The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1877-02-28
The Louisiana Decision by the Com
mission Sustained by the
Senate.

Nr. Sherman submitted a resolutio,
that the decision of the Commissin,
upon the electoral vote of the State o
Louisiana stand as the judgment of the
Senate, the objection made thereto
t" the contrary Notwithstanding. Mr.
Herman submitted substitute for the
resolution of Mr.. Sherman, as follows
Ordered that the votes purporting to
be the electoral votes for President and
Vice President, aud which were given
by VIM. P. Kellogg, j. II. Burch, Peter
Joseph, l.. A. Sheldon, Morris Marks,
A. Is. Levisse, 0. II. Brewster, claim.
ing to be electors for the State of Lou
lslana, be rejected, the decision of the
Commission to the contrary notwitl,-
standing.
The question being on the substitute
OF Mr.. Herman, Mr.. Thurman said
while the statute of Louisiana created
Returning Board consisting of five
persons, who were to hold Office indie.
tlnltely, and with power to fiji all va
cancles that might occur, it devolved
upon these five men to say who should
hold Office in the State. The question
OF VIII" should hold Office depended not
upon the Will of the people, but upon
the will of the Returning Board. He
believed such Il Board was utterly des-
truetive of a Republican form OF gov
ernment.
The State Of Louisiana, under our
Constitution, had no power to create
such a Board, the acts of that Board
were unconstitutional, null and void
Even if it's acts We're not unconstitu-
tIonai they were not legal in canvass
ing the vote of the seventh, of Novem-
Der last. because the statute required
that the Board should be composed of
five persons of different political par
ties; but in fact it was composed OF but
four persons, all of the same party, aud
they steadily refused to till the vacan-
cy. The duty of that Board was to
canvass and compile the returns of the
commissioners of election, hut the tes-
timony showed that tn y did not do SO.
The proof which counsel offered be-
fore the Commission should have been
accepted, and in that opinion he was
fortified by the action OF both Houses
of Congress, four years ago, in reject
ing the vote of Louisiana. He then
referred to the alleged inelisibiity OF
certain electors in that State, and said
he could not regard that other than
notification of the constitutional pro
vision on that subject. Under this de-
clSi0n, no matter by what fraud man
might be elected President or Vice.
President, or how ineligible an elector
''N"p ~, '"ViV vas no f'H"tf to H.
Qnire into it. Tho vote of an inelisi-
Die rlectOr must be counted, aud nci-
Their the State nr Congress could right
the wrong. He utterly dissented from
such decision as being destructive to
republican government. The decision
would Lave the effect of proclama-
ton to dishonest Returning Boards to
perpetrate whatever yillainy their in
terests might dictate, with the abso-
lutte celtaiuty that they would be sue
cessful.
Mr.. Morton followed at length il
support of the Com mission.
Mr.. Morton said the statute of Lou
i-iana creating the Returning Board,
provided in express terms that a ma
jority of the number should constitute
a quorum to do business, and make the
returns. The Board was to consist of
five persons to be elected by the SEN
ate. Three of that number by the ex-
press terms of the act, are Il quorum to
do business.
There were fonr in number upon the
Board, one more than Il majority
The Electoral Commission has decided
that the Board was properly constru-
ted. On the other hand, it was argued
that the existence of a single vacancy
destroyed the Board; the Commission
said not. Upon the very best settled
principles of law, the Constitution pro-
vided that the Senate shall consist of
two Senators FROM each State, yet va
cancies from a half dozen States will
not destroy tue legal character of the
Senate.
The law provides that the Supreme
Court shall consist of certain number
of Judges. Two, or even three vacan.
cies will not destroy the legal cbarac-
ter of the Supreme Court. So he could
run through the law In regard to COL
porations and special tribunals. There
are certain commissions created by
specific ministerial purposes, some-
times, where the law requires that the
commission shall be full to enable it to
perform an act; bnt here, the act crea.
ting this tribunal guards against that,
by specially providing that a majority
of the members shall constitute quo.
rum, and i. there be such majority
present, it makes no difference from
what cause there are absentees, wheth-