The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-02-08
WHAT ruECvMalIssION HAS pEtIpED

WHAT THE COMM u ION HAS DECIDED
Our special dispatches Indicate very
clearly the scope ahd meaning OF the
decision made yesterday by the Ele oto-
raj Commission, and show how absurd
ly erroneous was tho first version
thereof which was published here last
evening, but The ca 10 OF Florida is OF so
much interest at This moment that we
propose TO ptesehtIit In as clear q light
az possible.
We print In another column the pro-
pesdihgs had in Cdngfess when the re-
4 turns from Foridar ere presented, and
O. list Of the objections made to the
counting OF the notes OF the Hayes
electors. All of thddoeuments embody.
Ing these objections. and all Of the
electoral certificates laid before Con.
gress by the President of the Senate
were referred to tie Commission. On
Saturday last Mr.. Charles O'Conor, the
leading counsel for juv. Tilden. appear
ed before the Commission and read u
paper embedying tie points upon which
he relied In the t'lotida case. Neuuote
from the proceedings
NJ. o'oonor then real the paper referred to az
follvws.
|. un December O, 1910. being the regular law
day, both the Itlden s.d the hsyea elect ts re-
speetivels met and cat their votes. and trans.
| mitttd the same 10 HE seat of governments.
l3vsiy form pfsHeri ed " the constitution or by
| auy Jaw bearing On the subject was tanay com.
piled with by each II lb rival electoral colleges.
n Uss4s.,
this! The cettih d lats provided for In section
80. 1876 oil The Revised btstntss were ss 10 the
rilaen electors certified BY the Attorney General,
aud were 10 the Hayes electors certified by Mir.
| ptearna. then Governor.
| Al this appears ON record, and no additional
evidences 10 needed to Interpret any part Of it.
| Perhaps convey no iieAT light by ga ing that,
bus sRy IL for the PUT sse OF presenting eiss
| ,ingt view of the case.
| .. A quo tedtfuatp was commenced against The
| Hayes u. etufs iii the proper court OF Florida
| the said Gtn daf Of December 1876. before they
| tad cast their yttes. which evehtuated In iudE-
| meat against them on the a5th of January, 1877,
| which nso determined that The lid n eleetufn
| were duly appointed. The validity aud fleet u
THE iudgm, ht IL determilable by the record aud
no evidence seems 10 be desirable on either aide,
| unless 1t be thought, fifst that the ilden cleo
torH should giss sutae supplemented proof Of the
precise fac, that The viii ut quo tcarfnHf0 was
served before the Hayes electors cast Their 20 ea
| aud. secondly, un ess ii bb decided on The other
side b. show tue pehdebcf Of al appeal from the
| Judgment of he quo ,earHtuto. With those wo
possible ani very slight exceptions the whole case
on tbie branch dep nds nhou the record
). 10 ahew what ID The oIm non law II Florida
aud alHe the tfus construction OF the Florida
| statutes. the Tildan aeetota desire TO place be-
fufe the commission the record OF the judgment
ia the supreme Court III that State gu a man
dsnas prosecuted on the relation Of Mr.. Drew,
the preReht oosernof eF that State b force OF
| which Mr. sttaros was onsted aud hr, Drew was
admit cd ~ Cove nor This Judgment, together
with the iudgeh' opinion ale matters OF record,
AID they require no other proof, nor Ia there any
technical rule a. 10 the manner In which this
eonmi sion may inform itnelf concerning the
lava VI Florida.
The | q alation Of florida subsequently TO
December 6, 1876, author eng II new CANVASS OF
sbe electoral vote, aud the fact OF ruob new can.
vass aud tho formal transmission thereof IN the
seat OK government In perfect conformity TO the
oustitation aud law, except thai they W. 70 aub
ssaueut in pont of time to December G 1876, arc
a. matters of record aud already regularly belize
the commission
The foregoing points and the written
present the Democratic case In clear
light and will enable our readers to un-
derstand what tho Commission will now
have to pass upon.
The decision made by the Commission
yesterday afternoon had nothing what
ever to do with the merits Of the oontro-
versy. The only question before them
was, what evidence It would be proper
and competent for them to admit under
the powers and jurisdiction. con-
ferred upon them by the Electoral
bill. The Democratic counsel, believ-
ing that their case might be strength
ened by the admission OF the testimony
taken by the House Committee relative
to the election In Florida, contended
that the commission was empowered to
exercise unlimited discretion In the in
vestigation OF the facts Of the case. To
this the Republicans demurred, deny
ing that anything could be considered
except the certificates Of the Governor
and Canvassing Board. The Commits
sion took middle ground between the
two claims. Leaving entirely out of
view everything relating to the facts,
and passing simply upon what we may
call tho defendants demurrer to the
plaintiffs evidence, the Commission de-
cided to confine itself to the record
already made up by the contending
parties, excepting with regard to the
question of the eligibility OF certain
electors.
So far as the Florida case is concern
ed, this decision is decidedly 10 the ad-
vantage OF Gov. Tilden, and he is in
debted for that advantage to the coop
Grafton Of Justice Bradley with the
Democratic members Of the Commits
sion. In the first place, it appears GER
tain that Humphreys, one of the Hayes
electors, was constitutionally ineligible,
and it is not to be supposed for mo-
ment that Justice Bradley, who has thus