The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1877-01-25
THE STANDARD.
From Harper's Weekly
The True Way.

iected to our assertion that in deciding
upon the electoral returns from the
States, the only sure guide is the State
certificate in lawful form. The objection
Ia that there may be fraud in the form.
It will not DO denied that the valid vote
can be known only by lawful declara-
tion. It il not To be decided by mere
count Of the ballots found in the box,
because boxes may be stuffed, and the
ballots may be in various ways illegal.
They may be folded together, names
may be wrongly printed, or there may
be twice az many ballots as there are
names on the poll lists Here at the
very beginning appears the necessity OF
lawful regulation, and it continues up to
tho final declaration.
In most of the States the local election
officers are authorized to purge the polls
of palpable frauds and errors. In some
States, as in Louisiana. the local officers
have no final authority, but the State
Board alone has lawful power to scru-
tinize the polls and to declare the result.
In Louisiana, therefore, the popular ma
jority can be lawfully known only by the
declaration of the State Returning
Board, and no other electoral vote from
that State oan lawfully be counted in
the presence Of the two Houses, except
that which Is completed according TO the
law OF the State. 1t may be a bad and
dangerous law. But will it be argued
that Congress may set aside the electoral
return frol44 State because it does not
approve the Stfte law that prescribes
the way in which the return shall be
made The plain intent of the Consti-
tuition, and the principle hitherto adopt
cd by Congress and recognized by the
country, Is that the State certificate, law
fully completed, shall be final. The
State il to appoint electors in such man
ner as it may prefer, to hold elections on
the day designated, and to forward its
certified will to Congress, which is to see
that that will, escertainod as the State
may determine, In correctly reported.
The Constitution does not provide for
contest, because il could not contemplate
the possibility of any other contest than
the question which of two certificates
has the form required by the State law.
To 20 behind that, and to inquire
whether the law be proper, or which GER
tifcate ought to have had the lawful
sanction, would be to make Congress q
judicial tribunal and Returning Board
for State elections, and to complete alb
solute Capitalization.
IL 10, however, fair inquiry whether
buGES DG no EGmEuy lOF Tue AIdd0hACht
perversion of the form of law in the
electoral return. If, for instance, the
Returning Board Of Louisiana should
fraudulently throw out an apparent ma
jority and count in an apparent minority,
yet all under the regular forms of law, il
there no redress2 Undoubtedly there
is. but it il not revolution, nor the total
overthrow of the State by Congress. The
practical remedy under our popular con
stitutional system is the destruction oil
the party that secures a temporary ad
vantage by the fraud. Take, again, the
case Of Louisiana. Let il be made clear
to the country that free and fair elec
tion was held in that State; that without
fear or intimidation, as in New England
elections, an honest majority was cast fol
Mr.. Tilden; that partisan board under
suspicious circumstances threw out, un
der the forms of law, enough polls tC
count in Mr. Hayes, and that Congress
necessarily accepted the certificate, com
plete and regular according to the Stat
la.--let this be done, and Massachusetts
would be no longer Republican. Th'
forms of law might have been faithful.
respected, but those who had cheateC
under those forms would have destroyed
themselves and the party which the,
nOpG0 w bChChb w hhC h1AA.
Take, now, another view. Let il b
made clear to the country that the elec
ton in Louisiana was not fair and free
that for years there had been constan
intimidation and terror toward Republ
cans; that in districts where there ha
been within year or two Republican
maiorities of two or three thousand
there were not hundred Republican
votes cast; that in every parish wher
there were not proved murders and terro
of the Republicans, there were increase
Republican majorities; and that in thi
situation Republican Board threw ou
under the mandate of law enough poll
to give the Republicans majority. an
that their return, complete and regula
under the law of the State, came to Cor
gress, although there might be seriou
doubt of the wisdom or constitutionalit
Of the State law, could Congress do NOR
wiselY.than abide by the lawful return
Could there be anything more hostile
the spirit of the Constitution than th
rejection Of the lawfully certified elec
oral vote Of State? And would not an
kind of irregular, unlawful, or violeI
action be both fatal and absurd Th
anly ground on which Congress coul
plausibly assume to reject a State vot
LnG CAiNAAiSLdhIcH WO nave "a
scribed Of alleged violence on one sid
and alleged fraud on the other would b
under the constitutional obligation {
Congress to guarantee a republican forI
of government Of the State was not II
publican in form. But that positio
would have consequences which woul
reach very much farther than to th
electoral vote As we said at the begii
ming of the controversy we say now, tha
the only reasonable and patriotic an
safe solution lies in adherence to th
forms Of law. If the transaction in LoI
isiana which we have more than one
mentioned shall cause a conviction thf
the result has been freudulently an
wrongfully, although lawfully, decided
the party which must bear the respons
bility will pay the penalty, while an
course not plainly within the acknow
edged forms of law, under whatever pr
tense, would necessarily end in anarchy