Press enter after choosing selection

The Electoral Fraud

The Electoral Fraud image
Parent Issue
Day
16
Month
November
Year
1877
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

In the Kun of yesterday there appenred a letter from Mr. Georgo W. Jones, of Tennessee, a prominent Congressman from that State before the war, giving the points of a letter he addressed to Judgc Strong, of the United States Supremo Court, during the sitting of the Electoral Commisaion, and Judge Strong's reply. Mr. Jones served with Judge Strong in Oongress; their relations were thoso of intímate friends, and they were members of the same political party. He, therefore, feit at, liberty to write to Judge Strong with freedom, and he gives the substance of hie letter in the following paragraph : When yon and I wero in Congress togother, yon were a Democrat, and rogarded as an honest man. Do yon béliove that the people of Louiniana elocted or votod for Hie Hayes electors? To this pointed inquiry Jnrtgo Strong anSwered on the 20th of Febrnary by the following remarkablc letter: Washington, Feb. 26, 187?. To the Hon. Giorge W. Jones : Mï Dear Sin : I was a Democrat whon yon and I wero together in Congres. I am a Democrat laow. I hold to all the opinión the Btaterights Democrats have always held, and which the acknowlodged leaders have avowed np to the present winter - nover more cleavly than in 1873 to 1875. I do not believo that Congross has any conetitutional right to inquire into State elections for State elector. Congres has of late years inferfered quite too mtich with tho Stateí. The Electoral CommiBion has no more power than CoiigreH has, and I think it woud be a most dangcrous ufturpation wero it to do what tho States alone havo a right to do, even to cure what I fear was a great wrong of the Louisiana Rcturning Board. I cannot doubt that siich will be your opinión wheu yon reflect to what the assertion of nch a power would lead. ït would place the right of the Statea, respecting the choice of elector, at the morcy of the Federal Otovemment, and be the greatest stride evor made toward centralization. Botter suffer a preHent evil tllau open such a door, better than abandon all the time-honored priuciple of the Democratie party. I amyours, vory respectfully, W. Sthono. Judge Strong's letter eannot fail to provoke very general criticism, but it must do much more. It will reoall the country to the renewed consideration of the strange resulta of the Electoral Commissiou, and cause a more searching inquiry than ever before iuto theinfluences whijh procured a solemn jndgment against tho verdict of the nation, and gave the high sanction of luw to the "great wrong of the Louislana Returning Board." With Judge Strong's judicial deliverance in the Louisiana case, the country had schooled itself to tolerable content, because of the general appreciation of the faithfnl judicial qualities which brought Jiim to his decisión, however mistakenly they may have been exeroised; but lus letter to Mr. Jones exhibits the special pleading of the politician, and présenos him in the qnestionable attitude of havinggiven one reason for his judgment in the most important case he has ever ecided, while, in point of fact, he decided it on essentially different grouudu. Judgo Strong was once a Demoorat in good standing in the parfy. As such he was elected to Congress and chosen Supreme Judge of Penusylvania; butherevolted against "all the opiniot)3 the State-righte Democrats have always held" in his celebrated judicial opinión iu favor of the constitutionality of the National Cocscription act. In that case he took issuo with his Democratie associates, tho then Chief Justidfc Lowrie anü the later Chief JuBtice Woodward, and, by that action, separatcd himself from the Democratie pirty on the distinct issue of oppositionto " theopinions of tho Staterights Democrats." His hostility to the doctrine of State rights made him subordínate the sovereignty of Pennsylvania to the Conscription act of the Federal Government, in direct antiigonism to the teachings of the Democraoy, and hc cnrricd ifc to iba iugic COUclusion by voting for the Republican candidafce for Governor that year ugainst one of -his brethren on the bench. Thenceforth Judge Strong was never regarded as a Democrat by either party, and when President Graut called him to the Sucreine Court of the United States he was judged, alike by his political and judicial record, and by all his political professions and acts, as an earnest opponent of every phase of "all the opinions the State-rights Democrats have always held." It is unfortunate for Judge Strong, unfortunate for the supreme judiciary of the nation, and unfortunate for the country, that this letter was ever written end published. It must deepen the already deep distrust of the people in ourhighest judiciiil tribunal, and irrítate the sleepless unrest that has lingered over the formal sanction given to the great wrong of the Louisiana Returning Board. It will be a sorry explanatton to go out to the civilized world in defense of what the enlightened judgment of all nations has condemiied as a monstrou8 judicial wrong; and, when it is judged from the standpotnt of Judge Strong's letter, it is stripped of the few qualitcR which made them respect it If Judge Strong eincerely stoodon"the opinions the State-rights Democrats have always held." he had no choice in the Florida electoral dipute but to count its vote, for Tilden, forthetlien admitted lawf ui authority of the State hal so certified it, in obedience to the judgment of the eourts, in their final interpretetion of tlieir own State lnws. The path there waa bo plain, from the Staterights faith, that there eonld be no hesitation, no doubt whatever; and the same doctrine would have made him sanction a "great wrong" in Oregon and count but two ( lectorinl votes for Hayes, when the people had honestly elected three. Of uil reasons given in excuse for the judicial sanctiou of the Louisiana fraud, that of devotion to the doctrine of Stato rights is the least plausible, and it proves how utterly without substantial excuse wae the docision in favor of the Hayes electora iu that Stato. Doubtleas Judge Strong never intended or expocted that the letter should be given to the public, but here it is in all its nakednesa and helplessness, and it coms inopportunJy as the unbulden gucst, and must remain as a perpetual skeleton in the ju lioial household of the nation.

Article

Subjects
Old News
Michigan Argus