The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-02-08

The New York Herald of Tuesday, in
an able review of the arguments of Mr.
Evarts and his co-counsel, thus express.
es itself:
Mr.. Evarts's view is, that the action of
the State canvassing boards is final, and
and that Congress, and consequently the
commission, is bound to accept it and
turn deaf ear to the most cOgent evi.
dence of illegality and fraud. When we
found this surprising position assumed
in the speeches of Mr.. Matthews and Mr..
Stoughton, sentiment akin to charity
led us to suppose that they had spoken
in haste, and that Mr.. Evarts would put
the republican case on some ground less
repugnant to the public conscience. We
are disappointed to find Mr.. Evarts de-
liberately adopting the views of the asso-
ciates who preceded him, and advocating
the claim of Mr.. Hayes on grounds which
so closely resemble a pleading of the
statute of limitations in bar of a just debt.
This may be a valid defence in law, but
it is repugnant to every principle ofmor-
ais.
The statement of the republican posi-
ton from Mr.. Stoughton's speech is
"The statute of Florida created a Return
ing Board, having capacity to certify the
number of votes cast for electors, and to
certify who were elected, and if that
Board performed its duty, however mis-
taken, however clouded with error, how
ever (if you please) tainted by fraud, and
did ascertain and did declare how many
votes for particular sets of electors had
been cast, and did certify and declare
who were the persons who were elected
electors, that ends all inquiry here"
"That ends all inquiry here" The &C.
ton of a canvassing board may be "mis-
taken," it may be "clouded with error"
it may even be tainted with fraud, this
fraud, il successful, may determine who
is to be President of the United States,
and yet it is too sacred to be touched and
"ends all inquiry here" Can anybody
wonder that we thought such an avowal
an error of haste which the speech of
Mr.. Evarts would reCtify? How shall we
express our astonishment at finding such
statement indorsed and defended by
the great New York advocate two DAYS
later, when he had had opportunity for
mature rehectionP
Mr.. Evarts has carried the doctrine of
the inviolability of State certifcations to
even greater extreme than Mr.. Slough
ton.
A question of Commissioner Thurman
was, what ought to be done if all the per.
sons certified to have been chosen as
Presidential electors in State were fed
eral Office holders. Mr.. Evarts intrepid
ly contends that not even this constitu-
tional disqualification is bar to the
counting of the votes of such electors if
they have been duly certified by the
State authorities. Now, whatever may
be thought in Washington, the country
will not be satisfied with such line Of
argument.
Mr.. Evarts looks forward to the case of
Oregon, and Postmaster Watts as Presi-
dental elector. The Supreme Court of
the United States, in a decision hardly
yet week old, has held that an officer
whose term extends to the qualification
of his successor remains an officer until
his successor is sworn in. Although Watts
rendered his resignation after he had been
voted for on the 9TH of November his
successor had not qualified on the day
when the electoral votes were cast, and
according to the decision of the Supreme
Court just alluded to he was still post
master. This being so Hayes has moth
slightest chance, unless that provision of
the constitution can be nullifed which
forbids federal Office holder to be a Pre-
elector. Florida may be count
ed for Hayes, Louisiana may be counted
for Hayes, but if Watts vote as Presl-
dental elector was invalid Hayes would |
receive but one hundred and eighty four
votes at the utmost and fall one short of |
an election. 1t makes no practical differ
ence whether the Cronin vote is counted |
or whether Oregon is credited with only
two votes, because in the latter case the