The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1877-01-25

TIoN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE.
II.
Mr.. EDITOR The Joint Convention of the twt
Houses being organized with such joint rules TO
conducting the business before them as they ma.
adopt, and with the President of the Senate al
their presiding officer, with such powers appurten
ant to him as defined in my former communication
the next inquiry is, What rights can the Conven
ton exercise, and what duties shall it perform
cOrlstitutionaly and legally, in the ascertainmen
of the lawful votes to be counted?
In answer to this fundamental inquiry, it is as
that by Article IL Sec l. of the Constitution of the
U. s., the tribunals created by the State Legisla
tures for the choice of Electors, by their general
Election laws, tribunals of original erclusfrt
and final jurisdiction and that their choice OF
Electors is conclusive, If such tribunals organ
lied and act in conformity to the provisions of the
general State Election laws, and they choose
Electors who eligible, according to the Consti-
tuition and laws of the United States and of the
the exercise of the express lower delegated to
the States to choose Electors sin such manner as
the Legislatures thereof may direct, be collater-
ally impeached or questioned on the properly
authenticated judgments of its tribunals, made
according to the laws of the several States; but
the judgment and choice of Electors, by such
tribunals, can be directly attacked by the Joint
Convention, although legally certified by the State
authorities to be in conformity to State lawson
these grounds
1st. That the State Election laws are in viola
ton of the Constitution and laws OF the U. States
81 on the ground that en- Elector chosen is
ineligible.
3D.. On the ground that the certificates of the
State officers as TO the choice of Electors are
forgeries, or that such officers or Electors have
been bribed.
4th. That the tribunal which certifes to the
choice of Electors, is not tribunal that was
created or organized in accordance with the laws
of the State, or had exceeded its jurisdiction, and
had no power to decide as to the choice OF
Electors.
On one or ell of these grounds, and none other.
it is with the most profound respect for all other
opinions, modestly maintained, that the joint
Convention might exercise and pronounce its
=
vote of any State, the law, the fact, as just
specified, might be; but further it cannot step,
ton, under the limitations Just prescribed, form
shield for the protection of State rights against
the decisions of any tribunal of usurpers under the
color of State laws.
But the right which is claimed for the Joint Con-
vention, to go behind the decisions of the State
tribunals when all the elements of their legal Or
ganizaton ARE exemplided by the State authorities
as existing in accordance with State laws, and to
be substituted as judges Of the elections, ut,d
supersede or reverse the findings of such tribunals
is wholly irreconcilabe with the express grant of
the power to the States to create such tribunals,
and on a moments reflection, the advocates of
such claim will be convinced that their arises
from their confused application of remedy to the
redress of one supposed wrong, which can only he
adopted for the redress of another wrong. de-
monstrate my assumption by the application of
the claimed remedy to the redress Of the only
wrong to which it can be applied.
In the case of contested elections in the Senate
the House. the right to go behind all certificates,
and inquire into all grounds and objections which
cate of election, is a right expressly delegated by
the Constitution and provided for by the acts of
Congress passed on that subject but in the case
of the election of the President, neither by the
Constitution by any acts of Congress, is there
any such proceeding known or sanctioned as the
contest of his election, and therefore, as the right
to go behind the certificates and make the inquiries
which the various Congressional Committees are
now making, is only remedy provided for find
ing out the right lin the light of ell the facts and
the law in the case of contested elections it fol-
lows that as no such contest possibly come up,
President, the remedy cannot be applied, unless
all laval analogy to judicial proceedings-all
constitutional limitations-be entirely abrogatcd.
III.
Now, let us apply the foregoing crude rules and
principles Gf they be thought by many to be such)
to the two contested elections of Louisiana and
Oregon, or any other State where a contest may
arise.
Before doing this, 1 wish to make more explicit
the assumption that each House can have but one
cote. By the Constitution the Legislative depart
ment consists of the two Houses, and in all cases,
where their joint concurrent authority is neces-
sary to make any act of the Government obligato-
", they act through the majority of each House,
by vote, as unit, and are co-equal inpowers; and
hence, in the Joint Convention, they act as to-
taty and the expressed vote of one is equal to
the expressed vote of the other.
With this explanation, the two Houses being in
session. on the call of the States the President of
the Senate hands to the telers the certified lists of
votes returned by the Electors of Louisiana, and
some member objects 10 the count of the vote OF
that State on the ground that the Returning Board
of Louisiana, who certified to the election of
Republican Electors, was not organized and created
according to the laws of Louisiana, and therefore
he moves to reject the vote.
According to my theory, this is motion that
should be entertained by the President CT the Sen
ate, and for this reason, in addition to what has
been said-that although the Governor and Secre-
tary of State may have certified that the Return
ing Board of Louisiana, who certified to the cleo
tion of the Republican Electors, was the legally
organized Board, according to the laws of Louis
lana. nevertheless the Joint Convention, being
court of supreme, final and exclusive jurisdiction,
az to all questions which for this occasion arise
under the Constitution of the L. s., has the in
disuutable right to examine the laws of Louisiana,
and to determine for itself whether the Governor
| is right in his construction of such laws, and
whether such Board has been organized in the
.manner" prescribed by such laws.
rr,t III no1 and tha