Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 43, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 November 1883 — THE OLD FRAUD. [ARTICLE]

THE OLD FRAUD.

Interesting Contribution to t ie History of an Old Republican Swindle. The New York correspondent of the Chicago Herald makes a contribution to the history of the Electoral Commission. It contains a number of interesting facts. We give a few extracts: ******* “I know that Mr. Davis has one of the loftiest characters ever known in American public life, accompanied by great mental power rand individuality. I well remember studying his countenance one night. It was a Sundav'evening shortly after the inauguration, at a little old-fashioned tea party fiven bv a Western Senator. Udge Davis requested Mr. Payne, of Ohio, to tell him his views of the whole case, and Mr.. Payne complied at some length. I can quote him scarcely at all, but one thing he said impressed me deeply. It was: “The counsel on the Democratic side made a bad blunder in the case of Louisiana. They should have never asked for acceptance of the Democratic electors from that State; but they should have demanded the throwing out of the entire vote of the State, as tainted by fraud, wrong, and irregularity. There was precedent for this, and it wo’d lave accorded exactly with tie best interpretation of constitutional law. It is the State’s privilege to cast, ascertain, and certify to Congress her vote for the Federal President; her vote when properly ascertain ed and forwarded, is entitled to be counted. But when a State sends to. Congress not one set of ballots, but two; when two rival parties claim to be the electors, neither with all their credential s in regular form, when the whole ©lection in that State, and the canvassing of its vote, has been tainted by lawlessness,(frauds, briberies, irregularities—when a State so loosely governs her affairs as to drift into such a deplorable situation —her votes should be excluded altogether. If she can not send up to Washington what Congress could safely accept as an accurate, regular, untaiuted record of the results of her balloting, she should be kept out altogether. “‘This,’ continued Mr. Payne ‘was the case in the State of Leuisiana. There were charges and counter charges in the evidence which counsel desired to offer. Such had been the conduct of the election, and of the canvass, that I doubt if any man living can tell what the actual result of the election was. There was no such certification of the result as the Government was bound to accept; and it was clear to all that the returns more nearly regular were born in the greatest irregularity and fraud,— under these circumstances the vote of the State should have been excluded entirely. Florida might have been served in the same way, and possibly South Carolina, but the Louisana case was the most flagrant. “This is only an imperfect fragment of Mr. Payne’s remarks on. this feature of the case, and as he reached the depth of the muddle and made it as clear as daylight by his masterly interpretations of law and removal of apparent obstacles, I closely studied Judge Davis’ face. He said scarcely a word, and not long after Mr. Pay in* had sh islied the conversation changed to another subject: but I am as well satisfied as I live that Mr. Davis agreed with Mr. Payne, and that if he had been sitting in Mr. Bradley’s seat on the commission Mr. Tilden, and not Mr. Hayes, would have beenjinaugurated.” ******* “As I ha¥e : Said before,” Confirm pd .1- o- > CAii Cto U. vjLXv Oi.fcJu.ojl, CJLiO UXi.O>

uncertainty of the Electoral Commission at the beginning was the position of Justice Bradley. I do not believe it was expected, either in the Commission or outside of it, that any of the fourteen socalled political members wo’d vote any other way than with their party on all occasions.— It was tacitly understood that Justice Bradley was the balance of power. But it was early to be seen that Mr. Bradley was almost as partisan as any of the rest of them. When the Florida case came up he promptly voted with the Republicans on the main question. the test question, which eventually settled the whole matter in Hayes’ favor. Our only hope then was to throw out an ineligible Hayes elector. When the question was raised as to Humphries, the Federal office holder and ineligible Hayes elector, a vote was taken as to whether evidence of eligibility should be admitted, Mr. Bradley voted with us, and when we adjourned for the night there was some hope he would vote with the Democrats Jo exclude Humphries’ ballot on the ground of his constitutional ineligibility when he should reach the question the next day. * r “Some of us had noticed for some time the strong influence which Justice Miller exerted over Justice Bradley. Miller was a man of great individuality, strength of mind, and personal magnetism. That he made a studious, earnest effort to influence Bradley’s mind, to obtain a sort of mesmeric control over him, was apparent to the observing. I feared Miller’s influence, and, therefore, was not as hopeful as some of my colleagues. As I was leaving my rooms next morning to go to the Supreme Court Chamber, a friend said to me: ‘You are gone up.’ What do you mean?’ I inquired. ‘Well, I was about a little last night. Somebody spent the evening with somebody, and you are gone up.’ It flashed thro’ my mind that Justice Miller’s influence over Justice Bradley had some connection with what my friend had said, tho’ to what extent, if any, was then and still is a matter es surmise. The effect on my mind was such that when I reached the Chamber I was not in a good humor. “There I found that Justice Miller was in favor of taking a vote on Humphries’ eligibility alone, without waiting to hea. arguments by counsel.— As this confirmed my previous suspicions, I rather warmly objected. In stating my objections I said I realized that one Commissioner was perhaps the only one whose opinions argument could effect; but I was in favor of giving this one Commissioner all the opportunity possible to gather information and meet his great responsibility in the most pains taking manner, and that I did not see the propriety in any one Commissioner attempting to force his brother into conclusion without the assistance of the arguments and citations of counsel. Justice Miller made reply, in which he objected to have Commissioner Bradley singled out as the one of us all whom argument could reach. Justices Clifford, Strong Fields and himself were in no different positionjfrom Justice Bradley. He thought it a waste of time and a vote might as well be taken at once, orat least without calling in counsel. ‘•To me this impatience to proceed to a vote, coming from Justice Miller, was particularly irritating, and I again spoke in favor of extended argument, both by counsel in public session and by ourselves in privacy. I fear I bore down rather hard on brother Miller, even intimating the obviousness of his attempt Justice

Biadlej under his kind tutellage, and his possible eagerness to proceed immediately because he feared the effect, of enlightenment upon the mind of ills protege. Of eourse, my wards were not so broad as these, but were in this vein; and botn Miller aDd myself spoke wilh sufficient warmth to ca ise this incident to be referica to by our colleagues as the only unpleasant ons of all our gions“Of course I am not at liberty to tell you anything of our secret sea gions—perhaps I have said t >o much already. But I wish to add one more incident, and then 1 am doi.e. If was just at the el >se of our business, and Hayes.was to be President. I was sitting i r one of the S ipreme Court chairs, when Justice Miller, happy and smiling over the result, canue up. and placing bis aim along the back of my scat said: “ Well. Brother , our work is done, and I am glad to say it is my firm oeliof that one of u. yoted on every oceasiou just as his conviction and best judgment directed.’ “‘Brother Miller,’ said I,.‘there is one question I want to ask you before I assent to that proposition, and li you will answer tt in the afflimative I will agree with you In what you have just srtiid.’ “•What is it?’ “‘Are you prepared to declare tna|, in case the Presidency of the United States had not depended on our decisions, the votes would tmve a been all the time as they were?’ “He admitted that be ceuld not so declare, and I said: ‘That is a great admission for you to make, and I think we have never met since.