Year: 1877

not In the Office, and knowing also
.ha. tho clerk had already made the canvass OF The
votes The witness TESTIFIED that hc and Judge Orig.
gers threw away the townsville and DarbyviIie pre-
cincts because they believed tina, person been
prevented from voting That thev had no evidence
whatever before them of that iaci except the state.
mcnt OF the party and an impression-the result Of
general rumor-that some Illegal votes had been


Mr.. Field said that the whole question, so far as
concerns the State of Florida, upon such state
ments as he had read and the whole question OF law
and fact presented to the COMMISSION Is whether or
not In the face OF such statements as those paper
signed Stcarns certifying that certain persons were
elected 10 oiice when there is truth the state.
ment is 10 be received as binding upon this body.


He reviewed at some length the action OF the Florida
Returning Board and OF Ex-Governor stearns and com.
pmentcd the people CT Florida for the patience and
forbearance which they mad displayed In tho emer.
gency.


They resorted, as all lawabidng citizens should re-
sort, to the courts Of their State and tho courts
cided that the state Canvassers had no power under
The laws Of Florida, TO throw ou, any votes that they
were bound TO count every lawful vote put into
tho ballot box; that the Returning Board
neither electors nor judges otherwise than 10 what
votes werc pu. IN. Tho Supreme Court Of Florida,
Board illegal, and Governor Drew took hts place, and
Is now the lawful and accepted Governor OF the State
OF Florida II there be any mode known 10 law by
which deirauded State can, through Its courts OF
law, right amy wrongs which II may suffer- that mode
mas been adopted IN Florida


VOTE ron pREsIpExr.


Referring to the vote Tor President and Vice Presi-
dent, MIR. Field explained that there were three
tincates or returns from that State-return No. !,
made by The Hayes electors and bearing the certificate
OF slcarns as Governors; return No. 2, signed by
the Tldcn electors, without tho certificate of the
Governor, but with certificate Of the Attorney GEN
cra (he only dissenting member OF the Board Of Can
vassers) certifying that they elected; and
No containing the action Of the State authorities
subsequent TO tho first returns for the purpose OF
rcvewing and confirming $50 far possible for
the State thcreupon do it) the second return We
arc told that tho certificate forwarded to Washington
with the signature OF Governor Stearns attached rs the
true cortincatc and that matter what documentary
evidence may be lound to invaIdate that erhcae, It
sun remains binding ltis to that statement that Mr.
Field proposed TO devote the remainder oil his remarks


GovKRNoR's CERTIFICATE.


The form said he IN which the point rs stated is er.
roncous, and should be made 10 read, Can the ccrtin
cate 30 behind the truth and conceal tg" There is
no pretence that the true and lawful vote Of the State
OF Florida gwen for the Tldcn electors but tho
sole pretext Is that tho truth cannot be proved
against the certificate oi Governor Stearns that tho
truth s rolled up and concealed in that certificate and
that Congress, whether acting in separate houses in
joint house. cannot consider any act which certified
oy Stesrns You may ask, in the first place, what
foundation that Is You told that you to take
that certificate conclusive evidence against every
thing that could be proved on the other SIDE BY what
rule OF evidence, by what doctrine OF law you
prived OF tho right to examine IN TO tho truth Isit
not universal rule that every Judge is invested er
necessitate with power to take ali pertinent evidence
IN respect to the facts upon which his judgment
be pronounced, unless thero be positive law de-
caring that certain certificates or other documentary
evidence shall be conclusive?


Show me, said Mr. Ficld the positive law which
makes the certificate OF siearns evidence against the
that Is certain. II is not in tho laws OF the State OF
Florida that Is certain Is 1t In any act OF Congress?
only
rcenacted in the Revised Statutes which states that
the Executive Of the State shall deliver 10 the electors


certificate that they are the electors, but does not
state that II shall be tho truth. Suppose offer
prove that the certificate wholly false fabricated
for tho purpose OF chcatings Take ore OF tho oldest
and proudost OF the States OF this Union-he State of
Massachusetts--of which my friend Mr.. Commissioner
Abbott is so worthy representative; suppose that
dcbased and ialen as TO certify that IN tho
recent election the Tlden electors had
received a. majority Of tho votes OF the
me that you cannot prove that certificate be false?
Whero Is the law to support such statement? Nay.
more II an act OF Congress had declared that that
tiicate should DO conclusive that would DO
stitutonal, and for this the constitution de-
number OF votes shall be the President tho person
declared 10 have tho highest number of votes. You
cannot, therefore, manufacture certificate to take
from Tho person actually having the highest number Of
votes such rights as he is entitled by those
votes and you were by an act OF Congress declare
ia the most positive forms that tho certificate of the
Governor should bo conclusive against all proof you
would transcend the limits OF the organic law. You
say that the cercate oil the Governor of Mas
sachusets, for example, should override the votes of
the electors OF Massachusetts, You could do SO II
you would, and you would not il you could.
The language OF the act Of Congress strong
the language OF the State law generally us to the
vass OF votes.


THE WISCONSIN CASE,


Take the case OF Wisconsin, Thcro law of the
State had declared that State should de-
termne certify and declare tho result should declare
who was Governor man got into the Office Of Gov
crnor upon such certificate declaring that he was
clcctcd. A rival claimant brought tho
writ OF quo warranfo the hrst party had position
and claims advocated by tho ablest counsel OF the
OF Wisconsin HIS argument was, "You cannot inquire
into the case, because tho certificate oi tho
State canvassers Is conclusive" s'No" says
the court-in an opinion which does them
Immortal honor, and which Will remain
living monument Of patriotism to that Court aud
innexiblc determination OF purpose long the
port shall last The title Of the Governor depends upon
the votes Of the pcVpc-upon those littlo ballots
placed III the ballot boxes declaring tho supreme will
OF the people. II is not who shall be certified by
hnn nf ,ttt rt.A haon tfxrk
the people The Court declared that tho claimant
entitled TO tho Office. and It elected the usurpng Gov-
ernor. What Is this Commission 10 do? II
is TO declare whether any and what votes arc
votes provided by tho constitution, not TO declare
what are those votes certified by Governor Stearns
You are to certify what are the lawful votes upon
which President OF forty.nvo millions OF people Is
to be declared elected and 10 be nduced into Office.


THE WRIT OF Qro wARKANro.


Is it not implied that writ OF quo ,corranfo to try
the title OF the President Of the United States is
within the purview oil the constitution Can nybody
doubt g The constitution has declared that the per-
son having the highest number OF votes shall be the
President not the person certified to. IL has
not invested any tribunal with exclusive
power. No matter how determined by any prcmi-
nary authority there still remains the right To enact
'cdrrano No such law exists. am sorry to say, and,
II might be permitted TO say so, IT ought to exist l
that IL small reproach to our saesnanship that
for 100 years no law has been provided TO meet the
cmergeny with which We brought face face.


COMPLIMENT TO SENATOR MORTON.


know that one eminent member Of this commission
Senator Moron) has aborcd assduously and zcaousy
TO have such law passed, and OF all the title to which
he can ever lay claim tor respect, sure that that
Will be remembered hereafter TO his honor, and after
the strugges OF the passing hour have closed, when
the time shall have come when men may look al his
rave, they will not rom cmbcr him by tue contests
which he was engaged, but rather that in the
OF his country he iabored, although hitherto unavail-
ingly, to achieve Dcnalcent result


But whether there be law emitting TO writ OF
quo wdrrdnto or not, in The OF President, |
think all parties Will agree that such law would be
CONSTITUTIONAL and u law TO provide FOR writ Of
quo would be constitutional, then IL would DO
Tor any other tribunal sitting the
place OF high tribunal under that writ to investigate
title that to say, f you devolvc that title upon
any tribunal winch you could create, and you have not
created any such tribunal You here the last
resort as the court 10 determine IT, You must 20
those duties and perform those functions ard receive
that evidence which that court could perform aud
ccvc


EFFECT OF FRAUD.


There is another consideration as to why the truth
lie LII cydcncn nj 4 LII vi