The Centre reporter. [volume] (Centre Hall, Pa.) 1871-1940, 1877-01-18


be oyerlhrown by the decision Of the
highest judicial tribunal of the proper
state. or OF the United States, Ii may be
eontradicted by evidence ofa plain mis-
take or palpable fraud
Seventh. When two returns come
from a state the two houses, acting con
currently, must determine which is the
true return.
Eighth. No electoral vote can be count
ed without the concurrence Of both
houses.
Mr.. Wallace said; These propositions
embody my view Of the law. When we
settle what the Law Of this subject is, We
have a safe path cut Of our difficulties.
We will bow 10 the law definitely ascer.
tanned. Ii is our duty 10 learn this, TO.
recognise its power and obey il. The
first proposition is selfeyident. IL needs
no proof The second will not bo dis
puted for oil admit the federal constitu-
ton 20 be the supreme law. The third
asserts that the power 10 count the vote
is not ministerial, but is quasi ijudical,
and carries with il the right 10 Inquire
and decide what are votes. The tribu>
nal that counts the votes must judge OF
the inlractions Of the constitution. IL itI
is objected in joint meeting that votes
were east for an alien for President, or
for one under thir,y-iye years Of age,
or one a nonresident for fourteen years,
is there no power 10 inquire and decide
the truth Must the votes be counted ?
How are the questions 10 be setilcdI BY
debate or by Judicial inquiry Or sup.
pose the vote cast by senator or a fed
eral Judge or unrelieyed rebel, is there
no power 10 inquire rs 20 the facts and
TO decide2 Or the vote WAS cast on
the wrong day or not by ballot must We
count the voter Or ii state college
votes for citizens OF its state. for both
offices, can we not inqRire? What is the
Oregon inquiry now going ONT What
are all these inquiries but the highest
exercise ofjudicial power, the applica-
ton OF constitutional law 10 given state
Of facts1 Surely such Il power Is not
merely ministerial. Ifa state consiitu-
ties its election tribunal SO As % deny the
clear rights Of citizens Of the United
States, can we not inquire and correct
the wrong? If once return bc sent by a
state, and before il reaches the president
Of the senate another is substituted. can
we not learn the truth and correct itr
Or IL, between the voters and the prcsi
dent OF the senate an irresponsible and
unconstitutional tribunal Is intcrpOsed.
uhich denies the rights OF citizens OF
the United States, or il plain mistake or
pAlpable fraud be shown, can We not in
quire and judge and apply the remedy {?
Ii this be 30 in counting the vote We DO
not declare but we cancel and nullify it.
The power 20 count is given 10 some tri-
bunal, and the means TO reach that end
follow by necessary Implication. lie
argued that this power is in the two
houses Of congress and in the president
Of the senate. The two houses have
local knowledge which he has not All
the great powers Of government are in
congress, whilst he has no vote in the
body over which he pTesides. This is a
great power and would be lodged where
most likely to be exercised with judg.
ment and under responsibility. The two
houses are equal They fix the time Of
choosing electors. They are present
when the vote is counted. The language
does not give the power 10 the president
OF the senate. tie is not the presiding
officer Of the joint meeting. The senate
is there Rs n senate. The house is there
as 4 house, equal in dignity. II n presi-
dent pro tempore can count the vote
whose power does lac exarcise-his own
or that Of the senate2 If the former
then he is greater than his creator. The
senate can displace him il he refuses 10
obey their will. If he lexercises their
power then the sena te is above its co.
equal body, the house. Both are pres
ent Both or neither count. Can Il be
that the Same clause which clothes the
vice president, an independent officer,
with this power, also clothes n depends
ent one herewith The words "all''
and then" show that the certificates
must all be opened before counting be-
gins. Counting is adjudicating. The
president Of the senate is the avenue Of
communication. When his duty is done
the duty Of the two houses begins. In
every instance the senate has originated
u resolution asking the house 10 agree
on a committee 10 count the vote. They
have so acted in every case but one. The
senator from Ohio (Mr. Shermanl says
the actien Of the returning board is final
and binding. II is not 50, for it does not
provide for hearing or give q day I'M
court. 1t takes away judicial scrutiny,
and deprives men OF their Offices with
out hearing. II is anti-American, and
violates the federal constitution by de-
nying q contest, and refuses the due pro-
cess of law. A statute is not due pro-
cess OF law. This statute is in direct
conflict with the l4th amendment, and
we have the right to revise its adjudica
tions TO inquire into that fact. Return
ing boards are not courts. Their duties
are ministerial, or, If quasi. judicial, they
must permit an appeal OF review byl
courts Of law. There IN no safety in our
system without this. The law creatingi
the Louisiana returning board violates |
the provision that mo state shall make |
or enforce any law which shall abridge
the immunities and privileges ofcitizens
OF the United States" and no state shall
deprive any person Of life, liberty orI
properly without due process of law
Fraud and falsehood can be investigated |
in every legal tribunal. That power ex-
lists in the senate and it is our duty TO |
use 1t.
Mr.. Sherman, Of Ohio, said he had
been prepared, for some time, to discuss
this Louisiana case, and he could show,
by the clearest testimony Of officers of
the army. Of white men and black men,
that the cases Of intimidation in Louis-
lana made il the imperative duty Of the |
returning board in that state TO reject |
the votes of certain parishes. lie had
delayed in making his argument until
the committee of the senate sent to that
state should return. The senator from
(MF. Wallace) assumed rs
a fact that the returning board was
guilty of a fraud. He (Mr. Shermanl
gave notice that tomorrow he would
move to take up the case Of Louisiana,
and show, by testimony, what the con
dition oraliairs " as in that state.
Mr.. Wallace said he had not gone into
the question Of fact. He merely replied
TO the argument OF the senator from
Ohio (Mr. Sherman), delivered several
days ago.
Mr.. Sherman said he had noticed in
the newspapers, especially in the New
York papers, allegations as TO affairs in
Louisiana which were not so, and he
would show the extent ofthe wrong com
mitted there But for the means which
Louisiana herself had provided for ex-
purgating this wrong, the vote of the
state should not be counted on either
side.