Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1877-03-10


sion by vote of to Z, refused to receive the
testimony offered, except as to ineligibility
as 10 single member in Florida. 1t was
voted in the case of Louisiana that the Com
mission would not hear evidence to show
that the Returning Board was an unconsti-
tutionA body that il was not organized 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 false,
and that the Returning Board knew that
fact; that certificates were cOrruptiy and
fraudulently issued, AID as result of con-
spiracy 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 Commission also re-
fused to hear proof that at the time of the
election in South Carolina, anarchy pre-
vailed, destroying the republican form of
government in that State, and that troops
were retained there in violation of the Con-
stitution, to interfere with a free choice by
the electors, so that the lawful vote of the
State could not be known.
Against these decisions we protest most
earnestly in the name of free and republican
government. In the first place, they struck
a fatal blow at the constitutional 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 hos been main-
tained by the ablest statesmen the country
has produced.
1t was practice confined to principle in Sc
cret session, notably in the case of Louisiana
in 1869 and 1878. Such, evidently, was the
view of both houses at the present session.
The investigating committees were sent
to Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana to
take testimony and report as to the elections
in those States. 1t is difficult to see upon
what principle their view can be based. The
duty of Congress is to count the vote. This
makes the enactment of the vote to be
counted. This again makes the determine
| ton of what is the true vote, and this dis
| tinguiShing of the false from the true re-
| quireS evidence. Forms of law expressing
| the fact cannot be made, unless evidence be
admitted; fori fraud possess the count, how
| can the success of falsehood be prevented ?
| The action of the Commission diSables Con-
| gress from performing certain constitutional
| duty.
IN the second place, this decision nullifes
/ an article OF the Constitution. In section !,
article Al, 1t 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 State chooses
| electors who are ineligible, how can this
| provision be made effectual The State, by
/ its action, has refused to repeal it. Mani
| testify 1t can then only be enforced by the
! power authorized to pass upon the vote
I which the State has returned. Congress,
| then, in counting the vote, must decide who
| are and who are not eligible electors, facts
| which can only be aScertaIned by evidence
| dtiUnde. Any other doctrine abrogates the
| previous construction and in effect substi-
| tuteS the following: senators, representa-
tives and all persons holding offices of trust
or profit under the United States may be APP
| pointed electors"
| In the thlru place, the doctrine ignores all
presidents and rules of morals in excluding
| evidence of fraud submitted. Nothing can
| stand which is furnished by fraud. 1t vi
tiates everything. 1t annuls every deed,
cancels every obligation, annuls every con-
| tract, reYerses every Judgment. Every trib-
| unal, however organized, is bound to regard
| every fraudulent transaction as a nudity,
| however ii may come before it, whether di-
rectly, in dependent proceeding, or collat-
| orally. The decision of the highest tribunal
/ if procured through fraud, should be treated
/ a q
| land. AS said by a distinguished writer, ''It
! matters not whether judgment impugned
! has been pronounced by an inferior or by
the highest court of the land; but in all ca
| SEES alike, it is competent for every court
| whether inferior or superior, to treat as a
nullity any judgment that can be clearly
| shown to have been obtained by manifest
| fraud. 1t remains for this Commission to
dictate that there were certain tribunals,
| which could perpetrate fraud with impuni-
| ty, and that there was one court which
| could not lay its hands upon fraud when
brought before it for review. Those eXcep-
| tional tribunals were the returning Boards
| of Florida and Louisiana. That exceptional
| court is the Electoral Commission. Fraud
| has found an intrenchment from which il
! can not be driven in a contest making choice
of the highest officer of the greatest of re-
| publicS. A doctrine more corrupting in
| consequences, more destructive of the purity
| of election and more threatening to the per-
| petuity of free government could not easily
| be suggested. 1t is sought to Justify this
| decision by an appeal to state sovereignty.
| Inc argument Is LIldI SI0 states choose
| their electors in their sovereign capacity
| their decision can not be reversed by any
other authority. This proposition pushes
| to its furtheSt limit the doctrine of State
| rights. The theory of the most advanced
| advocates of that school, was only that the
| States were sovereign as reserved powers
| over them, which We're delegated. 1t was
| conceded that the Constitution was supreme.
| The power to choose electors would not have
| existed except for the Constitution. 1t was,
| therefore, a delegated power. The Legisla-
] ture OF the State chooses the electors. by
| virtue of O constitutional provision. 1t is a
duty to be performed by the State while in
| the Union. 1t can not perform it before ad-
/ mission, nor after the Union is disputed.
/ Can it be possible that there is no power in
! the Union to determine how the duty has
| been performed, and whether in compliance
| with the constitutional provision. To as
| sert this doctrine is to declare the absolute
| independence of the States, to deny the su-
| the United States pOwerlesS against the
/ fraud or violence of States, which may force
| a President upon the people. The power to
| review the action of the Electoral College,
| seems necessarily TO be divided from the
| nature of q confederated government. If
| one party to a compact possesses a power, as
/ to its subject matter, superior to the power
| delegated by agreement, the compact ineVi-
| tably falls, for it is impossible for confede-
| racy to exist, unless the jurisdiction of its
! individual members, as TO the powers COM
mitted to the confederation is SubOrdinated
| to the larger jurisdiction of the latter. If,
| for example, as in this case, one State can
/ exercise its functions as to the election of a
/ President, in violation of the Constitution,
| without any power in the Union TO reverse
| its action, then Constitution was unneces-
| Sary for delegation of powers, and the mo-
| ton may be governed in violation of the
| very instrument, which created it. But
| whatever the power of Congress, as to the
| authority over the vote of electors, it is GER
| tain that it is not bound to treat, as valid, a
| fraudulent certificate. 1t matters not how
| absolute the sovereignty under which a
| fraud is perpetrated, it cannot receive pro-
/ lection, nor be granted recognition. 1fthere
| be a tribunal TO which the certificates are
submitted, 1t is bound TO treat them as
| worthless. The certificates were charged to
| be fraudulent. The Commission, if it
| counted them, gave them validity. 1t failed
| in its duty to hear facts to prevent the sue
| cess of fraud, even though the certificates
| came from a sovereignty hundred fold
| greater than Louisiana or Florida, by these
| methods.
| Under the forms prescribed by the law
| constituting the Electoral Commission,
| Rutherford B. Hayes has been declared
| elected president ofthe United States. His til
! tie rests upon the acknowledgements Of lawful
/ voters the false certificates of returning Of
| ficerS acting cOrruptly, and the decision of a
Commission which has refused to hear evil
| dence of alleged fraud. For the first time
| are the American people confronted with
| the fact OF a President 1raudulently elected.
| His Inauguration will be peaceful. In that
\ hour the most infamous conspiracy of all
| history will receive its crown. In the excl
| ting days Just past the fOrbearance of the
| people has maintained peace. Let it not,
| however, from this be understood that the
| fraud 10 De cOnSulllinateu MlICn 4 Will De
| silently acquieSced in by the country. Let
| no hour pass in which uSurpation is forgot
| ten, Let agitation be Unceasing, that at ev-
cry opportunity the people may express
] their adherence of the outrage. Let want
| of confidence be voted, at every election, in
| Mr.. Hayes and his Administration. Both
must be controlled by the conSpirators who
| have elected the one and will organize the
| other, and whatever of good may come from
| either will always be darkened by the stain
| upon their title.
| Let the Democratic party at once organize
| for new contest, to secure overwhelming
! victories, that cOnSpiratorS may never again
| attempt the experiment which now hunil-
iateS the republic, and has installed in the
highest office uSurper.
| FRANK H. HURD, of Ohio.
RANDALL L. GIBSON, of Louisiana.
! JOSIAH q. ABBOTT, of Massachusetts.
| OTTO r. SINGLETON, of Mississippi.
WN. p. LYNDE, of Wisconsin.
THE following is cut from the Shell
| byyille Commercial.