ELECTORAL COMMISSION.

Mr. Black's article in the North American Review on the Electoral Commission of 1877 is pervaded by an entire disregard of two fundamental truths, which furnish a complete answer to his argument. The first is, that the United States is a government of law and not a democracy. The second is, that the several States, and not the general Government, have the appointment of electors of President and Vice-President, and are the sole judges of their appointment.

Mr. Black assumes that the popular vote was in favor of Tilden and Hendricks and against Hayes and Wheeler. Conceding that this may have been true, yet if a majority of the electors were in favor of Hayes and Wheeler, the latter were constitutionally elected.

If the United States were a pure democracy, the mere count of hands would decide all questions absolutely, without regard to the wisdom or justice of the decision. It would make laws as well as elect officers. It would be an absolute test of civil right and wrong, and, of course, what is right and wrong would depend on the absolute truth of the count. If the vote of one Louisiana negro, or of one New York rough, were omitted, it might wholly turn the scale. The discovery of such an omission at any time would change the result. A law might stand for a year and

then be subverted; a President might act as such for three years, and then be unseated on the discovery of the supposed mistake. Such discovery, it is true, would depend on human testimony, which is sometimes fallible and sometimes corrupt; no matter for that, as it is the only guide, the consequence must follow. The principles of pure democracy would demand it.

A government regulated by law is conducted on different principles. Under such a government a matter sometimes becomes settled. If a court of last resort decides a controversy the decision stands. If an election is held and decided according to law, there is an end of the matter. In the one case, as in the other, mistakes may be made in fact. But the law does not tolerate a change. It deems certainty, security and peace preferable to eternal contention. It regards some things as settled and not to be disturbed. It provides all reasonable opportunities of scrutiny and review, but imposes an end to controversy somewhere. It recognizes fallibility and mistake to a certain extent, but beyond all that, demands that its decisions shall be accepted as infallible.

Again, in gathering up the results of the public will, it proceeds by rules adopted and laid down beforehand. These rules are regarded as wholesome restraints on faction, and on corrupt influences of all kinds. To carry out these rules, it appoints public agents, officers and tribunals. Their action, subject to regular processes of correction (which are also prescribed) are received as definitive. With all its imperfections, this system is regarded better than anarchy, which would follow the want of it.

It cannot be doubted that the division of a State into small constituencies, each acquainted with its own wants and its own men, is a wise feature in a constitution. These constituencies often choose a different majority of representatives from that which would be chosen by a general vote of the whole population. The State of New York has one hundred and twenty-eight legislative districts, each entitled to a representative. A majority of these constituencies may be republican, whilst a majority of all the voters in the State may be democratic. This would arise from a large body of democratic voters being crowded into a locality-say the City of New York. Still the arrangement of constituencies is a wise one, though an artificial one. There is no reason to suppose that the State would be any better governed if the Irish vote of the city should control the policy of the whole State, than it would if the majority of the constituencies controlled it.

Our whole governmental system is an artificial one, regulated and controlled by law; and it is this very feature of our government which secures public safety and order, and which, if anything can, will give perpetuity to our republican institutions. It is not the roar of mere numbers, but the still, strong voice of an organized community, which expresses the power, the wisdom and the dignity of a people.

STOWE, 1877.

REPLY TO CHARGES AS TO CONDUCT as Member Of

ELECTORAL COMMISSION.

[Newark Daily Advertiser, Wednesday Evening, September 5, 1877.]

JUSTICE BRADLEY SPEAKS.

We have just received the following prompt and manly letter from Mr. Justice Bradley, which so fully and completely explains itself that it needs no further comment. It comes from his summer retreat at Stowe, Vt., and though no vindication of his course in the Electoral Commission, of which he was the most conspicuous member, seemed called for by those who were familiar with all the facts, yet the injustice of the rumor that has recently been circulated, has prompted him to stamp it as basely false, and he does so with an emphasis of conscious rectitude that leaves no ground for mistake. His statement confirms what we took occasion to say on authority of almost equal responsibility as his own.

STOWE, Vt., Sept. 2, 1877.

EDITOR OF THE Advertiser:-I perceive that the New York Sun has reiterated its charge that after preparing a written opinion in favor of the Tilden electors in the Florida case, submitted to the Electoral Commission, I changed my views during the night preceding the vote, in consequence of pressure brought to bear upon me by Republican politicians and Pacific Railroad men, whose carriages, it is said, surrounded my house during the evening. This, I believe, is the important point of the charge. Whether I wrote one

opinion, or twenty, in my private examination of the

subject, is of little consequence, and of no concern to anybody, if the opinion which I finally gave was the fair result of my deliberations, without influence from outside parties. The above slander was published some time since, but I never saw it until recently, and deemed it too absurd to need refutation. But as it is categorically repeated, perhaps I ought to notice it. The same story about carriages of leading Republicans, and others, congregating at my house, was circulated at Washington at the same time, and came to the ears of my family, only to raise a smile of contempt. The whole thing is a falsehood. Not a single visitor called at my house that evening; and during the whole sitting of the Commission, I had no private discussion whatever on the subjects at issue with any person interested on the Republican side, and but very few words with any person. Indeed, I sedulously sought to avoid all discussion outside the Commission itself. The allegation that I read an opinion to Judges Clifford and Field is entirely untrue. I read no opinion to either of them, and have no recollection of expressing any. If I did, it could only have been suggestively, or in a hypothetical manner, and not intended as a committal of my final judgment or action. The question was one of grave importance, and, to me, of much difficulty and embarrassment. I earnestly endeavored to come to a right decision, free from all political or other extraneous considerations. In my private examination of the principal question (about going behind the returns), I wrote and re-wrote the arguments and considerations on both sides as they occurred to me, sometimes being inclined to one view of the subject, and sometimes to the other. But