The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1877-02-15

In 1857, five postmas;ers were among the
electors, and Mr. Clay introduced resp
luton directing the joint committee to in
ouire' into this infringement. OF the clause of
the Constitution. 1t was then held that il
was the duty OF congress TO take testimony
and inquire into the facts The committee
did NOT find time to ascertain whether
parties of the came name were the same in
di7iduals, ard "a their votes were not
necessary to change The result, the inquiry
vas not carried out, but at that time the
idea was entertained, although the commit
tee did not so think, that single disguali-
fed elec;er violated the whole electoral
vote. Judge Hoddley quoted
ENGLISH AUTHORITIES.
to show that in the event of the election Of
an Ineligible individual The election was
void. There was not an American prece-
dent to the contrary, although there had
been wide range as the effect Of such a
failure TO elect upon the other candidate.
In the Pennsylvania case, where the csndi-
date was disqualified, the election went
back TO the people In the Indiana cases
the next highest candidate had been de-
81 ared elected, and in other ca 20 the party
had been Unsestsd without seating his OPP
ponent.
.HE ACIs OF CONGRESS
indicated q disposition to furnish a remedy
where the disqualification of electors had
been shown, a. when it was provided that
the state might select new electOr where
one disquailfed had been chosen. The
state having failed 10 take advantage OF
the l4ih section OF the revised ststuies,
and having failed TO remedy the ncl-elec
ton, there was vac ,Dcy, and one vote, he
claimed, Was lost to the state.
THE RHODE ISLAND CASE.
He referred to the decision Of the Judges
in the late Rhode leland case, 20 the effect
,hst the ineligibili;y Of one Of the csndi
dates had caused = vacancy which could tie
filled By the legi-lature, and srgutd tina;
had not he Office been flied, there
would have been a vacancy in that
state. Florida had ampl. opportuni-
ty to correct her error, ard Gil the vacancy,
had She chosen TO avail herself ii it.
Mr. Green desired to cali the attention Of
the commission TO the claim that the letter
oil Humphreys to Jude Wood nd the re-
ply OF the same were not az act Of the
court, and that the certificate Ct the clerk
Of the circuit court Of Florida, read this
n 9rniHg, showed tina. the registration had
not been made a matter Of record in the Of
fee OF the court He licensed the case
under the first part Of the order Of the
court, TO consider the only paper confined
in the package opened b. the President Of
the Sauata.
lie argued that the formal character Of
the certificate No. |, entitled il TO some
by the committee, and con-
tended that the statutes and action Of the
courts Of the State were matters that the
SHOULD INQUIRE INTO
to establish the illegally of certificate No |
l. The commission had before it in these |
certificates not only the certificate of the |
Governor, but tabulated statement of the |
precise number OF votes cast in each county |
in tie State for the different candidates |
This certificate had the authority OF the ex- !
scutiye, Judiciary, and the legislature, all |
'peakirg in unanimous and united voice |
lpon the question which is to be decided |
1y this tribunal. i; might be said that the
bird certificate did not arrive in Washing
on BY the first "Wednesday in January, and
vas therefore too late. lie cited authority
o sustain his proposition that the clause
vas
DIRECTORY, NOT MANDATORY.
The main fsct was. did the electors vote &C.
.ording to the constitutional requirement
The mere transmission Of their message TO
he Vice. President was an incider tai mat
er and the time within the prescribed linn
Is was not OF the essence ii the transaction
The main point was that the votes should
'e received before the count took place.
He claimed that the iists submitted with
eriifcate No. 1 were eGectual, and that a
elay in the performance OF plain duty did
lot prevent the performance Of tina: duty.
II CoSuUs
Ir. Green contended that the laws passed
y tie legislature OF Florida since January
Il, in relation to the recent election, were
r post Tdcf0 laws within the meaning OF the
Constitution. He gave notice TO the other
ide that under the order OF the court, they
houli insist that the commission could
COX into the proceedings under quo uayTdnL
TIE REPUBLICAN SIDE.
Mr. Skellabarges followed on the other
idc
lie said that since he heard the decision
{ the commission To refuse 10 hear testi-
lony in relation TO the quo 0dyranto pro-
eedings, he had thought all discussion On
be subject uncallsd for. In the papers
aid before the two houses there was but
ne a!iUsion 70 these proceedings, in quo
dyraHio, and that was in the certificate OF
iOy. Drew. Those proceedings were not
efUre the commission, and could not be
rought here by allusiOn in q Governors
lessage. lie
SUBMITTED THE PROPOSITION
lat all acts in relation to the accomplish
!ent OF a certain act must anticipate Itself,
nd on this proposition every act that fol-
WED the electoral vote was excluded. He
that the power of State was lin
ed 10 appointment, and no act pertaining
, appointment could be had after the ap-
ointment had been made and the office
ad passed away. He said that when all
rat could be done by State had been
one, according 10 the requirement Of the
W OF the State existing on the day OF elec- /
on, tina; power of the State passed away, f,
I'd ii became thereafter Federal trust. ,
he power OF the Stale was. on that day, {
reyer annulled. He conceded that il was
the power OF State to try by her own
achinery the power Of her electors, bu; ,
rutiny must be made prior to the dis
large Of the functions of the Office ma
,inery. To contest an election after the
ice had passed away would be, be said,
absurdity.
EvARTs CLOSES FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
Mr.. Eya;ts closed the argument for the
epublican side. He said the commission {
Is decided that in one particular il will !
celye evidence touching the eligibility of !,
ie OF the Florida electors, (Humphreys). !
DO not understand the commission to
ave passed over the question. What el-
CT Is the acceptance or rejection of a vote
us challenged for ineligibility bat TO have .
cided that on that point it will receive {
'i6ence which may be offered, first, as TO q
neither the exception taken TO Humphreys q
lie in maintainabie, and, secondly. 1
neither if maintainable and maintained. b
e methods Of the constitution permit OF t:
v rejection from the certified vote trans
itted and opened.
que that the evidence in regard to Hum =
reys holding Office fell short of showing !,
ST he was in Office at the time Of casting !"
! electoral vote, ard that the burden Of q
owing il rested on the side that made the :.
iections. The authorities, he said, were N !,
ar as to tie right of a citizen resiguing
office, even without his resignation be- q
: accepted. All that was necessary was %
make public The vacation OF the Office. =, Il,
: said that the first certificates includes 4
n every degree Of certainty and assur- d
ce the vote ofthe State OF Florida, and Y,
Mt on 10 argue against the second and =
rd certificates. o'
THE PARTING SHOT. Il