The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-02-03
WASHINGTON.
Florida Before the Trlpartlte
sFTr Commission. . 6'
A Thorough Discussion of the
Points In the Case. s--l
Continuation Of the Louisiana
Investigation. s

W NAahlNdTONI reDTuhTy ne EleC
toral Commission met at 1890 this morn
ing. The Presiding Justice said thC
question was asked yesterday, "What i
the case ~ to which he had replied: "T
consists Of three certificates, with accom-
panying papers and objections to thC
same." He would now state that two
objections on each aide would be allowed
Those representing objection one, whicl
was presented by Mr.. Field. would speaI
first and under the fourth rule would bt
allowed two hours TO state the case ant
argue in support Of the objection.
Mr.. Field asked whether after the oh
jectors had spoken and opening argu
ments were made any reply would BIZ
allowed.
Justice Clifford stated that the rule.
made no provision for reply.
Mr.. Field then opened the argument
as an objector in the case Of Florida, ant
argued in favor Of going behind Che face
oil the returns on the ground that il this
could not be done, the American people
would be in position OF standing pow
erless in the face Of a giagantic fraud.
lie was followed by Representative
Tucker, another objector on the same
side Of the case.
Senator Sargent and VIM. Z. Chandler
being familiar with the subject under dis
cuSsion, were present with Republican
counsel. t.t5 T..
At the conclusion Of Mr.. fuckers ar.
pIlment the commission took rccpss nm.
til 3 o'clock.
Mr.. Field reviewed the action Of The
Florida Returning Board and Of Govern.
or Stearnes, and read from the evidence
taken before the House committee to
show that the votes Of the precincts had
been thrown out without 4 particle OF
evidence, and on the mere snppOsition
or belief that intimidation had been
PraCticed. The votes OF Johnsville and
Darbyville were cited as instances Of this
action. lie argued that the paramount
question before the commission was
whether in the face Of such testimony as
this it can be claimed that the face oil
the returns il to be considered as conclu.
sive and binding. The usual form Of
statingthe question "can you 60 behind
the certiticate% is an erroneous form. II
should he reversed 80 as to read "can
q certificate go behind the truth and con.
ceal it?' There ia no pretensc that the
vote Of the State was not given for Til.
den and Hendricks. The sole pretext
for denying the fact being the certificate
OF Gov. Stearnes. They say the truth
cannot be proved rs against the certif.
cate. This includes the proposition that
the two houses Of Congress have no right,
either separately or together, to consider
or inquire into any act which Governor
Stearnes may certify to Congress. Sup.
pose Governor should become 80 de-
based rs to cOrruptly and falsely certify
TO Congress that one set Of electors had
received majority OF the votes OF the
States. Is there no remedy? The Con-
stitution nowhere declares that the GER
titcate OF Governor shall be conclusive
against all proof in regard to the election
OF President. The Constitution dis
tinctly declared it is the person having
the highest number Of votes who shall
be declared elected, and it cannot be
rightfully said the certificate Of the Gov.
ernOr OF State can override this pro.
vision OF the Constitution.
Mr.. Field cited the case OF Barstow, OF
Wisconsin, "A Wisconsin Reports) to show
the propriety OF proceeding by quo war.
ranto. In that case the usurping Gov
srnor was ousted by the courts and the
rightiul Governor installed in his stead
n case parallel to that Of the Governor
ship OF Florida. Mr.. Field regretted
that there was no similar provision OF
law bearing on the question OF the Presi-
dency, and paid high tribute TO the
foresight and craftsmanship Of one men,
Der Of the commission Senator Morton)
for having discovered the latent difficulty
in the question Of the disputed Presi.
dency and labored earnestly for its sell.
Element. Fraud vitiates all transact ions.
/ will not argue that the Judgment OF a
court Of competent Jurisdiction can be
impeaohed collateraliy for fraud. II II
could be, 1t would be against public pol.
icy. It would be scandal TO inquire
into the bribery or corruption OF the
Judge while the Judge is sitting on the
bench, and, therefore, from motives OF
public policy, it may betrue that until
the Judge is impeached you cannot in.
quire into the corruption OF his acts. l
will venture to say, however, that there is
no document anywhere that you can not
impeach for fraud. l put il to the court
that, independent OF the question wheth-
er, II Judge were mistaken, and il be
shown that he, acting in the exercise Of
his Judgment certified thing to be true,
which was moi, i have no doubt you could
inquire into il. l submit that il you show
that he acted corruptly, and that he was
bribed, or.led astray by his hunger for
Office or thirst for power, not
less than by his thirst for gold,
you can impeach his acts. Who is he
whose acts we are asking 10 impeach
Its the then Governor OF Florida, NJ. II.
Stearns. Stearns is the man who sent n
telegram asking on what grounds can
We throw out the votes, and who received
in answer, fraud and intimidation or
something else. Stearns is the man who
controlled these puppets.of theCanvassing
Board, who was to decide whether or not
he was 10 exercise the Office OF Governor
for the next term. Is it correct prop.
osition Of law that you cannot in.
quire whether that man has acted fraud.
ulently. II il be. true that the certif.
Gates cannot be gone behind, then it is
equally true whether there was an elec.
tion or not. Suppose prove or offer 10
prove, that on the 7th Of November last,
there was no election whatever. in the
State Of Florida, and that no man
voted or cast ballot, and yet
certificate should come here aligned VIM.
H. Stearns. Could yod say that that
shows that those four men were elected
at that election. To that completion
itmust come at last. There is no middle
ground. II you can inquire into the
truth OF that certificate you can inquire
into every fact relative to ii. The
greatest question in respect to the dignity
oi the Presidents Office and the enormous
interests depending upon ii, are as moth.
ing compared with the moral elements
involved. The greater question Is
whether or not the American people will
stand powerless before a gigantic fraud
Here is the certificate (holdlng il alolt in
his handy. One feels almost reluctant to
touch Il. Hold it to the light and II il
black with crime; pass II around and lei
every one See II, and tell me whether
or not that certificate gives title to an
office contrary to the truth, as we can
1 4