The Portland daily press., 1880-01-05
Maine and Louisiana.

Our Boston correspondent III mentioning
the Maine and Louisiana cases finds the diff
ference between them to be that Gin the one
the facts are disputed; in the other they are
not'' Though not the only difference it is
material. In the case of Louisiana there
was an honest difference of opinion in re-
gard to the result. The elections in that
State had been for years characterized by
violence and disorder. 1t was believed by
very many that the Democrats only sue
ceeded by terrorism at the polls. Under the
laws of Louisiana the returning board had
the legal right to reject returns where in
timidation was proved. That right they ex-
ercised, unjustly and in defiance of evidence
some claimed, properly as claimed by others.
At any rate the result was not accepted by
the country as final. The dispute went on.
The Republicans, recognizing the existence
of an honest difference of opinion regarding
the question, agreed with the Democrats to
submit it to arbitration. The measure es-
tablishing the electoral commission was
passed by both branches OF Congress, the
Democratic House and the Republican Sen
dtc. 1ulS COuulloolOu uCCiuCu bhoe WV WV
toral vote of Louisiana must be counted as
returned, and so Hayes was elected Presi-
dent. The result was not satisfactory to all
The decision of a referee seldom is. But it il
not often that the defeated party turns
about and abuses tribunal of its own
choosing, a method of arbitramento of its own
proposing, as the Democratic party then did.
That was the Louisiana case In that
State there was doubt as to the will OF the
people, and the contestants agreed to refer
it to tribunal constituted by themselves.
The Maine case is entirely different In
this State there is no doubt Of the will of
the people No one disputes that the voters
of this State elected Legislature Republi-
can in both branches. That Republican
majority has been counted out by the can
vassing board, exceeding its legal powers,
nullifying statutes, and disregarding the
spirit and plain intent of the laws. The
Governor in his defense explicitly says that
charges of bribery and intimidation were
not preferred and were not even considered
by him and his Council. Furthermore he
has not, as did the Republicans in the Lou
isiana case. consented to refer the matter to
arbitrators whose decision shall be accepted
as final In Louisiana there was dispute as
to the will of the people; there was an ac-
knowledged doubt as to the facts in the case;
and recognizing that doubt both parties con-
sented to refer the question to as impartial
a tribunal as could be constituted. In
Maine there is no dispute as to the will of
the people; there is no doubt as to the facts
in the case; and one party refuses to sub
nit the question to arbitration.
1t is well to remember, too, that while
President Hayes holds his seat by the de-
cision of board of arbitrament chosen by
both parties to decide the case between him
and his contestant, the men to whom Garce-
Ion has issued certificates will take theirs
on the arbitrary and illegal ,cision of a
partisan returning board which has accom-
plished it's nefarious purpose in defiance
alike of law and equity. 1t is well, too,
for those who believe wrong was done
in Louisiana to reflect that amend
ment is not brought about by another
wrong done in Maine, and that methods
ruling in aturbulent State distracted and dis
organized by civil war should not be per-
mitted to prevail in an orderly, peace-loving
and law abiding community like ours.
They should not permit fraud in Maine be-
cause they believe it once succeeded in Louis
lana. That is neither wise nor patriotic.