Year: 1877

every sense.


MERITS OF THE LOUISIANA CASE.


There is nothing in the Louisiana case,
a. presented by the objections prepared by
Representative FIELD and submitted to the
consideration of the Electoral Commission
by his party, that is not wholly excluded
by the decision In the case of Florida, ex-
cept the points sought to be made against
the validity Of the Returning Board, and
the competency Its action under the law
creating it; and unless there Is merit In the
objections in these respects, the electors
returned as chosen will be declared the
actual and true electors, and their votes
viii be counted as cast in the college. And
when these points are considered in the
light OF the Constitution and In accordance
with the hitherto universally received doc
trine that the laws Of the States are supreme
within the limit of their jurisdiction, and
not open to question by any other au-
thority than that Of the States affected, in
matters appertaining exclusively to their
local concerns, 1t would seem as ifthere Is no
room for two opinions in the premises.
Yet it is gravely argued that the statutes
Of Louisiana are void, because they have
given the Returning Board the judicial
power to decide the equities OF the election,
for the resson that to invest It with such
power Is to authorize the board to appoint
the electors; whereas the Constitution pro
vides that they shall be appointed by the
: Stete.


Now the Constitution provides no
such thing. The language is, that leach
State shall appoint in such manner as the
legislature thereof shall direct" IT, there.
fore, 1t were to be conceded that the legis-
lature has by Its enactments so directed
that the Returning Board has the power
to appoint the electors, then the function
is legally aud constitutionslly exercised,
and there is no right existing any where to
question or controvert its action; for under
this specific authority 1t would be compe.
tent for the legislature Of State to vest
the power Of appointing electors In any
person or persons 1t might choose to desig
nate, and the duty would be just as fully
and finally performed by such person or per.
sons as by the choice OF all its citizens at the
polls. The legislature may appoint by its
own selection or by delegated authority.
- 1t shall see fit, and its action In either case
cannot be successfully assailed; certainly
not by any power beyond its jurisdiction.
II there is any right to do this anywhere,
II IL In the courts Of the State; and when Il
ID not done there. the exercise Of the
authority delegated by the legislature Ia
conclusive upon the whole people of the
United States and upon all branches Of ths
general government.


the other objections under this head, and
efectuslly disposes Of the whole case. L
there is no authority in the Federal power
TO question the manner OF the appointment
Of the electors, so that 1t has been done La
pursuance of the direction of the State leg
islature, there is none to inquire into the
regularity Of the proceeding Of those ap
pointed to the duty. That, also. is alont
competent TO the State Judiciary. Hence
lfthe Returning Board was not composed
of the proper representatives Of parties a
the time its duties were performed, AM
this was fatal defect, and 1t has not beel
so adjudged by the Courts of Louisiana, l
Is no longer vital; and lift were otherwise
there is no way open to take advantage O
1t In the count Of the votes. They STAN
here upon the same footing, entitled to tn
same recognition and weight as like mum
Der from any other State.


But IN any case the absence of the fiftl
member provided by law could not b.
held to vitiate the action of the board
since there was q quorum without sue
member, and would have been, had ther
been still one less, aud the result Is tn
same as If the vacancy had been filled
There is no rule Of law or principle Q
equity which would have justified tn
State Court, If 1t had passed upon tn
case, in holding the action of the boar
invalid for that reason and the objec
tion now Is untenable, idle and trifling
And the same may be said of the objection
that votes were thrown out without q ba
sis Of jurisdiction for the act, 1t not bein
founded upon affldavits setting forth suffi
cient cause. But this objection falls unde
the decision in the Florida case, as 1t can
not be considered without taking evldenc,
as to the fact whether there were not an
davits Of cause before the board when tn
act was done.


We see nothing, therefore, In the Lou
isiana case that can change the genera
result; and while we do not blame tn
Democracy for making the fight, we do re
proach them with the "Punic faith" the
impute to a majority Of the Commission


THE CZAR AND THE SULTAN.


Russia has not made the great power
assemble in conference for nothing. Sh
never presented her memorandum to tn
ambassadors in spirit of mere child
nlay She has not heen concentrating he