that he might
be called in to be present, presenting himself though absent, voting
ballots and signing certificates, showing himself to be as versatile and
as agile as that master of jugglery.

Upon what theory the Commission held that evidence could not be
received of Brewster's Federal office at the time of his appointment
does not appear. He certainly was in the prohibited category. A marriage
between persons within prohibited degrees is not good, even if
consummated. The prohibited union of two offices in the same person
should not be thought a legal union, simply because it is practised. It
has been said, though the Commission did not say it, that Brewster was
at least elector _de facto_, and his vote was good, whatever may have
been his title. Then why should we trouble ourselves about the returning
officer's certificate? If, as elector _de facto_, his vote was good,
then it was good without the certificate, and all that the Commission
should have looked into was the _fact of voting_, without troubling
themselves about the certificate of anybody or any other evidence of
title. But, in truth, the distinctions between officers _de facto_ and
officers _de jure_ have no application to the present case, and for this
reason, among others, that two persons cannot hold the same office _de
facto_. It is of the essence of a _de facto_ possession of office that
it should be exclusive. The Chancellor of New York said, in a judicial
opinion, more than thirty years ago: "When there is but one office there
cannot be an officer _de jure_ and an officer _de facto_ both in
possession of the office at the same time." This is true even when the
office is a continuing one. Who, for instance, can say which of the
rival Governors in Louisiana or South Carolina at this moment is the
Governor _de facto_? In deciding between them, would not all the world
pronounce this the only question, which is Governor _de jure_? Much more
is it true 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 for Mr. Hayes; at the same instant his rival went into the same
State-House and voted for Mr. Tilden. It is absurd to pronounce
Brewster, under such circumstances, an elector _de facto_, so as to make
his vote for that reason good against his rival in the Tilden college,
who was as much an elector _de