Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-02-20
THE RUTLAND HERALD
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY IS, 1878.
snoIII,bea Preceaen.or warninga

Is now before the country, and the pop
ular verdict is recorded. With the final
step, in the attainment of that result:
the dangers, difficulties and defects VI
the machinery by which we are COM
PEELED to move in electing our presidents
and yice-presidents il brought into clear
er light. We have referred to the matter
before, but it is question of such deep
and vital moment and, fraught, as we
believe, with the future safety or des-
truction of our government, that no apol-
ogy is needed for again referring to it.
The votes of Louisiana and Arkansas
were rejected, and three votes of the
State of Georgia, for Horace Greeley,
were also rejected. Although, by this
action of the Joint convention of the two
Houses, two sovereign States of the
Union were practically disfranchised,
we have no fault to find with the result.
Indeed we do not see how the ac-
ton could have been otherwise. That it
was not political question, in the ordi-
nary use of the word, is seen from the
fact that these questions were decided
without reference to party lines. Re
publicans, Democrats and Liberals were
found talking, acting and voting without
reference to party utilization, representa-
tives of all parties recording their votes
on either side, as the question of law or
fact seemed to strike them. The case
Of Georgia illustrates, perhaps, as well
the great danger of the system as any
that can be imagined. 1t will be re-
melnbered that the rules of Congress re-
quire that in case an objection is made
to the counting of vote, it shall be de-
cided by the separate action of both
Houses, without debate, and that no vote
shall be counted without the concurrent
action of both Houses. Three votes were
returned from Georgia for Horace
Greeley Objection was made to the
counting of these votes for the reason
that, at the time the votes were given,
there was no such person as "Horace
Greeley" The Senate decided by large
majority that the votes should be count
ed, while the House, by majority of
only four, decided that they ought not
to be counted. There being disagree
ment, the votes were, under the rule, re-
jected. Here was point upon which
men may and do honestly differ, but up
on the decision of which an election
might be controlled. The small major
ity by which the matter was finally de-
termined shows also, in case where
such action might be decisive, what
money could do. 1t would not require
the use of money, perhaps, to decide a
contest. An honest difference of opin-
ton, as in this case, or a little party bias
which would unconsciously control in
d vidual action might decide a presi-
dental contest and precipitate civil
war. 1t is useless to say that there is no
danger. We have had close, embittered
party contests, elections and civil war
before, and we are liable to the same
again. We find no fault with the action
of Congress. We are inclined to believe
that their action, under the constitution,
laws and rules, was strictly correct. The
only doubt, in our mind, is in the case
of Georgia, whether the votes given for
Mr.. Greeley should not have been allow
ed as actual votes in blank, and thus
have been counted against General
Grant We have, as we have said, no
quarrel with the action of Congress or
its result, but rather with the system
that makes such a result possible. 1t is
indeed fortunate that it occurred at the
time it did, when it could make no pos
sible difference one way or the other,
except perhaps to be quoted hereafter as
precedent, or to be used rs a warning
and powerful argument for change in
the whole system. Some method of de-
Gliding cases of contested and alleged
fraudulent elections for presidential cleo
tors should be made, and made at once.
This should be accomplished, whether
our entire system of presidential cleo
tions is to undergo a change or not
With the speediest possible action ON the
part of Congress and the State Legisla-
lures, there is barely time to amend the
constitution in this particular so as to
take effect in season for the next presi-
Dental election While all, or nearly
all, are agreed as to the necessity of a
change, there is a wide divergence as to
the particular nature of the system to be
adopted in its stead, to say nothing about
its minor details. Unless there is some
immediate action taken to reconcile
these diverse views, the next election
will be conducted with the same ma
chinery as this and all former elections
have been. Conceding this, we must
make the best Of it. But the idea of de-
Gliding case of contest without evidence
or debate is preposterous and absurd.
The mere fact that the House or Senate
may, by majority of one vote, without
evidence, without investigation or de-
bate, deprive a sovereign State of all
voice in the choice of a president is
fraught with the most dire possibilities.
Could greater door be left open for
fraud, bribery, corruption and partisan
intrigue? 1t may prove the destruction
of the country. 1t is more than prob
able that the election or reelection of
Mr.. Lincoln, by the rejection of the
vote of State by the separate action
of one of the House of Congress, would
have resulted In the permanent dismem-
herment of the Union. What has oc-
Cured once may happen again. 1t is
certainly wise craftsmanship to prepare
for the contingency. Let Congress aid
at once In the matter, and, if they do
not provide for a change in the whole
system, let them provide for tribunal
by which contested elections may be de-
cided.
THE CoLFAx CASE AGAIN.-Mr. Ames
has presented some additional points to
the committee in regard to tie issue be-
tween himself and Mr.. Colfax, and will