The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1877-02-17
Ghe 8ullatin.
Proceedings Before the
Electoral Commits
sion.
Speeches Of Messrs. Evsrts and
Campbell.
EvARTs' SPEECH.

WASHINGTON, Feb. l5.-rhe electoral
commission met 1915 and Evarts contin-
ued the argument on the Republican side.
He contended that the right to
cast in votes vested in the
state. and was not grant
from the general government. Whatever
power the federal government possessed,
it held through the term OF the federal
constitution. The ninth and tenth arti-
Giles Of the amendments reserved in terms
to the states all rights moi specifically
delegated. The whole matter OF select
ing an elector, determining the mode,
and issuing the certificates, belonged TO
the state. 1t was for the federal govern
msnt to count the votes after they had
left the state. AS in the Florida case so
here, this body bad the power of the
two houses to count the vote the power
granted TO those bodies bv the constitu.
ton but not the power OF legislation.
Considering the power possessed by
the commission. Evarts charged that the
other side had changed its position.
holding, in the Florida case, it had judi
cial authority to institute quo ,ra,ranto
proceedings and now declaring it was
not a judicial body. The duties were
said TO be legislative. lie contended that
the power vested in the BODY
was such as existed in the two houses
for the performance Of specific duty to
count the electoral votes, not the vote
tor electors-the two houses did not DOS
sess that power. In regard to the ineli-
gibility OF Brewster and Levissc this stat.
ute prescribed that they should be waited
for, and If they did not appear until four
O'Clock the vacancies were to be filled BY
the remaining electors. These gentle
men did not appear, and the vacancy
was declared and filed BY the selection
Of these same men. 1t was as stated to
fill vacancy that their title to the office
of electors was to be judged. There was
nothing in the offers OF proof on the
other side that detracted from the night
OF the governor to certify the election.
he felt relieved OF any necessity to prove
Kellogg was de faeto governor, for in
their first proposition the other side offer
to prove that through the months Of
october, November and December there
was no proof that Brewster and Levisse
were not qualified to receive an election
on the Sth Of December. 1t was also
among the offers OF proof that the Kel.
logg certificate was by the de facto gov.
ernor OF the state and this certificate
shows for whom the votes were legally
cast.
Before approaching the question
whether the evidence submitted could
be received. IL would be first necessary
10 examine what the laws OF Louisiana
were. The session laws Of 1868 con-
tanned two Independent acts on independ.
snt subjects, the first relative to elections
in the state OF Louisiana TO enforce ar
ticle l0S Of the constitution OF the state,
Inns was general law. Then there was
another act relative to presidential cleo
tors. These two acts governed the cleo
ton in 1876. unless they were subse-
quenny repealed, which they were not.
Mr.. Evarts here read the provisions in
the latter act providing tor the filling Of
vacancies 10 electors who did not appear
before four O'Clock. By subsequent leg
isiAuon, the canvassing section was re.
pealed, but all the rest Of the act was left
standing. In 1870 there was revision OF
the laws Of the state not repeal OF the
laws, nor amendment of them, but Ger.
tihcation as had been recently made by
congress. He referred TO the revised
statutes following the acts Of 1869, to
show they had been incorporated ia the
statutes a. revised. He then read the
session law OF $50, passed March l6.
and maintained that as 1t made no pro.
vision for the discharge Of their duties
by electors il did not by the terms OF its |
repeating clause repeal the act of '6s as |
incorporated in the revised statutes, 50
far as that act related to the discharge OF
their duties.
lie said not one OF the eminent law
yers who visited New Orleans during
November eyer thought to suggest that
Gov. Kellogg ought to count the vote
which was now the construction sought
TO be put upon the statutes of the state.
Evarts argued against the authority OF
congress to interfere In the Affairs of
state and said our forefathcrs were so
jealous OF federal power that they would
not permit the introduction OF the federal
hnger In states elections. and forbade the
election Of federal officers. But now 1t
WAS thought to thrust the thickness OF q
man ioins upon the power OF the state
ny our inquiry through this commission
ih'o ths election in state. He denounced |
|" As monstrous proposition. Congress
could SIT and sift, discard, discount and
usstroy an election in state. Their
position in the Florida case was I'M
changed. Ia the absence OF the necessary
legislation there could not be a revision
OF the count.
ne took up the claim of the McEnery
o",S snd said that acting without
snow OF authority, neither Nc
|" ne electors having been In.
quoted INTO ONCE. their action Wss wholly
VOID. support Of this proposition he
cited numerous authorities. On N.
other hand suppose Brewster and Lewis.
had been ineligible. There was no color
and chow Of authority and the stat. -