The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1877-03-10

remarked here that the temptation 10 kellogg
and his returning board was very great L
manufacture cases Of intimidation, for II wai
only upon them that the Democratic majority
could be overthrown and conspiracy be sue.
cessful. We should not fail TO call atten.
ton of the people to the dangerous effect Of
the doctrine Of intimidation in politics. II
disqualiies from voting not only parties to
the act Of intimidation, but oil those who
have voted at the same precints with them
Two persons may conclude TO make q case Of
intimidation, and thereby cause a parish cast.
ing thousands of votes TO be rejected. II
makes elections a farce. II takes the power
from the people, to vest in returning boards
In enables the latter 10 impose the severest
Of political penalties, Acknowledgement, with.
out giving to the persons punished an oppor-
tunlty Of hearing or trial. A republic de-
serves to lose its liberties if It tolerates such
outrages for an hour, By this disregard of
| law, disobedence Of courts and contempt of
the rights Of voters, by their frauds and cor.
ruptions and usurpations, by their. briberies
and peEjuries and forgeries, did the conspira.
tors obtain the certificates Of election for the
Republican candidates in the southern States
| named.
From the day that the certificates were is.
sued to the Hayes electors in Louisiana and
Florida the country has been filled with an
unprecedented excitement The people have
done little else than engage in discussion as
TO the fraudulent conduct of the returning
boards In this condition Of affairs business
has been generally suspended, failures have
been frequent and prostration has seized
upon nearly every interest in the land. When
this excitement was at its height Congress
assembled. One Of its duties was to count
the electoral votes of the States, including
Florida and Louisiana. With the view OF
facilitating the count and providing for the
peaceful performance Of its duty by Congress,
bill was passed creating the Electoral Com.
mission. By that law the Commission was
to ascertain the true and lawful vote Of every
State. In this labor it was to exercise. as 10
che hearing of evidence and examination of
papers, such powers as Congress or either
house Of Congress possessed. In the belief
that evidence would be heard, and that a set.
tlement of the disputed question of facts
would be fairly reached, the Congress and
the people accepted the Commission. How
that confidence has been disappointed-ho
a decision has been made based upon
refusal to consider the unfortunate question Of
the Disputes well known to the country.
When the certificates from Florida and Lou
isiana were opened and submitted TO the two
ed by the Hayes electors. Among other
grounds Of objection il was urged that these
certificates had been fraudulenty and cor.
ruptly issued by the returning boards and ex.
ecutiyes Of these States, and as a result Of 4
conspiracy between them and the electors
claiming to have been chosen; that such GER
tifcates had been issued in violation of the
laws OF the respective States, and that some
of the electors named therein were ineligible
by the express provision of the constitution
Of the United States When these objections
were under consideration before the Commits.
sion proof was offered to the Commission 10
sustain them. The Commission, by q vote
OF eight TO seven refused to receive the test.
mony offered, except as to the ineligibility of
a single elector in Florida. II was voted in
the case of Louisiana that the Commission
would not hear evidence to show that the re-
turning board was an unconstitutional body;
that it was not organized as the law required
at the time the vote was canyassed; that il had
no jurisdiction to canvass the electoral vote;
that the charges Of riot, intimidation and VIC.
lence were false, and that the returning board
knew that fact; that the certificates were cor.
ruptly and fraudulently issued, and as re.
suit Of conspiracy, and that the vote of the
State had never been compiled or canvassed.
The same rulings substantially were made in
the case of Florida.
The Commission also refused to hear proof
that at the time of the election in South Caro-.
lima anarchy prevailed, destroying the Repub.
llcan form OF government in that state, and
that troops were retained there, in violation
OF the constitution, to interfere with the free
choice by the electors, so that the lawful vote
Of that state could not be known Against
these decisions we protest most earnestly in
the name of free and Republican government.
In the first place they struck fatal blow at
the constitutional rights of the two houses to
count the electoral vote. This power has
been exercised by both houses without dis
pute from the foundation Of the government.
That evidence should be received in cases of
a contested return seem clear. The principle
has been maintained by the ablest statesmen
the country has produced. 1t was the prac.
tce confined to the principle in secret session,
notably in the case Of Louisiana itselfin 1869
and 1873. Such, evidently, was the view Of
both houses. At the present session the in.
vestigating committees were sent to Florida,
South Carolina and Louisiana to take test.
mony and report as to the elections in those
States. 1t is difficult to see upon what prin.
ciple this view can be based. The duty Of
Congress is to count the votes. This again
makes the determination Of what is the true
vote and the distinguishing Of the false from
the true. This requires evidence, for when
the false aud the fraudulent bring approaches
| to themselves, the forms of law expressing
the fact cannot be made unless evidence ad.
mits to be admitted. For if fraud possesses
the account how can success of falsehood be
prevented if either jury be denied. The &C.
ton of the Commission disables Congress
from performing its plain constitutional duty.
In the second place, this decision nulliiies an
article of the constitution.
In section l, article a., it is provided
"That no senator or representative or person
holding an office Of trust or profit under the
United States shall be appointed an elector
If the State choose electors who are ineligi-
Bile, how can this provision be made effee.
tual? The state by its action has refused to
repeal it. Manifestly it can then only be en-
forced by the power authorized to pass upon
the vote which the State has returned. Con.
gress then in counting the vote must deter.
mine who are and who are not eligible cleo.
tors facts which can only be ascertained by
evidence aliande Any other doctrine abro.
gates the previous construction and in effect
substitutes the following; Senators, repre-
sentatiyes and all persons holding offices Of
trust or profit under the United States may be
appointed electorsn
In the third place, the doctrine ignores all
the presidents and rules of morals in exclud.
ing the evidence Of fraud submitted. Moth.
ing can stand which is furnished by fraud It
yitiates everything; it annuls every deed, can
GELS every obligation, annuls every contract,
and reverses every judgment. Every tribu-
nal, however organized, is bound to regard
every fraudulent transaction as a nulty,
however it may come before il, whether di.
rectly in an independent proceeding or col.
laterally. The decision Of the highest tribu.
nal, if procured through fraud, should be
treated as of no effect by the humblest court
in the land. As snid by distinguished
writer, ut matters not whether the iudg.
ment impugned has been pronounced BY an
inferior or by the highest court of the land,
but in all cases alike it is competent for every
court, whether inferior or superior, to treat
as nullity any Judgment that can be clearly
shown to have been obtained by manifest
fraud" Il remained for this decision TO
declare that there were certain tribunals
which could perpetuate fraud with impu-
nifty, and that there was one court which
could not lay its hands upon fraud when
brouOht before IL for rav;av rhons. .,...,.,..