The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1877-03-14

charges were to be enclosed to the boar
cases only were charges made as required. In
the rest evidence was received without proper
nsng e ad an T of
written out by clerks and employees OF the re-
turning board without either having been
waa NC %
proof Of intimidation. 1t may be remarked
here that the temptation to Kellogg and his
ture cases Of intimidation, for 1t was
only in them that the democratic
conspirscy be successful We should
not fail to call the attention of the people to
the dangerous effect of the doctrine OF intimi-
not only the parties to the act Of Intimidation
but all those who have voted at the same pre-
ciude to 'i make e a case of intimidation and
thereby cause a parish casting thousands
Of votes TO De rejected. 1t makes elections
1t in returning boards; 1t enables the latter to
impose the severest Of political penalties. dis
punished an opportunity ofhaving trial. The
republic deserves to lose it's liberties 1t toll
sSe Of S% Of Courts and
contempt OF the rights Of voters; by their
frauds and eorruptions and nsGrPstions: by by
the conspirators obtain the certif-
iican candidates in the southern states
were issued to the Hayes electors in Louisiana
and Florida, the country has been filed with
an unprecented excitement. The people have
the fraudulent conduct of the returning boards.
In this condition Of affairs business has been
generally suspended, failures have been fire.
Guent and prostration has seized upon nearly
every interest in the land. When this excite
ment was at its height, congress assembled;
one of its duties was 10 count the electoral
votes of the states, including Louisiana and
Florida, with the view of facilitating the count
and providing for the peaceful performance
of It's duty. By congress bill was passed ere
ating an electoral commission. By that law
the commission was to ascertain the true and
lawful vote of every state. In this labor Ii was
TO exercise as to hearing of evidence and ex-
or either euse Of as
would be heard, ana that . settlement Of the
disputed question Of facts would be fairly
resched the CONGRESS ,h AND Pe3Rle sccePsedh tine
disappointed, how decision has been made,
based upon . refusal to consider
is well known to the country. When
the certificates from Florida and Louisiana
were opened and submitted to the two houses,
Hayes electors. Among other grounds OF OBJ
lection IL was urged that these certificates had
Deen Isueulently ana corruptiy Issued py
those states and as q result OF a conspiracy
between them and the electors claiming
to have been chosen, that such certificates
had been issued In violation Of the laws of the
respective states, and that some of the electors
named therein were ineligible by the express
provision OF the constitution OF the United
States. When these objections were made be-
fore the commission, proof was offered to the
by vote of 8 to refused to receive the testi
mony offered except as TO the lneligibllity is
to a single member in Florida. II voted
In case OF Louisiana that the commission
would not have evidence to show that the
returning board was unconstitutional
body. That IL was not organized AS the law
tWno rtno
canvassed that II had no jurisdiction
TO canvass the electoral vote: that
charges OF riot, intimidation and violence were
false, and that the returning board knew that
fact; that the certificates were corruptly and
fraudulently issued and as a result OF the con
never been complied or canvassed, the same
rulings substantially were made IN the
Of FIortds. Thecornmission also refused TO
hear proof; that al the time of the election in
south Carolina anarchy prevailed, destroying
the republican form OF government In that
Violation of the constitution to interfere with
a Tree choice by the election, so that the law
full vote Of the state could not be
protest most earnestly in the name of
tree and republican government. In the first
place they struck a fatal blow at the constitu-
electoral vote. This power has been exercis-
ed by both houses, without dis
puts, from the foundation OF the government,
of contested return seems cleer their princsple
has been maintained by the ablest statesman
the country has produced. 1t was p. actice
notably Ia the case OF louisiana in
1869 and 1873, such evidently was
present session investigating mmittee
were sent to Florida, South Carolina, and
louisiana to take testimony and report as to
the elections in those states. 1t Is difficult 10
see upon what principle this view can be
based. The duty of congress is to count the
vote. This makes an enactment of the vote to
be counted; this again MAKES determination OF
What is the true vote and this distinguishing
OF false from true. This requires evidence.
Forms Of law expressing the fact can't be made
unless evidence be admitted; for If fraud pos
sess the count how can the count, how can
success OF h asen9od De presented II either d,
ables congress from performing certain con-
sHtntional duty.
In the second place this decision nullifes an
article of the constitution. In section /, arti-
Gle A. IL is provided
"But no senator or representative or person
holding an office of trust or profit under the
United States shall be appointed an elector.V
II the states choose electots who are ineligible
how can this provision be made effectual? The
state by It's action has refused to repeal IL, and
authorized TO pass upon the vote which the
state has returned. Congress then in counting
the vote must determine who are and who
can only be ascertained by evidence,
aliunde any other doctrine abrogate
the previous construction and in
effect substitutes the following: senators,
representatives and all persons holding offices
of trust or profit under the United States may
be appointed electors.
In the third place, the doctrine ignores all
presidents and rules of morals In
excluding evidence of fraud submitted;
nothing can stand which is furnished by
fraud. 1t vitiates everything. 1t annuls ev-
cry deed, cancels every obligation, annuls ev-
cry contract, reverfes every Judgment, every
TRIVIAL however organized Is bouna to regard
every fraudulent transaction as a
nulity, however 1t may come
before IL. The decision of the highest
tribunal, II procured through fraud, should be
treated as of no effect by the humblest court
IN the land. AS said by distinguished
writer, ait matters not whether
Judgment tnpu0net has been pro-
nounced by an inferior or by
the highest court OF the land. But in all eases