The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-02-10
MIR. MEEnltK,s ARGUMENT.
Power TO go Behind the Certificates.

At IL o'clock tho court took recess
to IL 40, when the Democratic side OF
the question was opened by II. 7. Msr-
rick Of Washington. His argument was
to the following effect:
That proposition Of law, MS | under
stand It,. is: What. generally. are the
powers OF this Commission I? What evil
dence IL now before the Commission,
and what evidence Is competent. In cd.
dition to that now before YOU, for coun-
sci to introduce? First, then. as to the
power Of this Com mission, the organic
act under which this Commission has
been established provides that In oil
cases Of dispute the Commission shall
act with oil tho powers Of Congress,
and In each case 'may take into view
such petitions. dispositions and other
papers. II any, rs shall by the constitu-
tion and now existing law be compe-
tent and pertinent in such consldera-
tion." As TO tho regularity Of the tes-
timonY. | presume there will be
no question. Tho committees sent
out by Congress gathered 1t and
reported 1t. When objection was made
to tho counting of the votes from that
State ct the time they were opened by
the President Of the Senate, In the pres
ence Of tho two houses. In pursuance Of
tho order OF the bill. the certificates
from that State, being three in number,
with the papers accompanying those
certificates. and the objections and
evidence that has been taken by the
committees of Congress In reference to
tho regularity and legality OF that vote
were oil transmitted to this Commission.
| respectfully submit that that evidence
Ia now before this Commission. That
testimony has been transmitted by those
houses in joint session to this Commits
sion, which possesses and Is to exercise
all the power OF those two houses In the
! premises. / therefore presume that
| there can be no question In reference to
tho regularity OF that testimony. So
far as ] atn advised, there ID no other
evidence, with The exception Of q very
small piece Of evidence in reference to
the particular hour at which the writ Of
quo tDnrrdnt0 was served upon what has
been called the Hayes electors, which
the counsel for the DIRECTORS propose to
| offer.
This evidence, which has been sent to
the Commission by the two houses, is Of
this character: First, there 10 the vote
| that was inclosed in tho certificates re-
| turned from the State OF Florida. There
were three certificates, the first being
that accompanying the return Of the
votes OF the Hayes electors, The certit-
cate of the Governor given to those
electors. The second certificate was
accompanied by the certificate Of the
Secretary OF State Of Florida, and the
third was accompanied by certain judi
cial reports which, under the express
language OF the organic act, were re-
ferred to this body for its consideration. |
The other testimony was intrinsic, to
which / have already referred; taken |
by that committee, acting under the |
authority and in obedience to the man
date OF Congress. II we were required |
to repeat the experience Of that commit
tee under the authority Of this Commits
sion, and retake that evidence, there
would probably be no witness called |
who was not before one or the other
Of those committees, and possibly no
question would be propounded that was
not propounded by ono or the other,
and the answer to which Ia not reported |
TO and now before this honorable body.
Tho position Of the other side Is that
this Commission Is invested only with
ministerial power, that 1t has no right
to go behind the certificate Of Governor
Steurns. Carrying out the position as
sumed by the objectors on the other
side, it would follow that even in refer
ence to the certificate Of Gov. Btearns,
of Florida, Gov. btearns himself had.
subsequently to the date of the certih-
cote, come before the two houses Of
Congress In sackcloth md ashes, como
on behalf Of his State to have some
error in that certificate corrected; it
could not be done. Whence does this
certificate derive its extraordinary
sanctity? BY tho act Of Congress. sec.
1876 Of tho Revised Statutes. 1t is pro.
vided as follows: at shall be the
duty Of the Executive Of each
State to cause three lists OF the names
of the electors Of each State to be made
n mi rpTfif fnI md ~ hn r, alive r. a.
electors on or before the date on which
they are required in the preceding Sec
ton to meet" There is nothing In this
section declaring that that certificate
shall be conclusive evidence Of ANY,
thing. There is nothing making it man
datory on the Governor to use thnt GER
titicate. 1t was not within tho power
of Congress to make 1t mandatory upon
the Governor to issue that certificate
and il it was not within the power Of
Congress to make it mandatory upon !
the executive Of the State to issue that
certificate, it was not in the power Of D.,
Congress to say that the certificate. II |
issued, should be conclusive.
There are two propositions first,
whether Congress can, on the question {
Of an electoral vote, institute an origi- l
nal inquiry and take testimony, going
behind the certificate Of the Governor c
~ wy oCote, Ill" GILL lnValdate That
certificate on Its own motion, while the
state still adheres to the regularity of
The certificate. That Is one question, y
md very important one. But there 7
$ another question totally different ]
rom that, which Is, whether the two .
Houses OF Congress, commissioned to '
inquire into the electoral vote, and to \
votes ought to be counted,
an receive evidence furnished by tho /,
State itself in reference to the certif- +
ate which its Governor may have Civ r
n. There Is wide difference in the two h
ases. [ respectfully submit that il the f.,
'ower does not exist in the two houses {
II Congress, as primary and original
power, repeatedly to take testimony,
,Utug bet1ittd The certificate, then tie r
'owcr must exist in the State to correct W
Is certificates or to impeach it for fraud tx
r fnlsnhnnI. Otheruiso pra .un1,ll l. | b