The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1877-03-03
Who ore Pnrtisnlls 2

Who are Partisdns i?
Our Democratic friends are still
greatly exercised over the unanimity
of the Republican members of the
Electoral Commission who have W.,
ted together upon the Important
question submitted to the al bitrati0n
of this august Tribunal. 1t is need
less to say that these austere censOrs
do not see any evidence of PARTISAN
ship in the seven votes of the Demo-
era ic members of the Commission
who array themselves in solid pha-
ianx against the Republicans. In
the Oregon case there were abundant
opportunity for rising above party
considerations, but we find that the
seven Democrats, planting them
selves on a technicality which, if it
had been insisted on by the Repub-
leans at the beginning of the count
would have deprived Tilden and
Hendricks of one vote in New Jer-
sey, one vote in North Carolina, one
vote in Tennessee, and one vote in
Virginia.
The unanimous decision of the
Commission rejecting the vote of the
Cr)nin College is cited as proof OF
the fact that the Democratic MEM
bers are capable Of rising above party
considerations. Now, in point of
fact it was never intended that the
votes certified by the Cronin College
should be counted. Only one lawful
Electoral College could meet in Ore
gon on the 9th day of December,
1873, and it was very apparent that
whatever objections might he made
to the papers which purported to
give the proceedings OF the College
composed of Messrs. Odell, Cart
wright and Watts, the Cronin Col
NAVE no sraildIlg in any court OF law
or equity or conscience on the face
of the earth, and the Commission so
ruled without a dissenting voice.
Mr.. Hewitt very frank ~ admits that
his only purpose in urginL Governor
| Grover to issue a certificate was to
present an issue to the Republicans
in Congress that would compel then,
to &c behind the returns in order to
ascertain the true result.
In voting with the majority to ex.
CLUE the CrOnin papers from the
consideration of the Commission the
Democratic members waived no
partisan advantage. 1t has been Az.
parent from the first that Tiiden had
no hope OF reaching the Presidency
unless elected by the House OF Rep.
reSentatlves; hence all the proceed
ings before the Commission have
been shaped by the Democratic
counsel with view TO securing the
rejection of the vote of one or more
States, 50 as to create the contingency
that authorizes the House to proceed
to elect President. In deciding to
reject the vote of Cronin and his
College the Commission did nothing
to impair Mr.. Tilden's chances in
the House, and the Democratic Com
mlssioners could all concur in the
decision without yielding anything
to the other. The vital point in the
Oregon case was VIII ther the vote of
eX-PosLnlaster Mats should be
counted, and upon this question all
the democrats voted in the negative.
Without the vote of Watts, Hayes
and Wheeler would only have had
1874. votes, and there being tie, the
election would have gone into the
House.
Without discussing the decision in
the Oregon case upon its merits, we
submit that no Democrat who accep-
ted fifteen votes, nine from New
Jersey, ten from North Carolina and
twelve from Tennessee for Tilden
and Hendricks without objection
ought to complain that the precedent
established by the Electoral Colleges
in all these States should be applied
to Oregon. In each of the above
named States an ineligible Elector
was chosen. He resigned before the
meeting of the College, thus creating
a vacancy, which was filled by the
College either by the appointment of
the same individual or anether per-
son.tleemed to be eligible IfOregon
should be deprived of one vote be-
cause she chose an ineligible Elect0r
on the 18th Of November, why should
not the same law be applied to other
States?
When the decision in the Oregon