The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-06-27
Rnlttieal.
TIE GREAT FRAUD OF 1876,
RIrTLER,s DISSENT FROM THE JU-
DICIARY COMMITTEE'S VIEWS.
Congress Clothed With Power to Enable the Courts
to AdJudcSte Upon the Presidential lltle
"A Protest Against the DOstrlne
that Successful Fraud
Cannot be Assailed,

Washington, June lS.--Gen. Butler, as
an individual member of the Judiciary
Committee, to day submitted to the
House of Representatives his reasons for
dissenting from the resolution and report
of the majority in regard to the inviola-
bility of the Presidents title. He says
"The resolution of the majority is simply
an expression of opinion that, the two
Houses of the Forty fourth Congress hav-
ing counted the vote cast for President
and Vice President and declared the re-
suit of the election, there is no power in
a subsequent Congress to reverse that
declaration, Certain am that an opin-
ion on this question was not asked by
the State of Maryland, either by the res
elution of the State or by the bill. Both
sought only remedy through the Courts.
l could agree to that opinion-and yet
the question submitted to the committee
would not be answered-that the "decla'
ration" if made, can never be reversed,
either by Congress or the courts"
He agrees with the committee chat
Congress has no power under the Con-
stitutiou to confer upon the Supreme
Court of the United Stares the original
jurisdiction sought for it in the Blair
Kimmel bill, "but," he says, "the ques-
ton at issue is whether the actual Presi.
dent of the United States has just and
legal title to the Office he holds. A con-
testation upon that question, if it were
possible to be had before the courts, would
make case which may we'll enough be
defined to be controversy between con-
tending parties under the forms of law
before a court. If proper law was
passed by which this contention could be
brought before the Supreme Court in be-
half of the people of the United States
through the Attorney-General or by any
other known means, then no one would
doubt that a case would be made aris-
ing under the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and such case would
be within the judicial power of the Unit
ed States, which is vested in one su-
preme Court and in such inferior courts |
as the Congress may from time to time |
ordain and establish Now, unless it is
said that this contention does not involve
a construction of the Constitution and
law of the United States, it Is clearly
within the Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, which is specifically vested with
this judicial power by the Constitution.
This supreme and universal grant of ju-
dicial power and jurisdiction by the Con-
stitution to the Supreme Court the ma
iority of the Committee find it conven-
lent to ignore and omit from their report
and content themselves by saying that
they are of the opinion that the express
sions, cases and controversies were not
intended by the trainers Of the Constitu-
ton to embrace an original proceeding
by State in the Supreme Court of the
United States to oust any incumbent from
a political Office"
Gen. Butler fully concurs in that opin-
ion, but he is unable to see how it could
be supposed that jurisdiction was claim
ed to arise under special grant of juris-
dictiOn of Cease or controversy" between
a State and citizens of another State. The
question at bar is no such question. 1t
ls a question between the United States
and the people thereof and the person
filling an Office to which it is claimed he
has in law and equity no title.
After further argument Gen. Butler {
Iays: "But the Constitution does not
mpart to either of the three branches of {
5he Government any such independence !
If the Others as the argument of the
committee assumes. Congress cannot
ry case, but the proper powers of the !
judiciary are for the most part ineXecuta-
Die without suitable provisions of law on {
he part of Congress. So Congress can
lot appoint Secretary of State or of the
Treasury, but such officers exist only by
virtue of acts of Congress, and the stat.
lte book is full of provisions of law de-
lining or limiting the functions of the
President, in passing which Congress has !
power by a twOthirds vote, in
despite Of the President As to the rela.
ion of the judiciary to the President, it
8 notorious that the legality of the oftic. I
al acts of the President and of those
II the heads of departments, which
IRE in law his acts, continually comes un- y
ler the supervision of the iudiCiary-not
he Supreme Court only, but inferior {
courts, which not seldom have had occa-
lion to pronounce acts of the President !
)r his Secretaries contrary to the Consti-
ution or to the principles of common JUS I
ice. And as to the person of the Presi- I
lent, whence comes this novel doctrine s
hat he is above the law of the land God
'orbid that a President of the United !
States should ever commit common
,rime, but if he were to do so, is he not Z
lmenable to law therefor? If he usurps !
possession of the property of another,
nay he not be sued in the courts And
ret, according to the theory of the COM !
nittee, he may commit the greatest pos. !
ible act of illegality, usurpation of his
,fice, without amenableness to the judic- :
ary or any other power. l do most ear.
lestly protest against all such exaggera- :
ions of the Office of President. No man !
n the United States, be he high or low,
s above the law and / deplore the &C.
;ual condition ofthe Presidency, to main
ain which, unChallenged, wise and good
men are driven to such desperate resorts J
If argument
"The committee further rest the fnali
y of the declaration upon the action of
he body known as an Electoral Commits.
ZION. As to this commission, have made
ong, patient and painful search for any
Constitutional authority or precedent for
,he interference Of such a body in the
of the electoral votes. / do not
regret to say that nave not been able to
ind such authority. The fact that it has
been exercised would stand for some
thing in its favor, were itnot that all who
had to do with it's creation say they act