Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1877-03-10

Michigan was reaa giving its eleven votes for
Hayes and Wheeler, MI. Tucker (Dem), of
Virginia, rose and presented an objection to
the counting of the vote of Daniel J.. Cross
man, one of the electors, declaT .ng that one
Benton danchett, having been elected one of
the electors for the State Of Michigan and
having held and still holds the Office of United
States commissioner, had absented himself
from the meeting Of the electors on the sixth of
December, and that his place had been filed
by the other electors.
The houses separated and debated the OBJ
lection, but both Of them soon agreed to ac-
cept the elector In question and the joint con-
veition aguin assembled.
Then followed the State of Minnesota,
with five votes for Hayes and Wheeler; Missis-
sippi, with eight votes for Tilden and Hendricks:
Missouri, with fifteen votes for Tilden and Hem
bricks Nebraska, with three votes for Hayes
and Wheeler, and Nevada with three votes for
Hayes and Wheeler.
Mr.. Springer (Dem. J, Of Illinois, objected to
the count of one of the three votes Of Nevada,
on the ground that the elector r. NJ Daggett,
was at the time of his appointment, and for a
long time previously, and thereafter continued
to be, United States commissioner for the
circuit and district courts OF the United States
in the district of Nevada. The objection is
signed by Messrs. Springer, Tucker, Vance, of
Ohio Sparks, Savage, Marsh and jerks, repre-
sentatives and by Senators Barnum, Wallace
and Hereford
Once again the houses separated, and the
Senate voted to accept the Nevada elector, but
the House, without discussing the case, took
a recess until the next day.
The House having decided that the Nevada
elector be declared elected, the joint conven-
ton reassembed.
The teller then announced that the State of
Nevada had cast three votes for Hayes and
Wheeler.
Then followed in succession the State of
New Hamshire, with five votes for Hayes and
Wheeler New jersey with nine votes for Til
den and Hendricks New York, with thirty-five
votes for Tilden and Hendricks North Caro-
lima, with ten votes for Tiden and Hendricks
and Ohio, with twenty-five votes for Hayes and
Wheeler
The presiding officer then opened and handed
to the tellers certificate received from the
State of Oregon. 1t was read by Mr.. Stone, of
Missouri, and proved to be the sworn certificate
of the three Hayes Cartwright, Odell
and Watts-executed before a notary public.
The papers contain full statement of the do
ings of the three electors the resignation of
Watts rs postmaster, his subsequent choice by
the other two electors, the original ballots cast
by the electors, etc. They were read in full.
The presiding officer then handed to the tell
ers the certificates of the three rival electors
! -OIOulll, nlllGT anu IhtI-dllluGulCd ny
! the signatures of the governor and secretary
of State, with the seal of the State attached.
! This certificate gives two votes for Hayes and
| Wheeler and one vote for Iilden and Hendricks.
Senator Mitchell (Rep.), of Oregon, objected
to the certificate of Cronin, Miller and Parker,
giving his reasons for the objection. This OBJ
lection was signed by Senators Mitchell and Sar-
| gent, and by Representatives Lawrence, Bur-
chard and McDnl.
/. Senator Kelly (Dem.), of Oregon, then pre-
sented an objection to the certificates of Cart
wright Odell and Watts 1t is signed by Sena-
tors Kelly, Bogy, Mcdonald, Stevenson and
Cooper nd by Representatives Field, Tucker
Lane, jerks, Walling, Clymer, Wigginton, Pop,
pleton, Vance, Hurd and Luttrell.
After discussion the matter was referred tC
the Electoral tribunal.
The Electoral Tribunal.
The Oregon electoral matter being before the
tribunal, Judge Clifford asked who appeared as
Oh ectors on the two sides.
Senator Kelly announced that himself an6
Mr.. jerks would appear as objectors to certif
cate No. l, and Senator Sargent announced that
Senator Mitchell and Mr.. Lawrence would ap
pear as objectors to certificate No 2.
Senator Kelly argued that each State in the
Union had the right to appoint Presidential
electors in its own way and according to its Owl
laws, and that by the constitution of Oregon il
case of ineligibility the person receiving the
next highest number of votes was entitled to
be declared elected. He quoted cases from
many States and courts, and concluded as fol
lows: The governor of Oregon and the secre
tary of State are the persons to canvass thest
votes. There is no evidence that there was
canvass by any other person. 1t is for then
and them only, and they have decided. They
have given their certificate that these three
gentlemen are eligible-including Mr.. Cronin
1t matters not how they came to that decision
The presumption Of Law will always be that i
was upon sufficient evidence.
Representative jerks followed on the SAM
side. He said they asked no technical adyan
tage, but relied on the law of the land as defined
in the Constitution of the United States, and O.
the several States He concluded as follows
Then the case stands in this way; Cronir
comes and votes two others come and vote
but you do not know whether they are the per
sons voted for or not because they do not comt
identified as the law says they shall come
But, assuming that they were the same person
who were vOted~fOr and properly identified
which of these votes should be counted? Gro
nins vote should be counted as cast, and thu
other two as they are cast, would be the conclu
sion should come to from these several propo
sitions. We believe this to be a correct eXposi
ton of the law and the true case, because thu
consti utional disqualification is not one to b.
forgotten or repudiated. 1t is, perhaps, toC
common now to regard the provisions of thu
Constitution as directory. and to be obeyed o.
disobeyed at the option of the person who ma,
be administering them.
Senator Mitchell was the first speaker on thc
part of the Republicans. He said that while
the governor had power to issue certificates, o
at least had that duty to perform, he had NJ
right and no power to determine as to the eli
gibility of electors. There was no place in th,
Constitution of the United States or the consti
- 4l,n Oh o,rn xyli
sion was made for such action on his part.
Mr.. Lawrence, { the House, was the mex
speaker on the part of the Republicans, ant
closed the preliminary case on that side. His
speech was principally devoted to q consdera
ton of the legal points in tho case. He saiC
that the governor had no power to make Sc
lection as between two contesting electors, ant
declared that Cronin was clearly ineligible t
the position of eector He contended tina
even if Cronin had been lega ly elected his alb
sence from the meeting of the electors and hi
failure to act with them, disqualified him. H
said that as two Republican electors wer
chosen beyond all question, and had received
the certificate of the governor in due form
they, as a majority of the college, were author
lied to select and appoint the one membe
about whose eligibility there was dispute.
Judge Hoad!ey, of Cincinnati, who is th
managing counsel in the Oregon case on tn
Democratic side, opened the case. He assume
that the commission had declined to eXercis
any judicial powers whatever, and in that as
sumption claimed they had no power except t
count the returns certified by Gov Grover
Many points he made were similar to those pre-
sented by the Republicans in the case of Floi
ida and Louisiana.
Judge Matthews claimed that the record c
the canvass in the Office of the secretary Q
State was conclusive evidence of Watts eleC
ton and declared that Gov. Grover was boun
to issue the certificate to Watts in accC rdanc
with that canvass.
Judge Strong moved that the Democrat
offer Of evidence rs to Watts ineligibility b
Immediately admitted, and the motion was cal
ried without dissent
Watts, the elector referred to- was put upo
the stand He swore in the substance that