The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1877-02-21


At this point Justice Bradley interrupt
ed don't think there is difference OF
opinion on that point. 1t is the universal
theory, so far as / am informed, that the
powers of this commission extend so far, and
50 far only, as the powers of the two houses
of congress.
Mr. Carpenter-In other words then it is
agreed on all hands that the powers OF this
commission are political powers, are leglsla-
tive powers, delegated by the two houses OF
congress Your honOrs would have reliev-
ed yourselves from the inflictiOn OF the last
twenty minutes if you had announced 1t
early.
Commissioner Hoar-I did not under:
stand that Judge Bradley announced the
proposition that you have just stated.
Mr. Carpenter-The proposition is TO my
mind self-evident and so fortified by the
constitution that will stop on mere sug-
gestion that Judge Bradley has made on the
subject.
Justice Bradley intimated that the coun-
sci had drawn his own differences.
Mr. Carpenter then quoted the language
81 the act creating the commission, and con-
tended that it is the duty of the tribunal not
to ascertain what appears to be the case, but
who have been duly appointed. Mr.. Car
penter quoted various authorities to
show that the writ of q,tO lCGrrGiltO was
not criminal proceeding, although it is in
that form, but it is in substance a civil one.
Continuing his argument Mr.. Carpenter
said: Another question that think is one OF
considerable difficulty, and that is what
November last The question is on
the LIST of April when the revised statutes
took effect. Did they repeal all conflicting
statutes or was this act of 1870 saved from
repeal by the act of the 18th of February?
That is the question. Let me in the first
the state on the LIST of April
did repeal the election law of
1870. and then will proceed
on the theory that it did not come out just
as satisfactorily one way as the other. 1t is
remarkable | know, but it happens to be so.
Now if the act of 1868 was in force at the
last election, it is not pretended that there
vote of that election according to
the statute. There is no pretense
of that, They acted on the theory that the
other law was in force, so that if your hon
OTIS shall hold that the act of 1868 was in
force because embodied in the revision
taking effect April 1, and therefore not re-
pealing the former act of the 10th OF
cisely in the attitude in which
il was four years ago. At that time there
came Hp from Louisiana regular certificates
of its governor that so many persons had
been duly appointed electors of the state,
but the senate, going upon the theory which
maintain is the true and proper one, APP
pointed committee in advance to examine
into the facts about the election of that col
lege. They sent for witnesses and brought
them here in large numbers and made an
examination, and the committee re-
ported on the subject, not ex-
pressing an opinion whether they should
or no. be excluded, but stating the facts
that there never had been a canvass Of those
votes by any person authorized to canvass
them. and submitted the question to the two
houses whether the vote should be counted
o. not, and the two houses, acting each for
'tself, decided they should be excluded. Now
/ ask this commission whether it will
decide that congress violated its constitu
tional duty or usurped its power in holding
that the vote should not be counted four
years ago. That must be the conclusion
that you are to hold, for you can not
go back of the governors certificate
When We come to the repeal of the act of
1870, the question may be raised whether
repeating a law revived the original law, but
in that state that fact is forbidden by the
constitution, so that the subsequent repeal
of the act of 1870 would not revive the act of
1868. The act of 1868 is lost entirely unless it
is continued in force by revision. If the old
statutes continued in force, then the provis-
ions of the act of 1870 did contain the pro
visions in regard to the electors. The act of
1872 did not except to fix the date, which
was wholly unnecessary, congress having
determined that. Now, then, l maintain,
and here L cross patch of
some other counsel, far more
distinguished that electors are not state
officers. They are therefore not included
in those general provisions of this act of
1872. Another point | regard as entirely
conclusive in regard to the action of
this returning board in excluding
voters. When the constitution of the United
States says that the electors shall be APP
pointed in such manner as the legislature of
a state may direct, it speaks of
course as an American state-a state
of this Union with the republican
form of government. Congress could
tomorrow take up the constitution OF Mas
sachusetts and inspect, and finding it was
republican, reorganize that state; and when
the constitution says a state in such
manner as the legislature shall
prescribe shall appoint electors, it re-
fers of course to that form of government
which its legislature has restricted by its
own constitution. 1t does not mean some
Hottentot community 1t means one of our
states. So maintain that if the manner
prescribed by the state of Louisiana
for appointing electors is in violation
of the constitution of that state, then it is
not IN compliance with the constitution OF
the United States. L claim that If L can
show that the election law is entirely in VIC
lation of the election law of the state of Lou
isiana. it is entirely in violation of the
constitution of the UuIted States. 1 am
now proceeding to treat the act of 1872 as
though it applied to the election of electors.
This act creates canvassing board to be APP
pointed by the senate, and so far as anybody
knows they hold their offices during
hal
occur they have a right to fill the,u. They
are a close corporation and as much more
potent than the people of this state, il
this law is CONSTITUTIONAL as the government
of the United States is more potent
than the government of that state. Mr.
Carpenter then recited the provisions of al