The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1877-07-13

The conflict must be settled somehow.
Where was the jurisdiction to determine IT ?
Undoubtedly, and by universal admission,
the power wss ia the courts of the State from
which both claimants proiessed to derive
their authority. The proper State court
did determine It; but the Commission ers
said that however competent the jurisdiction
of the court, it was too late in making its
decision, and then they proceeded in the
exercise of a jurisdiction exactly similar, to
decide the same questions of fact and law
the other way. Now comes the query If
the courts decision was worthless because 1t
was late. what was the value of the commits
sion's judgment, which was later? The
eight did actually, not in words, but in sub
stance and effect, give vent to the bald alb
surdty that il was too late in January to de-
eide the dispute in favor of Tiden, but not
too late in February to decide it in favor of
Hayes.
IN FAVOR OF FRAUD EVERY TIME.
Another thing they said: This Judgment,
though it proved the fact that the Hayes
claimants were not duly appointed, and had
no title to the office of electors, did not in
validate the acts previously done by them
while they were de facto in the exercise of
the powers they usurped. There is a just
and necessary rule of law which declares
that the validity of acts regularly done by
an officer shall not depend on the title by
which he holds the office. Youmay remove
k,, T., N.ttfh laa
ing the title of all who purchased land at
his sales, or Judge without vacating his
DEGREES, or treasurer without saying that his
payment of public debt is not satisfac-
tion but where person assumes special au-
thority to do particular thing the validity
Of the act does depend on the authority to do
II. This latter rule applies here. These
electors claimed right to vote for the State
under special appointment given them to
do that one act. When a competent court
adjudicated as matter of fact that the Hayes
electors had no appointment, it was logical
and legal necessity which declared the un-
authorized votes to be null and void If this
were not the principle, then any imposter, or
any number of imposters, might send W heir
ballots, aud one would be as good as another.
But again, let it not be forgotten that the
Tiden electors had also voted at the same
time in lthe same way. Why did not this
fact make as much weight for them as for
the Others It will excite the wonder of
the world to learn that in the opinion of the
eight, person who voted under an appoint
ment given him by the people according to
law could not be even de facto elector, but
another person who had nothing to claim
by except the false, fraudulent, and void dec
laration of a Returning Board was good de
facto, if he was good for nothing else. This
doctrine of de facto sanctifcation, saving
acts which have no other "reish of saliva
tion in them," and making the votes of un.
authorized men as good as if they came from
persons duly appointed cuts great fgu re
throughout the whole case. 1t is not appli-
cable, but the eight apply it everywhere and +,
strange to say, they do not use it when it
does not make in favor of some fraud or
other. One who votes according to the pub
lie will of the State, legally expressed
through the allot-boxes, is de facto nothing.
But if he was defeated or ineligible, he is
de,facto all he wants to be. One of the Hayes
electors in Louisiana was a Federal officer :;
his election was forbidden by the Constitu-
tion of the United States, and he was not
elected but beaten at the polls; de facto
strained its utmost power on him, and pulled
him through in spite of Constitution and
people both. But his Democratic competi-
tor, who had acted as an elector in the same
way and to the same extent, was legally
chosen by an overwhelming majority; there
fore de facto could do nothing for him.
FRAUD UNDER THE FORMS OF LAW.
In all the discussions of the subject the
men disposed to favor the conspiracy pro-
fessed most profound veneration for the
"forms of law" This was the keynote
struck at New Orleans by the Visiting Com
mittee, and it is heard in every subsequent
argument of counsel and commissioner on
that side. 1t seemed to be understood among
them that formal cheat was perfectly safe
from exposure. If the sepulchre was whted
on the outside, it made no difference that it
was filled with corruption, dead mems
bones, and all uncleanness." No refuge of
lies could De swept away, no hiding place of
falsehood could ever be uncovered, if it was
built in the prescribed form. Only give it
the legal shape, and the overhowing scourge
would be turned aside. But legal form, how
ever valuable as covering for fraud, was, in
their judgment, no protection for truth or
justice or public right. The will of
Louisiana was pronounced at the election
with all the solemnities required by the
law of the State and of the United States
The appointment of the Tilden electors
on the 9TH of November was a perfectly
legal piece of work there was not flaw in
it as it came from the hands of the appoint
ing power But it was looked on with per.
feet contempt. Neither the Visiting Com
mittee, nor the Hayes counsel, NOR the eight
Commissioners, bestowed on it any of theil
love. Their affections were otherwise engag
ed; they gave the homage and devotion o
their hearts to the beautiful regularity, tn,
exquisite precision, with which the Return
ing Board compounded its false certificate.
Another parodox of the eight is curious
enough to be noted. They declared repeat
edly that they had no power to try contest
ed telection case, and for that reason the,
would not look at the evidence which SHOWED
what persons were duly appointed eector
by the people. Now mark The case wa
this. Each of these notes came accompa
MED by what was asserted to be proof that
was cast by electors duly appointed. Tn
conflict was to be determined by the verfy
ing power which Congress unquestionabl
has, and which the Commissioners expressl
assumed when they swore that they woul
decide who were duly appointed. To deciC