New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-02-20
most of the friends who used, at such times,
to lend him helping hand.
I" SWINDLED.D

that they were swindled i'm the organization OF
tbe Electoral Commission and have been swim
died in its mode of action. They supposed
thew had secured thoroughly nOn-partlsan
conrt which would begin its work without
party predictions of any kind, and arrive at
a Judgment by deciding the fundamental ques-
ton of the right to go behind returns In
accordance with the. principles just laid down
by the Democratic debaters in Congress. In
fact the organs Of the Democracy assure us
that the bill never would have received the
assent of even respectable fragment OF the
party except upon the understanding that thls
point would be settled in the way they desired.
In other words. the principal subject or dlsa-
greement, namely. the power of Congress TO
review the action of the States i'll the appoint
ment of electors, was precisely what they were
not willing to submit to arbitration.
These complaints are undignifed and absurd,
and they involve fiat contradiction of EVIL
dent facts. While the bill was under discus
sion in Congress its meaning was made per-
fectly clear, not by the testimony OF one side
alone but by the concurrent explanations OF
BOTH whether Congress or the Commission"
said Senator Frelinghuysen, one OF the COM
mittee which invented the Commission, can
;, go back of the certificate, returns, and ac-
" companyng papers, is one of the questions
"referred by the act to the Commission. And
al am entirely willing to abide 10y the de-
"cision of the fifteen sworn members of the
"Commission." Mr.. Edmunds, another mem
Der of the Committee, made the same expla-
nation at somewhat greater length. Speaking
of the question who should decide whether
there was any authority to go behind
the returns, he replied: Exactly the
" tribunai that must decide everything in the
end-Whatever tribunal the Constitution and
"the law constitutes for the purpose of such
" decision. This law constitutes tribunal to
"decide that very thing among Others" Sch
ator Morton made it one of the grounds OF
his objection to the bill that it gave the Dem
ocrats ga chance for the only thing that
"could count Mr.. Tilden in, and that was to
ago behind the returns" When Mr.. Morton
thereupon proposed an amendment prohibiting
the Commission to go behind the returns, Mr..
Edmunds took rather remarkable course In
order to make the explanation of the bill still
more clear. He wished the amendment to be
rejected, but lest negative vote Knight raise
g in the mind of some doubtful Senator or
intended to confer power to 90 behind
the returns, he moved to amend the amend
ment by striking out the prOhibitive words
so that it will read comforting authority to
ado the thing that my friend does not wish
60 to have them do and which L do not wish to
"have them dOn-and then voted against both
amendments, his own as well as Senator Nor
toms. They were both accordingly rejected,
and the bill was therefore left. as Mr.. Ed
munds remarked, without any implication"
Nor is there any lack of Democratic testimony
to the same understanding. Senator Thur
mans is conclusive. Replying 10 the objec-
ton that the bill was evasive because 1t LETT
this fundamental question open, he said: This
bill gives to this Commission the same powers
" that the houses of Congress separately or to-
"gether have, whatever those powers are. If con-
&" additionally they may go behind the decision
"of returning board, it may 90 behind it;
d" if constitutionally they cannot go behind that
L" decision, this Commission cannot go behind 1t;
(" and therefore it is a mere license of speech to
"call this a shutting bill. You might rs well
/" call any bill such as we often pass authorizing
" the Court of Claims to decide on claim
against the United States, or authorizing any
other court to decide claim, a shuilling bill,
because in the act we pass we do not decide
" the case itself, but submit it to the Judicial
determination of the court have as strong
"convctons on this subject perhaps and as
"lawyerlike convictions as any member on
" this floor / say to the Senator from Indiana
" that not sixty days ago, but SIX centuries
"ago it was the law that the acts of every
body who acted without jurisdiction were
"utterly void hope that this tribunal that
"will be established will decide in the same
"way and follow the prccedents of six cen
"turies but L do not knom, and 7 ,riH not
" restrain them by any act Of Congress-"
We might multiply quotations to show that
the bill was passed with a full understanding
on all sides of its exact meaning, but the
language of the bill itself is a sufficient an
swer to the present Democratic complaints.
With respect to the examination and vertical
ton of returns, it conferred upon the Com
mission "the same powers, # any, now
possessed for that purpose by the two
houses of Congress. Nobody could fail to
comprehend that, and the debates show that
nobody did fail to comprehend it, In fact, it
was stated several times in Congress that
unless the Commission were left free to deter
mine its own powers in this particular
the bill could not be passed. The hopes
or fears that may have been entertained by
this or that gentleman at Washington are
surely not to the point. The vital part of the
whole controversy was the question here sub
mitted by consent of both parties, and with
the overwhelming approval of the Democrats
especially. to the Judgment of the arbitratOrs;
and when the losers pretend, after the full
and free discussion expended upon it, that
thay did mot undarstand what poc tba oh;af