The New York Herald Newspaper, February 9, 1877, Page 3

THE COMMISSION. ‘Conclusion of the Argument in the Florida Case. A DECISION EXPECTED TO-DAY Attitude of the Republican Members of the Commission. A BOLD PUSH FOR THE DISPOTED STATES. No Evidence of Partisanship on the Part of the Judges. _—— THE QUESTION OF INBLIGIBLE ELECTORS, The Democratic Argument in the Louisiana Case. FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT. Wasninarow, Feb. 8, 1877. At the close of the argument before the Electora, Commission to-day & motion.was made to adjourn until to-morrow, Sevorul members, however, desired to go ‘on at once, and tho question was put to voto, and once more tho division was on strict party lines, seven demecrats voting for adjournment, seven republicans against, and Judge Bradley deciding by his vote to adjourn until to-morrow morning, when the session will be private and for consultation, Tho republicans this evening think that tho decision will not be long de- layed, ‘Their theory is that there being no caso against Humphroys, the elector .supposed to havo been ineli- igible, tho commission will at once accopt tho Stearns certificate good, ‘INTENTIONS OF THE REPUBLICANS, There is reason to believe that the republican Sena- tors and Representatives, members of the Commission, \ntend to push for this vigorously and to avoid further Aigcussion in the Commission it possible, It is unaer- stood they area unit, and are animated by a determina- tion to count all threo of the disputed States for Hayes, Nor would this be surprising. They areall strict party men; all of them except Messrs, Morton and Garfield holped to frame the Electoral bill, supported it in specches and votea for it against the opposition of aw influential boay of their party, including all the party leaders, They were denounced then for a measure which they were told was certain to defeat Hayes, and which was virtually jurrender to the ene- my.” They have now before them the task to rebabilitate themselves with the party chiefs, and it is not won- dertul if they aro obedient followers of Senator Morton and General Garfield, under whose eyes they must Speak and vote, What these two gentlemen plan and propose it would require uncommon courage and in- Gependence in the oth under all the circumstances, to oppoke, i ATTITUDE OF THE JUDGES. The judges of the Supreme Court are not moved by the fears and hopes which will naturally influence the ther members, If they should prove to be mere par- \isans it would be a serious disappointment to the ‘country. «So far-thero is no reason to believe them so, It 18 generally felt here to-day by the salmer men of both sides that yesterday’s preliminary sonclusions take true ground if they prove to-morrow what they say and are not a mere legal stalking horse, [t is believed that the commission will report on Satur- day, when the count will at once go on and the Louis. jana case will bo taken up. This ought to be decided by the following Wednesday or Thursday. The Su- premo Court stands adjourned until the 19th, and the Judges will probably bo desirous to complete the labors of the commission by that day if possidle, THE INKLIGIBLA ELECTORS, There isa good deal of talk here about ineligible electors on both sides; but these cases, even if they are presented, will cause but little dolay, as they will not go before the commission, and, being brought be- fore the two houses, no elector will be rejected, be- cause it requires tho concurrence of both houses to reject a vote, THE MISSISSIPPI MATTER. The investigations in regard to the Mississippi clec- tion do not threaten delay in the count, They are set on {foot for the purpose of accumulating material for | the republicans wko intend to, oppose Mr. Lamar’s entrance into the Senate after the 4th of March. Iv ia | hot probable that the opposition to hig will be very | Jeet to the orders issued yesterday, and of which ‘counsel had been advised. Mn. Merrick, for the democratic side, then called George P, Raney, who testified as follows :—I reside in Tallanassoe, Fla.; 1 am by prolession a lawyer, and am at present the Attorney General of the State of Florida; on the 6th day of Wecember, 1876, } was in ‘the @ity of Tallahuasee. Mr. Merrick asked whether the witness bad any knowledge as to the service of the writ of quo war- Fanto on the Hayes electors on that day? To this question Mr. Evarts, for the republican side, objected, on the ground that it did not come within the fimits of the order of the commission, which re- lated only to the clogivility of Mr. Humphreys, Mr, Groen, for the democrats, said his side proposed to prove by this witness the simple fact as to the pre- cise time when the writ of quo warranto was served upon the Hayes electors. 1t was not, he said, appre- bended by himself and his associates that the order made by the commission exciuded in its spirit the consideration of the quo warranto proceedings, and by the present witness he merely desired to 1x the exact timo the quo warranto was served. The objection of Mr. Evarts was sustained and the witness was withdrawn, THE CASE OF UUMPHREYS. Mr. Green then called James E. Yonge, who testified that he was a practicing lawyer in Ponsacola, Fia ; that he knew Frederick C, Humphreys, and nad known bim for about ten years; Humphreys’ present business is agent lor an express company, but bas been United States Shipping Commissioner. Mr. Evarts interposea the objection that if an of. cial position is to be proved as by authority communi- cated {rom the government, the official appointment should, in the absence of somo reason to the con- trary-— Mr. Green stated that the testamony given was dence of the use of the office, Mr. Evarte—My objection is that use is not suffi. cient in a. matter depending upon authority. The Presiding Justice—Let the ollicial appointment be produced to savo objections, Mr. Green then produced and read in evidence the order of the United States Circuit Court for the Northern district of Florida, December term, 1872, ap- pointing Frederick C, Humphroys, of Pensacola, Ship- ping Commissioner for that port, To this order is at- tached Humphreys’ accepinnce of the office and nis ofleial outh and a certticate from the clerk of the court, dated January 24, 1877, setting forth that thore i#.on file bo resignation, or noceptuuce of resignation, of the said Humpbreys as such Shipping Commis. Witness coutinued:—I know Fredorick C. Hum. hreys, one of the persons voted tor as elector for Prosident and Vice Presideut of the United States; he is the same person of whom! have spoken as United States Commissioner; [ have bad trapsactions with Humphreys as such Commissioner, beginning in the early part of 1873 and extending up to some time in the latter [ove of August, 1876, as a lnwyer 1 have frequently had occasion to communicate with him on the subject of the discharge of American seamen; his duties as Shipping Commissioner related to matters between American seamen aod shipmnasters, Here Mr. Green announced the direct examination of this witness closed. aie ‘Stoughton s u 1d that he had no cross-examina- n. Mr. Grcen—That is all we propofe to offer by way of affirmative evidence, uuless there may be something which may be required to be offered by way of rebul- tal to the ih offered on the other side. Mr. Evarts—Witbout commenting upon the state of the proof thus reached, and without saying anysbing as to rebuttal, principally ‘upon the point that no evie donce has been adduced that shows that Humphreys held the office of Shipping Commissioner at the date of the Ngvember election, we will introduce the proof on our part that be did not, and then leave the question lor discussion, TESTIMONY OF NUMPHREYS. Frederick ©. Humphreys was then cailed, sworn and examined as follows :— By Mr. Stoughton—Q. Were you a candidate for alocter on the republican ticket at the last election ? was, . Q. Had yon, prior to being a candidate, held ‘any oflice, and, if so, what? A. L was United States Ship. ping Commissioner for the port of Ponsacolu, Q. When did you cease toactas such’ A. On the 5th day of October, when the acceptance of my resig- nation was received trom Judge Wood, trom whom the Sppotohmess came, Q Did you resign your position? A. I did, i Q By eamgpagion delivered towhom? A, By rosig- nation through the mail. Q towhom? A. To Judge Wood. 4 Have you in your possession the acceptance of jon? A. I pave, 8 produced the paper and handed it to ghton, who, alter perusal, turned it over to Mr. Merrick tor examination. , Mr. Merrick objected to its introduction or accept- ance, ag the acceptance of a resignation, as it is the act of an individual and not of the Court, By Mr. Stoughton—Yow received this paper from Judge Wood in reply to your resignation sent through tho mail? A.J did, sir. joughton then read the letter accompanying fol'ows:— ¥ ws, Nuwant, Olio, Oct. 2, 1876, Sin—Teholose the acceptance of" your resignation e as Shipping Commissioner, The vacancy can ouly be by the Cireult Court, and until I come to Pe court for tant purpose the duties of the offic divenarged by the Ci jor. Respectfull by nsacola to ope it have to be ly, ir ‘4 We"! woop. Major F, C. Humraneys, Pensucol Mr. Stoughton then read the acceptance as fol- lows:— resigning 0 oner wt tho Florida, hus beet received cd office Is hereby necepted. vant, ive the paper which I hold in haud, dated October 5, 1876, trom Hiram Potter, Coi- lector of Customs at Pensacola? A. I did, sir. Q Is that his signature? A, That is his sigoature, Mr, Merrick—Woe object to that paper. The Presiding Justico—lg will be received subject to the decision of the commission as to its effect. The letter was then read, 1 is izom Hiram Potter, Jr, Vollector of Customs, dated ‘Collector's oilice, Pensacola, Oc‘ over 5, 1876,” and requests that Mr. Humphreys turn over to tho writer such public books, papers and records as might appertain'to the business of shipping commissioner, the duties ‘ot which office, as he was iniori being devolved upon him (the writer) upon the resignation of Mr. Humphreys, Did you cease tin your office from the time of the receipt of the letter ucvepting your resignation? A. Idid not * Q. Have you acted in that capacity since? A. No, sir. Q Has the Collector acted in your stead? A. Yes, ir. Q. Did you turn over to the Collector whatever you had of public pagers or property connected with the office, if you had any? A. I had none; tho blanks were my personal property, bought und paid for with my own money. ‘THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. powerlul, Mr, Lamar will got his seat by tho help of | republican votes. | THE LOUISIANA CASE, The democratic objections in the Louisiana case will | be mainly, that under the State law the Roturning , Board bad no authority to canyass tho electoral vote, and that even if it had authority its composition was violation of the Jaw, If tho commission is going to act on the principle that the election and certification of Presidential electors 48 @ matter for the States alone, it will probably bq ‘guod that it is certainly bound, in tho interest of tho | Dation at large, which Congress represents, not to tolerate or accept a fraudulent count made in clear violation of a State law by persons having no au. thority from the State to meddle im tt, and this espe- Gially in a State whose rulers wero imposed on it by the federal government contrary to the will of the people, in clear There ate also one or two cases of ineligible electors | in Louisiana, which will come up for adjudication by the commission. i A YOTE TO RE DEMANDED, ‘The latest nows this cvening {s that the republicans | ‘on the commission have agreed to demand a vote witb- out discussion to-morrow and hope to bring the Florida @attor to a decision by two o'clock; also that they will not reply to any statements or addresses from the femocratic side, but simply listen to what may be said 4nd proceed at once toa vote. It is believed that Sen- iors Thurman and Bayard will speak in the commis- tion, Mr. Thurman opening, and the struggle in to- morrow’s meoting will be pertinacions. THE GENERAL IMPRESSION. The result no ono pretends this evening to forecast, though there is a general impression that the republi- cans have already decided that the Stearns certificate shall be accepted, and that they will have three of the | Judges of tho Supreme Court with them, Tho adyournwent this afternoon was moved by Mr. Payne, who was not well, and Judge Bradiey voted tor it because he was quite iil during a considerable part of | the afternoon's session, PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION. Wasitxotos, Feb. 8, 1877. The commission met at eleven o’clock A. M. Tho journal of yesterday’s proceedings was read and ap- proved. The Prosiding Justico announced that the commission was ready to procee@ with the caso, sub- Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick.—Q Have you a copy of your letter of resignation? A. 1 have nota copy of my letter of resignation; I sent it by mail to Newark, to the State of Ohio, where the Judge was on a visit, Q Has there been any sescion of the United States Circuit Court for that district.since the date of tho res- ignauionY A. There has not, @ When did you receive Judge Woou’s reply to your letter of resignation? A. On the 5th of October, Mr. Merrick aunounced that be bad no furiber ex. amination to make oi the witness and nothing to ofler in rebuttal. The Presiding Justico—The testimony 1s therefore closed. Tho Presiding Justice then called the attention of counsel to the third ruie of the commission, which states that counsel, not exceeding two in number on | each side, will be heard by the comission on the merits of any case presented to it, not longor than two hours being allowed to each side unless a longer timo and additional counsel should be especially autnorized | by the commission, He considered himselt instructed 10 say that the whole case was now open for argument under that rule. If thore are two coun-ol on u side Le thought the order before observed should be continued, and that one of the counsel representing the vbjeciors to certificato No, 1 should open and one ou the other side reply, and then the counsel huving the allirmative should have the close. Mr. Merrick requested that three counsel be beard for the objectors and that a slight addition be por- mitted to the time which counsel should be allowed in | Which 10 present the case, the reason, as he siated, being that a new and important question bad been raised apon the testimony this morning in reterenco to Mr, Humphreys, enlarging very considerably the sphere of argument, and counsel on his side desired to present that question very fully. Mr. Justice Miller remarked that all the other ques- tious involved had been thoroughly discussed on the first argument, ‘The effect of the papers submitted by | the President of the Senate was carctully argued by couusel on both sides, and it seemed to him that the commission must proceed diligently with the discharge | of its duties apd that the arguments upon the ques. tion immediately belore it should bo In reply to an inquiry trom the Mr. Evarts announced tuat his side dia ‘han two hours, even if three were allowed to the other side, nor did he wish tbat avy greater number than two counsel should be heard on his side. ARGUMENT OF JUDGK HOADLEY. Mr. Hoadley then opened the argument for the ob- jectors on the democratic side ide suid that it had been established by proof that Mr. Humphreys held the oftico of shipping commissioner by wppointment of the Circuit Court of the United States in Florida, aud that before the November vlection he attempted to dl- vest himself of this oflice by torwarding a paper resig- nition and getting from) a judge—not from the Court—what purported to be an icevptance of that resignation, The powers of this offleer (shipping Com- missioner) he stated to be laid down and derived from section 4,001 of the Revised Statutes, and tho resigna- Mon cannot be made except to the same power as that making the appointment. Tho resignation of Mr. Humpureys, theretore, ho argued, could not be made to the Judge who was at the time in Ono. Ho reterred ip support of this point to the case of Badger ev al. med ayninst the United States, ex relations Bolt, and that the sume doctrine laid down in that case be found iu the second volume of the Opinions ot Attorney Genoral, pago 713. liumpbreys, he said, bad been duly appointed to this oMec, and he consi YORK HERALD, FRIDAY. x r ered Sond, seo: Tape cant 1p Ohio was not the Circuit Court of Florida, and that as not relieve Humphreys from the duties with which he bad been invested ther pow mely, the Circuit Court of Fiorida—the ullezed resignation was of no effect. Pall eA thereiore, Mr, Humphreys, in bis opi ion, beld ne of profit and (o0ss om the day of u See ek, VO, SOnb DUN Agua yap Ue count * or, missioner Thurman inquired whether this was an office the resiguution of which must be accepted in orJerto give the resignation validity, or whether the officer could resign of hig own motive at auy time. Mr. Hoadley remarked that there was nothing in the statute with reference to the qq jon Of resignation. Biamporers, however, having accepted the office could bot, he submitted, divest himself of it by hiy own act alone, because public policy required that should pot be entirely at the will and pleasu! Office-bolder, Especially wus this the cuse with offices: for tne performance of the duties of which a bond was required, Mr. Hoadley ‘ded the provision constitution disqualifying persons holding of proit or trust as mandatory and as a limitawon and dimimaten of the grant of power to the State, that grant not being to the people of the State, but to the State itself in ite organized and corporate ‘eupacity. ‘This provision, he maintained, 1s in substance impera- five aud admits of no evasion. Heread from the Madison papers, page 343, to show that the (ramors of the courtitution intended that this disqualidcation should attach »# an exception or proviso to the nt of power to the State to elect electors and that it sbould attach by disqualification of all ineligible per- The State was disqualiied trom appointing & disqualified elector, The disqualification was, there. fore, twotold:—First, upon the appointing power, and gecondly, upon the candidate, and the effect of such ‘disqualification be submitted, was to render the action of the State in that regard null aud void. It was the duty of the Federal government, not of the States, to insist upon and carry into full force the provision. PRECEDENTS, The Guestion was not a new one, In 1837 there had been five postmasters appoimed or attempted to be appointed as Piesidential electors. The question had then been submitted (on a resolution offered by Henry Clay) to a select committee of the two houses, and the Teport of that committee, made by Mr. Grandy, was the effect that a single unauthorized vote could pot vitiate the whole voto of the Electoral College, and that the conatituty prohibition ought to bo carried its whole spirit inte rigid execution, in order to pre- vent officers of the general government from bringing oficial power to influence the Presidential ci is That the provision excluded and disqualifieu oven deputy posimasters, and that the resignation of the office after the appointinent of the olector, did not entitle him to vole as an elector, Senator Epmunps—What did the committee say ought to be done? Mr. Hoap.ky—Only that the article ought to be car- ried 1u its whole spirit into rigid execution. Senator Kimuspe—Huve you read the conclusion of the report? Mr, Hoapiny—Only tn an excerpt. Senator Epuuxps—I bad the impression that the commitieco bad added something cise. THK QUESTION PRESENTED, Mr. Hoapixy weut on to say Liat two questions were presented here; First—Did Humphreys, at the time be was elected, hoid an office of protit and trust? Svcond—W has 1s the effect of such holding ? He argued that there was a multitude of cages in England aud America, citing some of them, all of which treated the appoiutment of onc who was non- qualitied and attempted to act, as au absolutely null appointment; and in one Indiana case the next highest competing cundiduto was declared appointed. But none of tho authorities fuvored the idea that the election of one constitutionally dis- qualified could resul} in anythin; else than a failure to elect. Florida — hui not been without a remedy, because the statute of the United States, section 134 of Révised Statutes, provided that a case of a lailure to elect ou the day prescr.bed by law, then the Legislature may appoint a subsequent day. ‘This was the cago ol a lailure to elect, and it would have to be shown that the state of Floridu bad taken advan- tage of that provision oi section 134, or else that sin- gle vote was iost, Tho inhibition of the constitution being peremptory, the vote of the State would necessa- rily ve lowt it it was not for the provision of section 134, except tt could be shown by some principle of law that the eletcion of a disqualified candidate 1s possible, What, lest peradventuro oy mistake and without iatent to violate the spirit of the constututional provision, bad Congress provaded that in cage of a non-election in any Stute, the Legislature muy supply a method of supplying the detect? If the State of Florida did not take advantage of the remeay it was her own fault, ARGUMENT OF XK. GREEN, Mr, Ashbel Green, ot New Jersey, followed on the same side, adding to Mr. Hoadioy’s argument the fol- Jowing polats, viz, :—Tbat tne oflice of suipping Com- missioner beld by Humpbreys being an oltice to be filled by the Court could ve ouly surrendered up to the Court itsel!; that the so called letter of resignation nt to Judge Woods failed to performn the oltice sought to be imputed to tt until 11 reached the record ot the court or recciveu sumo official recoynition from tbe Court itself and that a certificate bad been received from the Clerk of the Court; that up toarecent period, certainly subecquenily to’ tho timo when Hum- pbreys acted as elector, his resignation bad not reached the archives oi tne Court. THR KLMCTION QUESTION, He then passed on to the otber branch of the in- quigy, whether the;demooratic electors were not duly elected and whothor their certificate was not duly au- thenticated. He argued in the affirmative of those points, declared that the commission had before tt such ev must carry conviction that 4! ong je Court of thy State of Florids bas hold and determined on quo warranto proceedings, not merely as matter of law but as matier of fact; (hat the Tilden electors were entitled to tho office as aguinss the Hayes electors, and all the world besides Tha. Bourd of Canvassers in November: last, by which tde Hayes electors claimed to have been right- fully elec was unauthorized, filegal and void. He held that it was tho duty of the commission, as it was the rule of every other court, to consider ag binding and conclusive upon it the construction given by State Courts to state stututes, aud that, therefore, decision by the highest court of Fiorida must ve taken into cousiderativy. In addition to this the com- mission had before it the certiticate of the Governor of Florida and a tabulated statement showing, county by county, all the votes cast for electors, and showing the election of the Tilden electors. Thus the Executive bad spoken, the judiciary had spoken, and then, in the third certificate, the Legisia- ture had spoken, ail in the same unmistakabie notes, Un the 26th of January, 1877, the Legislature p dan act reciting that, according to the returns in the ollice ofthe Secretary of State, the Tilden electo:s were choeen in the manner required by law; that the origl- nal canvassers had interpreted tho law detiving their powers and duties ju such a manner as to give them power to exclude certain. reguiar returns, and did exclude certain revurns, which interpretation had been adjudged by the Supreme Court to be er- roneous end illegal; that Governor Stearns, tnisied and deceived by such erroneous action of the Board of Canvassere, had erroneously caused to be made aud certified lists of Hayes evctors when in fact such per- sons had not received the highest number of votes, d then declaring, in section one, that the Tilden electors were duly appointed and ushorized to act, certificate of the votes which had been cast by them on the 6th ef Docember and send it to the President of the Senate ag required by law; so that the cominia- sion had in this return, No. 3, all the branches of tho government of Florida, speaking with unanimous and United voices, in the saine tone, and certilying to the me fact, which was the question belore the tribunal r decision, THE QUESTION OF TIME. He then proceeded to meet and ly tothe objection Made to returo No. 3 becuuse it had pot arrived at the at of goverument within the time prescribed, anu he argued that fn that matter time was not an essential element. If it was received at any me prior to the the right to compel their performance by pubic oficers accrued by the very reason that the time hin- ited by law bad passed. lie quoted preecdentein sup- port of that proposition. The act of the Florida | Legislature of January 17, 1877, simply allowed a piece of evidence to be enpphed alter the tine when tho law required public efiecrs to furnish it. It was a curative act, It was allowing an act to be done nunc pro tune in iwrtherance of right and justice, Neither Ol these acts of the Legisiature was an ex post tucto law. | He was proceeding to cito authorities on that point Justice that | when he was reminded by the presidin it was hardly necessary to do 80. In conclusion bo said:—We rest bere on the testimony belore you, and humbly summit that even on that testimony, meagre as it seems to be, there ts but one proper conclusion to be arrived ot—namely, that this voice of the State of Florida, thus uitered ‘not onty by its executive and legislative but by its Judicial departments, should be respected, and that this commission cannot come to any’ other conclusion than thatthe vote ‘of the State of = Florida sis. truly contained in revurns Nos 2 und and is not correctly contained in return No. 1, If have talied to convince your judgment as judges L shall not torget myselt so tar ay tO appeal to your pat- Tiotisn as statesmen, but here in this place conse- crated by the memories of those earlier Senatorial con- fiiets which resuited so often in the preservation of nu- man liberty, of the union and of the constitution, as well as by these later and yet present recolicctions ot the decisions of the most august tribunal on exrth, in favor of human freedom and of human rights, [must appeal to you, not asa partisan, but as an Amerioun citizen, and demand your jadgment for the right, ARGUMENT OF MR. SHKULABARGER, Mr, Sheliabargor, of Washington, followed on the republican side of the question, Ho cinimed, in re- pect to return No, 3, that the record m the procepa- ings of the quo warranto Was in no sonse before tho commission, und that the only papers before it were those submitted to tho two houses by the President of the Senate, and in those papers there was but one allusion to the quo warranto proceedings, which was in Governor Drew's statement. ‘That boing go, bh thought that even the otuer side would not claim that there ts evidence before the commission that any iidgment in quo Warranto had ever been pronvanced, ‘he Governor could not make tho commission quainted with the existence of the record in that way. A stage of the case had therefore been reached where that proceeding was excladed. 1t was so also in regard tothe evidence on the papers submitted with cers tifleates Nos 2and 3. As he regarded the matter, all these were excluded by the order already made Sull, as a discussion bad ocourred in regard +to tho effect of these papers, ho desired to submit somo propositions in regard to the legal offi tons occurring alter the date of the elect 101 His foundation proposition im regard to all these connting of the votes he submitted that that was sui. cient, Such acis of public officers, 11 not done within the time prescribed by law, did not thereby vecome incapable of — being. ‘doue afterward. ‘bey remained not only capable of being done, bat the duty of public officers. to wo j them subsisted in full vigor and obligation, | court Bad also determined that the action of the State} and in section two authorizing the Gov. ernor to certily the lists of the Tilden electors and tho latter to imcet j at ‘Tallahassee give ap additional | | with every dogree of certainty and asi Y. FEBRUARY 9, 1877—WITH SUPPLEMENT. the legislation of Jun- other act post dating electoral vote, was this, “that the power bestowed the constitution of the.State to appoint college is sueh, ee LA yee nove ot pW. act of the State in accomp! it must ante-date the perlormance of that one iiazie {nnetion which the appointee is competent to discharge under the constitution, If,” said he, “that proce 18 sound then, of course, all that bas been in regurd to tne eMcacy of the decision of a court spezermining sh Signiiication of its own peabnien a to the decisions that have been referred to in rogal matter as 6 rring on State courts the er to interpret thetr statutes, against the Supreme Court of the every act that follows the act of the electoral vote is excluaed. The strongest statement which | have heard of the position of gentiemen on the ber sido in regard to this matter ts in ite substance That it 1s competent for the States not to nt electors after t them alter the voting day 1s past to make au. interprotatio: which shall go backward, throw light on what the true tunetionary of tho State on that day, and thus Settle the question, which of the two rival bodies was feally the tunctionary of the State, ‘That is about the strongest statement that I have.seen on that point, Let US avalyze it and see if it is not utterly unsound. ‘The constitunon, im its express terms, limits the power of tho State in that m: it has denominated tersely cd the wor The ‘Utmost power, farthest reach of the Statos in re- jo the matter of making a President, stops wnen pointment stops Not a hatr’s breadth beyond in the States go in creatin; President. What ome functions in t ture of appoiatment which may be exercised by tl States alter the office has passed away? Such a eggperloa el simply reduces this whole debate the most intense and uumitigated absurdity, Thoretore, as the act of the State 1n the way of exere! {ng power must be appointment, and as appointment cannot in the very nature of the case follow the day when the last and the first and the only act of tue dupetionary inust, by the constitution and the laws, ve completely discharged, is it not plain tuat it was the design of the constitution and 1s the express provision of the constitution that every act of a State, when tt an discharge or perform at all (being mere appoint- menis), shall untedate the vote? Senator Churman—Does it follow that there can be no inquiry atterward whether any appointinent was made? Mr. Shellabarger—I will como to thatin a moment, and I thank the Senator for the suggestion—whether acts subsequent to the date of uppointinent may not bo looked to as throwing light on the question who the Appointee really was, That isa fair question, and de- Sorves a fair, irark, square answer, and 1 make it as Woll as L cap. My answer is this, 1! an clecior is on the young day endowed with ull the insignia of right, with all the apparent “title to office, which cap, accoruing to tho State machinery, ve beld on that day, he is, as against the Btutes, the eloctor both de facto ana de jure, and that } Fixes out of vhe vory nature of this sui generis thing With wuich we deal, having no hkeness anywhoro else ‘in tho government of the world or in the laws of the World. 1t18 a caso where two sovercigntics combine Ju the process of inaugurating a government und of Grouting the executive branch of a powerful people. When that process is completed on the part of the State, when all that it is permitted to Iransact tn that regard bas been adscharged, then the thing {san — accomplished — fact, und the power of the State hus passed away forover, und the thing vecomes [rom that moment only a mat tor of federal care and solicitude. In other words, every part of the machinery must be piaced in tront, in point of time, of the exercise of the office of elector. No part of it can bo placed behind, because on that dy the power of the State over the subjoet matter 18 com- Perel y and forever ended. If I, in my State of Ob ing a partisan, tind out bow the other States have Voted, and that it only requires nineteen votes to be destroyed is order to destroy tho Presidential elec- ton, could | not, if the principle contended tor on the other sido Is to prevail, go to work in any local, parti- ‘San, nisi prias court and got a judgment on quo war- Fapto that will defeat the election in my Stste and an. seat the Prosident of the United states? I know that such a working of our machinery 1s revolting to every man whom [ now address, and yet | defy tho iuge- huity of counsel to devise an answor by whiclt thai mischief will not come if you suffer tunis, It is inevi- fable that, if you suffer men to sturt away down in ‘the jower courts of the country, 00 the'r privato notions with quo warrantos, with bills in the Logisiature or with any other uct that shall unseat the President of the United States belore the day of counting, you can unseat him after ho 18 to- fugurated, I challenge the, gentlemen to show that rule of law which says, thus lar shalt thou go and no fartber. If youcan unseat Mr. Tilden, be being the President, by the judgment of a republican cdurt in my republican State, you can do it after hoe ie in office, There js no limitation of the power; there {# oo principle which com- pels courts which have jurmdiction in cases of quo warranto, to make their decision before the count in February or before tho inauguration day, Establish that rule, and you at once put it in the power of the States to overthrow the constitution and dostroy the government, ARGUMENT OF MR. RVARTS. Mr. Evarts closed the argument on the republican side, He saia the wisdom of the method and order of this examination adopted by the commission has fully approved itseit in ite exocution, The intelligent and ‘@xperienced minds of the members of the commi: #AW at once that the decisive were to be determ on limitations of its powers aud the limitation of the subject matters, In the full dis- cuss:on accorded to counsel aod in the deliberations of the oomimission the result 1s deciared in this form und totms eflect:—That the commission will receive no evidence, but will merely inspect the certificates Shon ‘he constitution and the laws of the United States have authorized for transmission, and which the President of the Senate has opened to the two houses, The commission bas decided that in one particular it will receive evidenco touching the — eligibility oue of 0 Fiorida olectors (Humpureys) 1 do not under- Stand the commrssion to have over pussed upon tho question what the eifect js us to the acceptance or re- jection of a vote thus challenged tor ineligibinty, but to bave decided that on that point it will receive the evidence which may be offered, first, as to whether the exception taken to Humphreys? vote 1s maintainable, and, secoud, whether i maintainable and maintaiued, the methods of the constitution permit of any rejec- tion from the certificated vote transinitied and opened on that ground. went on to argue that the evidenco in regard to Humphreys holding ollice foli short ot show- ing that be was im oflice at the time of casting the electoral vote, and that the burden of proving it rested on the side that made tho objection, and that the counter proot ehowed that early In October he bad ro- signed his office in writing to the Circuit Judge and had received from him a letter of acceptance and in- structions to turn over whatever of public means he had for the exercise of the office to the Collector ot Customs, who would discharge the office, and that the Collector had at the same time been notitied by the Judge that the office had devolved upon nim. Was it, he asked, to be pretended that, under the jaw, there was any power to hold an occupant of a civil of- tice to tbe performance of its duties a moment beyond wili? ‘The authorities, he said, wore clear as to the ght ofa citizen resigning an office without hw re- signution being accepted. All that was necessary was to make a public vacation of the office, He then went on to say :— WHAT VOTES ARK TO BE COUNTED, This subject, then, being rejected from further con- sideration, L understand that there 1¢ no matter le(t vut 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 ét the material of these three certilicates whut and how many vetes are to be counted for the State of Florida, Tho first is subject tw no criticism. No fact can countervene this vote, to be counted, not because 14 18 the best, but on unt of the absolute tuluess of its title 1n comply: Jog With all laws that bave been imposed by Congr concerning the complete verilication of a certificate, ho act certified 18 not gaiuraid by proof (Lor it is ox- cluded). There was no offer of proof between the fuct of the canvass being closed and recorded and the Governor's certificate. This certificate, (ben, includes, rance, the voto four votes here, To make it, therelore, ot of the State of Florida, ‘There ai and (bere is room for no more, of any practical importance in furthet discussion there inust be apparent im the other two certifical either such disparagement of the first or euch authen- ticity in themselves as shail displace the one and sub- substitute the ouher, oF there must be such a produc of rival and tron competing certificates a8 leaves the commission in doubt and uncertainty as to which votes ought {0 be counted, Now, as you will not allow evidence outside of the first certificate as bearing duvectly ou its actual aflirm- ative authenticity and suflicieacy, yop will not any such evidence collaterally ou th ere pre tivn and support of any other certitica Mr, Evarts went on to argue against the second and third certificates, und sad that the Attorney General who authenticated th cond certificate bad no more right to do it than the ailitia commander bad. As to the third certificate, signed by Governor Drew, it was a posthamous ceruilcate, a post-mortem action, not pro- ove ling from any vital or living college of electors, but only by the gulvante agency of Interested party purposes taking effect after the Whole transaction was ended, It such a thing could be done then all the care and wisdom and contrivances thut were to make this tran- saction of the States fina! at some point, certifiable some point in some Manner atid by some oflicer, were to go lor nothing, apd where tbere were new ollice new interests, new legislatures, then all the powers of the State could be corrupted, subiracted, obscured or defeuted, What, said he, are the prodigious claims here? That by a lawsuit in a State court the State’s complete vote 18 to be retrieved and reversed, and that when @ judge of the Stute court has so decided the Supreme Court of the United Staies must make a low oboisunce to Mr. Judge Whito and say, ‘That is the end of the jaw; that is the flat of tho Stato,’ Well, Suppose that wo do succeed in counting a President in, Ppose that a quo Warranto is started to prove the President in hi by de jure electors, then of the State court is the this inquiry, What sors of a government, what sort of a Presidency, What sort of muniments and protection, ol regularity and permanenes, of authority under the constitution, aro provided by a scheme of perpetual four years’ dependency on a quo warranto in the Stato ot Nevada or of Florida? You must nevor lone sight of the matter that you are to advise whut votes and how many shall be counted by the two houses, and when you bave determined that extraneous evidence shall not jnvade the regularity of finished transaction of a State, you have determined, as by ae that it shall not be invaded, di question by a mere and aathor, a volunteer in disturbance in the counting ‘of tho votes, ARGUMENT OF MR. MERRICK. Mr. Morrick closed the argument on the democratic side, Ho said thas when counsel of tho otbor side t | catled the attention of the commission to the danger of intortering by legal proceediugs with the electoral votes as trapsmitied to the President of nate he bi omitted to call astention to ihe counterpart of the pic- ture—the condition of a government with a persou ing into ray t ho gagged hi alon, pathway strewn = with perjuries at crimes, ito which the people were allowed $0 inquire through their representatives im the State fone ‘pment or through their represeniatives iu the ral government. le apprehended that Ig consid- ering the picture presented by the learned’counsel the commission would tad in looking at the counterpart 8 picture more offensive aod revolting to the mind and beart of every patriotic citizen, aud one from which we must all start back amazed and shocked, Ali that was asked on his side was that the truth should be (under tho rules of evidence, as prescribed vy the con mission) ascertained op which the commission was to act, and that, when asceriained, it suould become in fte legal results a practical fact in the political history of the count: Mr. Merrick, coming down to the question of the alleged ineligibility of Humphrey: said tbat his commission bad been put in evidenco, and the fact that he acted under it down toa very re- cont date, and that, therefore, the burden of proot Tested on the other side to show that at the time of casting the electoral vote Humphreys did not bold U office, He argued that uutil the resignation was ac- cepted by the power that conferred the office, avd that fact appeared on the record, he must be held to be still occupying the offi xe. Represeututive Hoar put tho case of an office-holder being elected to the Senate, and asked whether, if bis resiguation Oo! office were not accepted, bo was therevy ept trom bis seat ¢ Merrick repiied that the fact of his being admit- ted to bis seat in tho Senate would be a discharge from office which he had held, provided tie had, prior to ‘hat timo, tenderod him resignation. Mr. Hoar inquired whether the same rule would not apply in the case of an elector as weil as in the case of ® Senator? Mr. Merrick replied shat in the caso of a Senator the disability would be only personal, while in that ofan elector it was impersonal ; was positively forbidden to appoint an ollice-holder us anelector, 1t was a limitation upon the power of the State and not # personal disability of the man. Representative Avbott—You also claim that, even if the acceptance of the resignation was not necessary, the resignation itself must be made to the court Mr. Merrick—Unguestiouably. The — resignation must be made to the power toat gave the appointment. Suppose Humphreys had resigned to the Clerk of the Court, addressing a private letter to the Clerk at News ark, Ohio, would that be sufficient ? The Presiding Justice—But if he sent it to the Judge and the Judge directed it to be filed? Mr, Merrick—I[f that ts done while the court is in Sexsion then it is the act of the court. Represontative Garfleld—Do you nold that in case of @ long Vacation, or in case of the court beng abolished by law, or in case of the death of the Judge who gavo the appointment, this officer never could have te- signed? air, Merrick—I sheuld have referred that case to one of the returning boards in the South. I bardly know what reply to make. Mr, Garttold: derstand your position to be that he could not resign oxcept while the Court was in session. Mr. Merrick—I presume that death, and the extine- tion of an office, und the abolition of a government, and the wiping-out of a nation make exceptions to all principles of law, Justice Miller—You say that the distinction botwoen the man who accepts the office of Senator and the man who uceepts the oflico of elector 18 tnat in tho oue case the objection yoos to the power of the State, and in the other case it does not, What is the difference in the question of the power ot the State ? Mr. Merrick —In the one case the prohibition is that hall be 4 Representative or a Senator who ned a Certain age; in the other case it is ‘son shall be appointed elector who holds aa office of trust or perce Whenever there ts a power given to do an act the donee of the power can only @xercise it according to the precico restrictions and limitations of the donation. THE RIVAL ORRTIPICATES, Mr. Merrick then passed on to the question of the rival cortiflontes, and was arguing in favor ol the legit imacy ot tho second and tuird certificates (the Tilacn certificates). Senator Thurman—Suppose the Tilden electors had not voted at all, would 1 be competent to show by subsequent State proceedings that the Hayes who did vote had no titles? That is the real qu Mr. Merrick—Most unquestionably, The State can- not have her voice simulated, whether her real voico 1s spokon or not, It uppears that on this occasion the true voice of the State was spoken; but if it had not been, there could have been no more power and vigor in simulated tones of her voice to reach tho councils of the federal government than thero is when theso simulated tones vome ringing along with those of the true sentiment of her people, The State is not to be decoived, deiraudea and cheated. Sho might, prior to the timo that this electoral vote was cast, have instituted her quo Warranto, standing in her own tribunals, clothed with the majesty of her executive power, and appealing to her judicial authority, and asked these men “by what warrant do you presume to exercise the power of this State?’’ and so standing she could have stripped from them tho garment they had stolen, stripped trom their svoulders her livery which they had stolen ‘to serve the devil in.’? Mr. Merrick then quoted a number of authoritics from’ the Supreme Court, showing that the unitorm rulo was for that Court to follow State decisions on the subject of the local laws of the State, and com- mented on some of Judge Bradley's opinions to that » Merrick claimed, in conclusion, that the record of the quo warranto proceedings was botore the cow- mission, if not as evidence, at loast as showing the faw of Florida, and that it tniormed the commission that, according to the iaw of Fiorida, the Huyes elec- tors were not pen iniee, and that tho Tilden electors were, He offered an apology if he had in the beat of argument in replying to inqmirieweatd anything of a partisan nature, je had designed to argue this cago withouta partisan sentiment jn bis beart and without allowing a. partisan expression to escape lips, and it be had Jailed in this purpose, he beg, pardou of the traditions that clustered about these sacred walls, ‘This closed the argument on the question of the in- Humporeys as a Presidential elector, and ion then, at ten minutes to five o'clock, adjourneu till ten o’ciock to-morrow morning. THE LOUISIANA INVESTIGATION, JUDGE DAVIS UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION—THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD IN SECRET SESSION—GENERAL INABILITY TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING. Wasuixotox, Feb, 8, 1877, The Senate subcommittee on Louisiana, Senator Howe presiding, met at ten o'clock. Judge Davis was recalled and cross-examined by Mr, McDonald, Ho explained that be furnished the data upon which the table of discrepancies between the democratic and republican. returns. was mado, That data was Jur. nished from the data in the Returning Board and from the published democratic returns, Ho also furnished the statements at the right of the tables under the bead of “Explanations.” Theso were compiled by the witness from data furnished by the returns of the supervisors. The explana- tions are brie! of the papers filed, and ihe remarks made by supervisors and commissioners under the proper heads on the face of the revurns; had no particular evidence thut the statements retorred to wore true; took it for granted they were The table was suvmitted to the witness, and be road from toe statement regarding the discrepancies in the parish of Calcasicu, and stated that the affidavits supporting the explanations were not attached to the returns; so in tho statement concerning Concordia parish the proofs were not with the papers, but were afterward foun bad not looked for the up to the 19th of December last; regarding poll No. 5 in the latter parish the testimony was supplied by going back to the ballot box; witne: #aw the box in the Cierk’s room and saw the clerks counting the ballots; thinks this was while the Board was in session; no one examined the ballots but the clerks; nobody connected with tho Tilden side saw them; candidates were never admitted into ihe Board rooms; polls Nos. 2, 3.ana4 in Concordia parish were rejected, and witness nevor saw any evidence why, ex cept the protests which were filed against them; poll No, 4in lberia parish was rejected on account of uon- cancellation of the certilicatcs of registration, giving chance lor repeating. UNABLE TO EXPLAIN. Mr. McDonald read trom the public proceedings of the Board, when the Sherman Committee was present, showing that the poll referred to was examined publicly and ordered to be tavalated by the clerks, und asked the witness why the poll so ordered to be com- piled, and baving a Jarge democratic majority, was afterward rejected? The witness could give no explanation except that ho had already stated that the word “voted” been written opposite the names of the vote missioners, thereby giving opportunity fo ing; the poll was rejected in th Board; in the case of the polls Sand 6 in Natchitoches parish there was no ex- amination of the ballot boxes; tine jection was general intimidation; in V polis 1, 7 and 10 were rejected becau: orig. inal retura had been destroyed by Mr. Littietieid; there was no way of accounting for the appearance of 178 votes on the republican these Votes wero the oles which Lituefeld testiti 4 be bad transterred from the democratic side to the republican side, and the Board deci that it was a cierical error; the error of transposition by Littiefleld has never boca corrected and stands pow; the tables had been mado up before the transposition was discovered, aud witness thinks tho returns bad boen promulgated #8 to the aggregate volo, and there has never been any correction of that promulgation; the explanation in the table of discrepancies jurnished by witness assigns as & reason lor the reyection that it # clerical etror; the person who mado out tho table made iho additional note about the transter by Littieficid; the Voto of Grant parish wus rejected because the election was held by pretended electors; the supervisor of Fogistration ieft (he State without appointing any coms 8, and Lhe returns were made up by commis. appoioted by the Uoited States Supervisor; do hot know that tho Election law 0! Louisiana does not provide for the contingency of a supervisor leaving bis duty unperformed and going away; witness don't know what rules were adopied by the Board wo govern them in deciding upon the rejection of vores, adiegh—{he memorandum witness gave oa which that ieman made up th table of dizcrepancios, wax to the effect that tere was gencral intimidation, sad that pulls Nos 1,7 aud 9 pei a fred {rom the democratic to ican here adjourned until to-morrow The committee morning at ten o'clock. GOVEBNOB WELLS COMPLAINING OF BIS QUARTERS—T: MATTER BROUGHT BEFORE THE HOUSE—RECUSANT WITNESSES CONFINED IN LOATHSOME DUNGEONS AS ALLEGED— DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON THE “Wassrsurom, Feb. 8, . The Sergeant-at-Arme yesterday transferred Gover nor Wells and General Anderson from the room ef the Committee ov Education and Labor to that previowaly occupied by them, and in which berototore Wooley, J. B. Stewart and other recusant witnesses were confived, ‘The reason for the removal was that the committed could not surrender their room, wikbing to use ft for the transaction of business, Wells complained of his quarters, but General Anderson, who keeps bim come pany, expresses himself satisfied. Sergeant-at-Arms Thompson offered to remove Wells to the room occupied by the colored members of the Returning Board, but he refused, not being willing to part company with Anderson, Mr, Thompson ssyshe now endeavoring to procure more comfortable quarters tor Wells, whocomplains of sickness, THY MATTER BEFORE THE HOUSE, In the House of Representatives Mr. Hale, of Maine, rose to a privileged question, and read a letter which bad been addressed to him from J. Madison Weils and Thomas C, Anderson, stating that they wore confined in a damp, dark dupgeon in the cellar of the Capitol; * that yesterday, by order of the Speaker, they had been transferred to a much better room, and that they i been brought back to the cells by order of the Sergeunt-at-Arms, and that on account of the bad air in the cell one of them (Governor Wells) was now on a sick-bed, Mr. Ham said his attention had been called vy this letter to the matter, He had gone to the cell in which the prisoners were contined, and had found it a damp, dark room, into which a gleam of sanlight could never povetrate, and which had to be illuminated by gas The air was poisonous, and one of the prisoners. tn old man over seventy years old, lay on his bed of sicknoss It was inhuman to keep them in such s room, and he therefore offered a resolution dit ecting the Serxeunt-at-Arms to remove the prisouers to a well lnghte \ilated room, where their heaith gored. a ow York, called attention to the tact that it was in thi y samo eell that a repuolicaa Congress had incarcerated Stewart and Irwin, Tha prisoners were confined in the close custody of tha Sergeantat-Arms, but they could release themselves by simply purging themselves of the coulempt of the House and answering the questions which they had res fused to answer, Mr. McCrary, of lowa, inquired what questions they had refused to answer. Mr. C w York, replied that they had refused to produce certain pavers, Mr. McUraky—They are confined for not producing what was not in Lhoir posesssion. Mr. Cox replied that the House had already disposed of that question, ‘The resolution was, in bis judg. ment, @ reproach on the Sergeant-at-Arms, The wit nesses bad simply been treated as other witnesses bed been. Mr. Witsos, of Lowa, spoke in favor of the resolu tion, stating that afier frequent fruitioss attempts to Kee the witnesses he bad succeeded in 60 doing only by an order fromthe Speaker, When be did succeed he found them in a small, illeventilated cell, He could ot escape the tnpression that the oflcers in the Ser- geant 1ms? office did not wish the prisoners to be well treatod, He honored the Speakor tor bis hooest efforts to reieve thoir suffering. 1t way abborrent to the feelings of the Amertean people that the House should troat with Kuch cruelty an old man over seventy years old because he had stood ap for wiat bo know was right. The Sreaker said that the witnosses were not in his charge, but that, as ne bad chargo of the rooma in the Capitol, be had ordered that tho prisoners should be transferred to the room of the Commuitice on Educa. tion, that committee had objected, and the Sergeant. at-Arms had no power to do anything but remove thom at ouce to their former quarters, Mr. Woop, of New York, said that ho did not wish the House to be regarded by the couotry as dot inhuman action, but he thought that belore acting on the resvlution the House should require a ceruidecat from some doctor stating that the hexlih of the prise oners would be impaired or endangered by their con- finement in that particular room, That had been the custom always iv cases where a prisover complained of bis accommodations. Mr. Coxasn, of Michigan, thought that there could be no pretence of right or justice on the side of any party which should perpetuate such a crueity as to confine prisoners in a room in which their health would be une dermined simply because they refused to produce cor. tate papers which it was not tn their power to produce, A inere statemont of (nat, lo the common American mind, would produco a convicuion of ao tniame: wrong dooe by this House, aud no man would dare attempt to justify such conduct, which reminded one of the days of the thumb-scrows and the Inquisition. ur.CLYMER, of Pennsylvania, ou behalf of the sergeant at Arms, said that that officer bad dune all in bis power for the purpose of rendering the prisoners comtort. ablo. The room shey occupiea was well heated, well dighted and well ventilated, It was the room which had been used tor the same purpose by preceding Cone gresses, They were allowed to have conversations with their friends, Coxcer, of Michigan—Many members have it access to thet and been denied, 0 SPKAKER eXpluimed that by calling attention to the fact that the resolution which placed tho recusant witnesses in the custody of the 5 that they should be held in Mr, Banks, of Massa the House adopted that resolution it had pot intended that aa tnquisition should be established whieh should compel witnesses to disclose what they did not desire to disclose, He also wished to cail attentionto tha fact that the prisoners had not been kept im “close custody,’ a6 the resolution directed, but that they had been taken before a committee of the House and compelled to give testimony, without any order of tne House allowing them to be brought out of custody. Mr, Srarks, of [iinois, stated all the time the pris- oners were before the committee they had been in charge of the Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Bawks rephea that when a witness was testify. Ing before a committee be was a tree mi After some further discussion Mr. Hale called the Previous question on the adoption of the resolution, but the democrats voting against it the present ques+ tion wus not ordered. Mr. Cox moved to refer the resolution to the Special Committee on the Election in Louisiana, with instruce tions to repert speedily to the House whetber such a stato of afairs does exist a6 18 stated in the communi cation of J. Madison Wells and Thomas C. Anderson. Mr. Woon, of New York, said that the republican 6140 of the House was endeavoring to misiead the country as to tho true state upon the majoriy of the House the stigm humanity toward its prisoners, Those pris refused to produce papers which might bave settled the Presidenual question, and might have prevented the present jamentavie coadition ot affuirs, Mr. Cox thought that the action of the minority of the House looked two much like liomizing the Louis. ana Returning Boara, aud making a pretence of hu- manity in so doing. Tho room in which the prisoners were confined was well ventilated aud well lightea— (Mr, Haio—It is neither)—and well heated. The pris- oners were taken every day to the House restaurant, where if they were to die they would die irom le= tion, and yet gontiemen on the other side had tho tm. ression that the prison were gotting a8 thin aa Jeath the skeleton and Time the shadow, If that were so why did not their friends aod. vise them to produce the papers demanded of them? If it had not been that certaia threats bad beeu mado to kill; if tt bad not been that one of the witnesses had beon a walking arsenal, they ought long since have been allowed the privilege which the gentleman irom Maine (Mr. Halo) himself enjoyed. They could not be treated ag well asa member of Congress was trented, but if there were any foundation to the com- plaint which they made, he hoped the Committee on Loutsiaoa Affairs would examine into it and romedy it, ‘The resolution was then referred; yoas 145, nays 8% NO BRIBE OFFERED. WHY RETURNING BOARD PRESIDENT WELLE DID NOT ACCEPT TWO HUNDRED THOUSANS DOLLARS FOR THE LOUISIANA VOTE, [BY TELEGRAPH TO THE HERALD.) Cixcixwatt, Feb. 8, 1877, Hon. Duncan F, Kenner, whom President J. Madisog Weils, of the Louisiana Returning Board, charges with having attempted to bribe him to cast the electoral vote of Louisiana for Tilden, passed through this city to-day, on the way from New Orieans for Washingtoo. He Bays the reason that Wells did not tuke the alleged $200,000 bribe was because it was not offered to him, And ono of the reasons jt was vot offered to him wag because the democrats thought they had the State sure without Wella’ aid, THAT LETTER OF JUDGE MILLER Ganvestox, Texas, Feb, 7, 1877, To tie Epiror or tix Hreato:— The letter of Edwin A, Curley, in the Heratp of thy 8a just, purporting to give tho substance of a lettot from Judge Miller to Judge Ballivger, road in hi Presence in the law office of Ballinger, Jack & Mott Galveston, in December, is incorrect in two essentia particulars, The lever read wus a letter Ballinger wa then writing, or had just written, to Judge Miller, bu ts contentd aro not stated with any correct b Curley. Nodetter trom Judge Miller was eve relerred t@ ih the preseuce of Curley, nor any ceived in the Fomotest degree similar to the one bt purports to have beard, W, P. BALLINGER. THOMAS M. JACK, THE CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE (BY TELEGRAPH 10 THE HERALD.] Hartronn, Fob, 8, 1877. The Stato Legislature to-day approved @ constity tional amendment prohioiting Cities, towns and ba roughs from extending any foancial aid to railroad one terprises by taking bouds, loaning credit, or by making appropriauions, ‘ "Poeamondiment now goes to the polls for Goal ag» proval,