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

Tile Great Fraud.
While Mr.. Hayes is preaching against
States Rights, in full accord with the
stalwart policy of consolidation, Mr.. JUS
tice Miller, cf the Supreme Court of the
United States, not only does not deny
that he said Louisiana voted for Tilden
and therefore elected him, but he has
gone to the extent of permitting an
elaborate explanation of his opinion
Mr.. Hordhoif, at Washington, sends to
the Herald the following interesting re-
port: "Mr. Justice Miller said that it
was generally understood and believed
that on the popular vote as returned in
Louisiana the Democratic electors were
chosen by from 5000 to 10000 majority
fact which neither Secretary (then
Senator) Sherman nor any of the Repub-
lican visiting statesmen to Louisiana in
November, 1876, ever denied. 1t was a
matter OF common report and entitled
to all the belief that such statements
usually receive. Whether the result
would not have been different had there
been no intimidation of citizens in that
State before and during election day is
a matter which he does not enter into.
The State of Louisiana, in the exercise
of its sovereign right, or to make it
more Democratic, in maintaining State
Rights doctrine under the Constitution,
had enacted that q returning Board
should have the power to examine the
vote of the State and exercise an arbitra-
ry control orer the election returns, so
they might be- rejected or passed, accor-
ding to the judgment of majority of its
members, the Constitution declaring that
leach State shall appoint in such manner
as the Legislature thereof may direct a
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 SO doing reduced the popular vote.
That such authority should be conferred
upon board of five men alone concerns
the State of Louisiana. II might by its
legislative enactment have given it
to two or TO one man. and such an act
would have remained unchallenged un-
der the Constitution and the laws. Hav-
ing given it to returning board their
decision was Is final as any act limited
in the rights of a 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 al
legged venality. The act ofthe Louisiana
Returning Board was States Right
act in its supremest sense. The decis-
ions of the Electoral Commission were
based upon the sovereign right of
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 elec-
tors named on the Democratic ticket was
changed By the Returning Board in
favor of the Republican electors was
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 "agree-
ably to the Constitution and the laws"
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 board which was under
the final arbitration as to what votes had
been counted, it 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 Rep
resentatives having large Democratic
majority and a Senate having a large
Republican majority. Politically the
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
a State authority in the selection of
Presidential Electors is under the Con-
stitution and the laws conclusive, and the
opinion then expressed by Justice Miller
be still holds unchanged"
In the face of this how can Mr.. Hayes
have the audacity to preach against State
Rights, by the supremest exercise and
stretch of which he is President to-day?
In the face of this, how can Republican
platforms proclaim that thisi as a
Nation and not League. The very
chief men who used State Rights to make
Mr.. Hayes Presidentare 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. 1t is
"damnable heresy" when it puts their
man out, and palladium of liberty
when it puts him in. Woe unto ye,
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites !-Au'
gusta Chronicle and COnstitutionalist.