The New York herald., 1877-02-13

other point OF Importance which was that the ap-
ponmeht OF electors, made and certified In the man
prescribed by State law prior the lin. when the
electors 30 meet and Tor President and Vice
president, was final aud could aside by SUBJ
scqnent State action after tho had been cast and
the return thereof had been duly made TO the Presi-
dent OF the Senate
GROUNDS OF THE DECISION.
This decision rested upon the following. among
other grounis:-
was PROVIDED by tho constitution that the electors
should meet In tho States upon the same day aud
constitution TO Tx tho day for such meeting.
This exercised by the passage OF the act of
1902, liking tho first Wednesday IN December us tho
day on which electors should meet aud vote IN all the
States. Tho great wisdom OF this provision VI tho
constitution was apparent as It's purpose was TO pre-
vent tho very mischief which was attempted In the
Florida case. II was 10 prevent a State from with
holding ITS vote until Il could be how II would af
feet the result was to prohibit state IRON chang
ing its vote after IL had once been order 10
change result and, above ALL IL must be seen that
the constitution could not be 50 construed an TO allow
State administration coming into power IN jan
uary to proceed TO set aside aud revise The action OF
the State government under previous admristr0-
ion IN the matter oi appointing rrcsidcn.s ELECTORS,
especially where II appeared that tho electors were
chosen and returned us duly elected, aud met aud
performed all their functions, including return OF
thor Votes to the President VI Tho Senate ON prior
to December u, and nearly month before such new
administration came into power
Sec0ndlf proceedings either by the State Legisla-
turc or the had In tho ter part Jan.
uary could be allowed to aside the constitutional
action OF the State IN lhis respect had in December
result not only IN violation oil tho constitutional
requirement. that tho votes o all tho States should
DO cast tho same day, but must also lead to tho
most serious consequences Ia the future. lf Judg
mont in inferior court Ia Florida rendered tho
21th OF January IN an action of quo warranto could
annui tho oil that State tho 9th Of DeccI
bcr, It followed that similar judgments any all
the other States might bc certified To The President of
the Senate and must govern the count The vote OF
the great State OF New York would generally DO dc.
cisvc OF tho result ot Presidential election.
In that State. he said. he believed there wore more
than thirty Judges possessing Jurisdiction Ia quo war
run Il whether should bC decided
OF th0sc might, alter tho Presidential election
transfer the vote OF that State from ono cand,
date 10 the other II so, how many OF those judges
would hereafter enter tho lists and contend Tor tho rst
chance to determine the Presidency And what
should DO done II several or them each claiming
priority OF jurisdcton should render conflicting judg
mcntsY Who could fail to that such doctrine
would result in confusion. disaster ana rum.
He wanted tO know IT, bv ex post facto judgment
In State, one party should secure advantage,
why, by similar movement IN another State, cor-
responding advantage might not be sought for by tho
other party? and cai ned result OF such policy
that instead OF counting the votes under the constu
ton and law the tine prescribed u would become
necessary to count tho judgments in quo warrunto
rendered in the various States and enter into an in
qury to tho regularity and concusvencss Of these
Judicial proceedings. There must be authority some
where and at time 10 decide who appointed
electors, and that the only sale sound constu.
tional ruo that could be found was hat adopted by
tho commission, to wit:-lh hat tho decision made by
the proper State authority prior TO tho time liked by
the constitution and law tor eecng the President and
Vico President oil the United States nal and not
subject to be sot aside by Congress. Tho power Of
Congress was to count. not TO reject duly certified
votes Of the Suites
SPEECH OF MR. TUCKER.
Mr.. TUCKER, (dcm OF Va, followed on the opposite
side OF the question. he said he did not propose TO
criticse much less to censurc, the action any
her OF commission, but he did propose criIcisc
it's judgment Tho members Of that commission had
taken All oath to render judgment according to tho
constitution and law The commission In passing
upon the eligibility OF Humphreys had declined to pass
upon the question OF the validity OF the vote ol an in
competent eector Did the commission mean to de-
eide that the ineigiDity Of the cector no
effect upon tho validity Of his voes II State up
pointed an ineligible elector he, Notwithstanding
TO bc declared by the commission und by the Two
houses TO be competent elcctor and his vote be
counted valid votey II SO, then tho actof tho can
vassing board OF State was valid, and the constu
tion quo dd hoe, void In regard tho
main question, tho decision Of the
mission to tho effect that the only v0ce
permitted to speak for n State IN that matter
OF election tho voice OF canvassing
board and Of IN Executive ana that the voice OF tho
judiciary and the Legislature must be hushed into
silence before the 0mnipotcnt voice OF ing
board and Executive. He contended that all the
ganism OF state must speak It's voice, but the
mission had decided that the only organism 10 speak
the organism Of the Canvassing Board and the
Executive
Mr. luckcr's time expired before he had finished his
argument
SPEECH OF MIR. BANxs.
Mr. BANKS, (rcp.) OF Mass SAID that II would DO
Of the highest privIieges accorded to him be
nbc 10 his In support OF the decision and
question oil the inegibility OF Humphreys, there
was, according TO the decision OF the COM
mission and accord9s to the facts Of tho
United States oiccr but he had resir Office.
Unless tho that United States office having bccn
once held incapacitatcd a man forever from Deng an
ecct0r, this clear from any objection upon that
ground II tho people used due diligence IN Informing
themselves ot the eligibility or ineligbity OF an
eIcctor and Notwithstanding tho effort to gain that
information, an ccctor should be incapacitated. the
people ought deprived Of their choice on that
account in regard 10 the nam question he held that
when eector had cast his vote no had iuIted his
duty and exhausted his functions, and State court
nor United States court could change that There
court In Florida, nor any political party,
any defeated candidate who had right shadow OF
right the decision oil the Electoral College.
MIR. SPRINGER tdem.) OF H., opposed the decision
because the commission had adopted order to
ccve and consider no evidence that had been submit
ted to the JOINT convention, and because that order
excluded evidence which would have shown conclu-
sivey that majority o the legal actually cast
and canvassed in favor Of the liden electors. He
quoted MI. o,Conors declaration, that There lives
man, lar as know, on the face Of the earth,
who having the faculty O blushing. look hon
est IN the face and assert that the Hayes electors
truly elected" " and sd that, IT being conceded
fact that the people oil Florida had not voted
Hayes electors aud the commission having opted the
procustean rule which prohiuited It from consderng
any question OF fraud that might have arisen
IN the case, the House was brought face to face
with gigantlc fraud, and the decision Of the conIns
sion rendered II utterly impossible to defeat the
ompishment oi that fraud. lie also opposed the
cison because the commission had held That 1t In.
to go into evidence alundc Of tho papers
opened by The President oil tue Senate Ill held that
that dccsiOn was not law, and quoted "Cushlngs
Manual" in support OF his own view. He regretted
that tho decision had with the significant of
s to-. He regretted 1t the moro because II
trary to the spirit oil the law and disappointed the
pectations vi those who framed II, that It would
carried out In spirit of PATRIOTISM and justice and
OF partisanship He quoted IRON Mr. Hoars speech
support Of tho Electoral bill, where 1t was asked
" whether there were not In all this Svdom ton men who
would obey any ouer mandate Than that party and
he mr. Springer replied that tis decision gave tho
answer, "No, not one,
SPEECH OF MR.. Frye
Mr.. Frye, rep OF Ne, denounced the unblushing
elirontery with which charges Of fraud made
against the republican party. tDerlsvo laughter
the democratic sidc.) The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr Springcr) In mis- speech had charged gigantic
frauds ana out of the ogh objections ed by The gen
tlcman from New York mr. Ficdl charged Ira ud
against tho republican party There was repubII.
eau in the House who would not court Investigation
into the frauds OF LOUISIANA the frauds Of Florida
They courted investigation also into the frauds
city New York, the frauds III New Haven Bridge
port and Hartford Connecticut frauds in In
diana
SPEECH OF NR. HCRD
Mr. HURD, (dcm Of Onto, SAID he did not rise to
complain Of the decision OF the COMMISSION as IL might