Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1877-02-23
The Commissions Proceedings.

Auo OVulAuAoolOhc AiVVpOuluBbt
Mr.. Evarts yesterday summed up and
pressed home. the, Arguments in the Re
publican case before the commission with
acuteness, direotness and force. Nothing
could be more clear than his statement
of the relations Of the State TO the Fed
eral Government, and of the rights Of
the former in the process of eleeting
President. The State does not act as an
agent of the Union; IL does not derive its
authority from, Federal legislation; its
powers are defined,by the Constitution,
and within the clearly drawn limits Of
that definition it is as supreme as Is the
Federal Government In any part Of the
domain of its authority. The State Leg
islature is authorized by the Federal Con.
stitution to direct the manner in which
the electors for President and Vice Pres
ident shall be appointed, and the process
of appointment is, therefore, wholly
within the jurisdiction Of the State. All
that the United States Congress can ask
10 the duly authenticated result of the
process. 1t cannot go back of that. 1t
cannot inquire as to the stages of the
process. Ii the State intrusts to q Re-
turning Board the duty Of ascertaining
who were appointed electors, and pro-
vides no means of reviewing their find
ing, then the finding cannot be reviewed
by Congress, or by the commission, which
possesses only the power of Congress.
As Mr.. Eyarts, with a happy terseness
and completeness of statement, puts it,
the commission can inquire into the
electoral vote, but not into the vote for
electors.
Our readers will not be surprised to
see that Mr.. Evarts turns upon the Dem
ocratic counsel the conflicting terms of
their own offer of proof regarding Mr..
Kellogg, as Governor of Louisiana. The
offer of proof asserts at one moment
that Mr. Kellogg's certificate to himself
was invalid, because he was de fdetO
Governors; at another moment that Mr..
Kellogg's certificate to all the electors is
void, because he is not Governor, even
de fdeto. Such contradiction in an ordi
nary case would argue stupidity on the
part of the counsel. In this case, how
ever, it argues only desperation. The
argument of the Democrats from begin
ming to end is honeycombed with incon-
sistencies; but it could not well be 9TH
erwise, when they hold on the one hand
that Louisiana has not Government re-
publican in form, and on the other that
the action of the Returning Board is to
be judged by the legislation of this void
Government.
AS matter of fact, however, the Re-
turning Board acted clearly within the
statutes of Louisiana. Mr.. Evarts added
to the lucid explanation of these statutes
submitted the day before by Mr.. Shella
barger. 1t has been held by the Demo
cratic lawyers that the law which gave
the Returning Board theright to canvass
all elections" had repealed law which
gave the electors themselves the power
to fill vacancy, and which also gave
the Governor power to canvass the votes.
Mr.. Carpenter had made great parade of
this point. He declared to the commits
sion, with show of defiance, that what
ever construction they chose to putupon
the statutes, "his man." meaning Mr..
Tilden, was sure to go in. If the law
was repealed, then the electors could not
fill the places of Levisee and Brewster.
If it was not repealed, then the board
could not canvass the vote for electors,
and the State must lose it's vote. In one
contingency, two Republican electors
were out of the way; in the other, eight
were disposed Of But Mr. Evarts and
Mr.. Shellabarger had no trouble in show
ing that the later law, which gave the
Returning Board its powers, repealed so
much of the previous law as related to
the exercise of those powers, but did not
repeal that part of the law which re-
lated to the powers of the Presidential
electors. AS this was the main reliance
of the Democrats the blow is severe one.
The next line of defense on which the
Democrats fell back is, like their prin.
cipal one, purelygtechnical, and is an at
tempt to make a defect in form de-
prive the substance of validity. 1t is
this: The two electors, Levlsee and
Brewster, whose eligibility to an election
by the popular vote was contested, alb
sented themselves from the college of
electors, and the vacancies thus created
were filed by the appointment of these
two gentlemen, who then acted. Now
appears the ingenious Mr.. Trumbull and
declares that because Levisee and
Brewster were not eligible there was nc
appointment in their case, and therefore
no vacancy. This is the converse of the
absurdity in physics that two things can
be in the same place at the same time
1t is an assertion that u position can be
vacant without there being any vacancy
in the position. 1t required very little
exertion of Mr.. Evarts' acute analysis
and perSpicuous statement to break
down this impudent pretension.
But there is one position from which
the Democrats will refuse to be driven.
They will always insist that if they were
allowed they would prove Chat the cleo
ton in Louisiana was in law and in
reality for Tilden, and that he can only
be deprived of its fruits by the refusal
of the commission to hear evidence. Nc
claim could be more false in fact or more
shemeless in spirit. The commission
cannot go behind the decision of the
State authorities, because it has nc
power to do so, because the houses,
which it represents, have not, for the
peculiar function with which the COM
mission deals, the power to do so. But
if that were not the case, if the law
allowed it, and there were time to make
it, full and complete investigation into
the facts of the Louisiana election would
show that it was clearly and irreVersibly
for Hayes. After making all allowance
that can be made for fraud, after weigh
ing the effect of the irregularities on
both sides, after applying to the dis.
turbed districts the tests of party
strength afforded by the result in the
districts which were not disturbed, there
is not a shadow of doubt that the ma
jority of the voters in Louisiana was fol
Hayes. The decision Of the State au
thorities must stand, for there is no au-
thority anywhere to review it-none in
the State itself, none in Congress, none
IN the commission. But 1t is a just de
cision. 1t accords with the facts and
with reason. II is not a balancing OF
fraud against fraud, or of fraud against
force. 1t is not wrong done to bring
about the right. tits in substance anc
effect the right itself. The Democratic
counsel seek to hide the dark record oi
Democratic crimes in Louisiana and. Il
fasten public attention on the charges
A az