Mexico weekly ledger., 1877-03-15

" vSS OAsJ 80 NSAA sA~S uhA0 6AAOS dbAS
could be overthrown and the conspiracy be sue
cessful.
THE - INTIMIDATION FARCE.
We should not fail to call the attention of the
people to the dangerous effect Of the doctrine of
intimidation in politics. 1t disqualifies from
voting not only parties to the act of intimida-
ton, but all those who have voted at the same
precincts with them. Two persons may conclude
to make a case Of intimidation, and thereby
rejected. 1t makes elections a farce; it takes
power from the people to vest it in Returning
Boards; it enables the latter TO impose the Sc
verest of political Observation-Disclosures
without giving to the persons punished an OPP
portunity of having a trial. A republic deserves
to lose its liberties if it tolerates such outrages
By this disregard of law and disobedience of
courts and contempt of rights OF voters by their
tsands and corr9ptlons ana ls1rpa asns d py
the conspirators obtain certificates OF election
for Republican candidates in the Southern States
named. ...4L-
From the day that the certificates were issued
to the Hayes Electors in Louisiana and Florida,
the country has been filled with an unprecedeat-
ed excitement. The people have done little else
than engage in discussion as to the fraudulent
conduct Of Returning Boards. In this condition
of affairs, business has been generally suspend
ed, failures have been frequent, and prostration
has seized upon nearly every interest in the
land. g.. r.
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ITS PARTISAN
FINDINGS.
When this excitement was at its height, Con-
gress assembled. One Of its duties was TO count
the Electoral votes Of the States, including Flor
t taa aon Ioa and nrov;a, WIN ia view te% OF 0e aaetilIa Jung
Torrance of it's duty by Congress-. a bill was
passed creating an Electoral Commission. By
true and lawful vote Of every State. In this
labor it was to exercise as to the reading of the
evidence and examination OF papers such pow
er as Congress or either House OF Congress pos.
sessed. in the belief that evidence would be
heard and that a settlement of disputed ques-
tons of fact would be fairly reached. The Con-
prase and np0nlp arcaNtaI the Commission How
that confidence has been disappointed, how a
decision has been made, based upon a refusal to
consider the unfortunate question in dispute, is
well known to the country.
When the certificates from Florida and Louis
lana were opened and submitted to the two
houses, objections were filed to those presented
by the Hayes Electors. Among other grounds of
objection, it was urged that these certificates had
been fraudnlently and corruptly issued by the
Returning Boards and Executives of these
States, and as a result of the conspiracy be-
between them and Electors claiming to have
issued in violation of the laws of the respective
states, and that some of the Electors named
therein were ineligible by express provision of
the Constitution OF the United States. When
these objections were made for consideration
before the Commission, proof was offered to the
Commission to sustain them. The Commission,
by a vote of 8 to 7, refused to. receive the testl-
mony offered, except as to the ineligibility of a
single member in Florida. 1t was voted in the
case of Louisiana that the Commission would
not hear evidence to show that the Returning
Board was an uncon stitutional body; that 1t was
not organized as the law requires at the time the
State was canvassed, and that it had no lurls-
diction TO canvass the Electoral vote; that the
charges of riot, Intimidation and violence were
false, and that the Returning Board knew that
fact; that certificates were corruptiy and fraudu-
lently issued, and as a result of the conspiracy,
and that the vote of the State has never been COM
piled or canvassed., The same rulings sub
s~tantially were made in the case OF FLORIDA. The
Commission also refused to hear proof that at the
time of election in the State of South Carolina,
anarchy prevailed. destroying the republican
form of onuarnr.arf in that Stat and that
troops were retained there in violation of the
Constitution to interfere with free choice by
election. SO that the lawful vote of the State could
not be known.
1T SHOULD HAvE RECEIVED EVIDENCE OF
FRAUD
Against these decisions we protest most earn
estly, in the name OF a free and republican gov
eminent. In the first place, they struck a fatal
blow at the constitutional powers Of the two
houses to count the Electoral vote. This power
has been exercised by both houses without dis
puIe from the foundation of the Government.
That evidence should be received in cases of con-
tested returns seems clear. Tn principle has
country has produced. 1t was a practice con-
fined principally to secret session. notably In
the case of Louisiana, in 1859 and 1873. Such
evidently was the view of both. houses as the
present session. The investigating committees
were sent to Florida, South Carolina and Louis
lana to take testimony and report as to the cleo.
what other principle this view can be based.
The duty Of Congress is to count the vote. This
makes the enactment OF the VOb6 W DC COunteu.
This, again, makes the determination OF what
is the trae vote, and the distinguishing Of the
false from the true. This requires evidence.
The forms of law expressing the fact can not be
made unless evidence be admitted, for, if fraud
possess the count, how can the success of false
hood be prevented II evidence be denied2 This
action of the Commission disables Congress from
performing a Constitutional duty.
MULTIPLYING THE CONSTITUTION
In the second pisce, this decision nullifes an
article of the Constitution. In Section l, Article
II, it is provided: But no Senator or Repre-
profit under the United States. shall be appoint
ed Eiector." IL the states choose Electors who
enectuai? The state, by its action. has refused
to respect it. Manifestly it can then only be
forced by power authorized to pass upon the
then, in counting the vote, must determine who
are and who are not eligible Electors-facts
which can only ot Pc as doctains o6 by syeaen ice
previous construction, and in effect substitutes
the following: Senators, Representatives and
all persons holding offices of trust or profit I'M
der the United States may be appointed Electors
In the third place, the doctrine ignores all
precedents and rules OF morals in excluding ev1.
dence OF fraud submitted. Nothing can stand
whieh is furnished by fraud. 1t vitiates every
thing; it annuls every deed, cancels every obj
cation, annuls every contract, reverses every
is bound to regard every fraudulent transaction
as a nullity, however it may come before it,
whether directly, in a dependent proceeding, or
eollaterally. The decision of the highest tri-
bunal, if procured through fraud. should be
treated as of no effect by the humblest Court in
the land. AS said by a distinguished writer
at matters not whether the iudgment impugned
has been pronounced by an inferior or by the
highest Court of the land. But in all cases
alike it is competent for every Court, whether
inferior or superior, to treat as a nullity any
Judgment that can be clearly shownt to have been
obtained by manifest fraud. 1t remained for
this Commission to dictate that there were GER
tain tribunals which could perpetrate fraud with
impunity. and that there was one Court which
before it for review.
TWIN FRAUDS.
These exceptional tribunals were the Return
ing Boards of Florida and louisiana. That ex
ceptional Court is the Electoral Commission.
Fraud has found an entrenchment from which it
can not be driven in a contest making choice of
tie highest officer of the greatest Of republics. A
doctrine more corrupting In consequences,
more destructive Of the purity of election. and
more threatening to the perpetuity of free gov
eminent. could not easily be suggested.
1t is sought to justify this decision by an. APP
pealto State sovereignty. The argument Is that
as the State choose their Electors in their SOW.
!, errign capacity. their decision can not be re-