Democratic Sentinel, Volume 1, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 November 1877 — A BLOW BETWEEN THE EYES. [ARTICLE]

A BLOW BETWEEN THE EYES.

In the Sentinel of July 13th we publi hed a letter of Judge Jere Black reviewing the action of the 8 to 7 Electoral Commission Tti the la t North American Review, E. W. Stoughton, one of Hayes’ counsel before the electoral commission, and late appoin «• tee to the Russian court, attempts a reply. We regret that that we have neither time nor space to copy the retort of Judge B. iu full, and must therefore content ourself with the extracts given below. The Judge begins by telling the gentleman that if th* re is any defense of the gieat fraud he is not the person to make it, and after dealing him a blow for using abusive language in his argument, tells him that he will give some reasons for his opinion, and take the chances of making him comprehend them. In relation to an acquesence in the decision of the commission lie says: We cO’tdd not refuse to abide by the award without being guilty of bad faith. We do not now assert the in justice of it with any view to reverse or modify it. You need not fear the stability of that award, however iniquitous you may know it to be. You can enjoy its fruits in perfect security, and we the people will on our part “perform the vows which we have vowed before the Lord,” however much it may be “to our own hurl.” But to acquiesce without a protest -to * onfess tacitly that the wrong is right and th« evil a good- that is out of the question. In discussing the whole subject with great plainness of speech; we not only obey an impulse, but perform a duty.

It may be that we ought not to have spoken out in h irshteinis of e< nsuii, or said anything to disturb the sere; - it.V of the knaves who did us thi- ter- I lible injustice lint if you ate not 1 altogether blind you must see that ! this was, in our situation, ship ly im- j possible. Here was a great na ion | which had suffered by misgovei nment t more than any other under the sun— ; her property taxed almost to conlis- ' < ation —her industry crushed to the , ' arth—her public domain squandered ; away—her best citizens starving by I tie hundred thousand in the midst of 1 the plenty which their own 1 ad produced, while corruption wa reve - mg in high places and fattening on i the general distress. The people de - I termined to reform the adnrmistra- | lion of their public affairs,and restore I heir own prosperity by choosing rid- ' era whom they could trust for that j purpose. They expressed their will j to that effect legally, constitutionally and peacefully, and they were defeated by an impudent swindle. Is it any wonder that the great heart of the emocraey swelled with indignation? Even if their feelings Mund vent in language too passionate, you ought to remember, with Burke, that, “something must be pardoned to the spirit of liberty.” We invite particular attention to points given below jon a very vital question upon which the radical press is constantly misleading, viz: th t the commissioners had no right to go b< - hind the returns.’ The statement of ■ lie case is clear, unequivocal, miff latic, and cannot be controverted. Judge . lack says: The eight commissioners and the counsel on their s.de tried to frame a weak excuse for this dereliction of duty by reasoning thus; Congress gave the commission no power but what the two houses might have exercised themselves; tile two houses had no authority to revise ejection returns from any state; ez-j/o, the commission must receive a false, fraudulent and void certificate as if it were a real return, true and valid. In this .syllogism, the premises, mojor and nunor are unsound,and the conclusion is a non sequitur. Congress /ms power, clear and unquestionable, not ro revise the action of the state authorities for the purpose of correcting their mere errors, but to ascertain whether ft paper pretending to be a return is a real return or a fraud. If the two houses are to count the votes i hey must have the verifying power which enables them to determine what tire votes and what are not. A fraud or a forgery is not a vote. This verifying power was delegated to the .ommissiou with directions to ascertain by it who were duly appointed, ihe majority did not decline to < x r »dse the power; they assumed ii, took it and executed it, but they misused, and abused it so as not to verily, but io falsify the vote. WHAT THE EIGHT COMMISSIONERS DID. The electoral commission was constituted with authority clearly defined to determine a ceriain controverted matter of fact,to-wit: Whether Kellogg and his seven associates had been duly appointed electors by the people of Louisiana or not. To fliamtain the affirmative side ol that issue, t he certificate of the returning board was alone relied upon. The eight commissioners, against the solemn protest of their seven brethren, accepted that certificate, and held it to be good, nay conclusive, proof of th 3 fact averred, although it was, and thev knew it to be, not only tainted, but aturated through and through with the most, atrocious fraud, and therefore as corrupt in morals ami as void in law as the nukedest forgery that ever was made. Thus it came to pass that this great cause, involving the title to the. highest office in the republic, was determined falsely upon evidence which no justice of the peace would receive iu a suit for the price of two sheep. In one of the regular courts of tie country, upon a trial for land or money, the mere offer of such evidence by counsel, knowing its real ebaiacter, would be extremely dangerous. lj would not only be rejected, but the guilty counselor would be punished, uot in the same way (for there is a technical difference), but. on the same principle that courts punish the utterance of counterfeit money. To pollute the administration of justice by passing false and fraudulent documents upon a court is, indeed, very much worse than “shoving the queer” upon a shop-keeper Of course the wicKedness of all this depends on the scienter. Involuntary ignorance would no an excuse. But ine corrupt character of this certill cate was known to all the world, and being a public fact thejcommlssioners as well as everybody else wore bound to know it; besides that the evidence was exhibited to their eyes; iheir rejection of it assumed it to be true: and they expressly ruled that no proof of fraud, however clear, would diminish the value of the false paper

in their estimation. So far as lam informed they have never pretended to be ignorant of the fact that this vote was the offspring of a fraudulent conspiracy nor have they denied the E w which makes it void for that reason. There is. therefore, nothing for it Hit to leave their reputation for judicial integrity, as Bacon left his; ’’To foieign countries, to fufure ages, and to men’s charitable speeches." Stoughton will not desire to provoke another retort from Judge Jere Black.