The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-03-30
OREGON IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELEC-
TON
Precedent that Might or Might Not Have
Been of Value u Year teo.

To THE EDITOR OF The SuN-Sh, In look
recently. / came across an historical fact IN rea-
ton TO the appointment Of Presidential electors.
which beg leave TO submit below. in connection
with comparison OF it with similar case in
our last election. The matter may be o. interest
~ some OF your many readers. If oven " only Il
speculative kind but though it be Of no imme-
date moment. still il il valuable fact and do
serving OF n present record. in view Of tho pos
sibitics OF the future.
Tho case arose and was disposed OF in 1894.
and Is recorded in Mes Register of December
Of that year tcxact date forgottenl. and in the
Commercial 1dreriiscy aud Er1giag T1st OF Dec.
4. | have been unable 10 obtain access to the
files Of any Now Jersey newspapers. or to any
state records. wherein further particulars
doubtless may be found; perhaps somc OF your
correspondents in Trenton may deem the mat
ter worthy Of Il more extended examination.
In 1921 New Jersey chose Presidential cleo
tors under State law 10y vote Of tho people. Two
tickets were run-nn Adams ticket and Jack
son ticket The Jackson ticket was victorious
throughout the state. and eight electors were
accordingly chosen; one Of those persons was
Postmaster. and. consequently ineligible I'M
der the Constitution. This fact was discovered
after the election and il was also found that
there was no statute providing for the cXi-
gcncy. Tho Governor therefore refused TO
commission the Postmaster. and himself Sc
lectcd and comm ssioncd n substitute. who cast
n vote for Prcside1 ut and Vice- President. This
action was widely known and generally com
menlnd upon. but 10 exception was made to its
Legality. At the opening OF the votes in the
February following the vote OF that elector was
accepted and counted as the vote OF the States
lawful appointee.
In 1916 Oregon chose Presidential electors
under state law. 10y, vote Of the people; two
tickets wore run. Hayes ticket and a Tilden
ticket. The Hayes ticket was victorious
throughout the State. and three electors We're
accordingly chosen. One Of these persons
was Postmaster and consequently Ineligible
under the Constitution. This fact was discov.
cred after the election. and II was also found
that there was no statue, providing for the
commission the Postmaster, ard himself select
ell and commissioned a substitute. who cast a
vote for President and Vice President. This
mentcd upon, and much exception was made to
lts legality. AT the opening of the votes in the
February following the vote Of that eector was
rejected.
1t is not my purpose to discuss the questions
involved in the foregoing cases but may add
quences flowing from them Identical In 1924.
~ in 1876. the colleges were in the habit Of
clecting persons to I'M vacancies at their meet
lng. as was done in the Electoral College OF New
York on that same OCCASION: but this was a
unique case. only possible by a violation of
VbluIlbH nOl HiltlNllhitu. lntTtlpTt,
and not provided for. In both instances when
they arose. the Governor. the actual appointing
agent of the State. represented her sovereignty
and commissioned an eligible person. thus
completing her quota Of electors and scrupu-
lousy respecting the national statutes IT, then.
that appointment was valid as respects the
United States in 1924 and was lawfully recog-
nized at the opening of the votes. IL WAS equally
valid and should have been similarly recog-
nizcd in 1876.
As respects the two States however the action
OF the two EXECUTIVES was different. In the for
mer case the Postmaster was n Jackson man,
and his substitute voted for Jackson but in the
latter the Postmaster was Hayes man. and his
substitute voted for Tilden. In both cases the
Legislatures. in directing the manner of the ap-
pontment. had provided for it according to the
will OF the people; in the former the Governor
rcsneected that will in the latter he disregarded
IT, The former appointment. therefore. was
justlnablc: but the latter WAS not.
But the amount OF Justice or injustice in
the two cases does not affect the status Of the
appointces before the Senate and House. ut the
opening OF the votes; nor would IL have affected
The value OF the precedent Of 1924, bad 1t been
known q year ago. D. A. MCKNIGHT.
NEW YORK. March %.