Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 26, Number 26, Indianapolis, Marion County, 14 February 1877 — Page 9

S TJ IF IF Xj IE IMI ZE3 3ST. T

THE DECISION OF THE FIFTEEN. . Fnll Report of the Great Setret Region. ' By Telegraph to the Sentinel. " . "Washington, Feb. 7. The first decision ' has been reached by the final tribunal, and for various easons it is not one over which the democrats can rejoice. It is difficult to understand at a distance just what is the exact force and effect of this decision ' without some inside knowledge of how it was reached, and in order to snpply this I will .narrate briefly what passed in the recent session. ' WHAT WAS DOE IX SECRET. On assembling yesterday there were some moments of. profound silence, all present seeming . to fully realize the great responsibility of the occasion. THE FIRST SPEECH. The first to speak was Senator Edmunds, -who took the republican ground, , maintaining the principle that the commission could not revise what had been done by the state . board. THCRMAS'S SPEECH. Senator Thurroan followed in a long discussion, of the equity involved, insisting that the commission had full power to inquire whether the results reached were justified by the facts. ' THET ALL TAKE A HAND.' Speeches were then made in turn by Sen ators Morton, Frelinghuysen and Bayard. The same programme was then gone through with by representatives Hoar, Hunton, Payner Abbott and Garfield, in the order named, and all as had been eipected were still partisan in complexion. THE JCSTICES' OPIMOX6. Then the justices submitted their views. Judge Field took the broad ground, in a briefly written decision, that the evidence of fraud should certainly be f uxnish?d ana received. A POLITICAL HARANGCE. Justice Miller followed in rather more of a political harangue than a legal decision. Justices Strong and Bradley, who had hitherto preserved discreet silence, now showed that they agreed substantially with the arguments advanced by Stanley Matthews, viz.: That it was not competent to inquire beyond what had been performed by the canvassing board. TRTI5G TO TEST THE QUESTION. This interchange of views being over the members proceeded at once to attempt some agreement in order to test the question. Senator Thurmau submitted a resolution declaring it competent to receive all testimony relating to a fair conduct and accurate result of the election. This was defeated by a strict partisan vote, Justice Bradley joining with the republican?. JUSTICE MILLER'S RESOLUTION. After some pau.se Justice Miller then presented what was acted upon favorably and has now become a definite criterion by which the tribunal will be governed. jcige euadley's reasons for voting. Before casting his vote Justice 'Bradley, feeling that millions of people were entrusting their interest to him, explained that he must object to the admissibility of the evidence first asked for by the democrats, for two reasons; first, because it was not competent for the commission to go behind the actions of the state authorities; and second, because the canvassing board of Florida had been vested with judicial power by the legislature, and the commission could not revise its acts. The language of his protest is not generally known yet, but it will be ob- . served that such ruling may possibly, though not necessarily, result in disastrous partisan decisions from him hereafter. If fliese reasons are sufficient in law, according to his judgment, to stop the commision from inquiring into the correctness of the canvass made by the returning board in Florida, why may not the returning board of Louisiana, with all its infamies, receive a similar indorsement? TWO SIDES TO THE OUTLOOK. There are, however, two sides to the outlook and actual present status of things. This ruling admits all three certificates from Florida n perfect equality, together with the papers an 1 documents accompanying them, but excludes the protests as formally presented by both sides in the joint contention, including the democratic investigating .committee's report on that state. TtZ DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. . Hajes certificates . are entirely unsupported. The Tilden certificates are accompanied with proceedings in the quo warranto records of the decisions and findings before the Florida supreme court, and a full enumeration of the corrected canvass, with Tilden results.. , ' ' FEELING BETTER. ' ' When presented in that light the case appears to a somewhat better advantage, and the democrats are recovering from their first indignation. They wanted to go back to the ballot-box, and can not.: : THE RADICALS REJOICING. '' ' ' ' ; The republicans feared they would, and are rejoicing quite as much on that account as because they have started oat with a strict partisan vote. THE COO'oIL IX COUNCIL. , , , The democratic counsel have been in consultation this afternoon, and are all expressing themselves to-night as feeling confident that the decision of the supreme court in Florida can bo shown so perfectly unanswerable in law that the commission will be forced to affirm it.'. , ' ' :' ',' A PURE PARTISAN ROTE. . .?s' nr. There is nothing in the vote taken, to-day, beyond its partisan' character, to prejudice such anticipations. Judges Green, Trumbull and Black are still buoyant. WILL TILDEN GET HIS RIGHTS? pearly all the democratic members are beginning to see that Florida and Tilden may yet get their rights as clearly given them by the supreme court. It is very seldom that the United States supreme bench reverses the decisions of state supreme courts on matters involving the interpretation of the state law. Here lies the real strength of

the democratic situation and the only features which can make the justices forget their partisan proclivities. THE COUNSEL WILL ABOVE THE POINT. The commission ' will resume to-morrow, forenoon at 11 o'clock, and two hours will be given to the counsel on each side to discuss the merits of the different certificates. ' WILL HAVB TO INDORSE CROSIN. The ruling of Justice Bradley to-day would require him to indorse the governor's certificate to Cronin, while Justice Strong decided while on the supreme . bench of Pennsylvania, not long ago,; that the decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction in such matters are binding, and should be final in all matters pertaining to the interpretation of the state law.

ON THE RACK. The Master Spirit of the Louisiana Returning Board Examined. Wells Tries t Explain Matters. Washington, Feb. 8. The committee on the powers, privileges and duties of the house in counting the electoral vote this morning re-called Governor Wells, and his cross-examination was continued. Mr. Field asked the witness whether Just before he left New Orleans he had a dis cussion witn a. J. uarrett, a meraner oi xne Packard legislature, about the action of the returning board, and he replied that he had not. , Q. Was anything said by him as to having an interview with Governor Nicholls? , A. Yes. ti. Did yon say in the course of your conversation with Barrett that you had determined to make a statement to Governor Nich oils? A. It is a most Infamous He. ' Q. Do yon mean to say the question is an infamous lief - . A. I say the substance of the question Is a lie. Q. If you would answer my question in the way a witness should answer, it would be better. A. I will not ask your advice as to how I shall answer a question. ' The Chairman You most answer in response to the question. This is not the place for personal explanations. A. I can defend myself elsewhere. Q,. Did you state you had determined to make a statement to Governor Nichollaf A. No, sir. Q. Did you say anything about an intervention of J. P. Kennedy? A. I did not. sir. Mr. Barrett had asked me whether I would have an interview with Governor Nicholls. I replied I would, as Governor Nlcholls was a gentleman. Barrett made an explanation in the legislature refuting the false charges against me. The witness in further response to questions said he had a conversation with J. I Kennedy who asked him whether he had any ob jections to an Interview with Gov. Nlcholl, and he replied In language similar to that in his conversation with Barrett. Kennedy suggested an interview with Governor Nlcholls about the Hate mutters. Both Barrett and Kennedy were his political friends. ti. Did you not state that you would make a clean breast of it? A. It is a most Infamous lie. (J. Do you mean to say that you never said to anybody you conversed with you intended to make a clean breast of it? A. Nothing of the kind. Mr. Field read a letter dated New Orleans, January it, 177, and signed by Governor Wells, as follows: "I am quite unwell, too much so to All our en gagemeet to-day. Will inform you to-mor-rowrelative to Its fulfilment." The witness said he wrote that note and Kennedy was to have l-en present at the proposed interview with Governor Nieholls. Witness was asked whether he did not an hour after he wrote about the note send another marked "confidential," as follows: "Deak Sir After our friend Barrett had left our room there was placed In my hands matters requiring my absence from New Orleans." Witness said that he expected to be back in a few days, and then related that he had been summoned to Washington. Mr. Field asked an explanation of the manner of proceeding to canvass the vote In Louisiana. Witness said Saturday he had sent a note to the committee asking to be heard only with reference to Maddox and Vernon parish, a Lid he did not Intend to throw away his rights as an American citizen and be forced to answer questions on other subjects. He desired to answer no other questions whatever until the house should relieve him from the charge of contempt of its authority. When thus relei ved he would feel free to answer. The chairman reminded the witness that if he thus persisted he- would again be in contempt, siid such would be the opinion of the committee and the public. Mr. Field followed this reminder by asking a number of' questions regarding the Irregularities, forged affidavit, adding votes to Hayes and taking votes from Tilden, but the witness was obdurate, only respoudlng"! decline to answer. Mr. Field called the attention of the witness to a note which he addressed to Maddox on the 20th of November, as follow:! " You fully understand the situation. Can not you advise me relative thereto?" . Mr. Field asked why he wrote this note to Maddox. A. It was Intended to be shown to the president and other republican friends, that Maddox might have entree to such friends to explain the political condition in Louisiana, Maddox being a public officer and having been sent to Louisiana for the purpose. The witness also sent by Maddox a letter to the president on th4 same subject, drawing his attention to the fact of the exasperated condition of the people of the state, so he might be prepared to arrest any movement militating against the returning board, and to prevent any destruction of papers. Mr. Field You have stated that you never altered a return or destroyed a paper? . , A. I decline to answer the question. The witness declined to answer any question concerning the action of the board until the hoase gave hiiu his liberty and relieved him of his disability), He wanted to know whether he was the peer of any member . of the commission or a vassal. Mr. Knott reminded him that the obligation of his oath required the witness toanswer every question put to him unless such answer would criminate him. Mr. Wells said there was no question he might answer which would subject him to prosecution, but he reserved his constrnction as to what were his rights, and the committee bad no right to question him when he was in duress. Q. Did you take any part in any conspiracy to give the state to Tilden? . A. A -e you through? : !l Mr. Field Mr. Htenographer read him the question. Stenographer read it. ,. Mr. Weils Is that the finish of your question? . . Mr. Tucker This Ig trifling. ' ' The Chairman Oh, Mr. Wells, answer the qustion or decline to answer. t . Mr. Wells Can I saj a word? , The Chairman Not now. . Witness I onn't know whether I am a vassal or a peer. If a pwr, I should like to know it. If 1 am a vassal, I am forced as a servant toanswer your questions. Chairman I wish, in kindness, to bring to your attention the attitude you occupy. Witness There is no gentleman to whom I would listen with more attention than yourself, but I must consider my duty. Chairman I merely wished to remind yon that having sworn to tell the truth, you must answer. . Witness I will, fully, whenever relieved of tne disability imposed, oy tn nouse, wnirn holds me In dares. Lawrence asked the witness whether he declined to answer because he feared, he might render himself liable to criminal prosecution. 1 i . Witness replied he did not. Mr. Field Will you explain what position you occupy? Wlntness Am I a vassal or a peer? The Chairman That has hothing to do with your position. You are ander obligation to answer every question excepting such m

luiuat kdu w cruiuaaie you. . ; .

Witness I reserve to myself the construction of my rights, and the committee have no rawer to foTce me to answer questions wkLst am under the sentence of the house. . Mr. F'vhl You rejected luo votes and upward. Were they rejected for any cause other than alleged intimidation? Witness I decline to answer. Mr. Field Did you not know that the rejection of HW votes was part of a conspiracy to give the electoral vote to a party not entitled to it? A. I leave that for yourself to answer. Q. Did you take part in any such conspiracy ? ... A. Does that conclude yc ur question? Chairman Oh, answer the question or not. Mr.Tucker We will take a vote to see if such conduct on the part of a witness should be tolerated In the committee. The Chairman The question is whether the committee shall require the witness to answer. Mr. Tucker The sentence of reprobation should be put on the witness for not answering. Witness Then I am a vassal The Chairman Keep order, sir. ' Mr. Heelye remarked -that it was unanimously decided this , morning, so far as the authority of the committee went, that the witness should answer the questions. Messrs. Lawrence and Burchard concurred with Mr Heelye. Mr. Field (to the chalrmanY Is It not a case of contempt and misdemeanor under the laws of the District of Columbia for a witness to refuse to answer questions propounded by a jmmittee? The Chairman It is. Mr. Field The witness Is contumacious In the highest degree. Mr. Field then exhibited to the witness a statement showing the number of votes rejected in several parishes attested "by Mr. A bell, secretary of the returning board. Objection was made to the paper. The question being taken the objection was overruled by a strict party vote. The statement showed that the board rejected 1,763 Kellogg and 10.2S0 McEnery electoral votes. Another paper was exhibited to the witness, also attested to by A bell, showing that the supervisors of registration returned 76,717 Kellogg and 80,51ä McEnery electoral votes. Also a certificate of the returning board certifying to the election of the Kellogg electors, and that they received 75,135 votes, and that the McEnery electors received 70,508 votes. Mr. Lawrence asked the witness whether the return from Vernon parish, as compared with the tabulated statement, was different from the original returns, and was it done with his knowledge or approbation. The witness replied it was not, nor had he any knowledge it was done with the approbation of any other member of the board, and he also denied the truth of Llttlefield's statement that he directed the returns to be altered so as to elect Hunter and Andrews Judge and district attorney. They were his personal friends. Mr. Field Interrogated the witness about the paper the former hod exhibited, but the witness declined to answer. 1 Q. Because you are under duress are you unwilling to tell the truth? Witness I am never unwilling to tell the truth. Q. Thea why do you not answer? Witness When the contempt is removed I will. Not tlil then. Q. You were asked Just now whether you

threw out the votes for the reasons which were founded on the evidence satisfactory to yourself. Wiil you ai wer? A. l nai emuraces tne wuoie question, ana I therefore decline, ti. Will you answer? A. I tell you I decline. o Are yon not willinr to testify whether your board threw out lu,ouo and odd votes honestly or dishonestly ? A. I am willing when relieved from the contempt of the house. Q. Are you willing to do so.now7 A. I can not answer the question until relieved from such contempt. II. Are yon now willing to answer the question whether iu throwing out UUXfO'imd odd votes your board acted honestly or dishonestly? A. N e acted in conformity with the law. Q. In throwing out voles? A. We threw them out for fraud, Intimidation and violence at the polls. 2. Were any thrown out because of irregularities? A. I think Grant parish was excluded. Q. Any except that? A. I think not. Q. Was there a single objection to the votes on ground they were not actually cast? A. None. Q. Then they must have been thrown out on the ground of intimidation? A. Men were forced to vote contrary to their wishes. . Q. Had you any witnesses before your board to prove that any particular voters were induced to vote contrary to their wishes? A. It was impossible to have oral testimony. The board adoptod a rule that testimony should be taken by both parties. Q. Did the voters themselves testify that they voted under compulsion ? Was such evidence funds. ;eJ you? A. I think so. t. Will you say that the proof wss furnished you that 100 different voters had voted under compulsion contrary to their judgment? A. I do not know how many. I think there was evidence of the fact. There may have been 100 or 5U or more who said they were forced to vote contrary to their wishes. On further examination witness said no votes were rejected except in consequence of intimidation. Among other things Mr. Field called the attention of the witness to the fact that it appeared that in the parish f Concord 1a, Josephs one of the republican electors, received l.iOU votes, while tue certificate of the .returning board credited him with 2,538 votes. The witness replied It was in evidence that a troop of horsemen seized the ballot-box from the commissioners of the election, who made up the returns from their count and sent them in. Mr. Field asked the witness whether he did not say before the Morrison committee that this happened In Madison. Witness replied yes; ana something of the kind in Concordia. . Mr. Field called the attention of the witness to the fact that while the board, by throwing out lO.Ouü votes, cast for Tilden electors, gave the electoral vote for Hayes. The witness omitted to account for their act of thus giving the latter 3,000 or 4,000 majority. In response to questions by Mr. Lawrence the witness said the board gave to the Hayes ticket only such votes as it was entitled to receive; that they took no votes from the democrats contrary to law . The committee then adjourned. FOREIGN. The Downfall of Midhat Pasha and His Banishment The Onuses of Midhat Pasha's rail. London, Feb. 6. A special from Constantinople to the Fall Mall Gazelle says the causa of Midhat Pasha's fall dates rom some time hack. -The Imperious character of Midhat Pasha clashed with the firmness of the Jsultan, whose liberal views went far ahead of Midhat 's. The constitution disappointed the sultan by multiplicity in its reserves and qualifications, and - tunny warm discussions occurred between the sovereign and the minister. The sultan desired to Introduce a largely foreign element into the Turkish administration, especially to employing Englishmen in leading positions in all depart ments. His majesty expressed this desire to Midhat very strongly on several occasions, and last week took him sternly to task for not having acted upon it. Midhat replied curtlvand wrote subseauentlv to the sultan in lndeferentlal terms. On Friday last he sentw for Midhat Psha but the summons was not obeyed. On Saturday Midhat remained home on the plea of indisposition. On Sunday the third summons was disobeyed but Midhat attended the ministerial council in the after-, noon. -Meanwhile the police discovered a secret correspondence which showed that Midhat -Pasha was plotting for- ithe overthrow , of " the sultan - and his own nomination as dictator. On Monday a peremptory order brought Midhat to the palace, suspecting nothing. On entering he was arrested and his letters laid before him. There was no gainsaying evidence against him. and he asked for mercy. A council " of ministers , was . called and Midhat Pasha 1 ' was . offered the choice of '- ' leaving the country or being rrralgced before the tribunal on the charge of high treason. He elected to leave the country. The letters found disclosed that 8,000 Uhlenias were to have gone on Monday night to the palace to demand the abdication of thesulUn. Tha fall of Midhat Pasha will check no reforms, the sultan being determined to carry out the constitution.

BEFORE THE FIFTEEN.

Arguments Before the Electoral Tribunal .')' JI"tieS) by M n. Ilondley, EvarU uI Merrick. ; Washington-, Feb. 8. The commission reassembled in open session at 11 o'clock this1 morning. The counsel on both sides was present except Judge Black. PROCEEPINGS COMMENCED. ' Justice Clifford stated that proceedings were now in order under the orders adopted by the commission yesterday. Mr. Green, of the counsel on the democratic side, called as a witness reorge P. Kae, of Florida, who resides in Tallahasse, and is attorney general ol the state. Q. Were you present when the writ of quo tvarranto was served? Mr. Evarts objected ti the question as not within the order of the court. Mr. Green said they proposed to fix the date of the quo urtrmnto proceed i rigs, as they did not consider that the order of the commission excluded that question. The question was then put to the court. The objection of Mr. Evarts was sustained. Mr. F. C. Humphreys having been identified. Counsel Cireen presented the commission of Humphreys and the certificate from the clerk of the court in which the commission was filed that no resignation had been filed up to January 24, 1K77. ' ' HUMPHRETS EXAMINED. ' Humphreys was called on the republican side, and examined by Mr. Stoughton. He testified that he resigned the office of United States commissioner, and his resignation was accented October o by Judge Wood, from whom tue office came. The witness nroduced a written aecentance Tbl his resignation. : Mr. Merrick objected to the production of the paper as it was an act of an Individual and pot the act of a court. . ' Mr. Stoughton The paper was received from Judge Wood in answer to his resignation, which was accepted and that, until he (Judge Woods) could oome to Pensacola and hold court, duties would be discharged by collector. The introduction of a letter from Hiram Potter, Jr.. collector of customs, dated October 6, 1H76, asking the witness to turn over the books and papers of his oifice, was objected W by Mr. Merrick. The witness stated that he did turn over the office, ana had not exercised the functions of the oifice since. Cross-examined by Mr. Green: The letter was addressed to Judge Wood at Newark, Ohio, and the reply came from there. There had been no session of the court at Pensacola since that time. The testimony here closed. Justice Clifford announced ; that the whole case was now ready for argument, and under the third rule each side would be allowed two hours. Mr. Merrick said they had to ask the indulgence of being heard by three counsel and that as some Important questions had arisen this lorenoon the time be extended another hour. The commission granted the extension asked. ' THE COMMISSION ADDRESSED, Jude Hoodley then addressed the commission, lie contended that the tender of the resignation to the Judge in Ohio and his acceptruee of : the same by the judge in Ohio was not an act of the circuit court of Florida, and therefore tlie re-ignailon of Humphreys had not been legally accepted, and he was consequently all this time ho ding an oifice of profit and trust under the United states, and therefore was ineligible as an : elector. The effect of the disqualification extended not only to the election, but to the htide which appointed hin-. This view he supported with quotations from debates when the constitution was arrang-d, holding that the election of an flligihle elector worked a forfeiture of the vote to the state. It whs intended to protect several states against the illegitimate use of federal power in any one siate. Time hack not shown that the evils from federal interference were any less than our forefathers had apprehended. In IS-i' live postmasters were among the electors, and Clay introduced a resolution directiug the joint commission to inquire into this Infringement of a clause of the constitution. It was then - held If was the duty of congress to take testimony and Inquire into facts. The commission did not find time to ascertain whether the parties of the same name were the same individual, and as their votes would hot chnne tl.e result, the inquiry was not carried but, although at the time the idea was not expressed, although the committee did not thii-k that a single disqualified elector vitiated the whole electoral vte. Judge Hoadley quoted the English authorities to show that in the event of the election of nn ineligible individual the election was void. There was no American precedent to the contrary, although there had been a wide range as to the effect of such a failure to elect upon the oilier candidate. In the Pennsylvania case, where the candidate was disqualified, the election went bacK to the people. In the Indiana cases the next highest candidate had been elected, and in other cases the party had been unseated without seating his opponent. The acts of congress indicated a disposition to furnish the remedy where a disqualified elector had been chosen, as what it was provided a state might select a new elector where one disqualified had been choBen. The state having fal.ed to take advantage of the thirty-fourth section of the revised statutes, having failod to remedy the nonelector, there was a vacancy, and one vote was, he claimed, lost to the state. He referred to the decision of Judgesin a late Rhode Island case, to the effect that the ineligibility of candidates worked u vacancy which could be tilled by the legislature, and argued that had the offices not been filled there would have avaeaney existed in that state,and Florida, like Hhode Island, bad ample opportunity to correct the error aud fill ttae vacancy existing had she chosen to avail herself of it. Mr. Green desired to call the attention of the commission to the claim that the letter of Humphreys t Judge Wood and the reply of the same wen; not an act of the court and the certificate of the clerk of the circuit court of Florida, read this morning, showed that the registration had not been made a matter of record in the office of the court. He discussed the case under the first part of the order of the court to consider only the papers contained in the package opened by the president of the senate, lie argued that the formal character of certificate No. 2 entitled it to some consideration by the commission and contended that the statutes and action of the courts of the ktate were matters that the commission should inquire into to establish the Illegality of certificate No. L The commission had before them in the third certificate, not only the certificate of the governor, but a tabulated statement of the precise number of votes cast in each county in the state for the different candidates. i This certificate had the authority of the executive and hi Judiciary and the legislature, all speaking in nnanimOus and united voice upon the question which is to be decided by this tribunal. It might be said the third certificate did not arrive iu . Washington by the first Wednesday in January, and was therefore too late. He cited authorities to sustain bis proposition that the olause was directory, not. mandatory. . Thvi main , fact was: Did . the , electors vete according to the constitutional requirement? and the mere transmission of their message to the vice president was the Indential matter and time with the prescribed limit f as not,'of the essence of the transaction. The main point was that the votes should be received .before the count took place. He claimed that the lists submitted with certificate No. 8 were effectual, and' that a delay ltt Tha performance i of their plain duty v did not prevent' . the performance . of ; that duty. In conclusion, Mr. Ureene contended that the laws passed by tife legislature of Florida since January 1, in relation to the recent election, were not pott facto within the meaning of the constitution. He gave notice to the other si je that under the order of the court they should insist that the commission could look Into the proceedings under quo warranto. ' ANOTHER VIEW OF THE CASE. ' Mr. Rhallabarger followed on the other side. He said since he had heard that the decision cf the commission was that they refused to hear testimony in relation to theuo warranto riroceedings he thought all discussion of bat subject uncalled for. In the papers, laid before the two houses there was but one allusion to those proceedings in the quo warranto and - that was in the certificate of Governor , Drew, i Those proceedings were not before the commission and could not be brought here by an allusion in the governor's message. He submitted the proposition that all acts in relation to the accomplishment of a certain act must anticipate Itself, and on this proposition that followed the electoral vote was excluded. He contend

ed that the power of a state was limited to the apiointnient, and that no act pertaining to the appointment could be had after thenplointmeut had been made and the oifice bad passed way. HE IS INTERRUPTED BY MR. THUF.MAN. Mr. Thin man aikd Snpiiosing the case to be as stated, would there In- action taken looking V an inquiry whether any appointment was made? Mr. Shellabargor said that when all that could be done by the state had been-done, accordiug to the requirements of the law of tre Mate existing on the day of election, the power of the state - passed away, and it became thereafter a fede'ral trust. The power of the state was on. that day forever ended. He coneedt-d that It was In the power of a state to try by her own machinery the power of her electors, but the scrutiny made must le made prior to the discharge of the functions of the office. The machinery to contest an election after the office had parsed away, would te, he said, an absurdity. MR. EVART'S SPEECH. Mr. Evart's closed the argument for the republican side. He said the commission has decided that In one particular it will receive evidence touching the eligibility of one of the Florida electors Humphreys.. I do not underfctaud the commission to have a.ssed upon the question, what the effect is, as to the acceptance or rejection of a vote thns challenged tor ineligibility, but to have decided that on that point It will receive evidence whlcb may be offered. First as to whether the exception taken to Humphreys's vote Is maintainable, and secondly, whether the maintainable and maintained methods of the constitution permit of aov rejection from the centlfied vot transmitted and opened. m that ground Mr. Evarts went on to argue that the evidence in regard to Humphreys holding office fell short of showing that he was In office -at the t!meofhis casting the electoral vote, and' that-the burden of proving it rested on the side that made the objec sons. Was it, he a.iked, to be pretended that und-cihe law there was any power to hold the x-cupant of a civil office to the per or ma nee of i's duties a moment beyond his will? The authorities, he said, were clear as to the right of a citizen resigning an oflice. Even without bis resignation being accepted, all that was necessary was , to make a public vacation of his office. -He then went on to ny: "This subject, then, being rejected from further consideration, I understaud that there is no matter left hut for the execution, by this commission of the duty accorded to it by the act of congress under which it is organized, to determine out of the material of ti.ese certificates what and bow many votes are to be counted for the state of Florida." Mr. Evarts said that the first certificate includes, with every degree of certainty and assurance, the vote of the state of Florida, and went on to argue against the tcoonu and third certificates. What, said he, are the prodigious claims here, that by a law suit. in a state court a state's complete vote Is to be retrieved and reversednd that when a judge of a state court has so decided the supreme court of the United States must make a low obeisance to Mr. Judge White, and say: "That is the end of the law. that Is the fiat of the state." Well, suppose that we do succeed in counting a president in, and suppose that a quo H-arranto is started to prove that the president in his seat should be dislodged because some of the votes counted for him were not cast by the de jure electors, then It is proposed that the decision of a state court is the " be all " and the end all" ol this Inquiry. You must never lose sight of the matter that you are to ad vise what votes and how many shall be counted by the two houses, and when j-ou have determined that extraueoas evidence shall not invade the regularity of the finished transaction of a state. You have dc-tci mined as by double decision that it shall not be invaded, olsparaged or excised to any question by a mere certificate which is its own agent and author; a volunteer iu disturbance iu the counting of the votes. MR. MEKRICK CLOSES FOR THE DEMOCRATS. Mr. Merrick closed the argument on the democratic side. He said the burden of proof rested on the t. tiler side to show that at the time of casting the vote Humphreys did not hold office. He argued that until a resignation was accepted by the iower that conferred the oflice, and that the fact appeared on record, he must be held to be still occupying the office. Representative Hoar put the case of au officeholder being elected to the senate, and asked whether, if an officer's resignation of an office were not accepted, he was thereby to be ke pt f r m b is seat ? Mr. Merrick replied that the fact of his being admitted to his seat In the senate would be a discharge from the office he held, provided he had prior to that time tendered his resignation. Mr. Hoar Inquired whether tne same rule would not apply in the case of an elector as well as in the case of a senator. Mr. Merrick replied that in the case of a senator the disability would be only personal, while in that of au doctor it was uupersonaL In other words, a state Mas positively forbidden to appoint an officeholder as an elector. It was a limitation upon the power of a state and not a personal disability of the man. Representative Abbott You also claim that even if the acceptaance of a resignation was not necessary theireslgnatlon itself must be made to the court 7 Mr. Merriak Unquestionably the resignation must be made to the power that gave the appointment. Suppose Humphryes had resigned to the clerk of the court, addressing a private letter to the clerk at Newark, Ohio, would that bo sufficient? , The Presiding Justice Rut if he sent it to thejudge and thejndge directed it to be filed? Mr. Merricic It that is done while the court Is in session, then It is an act of the court. Representative Garfield Do you hold that, in the case of a long vacation, or in the case of a court being abolished by law, or in the case of the .death of thejudge who gave the appointment, that this officer never could have resigned? Mr. Merrick I shovel have referred that case to one of the returning boards in the south. I hardly know what reply to make. . Mr. Garfield I understand your position to be he could not resign except while the court was in session ? Mr. Merrick I presume that the death' and extinction of office and abolition of a go vernment and wiping out of a nation make exceptions to all principles of law. ' Justice Miller You say that the distinction between a man who accepts the office of senator and the man who accepts the onloe of elector is, that in one case the objection goes to the power of the state, and in the other case it does not. What is the difference in the question of power of a state? Mr. Merrick In one case the prohibition is that no person shall be a representative or senator , .who has not . attained . a certain age. . In tlie other case it is that no person shall be appointed elector who holds an office of trust or profit. Wherever there is power given to do an act the donee of the power can only exercise it according to the precise restrictions and limitation of donation. Mr. Merrick then passed on to the question of rival certificates aud was arguing In favor of the legitimacy of the second and third certificates of the Tilden electSenafcr Thurmhn Suppose the Tilden electors had not voted at all, wouldnt be competent to show bv subsequent state proceedings that Hayes, who did not vote, had no . title? - That is the real question. , . Mr. Merrick Most unquestionably. The state can not have her "voice , si iruilated whether her real vesee is spoken or not; It appears that on this .-occasion the - true voice , of the .- state was spoken, but tf it had not been there could haue been no more power and .vigor In .the simulated tones of her voice to reach the counsels of the federal government than there is when these simulated tones come ringing along with those of the true sentiment of her people. The state Is not to be deoelvediefrauded and cheated. She might prior'to the time that this electoral vote was cast have instituted her quo warranto, standing in her own tribun-1 als, clothed with the majesty of her executive power and appealing to her Judicial authority and here asked these men, "By what authority do vou presume to exercise power of this state ?"' aud so standing she could have stripped from them the government they had stolen. Stripped rom their shoulders her livery which they had .stolen to serve the devil in. M r. Merrick then quoted a number of authorities from the supreme court, showing that the uniform rule was for that court to follow the staU decisions on the subject of the local taws of a state, and , commented on some of Judge Bradley's opinions vo that effect. Mr. Merrick claimed, In conclusion, 'that the- record of- the qvo warranto proceedings was before the commission, it not as evidence at least as showing the law of the state of Florida, and that it. Informed the commission, according to the law of Florida, the Haves electors were not appointed and that the t llden electors were. The cvrainlsslon .adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow. ..

THE FLO KI DA. FRAUD.

How the Tribunal Displayed Its Partittnn Character nt (be Firt Opportunity. Washington, Feb. 9. The electoral commission were in secret session from 10 a. m. until 8:30 p. vi. continuously, with the exception of two 5-hort recesses. Almost the entire time until nearly tlie close was occupied in debate, in which every one of the fifteen members of the commission byturns participate !. Two or three of the justices and severalof the senatorial members read elaborately prepared opinions upon the main points at isue. The discussion is underload to have been. from its commencement to the close, of extraordinary power and abilitj The question of eligibility of Humphreys was not made the subject of much discussion, nor was any vote taken concerning it At one stage of the proceedings, however. Senator Thurman offered a resolution declaring; that there was not sufficient evidence offered to show that Humphreys was not a shipping commissioner on the i7th day of November. This resolution was criticised by several republican members on the ground that it might carry an implication that if Humpherys had been such a commissioner on the 17th of November his vote would have been invalid and the resolution was not urged, there seeming to be practically a unanimity of opinion that Humphreys's resignation was legally effectual, being tendered and accepted before the lection. THE FIRST RESOLUTION. About fi p, m., the debate being ended. Senator Edmunds submitted a resolution declaring, in substance, that the four repub lican eloctoral votes of Florida should be counted, and embodyingalso various reasons for such declaration. THK BADS KILL A FAIR RESOLtTIOX. Representative Hunton offered the following as a substitute: Resolved, That the electors named in certificate No. 2, to-wit: Wilkinson Call, J. E. Yonge, Robert Ballock and Robert B. Hilton are the four persons who were duly apfointed electors by the state of lorida on the 17th day of November, and that their votes as certified by such certificate are the votes provided for by the constitution of the United States. 'This substi- . tute was rejected bv the following vote: Yeas Abbott, Bayard, Clifford, Field, Hunton, Payne and Thurman, 7; nays Bradley, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Garfield, Hoar, Stiller, Morton and Strong, ß. THE RADICAL ELECTORS COUXTED IS. Mr. Edmunds then withdrew his resolution, and Mr. Garfield offered the following, which was adopted by the foregoing vote reversed: Besolved. That the four persons, to-wit: Frederick C. Humphreys, Charles W. Fearce, William H. Holden and Thomas W. Long, were duly appointed electors of president and vice president for the slate of Florida, and that the votes cast by the aforesaid four persons are the votes provided for by the constitution of the United State. The vote in detail on the adoption of this resolution was as follows: Yeas Uradley. Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Garfield, Hoar, Miller, Morton and Strong, 8; nays Abbott, Bayard, Clifford, Field, Hunton, Payne and Thurman, 7. A REPORT TO TriE TWO HOCSHS. On motion of Mr, Garfield, Messrs. Ed mundc,Uradley and Miller were appointed a committee to draft a report of the decision ot the commission, with a brief statement of tlie reasons therefor, to be signed by the members agreeing therein, and to be transmitted to the joint session of the two houses, as required by the electoral act, THE REPORr OF THE EIGHT. The argumentative resolution previously offered and withdrawn.by Mr. Edmunds w(t adopted bv the committee of three with a few verbai changes as their retort,and about 8 o'clock p. m. it was signed by the eight members of the commission who had voted forjthe adoption of Mr. Garfield's resolution. The formal decision or report to congress is verv brief, but its complete phraseology is withheld from publicity to-night froiJ considerations of etiquette, as it is to be transmitted to-morrow morning to the president of the senate, under seal, to be by iiim immediately laid before the joint session of the two houses. THE POINTS OF THE REPOET. Its points, however, can be acceptably stated as follows: 1. The commission, exercising the powers of both houses under the law, and having examined all certificates and papers referred to them, find that they have no authority to hear evidence aliundi, or in other words to hear evidence outside of the certificate of the governor of Florida, founded upon the determination of the canvassing board of the state as to its vote. 2. The commission could not consider as evidence any act of the legislature or courts in determining that the state had appointed as electors after the day the said electors gave their vote. 3. In regard to the alleged ineligibility of Fp C. Humphreys there was not sufficient proof that he held office on the 7th of. November. ; - . : THE TWO WILL RECEIVE KOTICE OF TBI D2- : ' , ' cisiOK. ' ; The secretary of the commission will tomorrow morning deliver to the president pro tan. of the senate the formal decision above described, together with all certificates and accompanying papers in the Flor-, ida case which were referred to the commission, and the secretary will also deliver to the speaker of the house formal notifica-' t;on, signed by the president of the commission, that their decision has been com-.' municated to 'the president, pro tan., of the. senate.' Thereupon, in compliance with the electoral act, the two houses will again meet, and the decision will be read and entered on the vote of each house.and the vote of Florida will immediately be counted for Hayes and Wheeler unless, objection ' being made in writing by' at least : five senators, and five members of the house of representatives,' the two houses. shall separately concur in ordering otherwise, it being known that the. twd houses will not so concur. It is pot thought likely that . any', objection will be made to the immediate counting 'of th republican votes,' as this would be an unnecessarv waste oftiaie. ' Sanguine Bntherford. " fClncinnatt Special to the N. Y. Herald. "Colonel F. C. Campbell,' a prominent lawyer of this city and a personal friend of Governor Hayes, visited Columbus yester-. day. and while there had a brief interview with the republican presidential candidate. , Daring the conversation Colonel Campbell, remarked: "Governorj I suppose you do not care to give any opinions on the presidential qnestion at this time?". Governor. Hayes replied, "Oh, yes. I am stating it ; in this way. It has now. become a law suit, , and we have a good case, . good lawyers, a' good court and good prospects." Noblesville Independent: There is a gipsy camp on the line of Marion and our county, containing about 300 persons, and they are burning fences, hunting chicken coops,looking out for spring and smoke houses, and are pesting erery person around them.

!

f