The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-02-20

should hold Office depended not upon thu
will Of the people, but upon the will OF The
Returning Board. He believed such Q
Board was utterly destructive of arepublf
can form of government. The State OF Lou.
isiana, under our Constitution, had mo
power to create such Board. The acts OF
and void. Even il its acts were not
unconstitutional, they were not legal
in acanvassing the vote of the 9TH
OF November last, because the statute
required that the Board should be composed
OF five persons OF different political parties
but, In fact, it was composed Of but four
persons, all Of the same party, and they
steadily refused to ill the vacancy. The
duty OF that Board was to canvass and COM
| pile the returns OF the commissioners Of
elections, but the testimony showed they
did not do so. The proof which counsel
offered before the Commission should have
been accepted; and in that opinion he was
fortified by the action Of both houses OF
Congress four years ago in rejecting the
vote OF Louisiana.
He then referred to the alleged inelgibility
OF certain electors in that State, and said he
could not regard that other than az nuli-
| fication OF the constitutional provision on
that subject under this decision. No mat-
| ter by what fraud man might be elected
President or Vice-President, or how ineli-
gible an elector might be, there was no
power to inquire into it. The vote OF an
| Ineligible elector must be counted, and
neither the State nor Congress could right
the wrong. lie utterly dissented from
such decision as being destructive to
republican government. The decision
would have the effect of proclamation
to dishonest returning boards to perpe-
trate whatever villainy their interests might
dictate with the absolute certainty that
hey would be successful.
Mr.. Morton said the statute OF LOUISIANA
creating the Returning Board provided, IN
express terms, that majority OF the num-
Der should constitute quorum to do busl-
ness and make the returns. The Board was
to consist of five persons, to be elected by
the Senate. Three OF that number, by the
express terms Of the act, are quorum to
do business. There were four in number
upon the Board-one more than majority.
The Electoral Commission has decided that
the Board was properly constituted. On
the other hand, it was argued that the exist
ence of single vacancy destroyed the
Board. The Commission said not, upon the
very best settled principles Of law. The
Constitution provided that the Senate shall
consist of two senator's from each State. Va
cancies from half-doZen States will not
destroy the legal character OF this Senate.
The law provides that the Supreme Court
shall consist OF n certain number OF Judges.
Two or three vacancies will not destroy the
legal character of the Supreme Court. So
he could run through the law in regard to
CORPORATIONS and special tribunals. There
are certain commissions created for specl-
1ic ministerial purposes. Sometimes the
law requires that the commission shall
be full to enable it to perform an act; but
here the act creating this tribunal guards
against that by special provision that ma
jority OF the members shall constitute Il
quorum. If there be such majority pre-
sent, it makes no difference from What
cause there are absentees, whether there are
vacancies, or whether members are Wllfully
absent-if there be majority present the
law is complied with. Now, in re-
gard to the eligibility of electors,
the Commission decided that it was
not competent to prove that certain
electors were ineligible on the 18th Of No
vember, the day of the election. They decl-
ded that upon two grounds: First. Because
in any point OF view the proof would be inn
material, because the substance OF the Con-
stitution, the spirit and meaning OF it, is
that the electors shall be eligible when they
come to act and vote, and not the time
when they are elected. Second. Persons
are ineligible to be members OF this Senate.
A senator must have certain qualifications;
il he has them when he comes to be sworn
in, that is enough. 1t is immaterial whether
he has them on the day OF his election; that is
well settled. But the Commission decided
that the proof was immaterial upon other
grounds. If it were conceded that an elector
was ineligible upon the day he voted, can that
fact be proven to strike out his vote. 1t it
can it is overturning the very best prin-
ciples of law. a man may be ineligible to
a seat in this body. He may not be thirty
years old; he may be under the disabilities OF
the fourteenth amendment; but III he comes
here and is sworn in and takes his seat he
may afterwards be turned out upon PROOF
of the fact, but every vote that he casts has
the same validity with the vote OF every
other senator. A man may be ineligible to
be appointed judge under the four
teenth amendment, or from want OF age.
or from any cause provided by the law of
the State in which he lived; yet if he is ap-
pointed notwithstanding his ineligibility
every act OF his as Judge is just as valid
as il he had been eligible. He may
be turned out upon a quo aoarranto, but
until that is done his act Is valid; and can
there be an exception found to this rule
He knew OF none. In applying it to the
electors we apply simple, well-settled rule
of law; and how absurd would it be to
oyerturn that rule in case where dis
coyery is made after vote is cast, when it
is past remedy, that an elector was ineligi-
BILE and strike out his vote. II the Com
mission had decided that it would have
overruled a well-settled principle Of law.
Who six months ago contended for any such
principle as that? This Tribunal decided
that YOU could not enter into proof and con-
tradict the returns made by the proper re-
turning officers Of the State-those appoint
ed by the State to decide and declare who
had been elected. 1t seemed to him that If
any principle Of constitutional law was
claimed it must be that the Constitution
gives to each hou,e the right to judge OF
the election returns and qualification OF its
members. II it were not for that provision
of the Constitution each house could not do
that, and il a senatorial election were con-
tested it would have to be by the Legisla-
ture of the State that sends the senator here;
but that power has been given to each
house, and it was not given in regard to
electors It is claimed that the two houses
have the same power in regard to electors
that the two houses have in regard to their
members. The answer is, the power was
not given. II the trainers Of the Constitu.
ton had intended to give that power they
would have said so. To infer the existence
Of so great power is to overrule every prin-