The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-25
WHAT MARYLAND ASKS,
What the KImmel Bill Aims At-Reme-
dial Legislation Asked For.
baltimore SUM-


In your leader of to-day you say that it is
absolutely certain, and it is conceded by the
very qualification contained in the Maryland
resolution and by the introduction of Mr..
kimmefs bill, that under the laws" there is
no right now existing to question, by pro-
ceedings In the judicial courts, the right of
Mr.. Hayes to his Office"
In this permit me to say that you are in
error. The Maryland resolution assumes
that "the right to institute the proposed ac-
ton now exists, and asks only an act ito ex-
pedite the action" and this is all Mr. KIM
meFs bill proposes TO do. The bill confers
neither jurisdiction nor rights. Every law
yer knows this cannot be done But every
lawyer also knows that it is competent and
proper to provide remedial legislation to
expedite and regulate the assertion of exist
ing rights. !
Nor can any one who will recur to the cir
cumstances under which the electoral bill
passed, and to its language doubt the fairness
and business of the legislation proposed. By
that bill the conflicting views of political par
ties as to the power of Congress and of the
courts over the electoral returns were COM
promised, and it was agreed that a commits
sion should decide as to the power of Con-
gress upon the votes to be counted and the
person thereby elected should hold Office sub
jeect to the decision OF the Supreme Court of
the United States. The bill treats of the
power Of Congress and of the court in the
same manner precisely-neither affirming nor
denying either, but leaving the questions re-
speeding them to be decided by the respective
tribunals named-the commission and the
court.
AS to the commission, whose action was to
be immediate, the bill provides for expeditinG
and regulating its action: This was omitted
as respects the court. Whether the omission
ances given, that the commission would go
into the merits of the case and hence that It's
decision, whatever it might be, would be sat-
isfactory; or whether the existing remedial
a p1fn,
rial. The right being stipulated for, Congress
may at any time supply the remedial legsla-
ton necessary to give it effect.
Nor can those who recognize this compro-
vide such legislation by falling back on the
old ground that it belongs to Congress and
not to the court to adjudicate the presidential
title. That ground was deliberately aban-
doned by. the electoral bill. By that bill the
commission was authorized to decide whether
Congress had such power, and its decision
against the power of Congress was ratified
by Congress. And the sixth section of the
bill declares that the title thus to be given
to , the the Presidency by the. commission
shall not impair or affect, any right
now existing under the constitution and laws
to question ft) by proceeding in the iudi-tt
cial courts OF the United States" This is AMI
express stipulation that the title conferred by
the commission shall not be deemed final, T
and that the Supreme Court Of the United !
States may be asked to decide whether it is 4
final and whether, under, the constitution 4
and laws, any other person has a better titles
and it is left to the court, as it was left to the
commission, to Judge of the extent Of it's own !
powers over the subject-matter. Language
could not be framed to impart a clearer stipu-
latiOn to this effect than the language used.
and the conflicting views adverted to by your E
correspondent between the leaders of the op-
posing parties concusvely establish that i
this language accords with the the true intent 4
and meaning OF the parties to the compro-s
mise.
To deny now the needed remedial legisla-g
ton to carry out this intent, is simply to re-
pudiate the compromise upon which Mr.
Hayes title rests III this be done it follows
that Mr. Hayes never had any color Of right
to the place he holds, and Congress must So
declare.
Yours respectfully Il
MONTGOMERY BLAIR,
DHRC0unf