The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1877-01-05

or Representative, or person holding an Of
fee of trust or profit under the United States,
shall be appointed an elector"
BY section. l3l Revised Statutes, 1t is pro-
vided that "the electors of President and
Vice President shall be appointed in each
State on the Tuesday next after the first
Monday in November" &C., which this year
was the 9TH of November.
1t is alleged that at the late election per-
sons were placed in nomination in several of
the States, and voted for by majority of
the persons voting therein, who were ineli-
gibe to the Office OF elector. Three of these
cases are selected, as u type of ALL Mr..
Watts, of Oregon, and Mr.. Sollace, of Yer
mont, it is said were. post masters and Mr..
| Coriss, of Rhode Island, it is said, was
| United States Centennial Commissioner. As
to the fact that these persons held these
respective offices, there does not seem to
be any question. They were, he.efore,
clearly ineligible.
These three cases, and all other cases of
incligibility, are precisely the same in pin
ciple whatever was the result in one case
must be held to have been the result in each
of the other cases. Aud it has become a
matter of grave importance to determine
| what the result really was in each of these
cases. The decision of this question, may
possibly determine who has been legally
elected President of the United states.
1t is, tnei, al duittsd ny all parties, that
Mr.. Wstt', No ooliace and Mr.. Curliss,
were each ineligible OK the 1th, Of N1yem-
Der last aud, therefore, that neither ol
them were duly appointed an elector on
that day. Neither of them could legally
cast an electoral vote by reason of the
votes cast for him. They could not be
appointed If every vote cast in their re-
spec.ive States, had been cast for those men,
it would not empower them, or either OF
them, to cast an electoral vote Tor President.
What, then, was the RESULT Strange as
it may seem, this question has received three
entirely different answers in these three
states: In Oregon it is decided by the
Governor, that the eligible candidate who
received the next highest vote, was duly
elected, and he has therefore received a GER
tiicate of his election, and has cast, or at
! tempted to cast vote for President. In
Rhode Island it has been decided that there
was failure to appoint one elector such
failure. ~ could only be rencdied by the
legislature in pursuance of Sec. l3i Of the
Revised Statutes. Hence An elector was
there appointed in accordance with the pro-
y 'ision of that section. While in Vermont
= IT, claimed that there was vacancy,
such >s could be filled by the electoral col
- iese Oh he State, "when such college meets
siVettselectoral vote" as provided 70,
y oy .ne IA Sec. of the Revised Statutes
- ",'n,N this time attempting to decide
a" a" w'ieh 0' '"o' rec irreconcilable positions
of j. .ne ''a' ~ Iti ,h.. perfectly manifest thai
are precisely alike, al En-. .,m, nrin.;nIa
nd must apply to each. r., mo. - 81.
re- "yacancy" in Vermont, tt, M s'Io, ,4 ,'r -
of electoral college at its NEE. a w. y ~ 'n'
yer would be true in Oregon and I''n,
yer .,.o Ifthere was failure to"0 i''""a
| to the day fixed in the law, requ.o o'
his s,ecial action of the legislature, in VIZ
hts. Island there was the same failure to apIl =
t is in Vermont and in Oregon. And itN
lint -,;u;.,, q, ,didate next higla6fn =
Il. duly slssssa issi( ~
y = !. !! IA = sse
t.4rss = g 55i!li votes OF Louisiana, Won't
!, Caroline and Eiai& &1 ~ "a
>, % y ,'In M
4 r M ~ Nj a4iso received a
eeltpat votes OF each of the States c
v1Rhode Island, Vermont, and Oregon. II
is defeated if a single electoral vote fror
. either of these states is not counted fo
him.
But whichever way this question shall b
decided il it is decided by any one uniforl
y principle, he must, inevitably, loose one o
l, more of these votes. If the rule estabishe
y by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island i
q adopted, Mr.. Hayes is not entitled 10 th
s. one vote from Vermont, mar the one from
- Oregon for in neither of these States di,
} they supply the omission in the same mod
h az in Rhode Island If it is decided tina
:. there was Vacancy" rs claimed in Yer
;, mont. then he must loose, at least the on
" vote from Rhode Island for there it wa
not treated as technical vacancy. And
It the position of Gov Grover is sustained, tina
il the eligible candidate next highes, in vot
4 was duly elected, then Mr.. Hayes mus
necessarily loose all three Of these votes. Ii
= no event il he entitled to all these votes il
e one event he will loose them all ; and i
t. neither erent is he legally elected, no matte