Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1877-03-03

officer asked whether there were any objectionl
} to the decision.
Mr.. Gibson Dem }, OF Louisiana, thereupor
rose and presented objections to the decision
fused to receive evidence, which had beer
! offered, and had decided that the votes men
toned In certificates Nos. and should bt
counted for Hayes and Wheeler, such evidenc,
} to the contrary notwithstanding. The paper
recites at great length the proceedings OF the
commission, but the point Of II IL the rejection
Of the evidence. II il signed by most Of the
! Democrats in both houses.
! Upon the presiding officer calling for further
objections Senator Wallace QDoni.), of Penn
syvania, rose and presented the following,
signed by number OF senators and members
First-That the decision is in violation of the
} Electoral act, in this That by the act the
commission is required TO decide whether any
and what votes from such State are the votes
provided for by the Constitution, and what per-
Sons were duly appointed electors; yet the
commission refused to examine and ascertain
who were duly appointed electors in and by the
state Of Louisiana, and what votes from that
State are within the provisions Of tho Constitu-
ton Of the United States.
Socond-Dccause the act creating the COM
mission was passed to the end that the commits
sion would hear and examine evidence, and
honestly decide what electors in any disputed
state were fairly and legally chosen whereas,
the commission refused to hear and consider
tho evidence offered to show tina. the electors
whose votes the commission had decided
should be counted We're not duly chosen, but
that they had falsely and fraudulently acted Ms
such electors, and also refused offers to show
that the pretended certificates of election were
procured by corruption and wholly untrue.
Third-Becarse the decision il in disregard
of truth. justice and law and establishes the
denloralizing and ominous doctrine that fraud,
forgery, bribery and perjury can lawfully be
,gI.,,N tl,..
United States against the well known or easily
ascertained Will OF the people and of States.
The presiding officer called for still further
objections, if any, and Mr.. Cochran ODcm.), of
Pennsylvania, presented this objection and pro-
test
First II was not denied before the commits
sion that the Tilden electors in Louisiana had
received large majority Of the votes cast.
Second-It was not denied before the COM
mission that Wells and his associates styling
themselves q returning board, were guilty of
gross fraud that their certificates given to the
Hayes electors were false and fraudulent, or
that their action in canvassng the vote were
in violation of the Constitution and laws Of the
state of Louisiana.
Third-The action Of the eight members of
the commission in declining to hear evidence of
those and other facts was violation of the
letter and spirit of the act under which tlS
commission was created, and of the Constitu-
ton of the United States.
No further objections being presented, the
presiding officer announced that the Senate
would withdraw to its chamber, so that the two
houses might separately consider and decide
the objections.
After the debate in the House upon the Elec-
tcral commissioners decision in the Louisiana
case and the rejection in that body of the de-
csion by vote of 172 to 30, the two houses
assembled in joint convention, and the electoral
votes of Louisiana were counted for HAYES.
There was no manifestation of any kind at
the announcement, and the opening and count
ing of the certificates proceeded in alphabetical
order, the State of Maine giving seven votes for
Hayes and Wheeler, Maryland eight votes for
Tilden and Hendricks, and Massachusetts, thir-
teen votes for Hayes and Wheeler.
When the certificate from the State OF
Michigan was read giving its eleven votes for
Hayes aud Wheeler, Mr.. Tucker (Dem.), of
Virginia, rose and presented an objection to
the counting of the vote of Daniel l.. Cross
man, one of the electors. declaring that one
Benton Hanchett, having been elected one of
the electors for the State of Michigan and
having held and still holds the Office of United
States commissioner, had absented himself
from the meeting of electors on the sixth of
December, and that his place had been filled
by the other electors.
The houses separated and debated the OBJ
lection, but both of them soon agreed to ac-
cept the elector in question and the joint con-
NtntlOn AGAIN aSSelllDlcu.
Then followed the State of Minnesota, with
live votes for Hayes and Wheeler; Mississippi,
with eight votes for Tilden and Hendricks;
Missouri. with fifteen votes for Tilden and
Hendricks Nebraska, with three votes for
Hayes and Wheeler, and Nevada, with three
votes for Hayes and Wheeler.
Mr.. Springer Dcm.) of Illinois, objected to
the count of one of the three votes of Nevada,
on the ground that the elector, r. M. Daggett
was at the time of his appointment, and for
long time previously, and thereafter continued
70 be, United States commissioner for the
circuit and district courts of the United States
in the district of Nevada. This objection is
signed by Nlessrs. Springer Tucker Vance, of
Ohio, Sparks, Savage, Marsh and jerks, repre-
sentatives; and by Senators Barnum, Wallace
and Hereford.
Once again the houses separated, and the
Senate voed to accept the Nevada elector, but
the House. without discussing the case, took
recess until the next day.
The House having decided that the Nevada
eector be declared elected, the joint conven-
ton Teassembled.
The teller then announced that the State of
Nevada had cast three votes for Hayes and
Wheeler.
Then followed in succession the States of
New Hampshire with five votes for Hayes and
Wheeler New jersey, with nine votes for Til
den and Hendricks New York, with thrty-five
votes for 1iden and Hendricks North Caro-
lima, with ten votes for 1ilden and Hendricks ;
and Ohio, with twenty-five votes for Hayes and
Wheeler.
The presiding officer then opened and handed
to the telers certificate received from the |
State of Oregon. 1t was read by MI. Stone of
Missouri, and proved to be the sworn certificate |
of the three Hayes eectors-C Cartwright, Odell |
and Watts-executed before a notary public. |
The papers contain full statement of the do !
ings of the three electors, the resignation of |
Watts as postmaster, his subsequent choice by
the other two electors the original ballots cast .
by the electors, etc. They were read in full.
The presiding officer then handed to the tell
ers the certificate of the three rival electors
-Cronin, Miller and Parker-authenticate by
the signatures of the governor and secretary
of State, with the seal of the State attached.
This certificate gives two votes for Hayes and
Wheeler and one vote for Tilden and Hen
bricks.
Senator Mitchell. (Gep.), of Oregon objected
to the certificate Of Cronn, Miller and Parker,
giving his reasons for the objection. This OBJ
lection was signed b.? Senators Mitchell and Sar-
gent, and by Representatives Lawrence, Bur-
chard and McDill.
Senator Kelly (Deiu.), of Oregon, then pre-
sented an objection to the certificates of Cart
wright, Odell and Watts. 1t is signed by Sena--
tors Kelly, Bogy, Mcdonald. Stevenson and
Cooper. and by Representatives. Field, Tucker,
Lane, jerks, Walling, Clymer, WiSginton, Pop
pleton, Vance, Hnrd and Luttrell.
After discussion the matter was referred to
the Electoral tribunal.
The Electoral Tribunal.
The Oregon electoral matter being before the
tribunal Judge Clifford asked who appeared
as DIRECTORS ON the two sides.
Senator Kelly announced that himself and
Mr.. jerks would appear as DIRECTORS to. certiti-
cate No. l. and Senator Sargent announced
that Senator Mitchell and Mr.. Lawrence would
appear as directors to certificate No. 9.
Senator Kelly argued that each State in the
Union had the right to appoint Presidential
electors in its own way and according to its own
laws, and that by the constitution Of Oregon in
'ase of ineligibiity the person receiving the
next highest number of votes entitled TO
be declared elected. He quoted cases from
many States and courts, and concluded as fol-
ows: The governor of Oregon and the score
-ary of State are the persons to canvass these
votes There is no evidence that there was a
canvass by any other person. 1t is for them
md them only, and they have decided. They
nave given their certificate that these three
Gentlemen are clisible-includmg Mr.. Cronin.
1t matters not how they came to that decision.
The presumption of law will always be that it