Year: 1877




The decision of the Electoral Commission
between the contestants to heelectoral votes
of the States of Florida and Louisiana is just
and polite. 1t is a decision which will grow
more and more in favor as time consumes the
rage of the disappointed and the exutation
of the victors. The future will show its wis
dom. The Democrats themselves, who now
so bitterly condemn the eight, will before
many years have passed acknowledge that
the eight pursued the wisest course open to
them, and will seriously question the wisdom
of the seven who have committed themselves
to broader doctrine of federal interference
with State affairs than was ever entertained
by the most enthusiastic of Hamilton's disci-
Piles. Even those who believe that the Com
mission by going behind the certificates and
returns might in these particular cases have
effected more exact justice will come to &C.
knowledge that the precedent thus set would
have been dangerous one and productive of
great evils in the future.


Had the course advised by the Democratic
members of the Commission been taken, and
an investigation into the elections of these
two Southern States prosecuted, it is possible
that the intention of the majority of the vot-
ers of Florida and Louisiana might have been
accurately ascertained. But it is not probable.
On each side there would have been host
OF witnesses, the one quite as worthy OF Gre
dence as the other, and the belief of men
would have been given where their sympa-
thies were. There would have been the same
difference of opinion there is now, and the
final decision would have been as reluctantly
accepted by the beaten party as is the decision
of the Commission to-day. The Republicans
certainly had nothing to fear, for an investi-
CATION would have demonstrated a state of
affairs that amply justified the action
of the returning boards. and would
have greatly strengthened in the apprehen-
sion of the non-partisan portion of the COM
munity the claim of the Republican cand:-
dates. But the Democracy would have re-
fused to believe testimony that makes against
their claim. and the condition of affairs would
be much as it is now.


Weighing the possible good and the great
and certain evil to come from an investiga-
ton into the elections in the disputed States
majority of the Commission decided not to
go behind the regular and duly authenticated
certificates. The decision is not a surprise, for
it is difficult to see how they could have done
otherwise. There are grave doubts as to the
right of Congress, doubts which attach as
strongly to the right of its representative, the
Commission, to reverse declaration of vote
made by the lawfully constituted authorities
OF State in accordance with the return of a
legal canvassing board. Such interference in
time of peace would be more deadly blow
at the reserved rights of the States than any
ever contemplated by the most pronounced
Federalist. As to the expedency of such
interference there is no doubt 1t would be
most dangerous precedent. 1t would in all
coming elections excuse if not justify the re-
versal of the vote of State whenever that
vote was unacceptable to the party majority
in Congress. 1t would make of Congress
national returning board, and that body
would determine the election of President
as it determines contest for one of its own
seats, in favor of the candidate who repre-.
sented the political views of the majority
OF its members. Elections would no longer
elect. They would become informal votes to
which Congress would pay as much or as
little attention as it pleased. The determine
tion of the incumbency of the executive
chair would be taken from the majority Of
the people and assumed by the majority of
Congress. The President would no longer
be elected in November, but in February.
Then too the Commission believed that it
was formed to decide the question before the
Fourth of March and that would have been
impossible had it gone behind certificates and
taken evidence. 1t did not regard itself as a
contrivance to bring about another election.
1t is evident however that the Democrats
looked upon 1t as such contrivance; and
they claim that they have been cheated be-
cause it was not.


The decision of the majority of the Com
mission was not surprise. The vote OF the
minority was. The country was not pre-
pared to see men renounce principle which
was the very foundation of their political
creed, a principle to which they were so
heartily devoted that less than score ol
years ago they were willing to sacrifice the
Union for its preservation. That group ol
representative Democrats, selected because oi
their pre-eminent position in the party and
fully empowered TO voice its sentiments,
would deliberately and in form as we'll as sub.
stance surrender the dogma of state sover'
eighty, and subscribe to the most latitudina
ran construction of the constitution, was out
of the range of all anticipation. 1t was not
thought possible that the bright prospect o
four years possession of power could so dazzle
and entitled 10 the credit of acting according
to their convictions-as to lead them to aban
don the vital doctrine of their political belief
1t was with abundant reason supposed tha
they would perceive that with the surrender
OF State rights the Democratic party loses it
only excuse for beng. 1t was believed tina
they would sooner submit for brief time tt
what they regarded as a wrong than seek t.
establish precedent which might work cur
for temporary evil but which would sure
in the end work incalculable harm TO th
federal system. 1t was not for momen
held to be possible that these men woul
abandon the principles they have always pro
'essed and plead as excuse Republican prece
dents that they have always condemned. Il
stress of war and in the troublous times whicl
followed the suppression of great rebellion
the Republican party ventured upon some e1
| traordinary measures which only an extraord


nary situation and the pressing necessity of re
organizing governments and societies whic


war had thoroughly disorganized coul
| justify. Those measures were unsparingl


condemned by the Democracy so long as the


were necessary. They are as enthusasticall


endorsed now that they have become unne'


essary. But this spectacle of Democrat


Inconsistency is not novel though it is


striking one. The Democratic party ha


often before advocated peace measures il


time Of war and war measures in time


peace. When strict construction OF th


constitution seemed to permit disunion 1t Wa
Il oA.s