The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-02-04

o quu warrantO was served before tie Hayes electors
cAs their votes. and. secondly. unless IL be decided ON
the other side TO show the pcndcncy Of appeal from the
snd very slieht exceptions, the whole case on uis
branch depend, upon the record ,,o.,,.
AND also The true construction Of the Florida statutes re
record OF the Judgment in the Supreme Court m the state
on mandamus prosecuted on The relation OF Mr Drew
the present Governor Of that STATE by force Of which Mr.
stcarns was ou.ied and Mr. Drew was admitted as Gov
efnVI m ms 1ugmen, @ d9ve'her & WIN ue yutv u nr""
nor there any technical rule the in which
FLORIDA lii may be rermiiicd TO inieccL will be seen
that am endeavorng to show how very little uere Is In
foarEly~fhe legislation of rlorid. subsequently %
Dec a. 1879 authorizing canvass Of the electoral
vote and the iset Of such new canvass and the formal
feet conformity to the Constitution and law EXCEPT that
they were SUBSEQUENT. In point Of time to PEE ls,o ss
Fiiihiy~The only matters which the Tden electors de-
to lay before the Commissioners by evidence actu
ally extfinsic will now be stated First the Board Of
state Canyasscrs, acting on certain erroneous views
when making their by which the Hayes electors
Re county OF Manitce aud parts OF the returns IRON Zach
Of the following counties Hamilton, Jackson, MYnroe
Board acted without ,arsdeti9n a. Le Circuit and Su
seng aside, as not warranted by law. thcse Ieeouons
that the courts e. Florida reached ,hsir rsspscISs cSn On,
Hayes electors were u.urVcrs and that the rlden elect
could be called cSifinc i believed to be nccd i6 order
% f S I "yn Sy m The Se
canvass that Is, the erroneous canvass es consider IT,
one wholly and the other, IN nartnrecsed y sad state
Sii Ge Se sSi Snder ihe @ Wnn Sse.
siNtllN-lnIsius from thu objections taken hy those
oiGrsi IN iher Gshsi. the .urporcrs oi tae ridden
electors are d 20 believe mat ho tNilence nee9eio OF
Intended To ho offered by the supporter Of The Hayes
taken' and secondly, that Mr. numphr,es med
MIR O'Conor then continued: II l may be
permitted Ia say Hword before We proceed. |
would say that have acted here with Wow TO
support my idea that the facile method is 10
take proof subject TO objection and that there is
not enough oil the matter to produce delay. con-
fusion or conflict IN respect OF this extrnsic
proof. On the contrary there is so little. and II
IL almost SO completely. pure matter that
might be called OF record. that we can get rid OF
the matter of the evidence very shortly. unless
time and result. plsases to adopt such method
will compel us on the first little scrap of testi-
mony offered to present our whole cusc on both
sides and haye the whole merits settled.
After some general discuss ion upon the. sub
Bradley said: Il Understand MIR. o'Coner 10
suggest that the evidence referred TO 10y him.
The eNtrinsic evidence. be received provisionally
for the purpose OF argument, not 70 be decided
by the court at present. Then II is with the
commission question Of convenience whether
that be- the better course. or whether we had
better have an argument on the admissblity Of
evidence now, before We 10 into an argument on
the merits as the argument on the admissible
~ of evidence would necessarily greatly involve
the merits. IL seems TO me that unless counsel
ON both sides have forcible objections TO that
plan. Mr. O'COnors suggestion ia "A good one.
because II will unity the argument-make but
onc argument on the whole case.
Offering OF testimony be objected to by the other
side and the commission hear the argument OF
the case MS II there stands Ihat Would rescm-
ing that | think OF. an argument made on
demurrer 10 the rlnintins evidence. the evil
dsnce not being considered rs in. hut rs offered.
Tho Presiding Judgc-That was the view Of
Commissioner Uoar-If we should hear tho
counsel ON both sides on the case presented by
the certificates which are before tho court and
the offer Of evidence made by Mr. O'CQnor
x.stf gl.t taI 10 hN of thNr l.
seems to me that that would present one princi-
pal question. whatever others might bo in tho
case. in the most clear convenient and quickest
Commissioner Thurman-I would like TO in
quire Of counsel who support certlflcate No. l.
what Objection they have to gu this evidence
boing admitted subject 10 all exceptions not
precluding any objection whatsoever. II ap..
M ysry p EHS@ p De Gy % may
be the volume of testimony, II any Is t. be pro-
duced on the other side, do not know what Oh
lection there il. Ms this Is trial not by jury but
by court, to receiving ~! TINS testimony. sub
je,t to all objections and then arEu ing IL admis-
sibility with the main argument IN IN" case
allowing the counsel # II becom : necessary in
the adoption Of that course NOR" time.
The Prrs ding usticc-ln the absence OF other
dis 'u-sion. Will state the view. Of the Chair
| should gard the paper real hy Mr.. O'Conor
to tho other = tlr except 10 object or waive il.
Mr.. Evarts-Then am not permitted To reply
u the point made by Comm isSioner Thurman ?
The Presiding Judgc-lt iS hardly necessary
because you are To have an argument ut the
propertime. DO y9n object to tho ouer OF proof
Comm issioner ThurmDn-l would suggest
that Mr. ENarts ought 10 answer my inquiry
Mr.. EvaIts-l arose originally to spaak To the
very point to which Commissioner Thurman
Tho Presiding Justice-Very well. sir you
may reply to tn iniqiIry' @ I ,r,.tos1c.r r,o
proposition is that the preparation of the case
as ready for argument upon It's exhausted and
completed merits in either alternatives Of the
l
the admission Of anything, snail be- nade up by
provisional arcrtt.tl,, of the mass Of proof
Whatever II may h". 10 beds us-cd Hs to the adj
miss blity and pcItinenec ana eff l'a'y IN the
con Illusions If the tribunal ~ part of the final
stion. The diff 'uity with that Is. thai II re-
quirrs the inclusion OF all the count"rVailing
proof that We, opposing ms c'rtilirali or
supporting ours. have right to pi' sent. un her
| some det"rmindtion OF TINS Court as to that
right, for If you 20 beyond thcgNidnnce fur.
| nished from the hands Of the Vice President
into an inspection OF scrutiny Of the election in
the State ms uron a trial Of right 10 the ON ".
| then We say thnt the tribunal thnt accepts that
stlmony and Is 10 fulfil that duty, il 10 rorciye
evidence that will make the scrutiny Judicial
and complete, from the primary deposit OF the
votes TO the conclusion OF the election.
| Now this commission. a. suppose. docs not
| contemplate provisional Introduction Of all
| that evidence, oral documentary, record, and
| Otherwise. on our part, which comes in without
| objection. and subject only TO the sitting Of the
final argument. That Is my suggestlon IN ref;
crCnce 10 this intmation OF convenience Of
the de bone esse INTRODUCTION OF evidence
OF the evidence 10y which. when we are,
by the instruction OF this commission let
into the scrutiny Of the election of Florida in a
matter which can only be exhausted hy oral tos-
timony and by the fundamental. original trans
acton of the election. That Is the difficulty in
selecting part OF the evidence to be admitted
Professionally, as furnishing the ground and
area Of the final decision. because it does not
include the evidence on both sides. which,
under some determnation Of the Court on
final argument may be properly introduced |
Object 10 tho evidence now offered.
JUDGE BLACKS ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Black-We insist upon it that the whole u
tho evidence which has bcen offered by Mr..
O'Conor, or referred to in his paper has been
given already. and is part Of the record in this
case A qU, tion arose before the two Houses
Of Congress whether certain votes offered for
President and NiCe-Prcsident ought to be
counted or not. Whether they ought or
not depended upon the question whether
they We're true votes or Votos falsely
fabricated, not with any purpose TO 20
behind the appointment Of tho electors. but for
the purpose OF ascertainlng what electors had
been appointed and who were the true cnts
of the people for the purpose OF casting It's vote.
| The two Houses prdl lOsed To use their verifying
power, not 10 entertain an appeal from the de-
| csions Of the State. but to ascertain what that
decision was which involved u question Of fact,
| 1t was absolutely necessary that the conscience
Of the two Houses should be informed con-
corning that proof which they were t9 decide