The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1877-03-01

The Democrats will continue for the
next half century, to claim that the vote
Of Louisiana was given to Hayes through
fraud. or illegality. IL any honest man
has doubts upon this question, let him
read the following remarks made b,
Senator Morton, in the debate in th,
Senate, on the Louisiana question:
Mr.. MORTON said that the statute o
Louisiana creating the Returning Board
provided in express terms that the ma
jority Of its members should constitute o
quorum TO do business and make re-
turns. The board was 10 consist OF FIVE
persons, to be elected by the Senate.
three Of that number, b. express terms
Of the act, were a quorum to do business
There were four in number upon the
board, one more than the majority. The
Electoral Commission had decided that
the board was properly constituted. On
the other hand, it was argued that the
existence OF q single vacancy destroyed
the board. The commission said not.
Upon the very best settled principles Of
law. The Constitution p,ovides that the
Senate shall consist of two Senators from
each State. yet vacancies from half a
dozen States will not destroy the legal
character of this Senate. The law pro
vides that the Supreme Court shall con
sist Of a certain number Of judges, and
two or three vacancies will not destroy
the legal character Of the Supreme Court
So he could run through the law in re-
gard 10 corporations and special tribu-
mails. There were cert-in commissions
created for specific ministerial purposes.
Sometimes the law required that the
Commission should be full to enable IL
to perform an act, but here the law ere
ating this tribunal guards against that
By specially providing that a majority Of
members should constitute quorum,
and il there be such a majority present.
il makes no difference from what cause
there are absentees, whether there are
vacancies, or whether members are will
fully absent, if there be majority pres
ent, the law is complied with.
Now in regard to the eligibility Of
Electors, the Commission decided that il
was not competent to prove that certain
Electors were ineligible on the 7th OF
November, the day Of the election.
They decided that upon two grounds
first, because. in any point OF view, proof
would be immaterial, because the sub.
stance Of the Constitution, the spirit and
meaning Of il, is that Electors shall be
eligible when they come to act, when
they come to vote and not at the time
when they are elected. Certain persons
are ineligible to be members OF this Sen
ate, and a Senator must have certain
qualifications, and il he has them when
the time comes to be sworn in, that is
enough. Ii is immaterial whether he
has them on the day Of his election
That is well settled. But the Commits
sion decided that proof was immaterial
upon other ground II il were conceded
that an Elector was ineligible upon the
day he was voted for, can that fact be
proven to strike out his voter II IL can,
il is oyerturning the very best settled
principles OF law A man may be ineli-
gible to seat in this body, he may not
be thirty years old, he may be under the
Of the l4th Amendment, but
il he comes here and is sworn in and
takes his seat he may afterwards be
turned out upon proof OF the fact, but
every vote that he casts has the same va
lidity with the vote of every other Sena-
tor. man may be ineligible TO be ap-
pointed Judge under the l4th Amend
ment, or for want OF age or from any
cause provided by the law Of the State in
which he lives, yet il he is appointed
his ineligibility, every
act of his as Judge is Just as valid as IL he
had been eligible. lie may be turned
put upon a gi,0 icarraHto, but until that is
lone his act is void. and can there be an
exception found to this rule He knew /.
,f none.
In applying it to Electors we apply q I
.imple' well settled rule Of law, and how |
.bsurd il would be TO oyerturn that rule |
n a case where the discovery is made |