Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-08-14

eral laws. 1t would be no more alb
surd for the States to claim the con-
troll Of the rights of a person under
patent derived from the Federal
government, than it is for the FEEDER
al government to claim the control
of rights of persons derived from
the constitution and laws of n State.
So much for the election of Congress
men. Now for the election Of Pres
idential electors. The following is
the constitutional provision:
"Art. 9, Sec. 2. Each State shall
appoint IN such manner az he Legisld-
ture thereof may direct, number of
Senators and Representatives 10
which the State may be entitled in
Congress but no Senator or Repre-
sentative, or person holding an Office
of trust or profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an cleo
tor"
Under this provision of the Con-
stitution the Legislature Of each
State has absolute control over the
appointment of Presidential electors.
1t may provide for an election by the
people, which is usual, or it may elect
the electors by the Legislature as
was done in South Carolina for sew
enty years, or it may direct any 9th
er mode of appointment it may see
proper. The Office Of Presidential
elector is State Office under State
laws over which the Federal govern
ment has no control whatever. All
of this was decided by the electoral
commission only two years ago. The
decision Of this tribunal ought TO be
authority with the stalwarts, although
it went so far in its effort 10 cover
up fraud that it forfeited the respect
of every one else, for it not only de-
cided that the Federal government
has no control over the election Of
Presidential electors, but that neither
Congress nor itself could inquire
whether the person claiming the right
TO vote as a Presidential elector had
actually ever been duly elected or
appointed as such or not that al
though the certificate OF Presidential
elector was obtained by fraud or was
an actual forgery, still no department
OF the Federal government could go
behind 1t, or inquire into its validity.
How does this decision OF the cleo
toral commission upon this subject
comport with the doctrine Of this res
olution Of the Republican platform ?
Will our neighbor OF the Republican
explain and reconcile these two de.
liverances Of his partyI
When Governor Curtin and the
other gentlemen sent TO New Orleans
by the Democratic National Com
mittee, in the fall of 1876, invited
John Sherman and the other gentle
men appointed by President Grant to
cooperate with them in seeing that
fair and honest canvass was made
of the votes cast for Presidential
electors in The State Of Louisiana,
Sherman and his co-conspirators re-
fused to do so, and predicated their
refusal upon the ground that this
would be an unwarrantcd interfer-
ence in the affairs of State; that
the State authorities of Louisiana
had exclusive Jurisdiction over this
subject. Surely at that time Sher-
man and the other stalwarts never
dreamed that the election Of Presi-
dental electors was "clearly subject
to national control"
After the adjournment of the elec-
toral commission, one of its radical
members, Judge William Strong, Of
infamous memory, wrote TO South
ern friend defending the action of
the commission and holding that an
opposite decision--any attempt on
the part of the Federal government
TO inquire into the honesty or legali-
ty Of the elections in Florida, Louis
lana or South Carolina---would have
been ian infringement upon the sa-
cred doctrine of State rights.p
To these extremes of opposite