The New York herald., 1877-02-04


possible that II within the power OF Congress TO
say that tho certificate, issued should bs conclusive
therefore necessary testimony In the absence vi which
there no testimony and Unless IL accompanies the
vote The vote cannot be counted at all H. then, Con
grcss could not have required tho Executive 10 give H.
Congress could not, not even II Il mad been dis
posed declared that the certificate should be the con-
elusive and only evidences OF The election O the electors
OF the several States because the constitution Itself
provides for an authorization those electors by
authorization by themselves. I. TO that Congress
adds additional authc icaon which It makes con
ultion precedent To the counting OF the vote, u would
be violation OF that provision OF the consrtu
lion as well US IN violation OF tho relations OF the
federal aud the State government There two
proposislonss-Fsrs,, puas, whether Congress can, on
tute an original inquiry and take tss
timony gong behind the certificate OF the Governor
own motion, while the State still adhercs 70 the regu-
iarily OF The certificate That IL one question, anu
very important one But there Is another question
totally different from that, which 49, whether the Two
houses OF Congress- commissioned to inquire INTO the
counted. can reccve evidence furnished by the State
itself IN reference 10 the certificate which ts Governor
may have gwen There Is wide difference III the
cases. lrespcctfuly submit that II the powor does
cAst in the two houses OF Congress primary and
original power separately to take testimony going be-
hind Tho certificates. then tho power must exist
tho State TO correct It's certificate impcach
iraud or alsehood Otherwise would be inevitably
tied TO an accident mistake, and u Presidential
election might turn upon u certificate which Is known
10 all the world 10 be accident fa.sehood or a
fraud and yet Il could neither be impcachca bv tho
State that gave nor intcricred with by the federal
government but must DO substantial, living ana
perpetual truth IN the presence OF conflicting evidence
that II IS q lie.
rHE ACTION or FLORIDA
take up the second proposition In the OF
Florida The State herself alter the meeting OF the
electors, asccrtuining that the certificate gwen by
Govtrnor Stearns was gwen either by mistake or
fraud and was founded on irregular and illegal
OF the votes passed law by her Legislature directing
another canvass 10 be made but she did pass that
law, even, until she had applied her judicial tribunals
10 interpret the laws previously existing. Having ap
Piled 10 those tribunals TO interpret the laws previous
ly existing, and having In the mandamus
ceivcd from her tribunal OF last resort 0pnion
ing construction TO previous existing laws by which
opinion II was apparent that tho Returning Board
q return that erroneous under the law
The State Legislature on the basis OF that OPINION
directed another canvass Of tho Stale TO be made
When that canvass was made returned 10 tho Log
isature the Legislature passed another act declaring
that the parties to wnom the certificates had been
issued BY Governor Stcarns were not elected, aud
specifying by legislative enactmcnts who had been
chosen as tho agents Of the State speak her
tho Electoral College. But she has farther A
quo tcdr'unto was issued against those parties who
assumed To exercise the electoral Office under the
ranto having come before her judicial tribunal.
It was decided that the who had re.
ceived that certificate were not elected, but
that other mon elected. Therefore you
have from that State this evidence; evidence from her
Legislature; evidence from her Governor; evidence
from her judicial tribunals that the elect whose
vote We object here were not the duly appointed
electors OF tho State Of Florida. Through ali depart
of her government Foridn comes 10 the United
states aud begs thut you-ior you power
and It is embodied In you-w protect her peoplc
from having her voice simulated BY parties who were
competent evidence TO 20 before the bouscs OF Con.
ersssy Fit Is not, and II Congress itself cannot IN
the exercise OF It's original power 20 back
and inquire into the manner Of eccting electors then
you have placed the whole government and adm lnts.
traton oil the United States IN tho power OF State
executive that may his certificate 10 a purity
mover voted or ~ ALL when tho unanimous vote OF tho
STATE state was wa in !avor Of another party And yo. are
Florida, and although tncy may never have for
or b. vnd though and may never havc received
a single vote. ana although the vote may have been
unanimous in iavor OF other parties. tho Governor
may issue his certificate to and Is, and the
cate may thus become binding Congress and tho
electoral vote may DO cast by parties who never re-
celved single vote from any citizen OF tho United
States II thus bs the law then '.who shall deliver US
from the body OF this death ?" II II Is not IN tho
power OF Congress IL Is not In tho power OF tho
State.
JUDGE BLAcK's SPEECH
Mr.. JEREMIAH Black followed Nj. Merrick on tho
same side OF the question, characterizng Mr. Merricks
statement 0 tho admirable and we'll calculated
10 impress tho true nature 0t the upon tho
Commission and TO give full notice to gentlemen ON
the other side as 10 what his (Mr Backs) side IN
tended 10 rely upon lie said II would only DO 'gid.
ing refined gold for MIN 10 add any thing 10 Mr. MGR
rick's statement lie insisted upon IL that tho
evidence being once in or ,lered or led IN the case,
was TO DO treated as court Ut equity treats evidence
The Commission was not required TO give
it any particular amount of force or weight
was to look NJ It and TO determine tho all the
evidence before IT, lie could givc the commission
judge or lawyer never decided or spoke upon any
subject much the worse Tor knowing lttic about
before he did, did speak or jadss; It t.,ngh.er.) He
would not reter TO "Chitty Pleadngs," "UanieIs'
Chancery Practice or any OF the books winch tho
rules Of evidence are laid down, because ne took
II for granted that those were things on
which he would DO speaking to the
wise;' but ho reminded the commission
OF quotation from Judge Marshall made yesterday 10
the effect that II presumed that judge OF the
Supreme Court know something He hoped that no
decision which this commission would make would
hat nm I..an
that the presumption would he extended 10 tue effect
not only that Judges oi the Supreme Court knew
thing. but that members OF the Senate and House OF
Representatives also knew something (Lauehler.)
There had been much talk hero about gong behind
sovereign power OF State 10 appoint any person
ccctor, provided was done In tho prescribed
by her Legislature and he believed that after tho up
pointmeut was made In that manner had
right to 20 behind It and say shat II was ap-
pointment Ut TO be- made. Anybody (whcthcr an OIL.
OF the State officer the general govern
mcnt). who undertook to aside such an
appointment AS that would be guilty OF
usurpaton OF authority and hls act would 10 utterly
VOID Therefore, II tho Governor o the State Of Florida
In this case alter tho appointment OF these electors
made by tho people, undertook 10 certiiy that they
were not elected and 10 put somebody ciso IN thor
place, that act utterly void false and fraudulent
They were not gong behind the act OF tho State In this
They were only going behind the fraudulent act
CT an officer 0. tte state whose act had no val,,lIy
whatever In It, This question OF evidence Two
sets oil persons came here each Of them pretending to
be tho agents OF the State oi Florida iUr the purpose
OF performing that important function of tho States
thc election OF President and Vice President IL
the business OF the Two houses O Congress 10 count
the votes He asked the commission 10 remember tho
argument OF Mr. Merrck aud To let It sink IN their
hearts and to forget IT, because Gods truth
IL was the word ''votcs' that gave tho controlling
meaning 10 the provision OF the constitution. 1.-The
votes were to be counted not a fraud not forgery.
When they were tod that II the OF the Senate
laid before The two houses false paper that
solueiy counterfeit, aud that that was
end Of II, aud that cxtrancous evidence could DO
produced Tor the purpose oil showing forgery, the
doctrine went TOO far II tnat proposition were car
ried to IT'S logical conclusions then would follow
that tho two houses OF Congress must simply
what anybody chooses TO aUricatc and to say before
them through tho President Of tho senate and that
neither the President Of tho Senate either OF the
houses. nor both OF them together, could do
IN tho matter, but just take what given without
inquiring INTO tho gcnuineness OF II at all. He
saw, everybody saw, and he hoped that nobody
other side would attempt TO deny, that tho two houses
OCongress have the voryiy ing powcrtho powc (which
enables them TO inquire whether paper ~ forgery