The Portland daily press., 1877-02-03
The Electoral Count.
The Commission Still
ORa Florida.
The Democrats EndeavOr-
ing to Go Behind the
Certificates.
Argument of David
I'D. Field

I'D. Field
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1.-The Electoral Com
mission met at hall. past ten to-day
The presiding Justice said the question was
asked yesterday, "What is the case! to which
he had replied that it consists OF three certif-
Gates, with the accompanying paper and obJec-
tions to the sane. He would now state that
two directors on each side wo1ld be allowed to
speak in opening the case. Those representing
the objection numbered one (Which was pre-
scented by Mr. Fied) would speak first, and IN
der the fourth rule would be allowed two hours
in which to state the case and argue in support
of their objection.
Mr.. Field asked whether, after the directors
had spoken, any reply would be allowed.
Justice Clifford said that the rules made no
provision Tor any reply.
Mr Field then opened the argument as an
obJector. and argued in favor of going behind
the face of the returns.
He was followed by Representative Tucker
OF Virginia, on the same side of the case.
Fbe Republicans asked for an adjournment
until tomorrow for further preparation, but the
request was refused.
Mr.. Field reviewed the action of the return
ing board and Gov. Stearns and read from the
evidence taken before the House Com nittee to
show that the votes of precincts had been
thrown out without particle of evidence, and
timidation had been practiced. The votes of
townsville and Derbyvllle were cited as in
stances of this action. He argued that the
paramount question before the commission was
whether in the face of such testimony as this
it can be claimed that the face of the returns
is to be considered as conclusive and binding?
The usual form of stating the question, Can
you 90 behind the certificate?' is an erroneous
form. The question should be revised so as to
read ''Can the certificate 60 behind the truth
and conceal it?'' There is no pretence that the
vote of the state was not given for Tilden aud
Hendricks, the sole pretext for denying the
fact being the certificate of Gov Stearns. They
say that the truth cannot be proved as against
the certificate. This includes the proposition
that the two Houses of Congress have no
or inquire into any act which Gov. Stearns
may certify to Congress-. Suppose Governor
should become so debased as to corruptly GER
tlfy to Congress that one set of electors had
received a ma GRITTY of the votes of the state, is
there 10 remedy? The constitution nowhere
declares that the certificate of a Governor shall
be conclusive against all proof in regard to the
election of President The constitution dis
tinctly declares that it is the person having
the highest number of votes who shall be de-
clared elected. and it cannot be rightfully said
that the certificate of the Governor of q state
can override the provision of the constitution.
Suppose that the honored government of Mas
SachusettS should become SO debased and fallen
as to certify that in the recent election the
Tilden and Hendricks electors had received a
majority of the votes of the people of Massa-
chusetts, does any man mean to tell me that
you cannot prove that certificate to be false?
Where is the law to support such statement?
Nay, more If an act of Congress had de-
clared that that certificate should be con-
elusive, that act would be unconstitutional 1t
declares or asserts that the person having the
highest number Of votes shall be President,
not the person declared to have the highest
number of votes. You cannot, therefore,
manufacture certificate and take from the
person actually having the highest number of
votes such rights as he is entitled to by these
votes, and if you were by an act of Congress to
declare in the most positive terms that the
certificates of the Governor should be con
elusive az ainst all proof, yoa would transcend
the limits OF the organic law. You cannot say
that the certificate of the Governor of Massa-
chusetts, for example, should override the
votes of the electors of Massachusetts. The
language of the act of Congress is not as
strong as the language of the state law gener-
ally as to the canvass of votes.
Take the case of Wisconsin. There is law
of that State which declares that the state
canvassers should determine, certify and de-
clare the result; should declare who was Gov
ernor. A man got into the Office of Governor
upon such a certificate. A rival claimant
brought up case upon writ of quo ,gdr7d1lto.
The first party had his position and claims
Wisconsin. His argument was, "Yon cannot
inquire into the case because the certificate of
the state canvassers is conclusive" mo, "
says the Court IN an opinion which does them
immortal honor, and which will remain a
monument to the patriotism of that court and
to infexble determination of purpose as Ion e
as the report shall last, "the title of the Gov
ernor depends upon the votes of the people,
upon those little ballots placed in the ballot
boxes declaring the supreme will of the people.
= ;c rb,c hill no Ga1 hv,o vi &c
canvassers but who has been voted for by the
people. The court declared that the claimant
was entitled to the office and it elected the
usurping Governor"
What is this commission to do? 1t is to de-
clare whether any and what votes are the votes
provided by the constitution, and not to declare
what are these votes certified to by Governor
Stearns You are to certify what are the law
full votes upon which a President of 100000
of people is to be declared elected, and to be
indicted into office. Is it not implied that a
writ of quo cdTrGnt0 to try the title Of the
President OF the United States is within the
provisions of the constitution? Does anybody
doubt it? The constitution has declared that
the person having the highest number of votes
shall be the President, not the person certified
to. 1t has not invested any tribunal with
exclusive power. No matter how determined
by any preliminary authority, there still re-
mains the right to enact a law giving right to
the exercise OF the writ of quo Uarrdnto. No
such law exists, am sorry to say, and IT L
might be permitted to say so, it ought to exist,
ought not to say, perhaps, but must say it
IN truth, that it is no small reproach to our
craftsmanship that for one hundred years no
law has been provided to meet the emergency
with which we are now brought face to face
know that one eminent member of this
Commission (Senator Morton) has labored as
siduously and zeaouSly TO have such law
passed, and of all the titles to which he can
ever lay claim for respect, am sure that will he
remembered hereafter to his honor, and after
the struggles of the passing hour have ceased,
at his grave they will mot remember him by the
contests in which he was engaged, but rather
that in the service of his country he labored,
although hitherto unavaillngly, to achieve a
bepefcent result.
But whether there be law emitting to a writ
OF quo 1dTrdnto or not in the case of a Pfes-
dent, think all parties will agree that such a
law would be constitutional, and if law to
provide for writ of quo aodrrd1at0 would be
constitutional, then it is constitutional for any
other tribunal sitting in place of high trbu-
nal under that writ to investigate title That
is to say. if YOU can devolve that title upon any
tribunal which you could create, and you have
not created any such tribunal you are here
10 the last resort as the court to determine it,
You must go to those duties and perform those
functions and receive that evidence which that
court could perform and receive
There is another consideration as to WHY the
truth may be given in evidence, and that is
that fraud vitiates all transactions. There is
not single transaction that have ever heard
which should lead us to the conclusion that you
cannot inquire into the falsity or fidelity and
truth of a transaction. Who is he whose acts
we are asking to impeach? 1t is the then Gov
ernor of Florida, M. "a. Stearns. Mr. Stearns
is the man who sent telegram asking son
what grounds can we throw out votes" and
who received for an answer Fraud and ntimi-
datlon or something else.'
Gov. Stearns is the man who controlled those
puppets OF the cauvassing board who were to
decide whether or not he was to exercise the
office of Governor for the next term. Is it a
correct proposition of law that you cannot en-
quire whether that man has acted frauduIent.
~? There is no middle ground. If you can
lGqulre into the truth Of that certificate you
Such, Mr.. President. and gentlemen of the
COMMISSION, IS as brief statement as 1 can
make OF the facts and law as we understand
them to-day.
The greatness Of Tire question in respect to
the dignity Of the Presidential office and the
enormous interests depending upon it are as
nothing compared with the moral elements in
VOlVed whether or NOT tho -oo,1o