Year: 1877




=


4 Specimen Of Mr.. David DndIey


Fields Argument.


Before the electoral tribunal on Friday
Mr.. Field said: .......


There Is no pretencc that the true and
lawful vote OF the State OF Florida was not
given for the Tilden electors, but the sole
prctcNt is that the truth cannot be proved
as against the certificate OF Stearns. That
truth is rolled up and concealed in that GER
tfcate, and Congress, whether acting
in separate houses or joint house. cannot
consider any act which is certified by
StearnS. You may ask, in the first place, upon
what foundation that is you are told that
Won are to take that certificate as conclusive
evidence against everything that could be
proved on the other side. BY what rule Of
cvidcnce-bv what doctrine OF law-are you
deprived OF the right to examine into the
truth? Is it not universal rule that
every Judge is invested er neceSSitdte with
power to take all pertinent evidence in
respect to facts upon which his Judgment is
70 be pronounced, unless there be some
positive law declaring that certain certificates
or other documentary evidence shall be con-
elusive? "Show me-" said Mr.. Field, "thc
positive law which makes the certificate OF





it," 1t is not in the Constitution, that is
certain; it is not in the laws OF the State OF
Florida. that is certain. Is it in any law Of
Congress! The only law / know Of bear
ing on it is the act Of 1892, reenacted in the
Revised Statutes, which states that the EX-
ccutive of the State shall deliver 10 the cleo
tors a certificate that they are electors, but
II does not. state that it shall be the truth.
Suppose offer to prove that a certificate is
wholly false and fabricated for the purpose
Of cheating. Take one OF the oldest and
proudest OF States Of this Union, the State
Of Massachusetts,, OF which my friend Mr..
Commissioner Abbott is so worthy repre-
sentative. Suppose that the honored Gov
ernor OF that State should become so
debased and fallen as to certify that
in the recent election the Tildcn and
Hendricks electors had received majo
ity OF the votes Of the people OF Massachu-
sets. Does any man mean to tell me that
YOU cannot prove that certificate to be false!
Where is the law to support such q state
mcnt? Nay, more. Ii an act OF Congress
had declared that that certificate should be
conclusive. that act would be unconstitu-
tional, aud for this reason the Constitution
declares or asserts that the person having
the highest number Of votes shall be Presi-
dcDt-not the person declared to have the
hiqheSt number of votes. You cannot,
therefore, manufacture a certificate to take
from the person actually having the highest
number Of votes such rights as he is entitled
TO by these votes, and if you wcrc by an
act Of Congress, TO declare in the most posi-
tive terms that the certificate OF the Gov
crnor should be conclusive against all proof,
YOU would transcend the limits Of organic
law. You cannot say that the certificate
OF the Governor OF Massachusetts,, for
example, should override the votes OF the
electors OF Massachusetts,. You could not
do 30 if you would, and ! am sure you
would not if you could. The language OF
the act of Congress is not as strong rs the
language of State law generally as to the
canvass Of votes. Take the case Of Wis
conS:n. There law Of the State had de-
clared that the State canvaSsers should de-
termine, certify, and declare the result
should declare who was Governor. A man
got into the office Of Governor upon such
certificate declaring that he was elected. A
rival claimant brought up the case upon
writ Of quo ,cdrranto. The first party had
his position and claims advocated by the
ablest counsel OF the State OF Wisconsin.
His argument was: You cannot inquire
into the case, because the certificate Of the
State canyassers is conclusive. "No," says
the Court, in an opinion which does them
immortal honor, and which will remain a
living monument OF the patriotism Of that
Court and its indeXible determination Of
purpose as long rs the report shall last.
"The title OF the Governor depends upon
the uotes of the people, upon those little
ballots placed in ballot-boXes declaring the
supreme will of the people. 1t is not who
shall be certified by board Of canvassers.
but who have been Uoted for by the people"
The Court declared that the claimant was
entitled to the Office, and it elected the
usurping Governor. What is this commits
sicn to do: 1t is to declare whether any
and what votes are votes provided by the
Constitution, not to declare what are those
votes certified by Governor Stearns. You
are to certify what are the lawful votes
upon which a President OF forty-tve mil
lions Of people is to be declared elected and
to be inducted into Office. Is it not implied
that writ Of quo zraTTanto to try the title
OF the President Of the United States is
within the puryiew OF the Constitution?
Can anybody doubt it! The Constitution
has declared that the person having the
highest number OF votes shall be Presi-
dent; not the person certified to. 1t has not
invested any tribunal with exclusive power.
No matter how determined by any
preliminary authority, there still remains
the rignt 10 enact a law giving the rlShC 10
the exercise Of writ OF quo loarranto. No
such law exists, / am sorry to say, and if
might be permitted to say SO, it ought to
exist. / ought not to say, perhaps, but
must say it in truth, that it is no small re-
proach to craftsmanship that for one hun
dred years no law has been provided to
meet the emergency with which we are now
brought face to face. know that one emil
nent member OF this commission Senator
Morton) has labored assiduolsly and zeal
ously to have such a law passed, and OF all
the titles to which he can ever lay claim for
respect, l am sure that that will be reinem-
bered hereafter to his honor, and after tie
struggles OF the passing hour have closed,
when the time shall come when men may
look at his grave, they will not remember
hun by the contest in which he was en-
gagged, but rather that in the service OF his
country be hbored, although hitherto
unayaiiingly, to achieve o beneficial
result. But whether there be law en-
tit'ing to writ OF quo aoarTanto or not in
the case OF President, think all parties
will agree thet such a law would be consti-
tutionai and il law to provide for writ
OF quo acarranto would be constitutional,
then it is constitutional sor any other tri-