The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-03-01
Aahhtal
LOUISIANA.
SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE.
sEELYE AND PIERCE, REPUBLI-
CANS, VOTE AGAINST COUNT
ING LOUISIANA FOR HAYES.


The discussion in the House on the
Goth ult,, on counting Louisiana was one
of deep interest. Each speaker was limit
ed to some ten minutes, and hence speech
es were brief Such interest as the debate
had centred on two Representatives from
Massachusetts, Seelye and Pierce, who
have uniformly acted with the Republic
can party the winter through, and now
faced the decision Of the commission
with a prompt denial of the right of
Hayes to the vote of Louisiana. AS for
the other speeches, there was this change
in the spirit of debate. The moral sense
of the House, its conscious right, lay
with the Democratic speak ers. All the
morning Garfield sat by Pierce, OF Mas
sachusetts, pleading, begging, reasoning
WITH him. Pierce spoke in spite OF Car
field, and backed his speech by his vote.
MIR. sEELYE'S SPEECH.
Mr. SPRAKRR-It is, perhaps, generally
true that in discussions 80 earnest not to
say 80 excited as this, neither party may
be altogether right or altogether wrong.
In the bitterest disputes each side may
have somewhat TO justify it, both sides,
perhaps, being correct in what they af.
firm, and only mistaken in what they
deny. suppose we should never have
any contention among true-hearted men
if each had clear understanding of the
ground occupied by the other. In this
case of the Louisiana election 1t is to me
quite clear that the charges which each
party brings against the other are in the
main true. No facts were ever proved
more conclusively than the frauds and
corruption charged upon the one party,
and the intimidation and cruelty charged
upon the other Which party went the
farther and did the worse in this wrong
doing it would be hard to say. The cor
ruption on the one side seems as helm
GUS as the cruelty on the other side is
horrible, and the extent of either does
not seem limited, except as the necessi-
ties of the case did not permit, or the re-
quirements of the case did not call for
more. find it, therefore, impossible to
determine which of the two sets OF cleo
tors sending their certificates from Louis
lana voices the actual will of the people
of that State in the late election; and 1t is
equally beyond my power to admit the
propriety of accepting either. cannot
exaggerate the reluctance with which l
differ from the wise and candid men
wiser and more candid it would be hard
to fnd--who have pronounced the judg-
mept of the Electoral Commission upon
which we are now to vote. | acknowl-
edge, think l appreciate, the strength
of their position. We cannot be too
Jealous of the constitutional right ofa
State to choose its Presidential electors
in such manner las the Legislature there
of may direct" We cannot be too care
full of Congressional interference with
the duly accredited results of such
choice. Whether we like or dislike 1t,
the right of State to choose its electors
in its own way, and to ascertain and GER
tify thereto in such form as it may pre-
scribe is beyond our control. admit all
this as a technical statement OF clear
principle of our Constitution, a principle
as wise as it is clear But there are cases
where the Summum jus becomes the sum
ma iniuria, cases where the law strictly
interpreted and strenuously enforced,
works ont result which contradicts all
law and in such cases equity lays the let
ter of the law aside, and lifts its voice IN
Judgment as the sovereign spirit of the
law, the spirit of righteousness and truth,
determines. Precisely such a case seems
to come before us in the pending issue.
Granted-and this seems beyond dispute
that the Electoral Commission have
strictly and accurately applied the Con-
stitution and the laws to the question laid
before them, yet what if the very princi- |
pie on which the Constitution and the |
laws must ultimately rest becomes there
by subverted? Granted that the decis-
ion reached is fairly within the bond,
yet what if the pound of flesh cannot be |
taken without its drop of blood. What |
if this jealous care of the rights and pre-
negatives of State shall so foster faction
and blunt the sense Of justice, and in
crease the prevalence of fraud that the
very foundation of rights shall disappear
'No nation" said Niebuhr, lever died
except Ivy suicide" and the suicidal pas
sion is engendered not so much in arbi-
trary statutes of government, as in i'm
moral practices of people which the
Government does not punish and cannot
restrain. 1t is because | fear that the
strict and accurate Interpretation Of the
Constitution applied to the electoral vote
of Louisiana would imperil that vote in
the future, and increase the very dangers
which the Constitution intended to avoid
that am unable to concur with such an
application.