in a lay
man to say that to correct reasoning from
true premises will not lead to palpable er
ror, and that conclusions inconsistent
with each other cannot all be true, mat.
ter by what process they may have been
reached.
Some Of the findings which to non
expert look like contradictions and alb
snraiiies mar- ha snmcn ssst,4lal and ~-ish
perfect fairness, as follows:
In the Florida case their task compelled
them to hold that evidence to prove the
ineligoility Of an elector was admissible,
and in that case the eligibility of Hum
PaRIEs was decided on It's merits In the
Louisiana case, on the other hand, 1t COM
PEELED them to declare that all evidence as
to the eligibility of two of the HAYE,
electors was aliunde, and that their eligi-
bility was presumption of law.
Ia the Oregon case, again, they were
forced to take evidence touching the incl
iglbility OF WATTS, and decision was
made on the point pronounced immaterial
in the Louisiana case.
In the Florida case the Governor 5
false certificate, based on what the courts
of the State had declared false canvass,
was pronounced final and unassailablo.-
In the Oregon case the certificate Of the
Governor based on true canvass and on
his Interpretation of the laws of the State
affecting 1t, was held to be void and of no
effect
In the Louisiana case it was held that
the Commission could not inquire wheth-
er the Returning Board was legally con-
stitutcd or had obeyed the statute Great
ing 1t; nor yet whether the persons to
whom the Governor gave certificates re-
ceived majority of the votes cast in the
State or not. But in the Oregon case it
vas decided that tho act of Governor
GROVER sin giving to E A CRoNrN cer-
ti6cate Of his election, though he receiv-
ed thousand votes less than WATTS, on
the ground that the latter was ineligible,
was without authority Of law, and is
therefore void
This establishes in effect the principle
lii such it can be called-that, while q
Governors certificate is not good against
Repubiican Elector in Oregon wiru ha,
one thousand votes and the equities in his
favor, a Governors certificate is valid
against Democratic Elector in Louisi
ana who has eight thousand votes and the
equities in his favor.
We submit that it requires mind to be
endowed with more than merely common
sense and com non honesty to see in
these findings that consistency and har
mony which are inseparable from truth
and justice.