The New York Herald Newspaper, February 3, 1877, Page 3

THE COMMISSION. The Active Work of the Tribunal Commenced, ARGUMENT ON THE FLORIDA CASE Representative Field Presents the Democratic Case, VITIATING EFFECT OF FRAUD The Will of the People Versus the Canvassing Board. REPUBLICAN DEFENCE OF LEGAL FORM. Mr. Kasson on the Limitations to the Power of the Commission. Se ee [BY TELEGRAPH 10 THE nERALD. | , Wasuincton, Feb. 2, 1877, ARGUMENT IN THE FLORIDA CASK BEFORE THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION—POSITION OF THE OPPOSING COUNSEL—THE PROSPECTS FOR A DECISION, ‘The first day, of the crea} lawsuit before the Electural Commission was of such a naturo that it is generally believed bere to-night by lawyers and members of Con- gress that a decision may be reached in the Morida case by next Wednesday or Thursday. Mr, Field made the opening speech and showod at some length that if there was any legal way by which a defrauded State could right itself that legal course had been pursued in Florida, Alluding tothe fact that the Hayos Returning Board bad been subjected to notice of a suit in the State courts before they acted, and had acted in defiance of the writ of quo warranto, Mr, Tucker, who followed, remarked that there was in the State the election func. Uon, the people, and the determining function, the Returning Board, counting. 1f tho tattor set aside the former, such action, he held, must be illegal and void, otherwise no good could result from the voting by the people. Mr. Kasson, who followed for tho republicans, held that thero were before tho commission throe sets of Yotes; one of these was in every respect in logal form, having the certificato ot the Governor; another had ‘only the certificate of the Attorney General, an officer unknown tn these proceedings, and the third was an ez- post facto affair altogether. He could not see any rea- son for hesitating in sach a case. Mr. Thurman asked Mr, Kasson whether he would hold that if four federal offlce- holders, incapable under the constitution to be olect- ors, held the government certificates, and sent up the vote of the State, the commission would be pre- cluded from inquiring into their status, Mr. Kasson reserved his reply, and afterward read a Statement to the effect that he thought Congress might, by law, provide for a judicial determination of fersonal or political disqualifications, but sould not interfere with the discharge of the legislative or ministerial duties. Mr. O’Conor \s expected to spcak to-morrow. He was in oxeellent Spirits this evening, and said that he believed that the democrats have un tncontrovertible case in Florida, Tho question how far the commission shall go into the caso in this or any of the States is the one now really in argument. On that very much will rost, + Mr. Kasson is said by his democratic opponents to have made a vory strong and able argument to-day. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, Wasuinctos, Feb. 2, 1877, The Electoral Commission met at half-past ten A. M. The presiding Justice stated that the inquiry had been made yesterday, ‘‘What is the case?” to which he had taken the liberty to respond that it consisted of three certificates from the State of Florida, with the accompanying papers and the objections to the same, He would now say that twoot the objectors on cach sido will be allowed to speak inthe opening of tho case, Those representing the objections to certificate No 1 would first spoak. He reminded them that tho fourth rule allows them two hours in which to state the case, and arguo in support of their objections. Then two objectors upon the other side would speak, subject to the same rules and imitations, Representative Fie.p—I desire to inquire whether, alter the two objectors have spoken for the other side, we shall not be allowed the opportunity of re- plying? The Presiping Justice—The rules make no pro- vision for any reply on the part of the objectors. Ap- pheation for further time must be made to the com- mission, the presiding Justice having no discretion in the matter whatever, My view of the matter 13 that one of the counsel for the objectors to certilicate No, 1 should open, and that one ot the counsel in favor of that certificate and against the objectors should reply; and then the other counsel supporting the objections to certificate No, 1 will have the floor. Mr. Kassox remarked that while his side had no objection to proceeding as far as the objections to the first certificate were concerned this morning, his asso- | ciate and himself, finding more questions involved in the objections to that certificate than it was supposed would be found, and not baving had an opportunity to examino them until this forenoon, he thought it was probable bis side would be obliged to ask the Court for somo little time before proceeding. SIDING JUBTICK—The suggestion calls for no ruling. Counsel on benalt of the objectors for certiti- cate No, 1 will proceed, 1 shall tor convenience desig- nate the certifvates respectively Nos, 1, 2 and 3 Reprosentative Fix.p—Before proceeding, if the commission will allow mo, 1 would refer to a prelim- inary matier. 1 observe that rule five speaks of tes- timony, Though | am tn some doubt about the course ot proceeding, if evidence 1s admissible I think it should be stated to the Court before beginning the argument that we are prepared to state at tho bar, or in aby manner the Court may indicate, by deposition or otnerwise, all that 1s necessary to prove the alle, tions in our objections, We suppose that th which are to be presented here contain suificient evidence for ail purposes, but I ought io state that ET do not propose to proceed with tho argument under the impression that we have no other evidence on which we rely, saving, of course, the question whether the evidence’ is competent or not. 1 wish to say that ‘we can produce testimony here or anywhere, or in any ‘manner that the commission may direct, and oiler to do it in proot of our case now, or at any other tim or in any other manner. seems to me that the rules which we have adopted place the objectors Yn precisely the samo position as that of counsel who opens a case before it is submitted to the ju We propose that the objectors shail occupy exactly that position. In thetr direct statement of their objections they will state what their objections are und how they propose to support them. Ihe other questions will come up afterward in regurd to the admissibility of evidence, anu the other counsel will reply. Kepresentative Fixin—-That, of course, will be en- tirely satisfactory to us. SPRKCH OF MR. FIELD, Mr. Fitp then, o. f of the objectors, addressed the commissién, He sui Mr. PResipunt aNd GeNiLEMEN oF THR ExecToraL | Commission ;—1t will be my endeavor in the statements which [ make to set forth with as much concisoness us [I may the facts which we expect to prove and the propositions which we expect to cutablish. The power devolved by the federal con- stitution upon tl Stat ol this Union wasin the State of Florida exercised by the electors of the State directly appointed by the qualitied voters of the stave at the general election. That election was held on the 7th of November, 1876, 1 was quiet and erly 60 far a8 We are iniormed throughont the State, and it remained only to gather the returns of the votes, The result of the voling was a majority 1 txvor of the electors whom, for convenience only—for 1 would rather not speak of candidates or persons—I will dosige nate as tho “Tilden electors,” Noverthelces a certifi: cate comes here signed by the then Governor of the State certifying that the Hayes electors bad a majority of votes, By what sort of jugglery that result was ad complished I now take it apon myself to explain, HOW THK RETURNS WERE CHANGED, By the law of the State of Florida the counties are jod Into precincts and the votes of the polling Precincts aro returned to the county clerk, where they are canvassed by certain officers, and these county canvassers certily to the State canvassera, Mr. Field then read trom the evidence of Andrew A. Allen, Shorifl ot baker county, Florida, to the effcet that be and Judge Driggers went to the clerk's office of Baker county at about in the evening, knowing that the clerk was pot im the office, and knowing Uhat the clerk had already made the canvass of votes. The witness testived that he and Judge Dri; gers threw away the Johusvilic and Darbyville pre- cincts because they believed that one person had bi prevented trom voting. That thev had no e whatever before them of that fuci except th ment of the party and an imprersion—the general rumor—that some illega! votes bad been cast. Mr, Field said that the whole question, so far rt f Florida, rests upon such state- id, aud the whole questien of law and fact presented to the commission is whether or not, in the face of such statements as those, a paper signed M. L, Stearns, certifying that certain persons were elected to office when there is no truth in the state. ment, 18 to be received as binding upon this body, He roviewed at some length the action of the Florida Returning Board and of ex-Governor Stearns, and com- pees: the people cf Florida for the patience and forbearance which they had displayed in the emer. gency. six o'clock APPEAL TO THE COURTS, They resorted, as all law-abiding citizens should re- sort, tothe courts of their State, and the courts de- cided that the State Cunvassers bad no power, under the laws of Florida, to throw ous any votes; that they were bound to count every lawful vote put into the ballot box; that the Returning Board were neither electors nor judges otherwiso than as to what votes were put ip. The Supreme Court of Florida, therefore, pronounced the action of the Returning Board tilegal, and Governor Drew took his pines, and 1s now the lawful and accepted Governor of the State of Florida, It there be any mode known to law by which a defrauded State can, through its courts of law, right any wrongs which it may suffer, that mode has been adopted in Florida, THE VOTH FOR PRESIDENT, Referring ta the vote for President and Vice Presi. dont, Mr. Field explained that there were three cer- idcates or returns irom that State—return No. 1, Made by the Hayes electors and bearing the certificate ot Stearns as Governor; return No, 2, signed by the Tilden electors, without the certilicate of the Governor, but with @ certificate of the Aliorney Gen- eral (the only dissonting member of the Board of Can- Vassers) certifying that they were elected; and return No. 3, containing the action uf the State authorities subsequent to the frst two returns for the purpose ot roviewing and confirming (so (ar a8 1t was possible for the State thereupon to do it) the second return. .We are told that the certificate iorwarded to Washington with the signature of Governor Stearns attached 18 the true cortilieate, and that, no matter what documentary evidence may be found to invalidate that certiticate, it still remains binding, It is to that statement that Mr, Field proposed to devote the remainder ol his remarks, FORCE OF A GOVKRNOR'S CERTIFICATE. The form, saic he, in which the point 1s stated ts er- roncous, and should be made to read, “Can the certifl- cute go bebind the truth and conceal it??? There is | BO pretence that the true and lawiul vote of the State of Florida was not civen for the Tilden electors, but the sole pretext 1s that the truth cannot be proved as against the certificate of Governor Stearns; that tho truth 18 rolled up and concealed in that certificate, and that Congress, whether acting in separate houses or in joint bouse, cannot consider any act which is certified by Stearns, You may ask, in tho first place, what foundation that ts, You wre told that you are to tuko that certificate as conclusive evidence against overy- thing that could be proved on the other side. By what rule of evidence, by what doctrine of law are you ce- Prived of the right to‘examine inte the truth? Is it not @ universal rule that every judge is invested, ex necessitate, with power to take ail pertinent evidence 1b respect to the facts upon which his judgment 1s to be pronounced, unless there be some positive law de- claring that certain certificates or other documentary evidence shall be conclusive? Show me, said Mr, Field, the positive law which makes the certificate of Stearns evideuce against tho truth, Where ts it? Iv is not in the constitution; that is certain, It is not in the laws of the State of Florida; that is certain, Is it in any act of Congress? The only law I know of bearing on it 1s tho law of 1792, ro-epacted in tho Revised Statutes, which states that the Executive of the State shall deliver to the electors a certificate that they are the electors, but 1t does not state that it shall be the truth. Suppose | offer to prove that the certificate is wholly talse and fabricated Jor the purpose of cheating? ‘lake ore of the oldest and proudost of the States of this Union—tne State of Massachusetts—ol which my friend Mr, Commissioncr Abbott is so worthy a representative; suppose that the honored Goverxor of that State should becomo so dobased and fallen us to certily that in tho recent election the ‘Tilden electors had received w majority of the votes of the people of Mussachusetis, Does any man mean to tell me that you cannot prove that certificate to be false? Where is the law to support such a statement? Nay, more, if an act of Congress had declared that that cer- tfleate should be conclusive that act would be uncon- stitutional, and for thia reason the constitution de- clares or asserts that the person having the highest number of votes shall be tho President, not the person declared to have the highest number’ of votes. You cannot, therefore, manutacture a certificate to take from tho person actually having the highest number of votes such rights as he is entitled to by those votes, and if you were by an act of Congress to declare iu the most positive tors that the certiticate of the Governor should be conclusive against all proot you would trangcend the limits of the organic law. You cannot say that the certificate of the Governor of Mas- sucbusetts, for example, should override the votes of vhe electors of Massachusetts. You could not do so if you would, and I am sure you would not i! you could, The language of the act of Congress 18 not so strong as the language of the State law generally us to the can- ‘vasa of votes, ‘TH WISCONSIN CASE, Take the case of Wisconsin, Thero a law of the State had doclared that the State canvass should de- termine, certify and declare tho result ; should declare who was Governor. A man got into the office of Go erpor upon such a certificate declaring that he was elected, A rivaiclaimant brought up the case upon a writ of quo warrqnto ; the frst purty bad his position and claims advocated by tho ablest counsel ot the Stato of Wisconsin. His argument was, ‘You cannot inquiro into the case, because the certificate of the State canvassers is conclusive.” No,” says the court—in an opinion which does them immortal horor, und which will remain a living monument of patriotism to that Court and its inflexible determination of purposo as long as the re- port shall last, ‘The title of the Governor depends upon the votes of the pevple—upon those litle ballots Placed in the ballot boxes declaring the supreme will ofthe people. It is not who shall be certilied by a board of canvassers, but who have been voted for by the people. Tbe Court declared that the claimant was entitled to the office, and it ejected the usurping Gov- ernor. What 18 this Coinmission to do? It 18 to declare whether any and what votes are votes provided by the constitution, not to declare what are those votes certitied by Governor Stearns, You are tocertify what are the lawful votes npon which a President of forty-five millious ot peopiets to be declared elected and to be inducted into office, ‘TNE WHIT OF QUO WARKANTO. Is it not Implied thata writ of quo warranto to try the ttle of the President of the United states is within the purview of the constitution ¥ Can anybody doubt it? The constitution hag declared that the per- son having the highest number of votes shall be the President, not the person certified to, it bas not invested any = tribunal with — exclusive power. No matter how determived by any preiim- nary authority there still remains the right to enact a Jaw giving a right to the exercise of the writ of quo warranto, No such Jaw exisis, Lam sorry to say, and ii Lmight be permitted to say so, it ought to exist. I ought pot to say perhaps—but | must say it in trath— that it 18 no small reproacp to our statesmanship that for 100 years no jaw hag been provided to mut the emergeny with which wo are now brought face to face, COMPLIMENT TO SENATOR MORTON. 1 know that one eminent member of this commission (Senator Morton) has jabored assiduously and zeulously to have such a law passed, and of all the title to which he can ever lay claim for respect, I a:n sure that that will be remembered hereafter to his honor, and afte the strugg.es of the passing hour bave closed, when the time shall have come when men look at his Fave, they will not remomber him by tue contests in which hé was engaged, but rather that iu the servico ot his country be jabored, although hitherto unayail- ingly, to achieve a beneficent result, Bat whether there be a law entithng to awrit of quo warranto, of not, in the case of a President, 1 think all parties will agree that such a law woula be constitutional, and if a Jaw to provide for a writ of quo warranto would be constitutional, then it would be constitauonal tor any other tribumal sitting in the place of a bigh tribunal under that writ to investigate that 1s to say, 1f you can devolve that title apon y tribunal wnreh you could create, and you have not created any such tribunal You are here in the last resort ag the court to determine it, You must go to those duties and perform those functions, avd receive that evidence which that court could periorm and ro- ceive, EFFECT OF FRAUD, There is another cousideration as to why the trath inay be given in evidence, vod that is that fraud vit ates all transactions. L will not argue that the judg. ment of a court of comperent jurisutetion can be iin. peuched collaterally for iraud. 11 it could be it would be against public policy. quire mto the brivery or corruption of a judge while the judge is sitting upon the tench, and, therefore, from motives of public policy, it may be true thatunul the judge be impeached © of removed you cannot inquire pio the corruption of his acts. I veuture to say, however, tnat there ts no dvcument apy where that you cannot impeach tor fraud, ‘There is not a ringle transaction that | have ever heard of which should lead us to the conclusion that you canbot inquire Into the tulstty or fidelity and treth of | & transaction, and | pat tt to the Court that, inde pendent of the question whether if a judge were mis- taken and it be shown fhat, acting tm the exercise of his judgment, and from a desire to do justice, he had | erroneously certified a thing to be true (which | have no doubt you could inquire intu), I submit that if you show that he corruptly acted and that he was bribed or ted astray by bis hunger for office or thirst tor power (not less than by a thirst for gold) you can impeach bis acts, WHO 18 BTRARNS? Who is he whose acts we are asking to impeact It ts the then Governor of Fioridu, M. 1. Stearns is the man who senta telegram what grounds can we throw out votes?” an cetved jor answer, ‘rand and intimidation,” gomething Oise. Stearns is the man who control those puppets of the canvassing bord, who were to decide Whether or not he was to exercise the office of Governor for the nextterm, Is ita correct proposition of law that you cannot ioquire whether that man bas acted frauculentiy ’ If 1t be true that the certificat caunot be gone behind then it is equally true whether there was an election of not, Suppose | prove or offer to prove that on the 7th day of November last there Was no election whatever in the State of Florida and that no man voted or cate should come her Stoarns,” coutd you Say that that shows that those four men were elected at that election?” To that complexion must I come at last, There is nv middle ground, Uf you can tnquire info the trath of that cortificate, you ‘can inquire into overy fact in relation to it, hh Mr. Presicent, and gentiemen of the comm: Mt would be a seandal vo im. | jon, is a3 brief | Field, & Statement as I can make of the facts and the law as we understand them to-day. The oss of the Question in respect to the dignity of the Presidential office aud the enormous interests depending upon itare as bothing compared with the moru/ elements involved. Troe it hat the person to whom you give your decision will be given for for four years the Chief Mag. istrate of 45,000,000 of people; will be Commander- Chief of your army and navy; the organ between y: and all foreign States; the tower of all offices fountain of honor and pow: ta powerless betore « gigantic fraud, Hore is this cer. tifleate (holding it aloft in his hind). One feels almost reluctant to toneh tt, Hold it.up to the light [tis black with crime. Pass it around; let every man see it, and then tell mo whether or not that certificate gives a title to un office contrary to truth, ax we can prov One of the greatest poets of the palmiest days of Eng! literature, writing of the coming of the Suviour, said: — “And ancient fraud shall fall, Returning justice liftaloft Ler seale.” Ancient fraud! Was there ever fraud like this? In all previous ages fraud bas succeeded only because it bas been backed by the sword, and protesting Beoiee have been powerless 10 resist the force of armed bat- betore now, in the bistory of the fraud succeeded against the conscience and the will of Mf-governing people. If it succeeds bow let us cover our faces with « Let us take down the si the dome of the Capitol, which every morn’ f wing light, Let us clothe ourselves In sackcloth and sit in ashes forever, SPEXCH OF MR. TUCKER. Mr. Tucker followed Mr, Field. ‘The objections, he said, which are made by the members of the two houses of Congress to the counting of the electors who voted for Messrs. Hayes and Whee.er are to be found printed this morning in the form to which I call the ‘attention of the Commission, ‘The first objection 18 that the said Piorce and others were not appointed by said State of Florida in such manger ag its Legislature had directed, The second 1s that the said Wilkinson Call and others, the Tilden electors, were appointed by the said State in such manner us the Legislature had directed. he third is that the qualiied electors of the said State, in manner as is provided vy the law of Florida, did elect Wilkinson Call and others, the Tilden electors, The fourth is that the pretended certificate, or paper purporting to be such, signed by Stearns as Governor of that State, of the appointment of Pierce ana others: was and 1s in all respects untrue, and was corruptly procured und made in pursuance of a conspiracy be- tween the said Stearns, Pierce and others to set_up fictitious and wureal votes for Prosident and Vice President. ‘Tho fifth is that the said papers, fulsely purporting to be the votes for President and Vice President of the State of Florida, are fictitious and unreal, and do not properly represent any votes or lawiul acts, and were made and executed in pursuance of said fraudulent conspiracy. The sixth sets out at length what I will stato sus- cimetly, that by a quo warranto to a procecding initiated prior to the vote given for Hayes and Wheeler by thoso pretended electors on the 6th day of Decem- ber, and Which resulted in an adjournment to the 26th or 26th of January, their election and their title to the offices of the State ot Florida was declared utterly null and void, and that they were usurpers and pretenders to the said offices, In that case of warranto the partics were the State of Florida ox rel, wilkinson Call and others (the Tilden electors) against the Hayes electors, Theso are the objections mado, and they may be summarized thas We object to those votes being counted, because we say these mon were not elected according to the law of Flori and not being so elected can. have no title to the office. Second—We hold that, even if they had beon elected ac- cording to the forms of the law of Florida, their election was tainted and ts void, . The wholo question presented to this tribunal is a question presented to the two houses of Congress and which they bave substituted this tribunal in their stead to decide, 1t is simply this—is there any power inthe constitution under which we live by which a fraud can be prevented on the Presidency? Must aman whom everyvody knows to be a usurper, be pro- nounced by the two houses of Congress or this tribu- nal in their stead, to bave # right to that office to which he has no right? Shall the two houses of Con- gress—the sentinel guards appointed by the constitu- lion against usurpation of this high office—shall this tribunal, the substitute for this sentinel guard, permit fraud to crawl with slimy trail into the Executive seat, whence it may spring from its coll and sting with fatal fang the lite blood of the greatest Republic int world? Is the flat of a returning board, tainted with fraud and based upon lawlessness, to conclude the judgment of the American people in putting a usvrper into the seat of Washington ? Mr Tucker continued at somo longtn. He alluded to the quo warranto of the State of Florida ex re, Wil- kinson, Call und others, and to tho decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida in that State. The decision of the Court ho argued to be sustained by authorities, citing among other authorities High on Extraordipary Remedies, section 760, The Returning Board he regurded as merely one step in the path way by which promulgations of elections were made. The final determinant authority (if he were allowed to make a word for the occasion) was theupreme Court. Thore- fore, unless the primary determinant authority—viz., the 'Board—is conclusive not only in its action but also as to the extent of its powers, then we must regard the proceeding in Fiorida upon the action of these electors as a part of that determinant power which the State bas provided against fraud and iile- gality in the exercise of the elective function. THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, When Mr. Tucker had completed his remarks Mr. Kasson said on consultation ho thought it duo to the interests represented by himself and Mr. McCrary that be sbould ask further time to examine the ceruiicates which are all involved in tn objections, He asked it specially upon this ground, that instead of the cer- tifleates aud pupers to which ‘the objections apply up- pearing 1 print in the Record this morning, as was ex- pected, they had not appeared, and be bad no access to them until counsel on the other side in their printed documents had placed them before him. In addition to that, the magnitude of the questions pre- sented by the arguinents of Messrs. Field and Tucker were a reason why he should attempt to ald tho com- mission more than could be done by proceeding im- boy vers with bis remarks. Several members of the commission expressing their unwillingness to permit any delay which 1t was possi- bie to avoid, Mr, Kasson concluded that he would pro- ceed after a short recess. ‘The commission then at ene o’clock took a recess until three o'clock, when Mr, Kasson proceeded with his specch as follow: SPERCH OF MR. KASSON. Mn, PResIDeNT axD GeNTLEMEN OF THE ELECTORAL Commission—In what I have to say I shall be mindful o1 the legends of that honorable court which usually occupies the bench now occupied by this committee. It ts said of Chief Justico Marshall that after listening for a day and far into the second day tou young cor sellor who had by that time only passed Coke upd Littleton and Biackstone and got down to *Kon! Commentaries,” the Chief Justice remindea bim that it must _be presumed that the Supreme Court of tho United States was itseli partially cognizant of the law, and he might be abie to abbreviate his argument. In that spirit to-day I shall endeavor, a8 brieily as possible, to bring our part of the case from those allegations and erguinents which have been presented and which do not seein to us pertinent to the consideration of the commission. Wai the case before us? Firat certificate comes to Congress as required by the constitution and Jaws of the United States, in coniormity to the statutes of the State of Florida, cer- tilying the electoral vote ot one of those States, which my honorable iriend who jast spoke (Mr. Tucker) was pleased to call “sovercign States” of this Umon. That ceruificate is first opened and read. There is a second certificate opened in the joint meeting of the two houses of Congress, in which the persons signing the sume precede their certification by a certificate signed by an officer not recognized by the Inws of the United States nor by tho statutes of Florida aga certilying oflicer, being the Attorney General of the State of Florida. Second—Ho certifies that there is no provision of Jaw ot Florida whereby {ho result of said returns can be certified to the Executive of said State; admitting by that certificate, if it has any forec at all, that his action is without the law and without any sanetion by | the statutes of the State. Third—The clectors certify to their own action, to their own qualifications, and that they themselves no- tiled the Governor of their election, ‘That is certificate No. 2 A certificate of uncertity- ing persons in the view of the law, State and nauonal ‘That certificate was presented and opened. There Is a third certideate, still more extraordinary, Still more wanting iu the elements of verification, al#o domanding consideration. It is certified by an officer h tin existence until the functions of office had been exhausted. A certificate which recites proceedings in tribunals subordinate and superior to the Judiciary of tho State; a certificate which a canvassing board might, auder some circumstances, report to State oflicers, but which has never been sent to the Con- ures# of the United States or to the President of tne Senate during the hundred years in which wo have been a Republic. The proceedings in the court recited in it are ail subsequent, to that time, which, by the astitution and laws of the United States, is the ime ed for the periormance of judicial functions, Thes two ceruficates are wanting in all the elements of the | coustitutional and legal validity which should give them a place before thi commission In the eondition in which the laws of the country now are, or in whi the Jaws of the State were on the 6th day of Dec ber, when these functions were exercised, Furth more, if certificate No, 11s a constitutional and legal pression of the vote of the Stato of Florida, of course at question being settied In favor of certificate No, 1 obvintes all necessity for considering certificates Ni wud 3, and | ought, perbaps, to say to the honorab pmMmissien that itis fortunate they did not grant the request of the objectors to adjourn anul to-morrow, ‘ihe next mail might bave brought to you certificate No. 4, reciting new proceedings and new action betore the courts, and no end would be found to the papers that might be presented in party or porsonal inter a8 cstablishing a retro-active right 40 exercising a fan | Hon in the State of Florida. I shall now ctyelly contine the argument to certitle cate No. 1, because if th objections to th. certilicuie are invalid aad the certificate itsel! is valid, that being recognized dismissed all consideration of the other certiticates, and we shall ascertain what 1s the constitutional and legal vote of the Stae of Florida, The objections to thin certificate aro substantially one— damely, that there was a fradulent return; that it Was fradulently tesued, not by reason of anything whiet Appears to the action of the certification, or presenting Of the certiticate, but because of the action of the peo- pie. And hen is that we have heard this mornin, chiefly, instead jaiand legal presen’ Hon of the questio t before this commis- Sion 8 a Jury ma court having original jurisdiction to determing law, to determine facts, ty decide rights bee tween parties, to decide State rights, to decide national rights—-an argument, I say, that somebody some- Where hes acted iraudulentiy, aud that the return bas been vitiated, THM FACTS AS TO BAKER COUNTY. Tt is not, however, within the scope of my purpose to unswer generally the argument that took most of ‘he time of the objector who opened the caso, Mr. 1 must say, however, to this commission that | made NEW YORK AERALD, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1877.—WITH SUPPLEMENT. instead, as suggested by the first objector, Mr. Field, we do not on this side ree with the views pre- sented by bim with respect to the facts For exempie, when he refers to Biker county, | not only gissent from hig views of the tacts as of record im that case, but 1 say that if you go into that question of Baker county, if that fact, which be aliegea 1 be truc—to wit hat somebody laughea, on a proposition being to canvass those voter—we shat! naturally ask that og §0 into Jackson county, where, under other polit+ ical domination, there were rejected 271 votes given Jor the other candidate, and that poll, we certatnly claim, was entirely vitiated by that rejection. 1 should k you to go into another county where you would Oud that a@ railroad train, full of passengers stopped on {ts passage through the county, and tho “passengers got off and voted the ticket supported by my friend, who makes the allegation about fraud in Baker county, I should ask you io go into other counties, where {we would find the poll vitiated by this stuffing of ballot boxes, We further answer the allegation that these things have not been denied by us by stating that we propose to show that there was sucli a case of fraud in the incipency of that vote as would astonish not only 8 Commission but the whole country by its presentation, I unite with my friends tn condemning fraud wherever it exists, Iv should vitiate, pot only the poll, but the action of every humag being who participates tn it, We aro not here to defend fraud. We are here, however, 10 oT. bot only that the allegation made on the other side is not correct, but that the very next step in the examination of the question confrouls you with some Of the grossest cases of violation of popular rights that have ever been heard of inthe history of this country. If we are to scek out fraud let us go to the bottom of it. Let us go where that fraud is found in such degrce and in such force as to penetrate the very foundation of the popular sovereignty of this country, and to tead every patriot to consider whether the highest duty of legisiators 18 not first to put thei? guard where alone traud is essentially to be feared, be- cause itis further removed {rom tho sightof the general public, But I leave that question out, Ido not believe that this Commission, by the constitution or law, was ever intended or bas the power to go to the extent that would be required to probe these mutual allegations on both sides to the bottom, I find also that our honor- able friends on the other side bave been misled by the Judicial atmosphere of this hall, consecrated usually to the jurisdiction of a judicial court, and under the influence of these columns aud the associations of this room they have addressed you, honorable gentle- men of this commission, as if you Were a court vested with the power to try causes, vested with the powers of asuboroimate court im proceedings by a writ ot quo warranto, vested with the determination of the rights of holding office, and they have presented to you Beso questions upon which it is absolutely necessary to come to a decision:— Pirt—{s this Commission a general canvassing bon with power to recanviss the public vote uf the Stute ol Florida t Second—Is this Commissfon a national court of appeal from the state Canvassing Board ? Third—1s this Commission a Judictal court of appeal from the State Circuit Court of Florida in proceedings by a writ of quo warranto F The gentlemen on the other side aflirm that your Jurisdiction was coextensive with that of a court in a proceeding by quo warranto; and I add the fact, tn response to the facts alleged on the other side, which have tho decision of this subordinate court,’ Judge White's Court in Fioriva, as the foal determination of that question of quo warranto, that we are informed and so claim the fact to be, that itis now pending on an appeal in the Supreme Court of the state of Florida, alter a regular app \si from tho Circuit Court alter tho proceedings of quo vsarranto, ‘THR COMMISSION A CANVASSING HOARD, Now the aflirmative of all these propositions is taken by our opponents, They do affirm that you are a can- Vassing bourd, with power to recanvass the vote of Florida cast by the people, ‘They do affirm that you are not merely a canvassing board, bat a national court ef appeal irom the action of the Canvassing Bourd, They do affirm that you are a court go judicial that from the action of the State Circuit Court of Florida you can take jurisdiction in reviewing their: action. They do affirm that there 18 no limit to our power to investigate into the honesty aad integrity of tho action of tho Canvassing Board of Florida and determining tt originally with (he powers ofaconrt towhom the certificate of election suoula have been given, Now this represents the legal posi- tion of our opponents, 1 ask, therefore, what are the powers of this commission? 'I need not remind tho honorable gentlemen composing it that the assump. tion of those powers implies that wo are to have no election of a President and Vice sident inside the length of time limited for that purpose, You cannot suy: to those gontlemon, vo will go bebind the regular certificates provided by tho constitution and laws just £0 far as to ind whether what you allege to be fraud 18 or is not traua.”” Wo must, if we go behind them, go where all fraud is asserted to be, It is tho popular yote that those gentlemen say you will raviow, Where did this commission get iis power from? By theact organizing the commission you are vested with the right to consider just 8» much of this case a8 Congress wight conajder. Let me ask, then, what is that, in order toclear our bands (rom what within the lust two or three years has grown to boa Most dangerous aspect of tho rights of States and people—viz, an assertion of the unlimited power over all things and all queetions having a national aspect of tho two bodies comprising the Congress of the United States, No such thing was intended by the constitu. tion. The samo power which uader the constitution justifies Congress in saying that the counting shall bo done by this commission would have justified them tm saying that the counting should bedone by the Prest- dent of the Senate, Admitting that Congress b: Ppowor 80 to arrange It, we must guide oursolves by the same principles of justification that you yourselves would assert, surrounded by the simple power of the constitution, If the President of the Senate alone shonid count the votes, If the constitution had said, ‘and the vote shall then be counted by him,” the game re. sult would have been reacked. If, instead of ‘by him,” you use the two words *‘by Congress,” you ao not improve the matter at al', Whatever Congress has to do, that is to be dove by the President o: the Senate or by tho two houses of Congress, If you main- tain that the President of the Senate should count the votes; that he has the right to send out commissioners to take depositions, to seek evidence, to recanvass the popular vote of Florida, to organize the whole ma- chinery alike of the executive canvassing boards of the State and of the judicial boards of the State, 18 there a gentioman in this Commission from eittor house of vongress or on the supremo Bench who would for a moment twierate such power under the simple language, ‘Shall count the vote?” If not, then the act has given no addi- tional power to fifteen men outside of the power which by the like terms would have been conferred upon one man, Henco | say there is in this law no power to do more than is necessarily implied tn tho words, ‘count the vote,” WHAT “COUNT THE VOTE” MEANR, That betug 40, we come to the next question, What does it mean? And 1s the power of that sort that tin- phes sometning not ministerial? With the narrow circuit of discretion that belongs to the ministerial power does it, us gentlemen on the other side claim, give them unlimited power of review? If it does, your constitution in its very tramework and organization 18 violated, The first three articles of the federal const tution relating to tho functions of this governn made them legislative, executive and judicial, afirm positively that the judicial functions are vosied in a certain body, namely, in the So inferior’ tribuuals; just us iw tho Congress of the United States; just as executive power is vested in the Prest- dent, The lines are drawn in the constitution of your corfntry which tolls you that the mutual powers of tnis government in tho tnree great powers shall not be merged or mingled in o tribunal either made ap of the three or mace up of any wo of the three, The safety of our people bangs upon it; the safety of our States barg upon it; all the clements of ational safety hang upon the obser- vation of that great step in modern civilization, great compared with the ancient, that takes from ono de- portment of government all duties except those per- taining to ite principal branch, tho other side merges them, and says that you are to exercise judicial functions. The claim made this Morning tnaintains that your powers are coexistent with the powers of a court on a writ of quo warranto, I think it may be assumed that the language of the act creating this commission confers no such powers upon It, organized as it 18 to ide over a difficulty and to do this ministerial act of counting the vote, Lt have spoken ol the narrow circuit of discretion that sur- rounds the ministerial act of counting. I beg to re. new the distincuon that there is no dilference by adding the words “by — Congress’? at the end of ihe constitutional clause, so that it would read ‘shal! then be counted by Congress,” It is the same as it the words were added, ‘sball then be counted by bim,’’ nean:ng the President of the sen- ate, The essential of the phrase is the count, What is that narrow cireie? It ts to ascertain the count. The certified votes under the constitution and law that ought to be counted, not mm the sense claimed, 0 and but in inisterial Kengo, Do they upon their Jace contain evidence of (raud--ol error? Is | certificato number two more regular, more free {rom {raud, nore worthy of being received than cer- utieate Puinber one? I# certificate number three a bet- ter cortilicate, or does it bear greater evidence of an- thenticity than tho other? If so, take it; it is an authentic certificate or return, Neither Cougress nor avy other power has the right to count the popular voies, for the constitution: says distinctly that it ts the electoral vote which 18 to be counted. Are you to revise the procecdings of all State elections and Stato tribunals, appointed by State laws, to count what 18 properly certified and pre lo you’ If it be otherwise, let the constitut amended, and let it be deelared by this tribunal to be amended so (bat tt shall read ;— Stave shall appoint in e thereof may direc nner as the of electors, the Unite sneh a nun nae to determine whether such electors have periormed their functions 1o the satis faction of said Congres We are brought inevitably toan amendment to the coustitution Which sought to preserve absolutely the rights of the States, which required every ballot im the Presidential election to be cast on the sume day, that they might be freed from con- trahzed influence. Every member of the Commission knows the history of the adoption of this clause, and yet we are brought perpetually, | say, to the question :— Shall we now go on und complete the absorption of the absolute mdependent right of the States to appoint the clectors in therr own Way, ana say that 1t is sab) the two Houses of Congress whether they bave done or shall do what is necessary? The gentiemen ask, Are we then to take the certiticate of the Governor a troth? Is there reason on the other it should not be asked, Are we to tako the certificate of fifteen gentlemen ngainst the truth? There is back of the necessity of public affairs an nbsolute necessity fo have some final jurisdiction, in order that there shali be somewhere authority by which we stand, even i! 1t be impeached? Where ts the authoruy? Ie it here? Isitin the State Legisiature? If not, where iw lt? Tsubmit that for the purposes of this case un+ der the coustitution and laws that authority exists where the State authority onda, and that if that action conforms to the statutes of the State and ot the United States, there is tho determination of the sulk It has been said (bat the courts bad decided The claim made on | Onally this quo warranto case in Plorida, There is no evidence in the records of the Court that that fact 1s tra ' have read the decision, and 1 must aay ' there pot an ailus that the Canvassing Board Tt was alleged that that action to the action of two years betore tion of the rights of tue Board. mitted # few minutes ago to th is @ certain section of the to the language of which 1 call your attention. It is this: ‘Ll! any such returns shall be shown or shall appear to bo Irregular, false or traudulent, and the Board shall be unable to determine the true vote for any such oilicer or member, they shall so certity, and shali not include such return in their determination or declaration.’* That is the statute by which the election was held February 27, 1872, and u law in force he time of the canvass dato of the certi- of the electors and al electors and until the 17th of January, 1877, will be seen that the Canvassing Hoard of Florida were to iuquire whether those returns appeared to be £0 fraudulent that the Board could not count the voto. In exercising that function they not merely passed upon the returns of the county canvass, but upon the certified returas in precincis, The courts said they had overstepped the law. r. Kasson-—That is only to say that the gentlemen on the otber side wanted in so much of their action 48 suited their case and wanted to reject the rest, The Board applied the rule and determined the result. lh om changes in counties both way it put back some repubdlican votes and so} dem- ocratic votes, { only mention it here be- cause the printed proceedings dq not mention all ints. Now we come to canvass number threc. here you find that, not satisfied with it at all, appotnted a new board of canvassers, From that new | voard thoy rejected the Attorney General of the State, | whose opinions had been (ns to the law of the ease) | in many points of the canvass with the republican members of the board. In «pite of the Atternoy Gen eral being made a member of the Returning Board he was left out and the Treasurer ot (he State put in bis atead, After somo further remarks with reference to can- vuss No, 3, Mr. Kassou conunued:—Mr, Fiold proposed in bis argument to show the jJugglery by which the Hayes electors gov their certificates, May | ask this tribunal if (here is a prima facie presumption for or against fraud, whether it exists agaist those offlcors elocted betore fraud could bave been contem- piated; against a Board that acted at the tume "required by the State law, against Board that acied at the time required by Con- gressional law; against a Bonrd that acted in ignorance of the result in other States? Ordoos that presump- | tion of frand exist against men who know the impor. tance of the chango of the reBult im Florida; agaiust men who acted with the knowledge’ of the necessity of the action they took — to accomplish their —sroxult; against. = men. who were organized as a new tribunal and enacted a new law to accomplish that result? e be fraud, if there be conspirucy ag alleged, where does tae pre- sumption of law under these circumstances place it? Inevitably it places it where tho motive of the act, tho knowledge requisite to give motive effect and tho purpose to be accomplished were all before the eyes of the persons participant in it Fraud cannot be so presumed against parties that act in con- Jormity with law and in the discharge of a duty at tho Ume required by law and inthe manner required by inw, as it can be presumed against those who did {t outside ot the provisions of the law and with a full knowledge of the effect which would be produced by it. My honorablo triend from Virginia (Mr. Tucker), in his argument, spoke of the fact which was unsupported by any evidence, but which, he said, he could support by some evidence, that there was a bad motive and bad conduct on the part of this Canvassing Board. Of that I have seen no evidence whatever, A TRIO OF OLIGARCHS. But he went further and asked—Are we to submit this great question of the supremo magistracy of the United States to the determination of a trio of oli. garchs in Florida? A trio of oligarchs! What shall [ say of the quartet of oligarchs State who oxercise — corresponding What shall I say of the, quarte of oligarchs that exists in ‘every state almost of this Union, which is empowered in a similar man- ner and having probably the same rights as a canvass- ing board’ Nay, more, I should like to ask my bon- orable triend what shalll say of this, solo oilgarch in Oregon? Is there any significance in giving a namo of this sort to a tribanat that is acting under and “vecause of the provision of the conatitusion and laws of the United States and of the State? I answer that the question 1s, Where does the Jaw put the power to arrive at that determination in which action is based? Whetber that be in one mao, in three men or in five men, the determination ix prima facie evidence and can be vitiated only in” the inanner provided by the laws of the local original jurisdiction, ag the case may be. The case is made when it is found to be in secordance With the constitution and Jaw in time, manner and due certification of authen- ticity. Can it be upset? Yes. Where? the gentle- man suggests. | answer within the jurisdiction which the laws provide for the determination of the right, But, says the gentleman, suppose no such pro- vision of law is made? Then I answer that absence of autirority’ is no reason for a usurpation where that act bas not in its support a scintilla of con- stitution or law, If the allegation 18 true 1% simply shows the necessity of further logislation where that legislation ought to exist. Il it. be not true tho whole of tha argument. hero lalla to the ground, The constitution says that we have very littio to do with this matter of elections ina State. The history of tho constitution shows that it was intended that we should have very litte to do with the determination, With such matters it gave us no authority to overthrow State action, and the alleged right to change a duly certified resuli contains within itself the rigut without investigation of the motive to deny to the States that very right which the constitution took such extraor- dipary pains to confine exclusively within the prov. ince of the State, The commission at five o’clock adjourned until half- past ton to-morrow morning. AN EXTENSIVE BELGIAN FORGERY. A FORGED MARRIAGE GIFT FOR FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND FRANCS—FLIGHT AND ARREST OF THE FUGITIVES. Tho observance of the extradition treaty existing botween the Kingdom of Belgium and the United States has sn its enforcement here overtaken two noted crim- inals, fugitives from Belgium. Tho Baron Vo Pasquicre d’Acossie, a wealthy noble. man of Bothey, in Belgium, died in 1873, For somo time previous to his death among his domestics was one Jeannette Damas, who, previous to the Baron's death, was espoused to Jenn Baptiste Henri Vandervelpen. ‘These laticr personages are tho principal actors in an actual drama of lite which, in its main features, still proclaims that fact is stronger than fiction. Tho Belgian Baron above nomed was very wealthy, and very much attached, like all the old worthy barons over read of, to his retainers living on the ancestra, domain—more particularly was the Baron to Jeannette Vandervelpen, née Damas, If he was not sho was dee termined to give him credit for an immense amount of wffection for her. To place the defunct Baron in his truo light, looking through Jeanette’s eyes to an admiring world, regardless of the Baron's rela- tives’ contemplation of the act, the husband and wile, im the words of ‘the complaint, faisoly, irauduiently, feloniousty and with = in: tent to detrand the estate of the Baron bo | Pasquier d’Accossic, forged a certain obligation | purporting t to defraud th or paper rep be the act of the said Baron, with which | estate of the said Baron; said obligation enting 500,000 francs, made in favor ot | the said Jeannette Damas, and representing that tho said son Was a marriage gilt to her, This fraadulent paper was dated as far vack as 1862, though since clearly proven to bave been the act of the present fugitives some time alter their marriage, und shortly before the Baron's death, the order being made payabio | after his death. In furtherance of their scheme | Vandervelpen and bis wile boldly caused their forged | obligation to be recorded in the ollice of the Clerk ot the City of Brussels, ana subsequently produced the | same in the heat of an action brought by thom beto | the civil tribunal of Firat Instance, of justice at Namur, in the Ki Against the heirs and estate of | The claimants wero defoated in the civil action, im the prosecution of which the attempted fraud was so trausparent that the authorities instantly commenced criminal proceedings aguinet them; but they made their escape m time and reached, without capture, the United States last July, N AMERICA, | _ Thoy landed at this port aud at once continued their | fight Westward. at Chicago, re- mained moved further off there to Sturgeon Bay, Wis, finally setting down at Goshen, Ind. Here’ Vandervelpen found favor, it is said—like Jacob in the Lind of Pharoab—through his wile, and things Were going on prosperously with | abe fugitives, Vanderveipen being a good musician and in much demand among the musical Gosh- enites, The principal citizen there mw a Mr, Maysnard, and wh at jast the Nemesis of thom to thetr retreat, be ding them vu the preiim. 'Y Wo justily the authorities Coudert Brovhers, acting for the Belgian Consul here, | had sent upon their track, From the moment of thor Hight from Brussels to their capture the lynx-eyed ol- ficers of the law Wore iu parsult, and, though some. times bailed and on the Wrong trail, they unerringiy Feturned to it, with the result mentioned, Much of the success of the detectives was due to the promptness with which United States Commissioner White, specially appointed in extradition proceedings, issue the necessary warrant and papers hecessary to Identify the parties with the offence charged againat them, When first arrestod a habeas corpus was procured by their friends in Goshen, and they were discharged, but only for an instant. The mandate of the Execu- tive, through the Secretary ot the State, was pro- duced, and there was no further effortat parley or delay, fugitives, Vandervelpon and bis wile, will bo brought up this morning for examinution belore Commissioner White, CURLING CONTEST. (DY TELYGRAPH TO THY HERALD.] Pirtstox, Pa., Feb, 2, 1877. The Ayrshire vs, Dumfriesshire curling maten playod here to-day was won by the Jattor clnd by eleven JUDGE MILLER’S VIEWS, MR. CURLEY THROWS SOME LIGHT ON THE DISPUTED LETTER~-HE DECLARES BE HEARD IT READ BY JUDGE BALLINGER LAST DECEMe BER—HOW IT CAME Ur, New Yorn, Feb. 1, 1877. To rae Evitor or tue Hreatv:— 1 bave seen and heard read a lotter from Judge Miller On the political situation, which I suppose ts the ove mentioned by your New Oricans eorrespondent, because my recollections of the time, place and cir. cumstances of this letter coincide very nearly with the well told story in your tssue of to-day. THIS LETTER WAS NO SECKET— at least 1 should judge not—because fi was read to me by Judge Miller’s trend and relative, in tho presence of othors, and without the slightest intimation that it was to do considered as con- fidential, 1 see neither hardship nor harm in publicity at the present time, and if my CORROHORATIVE RECOLLECTIONS are of any value to your readers 1 have no compune tion in giving them. J am an author, an extensive traveller. 1 have Jong been connected with English journalism, and L was in G jon in December last on business con- nected with my profession, While there I had occa. sion to call upon Colonel Jack, a gentleman of high Standing, formerly of the Confederate army, and now amember of the law firm of Ballinger, Mott & Juck. Tolegraphic news was then fresh to band informing us in some detail that Governor Grover, of Oregon, bad given a certilicate to CRONIN AS PRESIDENTIAL ELKCTOR inthe place of Watts, whom be had declared tnelt- gible; that he had made Cronin the custodian of the certificates of the two other persons, whom he admit. ted to beduly chosen; that the certificates of their election bad been withheld from these persons, and thot Cronin, assuming to judge their conduct, declared their places vacant, had appointed otbers in their stead, and with these persons had assomed to cast the vote of Oregon. A lawyer cailed in, congratulated the gentlemen present on the welcome news, said that he thonght the republicans Wero thereby checkmated, and immediately withdrew, Thad not yet formed a defnite opinion on the lega, and moral aspects of tho whole contest, I had inter. ests which wonld probably be favored by the quiet election und inauguration of Tilden, but I found at once a decided opinion advorse to the democratic claims in this Gregon cage, and, tn accordance with my usual {rankness, | was not slow to givo it utterance, Itheretore took occasion to express the deepest pain ana regret at the proceedings in Oregon, and Colonel Jack said that the Governor bad clearly acted in a Judicial capacity in giving the certificate to Cronin, and that his action was undoubtedly takon alter the most careful consideration of the legal pects of the question, 1 itutimated gravo doubts whether Governor Grover had any right to agsume judicial functions in the cuso, and continued by stating that, however this might be, he clearly bad no right, directly or indirectly, on any pretence whatever, to withhold certificates from those whom ho admitted to be duly clected. The conversa. tion became auimated, though very friendly, und I characterized in tho strongest terms what 1 consid- ered the usurpation of Cronin in assuming to cast by himself and instruments of his choice the whole eiec- toral vote of the State. My interlocutor admitted that the case was not morally defensible, anda ex- pressed tne strongest confidence that Mr, Tilden would not think of profiting by it, excopting in so far as it gave tho democratic party A CERTAIN STRAGETIO ADVANTAGE by compelling the republicans to go behind the re. turns. I maintained the position that what is just and right is always the truest oxpedioncy, while the Colonel argued that it is sometimes allowable to “fight the devil with fire.” At this point Judge Ballinger joincd vigorously in the discussion, and by way of strength. ening the position thattho party in power ts veritably a hydra-headed monster, A MULTITUDINOUS DEVIL, in dealing with which one should not be too nice about weapons, he prodaced and read a letter, which, he said, was from Judge Miller, of the Supreme Court of the United States; and it seemed to mo that in no other way could he havo presented bis case so well. Ag eminent judge, woil known for hig afilintions with the republican party, caunot be supposed to visit st with the severest censure from long and deep seatod preju: dices oF from hastily formed opinious, and, theretoro, the vigorous and incisive language of the lettor, with its points well brought out in the reading, had a mos tolling effect, 1did not charge my memory with the contents of the letter, for the Electoral Commission was then un- thought of, and it has only lately become a matter of very special interest and importance. Nevertheless, 1 CANNOT BK MISTAKEN ag to its scope and general tenor, for my recollections are vivid and the circumstances as detailed above fore bid any serions error in theso respects, THK KMINENT JURIST’S OPINIONS. I remember that tho eminont writer alludes to former differences of political opinion, and intimates that he fi it the time of writing—in full accord with his Texan correspondent on the great politica: issue of the day. He follows this up with severo strictures on the prevailing rottenness and corruption, and ne dwells on the misiortunes of the South through the Jong continued misrule of the carpet-baggers and their ignorant und victous allies. Ho asserts that ander these circumstances, im the desire for a change and to better a condition which, in many respects, and especially in some paris of the country, had become well nigh intolerable, in the dae exercise of their rights as provided in the constitution and laws, THK PROPLE NAVE CHOSEN TILDEN for President, and that no sooner is this evident than @ conspiracy 18 hatched to thwart the popular will by manipfiating amd cooking the returns {rom a sufficient number of down-trodden Southern States to reverse tho result. His severest epithets are reserved for the officials in Louisiana, I bave barely indicated the gen- eral purport of tho letter as I remember it, For private correspondence it is a long one, You it bristles with points concisely put, and its lan- guage forcibly reminds me of some of the utterances of the eminent English jurist Lord Chief Justice Cock- burn, who is probably beat known on this side of the Atianuec trom bis connection with an august and high tribunal that settled at Geneva in a sensible manner questions which, involving as they did tho friendly relations of the two great branches of the Boglish speaking race, were searcely less important than those which are now in the hands of that special tribunal at Washington in whieh Judgo Miller must necessarily take rank as one of the most important mambers. Without attempting to do full justice to Judge Miller's lotter, I am ploased to be thus able to bear wit- ness to the accurney of your New Orleans correspon dent in essential facts, and I trust that in its entirety THM MISSIVE WILL DY MADE PUBLIC. I presume that the denials are of a diplomatic chai acter, like the ‘Not at bome’ or ‘Very much en- Baged"” of agentioman somewhat loth to bo inter. viewed, but who will probably submit with @ good grace on a repetition of tho visit, EDWIN A, CURLEY. AN ENGLISH MURDERER WANTED. A communication has been received by the Chief a Police of Brooklyn from the Chief Constable of Shet field, England, stating that Charles Peace, ftorty-sis yoars of age, 14 Wanted in that country to charge of murd: The following description of bim:—"A thin and slightly built man, five feet four of five inches in beight, gray (nearly white| beard and whiskers; has [ost one or more finge! the Jolt hand, 18 marked on tho back of one or both hands, and on the forehead; has two moles on right shoulder, scars or marks of injary on lett leg below tho koee; lett leg slightly crooked; walks with logs rather widely apart, and speaks somewhat pecullarly, ag thongh his tongue tou large lor his mouth.” The English authoriues Lave reason to suspect that Peace is lurking somewhere in Brooklyn, and they wish 4 diligewt search made for him, A Coroner's jury, at at inquisition held in SheiMeld on December 8, 1876, ren. dered a verdict of wilful murder against the fagitiva The sum of £100 ($500) has been offered as a rewar¢ for bis discovery and apprevensiov, The communica tion is signed vy J, Jackson, Chief Constable, Sheflield, tectives are engaged on the o: CAVAN ASSOCIATION BALL, The Cavan Association, Owen Clark, President, com- posed of natives of the county Cavan, Ireland, oF th beld its anoual ball at Tammany tall last even. ‘The hall was moterately tilled, about 100 couples, Thomas ©, Smith, takin, sons, ing led by the floor manager, part in the opening prome’ Civil Justice Campbell were amor Sheriff Roilly an shots, Mr, A. M. Stewart, of New York, acted as umpire, Dancing commenced at elev | being upon the programme, England, to whom a,i information should be sen, Do*