The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-02-05

Democratic counsel TO present in q brief
reason why the Hayes and Wheeler certili-
cate should not be received, and that the
Republican counsel might follow with rea-
sons why the Tilden and Hendricks certif-
cate ought not to be received.
Mr.. O'Conor, OF the Democratic coun-
sci, arose and proceeded to address the COM
mission. He said he would address hinl-
self 10 what seemed most pertinent In the
Florida case, and would offer proof why
the first certificate for Hayes and Wheeler
should not be counted.
MIR. Evarts, OF the counsel for the Hayes
and Wheeler electors, said that II the order
of procedure suggested by the presiding
Justice should be followed it was the first
intimation the counsel on his side had had
Of it, and that they would not be prepared
to 60 on to-day.
The Presiding Justice stated that his re-
marks were in the nature Of suggestion,
and did not embody ruling Of the com.
mission.
Mr.. O'Conor, after few preliminary re-
marks as to what he thought should be the
method Of procedure, read brief, setting
forth what he thought ought to be submit
ted. He said that on December 9th last the
electors for Hayes and Wheeler and for Til
den and Hendricks met and cast their votes
and transmitted the returns to the seat OF
government. Both sets of electors COM
piled with the requirements OF law. A writ
OF quo aoarranto was served on the Hayes
electors on that day, before they canvassed
the vote. which eventuatcd in a judgment
against them and in favor OF the Tilden and
Hendricks electors, on the 9th OF January,
1877. He then reviewed the action Of the
courts OF Florida, and of the Legislature
ordering recanvass Of the votes, and said
the Canvassing Board, without warrant,
threw out the whole Of the returns from
Manatee county, and part Of the returns
from Hamilton, Jackson, and Monroe coun-
ties. In conclusion, he referred to the in.
eligibility Of Humphreys, one Of the Hayes
electors. who was Il United States shipping
commissioner.
Judge Black. OF the Democratic counsel,
arose to make suggestion rs to the method
OF procedure. He believed that he had the
right to suggest what evidence should be
presented, and to speak on that point.
The Presiding Justice said no evidence
was before the commission.
After a colloquy between counsel and
members Of the commission
Senator Thurman asked the Hayes and
Wheeler counsel what objection there could
be to receiving all the evidence suggested
by Mr.. O'Conor, subject to objections.
Mr.. Eyarts briefly gave his reasons for
Directing to the method Of introducing evil
dence proposed by the opposing counsel.
Judge Black insisted upon it that the evil
dence suggested by Mr.. O'Conor has al
ready been taken by the two houses OF Con-
gress. Committees were sent to FLORIDA.
took evidence, had it printed. and thus made
it a part of this case. That taken by the
House was submitted to the House after a
fierce struggle, filibustering lasting half
night. He could not conceive anything
more unjust than to compel them to submit
evidence piece-meal. When a party files q
bill in court OF equity he may put in all
the evidence he chooses, and the same is
true OF the party filing an answer. The
evidence cannot be rejected, but must be
accepted as a part OF the record. While
Judge Black was speaking two specia
artists q on the spot" were busily engaged
sketching the scene OF the court-room.l
Thc.Presiding Justice said Judge Black
had exhausted the fifteen minutes allowed
him.
Mr.. Justice Miller moved thatthe counse
on either side have two hours in which tc
discuss the objection OF Mr.. Eyarts as tc
whether any other evidence than that laid
before the two houses OF Congress by the
president pro tempore OF the Senate should
be received by the commission.
Senator Thurman thought the argument
ought to 60 further, and embrace the adj
instability OF testimony taken by either Of
the two houses. The question should not
be narrowed down to the papers presented
from Florida by the president pro temport
of the Senate to the two houses Of Con
gresS.
Representative Garfield desired the mo-
ton OF Justice Miller to be enlarged so as
to embrace an argument rs to the scope OF
the power of the commission in the prem
iSes.
Representative Hoar offered a substitute
for Justice Miller's motion as amended by
Mr.. Garfield, but withdrew it, and Justice
Field renewed it.
The Presiding Justice put the question
on Justice Fields substitute, and it wa:
lost. The motion of Justice Miller "a
amended was then adopted.
Mr.. Eyarts suggested that each side have
three hours instead of two. and the com
mission accepted the suggestion.
Mr.. Evarts suggested that counsel have
more time to prepare their arguments, and
the commission took a recess until 1886
=. M.
On reassembling the commission agreed
to hear one counsel on each side to-day anC
the others on Monday.
Mr.. O'Conor said he presumed the three
hours allowed each side might be divided
among counsel as they might agree; ant
the presiding officer said that was his un.
derstanding.
Judge Black asked if he might make some
49, ,sn1-
into the details Of the case.
The commission finally decided that three
counsel might speak, provided they did not
exceed three hours.
Mr.. Merrick then proceeded with his ar.
gument. He said the proposition in law
before the commission was What are the
powers of the commission? what is the
evidence before the commission, and what
evidence it will be competent to introduce
He read from the electoral bill to show the
powers of the commission, and submitted
that the evidence taken by the congressional
the commission. There can be no question
as to the regularity OF said testimony, no
matter what may be said Of its admissibility.
Except as to the time at which the writs oil
quo aoarranto were served upon the Hayes
electors, there is no difference OF opinion
as to the evidence, and except in that par.
ticular case no extrinsic evidence is
proposed to be offered. 1t has been
said by the DIRECTORS on the other
side that the duty of this commission is
simply ministerial; that they had no right
to declare null and void certificates con
ceived in fraud; that such certificate was
beyond the reach OF truth; and that yir.
tually the commission was compelled tC
crystalize falsehood into practical fact
Now, there is nothing in the statutes Of the