Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-07-25
NEW SERIES--VOL. 1S, NO. 20

I
appointment, II was logical and lega
} necessity which declared the unau
thorized votes TO be null and void. i
this were not the principle, then any
impostor, or any number of impostors
might send up their ballots, and ont
would be as good as another.
But again, let it not be forgotten
that the Tilden electors had also voted
at the same time in the same way
J Why did not this fact make as much
weight for them as for the others ? II
will excite the wonder OF the world 10
learn that, in the opinion Of the Eight
q person who voted under an appoint.
ment given him by the people accord
ing 10 law could not even be de factc
elector, but another person who had
nothing to claim by except the false,
fraudulent and void declaration of O
returning board was good de fdco, il
he was good for nothing else. This
doctrine Of de facfo sanotification, say.
ing acts which have no other "relish
OF salvation in them" and making the
votes Of unauthorized men as good as
il they came from persons duly ap-
pointed, cuts great figure throughout
the whole case. 1t is not applicable,
but the Eight apply it everywhere,
and, strange 10 say, they never use it
when it docs not make in favor Of
some fraud or other. One who votes
according to the public will Of the
State legally expressed through the
ballot-boxcs is de facto nothing. But
il he was defeated or ineligible, he is
de fdcto all he wants to be. One Of the
Hayes electors in Louisiana was fed.
eral officer; his election was forbidden
by the Constitution of the United
States, and he was not elected but
beaten at the polls; de fact0 strained
its utmost power on him, and pulled
HIM through in spite OF the Constitu-
ton and people both. But his Demo
cratic competitor, who had acted as
an elector in the same way and TO the
same extent, was legally chosen by an
Overwhelming majority, and constitu-
tionally eligible; therefore de fdcto
could do nothing for him.
In all tbe discussions OF the subject
the men disposed TO favor the conspira.
cy professed a most profound venera-
ton for the ''forms Of law" This was
the keynote struck at New Orleans by
the visiting committee, and it is heard
in every subsequent argument of coun.
sci and commissioner on that side. 1t
seemed to be understood among them
that formal cheat was perfectly safe
from exposure. If the sepulchre was
whited on the outside, il made no diff
ference that it was filled with "corrup-
ton, dead mems bones, and all un-
cleanncss" No refuge Of lies could be
swept away, no hiding place of false
hood could over be uncovered, If it
was built in the prescribed form. Only
give il the legal shape and the over
flowing scourge would be turned aside.
But legal form, however valuable as
covering for fraud, was, in their judg-
ment, no protection for truth or JUS
tice or public right. The will of Lou
isiana was pronounced at the election
with all the solemnities required by
the law Of the State and Of the United
States The appointment Of the Til
den electors on the 18th of November
was perfectly legal piece of work /;
there was not flaw in the record OF
It as II came from the hands Of the ap-
pointing power. But it was looked
upon with perfect contempt. Neither
the visiting committee, nor tho Hayes
counsel, nor the eight commissioners
bestowed on il any Of their love. Their
affections were otherwise engaged /;
they gave the homage and devotion of
their hearts to the beautiful regulari-
ty, the exquisite precision, with which
the returning board compounded its
false certificate.
Another paradox OF the Eight is
curious enough to be noted. They
declared repeatedly that they had no
power TO try contested election case
and for that reason they would not
look at the evidence which showed
what persons were duly appointed
electors by the people. Now mark !
The case was this. Each of those
votes came accompanied by what was
asserted TO be proof that il was cast
by electors duly appointed. The con.
tlict was TO be determined by the veri-
flying power which Congress unques-
tionably has, and which the commits
sioners expressly assumed when they
swore that they would decide
who were duly appointed. To decide
il one way or the other required pre-
cisely the same jurisdiction, and called
into exercise exactly the same facul-
ties. Yet they held that il they de-
cided according TO the truth in favor
of the electors actually appointed they
would be trying a contested election
but If they decided in favor Of the pre-.
tenders, who had nothing but a fraud.
ulent certificate, they would not be
trying contested election; in other
words, their Jurisdiction was full and
ample to decide il falsely, but wholly
unequal to the duty Of deciding Il
truly.
Perhaps nothing shows more plain
ly the dnimuS of the eight commission.
ers than the determination they made
upon the case of Brewster, ineligible
elector in Louisiana. Keep in mind
that their defined duty was 10 decide
who were duly appointed, and what
votes were provided for by the Consti.
tuition, and think how they performed
it in this part of the case. Brewster
was not only defeated at the polls like
the rest, he was besides q federal Office
holder, and the Constitution expressly
declares that no such person shall be
appointed an elector. But for the pur.
pose of electing Mr. Hayes his vote
was worth as much as all the others.
To get that vote for their candidate
they were required to 20 further than
they went tor any Of the rest, and 80
they held l. That the certificate of
the returning board was proprio rigore
an appointment. 2. That II was a due
appointment, though corrupt and dis
honest. 3. That this was vote pro-
pided for by the Constitution, though
the Constitution in plain words propi-
ded against it.
After all, there was but one question