The daily gazette., 1877-02-23
From Washington Union. .....
Ineligible Electors.

FaIaa.f
From Washington Union.
Ineligible Electors.
1t was Mr.. Justice Bradley's misfor- ,
tune that he should be selected as the
fifteenth member of the Electoral
Commission-the umpire whose fat
was to decide the presidential contest.
Whichever way he decided, IL his
was the casting and decisive vote, he
could not hope TO escape censure and
attack The criticism, however, to
which his ,unenviable position as um-
pire-an umpire with as decided poll
tical proclivities and bias as any Of his
celleagues-unavoidably exposed him.,
is. after all small burden compared
with that to which he has exposed
himself by his conflicting votes in the
Florida and Louisiana cases. That
there may be no doubt about the con-
fiict, we quote the several propositions
upon which he voted first one way and
then the other. In the Florida case
Judge Abbott offered q resolution
that--pds WE'l.aFii n ~ tNJj .aia9nl
"this Commission ,cia receive the evidence
relative to the eligibility of G. Hum
phries, one of the persons named In cefH-
ficate No. I as elector.p9 DnG c1lH'sgq Oil
For that resolution Mr.. Justice
Bradley voted. and it was adopted by
q vote OF eight 70 seven. The evidence
| relative to the eligibility of Humphries
was evidence showing that on the 7th,
OF November, 1876 the date of his ap
pointment, Humphries held a7a Office Of
trust and profit under the United States,
to wit: the office Of shipping commits
sioner at the port of Pensacola, by ap,
pointnept of the Circuit Court Of the
United States for the northern dis
trict of Florida. This evidence, az we
see, Justice Bald}ey held competent.
and it was admitted. In the Louisiana
case. Mr.. Justice Bradley signed, and
by his casting vote carried q decision
"that it is not competent to prove that any
/ of said persons SO appointed electors es
aforesaid held an office of trust or profit un
der the United States at the time when they
were appointed" -la .aI .nFso a'h d,
The offer in the case Of Levissee, one
of the Louisiana electors named in
certificate number one, was that op
the 7th of November, 1876, he held an
office of trust and profit under the
United States, to wit: the office of
commissioner of the Circuit Court of
the United States for the district of
Louisiana. This evidence Mr.. Justice
Bradley voted met competent" In
other words, Judge Bradley voted op-
posite ways upon the same question,
and, unfortunately for himself, voted
one way when the Democratic case
was weak for want of proof, the OPP
posite way when 1t was conclusive and
the proof not disputed. W 81 q.
The effect of Mr.. Justice Bradley's
first decision in the Florida case was.
as we stated at the time, IL honestly
meant and adhered to. ''a substantial
and important victory for the Demo-
crats." In the first place, it stulti6ed
the decision of the majority, (iuclud~
ing Judge Brsdley) that 1t was not
competent to offer evidence at''usde
the paper opened by the President of
the Senate upon the subject OF the APP
polntment of the electors. Now, the
Constitution of the United States ex-
pressly provides that no person hold~
| ing an office of trust and profit under
the United States ''shall be appointed.
The inconsistency between the decis-
ION that no evidence alitttde the papers
should be received, and the exception
that evidence touching the eligibility
of an elector would be received, lay
in the fact that if it was competent for
the commission to go behind the GER
tIficaue or the returns, either or both,
to inquire into the qualification of
pereon certified and returned as ap-
pointed, it was necessary equally COM
petent to inquire whether any such
person had In fact been appointed, or
whether there had been any appoint
ment at all. Further, If honestly ad-
hered TO, the decision concurred in by
Judge Bradley, admitting evidence Of
ipeligibility In the case of the Florida
elector, applied to the cases OF the
Louisiana and Oregon electors, invol
we'd the loss of at least three votes to
Mr.. Hayes, without which he could
not possibly be elected. This was the
substantial advantage to the Demo
Gratis in the first ruling of the Com
mission upon the admissibility Of eyi-
dence, and this is the reason why that
ruling has been reversed. Having
voted to admit certain evidence Ar.
Justice Bradley now votes to exclude
it. How he is to reconcile these con-
fiicting votes-not with each other,
for that is impossible with his
judicial character and reputation, Is his
affair, not ours. .. --..,.