whose approval or rejection is necessary, they could logically argue that a failure to propose to them a contemplated amendment would be a fatal objection to its validity.

At the present time eleven States are in a state of secession de facto (or rebellion, if that expression is preferred), and twenty-five States remain true to the Government and Constitution. Therefore, the ratification of the amendment in question by nineteen States not in secession will make it valid as a part of the Constitution. This is the clear dictate of Constitutional

law.

I do not know that the present exigencies of the country render this view of the subject practically important. Both Houses of Congress virtually assumed it as the true one when they declared that a majority of the Senators and Representatives elected to each House respectively was sufficient to form a quorum; thus obviating one of the difficulties which a contrary doctrine would create. The great desideratum of the present hour is to insure the success of our arms in quelling the rebellion. That once quelled, there is little doubt that three-fourths of all the States, including those which have no Constitutional claim to be treated as such, but which will undoubtedly be welcomed back to their allegiance, will readily be found to approve of the proposed amendment. The recruiting of the army with stalwart and honest men is at present the great and absorbing duty of the nation.

I am, as ever, yours,

CHARLES KNAP, Esq.,

Washington.

JOSEPH P. BRADLEY.

OPINIONS AND REMARKS

OF

MR. COMMISSIONER BRADLEY

IN THE CONSULTATIONS OF THE

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

UPON THE

ELECTORAL VOTES OF FLORIDA, LOUISIANA AND OREGON.

The following opinions and remarks have been somewhat abbreviated, and repetition of the same arguments in the different cases has been omitted.

THE FLORIDA CASE.

In this case the objectors to the Certificate No. 1 (which was authenticated by Governor Stearns, and contained the votes of the Hayes electors) proposed to prove by the papers accompanying the certificates, that a writ of quo warranto had been issued from a district court in Florida against the Hayes electors on the 6th day of December, before they gave their votes for President and Vice-President, which on January 26, 1877, resulted in a judgment against them, and in favor of the Tilden electors; also an act of the Legislature passed in January, in favor of the Tilden electors; and also certain extrinsic evidence described by the counsel of the objectors as follows:

་་

Fifthly. The only matters which the Tilden electors desire to lay before the Commission by evidence actually extrinsic will now be stated.

"I. The Board of State Canvassers, acting on certain erroneous views when making their canvass, by which the Hayes electors appeared to be chosen, rejected wholly the returns from the county of Manatee and parts of returns from each of the following counties: Hamilton, Jackson, and Monroe.

"In so doing the said State board acted without jurisdiction, as the Circuit and Supreme Courts in Florida decided. It was by overruling and setting aside as not warranted by law these rejections, that the courts of Florida reached their respective conclusions that Mr. Drew was elected Governor, that the Hayes electors were usurpers, and that the Tilden electors were duly chosen.

"II. Evidence that Mr. Humphreys, a Hayes elector, held office under the United States.

The question was argued as to the admissibility of this evidence.

SUBSTANCE OF JUSTICE BRADLEY'S OPINION, Delivered FEBRUARY 9, 1877.

I assume that the powers of the Commission are precisely those, and no other, which the two Houses. of Congress possess in the matter submitted to our consideration; and that the extent of that power is one of the questions submitted. This is my interpretation of the act under which we are organized.

The first question, therefore, is, whether and how far, the two Houses, in the exercise of the special jurisdiction conferred on them in the matter of counting the electoral votes, have power to inquire into the validity of the votes transmitted to the President of

the Senate. Their power to make any inquiry at all is disputed by, or on behalf of, the President of the Senate himself. But, I think the practice of the Government, as well as the true construction of the Constitution, have settled, that the powers of the President of the Senate are merely ministerial, conferred upon him as a matter of convenience as being the presiding officer of one of the two bodies which are to meet for the counting of the votes, and determining the election. He is not invested with any authority for making any investigation outside of the joint meeting of the two Houses. He cannot send for persons or papers. is utterly without the means or the power to do anything more than to inspect the documents sent to him; and he cannot inspect them until he opens them in presence of the two Houses. It would seem to be clear, therefore, that if any examination at all is to be gone into, or any judgment is to be exercised in relation to the votes received, it must be performed and exercised by the two Houses.

He

Then arises the question, how far can the two Houses go in questioning the votes received without trenching upon the power reserved to the States themselves?

The extreme reticence of the Constitution on the subject leaves wide room for inference. Each State has a just right to have the entire and exclusive control of its own vote for the Chief Magistrate and head of the republic, without any interference on the part of any other State, acting either separately or in congress with others. If there is any State right of which it is and should be more jealous than of any other, it is this. And such seems to have been the