Ottumwa weekly courier., 1877-02-21

, accepted to take effect on the 4th, som,
, twelve days before it was received q
! the interior department.
II Senator Thurman-Does not tn,
, law of Louisiana provide that if al
) electOr who has been chosen does no
: Iappear by certain hour, the remain
ing electors may proceed to ill thu
vacancy2
Trumbull-There is such provis.
, ion in the act of 1868.
Considerable discussion ensued be-
tween Thurman, Edmunds and Trum'
bull as to the status of the various
complicated and disputed laws ol
: Louisiana and their bearing on thil
case.
II Stoughton followed on the repub.
lican side. He expressed his surprise
) at the objection that lthe certificate
of Kellogg was imperative. II
would be remembered that when the
vote of Connecticut was counted, hel
lgOvernor IngersolD was a presi.
dental elector-at-large, and his Ger,
tificate had been received without
objection. Such a returning board
was a large body and had power to
apportion the vote and finally certify
it. The decision of the commission
in the Florida case determined the
entire question here raised as to the
fright fthe commission to 90 behind
the action of the returning board,
and he could not perceive that any
question, much less the main ques-
tion, was now open for argument.
He quoted against TrumbulPs argu-
ment to-day from the report made by
senator Trumbull to the effect that
neither the senate nor the house, nor
both jointly, have power under the
constitution to canvass the returns of
an election, and that the mode and
manner of choosing electors was left
Exclusively to the states. He also
quoted on the same point the letter
recently published from ex-judge
Church, of New York. A state cor
rects the frauds of its own officers
and does not apply to congress for
the purpose. Congress would best
perform its duty by discharging it
within its authority, and leaving
these occasional frauds, that are
sometimes assumed and sometimes
offered to be proved, to be taken care
of by the tribunals having jurisdic-
ton over them. Congress might have
the power, but it did not have the
right to disregard the highest legal
authority of q state. Coming in the
course Of his argument to the objec-
ton made to the returning board in
Louisiana, for not having filled the
vacancy of the board, he said the law
on the subject was merely directory
and the failure to obey the law did
not interfere in any manner with the
capacity or jurisdiction of the board.
If two of the five members had been
democrats and had afterwards altered
their politics, would the boald be
asked to cease to exist on that ac-
count? In conclusion, he said talk to
me about outrage, fraud and disfran-
chisement of voters. There are two
sides to that question, and if you sit
here to 60 back and canvass the votes,
you sit here TO administer the law of
Louisiana, and you must administer
it by learning who have been disfran-
chised, and what was the lawful vote
of that state, in harmony with her
laws and not in harmony with the
will of a party.
Shcllabarger next addressed the
commission on the same side. He
argued that the act of 1872 held good
in 1876, during the presidential cleo
tion, and that the revisory act of 1870
which provided for the canvass of
returns by board and the governor
was repealed and was not in force in
1870, for that provision which made
the governor canyasser for the
purpose Of an election was inconsist-
ent with the tifty-fourth section of
the session acts of 1870, which ex-
pressly provided different tribunal
for all elections, including the elec-
toral college. It was also repealed
by the repeating clause of the session
act of 1870. Tho election law of 1872
applies to all elections, and furnishes
the machinery or means of conduct
ing all elections in that state, includ.
ing the electoral college. But it may
be asked, said the speaker, how car
you preserve and keep in force that
provision of the act of 1870 revising
that of 1868, which provides for fill
ing the electoral college consistently
with that which you have just been
stating? Ianswer, first of all, that it
is an exceedingly benign canon OF
Interpretation thata law is never re-
lpealed by new act, unless either ex-
lpressly so done, or else the repug.
nance be such that it would be
impossible for the two acts to stand
together, and in using this language
am but repeating the words Of the
supreme court of the United States as
announced on many occasions. An
other rule of Interpretation is this
that in cases of doubt, whenever an
Interpretation would lead to conse-
Iquences that are either absurd or
hurtful to the public welfare, that
Interpretation will llnever be tolerated,
unless its escape is impossible. The
next step is this: Is it possible to
escape the conclusion that, under the
legislation of louisiana, louisiana was
disfranchised and l invite the gem
tlemen on the other side, who may
suppose this act is repealed, by which
only the electoral college can be
filed, to show me some statute that
forces upon you, either by a direct
provision or any fair Interpretation.
the conclusion that Louisiana has
been DISTINGUISHED. In this process
oflegislation, there is nothing to re.
peal that section which provides for
filling vacancies under the law OF
1865 and 1870, except the repeating
clause of the act of 1872 which says
that all other acts on the subject
of election laws are hereby repealed
In every case of doubt, the practical
construction that has been given a
law is conclusive. This law has been
practically construed as applicable
to presidential elections, for all elec.
tons that have been held since it has
been on the statute books have been
conducted under it. Counsel pro.
ceeded to argue that Kellogg was the
rig ghtftil governor of Louisiana, and
continued as follows: "Now, l take
the language of the supreme court OF
the. United States. 1t is in these
words: 1t rests with congress to de.
eide what government is the estab.
lished one in state, and when sena.
tors and representatives from state
are admitted into the councils of the
Union, the authority of the govern
ment under which they were appoint.
ed, as well as its republican character
is recognized by proper constitution
al authority, and its decision is bind,
ing on every department of the gov.
ernment and could not be questioned
in any judicial tribunal
/ Shellabarger next argued that the
returning board was legal body
and that the electors objected to were
not Ineligible. ~ come now,' sale
counsel, ito the real question in thi,
case, and really the only question
there is, and that one is decided BY
what you have just decided in thu
case of Florida, and that is whether
or not it is competent for you to &c
behind the action Of the returning
board of Louisiana for the purpost
of finding out what happened in it.
exercise Of the Jurisdiction bestowed
by the statute. Upon the threshold
of this question ! want to say tha
when we deny the power Of goins
| hohiud tho fin6iu~ Of fhoS h0.rI nv