Year: 1877

| ders q service of some historical Vaiue py
| publishing private letter Of one OF It's
members written at the time. Whatever
may be thought Of the conduct OF the re-
ceiver Of the letter in sending IL to news
paper without the consent Of the writer,
Judge Strong has no reason to blush at It's
publication. The language ofthe letter JUS
titles the Interpretation put upon it by the
S,p, that Judge Strong had no faith III the
honesty of the Louisiana Returning Board
when he voted to give that State to Hayes
but we are far enough from indorsing
the conclusion of our contemporary that
..this fresh and startling evidence imposes
q new and solemn duty upon Congress. The
House of Representatives should raise q
committee to inquire into the legality OF the
election of Rutherford b. Hayes This COM
mittee should have the customary power to
send for persons and papers. With the
statement Of Judge Strong added to the other
accessible evidence it would be settled be-
yond cavil in an official proceeding that Mr..
Hayes is not and never has been President
by right" That readers may have the whole
case before them we insert Judge Strongs
letter.


wAsuIsorox. Feb 2e. 1877.
Tho Hon CEoRGs W. Joxgs:-


Ny DEAR slR-I was democrat when you and
were together IN Congress I am democrat now
hold TO all opinions The State rights democrats
have always hold and which the acknowledged leaders
Of tho party have avo~ed up to tue present winter
never more clearly shan in 1873 70 1878.


do not believe that Congress has any constitu-
tional right 20 inquire into State elections 'or s'a'o
electors


Congress has OF late years nsrered quito too much
moro power than Congress has, and think II would
be u most dangerous usurpation were u 10 do wnat
the States alone have rgbt TO do even 10 cure what
tear was great wrong OF she Louisiana Returning
Board.


cannot doubt that such will be your opinion when
you reflect 10 what tho assertion OF such power
would lead IL would place tho right OF tho States re-
specting the choice OF electors at tho mercy OF the
federal government, and be tne greatest strluc ever
made toward Capitalization.


Better suffer present evil than open such door;
OF the democratic party hn yours very respect
FULLY, W. olRoNG'


1t is preposterous to contend that this
letter furnishes a decent pretext, much less
Justification, for reopening the question
of President Hayes title. If Judge Strong
was correct in holding that Congress had
no authority to 60 behind the returns and
investigate the election Mr.. Hayes title is
unassailable on any legal ground. We have
noticed that Mr.. Tilden and his noisy
champions are prudently shy Of discussing
this point, although it is the very hinge OF
the controversy. If Judge Strong is right
on this point there was no flaw in the action
of the Electoral Commission. Why, then,
do not the declaimers who spout SO much
frothy denunciation attempt to refute the
~ .I, 1o- - La1,
ruary rested? II that principle be the true
theory Of the constitution the Electoral
Commission could not have decided other
wise than it did Its action admits Of q
complete defence unless the principle by
which it's majority was guided can be over
thrown by legitimate argument. We think
it exposed to fewer constitutional and fewer
practical. objections than any other theory
which has been broached on this difficult
subject


The question would not be difficult if we
could divest ourselves Of the ideas Of this
age respecting popular elections, which are
so different from those which prevailed at
the adoption Of the constitution. That was
not period Of universal suffrage, and the
trainers Of the constitution had no intention
that the President should be elected by
majority Of the popular vote. The mode of
choosing Presidential electors is not subject
to review in any form by the federal govern
ment or by any branch of it. They are to be
appointed in each State ''in such manner
as the Legislature thereof may di-
-. ,t,,%;o II
for Legislature to appoint them
itself without any popular vote at all, and
this was, in fact, done by several Of the
States at first, and one of them-South
Carolina-had not relinduished the practice
down to the time Of the civil war. All the
Legislatures could return to that method
without violating the constitution, although
it would shock and outrage our present
ideas of popular rights. 1t is too clear for
dispute that Presidential election is not
invalidated by the fact that tho electors in
any State or any number Of States were not
chosen by o popular maj jority. 1t suffices
that they were chosen in such a manner as
the Legislature for the time being directed.


AS to the power of Congress to inquire
into and determine the choice of Presi-
Dental electors, it is clear that no such
power is conferred by the constitution.
Nobody has ever attempted to prove that it
is, except by roundabout and strained in
ferences. There is, indeed, authority to go
behind tho election returns of q State in
relation to certain officers, but all such
cases are carefully defined. each House
shall be the judge of the elections, returns
and qualifications of its own members.
But there is no similar provision relating
to Presidential electors. No authority is
anywhere given TO judge Of their elections,
returns and qualifications, and the decision
Of tho State authorities thereon is final
Congress has authority to make or alter
regulations for the election OF Senator'S and
Representatives, but no shadow Of authority
RI nrccrriho or modify the mode of npnoipf