The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1877-02-28
a aerfou Qae-Ifon.

In evidence Of the bad faith of the BE
publicans and apology for the blunder of
ID amocratic leaders in the wretched Ar
btration business, it was said by the
latter that the Republican authors and
advocates of the measure had deceived
them; that pending its consideration
they distinctly stated that the Commits
sion would be required by is terms to
60 behind the returns and inquire if the
certificates were Issued by legally consti-
tuted authority and if they were founded
upon true rendering of the vote. While
the subject was being discussed, the New
York Times published from its WASH
ington correspondent the following state
ment on the authority of Commissioner
Hoar, of Massachusetts,, seriously impli
eating Mr.. Hewitt and his associates:
The assertion by Mr.. Hewitt that Mr. Hoar
had said in the joint com mttee. while
framing the bill creating the Electoral
Tribunal, that the Commission shonld go
behind The returns and take testimony, is
pronounced by Mr.. Hoar as absolutely untrue
He says he never gave even an intimation
10 Mr.. Hewitt or to any one else that he
| held such view, and when Mr.. McCrary's
bill. which in express term gave the Com
mission such power, was up for considera-
| ton, The House members Of The committee dis
| tjnctly sud they rrere opposed to IL. Mr.. Hoar
scouts the idea that lie any of his asso-
ciates gave any such promise as Mr. Hewitt
claims they did, and says the whole tenor
OF the debate ia both the House and Senate
shows that all the Republicans conlbatted
| the view hat the Commission had right
| TO 90 behind the returns. He feels very
much annoyed that Mr. Hewitt should
make this charge after the full understand
| ing upon all three questions that was had
in the committee ,0ttte the bill creating the
Electoral Tribunal ,0ds being framed
The issue here joined was one of We
racity, duplicating not only Mr.. Hewitt
but the House members of The Commit
tee who have declared that the bill was
passed with the understanding that the
Commission would 90 behind the returns.
Mr.. HoAr says not only did no such
understanding exist, but that the House
members ofthe Committee (Which framed
the bill J were opposed to giving it such
construction, referring of course to the
Democrats who were organs of the popu-
lar branch of Congress. We have looked
with no little anxiety for a rsfutation of
this statement which was flung in the
face of Mr. Hewitt and his associates
while the louisiana case was before Con-
gress but we have looked in vain. No
denial was made; and the painful con-
viction forces itself upon the mind that
| Hewitt q Co. were either blind dupes or
deceivers of the country. Either horn of
the dilemma is unpleasant.
p. S. Since the above was prepared,
Hewitt has made declaration re-affirm-
ing his. original statement and contradict
ing Hoar. W hat world of trouble would
have been saved if the trainers of the
bill had put it in dozen words requiring
the Commission to take evidence and de-
| eide which candidate received majority
of the votes. 1t is said that Hewitt
failed to prove that he and his associates
had been anything more than outwitted
| by Hoar and his Radical colleagues.