The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-03-08

ton of the laws of the respective States !;
that some of the electors named therein
were ineligible by express provision of
the Constitution of the United States.
When these objections were made before
the Commission, proof was offered to the
Commission to sustain them. The Com
mission, by vote of TO Z, refused to re-
ceive testimony offered, except as to the
ineligibility of a single elector in Florida
1t was voted in the case of Louisiana that
the Commission would not hear evidence
to show that the Returning Board was an
unconstitutional body; that it was not or.
ganized as the law requires at the time
the vote was canvassed; that it had no
jurisdiction to canvass the electoral vote !;
that charges of riot, intimidation and
violence were fabrications and that the
Returning Board knew that fact; that
certificates were Corruptly and fraudu-
lently issued, and as result of Conspira-
cy, and that the vote of the State has
never been compiled or canvassed.
The same rulings substantially were
made in the case of Florida. The Com
mission also refused to hear proof that at
the time of the election in South Carolina
anarchy prevailed, destroying Republi-
can form of government in that State, and
that troops were retained there in viola
ton of the Constitution to interfere with
a free choice by election, so that the
lawful vote of that State should not be
known.
An Earnest Protest.
Against these decisions we protest most
earnestly in the name of a free and Re-
publican government. In the first place,
they struck fatal blow at the constitu-
tional powers of the two houses to count
the electoral vote. This power has been
exercised by both houses without dispute
from the foundation of the Government
That evidence should be reached in cases
of contested returns, seems clear. The
principle has been maintained by the
ablest statesmen the country has produC-
ed. 1t was principle confirmed in prac-
tice of both houses of Congress, notably in
the case of Louisiana itself in 1859 and
1873. Such evidently was the view of
both houses. At the present session, the
investigating committee were sent to
Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana to
take testimony and report as to elections
in those States. 1t is difficult to see up.
on what principle this view can be bas-
ed. The duty Of Congress is to count the
vote.
This makes the enactment of the vote
to be counted. This again makes the de-
termination of what is the true vote and
the distinguishing of false from true.
This requires evidence, forms of law and
expressing the fact cannot be made un
less evidence be admitted, for if fraud
possesses the count, how can the success
of falsehood be prevented, if testimony
be denied, The action of the Commits.
sion disables Congress from performing
certain constitutional duty.
In the second place, this decision nulli.
fies an article of the Constitution. In
section l, article A, it is provided, "But
no Senator or Representative or person
holding an office of trust or profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an
elector." If States choose electors who
are ineligible, how can this provision be
made efectualP The State, by its action
has refused to respect it. Manifestly it
can then only be enforced by the power
authorized to pass upon the vote which
the State has returned. Congress then,
in counting the vote must determine who
are and who are not eligible electors,
facts which can only be ascertaiued by
evidence dJi'mde. Another doctrine
abrogates the previous construction, and
in etfeci substitutes the following Sena-
tors, Representatives and all persons
holding offices of trust or profit under
the United States may be appointed elec.
tors.
Sanctlfyhg Fraud.
In the third place, the doctrine ignores
all precedents and rules of morals, in ex-
Guiding evidence of fraud submitted.
Nothing can stand which is tarnished by
fraud. 1t vitiates everything. 1t tannuls
every deed, cancels every obligation, an
'nuls every contract and reverses every
judgment. Every tribunal, however or
ganized, is bound to regard every fraudu-
lent transaction as nullity, however, it |
may come before it, whether directly in |
an independent proceeding,or colaterally. |
The decision of the highest tribunal if |
procured through fraud should be treated |
as of no effect by the humblest court in |
the land.
AS said by distinguished writer, "It
matters not whether judgement impugn.
ed has been pronounced by an inferior
or by the highest court of the land, but
in all cases alike it is competent for every
court, whether inferior or superior, to
treat as nullity any judgment that can
be clearly shown to have been obtained
by manifest fraud" 1t remained for
this Commission to declare that there
we're certain tribunals which could perpe-
trate fraud with impunity, and that there
was one court which could not Law its
hands upon fraud when brought before it
for review. Those exceptional tribunals
were the Returning Boards of Florida
and Louisiana. That exceptional court
is the Electoral Commission. Fraud has
found an entrenchment from which it
cannot be driven in contest making
choice of the highest officer of the great
est of Republics. A doctrine more cor
rupting in its consequences, more des-
tructive Of the purity of the election and
more threatening to the perpetuity of
free government could not easily be sug-
gested.
The States Rights Argument.
1t is sought to justify this decision by
an appeal to State sovereignty. The ar
gument is that, as the States choose their
electors in their sovereign capacity, their
decision cannot be reversed by any other
This proposition pushes to its
furthest limit the doctrine of States
lights. The theory of the most advanced
advocates of that school was only that
he States were sovereign as to reserved
powers. Over powers which were dele {
,ated it was conceded that the constitu-
ion was supreme. The power to choose
electors would not have existed except
or the Constitution. 1t was, therefore, ,
delegated power. The Legislature Of
tate chooses electors by virtue of con-
titutional provision. It is duty to be !
bv the State while in tho | Il