ideas in the world, and the steady advance of civilization, require gradual changes in the organic law. But, if seceding States are to be included in the roll-call of States when an amendment is proposed, the permanent secession of ten States would forever present a bar to any amendment being made, and their temporary secession would temporarily suspend the Constitutional prerogatives of the Government and people.

We should not for a moment listen to any such absurd proposition. If a State secedes, she, by her own act, ceases to be a State, but her territory does not (except by force of successful rebellion) cease to be a portion of the territory of the United States. Her readmission as a State cannot be claimed as a right, but must depend upon the authority and consent of the Federal Government.

It follows as a further corollary, that any amendment of the Constitution requiring the approval of a majority of the States, is valid when approved by a majority of those States which adhere to the Government. If others have put it out of their own power to co-operate in the matter, either by approval or rejection, it is their own fault and their own misfortune, and not that of the country or of the loyal States. And when they come back again as States, if they ever do, they will be bound by what the Government and people of the United States have done in their absence; and they can never plead their own wrong as a bar to the validity of such action. They might as well complain that the amendment was not presented to them for their ratification when they had armies in the field to prevent any intercourse with them! For, if they are to be reckoned as States,

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