New Orleans Republican., 1877-02-17
A GREAT DEMOCRATIC BLUNDER.


The Action of the Republican Major
ity sustained by MIR. Church-The
States Right to Appoint Electors in
Its Own Way Absolute Other Menu
bers of the Court, with One Exception,
of the Same OpiniOn-E Governor
Seymour Regards the Democratic C.
tIOn as n "Great BIunder."
An Albany correspondent of the New
York Times writes under date of the ninth:
The votes cas- in the Florida case by the
judges of the Supreme Court belonging TO
the Electoral Commission have given rise to
good deal of discussion and comment
among members of the legal professio
here as elsewhere. It was generally ex-
pected that the Congressman attached to
the commission would vote according TO
their party predictions and pre- judices,
but the hope was entertained that Judges of
the highest court i'll the nation would not
be found divided on party lines when called
upon TO render decision upon a purely
legal and constitutional proposition. This
hope has been disappointed, and the inter
estlng and rather important query now
arises whether the action of the United
States Supreme Court judges is tair in.
| dicatiOn of the general character of our
American NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS., in fact there
il any such thing as constitutional law,
| fixed and well defined, or whether i5 is sub
| jeet to change and variation according to the
party affiliations of those who, for the Tina
being, may happen to be its expounders.
| The importance ot this que S ion to the peo-
/ pie of the United States can not be over
| rated, and it must there fore he some satls-
| faction to the readers Of the Times to learn
that there is one judicial tribunal in this
| country whose members are able to look at
the questions now pending before the cleo
| tOrsl commission 10 their legal and cOnsti.
tutional aspects, and not with sole reference
| to their political bearings. The present
| Court of Appeals of the State of New York
is universally admitted by the bar of the
StatG-Charles O'Conor and Samuel j. Til
den alone excepted-to be the ablest and
| best appellate cOurt the commonwealth
ever had. 1t would not suffer by COM
parisOn with the United States Supreme
| Court either in the legal lore or the personal
| character of its members As at present
constituted five of it's seven Judges
are Democrats, and were nominated and
| elected as such by popular vote. | am
informed, on good authority, that there is
no difference of opinion among these seven
judges on the constitutional right of Con-
| gress, or OF the commission that has
usurped its powers, to go behind the elec.
tOral vote OF a State properly authen tieated
and forwarded to the President of the SEN
ate They all hold that neither Congress
nor the commission can have any such
right. In expressing their individual Opin-
ions they all sustain the decision of the
majority of the commission in the Florida
case, and take substantially the same
ground maintained by the Republican
counsel who argued that case. Happening
to be present the other evening when Chief
Justice Church was drawn into discussion
of the subj set with two Democratic Sena-
tors, it has occurred to me that q brief
abatement of the views of the highest
judicial funcTiOnary of this State, himself a
lifelong Democrat. might be interesting to
the pub ic at this time.
In the first place. Chief Justice Church
regards the whole scheme of ''cOmmls.
sion" to decide the presidency as unconsti.
tutiOnal, and, to use his own words, "the
greatest farce of modern times" This con
stitution, he thinks, gives in the Clearest
terms, either to Congress or the President
OF the Senate (he did not express an opinion
which, the right to count the electoral votes
and declare the result; bat il does not give
Congress the right to delegate this power tC
any outside party or parties whatever, and
any attempt to do 80 is, in his opinion, a di
rect violation of the constitution, or az
unauthorized evasion of duty eXpTess y
imposed by it. As to the power of Congress
or of the commission created by II, to 90 be
hind the properly authenticated vote of q
State, he is equally positive and emphatic
in his opinion THAI il has no snch power.
In alluding to the case Of louisiana, h(
took this position: The constitution gives
to every State exclusive control over tht
manner of electiDg or appointing presiden
tial electors 1t Louisiana has seen fit tt
create a Returning Board invested with au
thority TO declare who is elected to Ctlioe il
that State, and such Returning Board hat
acted in pursuance of law, there is no pOWel
in CoDgr, IS or in any other body OuUsid,
Louisiana to go behind its action. 81
makes no difference whether in your Opin
ion or mine," said he, "Ghe board Shas don't
right or wrong, Congress can 90 not behind
it without annulling right expressly guar
anteed to the S;ato by the constitution, anC
practically putting an end to ali elections
Iu illustrating this to his Democratic
listeners, the Chief Justice said: Sup
, poae that IN the presidential election o
1868 Governor Seymour bad got enough
electoral votes, in addition TO those o
hia own State, TO make him President The
Republican party of this STATE charged
the grOssest irauds against the Deuuurdt
in that election; they even claimed, ant
still claim, that the frauds were of sutfi
. eitnt magnitude to turn the scale in favO
l | of the Democrats in this State. Thei
4 party controlled both houses of Congress
a and with New York for Seymour he would
I be elected; without it General Grant woulC
l | be. Now suppose under these oircum
t stances the Republicans had prevailed
i upon Congress to go behind the electora
Q vote, as certified and transmitted from thi
I State, and to investigate the alleged fraud
in the election here. Suppose that in thi
investigation they became convinced tina
Grant actually carried the State by ma
/ iority of legal votes, and, acting on thi
b conviction, had given the electoral vote +
Grant instead of Seymour. What woulI
the Democratic party have dOne9 Why, i
+ would have been an end of presidentis
+ elections in the State of New York"
The Chief Justice expressed great sui
prise that Democrats, for the sake of gain
! ing a temporary advantage, should be fOunt
4 willing TO renOunee the old-time Democrati
! doctrine of the rights of the States as guar
, | auLeed by the constitution. We had bal
Il ter, +" said he, "stick TO the constitution an
laws. If in 80 doing we go down as a ms
tion there may be possibility of resnrret
) tiOn; but it we go down violating all cor
siitutiOns and laws there can never be
Z resurrection"
The discussion turning on the OregO
case, Judge Church gave his views suOstaI
> tally as follows: He said that as he undel
!, | stood the case the Governor of Oregon ha
n given certificates to two Republican cleo
Ors and one Democratic elector. wit
:, reference to the Democratic eleotor, Cronir
he had no right, according TO the decision
p OF the courts of this State, to certificate a
!. all because of his having received tn
f next highest number of votes. Bat wail
' ing that, and granting the Governor
right to give him a certificate, after th
I. certificates were given the function
= and duteg of the Governor of OFego
: ended l. now remains for the cOmmissiO
q to INQUIRE what those three persons havin
. the certificates actually did. 1t appear
n that the two Republicans met to cast thei
q electoral votes and, CeOnin being absent
l Il Al II