Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1877-03-08
Republican Consistency.

We have not seen clearer eX-
position of the grounds on which'the
Electoral Commission based their de-
cisions then the following which we
find in The Baraboo Republic
Ia every suit at law one party IS
beaten. aud it quite commonly hap
pens that this party can see exactly
how tho law, and court, and jury, all
failed to insure justice between the
Htigents. So, likewise, those who
have lost their suit before the Elec-
toral Commission declare that the
right was trampled on where their
hopes went to the ground, and that
the Commission only was able to de-
eide the three contested states in Ia
vo~ of Hayes by being Inconsistent
With itself; by applying one rule to
Florida and another to cover the
same state Of facts in Oregon. This
charge of inconsistency is too grave
to be passed without notice and 1T is
10 easy task to refute 1T.
In the Florida case it was decided
by the Commission"that no evidence
would be received or considered
which was not submitted to the joint
convention with the different certifi.
Gates except such as relates to the
ELIGIBILITY of an elector." The
Ground here taken is, that the Com
mission, and incidentally thej joint con-
yention of the two houses, have no
right to 60 behind the returns OF the
procer canvassing board or officers,
but must confne their scrutiny to
the certificates of electors end of the
governors, which the president OF
the senate opens; but that it is COM
net 3nt TO the Com mission, or to the
iolnt convention, to inquire into the
eligibility Of an elector. Now the
same rule was applied to the case of
Louisiara, in which the Commission
based their decision on the ground
that :'it is not competent to go into
evidence, as to the papers opened by
the president of the senate, in the
nreseuce of the two houses, to prove
that other persons than those regu-
larlv certified by the governors of the
state of Louisiana, in and according
To the determination and declaration
of their appointment; in other
| words, to 90 behind the certificate of
the governor, as far as it is founded
upon the action Of the returning
board" And 10 respect to the elig-
Utility of an eleetor, that cit was not
essential to show that an elector was
Ineligible on that day, so long as he
was eligible on the day when he
cast his vote in the electoral COL
lege."
The Oregan case differed from the
other two 10 one particular, but fell
under the same rule. The action of
Gov. Grover in issuing certificate
to Cronin was not based on the &C
ton of the officers making the can
vass. He issued certificate as elect
or to a man who had received min
ority of votes, himself assuming that
Watts was ineligible, and that Cron-
in, who received less votes was elect
ed. The law of 1892 requires that
the governor shall certify to the
names of the persons chosen electors
The person chosen electors are those
who receive a majority of tho votes.
Il is an obvious deduction from the
law that there must be conformity
and agreement between the govern
or's certificate and the fact certified
to. If the governor issues oertif-
cate to Cronin, when Watts received
a majority ofthe votes, congress may
ignore the certificate, not only with
the sanction of common sense, but
by the unanimous opinion OF the
Commission. There remains only
the question of eligibility. Here the
Commission did not vary from it's
action in the Louisiana case. In
Florida, the other side conceded the