Ottumwa weekly courier., 1877-02-21

ed the language of the act creating th'
commission, and contended that th'
duty of the tribunal was not to ascer
tain what appears to be the case, bu
who have been duly appointed. Car
penter quoted various authorities tt
show that a writ of quo parrGntt
was not criminal proceeding, but
in substance a civil one. Continuing
his argument, Carpenter said another
question of considerable difficulty
was what was the statute law Of
Louisiana on the 7th of November
last? The question is, on the Isl
Of April when the revised stat.
utes took effect, did they repeal all
inter-conflicting statutes, or was
this act of 1870 saved from re.
peal by the act Of the 28th Of
February? That is the question.
Let me, in tho first place, proceed UP.
on the theory that the state, on the 1st
Of April, did repeal the election law
of 1870, and then / will proceed on
the theory that it didn't, and come
out just as satisfactorily in one way
as in the other. 1t is a remarkable
case, ] know, but it happens to be 20.
Now, if the act of 1868 was in force
at the last election, it is not pretend
ed that there has ever been any can
vass of the vote of that election &C
cOrding to that statute. There is no
pretense Of that. They acted OH the
theory that the other law was in
force, so that if your honors shall
hold that the act of 1868 was in force
because embodied in the revision
taking effect April /, and therefore
not repeating the former act of the
18th of March, then this case tonight
is precisely in the attitude in which
it was four years ago. At that time
there came up from Asouisiana reg
ular certificate of its governor that
so many persons had been duly ap-
pointed electors of the state; but the
senate, going upon the theory which
1 maintain is the true and proper one,
raised committee in advance to ex-
anime into the facts about the election
of that college. They sent for wit
nesses and brought them here in large
numbers, and made an examination,
and the committee reported on the
subject, not expressing an opinion
whether they should or should not be
excluded, but stating the fact that
there had never been a canvass of
those votes by any person authorized
to canvass them, and submitted the
question to the two houses whether
the vote should be counted or not,
and the two houses, acting each for
itself, decided that they should be
excluded. Now I ask this commits
sion whether it will do to decide that
congress violated its constitutional
duty or usurped power in holding
that the vote should not be couuted
four years ago. That must be the
conclusion that you are to hold, If you
cannot go back of the governors cer-
titicate. When we come to the re-
peal of the act of 1870 the question
may be raised whether the repeating
law revived the original law. But in
that state that fact is forbidden by
the constitution, that by the subse-
quent repeal of the act of 1870 would
not revive the act of 1868. The act Of
1868 is lost entirely unless it was con-
tinued in force by the revision. If
the revised statutes continued in
force, then the provision of the act of
1870 did not contain provision in
regard to electors. The act of 1872
did not, except to fix dates, which
was wholly unnecessary, congress
having determined that. Now, then,
/ maintain, and here cross the path
of some of the other counsel far more
distinguished, that electors are not
state officers. They are, therefore,
not included in these general provis-
ions of this act of 1872. He then
spoke at some length upon the law
of Louisiana for appointing electors.
At this point Carpenter complained
of feeling unwell from the close at
mospherc of the court room, which
had, some time previously, been rem
dered very disagreeable by the smoke
of the candles, with which alone, it
was lighted, and the commission
.hereupon, shortly before Z o'clock,
adjourned until tomorrow at IL a. m