National Republican., 1877-02-15
MAKING A PRESIDENT.
IConiinued .from Firsi Page. /


election was not wholly void through fraud, the
McEnery ticket was elected Kellogg, he said,
sycceeded In being Installed asGovnernor through
the usnrpation Of q subordinate judge aud set up
This same government in Lou,sians underwent
Srsysw only aayeat Or T% T% Two ago, when person pri
appointed by the Legislature, applied for q seat
in the Senate, on which a member Of this Oom.
the voters, and not snch as a board might make
up -
some length the remaras made by MT EpNusps
in the Senate, on the powers OF the Returning
so sHs Sn Ssd sisa
outside of the constitution and laws Of the State.
He then concluded that the government of Lou.
a military deipotism for the last four years, and
could not, if the troops were Withdrawn, stand for
n0S5 JUDGE SsNES o E9 tss Rs9RS staff n
has said that q a military, despotism g estab:
lished In one state, II would bring ruin upon all
the rest" MIR. TRuMBuLL paused and said: slow
What did the certified list that was before them
the u electors roi had 70 Dc wSs O
to certify their lists and send them to tho Presi-
with the Governor whether he would make the
certificate or not, and old John Hancock, a hun.
dred years ago, sen. communication TO the Legs,;
In the last election tho Senate and House went
that the canvass had never been made by any
body having authority to count, and tho vote Of
In that case the returns corresponding with tho
present certificate No. had been overthrown by
Congress and the certificate rejected, and they
thorlty TO count When the Commission was ap.
that this body would make the inquiry, and Il
would be n delusion and snare II the decision was
oSa SdS qP9hb ps h. ssShn,ia point, and tnS country
Mr.. TRUMBuLL read from McCrary on Elec.
tions that there officer was detected In q fraud
II made his whole act void, because IL he would
betrny his trust In one instance he would in an
Of tho members OF the Returning Board had
changed the figures from one side of the returns
TO the other, and BY that act he had made his
dtcttt WIS given to compile and canvass votes
II Old not give Jurisdiction TO reject votes. An.
canvass the tCs was that i've persons were re-
CURED to constitute the holri, and tho ahseu'e
0i the fifth member nadc II an illrgii holy. Tho
law required tina; 1t he made up Of all political
parties, Tut there were In fact, 0uy four, all OF
one party, Nn% haG rein!o! to M tie vacancy.
one of the Hayes electors, was Surveyor General
Of the Lasd District, holding his commission from
the President and the Constitution OF the United
states had said in effect to the people Of Louis.
isDa, You can nppcint certa persons Presidential
electors but you shall not apponto II. Brewster,
and any act OF the Legislature or the people in
violation OF that provision was utterly void. In
| response to a question by Judge Bradley he said
after the election, but before tho meeting of the
| Electoral College. There having been then only
seven electors chosen, there was not, oven II the
law Of 1875 was in force, any vacancy caused by
his non-at endance at the meeting OF the College.
II the vote. OF Brewster and LevLssee were 10
be counted 1t would be In violation Of the constl.
tuition end the rights of the people.
| Mr. MERRlCK asked permission, in behalf Of
messrs lloADLr, GREEN andthimself to tilo "A
bill in relation to the Of Brewster
and Leyissee, which was granted.
MIR. CARPENTER presented some authorities
q nv IN IN
show that Kellogg, Governor, could not give a
certificate to Kellogg as an eloctor, and he ar.
| gued that they must go behind tho certificate to
| see that Kellogg was elected
Argument of Dir. stoughtou.
Mr.: STOUGHTON said there were objections
be remembered that when the vote OF Connceti-
cut was opened that her goveanor, Mr.. Ingorsoll,
| esa asserted that Governor Kellogg was not tho
eoyernor Of louisiana. He referred to the dc.
Isl IN in the Don case in the Rhode Island insur.
Or itIny Of all the polls in Louisiana to ascertain
,ioi Of the ofcers Of tha, State for s naasht M Mo
| would undertake to show that the statutes of
Louisiana conferred upon the board full
the votes ofthe State, and that the Electoral Col.
| lego had the power to MI vacancies in its body.
by the Com mission, that It was not competent to
go back OF the action Of tho officers OF the State,
TRuhDuLL's remarks in the Senate on tho
Louisiana case Of 1917, to show that he at that
| time held that the method OF counting and deter
mining the vote rested solely with the. State. To
the Tribunal has been delegated the power Of
the two Houses TO cast the lectoral vote. Mr.CAR.
PENTER had said 1t had no judislAl power,nor any
legislative power, He supposed he was right, but
saon i had The Hd to ,Ir tnEo tssSonS
took testimony for Information, and ii was taken
tained BY the courts. Was IL to be assumed that
the testimony taken by the House could not be
Would Il NOT 6c rs well to leave the admiilstrs ira.
| tion Of State laws to the State7 The power of
| appointing electors was delegated TO the states
The state Of LOuisana had provided the mode,
and had but one mode of expressing its wIll-by
Sat .S So Say go GS Sag s' pS sss
had. He quoted a, letter written 'By Mr..
GnhuIpsh, !nH ,,-Si,, Of New New York, who held that
case, and with kIsicarned friend CMr TRraSuLLJ
| was responsible for its officers and must abide by
| their action. He then read from the decision Of
the supreme Court OF Louisiana sustaining tho
| under the same law as tho present Returning
beard That t3s EGwfT q t6' %q@%Isso1 q
carried with II, by implieatlon the right TO count
the votes east i,r inc electors at every poll
stretch Of language. Inc theory of tho count
was that the decision of the eleetoral tribunals
should be hnal. or tho Judicial tribunals would be
overwhelmed with these disputes. He denounced
the threat Of Mr.. CAGPRETER that the case
would be made tho subject Of judicial inquiry for
years as unworthy the circumstances under which
his Tribunal was formed.
Mr., sTOUGHToN, after an argument to sus.
tain the legality Of the Returning Board, took
up the argument Of MIR. CARPENTER that the
election of Brewster being void, there were but
seven electors chosen, citing the laws of Louis.
lana 10 show that provision was made Tor these
cases.
lie next went into the election laws OF
Louisiana, to show that all through, whether in
the act OF le6s, 1870, or that of 1879, plan of
| Returning Board was contemplated. lie con-
tended that tho four members of the Re-
turning Board, alter the resignation Of one,
made still more than tho three required for the
Transaction of business, and as to tho TACT that
they were all Of one pnrty he asked II It should
happen that two members had been Democratic,
and had, not improbable suppOsitlon, changed
their political faith, would that have made the
decision OF tho board Illegal? He defended tho
legislation which led to the complaint that 1000
voters were disfranchised, and said It was pro-
dueed through the lesson taught by the action of
Louisiana In 1883, and by the frauds In the State
OF New York In 1858, where twenty thousand
irnudulent votes were cast, with an individual,
whom he would not name, acting as the Chairman
Of the Executive Committee.
He said that II the talk of fraud was to be
brought in, and there were frauds on tho other
IL