New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-02-21

to execute these laws you will have ssaA u
your country in that place where we .
taught from childhood the life of the cossA
Try Is to be found to reside-to wit in tfs,
freedom and purity of the ballot boz.
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 NAV
direct, and no authority or argument caH
| disparage or Overresch that right of the
State. That right is In the State. It is not
gift from the Federal government, for
there was no Federal government to give
1T. The State of Louisiana stands in this
behalf as 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 eleetiOn of President, and therefore
it is not to be measured as gift. The gov
ernment eORfers nothing upon the States;
the government comes into existence by
and through the States and their people,
and the aFrogation 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 and in maintain
ing its defenses in this matter of election of
Federal government has in this matter of
election of President, it has by force of
terms in the constitution. Whatever the
State has, it has upon the same te7ms.
Now it is not for me to repeat the argu-
ments made by my learned associates 80
we'll, and by me so far as could aid them
in the general discussions which were 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 were 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
houses OF Congress. They are before you
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 its 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 a court
on qttO tvdrrdnto. Mr.. O'COnOr, with that
accuracy and precision that proceed from
his statements, demanded the same author
A. 81
/ 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 it's 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 yOT
| have no judicial power whatever, that VIZ
| were quite right about that; there could no
be any judicial power outside of court in
ferior to the Supreme Court, the judge
whereof were appointed by the Preeiden
and confirmed by the Senate, and held Office
for life upon stated compensation. VIII.
might we not have been saved the forma
discussion9 If we are to enter upon thi
one with any great trust in its sOundness o
permanence, obedience to the rulings o
this commission, as requiring this shiftin
of ground in our face, would be respect
able support for the maneuver; but l 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.
Mr.. Evarts then passed on to the consI(
Grafton of the Democratic offers of proc
He said:
What, then, is the offer of proof4 TIL
| first certificate contains in itself every Gel
tainty and every conclusive credential tina
the laws or the constitution OF the Unite
States, or the State of Louisiana, prescribed
This certificate also disclOses special stat
of facts concerning two of the electors VII
cast their votes. mean Mr.. Brewster an
Mr.. Levisse, who we're voted for an
elected, but did not appear at. the meetin
of the electors, and were thereupen r
elected and took their seats in the Electors
J College. do not need to discuss at all Il
second, or McEnery certificate. Whi
proof, then, is offered In the first plae
the offers of proof do not seek any OF the
TO disparage the truth of that certihcat
nor to impeach the transaction which
shown to have taken place in the Eleotor
College, So far from introducing, Their
I fore, any element of proof that is to sep
rate the Governors certificate from q
things certified, or is to disparage the Go
} ernor's right to certify unde @oDstit
/ | ton of the United States oilers
| proof expressly coneede 'ust addition
a | things, and plant theRsoi5 res wholly upC
4 | something antecedent in the States tran
? | action to this action of the Governor, 81
) this action in the State which produces d
Q recorded result on which the Govern
a must certify.
1 When you come to their offers cOncernir
: the disqualification of Levisee and
8 Brewster you will observe that there is n
the least proposition that on the sixth ds
l. of December, when these two men can
| into the office of elector by the choice
/ the Electoral College following the vaca
Q cy. they were under any disquslifcati'
d whatever. 1t has been deliberately pi
duced and made of record in that Sta
u that by the authority intrusted with
a final act of evidence and certifeatiOn the
q electors did receive a majority of the leg
? votes in the State of Louisiana They 8
8 it was done MALTA tide and fraudulent
W mt il was then done. The act was OF
l. summated, and you are relieved, thereto
d from any disturbance OF this definite a
Q limited proposition, OF whether 1t Is conn
70 tent for the two houses of Congress to pt
g. citrate the action of State and determi
10 first whether it conforms to the real ia
d of the election as deducible through q
d cessive steps from the depositing of
D. votes in the ballot-boxes, and, second
l whether they confOrmed to legal authori
ID 1t is necessary for us, then, before we {
il approach definitely the consideration
IL whether any of this proof can be offer
III to understand, at least, what the laws
le Louisiana are; and it will follow, if
ID have any right here to consider the O.
le formity of the action of the canvatsi
ti- officers, or any of the subordinate functi
he aries in the election, or any of the vot
IN themselves, to that law, that we should
at | a. Iaast nnon what Rtatute or statutory