Conclusion.
Although these pages have been occupied with the vote of Brewster in the electoral college, it should not be understood, that the other seven votes which were counted from that State, and the four votes counted from Florida, were any better than his. The one here considered had its peculiarities; the others had theirs. All of them were tainted, and the counting in of the President de facto was twelve times fraudulent. What may be the outcome I do not know. That will depend upon the spirit of this generation and the spirit of those to follow. It is a consolation to know that the questions will be reviewed by a tribunal higher than the Electoral Commission, higher even than the two Houses of Congress-the American people—from whose judgment there is no appeal but to the final judgment of history.
New York, March 28, 1877.
Transcriber's note
Printer errors have been changed and are listed below. All other inconsistencies are as in the original.
The following changes have been made to the text:
[Page 4]: Was 'contine' (instead of one, and because one in the present instance actually determined the result, I will confine my observations to a single vote. For this purpose let us take one of the votes from Louisiana, that, for)
[Page 7]: Was 'recived' (election of November 7, 1876, at which he was a candidate on the Republican electoral ticket, there was received at the Department of the Interior, from the hands of the President, this letter:)
[Page 22]: Was 'de-facto' (when the office is temporary, existing but for a moment, even if the doctrine of a de facto officer can be applied to such an office at all. In the present case, Brewster went into the State-House and voted)
[Page 22]: Was 'de-facto' (where rival colleges of electors had acted at the same time in the same State. In those cases, as already observed, the question of a de facto elector could not arise. There was but one case, that of Wisconsin,)