The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-10-11
What Mr.. Evarts Ought to Speak
Ahunt.

III Is gwen out tnlt Mr.. ENARTS Will soon
make a political speech ia this city. We
think 1t is time. There must he good
many things on his mind concerning which
he cannot help being anxious To- BE- heard.
by way OF assisting MIN to Il selection Of
topics on which good many people might
like 10 hear him. we shall now mention
some points in his recent career.
In his speech Mr.. EyAErs will doubtless
refer 10 that nondescript thing that is
called President HAYEs's "title," and as he
had much to do with the manufacture Of
that article, We will give him an idea Of
the matters which it IS needlul for HIM to
explain.
First 1t is desirable that Mr. EvARTs
should explain how it was consistent with
the constitutional duty Of the two Houses II
Congress, Ia counting the electoral votes. to
send disputed electoral certificates to an
outside Commission for a determination Of
the question which of two such certificates
expressed the genuine. lawful. and consti-
.utional electoral vote OF the state for q
President OF the United States. There are
two aspects In which he may treat this top
lc, and he can tnle his choice. One is to
consider the Electoral Commission as
nNiflH uNNlNilIt July VI tHulh vi INJURY.
appointed 70 form and express an opinion on
the genuinenoss Of the contested certificates.
Taking this view % 1t. i will be tor Mr..
EvARrs to explain how it was lawful, con-
stituuonal. or proper for the two
Houses OF Congress. in counting the
electoral votes. q take, or TO consider,
or to be Ia any way influenced by, the opin-
Ion Of any other body ~ mon besides their
own members. on the questions Of law and
TACT which were involved In the counting Of
the electoral votes of Louisiana and Fior In.
FOR example. Mr.. EvARTs is lawyer, and
we presume he accounts himself to be a con-
stitutlonal lawyer. Ho can explain To- Us, IL
any man can. how the two Houses u Con
gress on which a fixed constitutional duty
Is devolvei 10y the supreme law Of the land.
can rlghtfuliy constltutiunaliy. and lawful
ly call ill., or be IN any way guided r ini.u-
enced by the opinion or finding ~ another
tribunal created for the express purpose Of
expressing opinions that are 81 have more
or less weight in the determination of ques-
tions which the Constitution has committed
to the decision OF the two Houses, and t.
them alone.
The other alternative for Mr. EvARTs t.
70
tho Electoral Commission act, and bearing
in mind that it did make the decisions and
findings Of the Commission final and COLI
elusive, unless they should be reversed Ia the
TWO Houses TO- prescribed process in the
nature Of an appeal from IN Inferior 10 n SUI
periOr tribunal toeXplain how that WAS con-
slstcnt with the constitutional duty OF the
two Houses, 20 whose sole Jurisdiction the
Constitution he'd committed the duty o.,
counting the electoral votes. and on whom
II had not conferred any power or authority
10 create Inferior tribunals for the deter
miuation OF any matter involved in that
counting, whether here wa or WAS not 10
he an appeal from the inferior and specially
created tuOuucl
in considering those great questions, it
will, Of course. be apparent 70 Mr., EyAErs
that it is entllrly inmGterial t. tne!i true
solution whether one Ur Dotu o.. Tho political
raItics Is craze responsible Tor the Electoral
Commission avs. ii the Constitution At- t,.u
violated ia putting mnn int tnr office %
President who never hal sufficient num-
Der Of electoral votes Obtained by lawful
means, II Is ~ 10 consequence what ndl-
viduals or what parties consented 10 the
wrong.
The second topic Oh which We should be
glad to hear Nh. EyAErs, is how he recon
Giles 10 his sense ~ public duty his advocacy
before the Electoral Commission Of the
monstrou5 doc,rue that In determining on
the truth o; an electoral certificate, AO fraud,
however paipale amt plain in the clucoc-
ton 81 that certih g. 90 be inquired
into. 1t viii hur0ly do for him to say that
he was merely actlng as an advocate. amt
that he is not rcspo,.-liln for the acts Oi the
tribunal, even it d.d adopt his doctrine. The
question for him 10 treat in this ,ategory,
Is whether the ordinary immunity and
lrrespon-ibility ~ an advocate ia respect
to the legal doctrlnes iur which he cuutcAL.,
can apply to a matter In which the cous.itu-
tonal rights the public safety and the
dearest interests Of q whole nation are cou-
perned. In ordinary suits at law, the adyo-
cate has an individual for his client, and IL
Is according to the ethics OF the profession,
we believe, that he should contend tor any
matter OF law that will subserye that eli
ents Interest. But who was Mr. EyARTs' 5
client beior. the Electoral Commission e,
Was it the Republican party Ii So, then
II was for the interests Of his party that
Ht Hd4hhNNlFA Ai47 AhtLll-l'. nut " NO
or what was the Republican party? 1t
was body a. the citizens OF the United
states, more or less numerous no onc Of
whom had any but public Interest in the
question, or had any private interest IN it
whatever; and not one Of them, therefore,
had the smallest right 10 contend for any
doctrine ~ law that would iaJurous!y affect
the welfare Of the whole people Or, was
Mr.. HAYES NJ. EyARTs's client II so, Mr
HAYES Was contcuding Tor an Qnlce Us tho
mere representative OF a political party,
and he had 10 more right than any other
member of his partyto contend for Il doe
. trlre that you'd be- fatal 10 the public well
fare aud the besr interest of tine nation.
But as 1t may occur 10 Mr.. EyAKrs, II he
undertakes tp answer oar difficulties, that
We seem to have begged the question Of
whether his doctrine was in truth great
and serious Injury to the public welfare
whereas he holds that it was not we will Dut
II "a him IA vfuIfnotn tho f,.4,i,., tt..lR