The Portland daily press., 1877-02-20

party which brought this danger to the coun-
try seemed to him wrong. The Louisiana re.
turning board might be arrested, they might be
driven to their graves, but they had simply
obeyed the law and Congress had no power,
thank God to reverse the decision of that
board The Democrats could come forward
now and say what they proposed to prove.
Why was it they did not offer their proofs be-
the investigating committee:
He argued it would have been impossible for
the Commission to examine all this evidence
before the 4th of March, and this attempt to
have them take evidence looked as if it was
contemplated to have new election for Presi-
dent. lie defended the decision of the Com
mission. and asked if these pure and honorable
men were to be assailed throughout the land by
libell4rs aud assassins. When all the testmo-
ny taken by both Houses OF congress on the
Louisiana case shall have been read by the
people they would See that the decision of the
Commission was hight and just
Mr. Morton of Indiana, said the statute of
Louisiana creating the Returning Board provid-
ed In express terms that majority Of the num-
Der should constitute quorum to do business
and make the returns. The board was to con-
sist of five persons to be elected by the Senate
Three of that number by the express terms of
the act were quorum to do business. There
were four in number upon the board, one more
than a majority. The Electoral Commission
had decided the board was properly constituted.
On the other hand it was argued that the exis-
tence of a single vacancy destroyed the board
principles of law. The Constitution provides
that the Senate shall consist of two Senators
from each state, yet vacancies from half doz-
en- states will not destroy the legal character of
tnls Senate The law provides that the Su
preme Court consists of a certain number of
| JUDGES, but two or three vacancies will not de-
stroy the legal character of the Supreme Court
80 he could run through the law in regard to
corporators and special tribunals. There were
certain commissions created for specific minis
tArlal SOmatimas ha 10
that the commission should be full to enable it
| to perform an act, but here the law creating
this tribunal guards against that by specially
providing that majority of the members shall
constitute quorum, aud if there be such
majority present it makes no difference rom
| what cause there are absentees, whether there
| are vacancies OF whether the members are will
fully absent. If there be a majority the law is
/ complied with.
Now in regard to the eligibility Of electors
| The commission decided that it was not COM
| petent to prove that certain electors were ine
| ligible on the 7th of November, the day OF
election. They decided that upon two grounds,
first because in any point of view the proof
| would be immaterial because the substance of
| the Constitution, the spirit and meaning of it
| is that the electors shall be eligible when they
| come to vote and not at the time when they
are elected. Certain persons are ineligible to
be members of this Senate A senator must
have certain qualifications. If he has them
| when the time comes to be sworn In that is
enough. 1t is immaterial whether he has
them on the day of his election. That is well
settled. But the commission decided that the
| proof was immaterial upon other grounds. IT
| it were conceded that an elector was ineligible
| upon the daythe voted, can that fact be proven
| to strike out his vote? 1t it can be it Is over
turning the very best settled principles of law.
A man may be ineligible to a seat in this
body, he may not be thirty years old, he may
be under the disabilities of the 14th amend
| ment, but If he comes here and is sworn in and
| takes his seat he may afterwards be turned
out upon proof of the fact. But every vote he
cast has the same validity with the vote of any
other senator. In applying to the electors we
apply simple well-settled rule of law and
how absurd it would be to overturn that rule in
case where discovery is made after vote is
cast when it is past remedy. Who six months
ago commended for any such principle as that.
Mr. Morton proceeded to show that while
each House was by the Constitution made sole
judge of the qualification of its members, no
such power was given relative to the quallfica-
lions and eligibility of electors. The states
themselves were intended to be the arbiters in
this matter If anything in the Constitution
was clear it was that the making OF the Pres-
dent was intended to be independent of Con-
gress. The Constitution says that the certifi-
cate shall be opened by the President Of the
Senate in the presence of the two Houses.
Whether he is to count the votes or whether
the two Houses are to count the votes Il as
sumo under this law the two Houses are to do
| IL, OT Ill CtTtdlu CdS6S uu6 GltCLOral COuuIS'
sion) what can they do. They have but one
duty to perform and that is TO ascertain that
these certificates come from the electors of the
state, When that is done the vote shall then
be counted: They must ascertain the fact
whether they come from the electors of the
state and when they have ascertained that their
duty is at an end. There is no time, there is
i no place to try any question of eligibility
Whenever the officers appointed by state to
declare who have been chosen electors have
l m hat 70 10 no
| far as law is concerned. The action of the state
officers is the action of the state.
Mr.. Bayard said that as member of the
| electoral commission he had gwen all he could
of earnest study, patient laoor, and devoted
himself to secure a just execution of the law
under which he was appointed His labors
and his efforts had been crowned by failure.
| Deep was his sorrow and poignant was his dis
appointments. He mourned his failure for his
| countrys sake, for it seemed to him not only
did this decision of these eight men of the com
mission level in the dust all the essential safe
guards thrown around the election of a chief
magistrate, but it announced to the people of
| this land that truth and justice, honesty and
morality were no longer the central basis of
| their political power.
Mr. Logan said he was not here when the bill
| creating an Electoral Commission passed. Had
| he been here he would have voted against it.
| 1t seemed to HIM there was an amount of irrl-
tation on the part of the disappointed portion
| of Congress which was rather extraordinary.
He denied that Congress had the right to go
behind the returns of the Louisiana Returning
| Board, and ella med that the electors were state
officers. They stand in the same relation TO
Congress as the Governor of a state did. and he
presumed no man would claim that Congress
had right to investigate the election of the
Governor of state. The vote of an elector
| must be contested in state prior to the time it
was given, and unless SO contested it was good.
Mr.. Wallace said that the Senator from OHIO
| (Sherman) says that its lawyer asserted the
right to 60 behind the returns, but the record
shows that he himself said the bill gave that
| right when he resisted its passage, and two of
the Commission, Messrs Morton and Garfield,
in debate opposed the bill because it gave that
right. The rejection of the proof of fraud by
the Commission admitted its proof This Is
sound law, and the Republican party cannot
now say the facts are net as we state them.
Gross and palpable fraud on the people of Louis
| lana, and through them on the American peo-
Pile. have been given voice and power to pro-
claim lie, to nullify truth and to reverse the
will of a majority of the people.
The debate was continued by Messrs. Sar-
gent, Withers, Boutwell,, Howe, Stephenson
and Christiancy.
Before Mr.. Christiancy concluded his re-
marks the time allowed for debate expired.
The question being on the resolution of Mr..
Herman as substitute for that of Mr.. Sher-
man, it was rejected-yeas %, nays IA strict
| party vote.
Mr. Edmunis, detained at home by sickness,
was paired with Mr.. Thurman. Mr.. Blaine
was also detained at home by sickness.
The question being on the resolution of Mr..
Sherman, it was agreed to-yeas Al, nays ga
| strict party vote
Mr.. Hamlln said the Senate having concluded
| its action on the vote of Louisiana he moved
the Secretary be instructed to notify the House
of Representatives that the Senate was ready
to meet that body and proceed with the count
of the electoral vote. Agreed to.
Mr.. Sargent inquired If it was not necessary
| to inform the House that the Senate has
arrived at a conclusion IN regard to the decision
| of the Commission.
The President (pro tem.) replied that that
| would be included in the notification.
The Senate at 3 35 o'clock took a recess till
| 10 O. clock tomorrow.
FOR EI9 N.