The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1877-02-28
hitting evidence. The most notable argyll
ments were those Of MIR. Merrick and Judge

hitting evidence. The most notable argu-
ments we're those Of MIR. Merrick and Judge
Matthews.
Mr.. Merrick, in behalf Of the Democratic
counsel, pointed out that there were two propo-
sitions with respect to going behind a duly all
thenticated return Of o State. One was, that
the Federal government could inyalidate the
return, or in other words, reject a vote on it's
own motion, without the consent Of the State.
The second proposition WAS altogether differ
ent. It is that O State itself may undertake
proceedings to invalidate the certificate of the
governor. After n State, Of it's own will, has
ilnpcachcd the 60, erlor's certificate, the Fed
eral government may go behind it.. This he
claimed had been done III the case of Florida,
where the State had done everything in her
power to o~vertnrn the Hayes certificate, and
has made it the duty of the commission to COM
plete that work. Mr.. Merrick claimed that the
power of counting votes, granted by the Consti-
tuition, carries the power to determine what
are votes, and that this determination is the
first duty Of the commission.
Charles OtConor made an offer to produce
evidence before the commission, but this was
objected to by Mr.. Evarts.
Judge Matthews in his remarks reviewed the
series of acts by which electors arc appointed,
asserting that the final declaration by the le-
turning board is in the completion Of the ap-
pointment. That appointment completed, can
not be set aside, except i'll the interval Of time
between the final act of appointment and the
day on which, under the law, the electors per-
form their functions by casting their votes.
The authority of tho State over the electoral
vote closes, he said, when the electors have
voted. Whatever is done with the votes after
that time is done in accordance with the FEEDER
al Constitution and Federal law: In respect to
counting the votes the question is not who
shall count them but how they shall be counted.
Tho commission had n certain discrimination,
but it must be careful not to undertake q judi
cial examination such as is required in trying n
writ of quo %,rarrdntO, which involves going to
the very bottom and ascertaining the number
of legal votes cast. If the court attempted to
sift the facts concerning the States submitted
to them to the very bottom, how long q time
would be required? He declared that this
power was NOT conferred upon Congress. The
only question for the commission to determine
was, who were the de Jact0 electors in Florida
on the sixth day of last December.
Mr.. Stoughton spoke for half an hour, follow
ing Mr.. Matthews, and declared that the Florida
returning board was the final authority estab-
lished by the Legislature of Florida to declare
who were the electors. and the tribunal had no
power to 60 behind the appointment by the
State as declared by the provisions of State law.
The commission was appointed to count cleo
toral votes, and not to count the votes by which
electors were elected.
Mr.. Evarts, when he addressed the body,
spoke with unusual delibcration-so slowly, in
deed, that 4 rapid long hand writer could have
written down every word he spoke. He empha-
sized his words %curiously, drawing them out,
seeming to pronounce them syllable by syllable.
He assumed that the Hayes electors were de
fdcto possessors Of the power to cast the clccto-
raj votes of Florida on Dec. G, 1876, and there
fore the quo trdrrdnt0 proceedings could not
undo their acts, because the judgment Of the
court was subsequent thereto. He commended
with Mr.. Matthews that the choosing Of electors
was not complete till the canvassing board had
passed upon the returns from each county, or
in other words that the act Of the people Of the
State was inchoate till the vote of the State was
consolidated and promulgated blythe canvassing
officers. A point OH which he dwelt ut cOnsid-
cradle length WAS that Congress did not possess
judicial powers. nnd could not confer it upon a
mixed tribunal like the Electoral commission,
because the Constitution vests judicial powers
in the courts alone.
Mr.. Charles O'Conor followed Mr.. Evarts.
He struck out on an entirely novel line of
argument in his Interpretation Of the twelfth
article of the Constitution, by claiming that
the word certificates WAS the governing one in
the sentence, "thc president of the Senate
shall, in the presence of the Senate and House
Of Representatives, open all certificates, and
the votes shall then be counted" He met the
argument Of Evarts and Matthews in regard to
the quo ,Udrranto proceedings, and declared that
the act of the electors was not completed till
their votes were received by the two houses Of
Congress and counted, and hence their casting
their votes for Hayes was not an accomplished
decd done by de tdct0 officers.
Following the remarks made BY the gentle
men on both sides was a secret session of the
commission. The following is q copy of the
minute on the official record of the commission
On motion of Mr.. Justice Miller, ordered
That no evidence will be received or considered
by the commission which was not submitted to
the joint convention of the two houses by the
president of the Senate with the different GER
~tiicates, except such as relates to the eligibility
of T. C. Humphreys, one of the electors.
The vote was as follows: Yeas-Bradley,
Miller. Morton and Strong-S. N~ays-Abbott.
Bayard. Clifford, Field, Hunton, Payne and
Thnrman-7.
On motion Of Mr.. Abbott, rcsolred, That in
the case of Florida the commission will receive
the evidence relating to the eligibility of Fred
erick C. Humphreys, one Of the persons named
in certificate No. l as %clector, fcas-Abbott,
Bayard, Bradley, Clifford, Field, Hunton,
Payne and Thurman-s. Nays-Edmunds,
frellSHu.Sen NaIliclu, lAo"i, .Aiiiei,
and Strong-7.
The secretary of the commission was in
structed to inform the counsel on the respective
sides that the commission was prepared to hear
argument on the question of the eligibility OF
Frederick C. Humphreys as an elector.
Mr.. Humphreys is one of the Republican
electors, and the question raised as to the eligi-
bility is that he was at the date Of his election
e United States shipping commissioner, which
is alleged to be such an office of trust and profit
as to disqualify him from acting as e%lector, but
which office, it is asserted by the Republicans,
he resigned before the election.
The committee by their decision have before
them in the Florida case three sets of papers,
namely: First the certificate Of the Hayes
electors second, that Of the Tilden electors,
and third, the paper containing the record OF
the circuit court of Florida on the quo ,oar-
ranto ind the subsequent action of the legisla-
ture of flat State.