FRIDAY, February 2, 1877.

The Commission met at half past ten o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment, all the members being present.

The journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Those

The PRESIDENT. The case before the Commission is that of Florida. Inquiries were made yesterday "what is the case?" to which I beg leave to respond that it consists of three certificates with the accompanying papers, and the objections to the same. Two of the objectors on each side will be allowed to speak in the opening of the case. representing the objections to certificate No. 1 will speak first, and I would remind them that the fourth rule allows them two hours in which they will state the case in the opening arguments in support of their objections, and also in support of any other certificate which they claim to be valid. When they have concluded, two objectors on the other side will speak under the same rules and limitations. I will not give any direction now as to counsel; that will come afterward.

Mr. Representative FIELD. Allow me to ask whether after the two objectors have spoken on the other side, we shall not be allowed the opportunity of a reply within our two hours?

The PRESIDENT. The rules make no provision for any reply on the part of the objectors. Applications for further time or further counsel must be made to the Commission, the Presiding Justice having no dis cretion in the matter whatever. When counsel speak, it will be under different regulations; perhaps they need not be stated now; but as it seems that I am rather expected to state it, I will say that my view is that one of the counsel in favor of the objections to certificate No. 1 should open; two counsel in favor of the certificate No. 1 and against the objections should reply; and then the other counsel in favor of the objections to certificate No. 1 should have the close.

Mr. Representative TUCKER. May I ask whether the two hours of the objectors to the first-named certificate must be consumed in the opening?

The PRESIDENT. If at all. There is no provision made for a reply. One of the objectors to certificate No. 1 may proceed. I am told that some time would be spent in reading the certificates and accompanying papers and the objections, if they were read; but they will soon be printed and laid on our tables, and it is suggested that unless it produces inconvenience the statement or opening should proceed without reading the papers. If it is desired I will direct that they shall be read, though I understand the reading will consume some time. If that is not desired, the statement of the case will proceed.

Mr. Representative KASSON. If the Commission please, I ought to state on behalf of the objectors on this side that, while we have no objection to the proceeding this morning as far as the objectors to the first certificate are concerned, my associate and myself find that so many more questions are involved in the objections to that certificate than it was supposed would be found-we not having had the opportunity to examine them until this morning-that it is probable we shall be obliged to ask the court for some time before proceeding on our behalf.

I make that statement now, not desiring to object to gentlemen going on this morning who are ready, but simply to save our right to make that suggestion to the tribunal at the completion of the argument on that side on behalf of the objectors.

The PRESIDENT. The suggestion calls for no ruling on the part of

the presiding officer. You will proceed, gentlemen on the side of the objectors to certificate No. 1; I shall designate them as Nos. 1, 2, and 3, for convenience.

Mr. Representative FIELD. Before proceeding, if you will allow me, I beg to speak to a preliminary matter. I observe that Rule 5 speaks of evidence. Now, I am in some doubt about the course of proceeding. If evidence is admissible it should be stated, we suppose, before beginning the argument. We are prepared with witnesses from Florida to show at the bar or in any manner that the court may indicate, by deposition or otherwise, all that is necessary to prove the allegations of our objection. We suppose that the papers which have been presented here contain sufficient evidence and are receivable; but I ought to state in limine that I do not wish to proceed with the argument under the impression that we have not other evidence. Of course, saving the question whether the evidence is competent, I wish to say that we have the evidence and we can produce it here or anywhere that the Commission may direct, and offer to do it now or at any other time or in any other manner.

I thought I ought not to proceed with my statement without making that preliminary suggestion.

Mr. Commissioner STRONG. Mr. President, it seems to me that the rules which we have adopted place the objectors in precisely the same position that counsel are placed in who open a case before it is submitted to a jury. We propose-such is my understanding of the rule-that the objectors shall occupy exactly that position in their statement of their objections-state what the objections are, and how they propose to support them. The other questions will come up afterward in regard to the admissibility of evidence.

Mr. Representative FIELD. That is quite satisfactory.

Mr. Commissioner STRONG. That is my understanding at this time. The PRESIDENT. You can proceed, Mr. Field, with the case at a quarter before eleven. Your side will have two hours.

Mr. Representative FIELD. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Electoral Commission: It will be my endeavor, in the statement which I shall make, to set forth with as much conciseness as I may the facts that we expect to prove and the propositions of law which we hope to establish.

The power devolved by the Federal Constitution upon the States of this Union was, in the State of Florida, exercised by the legislature of the State directing the appointment of presidential electors to be made by the qualified voters of the State at a general election. That election was held on the 7th of November, 1876. It was quiet and orderly, so far as we are informed, throughout the State, and it remained only to gather the result of the voting. That result was a majority in favor of the electors who, for convenience sake, I will designate as the Tilden electors. Nevertheless, a certificate comes here signed by the then gov ernor of the State certifying that the Hayes electors had a majority of the votes. By what sort of jugglery that result was accomplished I now take it upon me to explain.

By the laws of the State the counties are divided into polling.precincts and the votes of the polling-precincts are returned to the county clerk at the county-seat, where they are canvassed, and the county canvassers certify to the State canvassers. I have occasion to mention canvassers only in one county. That county was decisive of the result; but if it were not, ex uno disce omnes. The county to which I refer is Baker County. The canvassers were by law to be the county judge, the

county clerk, (or rather I think he is called the clerk of the circuit court for the county, but I call him for convenience the county clerk,) and a justice of the peace to be by them called in for their assistance. In case either the judge or the clerk is absent or cannot attend, the sheriff of the county is to be called in his place. The law provides that the canvass by the county canvassers shall be on the sixth day after the election, or sooner if the returns are all received.

In this county there were but four precincts, and the returns from them were all received in three days. On the 10th of November the county clerk, considering that the returns being in, further delay in the canvass might be embarrassing-for what reasons it does not devolve on me to say-requested the county judge to join him in the canvass. The county judge refused. The clerk then asked the sheriff to join him, but he declined. The clerk thereupon called to his assistance a justice of the peace and made the canvass, and a true canvass it was, as all parties agree, I think. I have never heard anywhere the suggestion that the votes as certified by them were not the true votes. But it so happened that the county judge, on the same day, the 10th, issued a notice to the county clerk and to a justice of the peace to attend him at the county seat on the 13th, which, as you will remember, was just six days after the election, at noon, for the purpose of making the count. On that day and hour the county clerk and the justice thus requested attended. The county judge, however, absented himself, though he had given the notice. He was invited and urged to go on with the canvassing. The record shows that he laughed, and said he thought that what had been already done was enough. The sheriff was then applied to and he refused. Thereupon the county clerk and a justice of the peaceanother justice called in-recanvassed the votes, giving the same result precisely, and certified them to the State canvassers, stating in the certificate the reasons why neither the county judge nor the sheriff was present. The office of the clerk was then closed for the day.

In the evening of that day the same county judge and the same sheriff, taking to their assistance a justice of the peace who had been commissioned by Stearns only on the 10th, and who had never acted before, entered the office surreptitiously, opened a drawer, and took out the returns, threw aside two precincts, certified the two remaining, and sent that certificate to the State canvassers. You are now to say whether this certificate of these men, under these circumstances, in the darkness of the night, throwing out two precincts, and certified to the State canvassers without any reason why the county clerk was not present, shall be taken as the voice of that county of Florida. That I do not misrep resent the exact state of facts let me read you the testimony as it will appear upon the record to be laid before you. Here is the testimony in respect to this third canvass, this false and fraudulent canvass, which I will read as given by the sheriff.

He testified that he first received notice from Judge Drieggers to assist him in making the canvass of Baker County probably between four and five o'clock in the afternoon of the 13th; that they went to the clerk's office; that the clerk's office was closed when they got there. He thinks this was about six o'clock, "it might have been seven o'clock." That they lit up the office; that they knew that the clerk had made the canvass on that afternoon; that there was no one then in the office.

The law providing that the canvass should be public, the record thus proceeds, as follows, and I give it verbatim:

Question. What did you do then?-Answer. We just made the return, throwing away two precincts in the county.

Q. What two precincts in the county did you throw away?-A. One was Darbyville precinct and the other was Johnsville precinct.

Q. Which did you throw away first ?-A. The Johnsville precinct.

Q. And then you threw away the Darbyville precinct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have any witnesses at all before you ?-A. None at all.

Q. Did you have anything before you except the returns?-A. No, sir.

Q. Why did you throw away Johnsville precinct?-A. We believed that there was some intimidation there: that there was one party prevented from voting.

Q. Did you have any evidence before you to that effect?-A. No, sir; there was only his statement.

Q. Did you not have a particle of evidence before you ?-A. No, sir.

Q. You believed that one party had been intimidated and prevented from voting?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. And therefore you threw out the Johnsville precinct?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there any reason for throwing it out ?-A. No, sir.

Q. None whatever?-A. No, sir.

Q. No other reason suggested but that, was there?-A. No, sir.

Q. You next threw out Darbyville precinct?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. For what reason did you do so?-A. We believed that there was some illegal votes cast there.

Q. Did you have any evidence before you at all?-A. No, sir.

Q. Not a particle ?-A. No, sir.

Q. But you had an impression that some illegal votes were cast there?-A. Yes, sir. Q. You had no proof of it at all?-A. No, sir.

Q. How many illegal votes did you have an impression were cast there?-A. About 7, I think, as well as I can recollect.

Q. Therefore you threw out the precinct without any evidence at all?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you made up your returns?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who wrote those returns?—A. I did.

Q. You wrote them yourself?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the judge signed them?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Green signed them ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. You made return to the secretary of state that you had canvassed the vote?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. And also sent one to the governor that you had canvassed the vote?-A. Yes, sir. Q. The returns, so far as you knew, appeared to be regular from the different precincts, did they?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was the chairman of the board of canvassers?-A. The judge.

Q. Who made the suggestion to throw out Johnsville?-A. He did himself.

Q. Who made the suggestion to throw out the Darbyville precincts?—A. He did. Q. And you sustained him in it?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Green sustained him in it also?-A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Green was the justice appointed by Stearns on the 10th.

Q. How did you know that one man was intimidated at Johnsville precinct?-A. Well, we just heard it rumored around at the time.

Q. Was there any other cause operating in your mind in rejecting the Johnsville return but the fact that you had heard that one party was intimidated?—A. No, sir; that was all.

Q. Where did you and the judge and the justice of the peace, Green, find the returns when you went to the clerk's office to make the canvass?-A. After we got the light, when I saw them first, the judge had them in his hands.

Q. Do you know where he got them?-A. I do not; I think he got them out of a desk.

Q. Ont of what desk?-A. In the clerk's desk, in the clerk's office.

Q. Was the desk unlocked that contained these papers ?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. And nobody was in the clerk's office ?-A. No, sir.

Now let me go from this county canvass to the State canvass. When the State canvassers were at work there were certain significant telegrams passed between Florida and Washington; I omit the names of the correspondents except that of the governor, Stearns, the same whose certificate is before you certifying to the election of the Hayes electors. The examination is thus reported:

Q. Do you recollect any telegram at Lake City about the 25th of December, asking(I will say the chairman of the national republican committee)— any questions about attacking the returns?-A. I remember one dispatch (I cannot

give the date) asking on what grounds they should assail these counties, or words to that effect.

Q. What was the answer?-A. There was a dispatch subsequently received, (whether or not it was the answer to it, you must draw your own conclusion.) The words in it were "fraud, intimidation." There was another word which may have been "violence;" but I am not sure that it was "violence."

Thereupon the State canvassers did what? They took the third canvass from Baker County and amended it, as appears in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of February 1, page 65, and added "amended by canvassing all the precinct returns," and that statement in the full canvass is the true one as to Baker County; that is, they got at a true resuit in respect to that county by taking the false certificate and amending it so as to take in all the returns. But what did they then do? Stearns was a candidate for the office of governor. He was then governor and he was a candidate for the succession. His opponent was Mr. Drew. The canvassers were Stearns's appointees, to go out of office with him and to remain in office if he was counted in. They took the returns from the other counties and threw out enough to give the State to the Hayes electors and to Stearns as governor.

Thus the matter stood upon the State canvass thus made. You will observe that it gave the true vote of Baker County, but eliminated from the votes of other counties certain precincts enough to elect their patron Stearns. But it did not remain so, as I will show in a moment; for this elimination being declared by the supreme court illegal, the canvassers thereupon, in order to prevent a majority appearing for the Tilden electors, recalled their amendment of the Baker County false return, and used it in all its falsehood.

These are all facts, which we offer to make good by evidence as the Commission may prescribe, by a cloud of witnesses and by a host of documents.

This monstrous fraud being thus far accomplished, the people of the State took it upon themselves to see if they could right the wrong, and they did it with a spirit and a success which does them all honor. Not even your own native State of New Hampshire, Mr. President, could have more manfully stood up for its rights. If such a fraud had been perpetrated there, you would have heard a voice from her people that would have shaken the everlasting foundations of her grauite hills. From peak to peak, and from the easternmost peak to the shining sea, you would have heard a roar of dissent and of indignation. So their brethren of Florida raised their voices through all the flowery peninsula, and they accomplished the result which I will now give. First, Drew, the candidate for governor on the other side, went into the courts of law as a law-abiding citizen should do and will ever do so long as he can get justice in the courts, but when he finds that he cannot get it there he will get it elsewhere. He went into the supreme court of the State and applied for a mandamus to compel this canvassing-board to restore to their canvass the eliminated precincts, and the supreme court decided that the State canvassers had no power under the laws of Florida to eliminate votes, but they were bound to count every lawful vote put into the ballot-box; that they were neither electors nor judges otherwise than of what votes were put in; and in obedience to that they restored to the canvass the rejected precincts and certified a majority for Drew, and Drew took his place and is now the lawful and accepted governor of the State.

What did the Tilden electors do? They commenced in a circuit court of Florida, which had competent jurisdiction, an information in the nature of quo warranto against the Hayes electors. They charged in the