Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-02-15
ELECTORAL COMMISSION.
A Republicans View OF the situs.

Il
-
A Republicans View OF she situe
ton.
WASHINGTON, February l5.-The cleo
toral commission met at l0;l5 and Mr.
Evarts continued his argument on the
} Republican side. he contendsd thai
the right to cast its votes rested in the
State and was not a grant from the gen,
eral government. Whatever power the
federal government possessed it held
through the term Of the federal constitu'
ton. The ninth and tenth articles Of
the amendments reserved ia terms Ia
the States all rights not specifically
delegated. The whole matter of select.
ing electors, determining the mode and
issuing certificates belonged to the State.
1t was for the federal government to
count the votes after they had left the
State. As in the Florida case, so here,
this body had the power Of the two
houses to count the vote-the power
granted to those bodies by the constitu-
ton, but not the power Of legislation.
Considering the power possessed by the
commission, Mr.. Evarts charged that
the other side had changed its position,
holding that in the Florida case it had
judicial authority to institute quo war
rauto proceedings, and now declaring
that it was not a judicial body and that
the duties were said to be legislative.
He commended that the power vested in
the body was such as existed in the two
houses for the performance OF tbs speci-
fed duty TO count the electoral votes,
not the votes for electors, for the two
houses did not possess that power. In
regard to the ineligibility Of Brewster
and Levize this statute prescribed that
they should be waited for, and if they
did not appear until four O'clock, the
v eencies we're to be filled by the
remaining electors. These gentlemen
did net appear, AID a vacancy was De-
CT red and filled BY the selection Of these
same men; it was, as stated, to fill the
vacancy, that their title to the office Of
e%lector was to be judged, and there vas
nothing in the offers OF proof on the
other side that detracted from the right
Of the governor to certify the election
He felt relieved Of any necessity to prove
that Kellogg was de .facto governor, for
in their FIRST proposition the other side
offer to prove that through the months
Of October, November and December,
there was no proof that Brewster and
L9vize we're not qualified to receive an
election on the sixth oil December. 1t
was also among the offers Of proof that
the Kellogg certificate was made out
by the de fseto governor Of the
State, aud this certificate shows
for whom the votes we're legally cast
Before approaching the question whether
the evidence submitted could be received
it would be first necessary to examine
wha, the laws Of Louisiana we're. The
laws Of 1868 contained two independent
acts on Independent subjects. The first
was relative to elections in the State Of
Louisiana to enforce article l03 Of the
constitution Of the State. This was the
general election law, Then there was
another act relative to Presidential cleo.
tons. These two acts governed the cleo
ton in 1876, unless they were subse.
q%uently repealed, which they were not.
Mr.. Evarts here read a provision in the
latter act providing for the filling OF va
cancies if the electors did not appear
before four o'clock. By subsequent leg.
%islA;ion the canvAssing section was re
pealed, but all the rest was eft
standing. In 1870 there was a revision
Of the laws OF the State; not q repeal Of
the laws nor amendment Of them, but q
codi6cation, as had been recently made
by congress. he referred to the revised
statutes following the acts Of 1868 to
show that they had been incorporated in
toe statutes as revised. he then read
the session law of 1870. passed March l6,
and maintains that, as it made no proyi-
sion for the discharge of their duties By
the electors, it did not by the terms Of
its repeating clause repeal the act Of
1868, as incorporated ip the revised
statutes.