New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-02-24

YOUR OUuubEJ III buht p1doo NuoNo No ht0
taught from childhood the life of the coun-
try is to be found to reside-tO wit, in the
freedom and purity of the ballot box.
On Thursday Mr.. Evarts addressed the
commission, and spoke to the following
effect:
The constitution has undertaken to de-
termlne that the State shall have the power
to appoint electors as its Legislature may
direct, and no authority or argument can
disparage or overresch that right of the
State. That right is in the State. 1t is not
gift from the Federal government, for
there was no Federal government to give
it. The State of Louisiana stands in this
behalf ss one of the original thirteen States
stood. Whatever was the right of one of
these thirteen States in the election of
Washington is the right of Louisiana now
in the election of a President, and therefore
it is not to be measured as gift. The gov
eminent cOnfers nothing upon the States;
the government comes into existence by
and through the States and their people,
and the arrogation of authority is primary
in the State, and is in the general govern
ment only by it's allotment of the terms of
the constitution; and there is therefore the
same method of construction and interpre-
tation in drawing the line end in maintain
ing it's defenses in this matter of election of
President as in all others. Whatever the
Federal government has in this matter of
0l6buUu VI a IEcsluoubg ~ udb ny 1OECc VI
terms in the constitution. Whatever the
State has, it has upon the same terms.
Now it is not for me to repeat the argu-
ments made by my learned associates so
well, and by me so far as l could aid them
in the general discussions which we're pre-
sented under the Florida case. In that case,
as in this, there were presented before this
commission matters of consideration about
which, as they we're open entirely for your
inspection, and necessarily form part of
your determination, there was no question.
mean the papers that were opened by the
President of the Senate according to the
constitution, in the presence of the two
under the law of 1877 as they were before
that assembly in that presence under the
| constitution without the law of 1877; and
| now the question as to what more is or can
| be before you is q question under the law of
| 1877 as interpreted under it's own terms in
| the light of the constitution of the United
| States. 1t has passed beyond dispute. We
| did not dispute it in the Florida case. But
| if we are to receive the intimatiOn of Mr..
| Justice Bradley it has passed beyond dis
| pute in your own deliberations as receiving
| the concurrence of all, that you have the
| powers that the two houses have in the act
and transaction of counting the votes and
/ no other powers.
We insisted in the Florida case that one
great consideration in determining what
| the powers of Congress were in this mere
| procedure was what the nature of the pro-
ceeding was. Mr. Field, in behalf of the
House of Representatives, proposed to you
that you had at least the powers of court
| on O1io ,CdTrdntO. Mr.. OCOnor, with that
accuracy and precision that proceed from
his statements, demanded the same author
ity; insisted that otherwise the correction
of the frauds, the redress of violence, the
curbing of the excess of authority, would
be remediless, and yet in their nature be-
ing fostering wounds in the body polite,
would work its ruin. Those demands were
made, those demands were answered; and
now, without one particle of change
in the law, the constitution, or the
area of this debate, we are told
by the responsible representatives Of
the houses of Congress, through their OBJ
iectors and by the eminent counsel that
have put forward their positions, that you
have no judicial power whatever, that We
were quite right about that; there could moi
be any judicial power outside of court in
feriOr to the Supreme Court, the judges
whereof were appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate, and held Othet
for life upon stated compensation. VIII!
: might we not have been saved the torma
| discussion? If we are to enter upon thi
: one with any great trust in its sOundness o
! permanenee, obedience to the rulings O
this commission, as requiring this shifting
) | of ground in our face, would be respect
J able support for the vancouver; but nav
| not heard that given as a reason. The al
gument in the Florida case was abandoned
. and an independent and inconsistent on
) | proposed here.
a Mr., Evarts then passed on to the consli
a GRAFTON of the Democratic offers of proc
3 He said:
8 What, then, is the offer of proofs Tn
Q first certificate contains in itself every Gel
a tainty and every conclusive credential tina
a the laws or the constitution OF the Unite
+; States, or the State of Louisiana, prescribed
b This certificate also discloses special stat
K of facts concerning two of the electors VIII
Q cast their votes. l mean Mr.. Brewster an
o Mr. Levisse, who were voted tor an
o elected, but did not appear at the meetin
l. of the electors, and were thereupsn r
Ir elected and took their seats in the EleotOr
1t College. do not need to discuss at all I'll
u second, or McEnery certificate WIS
t. proof, then, is offered In the first plac
" the offers of proof do not seek any of the
L. to 1isparage the truth of that certlteat
r nor to impeach the transaction which
10 shown to have taken place in the Elector
u College. So far from introducing, theF
IT fore, any element of proof that is to sep
T. rate the Governors certificate from q
II things certified, or is to disparsge the Go
le ernor's right to certify under the cOnstit
IN ton of the United States, these offers
is proof expressly eOncede that condition
IA things, and plant themselves wholly up
an something antecedent in the States traI
1v action to this action of the Governor, al
ne this action in the State which produces :
be recorded result on which the Govern
an must certify.
nd When YOU come to their offers concernil
n the disqualification of Levisee and
lis brewster YOU will observe that there is n
ed the least proposition that on the sixth di
In of December, when these two men cal
into the office of eleetOr by the choice
lu- the Electoral College following the yaca
ee CIV. thew were under any disqualiticati
nd whatever, 1t has been deliberately p
eff dueed and made of record in that ST.
on that by the authority intrusted with
a | final act of evidence and certiicatiOn thu
its electors did receive majority OF the lei
lg- votes in the State of Louisiana. They
We il was done nWlld tide and fraudulent
ow mt II was then done. The act was G
On ANIMATED, and you are relieved, thereto
ed from any disturbance OF this definite q
we limited proposition, of whether it is com
we tent for the two houses of Congress to p
,le- citrate the action of State and determ
the first whether it conforms to the real ia
md of the election as deduelDle through
md | eessiye stems from the dep0slting OF
nd votes in the ballot-boxes, and, secOnC
:, l whether thew confOrmed to legal author
and 1t ia necessary for US, then before we
nth approaeh definitely the consideration
all whether any of this proof can be ottei
fish to understand, at least, what the law
the Louisiana are; and it will follow, II
we'd have any right here to consider the
the fOrmity of the action OF the canvass
lsti- officers, or any of the subordinate funct
the aries in the election, or any of the vo
nan themselves, to that law, that we should
Let at least, upon what statute or statutory
ours aetments these DIRECTORS seek to base {