The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-10-02
The Great Fraud.

4
While MFR. Hayes is preaching acains
states Rights, an full accord with tn
ataswart policy of consolidation, Mr.. Jus
ticc Mille:, of the Supreme Court Of th,
united States, not only does not den,
that he said Louisiana voted for Tildei
cnd therefore elected him, but he ma,
gone TO the extent of permitting al
elaborate explanation Of his opinion
AR. Hordhoff, at Washington, sends Il
the Herald the following Interesting re
port: INF. Justice Miller eaid that i
was generally understood and believed
that on the popular vote as returned Ii
Louisiana the Democratic electors were
chosen by from 6,0eo 20 10000 majority
q TACT which neither Secretary (ther
oenator) Sherman nor any Of the Repub
iican visiting statesmen to Louisiana IL
November, 1876, ever denied. It was {
matter OF common report aud entitled
to all the belief that such statement.
usually receive. Whether tho result
would not have been different had thers
been no intimidation of citizens in TIA,
State before and during election day II
matter which he does not enter into
The State Of Louisiana, in the exercise
OF its sovereign right, or to make II
more Democratic, in maintaining State
flights doctrine under the Constitution
had enacted that returning Board
should have the power to examine The
vote Of the State and exercise an arbitra.
ry control over Ghe election returns. 40
they might be rejected or passed, accor.
ding to the judgment Of o majority Of its
members, the Constitution declaring that
each State shall appoint in such manner
as the Legislature thereof may direct q
number of electors" and the Returning
Board. having been invested with an ex.
traordinary power, did declare what votes
should be received and what rejected.
and in 90 doing reduced hepopular vote.
That such authority should be conferred
upon board Of five men alone concerns
the State of Louisiana. II might bv it's
legislative enatcment have given IL
to two or 70 one man, and such an act
would have remained unchalIenged un.
der the Constitution and the laws. Hav-
Ing given it to returning board their
decision was as final as eny act limitad
in the rights of State. Whether the
trust was honestly or dishonesty dis.
charged from their decision there was no
appeal, and neither under the Consti-
tuition nor under the laws of the State of
Louisiana was there any remedy for nj.
legged venality. The act ofthe Louisiana
Returning Board was States Right
act IN its supremest sense. Tho decis.
ions of the Electoral Commission were
based upon the sovereign right of a
State to legislate as it chooses on all
matters expressly declared by the con.
stitution. Now, whether the popular
vote Of Louisiana in favor of the eiec.
tors named on the Democratic ticket was
changed by the Returning Board in
favor of the Republican electors was q
question which could not have come be.
fore the Electoral Commission, whatever
may be the privileges enumerated In the
bill creating that body. The oath taken
by each member of the commission left
no ground for political or personal prefer
ence, for all questions submitted to the
commission were to be determined "sgree.
ably to the Constitution and the .aws.n
The Constitution is the highest law of the
land. and when it was determined that
the Republican electors had received the
highest number of votes according to
the decision of a board which was under
the final arbitration as to what votes had
been counted, 1t was Impossible for him
TO have reached any other conclusion
than the one recorded. Neither Is to be
forgotten that the act creating the com.
mission was passed by House of Ran-
resentetiveS having Z large Democratic
majority and Senate ..eving q large
Republican majority. Politically .Es
members Of the commission were equal.
ly divided; judicially there were honest
differences Of opinion among the mem.
berS selected to represent this branch of
the Government. The result reached
by the majority was that the decision of
State authority in the eelectiop OF
Presidential Electors Is under the Com
stitutIon and the laws conclusive, and the
opinion then expressed by Justice Miller
no still holds unchanged"
In the face OF this how can Mr. Hayes
have the audecity to preach against State
Rights, by the supremest exercise and
stretch Of which he is President today
In the face of this. how can Republican
platforms proclaim that thisi an
Nation and not o League. The very
chief men xho used State Rights to make
Mr.. Hayes PresidentGre now going about
the country damning the very doctrine
they upheld in 1876. Not only was the
States Rights doctrine upheld by the
Republican members of the Electoral
Commission in the case of Louisiana.
but. also in that Of Florida. It is a
'damnable heresy" when it puts their
man out, and palladium. of liberty"
when it puts him in. Woe unto We,
Scribes and Phariscas, ihiyyppovTites Ii l-ItI.'
gusta Chronicle and Gnstitutionalist.