Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-02-27
Fifty Years Ago
I'm The Star

The decision of the Electoral Com
mission not to 'go behind the re-
How the Decision louisiana I@ans !" ca as sc
Was Justified. 50 years aso,ta ago
discussed in Washington, the Demo
Gratis contending that there was no
justification in law whatever for the
ruling of the eight who constituted a
majority of that body, and the Repub-
licans countering with equally We
hement claims Of soundneSs. The
matter is thus set forth in The Star
of February 20, 1877:
ION Saturday last The Star pointed
out some of the natural consequences
of the decision of the Electoral Com
sion in the Louisiana case. one objec-
tionable feature being the virtual
multiplying of the provision of law pre-
scribing certain qualifications for cleo
tors. 1t Is therefore important to
know on what grounds this decision
in question was based. These were
set forth yesterday in the 10-minute
speeches of Senators Morton. Sher-
man and Howe. The main question
before the commission was, Can Con
gress or the commission go behind the
regularly authenticated returns of a
State?' Mr.. Sherman in his speech
asserted that as a question of law
three months ago no lawyer in the
land would have contended that Con-
gresS had the power TO manipulate
and overhaul and reverse the decision
of'a State in the election of electors.
He ridiculed the notion that Congress
can tell a State it has violated its own
fundamental law, adding that If Con-
gress can tell Louisiana that. it can
70
asked, therefore, If there was a law
yer in the Union who dare assert that
Congress can exclude the vote of the
electors of New York because they
were not appointed in conformity to
the constitution of New York.
1.-THE objection raised to the legality
of the Louisiana returning board was
dealt with by Mr.. Morton, who said
that the law of Louisiana especially
provides that a quorum of the board
can transact business. One. two or
three vacancies on the United States
Supreme bench do not destroy the
legal character of the court. nor do
vacancies impair the legal status of
the Senate. In reference to the al
legged ineligible electors he took the
ground that no matter whether the
electors were eligible or not on the
7th of November last, the day of the
election, they were eligible on the
9Th of December. when they voted
with the college for President and
Vice President. Certain persons are
ineligible to be members of the Senate
The Senator must have certain quail
fications. II he has them when the
time comes to be sworn in. that is
enough. For instance. If he is under
the legal age at the time of election,
but has attained that age when sworn
In. he Is clearly eligible. In this con
nection the case. of Representative
John Young Brown of Kentucky will
he remembered by our leaders. But
Mr.. Morton went further and claimed
that even IL the electors in question
were ineligible when they voted in the
Electoral College their votes cannot be
thrown out. An ineligible Judge may
be appointed and subsequently may
be ousted because of his ineligibility.
but every act of his would be just as
valid as though he had been eligible.
This rule, Mr.. Morton commended, held
good In the case of electors"