New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-02-21

/ power II they believed in it, and how could
d they anticipate that the whole spirit and
y purpose OF excluding Federal authority
within the choice and execution and eerti
Z festion of the choice of electors should be
perverted into the monstrOns claim that an
Q uncontrolled political authority rests In tha
, two houses Of Congress to sift, discard. dis
: count and destroy the election and make
spoh men electors as they choose, or annul
the vote of the State when it will answer
their purpOsel If any further eluoidation
OF my general views is needed must re-.
specially ask attention to the reported ar
gument Of Mr.. Matthews and myself in the
Florida case. $50
Inow come to the matter of the proof of
it. How about these Federal disqualifioa-
tiOns3 We talked about that in the Flori-
da case. 1t so happened that the principles
alleged Professionally did not raise the case.
but our propositions are unchanged. These
electors have been elected, have acted, and
they have been certified. 1t has been as
serted that man who may be ineligible
can not be elected. You might as well saw
that the forbidden fruit could not be eaten
because it was forbidden. The attention of
the commission is called in passing to some
decisions Of the Supreme Court of Penn
sylVania in regard to the power of minor
l ity Of a board to transact business, fill va
caneiez, etc.
Now, suppose that Levisee and Brewster
were eseh Of them ineligible. They are
elected. They are in execution Of the Office,
| and the State is not to be prohibited In an
| execution shat is satisfactory to itself by
extFanesus evidence, sdduce6 at the mo-
meat of coEating the votes, that the man
was Ineligible Congress must give that
consequence by some legislation and some
mode Of determining it, or it can not arise.
But here these me "y- | the election
| to fill a vacancy.
Well, the Oregon brief. eontrivsd not
| only double bat q treble debt to pay,
comes up again to prove that when an in
| eligible person is elected there has been no
election. That is the reason of that suppO-
sitiOn. There has been no election, and be-
yOnd that it is argued if only one out Of
| eight fails TO be elected, then there has
| failed to be an election; and then, to make
all this applicable to the existing state of
| law in Louisiana, you are asked TO believe,
you are asked to hold, against all the au-
| thorities, that an elected, ineligible person
is not elected; and that, if he has not been
elected, there is not q vacancy in the col
lege. When one State has said, "Our
method of filling any vacancy that shall
happen for any cause, any defect of full
numbers, shall be filed by the State of
| Louisiana in this way; that these that shall
have been chosen shall fill it."
Our learned friends hold that there be-
/ ing no vacancy in an Office is equivalent to
the office not having been vacated; that if
it has not been filed it is not vacant, that
4 10 PEODOSlbAuus 4NOH an OAuO6 Is blLncI
vacant or full. There are no forms in law
between those two propositions, between
/ vacant or full. 1t is not full with an en-
| bryO that may grow.
l come now to the question of States
disqualifcatiOns. The constitution of the
State of Louisiana has a provision which
says that no person shall hold or exercise
| at the same time more than one office of
| trust or profit except that of Justice of the
peace or notary public. Governor Kellogg
| was Governor; Governor Kellogg was
elector. Some of these electors held minor
offices, it is said. Proof of the fact is Of
fered in regard to the others, in order that
the State disqualification may now be In
quired into and verified in the counting of
the vote here There are sufficient answers
to this. Let us look at another clause of
this constitution, which provides some
other disqualifications - article ninety
nine: "The following persons shall be
prohibited from voting or holding any office.
All persons who shall be convicted of trea-
son, perjury, forgery, or other crimes pun
Isishable in the penitentiary," etc, with
| numerous list of disqualihCations tor hold
ing any office in the State. Suppose an i'm
putAtiol were made against an electOr in
the certified lists for Warded by the Elect
oral College and authenticated by the Gov
ernOr of any of these disqualihcatiOns,
could you inquire into them9 Certainly not.
| 1t is iudicial inquiry. But this office, say
Mr. Trumbull and Mr.. Carpenter, is not q
State Office. Well, it is not State office.
| IL Is q representative elector. When he
comes into office he holds an office under
the constitution of the United States. Then
he acquired the office by the action of the
State. The function, the right to vote, he
, is a representative elector. Now this clause
of the constitution does not hold that any
officer under that State shall hold Federal
? office ask attention to the cases of the
) Fifth Louisiana Annual, l55, and the Sixth
Louisiana Annual, 175, and the Twenty -ffth
Louisiana Annual, l3S.
f Commissioner Thurmau-DO you mean to
3 be understood, Mr.. Evarts, as admitting
that a presidential electOr is an officer al
{ all.
t Mr.. Evarts-No; do not think he is an
r officer. He certainly is not State officer
t l think he is an elector or voter, having
| qualifications. and his Office is of the SAINT
q kind as the office of the citizen who is cleo
!? tor, so-called, within the constitution, amt
f whose qualifications are primary; but tn
# moment the representative credentials are
l. closed and accorded to him, he is then al
q elector and nothing else. de Is not Stat
It officer There is no provision by any legis
l. lAuOn of Congress that can give this actio
e of the two houses either in their joint at
l. sembly or in this commission with RICH
q accorded to it) the jurisdiction over th
?, question of fact involved in abuses or vii
4. lations of the State Constitutions; and thes
et provisions of the State constitution do ne
Of touch the constitution of the United State
N which, while it was careful to exolud
N Federal intervention of oficeholders, vs.
n, not guilty OF the fault OF saying that I
liz State should aecredit as its eleotOr 9
to honOred citizen that filled in the affection
le of the people and in the authority of Il
n State place of trust. If anything, it WI
y, desired that these electors should be Sta
9, nOtablee, men that had the adhesion
their fellow-citizens and to say that v
IL must take the residuum of public charaet
az and of public interest and of public reput
as after all the State Offices ara filed, fro
IA constable to Governor, or else we can n
az have an eleetor, is imputing folly to Il
tIe trainers of our constitution that they a
~ not open to, and which can not be fore
al upon them BY State legislation. Govern
y, Ingersoll, of Connecticut, heads the ele
Of toral choice. Every one honOrs him as d
OF representative of his State. he is Cove
Of nor. He certifies to himself. He discharg
Al Governors duty to certify to whomsOev
he the people choose. But he does not ma
himself an eleotOr. he oertifies upon
AZ corded evidence, as John Adams deelar
that he was President of the United Stat
by the count of the votes.
So Mr.. Evarts then spoke of the CONFUSE
re- and degradation of the suffrage in Loui
5se ana He said he did not want to be to
IT that fraud was worse than violence; 1t "
" the broOding of great fear over wht
An population which made them put into
IS framework of their constitution that I
PIE privilege of free suffrage shall be support
ha1 by laws regulating elections. Mr.. Eva
did not want to be told that Louisiana v
ner to suffer because her officers acted und
5eu the laws. He described the condition
-. mn ar