Year: 1876

the Presidential election. They are not to be
be set aside in any case without solid rea-
sons, but the progress Of discussion has
brought the public mind to pretty general
assent to the necessity of going behind sus-
pected official declarations and ascertaining
their character. The Senate has agreed to this
as well MS the House by appointing COM
mittee of its own to investigate the vote Of
Louisiana Such an investigation is idle if
no use can be made of the evidence after it
is obtained. Why should time be wasted
and money spent in collecting irrelevant
facts if the action of the Louisiana Return
ing Board is conclusive and there is no au-
thority to go behind it? The appointment
ofthis committee by the republican Senate is
retreat from the position assumed by so many
public men and journals of that party as to
the finality Of the mere certificates. 1t is
now pretty well agreed that they are not to
be counted whether or no." They will not
good evidence to be false and fraudulent.
This is q concession which the republican
Senators were bound to make on principles
of honor and morals, and because they could
not expect to retain public confidence if
they evinced willingness to shield fraud
from detection.


1t by no means follows because gross
frauds have been charged that they will be
established by incontestable proofs. But
when such charges are made with any color
of probability they ought to be Investigated,
for the vindication of innocence and the
for the redress of injustice if they are true.
Even the Louisiana Returning Board itself
cannot complain that mere certificates are
not to be held conclusive, having itself
acted SO largely on that principle. BY
the certificates they were called to examine
Mr.. Tilden had majority of about seven
thousand in the State, and they rejected suf-
ficient number to give Hayes q majority of
about three, thousand. On what principle
did thsy throw out ten thousand votes certi-
fed to have been cast for the Tilden electors
Itwas on the principle that victory obtained
by dishonest means ought to be subverted.
If this be sound rule it is as proper to
apply it to them as to the local returning
officers whose certificates they refused to
accept. They cannot consistently object to
having their own conduct subjected to the
same kind of scrutiny which they practised
respecting the conduct of others.


1t cannot very well be disputed that there
is sufficient ground Of suspicion not merely
to justify but to require thorough investi-
cation. All the local election officers in
Louisiana we're republicans. How could it
have happened that these republican
officers made. against their party bias,
returns which gave Tilden the State
by seven thousand majority, when, in
fact, it was carried by Hayes by
majority nearly half as large? Had the
returns come from democratic officers the
whole ale rejections would have been more
officers to make false returns in the interest
of their political opponents? The ordinary
presumption would be that Mr.. Tilden had
carried the State when the certificates of
republican returning officers gave him large
majority. Another ground of suspicion is





threw out ten thousand Tilden votes was
composed entirely of republicans. The law
of the State requires that it shall consist of
members Of both parties. There was one
vacancy, which the Board ought to have
filed with democrat. They failed to do
went through the form of voting to fill the
vacancy, but in every trial it happened by
a suspicious accident that two of the re-
publican members voted for and the
other two against every candidate, thus
causing tic and defeating On cleo
ton. This looks too much like a
preconcerted and factious series of dis
agreements with settled purpose to
prevent any democratic representation in
the Board. If it was really necessary to
reject ten thousand democratic votes re-
turned by republican election officers an
honest Board would naturally have desired
the presence of political opponent for
their own protection and MS witness Of
their fairness. The critical part of the ac-
ton of the Board was done in secret. with
nobody present to protest or to report what
they did or why. No reason which was
assigned or word which was spoken
in that secret conclave had any wit
ness who was not also an accomplice
if any part of their action was fraudulent
They had public sessions and executive ses-
sions at which witnesses were present; but
they had also secret sessions, and it was in
one OF these last that the final result was
made up on grounds veiled from public
scrutiny. This is not the way in which
honorable men should choose to conduct so
delicate business. The failure to comply
with the law and ill the vacancy in
the Board with democrat and the
exclusion of all spectators from their
final meeting may possibly be consistent
with honest intentions, but men who net in