Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1877-02-09

four votes of Florida, one each side-that is,
we object to four votes.
Mr., E1munds-Which are they?
Mr. Field They are the Hayes electors.
The commission then adjourned. till l0:30
tomorrow.
The ARGUMENTS ~ TnE CASE OF FLORIDA.
WAsHIxCros, Feb. 2.-Mr David Dudley
Field opened as ObjectO- and argued in IA
vor of going behind the face of the returns
on the ground that ii this could not be done
the American people would be in the posi-
tiOn of standing poSerleSs in the lace Of a
gigantic fraud. Nj. Field reviewed the ac-
tiOn OF the Florida returning board, and
Gov .SiearnS, and read from evidence tIken
before the House committee 10 show that
votes of precincts had been thrown out
without particle Of evidence and upon
mere suppOsitiOn or belief that intimidation
had been practiced. The usual form OF
stating question. "Can you 90 behind the
certifieate?" Is erroneous. The question
should be reversed 50 rs to read, Can the
certificate go behind the truth and conceal
it?" They say the truth cannot be proved as
against this certificate of Governor Srearns.
This includes the proposition that the two
Houses of Congress have no right either
separately or together 10 consider or inquire
into any act which Governor Stearns may
certify to Congress. Suppose the governor
should become 50 debaSed as to cOrruptly
and falsely certify to Congress that one set
of electors have received majority of the
votes Of the State. Is there no remedy?
The Constitution nowhere declares that the
certificate of the governor shall be eonclu-
| aive against all proof as to the election of
President. The Constitution distinctly de-
elares that it is the lperson having the
highest number of votes who shall be de-
clared elected, and it cannot be rightfully
| said that the certificate of q governor of q
| State can override this provision Of the
| Constitution. Mr.. Fields cited the case OF
Barstow, of Wisconsin, to show the pro-
priety of proceeding by quo warrauto. In
| that case a usurping governor was ousted
| by the course, and the rightful governor
installed in his stead. Mr.. Tucker stated
before the commission the various objec-
! tions to the Hayes electors, and alluded to
| the QUO warrantO of the state of Florida,
and to the decision of the Florida supreme
court. This decision. he argued, was sus-
tanned by authorities. He regarded the
returning board as merely one step in the
authority by which the pronulgstions of
the elections were made final. The deter
mnant authority Gf he were allowed to
make word for the occasiOn) provided by
the state of Florida was the supreme court;
| therefore IuC
! authority, viz. the board, Is Conclusive,
not one il action but also as to the extent
| of its power. then We must regard the pre-
ceeding in Florida upon the action of these
electors, as part of that determinant
| power which the state has provided against
fraud and illegality.
A recess was then taken to allow Nj.
| kasson time to examine the cert heates
which were involved in these objections.
Upon the reassembling OF the electoral
commission. kasson proceeded to state
objections to the Tilden certificates. He
said, the, first certificate opened BY Con-
gress had all the requisites to legality
required by the United States constitution
and statutes of Florida The second certifi-
cate opened was certified to By an officer not
recognized by the law OF the United States
or Florida, viz, the attorney general, and
| also BY the electors themselves. who certify
| To their own qualifications. The third cer-
tifcate opened was entirely ex post factO,
being by an officer not in existence until the
functions Of the Office had been exhausted.
Never before in the history of the
republic haG such a certificate been sent
to Congress. The proceedings of the court
recited thereon were subsequent to the
time fixed for the performance OF the ju-
dicial functions. lie argued on certificate
IL
the vote of Florida. There was no neces-
sity of considering certificates Nos. ;
and 3, and he should therefore principally
eoufine his remarks to that certificate.
The objections to it were that it was a
false return that it was fraudulently is
sued, not by reason of anything which
appears in the action Of the
certifcation, or presenting of certificate,
but because of the action of other people,
He alluded to Mr.. Fields charge of fraud
in Baker county, saying there were other
counties in which fraud was charged by
his side, and if one were examined the
others should be. But he did not believe
the commission had power TO 20 to the
extent necessary to probe these allegations
to the bottom. The questions upon which
it was absolutely necessary to come 10 a
decision were, First, Is this commission a
general canvassiug board, with power to
recsnvass the public vote OF Florida
Second, L. this commission a national
court of appeal from the state canvassing
hoard? ThirG, Is this commission judicial
court of appeal from the state circuit court
of Florida in the proceedings of quo war
rsnto? Mr.. kasson proceeded to state that
appeal had been taken from the judgment
of the circuit court and was now pending,
| and he asked whether the commission can
take jurisdiction IRON the supreme court of
Florida after a regular appeal had been
taken. He argued that the power of the
commission was limited to the power of
Congress in considering questions affecting
the vote OF a state, and that the act appoint
ing the commission gave no power 10 do
more than is implied in the words count the
vote" The claim made hy the other side that
the commission had authority equal 10
that of the court on writ OF quo warranto,
he submitted was untOundcd. 1t wa
organized to eide over 4 difficulty and per-
form the ministerial act of counting the
votes and could simply determine from the
certificate whether ur not it was authentic.
Ii was asked by the other side. Should
the certificate Of governor be- taken
against the truth? lie asked, We're We to
take the certificate ut fifteen gentlemen
against the truth? IL was necessary To
have some final jurisdiction wa It
here or in the state legislature? Mr..
kssson then went on - state that pn
the recanvass ordered by thc court sh;
Hayes electors were returned elected where
upon q third CANVASS Wa Jrtere and nov
board OF canvasSerS appointed. lie spoke
Uf the action o! the canya-slEE board IN
the hrst instance, and >tld there wt- no
proof anywhere tliac thor action WI,
fraudulent In conclusion he said # VOC
have the right TO say that another set OF
votes must be counted in florida. YOU
have the right to say thas another sci ni
votes must be counted IN New York
Mr.. Thurman asked If kasson meant
to argue that il Florida had elected fur
electors who were laborins un.rr di-lbIlI-
ties covered by the liih amendment aud
these electors had cast their vote for prs>i-
dent the commission would be bound [,
count such votes.
Mr.. kssson-l suppose Congress. under its
power to give effect By legislation to cor
stional provisions, might pruhlhly proviGc
by law for an investi CATION of the quests n.
Mr.. M'Crary followed, reviewing III
quo warrantO case referred to. and c:;. n
authorities.
The presiding justice inquired whether
the counsel propOsei To Ofsr evidence
before proceeding u argument. lt waS
replied, on behalf Of Mr. O'CUnnOr, that
he expected to offer evidence
Justice Miller suggested counsel might
make a brief synopsis or statement OF what
thew proposed TO offer instead vi Offering it
in detail.
Mr.. Evarts said he had no evidence to
, offer unless there should be a dcterm ma
tiOn to admit evidence against his d.,
, which he should then need to meet.
Presiding Justicc-lt the commission &C.
cides to receive evidence you would requr re
to meet that evidence?
Mr.. Eyarts-les sir, especially relating
/ to this particular matter of Humphreys. we
shall, perhaps, desire to give evidence that
he did not hold that Office a, the time re-
ferred to.
Mr.. Thurman suggested there mns; lie a
great many facts aS to Whieh the counsel pom
both sides could agree. Ii counSct would
agree as far as they could in respect to 'ac,s
Of which there would he no possible d. ub-
leaving the question of their admissitiltY
as matter OF law to the dcc,>lnn ct the
, tribunal, it would tend to save time Ad-
| iourued till l0;30 tomorrow.
WASHINGTON NEWS