The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1877-07-14

other (the relators or the defendants) were
duly appointed electors of President and
! Vice President by and for the State Of Flori
da. Evidence was taken, the cause was de-
} hated by coussel on both sides, and after
consideration it was adjudged by the court,
against the defendants and in favor Of the
State, that the REALTORS were duly appointed
and the defendants not This fact, thus de.
termined by the court, was precisely the same
TACT aiterward controyerted by the same par
ties before the commission. When submit
ted to the latter tribunal, il was res jndteata;
not only true, but fixed and settled beyond
the reach of contradiction. The Judgment
was not impeached for fraud or reversed for
error 1t was in fall force and virtue. II
, was not denied that the court which made the
adjudication had entire aud complete juris.
dictios both Of the subject matter and Of the
parties, BY all reason and all authority the
commission was bound 10 respect the iudg.
ment as conclusive evidence But 10 have
done this would have made Tilden President
and defeated the purpose Of all the frauds in
Louisiana .d.d Florida both. They did not
do ii; they allowed the Judgment 10 have no
elect all. They but looked TO see what il
was, and Immediately swept it out of sight
They put II far from them, and then proceed.
ed to pronounce different judgment, which
suited the Hayes men better How could
they break all the bars of legal authority
which fenced them about2 What starting
hole did they find TO escape from the corner
into which they were driven and penned M
by the law OF the lnnd? We shall see.
They said the Judgment of the Court was
too late; 1t was pronounced after the HAYES
electors had met and made out their votes,
and sent them TO the President of the Senate.
| Here were two sets Of electors, each claiming
the exclusive right 10 vote for the State, and
both Of them actually sent up their ballots.
One OF them was duly appointed, and had the
authority claimed; the other set was neoes.
sarily composed Of mere pretenders, who
we're not duly appointed, and, having no
authority their vote was a mere nullity
Which party was right, aud which wrong
The conflict must be settled somehow Where
was the jurisdiction TO determine itY Tn.
doubtedy, and by universal admission, the
power was in the courts of the State from
which both claimants professed to derive
their authority. The proper State court did
determine it; but the Commissioners said that
however competent the jurisdiction of the
court, 1t was too late in making its decision,
and then they proceeded, in the exercise of a
jurisdiction exactly similar, 10 decide the same
questions of fact and law the other way. Now
comes the query: II the court S decision was
worthless because it was late, what was the
value of the commissions judgment, which
was later? The eight did actually, not in
words, but in substance aud effect, give vent
to the bald absurdiiy that it was too late in
January 10 decide the dispute in favor of
! Tilden, but not too late in February TO decide
| it in favor Of Hayes
Another thing they said; This Judgment,
though it proved the fact that the Hayes
claimants were not duly appointed, and had
no title TO the office of electors, did not in
validate the acts previously done by them
while they were de facto in the exercise of
! the powers they usurped There is Just and
necessary rule of law which declares that the
validity Of acts regularly done by an officer
shall not depend on the title by which he
holds the office. You may remove Sheriff
| by a quo soa,Tdato without destroying the
titles of all who purchased land at his
sales, or a Judge without vacating his de.
crees, or treasurer without saying that his
payment Of public debt is not satisfaction;
but where person assumes a special authori-
ty TO do particular thing the validity of the
act does depend on the authority to do il.
This latter rule applies here. These electors
claimed right to vote for the State under a
special appointment given them to do that
one act. When competent court adjudica-
ted as matter Of fact that the Hayes electors
had no appointment, it was logical and legal
necessity which declared the unauthorized
votes to be null and void. If this were not
the principle, then any imposter, or any
number Of impostors, might send up their
ballots, and one would be as good as another.
But again, let it not be forgotten that the
Tlden electors had also voted at the same
time in the same way. Why did not this fact
make as much weight for them as for the
others? IL will excite the wonder of the
F..ElA 70. sAuNa al. 4 Il
eight, person who voted under an appoint.
meut given him by the people according to
law could not be even a de facto elector, but
another person who had nothing to claim by
except the false, fraudulent, aud void decla. !
ration OF q Returning Board was good de fac. |
to, if he was good for nothing else. This
doctrine Of de iaeto sanctifcation, saving acts
which have no other "resh of salvation in
them,n and making .he votes Of unauthorized
men as good as il they came from persons duly
appointed, cuts great figure througho ut the
whole case. 1t is not applicable, but the
eight apply II everywhere, and, strange to say,
they never use it when it does not make in
favor Of some fraud OF other. One who votes
according TO the public will Of the State,
legally expressed through the ballot boxes,
is de tacto nothing. But if he was defeated
or ineligible, he is de "a eto all he wants to be
One of the Hayes electors in Louisiana was a
Federal officer; his election was forbidden by
the Constitution of the United States, and he
was not elected but beaten at the polls; de
facto strained its utmost power on him, and
pulled him through in spite Of Constitution
and people both. But his Democratic com.
petltor, who had acted as an elector in the
same way and TO the same extent, was legal
ly chosen by an Overwhelming majority, and
consutqtionally ehgiblci therefore de facto
could do nothing for him.
In all the discussions Of the subject the
men disposed TO favor the conspiracy pro.
fessed most profound veneration for the
forms Of law. This was the keynote struck
at New Orleans by the Visiting Committee,
and il is heard in every subsequent argument
OF counsel and commissioner on that side |
1t seemed to be understood among then, that
formal cheat was perfectly safe from expo.
sure, If the sepulchre was whited on the
outside, it made no difference that il was
tilled with corruption, dead mems bones,
and all uncleanness.s No refuge of lies
could be swept away, no hiding place Of false
hood eould ever be uncovered, If it was built
IN the prescribed form. Only give il the
legal shape, and the Overlooking scourape
would be turned aside. But legal form, how
ever valuable US q covering for fraud, was, in
their Judgment, no protection for truth or
justice or public right. The will Of Louisiana
was pronounced at the election with all the
solemnities required by the law Of the State
and OF the United States, The appointme Mt
of the Tilden electors on the 7th Of November
wasa perfectly legal piece Of work; there was
not flaw in the record Of it as il came from
the hands of the appointing power. But il
was looked on with perfect contempt. Nei- |
ther the Visiting Committee, nor the Hayes
counsel, nor the eight Commissioners. be.
slowed on It any Of their love. Their affec.
tons were otherwise engaged; they gave the
homage and devotion Of their hearts % the
beautiful regularity, the exquisite precision,
with which the Returning Board compounded
It's false certificate.
Another paradox of the eight ID curious
enough to be noted. They declared repeat.
eddy that they had no power 10 try a contested
election case, and for that reason they would
not look at the evidence which showed what
persons were duly appointed electors by the
people. Now markl The case WAS this,
Each Of those votes came aepnnna,,;ad ~