The Weston Democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1875-current, 1877-02-17

J ~ AAS AAA(Nkbtbl Ap1liuln6'gh ava
/ judgment aud dcrision. The Senate will now
withdraw to It's chamber 80 that tic House may
separately determine the objections"
! The Electoral Tribunal.
The Electoral tribunal commenced It's pro-
ceedtngs with tho query from the presiding JUS
ttcn: "Wllat Is this caSe?" lie would take tho
liberty of saying that It consisted Of three Ger
tttcates from tho State Of Florida, which the
! Joint convention OF tho Senate and House Of
Representatives being unable 10 settle lad sent
boforG that tribunal. He laid down tic rules
Of procedure In managing tho case and Mr..
David Dudley Field niado tho opening appeal
for ridden. He said Tie election III Florida
on the seventh Of November last was
quiet and orderly, md tho result NJ
tho election was a majority Of votes In
favor Of tho Tillen electors. Nevertheless n
certificate came to tho tribunal In favor Of
Hayes. lie proposed to show how this was ac-
compltslied III his argument lie rested the
! whole case upon tho returns from Baker cOHn-
", and proposod that the commission should
examine into tho facts concerning tho throwing
out OF tho precincts there. Mr.. Tucker, who
followed Mr.. Field on tho Same Side, argued
that tho judiciary Of Florida and Tia Legislature
we're part OF tho legal machinery for deter
mining tho result OF elections, and that their
action must therefore hc taken into account.
WV .NlI6N4iSb ApE HlbluDuGAIlN
made by Mr.. kaSson and Mr.. McCrary. NIr,
kasson said that tho arguments Of the Demo-
Gratis raised tiFcc questions First, Ii the CONF
mission general canyaSsingi board to recanyasS
tho vote OF Florida? Second, sit n national
court OF appeal from tho board or State cali
yaSsGra? Third, Is 1t judicial court OF appeal
from tho State courts OF Florida In quo May-
-HHio proceedings? The Democrats had as-
vlimcd AZ affirmative answer to all thcse ones
IONS Air. kaSson maintained that the COM
mission had no power to inquire how tho pco-
pc mad voted IN any State !; It Is not popular
votes but electoral votes that Congress has
power to count; II 1t should DO held however.
that tho commission could investigate the
county canvass and tho voting In tho precincts,
nc woaId 10 prepared to prove frauds in tho
interest OF the IidGn elections Of tho groSsest
description. He hastily ran over number Of
counties which could DO brought up to Offset
tho single ono selected By Dir. field, Mr.,
McCrary followed up tho argument against the
power OF Congress to 20 Behind tho returns,
citing authorities 10 show that the proceedings
OH writ OF quo tcGrrdnlO do not invaIidAte the
acts Of pnblic officer done before tic case il
determined. NJ lL 80 t.is-F l-l
Arguments wore made by Messrg. o'Conor,
OTcrrick and Black, Ia behalf Of thc Deiuocrais'
and Stanley Matthews and Mr., Stoughton In
behalf Of the Republicans, OH tho question OF
going behind tho Florida certificates, and ad-
hitting evidence. The most notable argu-
ments were those Of Mr.. Merrick and Judge
| Matthews. l,sl5 I'm
Mr.. Atcrrick, in behalf Of tho Democratic
counsel, pointed out that there wero two Drupo-
Stions with respect to going behind duly au-
thcnncatcd return Of State One was, that
the Federal government could invalidatc the
return, Or In other words, reject vote on itS
own motion, without the consent Of the State.
cnt. Tia that State itaelf may undertake
proceedings TO invAlllAte the certificate Of the
governor. After State, Of its own will, has
impeaehed tho governors certificate, tho Fed.
eral government may 50 behind Il. This lo
claimed had boen done In the case Of Florida,
where the State had done everything In her
! power to overturn the Hayes certificate, and
has made It the duty OF tho commission 10 COM
plete that work. Mr. Merrick claimed that tho
power Of counting votes, granted by the Consti-
tuition, carries the power to determine what
/ Hrc votes, and that this determination Is tho
first duty Of tho commission,
| Charles OConOr made an offer 10 produce
evidence before tho commission, but this was
objected to by 1tr. Evarts. Is
! Judge Matthews In his remarks reviewed the
series Of nets by which electors are appointed,
asserting that the final declaration ly the To-
turning board Is III the completion OF tic ap-
! pOtiltMent Tint appointment completed, cam
( not 10 set aside, except In tho interval Of time
I between tho ilnAl act Of appointment and the
day OH which, ulldJr tho law, the electors per-
| form their functions by casting their votes.
The authority Of the State over the electoral
vote closes, he said, when tile electors have
voted. Whatever Is done with tho votes after
that time Is done in accordance with tho FEEDER
I al Consolidation Ia, T.,R Il,
counting the votes tho question IL not who
shall count them bnt how they shall bc counted
/ Tho commission lad certain discrimination,
but It must DO careful not to undertake judi.
ciHl examination such as IL required IN trying
writ OF quo trdrr1ntO, which Involves going 10
the very bottom and asccrtaining the number
OF legal votes cast II the court attempted to
! sift tho facts concerning the States submitted
to Them to the very bottom, how long time
would bG required? lIO declared that this
power was not conferred upon Congress- The
only question for tho commission to determine
was WHO were tho Je .f1ci0 electors IN Florida
on the ixth day Of last December.
Mr.. stOnghtOn spoke for half all hour, follow
Ing NIr. Matthews, and declared that the Florida
returning board was tie fnal authority cStab-
llslled by tho Legislature Of Florida TO declare
who wero tho electors, and the tribunal had no
power to go behind tho appointment by the
State rs d rlarcdby tho proviSiOns Of State law.
The commission was appointed u count cleo
toral votes, and not TO count the votes by which
electors were elected. '7- Ha.'
Mr.. EynrtS, when he addressed tho body,
spoke with unusual delibeFatiOn-sO slowly, In
deed, that arnpid long hand writer could have
written down every word he spoke. lie Gmpha-
sized his words cnriOusly, drawing them ont,
seeming to prnnVDncc them syllable by syllable.
lie assumed that the Hayes electors were dc
frc'O pOsscssors Of the power 10 cast the GloctO-
raj votes Of Florida on Dec. @, 1916, and there.
| fore the quo. ict1rrd,i0 proceedings could not
undo their acts, because tho Judgment Of tho
court wat subsequent thereto. lie commended
with Mr. Matthews that tho choosing Of doctors
was not complete TIL tho canyassing board had
passed upon the returns from each county, or
In other words Tint the act Of tho people Of the
State waEinGhoate I'LL thorote Of the State waR
consolidated aud promulgated By the canvassing
officers. 4 point IN which he dwclt At cOnlld-
cradle length was that Congress- did not posscsS
| judicial powers, and could not confer II ilpon
mixed tribunal Ike tho Electoral commission,
because the Constitution vests Judicial powers
In the conrts alone
Mr.. Charles so'COnDr followed Mr.. EyartS.
lie Strnck ont on All entirely novel line Of
argument In his Interpretation Of the twelfth
article OF tho Constitution. by claiming that
the word certificates was the governing one in
the sentence, "the president Of the Senate
shall, In the preSence'of tho Senate and House
OF Representatives open all certificates, aud
the votes shall then BE- counted" lie met tho
argument Of Evarts mud Matthews In regard TO
the quo toarranto proceedings, and declared TINT
the act OF the electors was not completed till
! their votes werC received by the two houses Of
Congress and counted, and hence their casting
their votes for Hayes vas not IN accomplished
deed done by do tdcto officers. 1866
The Russian Army.
Writing from Kischcneif. 4 corre.