Democratic Sentinel, Volume 1, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 November 1877 — THE PRESIDENTIAL FRAUD. [ARTICLE]

THE PRESIDENTIAL FRAUD.

An Extraordinary Letter from Judge Strong, of the United States Supreme Court. [From the New York Sun.] The Hon. William Strong, of Pennsylvania, is one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was one of the fifteen members who constituted the Electoral Commission through whose action Rutherford B. Hayes was declared to be elected President of the United States. Had Judge Strong, as a member of that commission, voted the other way, Mr. Hayes would have been excluded from the office of President. It is therefore to the vote of Judge Strong that Mr. Hayes owes his office. The commission consisted of fifteen, of whom, leaving Judge Strong in doubt, seven were for Mr. Hayes and seven were against him. The grand result depended upon the way Judge Strong should vote. Under these circumstances, and with such consequences hanging upon his vote, Judge Strong made up his mind to vote for Mr. Hayes. It now appears, however—and it appears by a letter under his own hand—that in arriving at this conclusion Judge Strong was governed by a strictly technical rule, and that, although he cast the determining vote in favor of Mr. Hayes for President, he does not believe, and never did believe, that Mr. Hayes was lawfully elected to that office I The view taken by Judge Strong was that Congress has no right to inquire into State elections for State electors; that the Electoral Commission had no more power than Congress had; and so he voted for Hayes although he feared a great wrong had been perpetrated by the Louisiana Returning Board I All this fully appears in a letter addressed by Mr. Justice Strong to an old personal friend of his, the Hon. George W. Jones, of Tennessee. This letter, being entirely upon a public question of overshadowing importance, has been forwarded to us by Mr. Jones for publication, and -we print the two letters, which are as follows, in full: Fayetteville, Tenn., Oct. 16, 1877. Hon. Charles A. Dana: Dear Sir : During the sitting of the Electoral Commie bion in Washington last winter, I wrote to Mr. Justice Strong, of the United States Supreme Court, and a member of the commission, with whom I had been associated formerly in Congress. I did not keep a copy of my letter, but, addressing him, I wrote in substance as follows :

“ When you and I were in Congress together you were a Democrat, and regarded as an honest man. Do you believe that the people of Louisiana elected or voted for the Hayes electors?” I inclose herewith a copy of Justice Strong’s letter in response to mine. If you think his letter worth publishing, you are at liberty to give it to the public. In my reply to Justice Strong’s letter I wrote : “ By the constitution of the United States it is provided that Presidential electors shall be appointed in such manner as shall be prescribed by the State Legislatures ; but the returns of the electoral votes are to be returned to the President of the Senate, and shall be opened in the presence of the two houses of Congress, and be then counted. Congress clearly has the right to inquire and determine whether or not the electors of the several States had been appointed in the manner prescribed by their respective States.” I never write secrets nor keep copies of the letters I write. And Ido not believe that the official acts of public servants and the reasons for their acts should be regarded as private and secret. Very respectfully yours, G. W. Jones. Washington, Feb. 26, 1877. The Hon. George W. Jones: My Dear Sir : I was a Democrat when you and I were together in Congress. lam a Democrat now. I hold to all the opinions the State-Rights Democrats have always held, and which the acknowledged leaders of the party have avowed up to the present winter —never more clearly than in 1873 to 1875. I do not believe that Congress has any constitutional right to inquire into State elections for State electors. Congress has, of late years, interfered quite too much with the States. The Electoral Commission has no more power than Congress has. and I think it would be a most dangerous usurpation were it to do what the States alone have a right to do, even to cure what I fear was a great wrong of the Louisiana Returning Board. I can not doubt that such will be your opinion when you reflect to what the assertion of such a power would lead. It would place the right of the States, respecting the choice of electors, at the mercy of the Federal Government, and be the greatest stride ever made towards centralization. Better suffer a present evil than open such a door, better than abandon all the time-honored principles of the Democratic party. I am yours, very respectfully, W. Strong. The letter of Judge Strong is in one sense very creditable to him. It shows that he acted from conviction. We can not give our assent to the correctness of his conclusion, but we can understand that his view is one which might be honestly taken by a technical lawyer, not much addicted to equity and to going to the bottom of things. The great and momentous fact which appears from the correspondence, and w hich presses itself, by its gigantic magnitude upon the serious consideration of the whole country, is that Rutherford B. Hayes occupies the office of President of the United States by force of the vote of a man who doesn’t believe he was legally elected. From this conclusion there is no escape. It stands forth now, and will stand forever, as an historical fact, established by conclusive and unquestionable evidence. To urge that every other vote in the Electoral Commission had the same potency as that of Judge Strong does not all detract from the strength of our argument. Conceding that, because it is undeniable, the stubborn fact still remains that without Judge Strong the members of the commission were equally divided, and that if Mr. Hayes had not received the vote of this member of the commission, who did not believe he was legally elected, he would never have been declared President. Evidence Against the Louisiana Returning Board. [From the New Orleans Times.] Soon after the information against the members of the late Returning Board was filed, the Times made the statement that the original returns of the parish of Vernon were not in this city, but were in possession of David Dudley Field, who managed Tilden’s case in Congress. It seems that the returns of that parish were never in the possession of the present State authorities. In fact, STI of the evidence relating to the altering and forging of the Vernon parish returns was collected by an agent of Mr. Tilden, under the direction of Col. Pelton, Mr. Tilden’s Private Secretary. The authorities here, as far as can be gathered, knew nothing of Littlefield or his evidence, or the manner in which the return of Vernon had been tampered with, until Littlefield appeared pei'ore the committee fit Washington. Yesterday ex-Gov. WicKlifife from New

York, where he had been for the purpose of getting these original returns of Vernon parish. He succeeded in getting them, and they now are under lock and key, in the safe of the St. Charles Hotel. Gov. Wickliffe executed his mission very quietly, and his return to this city was perhaps the first intimation to the public that he had been engaged in looking after these returns. Of course it would hjve been impossible to have proceeded with the tnal without them, and it is reasonable to suppose that the delay in arraigning the accused parties was caus’d by the absence of the evidence, since it is hardly probable that the Attorney General cared to have them plead to the charge against them until he was sure of his ability to proceed with the case. It seems that Gov. Wickliffe had some difficulty in securing the returns, not because there was any objection to give them up, but because Mr. Field had permitted them to pass out of his keeping, and it was only after diligent search and inquiry that they were discovered. Gov. Wickliffe succeeded in getting them, however, and it is not probable that they will be lost sight of until the trial is over. The returns show very clearly that they have been altered. Originally they showed 400 Democratic and two Republican votes. The alteration makes the returns show 149 Republican votes. It was said when the change was first noticed that it had been made for the purpose of assisting one of Wells’ cronies, who was a candidate in the district of which Vernon parish forms a part. Gov. Wickliffe expresses the opinion that with these returns no great difficulty ought to be experienced in securing a successful prosecution.