Year: 1877

by his associate counsel on Saturday that
we must withdraw the suggestion we made
in connection with their speeches. implying
that they were hasty and ill-considered. Mr..
Matthews and Mr.. Stoughton were called to
reply OH a sudden to arguments by the other
side. prepared with great study and delib-
Grafton, and we were willing to suppose that
they spoke to fill up the time. in order
to carry Mr.. Evarts' argument over from
Saturday to Monday and afford him an
opportunity for preparation. After reading
the report of Mr.. Evarts speech we con-
cludo that we were mistaken for he plants
his feet SO exactly in their footsteps as to
show that they presented the view on which
the supporters of Mr.. Hayes intend to stake
their case. That view is, in brief, that the
action Of the State canvassing boards Is
final, and that Congress- and consequently
the commission. is bound to accept 1t and
turn deaf ear to the most cogent evidence OF
illegality and fraud. When we found this
surprising position assumed In the speeches
of Mr. Matthews and Mr.. Stoughton a SEN
timent akin to charity led us to suppose that
they had spoken in haste, and that an in
terval being thus gained for Mr.. Evarts he
would put tho republican case on some
ground less repugnant to the public con-
science. We are disappointed to find Mr..
Evarts- deliberately adopting the views OF
the associates who preceded him, and advo-
eating the claim of Mr. Hayes on grounds
which so closely resemble pleading of tho
statute of limitations in bar of a just debt
This may be valid defence in law, but it is
repugnant to every principle Of morals.


We do not wish to misrepresent the re-
publican position, and two days ago we
should have hesitated to quote from the
speeches of Mr. Matthews or Mr. Stoughton
as fairly representing it. But the indorse-
ment of their points by Mr.. Evarts proves
that we strained delicacy in their favor. 1t
is too true that the republican party rests
it's case on a quirk of law not more
respectable than the pleading of the stat
ute of limitations against just debt.
Whether the legal point be we'll taken
or not, it is abhorrent to every idea Of
justice. Our determination to be fair leads
us to insert this authentic statement of the
republican position from Mr.. Stoughton's
speech: 1.-THE statute of Florida created
Returning Board. having capacity to certify
the number Of votes cast for electors, and to
certify who were elected, and if that Board
performed its duty, however mistaken,
however clouded with error, however
,Gf you please) tainted by fraud, and
did ascertain and did declare how many
votes for particular sets of electors had been
cast, and did certify and declare who were
the persons who were elected electors, that
ends all inquiry here


"That ends all inquiry here" The action
of canvassing board may be mistaken"
it may be "clouded with error" it may even
be .stainted with fraud" this fraud, if sue
cessful, may determine who is to be Presi-
dent of the United States, and yet it is too
sacred to be touched and lends all inquiry
here" Can anybody wonder that we thought
such m avowal an error of haste which the
speech of Mr.. Evarts would rectify? How
shall we express our astonishment
at finding such a statement indorsed
and defended by the great New York advo-
cate two days later, when he had had oppor-
tunity for mature reAection? What the
country expects from the Electoral Commits
sion is not protection Of fraud by an in
genius straining of legal technicalities. but
declaration of the true result in accordance
with honesty and justice


Mr.. Evarts has carried tho doctrine of the
inviolability of State certiications to even
<hon
Stoughton maintained that even fraud
could not invalidate them, but Mr. Evarts,
as if willing to push his own argument
to reductio dd dbsurd,in,, contends that the
constitution itself must stand back and
'shide it's diminished head" in the presence
of State certificate. This asplpishing
| declaration was brought out by a query of
Commissioner Thurman as to what ought to
be done if all the persons certified to have
been chosen as Presidential electors in a
State were federal office-holders. Mr.. Evarts
intrepidly contends that not even this con-
stitutional disqualification is bar to the
counting of the votes of such electors if
they have been duly certified by the
State authorities. Now, whatever may be
thought in Washington, the country
will not be satisfied with such line OF
argument. 1t looks too much as if the re-
publican counsel were conscious that they
have q desperate case and felt forced to
resort to desperate means to defend it.
Heretofore nobody has ever questioned or
doubted the authority of Congress to refuse
to count the votes of federal office-holders
whom the people of State had chosen as
Presidential electors. When so able lawyer
desperate case, to contend, in the face OF
the country, that State certificate can
override a plain prohibition of the
constitution of the United States, and