Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1878-06-26

see was not tempted by the price, but
demanded 100000, not, he declares,
with the intention Of taking i, but 10
stT aTszsas- ~ ~ IN! !s9 r~.--s
his tcmpter and to keep up the ncgoti-
alton until he could learn who was at
the bottom OF 1t. The explanation OF
his reason for Offering 10 sell out for
100000 is not very satisfactory, but
is satisfactory to know that the clcctor
could not be bought for 800, 900, which
be says vas the biggest figure that
was finally offered him, and then the
condition was that he should vote for
Tilden. We must all feel refreshed
That there is one man Ia ne country
who has refused TO sell his vote for
800, 900, even though it was for the
right because tho right must not
get votes in that way. We do
hope that this pleasing image Of
Levissee's virtue will not be destroy
cd during the future course of tho in
curry by the revelation that he got
more for the vote he did give than
was offered him for the n he refused
TO cast.
But the surprising TACT appears that
though Levissee refused the money
that was offered him to abstain from
voting, he, in reality, did not vote OF
rather, he did not sign the papers, de-
claring the vote Of himself and his col
leagues, upon which the electoral com.
mission based its conclusion that Hayes
had received the vote OF Louisiana,
Levissee did sign one paper or one SET
of papers; only n paper of this set
reached the Vice President and that
one came by mail. 1t was informal
and incomplete and it vas discovered
to be necessary that others should be
substituted. This was done, and a
formally correct paper reached the
Vice President by mail and a copy Of
it was also presented to him by the
special messenger, Thomas C. Ander.
son, of the returning board. These
a..
latter papers Levissce declares he did
not sign and the result is that the
vote OF Louisiana was awarded TO
Hayes on forged papers. This objec-
ton to his title is a technical one, as
it is conceded that Levissee signed the
original papers, and no doubt would
have signed the copies of them correct
ed in accordance with the requirements
of the law. But Mr.. Hayes office
was accorded to him by the commission
wholly on technical grounds, and not
because he was in fact honestly elected.
If 1t had appeared to the commission
that the signatures were forged on the
papers presented to Congress, it could
not have recognized them and awarded
Hayes the Presidency on the bare
ground on which they did award it to
him, namely, that on the face Of the
papers it belonged TO him and they had
no authority to go behind the papers.
The commission could not have avoided
an examination of the papers them
selves, and could not have considered
Q certificate whose signatures were
wholly OIL in part forged.
1t is violently urged by the partisans
OF Hayes that his title has been adjudi-
Gated and must not be challenged.
Even Democrats of responsibility are
heard TO assent to this doctrine. But
this testimony takes away the founda-
ton stone Of their argument. They
cannot claim that Congress granted the
electoral commission power to decide
the presidential question upon forged
certificates. The most that has been
claimed by those who choose to con-
slider the decision Of the electoral COM
mission to be final is that il had power,
under the delegation to it by Con-
gress of its powers, to decide the
election upon the certificates; but
it cannot be claimed that the subse-
quent evidence as to the forgery Of
those certificates does not afford ample
reason for the re~-opening of the case.
No court in Cbristcndom would toler.
ate such a continued triumph of fraud.
Lancaster hteiligencer.