The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-02-15

i nunds,B fssoisssiua WIS put vote
lost by a vote. OF yens nays y.
judge Strong,s resolution vas then IN
land Carried hat counsel on each side hay
/ two hours to argue as TO the ntmlsstbllit
OF evidence. 20. I. . ...l e.
subsequently, on motion Of judge Brad
| lev, counsel were allowed to speak longe
than two hours on this point, provided the
agree to have It taken out Of the time--fou
and half hours on each side-giyen then
to argue the merits OF the case. 3
A recess of thirty minutes was, taken.
On ressaembling, Judge Trumbull begar
his argumentin favor OF 80 e. 81
THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE
offered, claiming that the Commission has
all the power OF Congress and tue law to &c
to the bottom Of the matter before 1t and
ascertain every fact. He claimed that nc
man worthy OF the high Office OF President,
or even OF the position OF q constable OF
paltry town, could accept Office on O title
given hinf BIZ W lillian Pitt Kellogg.
Mr. Trumbull, in stating the case, said
they would prove that Kellogg was de tacto
Governor OF Louisiana during the months
OF November and December last, and that
he was not duly appointed an elector they
would further prove that when the Return
ing Board canyassed the votes they had no
legal evidence of violence at the election,
and consequently had no right to throw out
votes; that the supervisors OF registration
omitted, wilfully or otherwise, returns
from certain poliing-places In their
precincts; that by the returns actually
made by the commissioners of election r7
KELLOGG WAS DEFEATED AS ELECToR BY
SEVERAL. THOUSAND MAJORITY; y
that Kellogg, when be certified to his own
and the election of the other electors, well
knew that he was certifying to what was
not true and in accordance with the re-
turns; and that the issuance OF the certif-
Gates to the so-caIled Hayes electors was in
pursuance OF an unlawful combination and
conspiracy, OF which Kellogg, Wells, Ken
ner, Casanova, and others were the actors.
Judge .Trumbull read a printed brief,
giving at great length the reasons why the
Kellogg certificate is false and fraudulent.
Among other things charged against the
Returning Board was the forging OF re-
turns from Vernon parish. 1t was also
charged that Levisee, Brewster, Burch, and
two or three other Republican electors were
ineligible-the two first because they held
Offices Of trust and profit under the United
States, and the others State officers.
ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.
Mr.. Carpenter presented some authori-
ties additional to the brief submitted by
him to show that Kellogg, Governor, could
not give certificate to Kellogg as an cleo
tor, and he argued. that they must go be-
hind the certificate to see. that Kellogg was
elected. ....,A..,..-s
Mr.. Stoughton, Tor the Republicans, said
these were objections which might as we'll
be answered here. 1t had been asserted
that Governor Kellogg was not the Cover
nor OF Louisiana. He referred to the deci-
sion in the Dean case in the Rhode Island
instruction as conclusive on that point.
He said the offer presented was to deter
mine by a search and scrutiny Of all the
polls in Louisiana to ascertain what was the
vote Of the State, holding the action OF the
officers OF that State for naught. He would
undertake to show that the statutes Of Lou
isana conferred upon the Board full power
to determine who were elected by the voters
OF the State, and that the Electoral College
had the power to fill vacancies in its body.
He read from the decision in the Florida
case by the Commission that it was not COM
potent for them to go back Of the action OF
the officers Of the State, and said he could
not conceive that the question was open for
argument now.
ShelIabarger followed Stoughton.
Mr.. Shellabarger argued that the act OF
1872 governed the election, and that the act
OF 1870 was repealed by the act OF July,
1872, so far rs the provisions werein conflict,
and that the Returning Board and the mode
Of filling the vacancies We're legal, and the
duties. properly performed, and beyond
question by Congress. He contended that
THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING '''.
that Kellogg was and had been Governor
de jure and de tact0 OF the State. Mr.. Shell
Pinckney to show that it was the intention
of the founders Of the Constitution to pre-.
vent the State from adding to or taking
they also intended to prohibit Congress from
interfering with the vote of the State. he
then went into an elaborate argument to
sustain the validity of board composed Of
four members, and cited numerous authors
ties to sustain his position.
AIR. Thurman asked il any OF these cita
tons referred to q board composed of diff.
ferent elements? gt." 'e
Mr.. Shellabarger said the clause requiring
the Board to be composed of members Of
different politics was necessarily directory
and not mandatory, for it was obvious
that o man would change his political
views. He contended that the duties Of The
Returning Board were administrative anG
that their decision was final, and had beer
80 decided in several cases by the Supreme
Court of Louisiana. He then proceeded tc
discuss what he considered
+ THE MAIN QUESTION, ~
and the real question, which was whether
the Commission had the power to go behind
the Returning Board, and which ha6
been already considered in the Florida
case. .....
Mr.. Edmunds asked il it was claimed
that the Florida Board acted corruptly. Ir
this case the allegation was that the Re
turning Board acted from corrupt motives
but he did not understand that in The
Florida case corrupt motives were charged
Mr.. Shellabarger said he understood tina
corruption was charged in that case. l. HI
complained that it was uni Just and unfair *
say that they were attempting to cover NJ
fraud and villainy by objecting to the I'D
mission Of eyiden ce, and said language hat
been used that was unworthy to be Spoken
before this tribunal. It was an insult t
the intelligence OF the Commission to So.
that because this was a ministerial actio,
that could not consider the question4+o
fraud that it was an effort to cover VI
frauds. II, as Dir. Carpenter said, the.
could after the 4th OF March go to the cas-
by quo ,oarranto to determine who wa
| eleeted President of the United States. it II