The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-02-06
Argument Of MIR. EVarts.

and Charles O'Conor would, make theiI
arguments to-day before the Electora
Commission seemed to impel cverybod,
in Washington toward the Capitol, ant
long before the opening time q surginI
mass besieged the doors Of the commits
sion chamber seeking admission.
Judge Clifford, soon after II o'clock
called the commission to order. ThI
journal being read, Mr.. Evarts began hi
argument, speaking rs follows:
Mr.. President and Gentlemen Of The Com
mission: The order Of the commission il
directing the attention OF counsel, lay
out for their consideration three topics:
/. Whether, under the powers possesset
by the commission, any evidence can bt
received beyond that disclosed by the
three sets Of certificates from the State o.
Florida which were opened by the Presi
dent Of the Senate in the presence of I'll,
two houses of Congress, and which, under
the recent act Of Congress, are transmit
ted To this commission.
.. II any can he received, what that
evidence is; and
3. What evidence other than the Ger.
tiiicates, If any, is now before the com.
mission.
| will dispose of the last question
under the order Of the commission
first. II is suggested that certain pack.
ages OF papers brought here by the mes
senger that brought the certificates and
are evidence in the pOSsaIsion
of the Commission. What these pack,
ages contain, what degree authority OF
what scope Of efficacy is TO be given them
as particular matters Of evidence, and
particular forms OF proof, are unknown
10 us and unknown to the Commission
The proposition upon which its claimed
that this evidence whatever il may be-
is subject undoubtedly to discussion and
rejection by the Commission as not per.
tinent and not important, which is men.
toned in one Of the objebLiOns interposed
against the first certificate as matter on
which the objection was founded, instead
of being warrant rs it were to the oh,
jector on which he objects; he, the obiec.
tor, thereby makes il part OF the
evidence before the Commission. II
therGwere no objections, the case said to
be provided for the exercise of your
is not produced. II the ohjeC.
tioni is smade, however artificial or i'm.
perfect, the case has arisen. But the oh.
lection narrows and limits and provides
the issue, and the law upon which your
Jurisdiction attaches is 4 pure iabrica.
tiOn out Of utterly unsubstantial and i'm.
suggestions in the law. The 9th.
er question as to whether the evidence in
possession OF either house or both, of Con.
gress, in the shape OF committee reports
or conclusions Of either of these great
bodies in any form, is transmissablc and
may be proposed to the commission, and
may be accepted and received by it after
it il unfolded, after il is understood, after
the claim is scrutinized and opposed, is 4
question that is but Subordinate
part OF the main question, whether
any evidence beyond the certif-
Gates can be received. l wish to pre-.
clude at the outset anything to im-
press or to carry for moment the i'm.
preston that there has been over past
by some astuteness and some diligence
the question what you receive and what
you reject. ! find myself then, unimped-
ed in inquiry, as open to me as 10 you,
whether any evidence can be received,
and il any, what, beyond the certificates
opened by the President OF the Senate.
MIR. Evarts here reviewed the propositions
submitted on Saturday, by Mr.. O'Conor
and continued: now, it is proposed, there.
fore, as matter extraneous, that il is de.
sired to introduce, and is claimed that it
is open TO your consideration; not
that the certificate OF Governor
Stearns falsities the fact that he
has to certify to; not that ii falsitics the
record that makes basis OF fact which
he is to certify to, but the record at the
time on which, by law, he was to have
his certificate deposited, from which his
certificate would be false, is itself to be
or surmounted by extraneous
proof showing that, by matter of sub.
stance, in the progress Of the election,
errors or frauds were made, that is TO say,
somewhere in the steps between the de.
posit OF the ballot in the boxes at the
precincts and the original computation OF
the contents OF these boxes there and their
transmission to. the corrective canvass
in the county Of the precincts thus cap.
vassed at their own ballot boxes, or be.
tween the returns OF the county canvass.
crs to the State canvassers, or in
The action Of the State cam
vassers in the final computation
Of the aggregates TO ascertain n plurali.
ty OF the votes for one or the other can.
and SO declare and so make re.
cord and go fix the basis OF the Governor.
Whether that act was right or wrong on
their part, fraudulent or an error in the
law, OF. in fact that somewhere in the
process of the election itself, from stage
TO stage on every matter Of right and
question of righuul title or title de lure,
there has occurred matters for judicial
consideration, | need not say that how.
ever simple and however limited the step
to be taken beyond the record Of State
canvass TO serve the needs and TO accom-.
plish the justice as proposed by the learned
counsel ior objections against Hayes
certificates, the principle upon which Il is
offered, If the declaration required il,
il Justice required it, II the powers Of
this Commission tolerated il, would carry
it TO whatever point this correction or
this cvisceration OF the final canvass is TO
be attempted. am at once, therefore,
relieved from any discussion so practical
in this case, except so far rs the illustra-
tion OF the argument may make 1t useful
pro or con ls Of any consideration. say
whether Governors certificate could be
attacked as itself being not n Governors
certificate, but forgery, that is not 90.
ing behind n Governors Certiticate-that
il coming in front OF Governors certi-
iicate and breaking it down as no certili.
cate. That the certificate Of Governor
Stearns was in accordance with the act
OF 1892, was not questioned, nor was il
proposed on the other side TO show that
the facts as certified did not exist by any
intrinsic evidence. 1t was further pro.
posed 10 introduce evidence to show that
Humphreys was u United States officer
That was u matter Of surprise, for il was
n matter OF discussion ut the meeting oil
the canvassing board OF Florida. lie
read the testimony OF Humphreys, that
he had resigned ten days before the
election; his resignation had been accept.
ed and the duties OF the office discharged
by the Collector,of the Port OF Pensacola
There is consideration in this case ot
whether the Houses OF Congress in the