New-York tribune., 1879-12-23
MOR1L SENSE.

The most dlScOuraglng lnlilg aDOut thc VOh-
spiraey in Maine is the composure with which
il is regarded by great many Democrats, who
will not admit that they approve OF it. Men
who have been denouncing uninterruDtedly
for three years what they are pleased to regard
as n fraud in counting the electoral vote OF
Louisiana, are suddenly dumb when fraud
is committed by their own party at their very
doors; or, if they speak of the transaction at
all. they seek to palliate it and gloss 1t over.
Democrats, with a few exceptions. treat the
case in one of two ways. Their first device Is
to assume that Governor GarcelOn and his Con-
ell have merely complied strictly with the law (;
if it Is a bad law, they say, why, the Republic
cans made II, and have no right to complain
of its enforcement This assumption Is grossly
Incorrect. The State Canvassers of Maine have
not complied with the law; they have defed
n. The statutes provide method of correct
ing those technical defects which have been
made the pretext for DISTINGUISHING so many
towns, but the Governor and his associates have
seen ft to erect themselves fgr the nonce into
a Supreme Court and to declare these statutes
unconstitutional. Apologists of the fraud con-
found the powers Of the Canvassers with their
duties-what they may do with what they
must do. The law gives those officers author
tn to throw out returns; their dHty Is to ex-
ercisc that authority in an equitable manner,
so as to carry out the viii OF the people as
EXPRESSED at the polls. II is monstrOus to
pretend that law conferring certain dis
eretionary powers can Justify the preparation
of the very wrongs which the law was in
tended to prevent.
The other device is to say: "Well, the
" Democratic canvassers of Maine are doing
"no more than the Republican canvassers
did in Louisiana, so there Is an end OF it,"
If tins were true we cannot see that it wOuld
be 4 respectable defence, but it is not true.
The Maine and Louisiana cases are wholly
dissimil;tr In Maine there was no question
as to the majorlhfs; the defects" were
trivial inforrnalities in transcribing and for
wardinc the returns. In Louisiana the dispute
was as to the integrity of the election itself.
In Maine the law provided q way of rectIfy-
ing technical mistakes, and the canvassers re-
fused to follow it. In Louisiana the law COM
manded the canvassers to throw out the re-
turns from all districts in which there was
evidence OF bulldoziug or terrorism-to treat
those districts as if no elections at all had
been held in them-and that is what the can
vassers did. The truth of the testimony which
they accepted as proof of fraud and violence
is in controversy. The law made them the
Judges of it, If the testimony false, and
they knew it to be false, then they were
guilty of a great crime. But we have never
seen sufficient reason to discredit this testi-
mony. confirmed rs it is by the usual behavior
OF solid Southern constituencies, and we sub
NIT that our Northern Democratic friends
have never had reason to. diseredit it either.
They assert very loudly that the stories Of
violence we're all hes but that is very diff
ferent thing.
Granting, however, for the sake OF argu-
ment, that the Democratic allegations against
the Returning Board are true, and that there
was a free aud fair election in Louisiana,
what are we to think of the moral sense of a
party which deliberately pleads a wrong by
one person as justification for the commits
sion OF crime by anotherf There has been
nothing SO bad as this in American politics
since Tweed met the charge of thieving with
the insolent question, :" What are you going
ito do about it2"