The New York herald., 1877-02-06

within which they would expect the commission
open the Florida Il acknowledged that 1t Is
impossible to mako anything nKe a recanvass OF the
votes, but where, precisely, tho commission shall stop
nn begins, even MI. o'con to-day left to thu. body
tns in the nature OF quo warranto, the Court could
60 as far into the matter as II chose.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.
WASHINGTON, Feb 8, 1877.
The commission met at eleven o'clock, the question
pending being what evidence, If any, Is before the
commission relative 10 the voto OF Florida the
cent Pres'dential election, what the powers
and duties OF the commission in the premises.
| xR. RvARTs' SPEECH
| Mr. Evarts, for the republican side, said:--
Ma. PRESIDENT GENTLEMEN OF THE CoMmls-
soN-The order OF the commission in directing the at
tention OF counsel lays out their
! topics:- -
| Frst-whether. under the powers possessed by tho
commission any evidence can be received beyond that
disclosed in the tnree certificates from the State Of
Florida which were opened by the President OF tho
which, under the authority OF tho recent act or
! Congress- are transmitted 70 this commission?
Second-It any can be received what TINT evidence is
| 1hird-what evidence other than the certincates
| II any, Is now before the commssiony
VIII dispose o. tho last question, under the order
ton to exprcss our views, aud will, think require
but little consideration IN time however, important
| suggested that certain packages Of papers, which
| were borne into the presence OF tho commission.
by the messenger that brought tho certificates aud
objections here aiready in the possession
| Of tho commission. What tncso packages contain
what degree OF authenticity what scope Of efficacy
is to be gwen to them particular matters OF ev-
dence and particular forms or proof are unknown to
| US and unknown TO the commission The proposition
| upon which 1t Is claimed that this evidence whatever
| It may be-subject undoubtedly, TO the discussion
aud to tho rejection by tho commission az not perth
| a m
toned In 0i the objections interposed against
tho nrst certificate. as matter on which
the objection was founded instead OF
being warrant, Us it, were. to
thereby makes II part OF tho evidence before the
commission, and our learned friend Judge Black has
proposed thnt exceptss against obecors that prevail
In their acts and efforts n common law courts. and
whom he has been good enough 10 designate 'snap
peradoes," this evidence Is by authentic principles
vi Jurisprudence made evidence by this attachment
the certincatc heinstances bills equity which may
have attendant EXHIBITS aud which, OF coarse bring
EXHIBITS part OF the into the possession the
| Court. Ifthere were objection the said to DO
provided for the exercise oi your authority pro-
duced. II the objection Is made th0.evcr inartihcWl
or mperiectj the case has ariscn but the objection
narrows and limits and provides the issue. and Law
fabrication OF utterly unsubstantal aud immat
suggestions In the law Certainly volunteer obJectors
on one sidc or the other were permitted to lay down
the issues and adducc the evidence aud make up the
packages OF the evidence IT would be strange commit
ment OF great authority to casual TO rash to dls:n
genuous suggestors SO much. think, entirely DIS
OF the question OF what there evidence here
coMMlTTEEs' TESTIMONY.
The other question as TO whether evidence
possession of either house both houses Of Con.
gress IN the shape OF committee reports or con-
transmissIbIo and may be proposed TO this com.
mission. and may be accepted and received oy
STOOD after the claim is scru,u,xco and
Is question that but "a subordinate
part Of tue main question: whether any evidence
beyond the certificates be received l wish TO
preclude ut the outset anything impress carry
Tor moment the Impression that there has been over
passed BY some astutoness ana some diligence tho
question 10 what you receive and what you reject.
ind myself, then unimpcded IN the inquiry, open
II uny, what beyond the certificates opened by
President Of the Senate. On that question shall
think II quite attentive To tho instruction Of the
mission and much more suitable to practical and
definite determination by this commission that what
ever OF general principles and howveer tho
decision on those general principles In this matter
OF evidence may be, the evidence that II ~
proposed should be taken us the apparent
limit Of the inquiry whether that evidence should
be received not from any particular dis
cord to the form or manner OF profcr but
TO whether 1t falls within the evidence that may he
received cxtrane0us to- IN addition TO- the Wee fres
dents ccrti6cates--thoso opened by hm-and am
enabled by the memorandum presented by the learned
counsel (Mr. OConor), found on the ioriy.second
page OF the Congressional Record OF Saturday,
to present the quality and character, the Office
and effect OF evidence that II Is supposed
might DO within tho powers OF this coInmissIUn)
served and entertained by It, In the nrst place. he
certiicatest0 wit, that which contains the vote of
the riiden electors; that they need no Other proof
excluded second, thcre arc statements concerning
the quo warranto suit IN Florida, commenced on the
9th OF December ana ending ON the 10th OF January;
aud regard that (ths record being supposed TO
contain In Itself tho opportunity and means VI
us according to established rules OF jurs-
prudence as "A record authority II Is sug-
gestcd that cxtrneous proof only would need to reach
the point of proving the precise hour OF tho day
the 9th which the writ commencing that
ton served anc on our part, perhaps prove that
appeal had been taken and was pending from that
judgment; there are enumerated some other matters
that require no proof as supposed.
Again. the actions Of the Legislature public acts
aud matters record and IL supposed that they
regularly before the commission, far at least they
appear IN the third ccrlincac by virtue OF that trans
MISSION and besides, suppose that they matters
OF pubic record as the action Of the Legislature Of tho
state.
Mr. Evarts here read the memorandum Of Mr..
UConor already referred to ns iollows:-
fvmThe only matters which tho Tildcn electors desire
commission by evidence actually extrnsc
will The Board OF Ganvassers acting
which the Hayes electors appeared chosen rejected
wholly returns from the county OF Manaee and Of
doing said State Board without jursdcton
the Circnt Court and Supreme Court in Florida decided
That Is the recent judgment Ia mandamus and quo
warranto. Continues reading:-
II was by overruing setting aside warranted
by law these recctions that the courts Of Florida reached
tiover,cr that the Hayes electors duly chosen No
eyed to be nesd establish the conclusions relied upon
by the Tden electors except duly authenticated copies of
That is. as Mr. O'conor adds, "the erroneous can
vass consider It,"
MIR. O'Conor-That IS your canvass said "Tho
erroneous canvass, as we consider IL.
Mr.. Evarts-l SO understand. ] was using your |
language You interposed that remark verbally in
di,io 10 the written part.
Mr. Evarls I'm shed the reading, as follows:-
And OF the returns tho above named countless
wholly and others In rejected by said state
canvasscrs.
Now II Ia proposed, therefore, as the matter |
extrancous that IL Is desired to introduce |
and that is claimed Is open TO your consideration,
als.ss sh 2nyA Mans fola