The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-02-13

SUSPICIOUS.
'rhs Drift Of Mr.. Eyarts' Argument lse
fore the Commission.
New York Herald.l

Ane MF4lE ~ Wf. EYAFtk' AFEHmFHt HkFs
fore the commission.
INew York Herald.l
We do not wish to misrepresent the
Republican position, and two days ago
we should have besitated to quote from
the speeches Of Mr.. Matthews or Mr..
Stoughton rs fairly representing 1t. But
the Endorsement OF their points by Mr..
Evarts proves that we strained delicaey
In their favor. It is true that the Re-
publican party rests It's case on n 1uirk
OF law not more respectable than the
pleading Of the statute Of limitations
| against just debt. Whether the legal
point be well taken or not. 1t II abhor-
emit to every idea Of justice. Our dc.
termination to be fair leads us to insert
this authentic statement Of the Repub
lican position from Mr.. Stoughton's
| speech 1.-THE statute Of Florida created
| q Returning Board, having capacity to
certify the number Of votes cast for
electors, and to certify who were elected,
| and il that board performed it's duty,
| however mistaken. however clouded
with error, however CT you please)
tainted by fraud, and did ascertain and
| did declare bow many votes for partCtl=
| lar sets Of electors had been cnst, md
did certify and declare who were the
persons who were elected electors, that
ends nll inquiry here"
THAT ends all inquiry here" The
action Of q ChnvasslnB board may be
| mistakenly It may be "clouded with
error" it may even be ''tninted with
fraud" this fraud. II successful, may
determine who Ia to be President Of the
United States, and yet 1t Is too sacred
to be touched. and lends ali inquiry
here Can anybody wonder that we
thought such an avowal an error Of
haste, which tho speech Of Mr.. Evafts
| would reetify2 How shall we express
our astonishment ct finding such u
statement Endorsed and defended by
the great New York advocate two days
later, when he had had opportunity for
mature reilection7 What the country
expects from the Electoral Commission
is not protection Of fraud by an inge-
NOUS straining Of legal technicalities.
but II declaration OF the true result In
accordance with honesty and Justice.
Mr.. Evarts has carried the doctrine Of
the 1nviolability Of State Qualifications
to even q greater extreme than Mr..
Stougbton. Mr.. Stoughton maintained
that even fraud could not invalidate
them, but Mr.. Evarts, as IL willing to
push bis own argument to reductto dd
absnrdunt, contends that the constitu-
ton itself must stand back and "hide
It's diminished head" in tho presence
Of u State certificate. This astonishing
declaration was brought out by query
OF Commissioners Thurman as to what
ought to be done II all the persons GER
titled to have been chosen as presiden-
tial electors in o. State were Federal
ofliceholders. Mr.. Evarts intrepidly
contends that not even this constitu-
tional disqualification Is bar to the
counting OF the votes OF such electors II
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. It looks 80 much as II the
Republican counsel were conscious that
they have q desperate case and felt
forced to resort to desperate means to
defend it. Heretofore nobody has ever
questioned or doubted the authority Of
Congress to refuse to count the votes of
Federal officeholders whom the people
OF State had chosen as presidential
electors. When 50 able u lawyer rs Mr..
Eyarts Ia driven, by the exigencies Of u
desperate case, to contend, In the face
Of the country, that State certificate
can override plain prohibition Of the
Constitution Of the United States, and
entirely Of Federal officenoders, may
cast the electoral votes OF State,
shielded by q State certificate against
scrutiny, the public will get bad i'm
preston OF the cause which requires
such desperate advocacy. But It
must not be thought that Mr.. Evarts Is
bereft Of his senses. This strange Or.
gument OF his looks forward to the case
Of Oregon, and Is meant to bear on the
vote cast by Postmaster Watts as q
presidential elector. The Supreme
Court Of the United States, In deci-
sion hardly yet u week old, has held
that an officer whose term extends to
the qualification Of his successor re-
mains an officer until his successor Is
sworn In. Although Watts rendered his
resignation after be had been voted for
on the 7th 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 postmas.
ter. This being 50 Hayes has not the
slightest chance, unless that provision
Of the Constitution can be nullified
which forbids Federal off oehoder to
be presidential elector. Florida may
be counted for Hayes, Louisiana may be
counted for Hayes, bat IL Watts vote as
would receive but one hundred and
eighty-four votes ut the utmost and
fall one short OF an election. 1t
makes no practical difference whether
the Cronin vote Is counted or whether
Oregon is credited with only two votes,
because In the latter case the election
will be thrown into the House, where
Iilden has a sure thing. Hence the
desperate effort Of Mr.. Evarts to show
that u State board Of canvassers can
override and nullify the Constitution.
=
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR
LEvISEE.