BY
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & COMPANY,
549 & 551 BROADWAY.
1877.
Copyright by DAVID DUDLEY FIELD. 1877.
At ten minutes past four o'clock on the second morning of the presentmonth (March, 1877), the President of the Senate of the United States,in the presence of the two Houses of Congress, made this announcement:"The whole number of the electors appointed to vote for President andVice-President of the United States is 369, of which a majority is 185.The state of the vote for President of the United States, as deliveredby the tellers, and as determined under the act of Congress, approvedJanuary 29, 1877, on this subject, is: for Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio,185 votes; for Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, 184 votes;" and then,after mentioning the votes for Vice-President, he proceeded: "WhereforeI do declare, that Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio, having received amajority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly electedPresident of the United States for four years, commencing on the fourthday of March, 1877."
Mr. Hayes was thus declared elected by a majority of one. If any votecounted for him had been counted on the other side, Mr. Tilden, insteadof Mr. Hayes, would have had the 185 votes; if it had been rejectedaltogether, each would have had 184 votes, and the House ofRepresentatives would immediately have elected Mr. Tilden. One vote,therefore, put Mr. Hayes into the presidential office.[4]
To make up the 185 votes counted for him, 8 came from Louisiana and 4from Florida. Whether they should have been thus counted is a questionthat affects the honor, the conscience, and the interests of theAmerican people. There is not a person living in this country who hasnot a direct concern in a just answer. Not one will ever live in itwhose respect for this generation will not depend in some degree uponthat answer.
The 12 votes were not all alike. Some had one distinction, some another.But, not to distract attention by the discussion of several transactionsinstead of one, and because one in the present instance actuallydetermined the result, I will confine my observations to a single vote.For this purpose let us take one of the votes from Louisiana, that, forinstance, of Orlando H. Brewster.
Brewster was not appointed an elector, inasmuch as he did not receive amajority of the votes cast by the people of Louisiana, and inasmuch alsoas he could not have been appointed if he had received them all.
It would be a waste of time and patience to go through the testimonytaken by the two Houses of Congress for their own information, beforethey consented to call in the advice of the Electoral Commission. Theevidence of wrongs on both sides, and the irreconcilable contradictionsof witnesses, made President Seelye and Mr. Pierce, of Massachusetts,declare it to be impossible for them to reach a satisfactory conclusionupon the facts, and compelled them to break away from their party, andrefuse to abide by the advice of the Commission. There are certainthings, however, which we know beyond dispute, or about which there isand can be no controversy, and these only will I mention. We know thatthe number of votes cast in Louisiana for the Tilden electors, takingthe first name on the list