Year: 1877

finally this quo ,carrarto in Florida There is
evidence IN the records OF the Court that that fact
true have read the decision. and | must
say there Is not an auson 10 the Tact
that the Canvassing Board acted irauduIcntly.
II was alleged that that action which had conformcd
10 the action OF years before was msinterprcta
lion OF the rights Of tne Board In the docu sub.
miitcd few minutes ago 10 the Commissioners there
Is a certain section OF the law TO the language
OF which call your attention. lt Is this: ''li any
such returns shall be shown or shall appear 10 bo
irregular false or fraudulent, and the Board shall be
unable TO determine the true vote for any sucn ocer
or member, they shall certify, and shall not include
such return In their determination or declaration.
February p. is7s and was The law in force
at the time OF the nj the date Of tho certi
cae OF the electors and day OF the vote for tho
electors and until the nth of January. 1877. Thus
will be seen that tho Canvassing Board OF florida
were to inquire whether those returns appeared TO be
so fraudulent that the Board could not count tho vote
In exercising that junction they not merely passed
upon the returns Of tho county canvass but upon tho
certified returns IN precincts. The courts said they
had overstcppcd the law


Mr.. KAssoS-That is only to say that the gentlemen
ON the other side wanted SO much OF their action
suited their and wanted TO reject the rest. The
Board applied the rule and determined the result
II mace changes in counties both ways; It put
back republican and some dem
ocratic votes. l only mention hero be-
cause the printed proceedings 90 not mention all
points. Now TO number three.
There you find that not satisfied with II at all. they
appointed a new board Of canvassers From that new
board thcy rejected the Attorney General Of the State
whose opinions had been tas TO the law OF the easel
In many points OF tho canvass with the republican



eral being made member Of the Returning Board he
was left out and tho Treasurer OF the State put IN his
stead


Amer somo further remarks with rcforoncc TO can.
vass No. 3 Mr. Kasson continued Mr.. Fold proposed
IN his argument to show the iugglcry by which tho
Hayes electors got their certificates May ask this
tribunal II there is prid tdce presumption for or
against fraud, whether exists against those oicors
elected before fraud could have been contcm-
plated; against Board that acted at tho
time required by the State law against a
Board that acted at tho time required by Con.
n iguO nC
OF the result IN other states? Or docs that prcsump-
ton OF fraud exist against men who know the impor-
tance OF the change OF tho result Florida; against
men who acted with the knowledge OF tho
necessity of tho action they took to
accomplish their result; against men
who were organized a tribunal aud enacted a
new law to accomplish that resuts II there be fraud,
sumption OF law under these circumstances place ir
Inevitably 1t places II where tho motive OF the act, tho
tho purpose to be accomplished were all before
the eyes OF the persons participant In II Fraud
cannot be SO presumed against parties that act in con-
iormity with law and In the discharge OF duty
time required by law and in tho manner required by
law, as it can be presumed against those who
did II outside OF tho provisions OF tho law
and with a full knowledge of tho effect which
would bc produced by It, My honorable friend
from Virginia (dr rucker) in hts argument spoke Of
the fact which was unsupported by any evidence, but
which, he said, no could support by some evidence,
that there vas a bad motive and bad conduc,
on tho part OF this Canvassing Board. or
that have seen no evidence whatever,


TRIO orrGARcHs





this great question OF the supreme magstracy OF tho
United States to the determination OF trio OF oil.
garchs in Florida? trio OF oligarchs What shall
State who exercise corresponding functonsY
What shall l say OF tho quartet or quintet
OF oliearchs that exists In every state almost
OF this Union which is empowered in similar
ner and having probably the same rights as canvass
ing boards Nay. more, should like TO ask my non.
orable TREND what shall say OF this solo oiigarch
In Orcgons Is there any significance in
tribunal that Is acting under and because
OF the provision OF the constitution and laws OF the
United States and OF tho StateY | answer that tho
question is, Where does the law put tho power arrive
at that determination IN which action is based
Whether that be In ono nap, IN three men in Hvo
men. the determination Is primd f1cie evidence and
can DO vitiated only IN tho manner provided
by the laws OF tho local original jurisdiction,
as The case may be- The case is made when II Is
found to be IN accordance with the constitution and
law time, and due certi1cation oi nuthcn-
man suggests answer within the Jurisdiction which
the laws provide for the determination OF the right
But, says the gentleman, suppose no such pro-
VISION OF law is nader Then l answer that
absence OF authority Is no reason for usurpation
where that act has not in It's support scntla OF con-
stitution law. II tho allegation true !: simply
shows tho necessity OF further legislation where
not no. s,'Ai ,rSo tho whole % Of ,Ss argumen. hero
tails to the ground. The constitution says
that VIC have very ttlo to do with this matter Of
elections in State Tho history of tho constitution
shows that II was intended that should have very
little to do with the determination. With
such matters II gave us no authority TO overthrow
State action, and the alleged right 10 change duly
certified ul within itself the right without
investigation OF the motive deny to the States that
very right which the constitution took such cxraor
dinary pains conine exclusively within tho prov.
incc OF the state.


Tho commission at five o'clock adjourned until half
past ton Tomorrow morning