The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1877-03-01
SENATE DEBATE.
On the Motion to Sustain the Electoral Tri-
bunaTs Verdict in the Louisiana Dispute.

The debate in the United States Senate Oh
the question of sustaining the decision of the
Electoral Commission in the Louisiana case
was one of the most vigorous and heated dis
cussions ever heard in that body. The ball was
opened by Mr.. Maxey, of Texas, who spoke of
the Electoral Commission being invested with
the same power as the two houses of Congress
in canyassing the electoral vote, and said it was
i intrusted with the duty of deciding who were
the true electors, but this duty had not been
performed. The commission was directed to
ascertain the true vote of the State, but instead
of that they had brought forth certificate
reeking with fraud and offensive in the nostrils
of all honest people. The judgment of the
commission had been weighed in the balance
and found wanting. 1t could not stand the
touchstone of TRUTH justice and fair dealing.
If the law organizing this commission did not
authorize the commission to ascertain the true
vote of the State, it was the most cunnngly-
devised pit fall that ever mortal man fell into.
| The Judgment of this commission was founded
on the denial of the right to prove fraud. It
was an admission that the fraudulent certif-
Gates of a VIGOROUSLY corrupt Returning Board
were good, valid and true. This Judgment
bearing so heavily in favor of fraud and against
truth and justice, would never be approved by
the American people, but it would be con-
demned for all time. Truth had not been
sought by the commission, but all its avenues
| were closed. The evidence was shut out, and
| thereby the law was perverted. In conclusion,
he said the Democratic tycounseled lawful and
peaceful submission to the decision, and conf
IDENTIFY relied upon the will of the people and
the merits of their case.
Mr.. Herman said the Senate should not, and
he trusted it would not, affirm the decision
which had been made by the commission. He
then spoke of the offer of the Democratic coun-
sci before the commission to prove that fraud
existed in Louisiana, and that certain electors
in that State were ineligible, and, commenting
on the decision of the commission, said, if file
of soldiers should threaten to murder the Gov
ernor of State unless he signed the certificate
of certain electors, and the Governor yielded,
under this decision there was no power in the
two houses of Congress to inquire into the mat
ter. The decision was to the effect that there
was no power in Congress to obtain truth and
smite down fraud. He entered his solemn pro-
test against it, and he did so from higher mo-
tive than for the success of any man or any
political party. He did not want it to go to the
world without protest that false and fabricated
certificates were to be counted. He was deeply
panied that such principle should have been
affirmed by vote of to z.
Mr.. Thurman said the statute of Louisiana
created the Returning Board, consisting of five
persons, who were to hold office indefinitely and
with power to fill all vacancies that might Oc-
cur. It devolved upon these five men to say
who should hold office in the State. The ques-
ton of who should hold Office depended not up
on the will of the people, but upon the will of
the Returning Board. He believed such
board was utterly destructive of a
republican form of Government. The
State of Louisiana under our constitution,
had no power to create such q board. The acts
of that board were unconstitutional, null. and
void. Even if it's acts were not unconstitutional
they were not legal in canvassing the vote of
the 7th 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 fill
the vacancy. The duty of that board was to
canvass and compile the returns of the Com
missioners of Election, but the testimony showed
they did not do so. The proof which the coun-
sci offered before the commission should have
been accepted, and in that opinion he was fOrti-
fled by the action of both houses of Congress
four years ago in rejecting the vote of Louisi-
ana. He then referred to the alleged ineligi-
bilty of certain electors in that State and said
! he could not regard that other than as a multi
fication of the constitutional provision ON that
subject. Under this decision no matter by
what fraud man might be elected President or
Vice President, or how ineligible an elector
might be, there was no power to inquire into it.
The vote of an ineligible elector must be count
ed, and neither the State nor Congress could
right the wrong. He utterly dissented from
such decision as being destructive to repub-
lican Government. The decision would have
the effect of proclamation to dishonest re-
| turning boards to perpetrate whatever villainy
their interests might dictate with the absolute
certainty that they would be successful.
| Mr. Sherman said he was surprised at the OBJ
iectons to the decisions of the Electoral Tribu-
nal. 1t was constituted by the votes of the very
gentlemen who now objected to it's finding. The
Senators Directing knew, when they voted for
the bill organizing the commission, that these
very suggestions of taking evidence were to be
| submitted to it, and they were in honor bound
by it's decision. Although he voted against the
bill and fought it step by step, after it passed
| he made up his mind to abide by the decision of
the tribunal. These objections now from the
other side of the chamber were insulting to the
tribunal and insulting to those who sustained
| it's decision. The Democrats had chosen an ar
bitration. The decision was against them, and
| there should be no unseemly wrangling. He
further declared that the decision of the tribu-
nal was right, and as question of law no man
would have held two months ago that Congress
naQ q f1SnG TO overhaul UIl6 returns Dy winch
| the electors were chosen. If there was any
right of State it was the right to choose its
own electors That right was carefully guarded
by the constitution, and Congress had no more
power to reverse or overrule the decision of a
State than any man in Great Britain or France
had to do So A good deal had been said about
fraud fraud, fraud, and perjury, and the Re-
publicans were looked upon and pointed at as
upholders of fraud. Suppose Congress could
go behind these returns? 1t would find
fraud, murder, and violence on the
part Of the Democrats The State of Louisiana
had the right to provide by law for overruling
this fraud land it did so by its Returning Board.
For the Democrats to talk about fraud, when it
was the violence and fraud of the Democratic
party which broug ht this danger to the country,
seemed to him wrong. The Louisiana Return
ing Board might be imprisoned. The members
might be arrested. They might be driven to
their graves but they had simply obeyed the
law, and Congress has no power, thank God to
fetter the decision of that board. The Demo-
Gratis could come forward now and say what
they propose to prove Why was it they did
not offer their proof before the investigating
| committees?