Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1877-02-20
Arguments In secret Session.

gan its session this morning at 10 O'Clock with
closed DOORS having under cons liberation the ques-
ton Of admitting testimony offered by the demo-
cratic counsel in the Louisiana case. The discus
sion was opened by Senator Morton. who spoke
about half an hour. lie was followed, in the Or
der given, by Senator Thurman, Gen. Garfield,
Senator Bayard, who spoke an hour, Senator Ed
munds, Mr.. Hunton, Mr.. Hoar, who spoke very
briefly, and Justice Bradley, who spoke last and
closed the debate The discussion was earnest
and warm, but courteous throughout Toward
the close of the day the interest in the Commission
grew intense as it became clear from the tone OF
the speeches that the vote Of Justice Bradley
would decide the case, and practically deter mine
the final result of the labors of the Commission.
| He had given no intmation Of his views, and as
he did not speak TIL near the hour of voting, the
intensity Of feeling grew as the time passei on.
| lie spoke about ten minutes, and then read from
notes which he had prepared last night. His
views were clearly and strongly stated, and abund
aaty sustained the votes which he gave.
No other member of tue Commission spoke ex-
cept those above named The offers of evidence
were taken up as numbered by counsel, and re-
ected ssriatin, and the counsel having been in-
formed, and more time for argument being
desired the Commission again went into secret
session at about $50, aud remained till the formal
decision to count the votes of Louisiana had been
made, and the papers had been prepared so that a
Joint meeting OF the two hosses could be held to-
morrow. The vote on every important decision
was TO I, the republicans and the democrats vol
ing according to their party aft ations. The rea-
sons assigned by the Commission are two. The
first as in the Florida case, states that, acting
with the power of the two houses of Congress,
the Commission has no power to 20 behind the
Gel tificate of the Governor, based on the canvass
of votes; and, second, that the Commission can
take evidence, d}iuRdi the returns to show that
an Elector was Ineligible on the day of his cleo
ton it not being alleged that he inelig ible at
the time OF voting an ElectOr. The discussion
on this latter point will be noticed further on.
Toe line OF argument in the Commission was
very interesting, and brief statement will show
how the questions, crudely presented by the dem
ocratic counsel, were narrowed and made clear.
The decision in the Florida regarded as
having settled most Of the points raised but dis
tInction was made between the two cases, upon
which the democratic Commissioners contended
the refusal TO take the testimony might be re-
versed. In the Florida the objections did
not charge that the canvass was fraudulent, but
only that the Returning Board acted from mis-
taken view OF the law, and exceeded its juiisdic
ton. In the of Louisiana the offers of proof
and the written objections charged every species
of fraud, including conspiracy to return as elect
ed the Electors who were not really chosen, in
the Louisiana case, also, the legality of the Re-
turning Board was attack, d, and it was offered to
be proved that the board not legal body,
and that the canvass was not in accord with any
State law. The republican argument was gener-
ally to the effect that the differences alleged be-
| tween the case in Louisiana and IN Florida did
not really exist. The democrats made the point
that the papers in the Louisiana case, sent to the
Commission from the Vice President, did not show
that the Governors certificate b,scd on any
canvass. In reply to this, the certificate Of the
Secretary OF State, showing that there had been
canvass and its results, was proddced AS part of
the Hayes returns. The case was claimed aud
shown by republicans to be precisely similar to
that decided when the Florida dispute was before
| the Commission. This the ground on which
| they voted to reject extrusic evidence. There
was much discussion in the Commission as to the
| state laws of Louisiana, whether certain, and
which of them, were repealed or in fCrce.
The question of eligibility was considered and
decided by refusing TO receive the evidence Of
| Tered, which was to prove that Brewster and Le
visse were Federal Office holders the 9Th of
| November, and that Kellogg and one two 9TH
| ers Ineligible under the Constitution OF the
| State. The question of eligibility was thus divid-
ed into two parts The first was that pertaining
to the disqualification Of certain persons by the
Constitution Of State. 1t was held that the grant
of power to elect or determine the manner Of cleo
ton is granted directly to the Legislature by the
Federal Constitution, ard that no State ConstItu-
tion can impose additional disabilities to those i'm
posed by the Constitution of the United States
As sustaining the sound sense of this view, it was
said that 1t would have been unre asonable to per-
init disqualification which would deprive the
country Of the best men in the States, who might
presumably, be found among the officers Of the
states. This alleged ineligibility was therefore
there fore held not to exist The other point
| as to the inelgibity of FEEDER al office holders
The argument on which evidence was refused, in
| his branch of the case, was furnished by Justice
Bradley. lie stated that he had modified his
| views somewhat by reflection on this subject. He
was OF the opinion that the language in the Con-
stitutiOn that "nO person shall be senator ETC.,
and that mo person shall be appointed an Flee
tor, etc, are to be considered simply a. different
ways OF expressing the same thing. Therefore,
there is no prohibition upon a State to the APP
polntment OF Federal officers as Electors but such
officers were disqualified from acting as Electors.
Ii they were eligible at the time of acting Eec-
tors, their action was valid. In the Florida case
1t was alleged that Humphres was an ofiiceholder
at the time he voted, and Justice Bradley said at
that time his mind was not made up as to the Ell
feet OF such inelgibiity, and pending further con-
sideration upon 1t he would vote to admit evidence
| as TO the fact alleged. In the case of Brewster
and Levisse there was no allegation that they
were offceholders at the time when the Electoral
College met, and therefore, the view of Justice
Bradley prevailing, there nothing left in the
case which needed the introduction of evidence,
because the fact alleged, if proved that they were
otticeholders on the 9th Of November, would not
have been regarded material TO the case. Ii
Will be seen that Justice Bradley was entirely con-
sistent in his action in this and in the Florida de-
cisons.