The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-02-22
WASHINGTON.
THE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
The Argument on the Oregon Case

| WASHINGTON, February 81. - Til
Electoral Commission met at o'clocl
All the members were present. Th
President laid the papers received irol
the two houses before the Commission
and on motion Of Judge Abbott they wer
ordered printed. The papers were the
read by the Secretary.
Judge Clifford asked who appeared n
ObjcctOrs on the two Sides.
Senator Kelly announced that himsel
and Mr.. Jenks would appear as obiector
to certificate Mol.
Senator Sargent announced that Sena
tor Mitchell aud Mr.. Lemoyne WoulC
appear as objectors 10 certificate No. 9,
Mr.. Kelly asked an order for the pro
duction Of the commission and resigna
tion Of Watts from the PostotIice Depart
ment, and also that Senator Mitchell ant
Mr.. Watts might be subprnaed as wit
nesses.
Judge Clifford asked il the witnesses
were in reach. 'et -''
Senator Mitchell said they were both il
the room. .'. I.f 200 #.s.af
The orders in both cases were granted
and at the request Of Senator Kelly, who
was one Of the objeCtors; recess Of hal
an hour was taken to allow him to pro-
cure the necessary books, tSc.
The commission was called 10 order
again at ten minutes past . O'Clock.
Senator Kelley proceeded TO submit
his objection to certificate No. |. He
said he presumed there would not be any
dispute Of the third objection, viz. Thai
Watts was postmaster, and they were
prepared with proof to sustain the allie,
CATION, il this was an office OF profit OF
trust. Mr.. Kelley argued that II Wattl
was not qualified on the 9Th Of Noyem,
Der, when the election took place, he
conld not be elected at any subsequent
election. In the Vermont case, he said
the Legislature had been convened
and decided that Wallace, being
Postmaster, was Federal officer, conse.
quently ineligible, and had filled the
vacancy. The Rhode Island Legislature
had taken similar view, and filed a
vacancy in like manner. He contended
that the States had the power to enforce
the provisions OF the Constitution, and
that il the State Of Nregon had excluded
an ineligible elector she had but done her
duty. He contended that, by the consti.
tuition and laws Of Oregon, the person
receiving the next highest number oi
votes was entitled 10 be declared elected
The election was by law required 10 be
held on the November 9TH, and there wa.
not time to hold second one, neither
was 4 subsequent election authorized
Mr.. Kelly argued that this was ques
ton for the Executive and the Governor
had right to decide il? The Governor
has, he said, the right to inquire into the
case; he has a right to inquire as 10 eli.
gibility and issue a commission when
there is any intraction Of the constitu.
ton. In other words, in the very words
OF the constitution, he shall see that the
laws are faithfully executed. Shall he
sit quietly by, knowing that this man
Watts held an Office Of profit under the
United States, and when he was sworn 70
support the Constitution OF the United
States and the State Of Oregon and see
both trampled under foot by giving Ger.
tiicate TO man who is ineligible? The
GovernoT Of Oregon and Secretary .oI
State are the persons to canvass these
votes. There is no evidence that there
was a canvass by other persons. 1t is for
them and them only, zhd they have deci.
ded; they have given their certificate
that these three gentlemen were eligible
mean including Cronin. 1t matters
not how they came to that decision, the
presumption OF the law will always be
that it was upon sufficient evidence.
Representative jerks next addressed
the Commission for the Democratic side,
and after quite lengthy argument thus
summed up the propositions he had at.
tempted TO show: i''
!. That the only evidence before you
which conforms to the law OF the land is
the evidence as required by the law OF
Oregon and the law Of the United States,
and that which is certified to by the gov.
ernor Of the State Of Oregon. iifIHI (
9. That tho act Of that governor il con-
elusive upon this Tribunal in this in.
quiry. . -#'a-ta#
8. That Watts could not be elected even
il he had majority Of the votes.
1. That the votes being cast for one
who could not be appointed, Cronin, the
next highest, was elected.
5. That even II Cronin was not elected,
there was no vacancy, and being no va.
cancy, there could be no Filing II BY any
college whatever. Then the case stands
in this way: Cronin comes and votes
two others come and vote, but you do moi
know whether they are the persons who
voted or not, because they do not come
identified as the law says they shall come
But, assuming that they were the same
persons who were voted for and properly
identified, which Of these votes should be
counted? Cronin's vote should be count.
ed as cast and the other two as they are
cast, would be the conclusion should
come to from these several points. D
Senator Mitchell presented the objec
tions on behalf Of the Republicans and
in his argument said: In Oregon there
was no law authorizing the Governor tc
certify the minority candidates elected
The Legislature oil Oregon might have
provided that electors should be ap-
pointed by the Governor, the Supreme
Court or Secretary OF State, but il did
moi. but did direct that the people, the
qualified electors shall by a plurality o.
votes to be cast in the different precincts
choose the electors. Gov. Grover in the
matter Of issuing his certificate ignor-
ed the State statutes and followed that O.
Congress.
IfCongress had power to prescribe tn,
form OF certifcate--and believe i
had-then such certificate is not part o
the manner OF appointment, and In issu
ing it the Governor could not change tn,
appointment as made by the State ant
officially determined by the Secretary o
State as the final and conclusive act il
the process Of appointment. Behind thi
ultimate determination Of the Canyaasinj
Board neither the Governor nor the tri
bunal whose final duty 1t is TO count tn
votes Tor President and Vice President
whether il be the President Of the Senate
the two houses OF Congress or the Elect
oral Tribunal-can rightfully go. Tn
Electoral Tribunal can question this o
any other proceedings up to the boundar.
line where they touch the manner Of III,