The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-06-23
BUTLER ON HAYES TITLE.

ing Hayes title before It was disturbed, that
!. accomplished fraud is sanctitied; that the
constitution affords neither remedy nor 0
tribunal for the redress of the greatest wrong
that republican institutions could incur, and
that Hayes must be left In undisturbed pos.
session of the Office to which another man had
been elected until the term of that office has
expired.
The resolution passed by Congress, Butler
very correctly pronounces, simply an ex-
preston of opinion that, the two houses OF
the Forty-fourth Congress having counted
the vote for President and Vice President,
and declared the result Of the election, there
! Is no power In subsequent Congress to
reverse this declaration" The opinion of Con-
| gress on this question had not been asked
and In passing the Burchard resolution Con-
gress was clearly guilty of evading the only
proposition that was before it. The resolu-
ton of the Maryland Legislature and the
bill In Congress, both contemplated judicial
inquiry and process, and neither suggested
any action of Congress other than was neces-
sary to the submission of the whole matter to
the courts.
Butler agrees with the Judiciary Commit
tee that Congress has no power under the
constitution to confer upon the Supreme
Court of the United States the original juris-
diction sought to be conferred by the Kim
mel bill After this statement the reports
we have from the Northern papers are mani
testify so unreliable that we are unable to de-
termine what Buffers argument really was
The most Ineligible report we have been able
70 lnd is in the sun, 1Id tfIttt tt
following opinion TO Butler.
eff a proper law was passed by which this
contention could be brought before the SUI
preme Court in behalf Of the people Of the
United States through the Attorney General,
or by any other known means, then no one
would doubt that case would be made
ARISING under the constitution and laws OF
the United States and such case would he
within the judicial power Of the United States, |
which is vested In one Supreme Court and in |
such inferior courts as the Congress NAV |
from time to time ordain and establish Now, |
unless 1t is said that this contention does not |
involve construction of the constitution and |
law OF the United States, 1t IL clearly within |
the Jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court which |
is specifically vested with this judicial power
Butler is then made, by the reports, to con- :
cur In the opinions expressed ov the Judi. |
CARY Committee, that 'the expressions, I
cases and controversies we're not intended |
by the Trainers Of the constitution to en-
brace on original proceeding by State in the
Supreme Court of the United States to GUST |
any incumbent from political Office"
But, the report goes on to say, he is I'M
able to see how 1t could be supposed that jul
was claimed to arise under special
grant Of Jurisdiction Of lease or controversy"
between State and citizens of another State.
The question at bar is no such question 1t is
O 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.
Now, this Is all unintelligible, or, at least,
inaccurate, and plainly the work of "smart
Aleck" of a reporter who Is trying to be tech
meal; yet we can safely infer from the last
that Gen. Butler has taken the
Federal view as opposed to the States rights
view Of the case. The words leases and con-
troversies" have no technical meaning in the
and, really, they do not occur
together. Wherever the word Controversy"
Is used it is plainly to avoid tautology, and
between it and the word ''cases" there is no
distinction. The stress laid upon these words
was, then, the work Of the reporter, and not
Of Butler, who is a good lawyer, II he Is
nothing else
The point Butler makes plainly u.s. that the
disputed title of Hayes Is 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"
Right here 1t is that we wish to differ with
him. Let us state Buffers position clearly:
He says that he agrees with the Judiciary
Committee, that Congress could not vest
original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court
ferior courts of original jurisdiction derive
their jurisdiction from the clause which con-
'ers upon them cognizance in controversies
20 which the United States shall be party"
Both of these propositions we deny. The
only portions of the constitution bearing on
this case read as follows: "The judicial
power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under the constitution" and
Sin all cases in which n
State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall
haze original jurisdiction"
Gen. Butler has disposed of the first of
these propositions, and in doing so has con-
one which comes within the cognizanee of the
judicial authority of the Federal government.
But he denies the second, in refusing original
Jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, on the
ground that this is not case in which a
State shall be party" Now, we maintain
hat this is peculiarly a case in which State
nay and must be party. The State of Ma
'yland has asked to be heard as party, and
,he clearly has standing in court. It is not,
IS Butler says, "a question between the
United States and the people thereof and the
lsurper who holds the presidential office.
On the contrary, it is question between
lin and any State which may choose to
make the issue. presidential electors are
lot elected by the people, nor in accordance {
With any directory law of Congress. The /
constitution expressly says, leach State c
hall appoint In such manner as the legisla- /
ares thereof may direct, the electors who l