Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-01-18
CONGRESSIONAL.
Proposed Abolition Of Electoral
College.

Proposed Abolition OF Electoral
College.
Lengthy Speech Of Senator Morton.
A Dangerous Gap for Centraiism.
SENATE.
WASHINGTON, Jan. t1.-Mr Schurz
called up the Vienna Exposition bill.
Mr.. Carpenter withdrew his amendment
appropriating 100000 to complete the
Washington monument, as it was doubtful
if the monument could ever be completed
owing to the softness of the foundation and
grounds. i
The bill then passed; yeas 20, nays 10.
Presidential.
Mr.. Morton called up his resolution in
structing the Committee on, Elections TO
INQUIRE into the defects Of the present
electoral system, aud the best fl5ahs for
remedying them. He spoke at length upon
it. He reviewed the constitutional position
of the States In the matter Of choosing
electors for President and Vice-P President, 3
matter entirely beyond the jurisdiction Of
the Rational Government, and entirely
without remedy or redress on its part,
whatever disorders, irregularities or failures
may occur in the appointments OF electors
in any State. No provision is any where
made Tor contesting the election Of electors,
and whatever returns shall be made up,
whether produced in whole or IN part by
fraud or violence, must stand, and the vote
be counted upon them If found in time.
There is imminent danger Of revolution to
the nation whenever the result of Presi-
Dental lection is to be determined by the
vote of State in which the choice of cleo
tors has been irregular, or is alleged to
have been carried by fraud or violence.
There ought to be such machinery Of gov
ernment provided that it would seem i'm
possible that any man should ever reach
the Presidential chair who, was not legiti-
matsly chosen thereto. He recspitulated
the transactions with reference to the cleo
tOral vote of
wisconsin fn 1857,
when the electors of that State, having
been prevented by snow storm, from as
semtling on the day provided by law, had
nevertheless sent up the vote of the State to
be counted, and though objection was made
on constitutional grounds; Mr. Mason, Pres
ident Of the Senate, decided that the two
houses had no jurisdiction over the counting
of the vote, but were met together simply as
Witnesses of the accuracy of the count and
its result. The vote of Wisconsin was
counted, and the decision of Mr.. Mason was
not afterwards called in question. Clearly
| the trainers of the constitution did not con-
template that the
President of the Senate;
in opening and counting the vote for Presi-
| dent and Vice-President, should exercise
discretionary or judicial powers in determ-
| ining between the votes CT two sets of elect
tors or upon the sufficiency or validity OF
| the record of the votes Of the electors in
any State, but that he should perform a
merely ministerial act of which the two
houses were to be witnesses and to make
the record. Bat the exercise of these high
DO 6ers may devolVe upon him eT neceSSi-
tate rel, and whatever decision be may
make between two sets of electors or upon
The suffiriency and upon the validity of the
record Of the votes, whether an evidence OF
the right OF the electors to cast the votes or
whether they have been cast in the manner
prescribed by the constitution, his decision
is final. There are said to be two sets OF
electoral votes st this time in the hands of
the Vice President from Arkansas, and
two from the Stale of Louisiana, and which
ever of these sets he decides is the proper
electoral, and brings forward, opens, and
causes TO be counted must be SO received,
and from his action there is no appeal.
T action of the two Houses in 1921 in
regard to counting the vote of Missouri, is
no exception TO this view Of the power of
the President of the Senate, for the question
in that case was not as to any Irregularities
in regard tothe electoral vote, of Missouri, but
whether Missouri was at that time State
IN the Union, and entitle TO participate in
the Presidential election a. all, which was
also the question in the election of 1917 in
regard to Indiana, and 1869 in regard to
Georgia.
The Presiden. of the Senate may, indeed
be impeached for high crimes and misde
meanors, should he grossly violate his duty,
and thus fraudulently count or rejec elec
toral votes. But that would not amend
the record which has been made or undo
the wrong, Or help the Presidential candi
date who may have been cheated out of hi!
office, DOR protect the nation from disorder
and civil war. If it should happen upon &
recurrence Of any one Of the cases consid
cred that the decision of the President Oi
the Senate should determine the result, and
give the Presidency to a candidate whC
would otherwise have been defeated, or
throw the election in House Of Represen.
tattve, whose candidate had been rejected
by the people and should be elected by
vote OF States, slI can understand the im
minent peril in which the nation would b,
placed. By the
22d Joint Rule,
Of the two Houses adopted in 1S65-in tht
Speakers judgment the most dangerous
contrivance to the peace of the nation ever
invented by Congress-it is provided tha
whenever an electoral vote is objected to
the Senate shall retire to its chamber, and
, each House shall separately consider tht
objection, and the vote shall not be COUNTIES
!, unless the two Houses concur to that effect
! if the two Houses disagree, the vote Of tn
State is lost. This may result in a tie, o
in the election of candidate who wouil
otherwise have been defeated, OF in prevent
ing either OF the candidates from having
majority of eli the votes, and thus THROWN!
the election into the House Of Representa-
tiVes. Each House is to decide the ques
tion without debate in summary manner
without investigation, and without sdiour
ment. Here is
Powerful Temptation
for the House of Representatives, by nor
concurrence, to throw the election into it
, own body, and thus, perhaps, secure th
election of a candidate who may have bee
overwhelmingly beaten at the polls. Th
Two Houses may be under the control c
different parties, as In 1857, led by politi
clans ambitious, exasperated, and thirstin
g for power, whs are thus enabled by non
concurrence to defeat an election by tn
} people and seize the administration of tn
5 | government into the hands of their party.
He did not believe the Constitution con
ferred the power upon Congress to max
the right Of the people of State to partici
, pate in the Presidential election depent
upon the contingency Of an agreement c
the two houses in the settlement of an OBJ
lection. The rule is an invitation to parti
sans to make captious and factious objst
t tions; it makes the concurrent action OF tn
: two houses necessary where it should no
be, and to sum up its
FeriIOus Absurdify,
, its monstrous illogic, its dangerous uncor
, stitutionality, it places it in the power Of
defeated party, which may happen to hav
majority IN either house, to defeat a
! | election by the people, and to take chance
J of anarchy, or victory by throwing tn
election in the House of Representatives