The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-12-14
CONGRESS
WAsHINGToN, December IL.
SENATE.

gress 10 take steps to prohibit the manu-
facture and sale of alcoholic liquors as q
beverage in the District of Columbia and
Territories.
Mr.. ingalls,, from the Committee on
Indian Affairs, reported isvorably on
the Senate bill to provide for the sale OF
3 portion of the reservation OF the Sac
and Fox Indians in Kansas and Nebrasks,
which was discussed briefly and laid over
informally.
Mr.. Mitchell, at his own request, was
excused from further service as q mem
Der of the Committee on Privileges and
Elections and Mr.. Sargent appointed
member OF that committee TO fill the
vacancy.
The Senate confirmed q A. Cunning
ham postmaster at Neenah, Wisconsin.
Mr.. Anthony, from the Committee ON
Printing, reported the joint resolution to
print 10000 extra copies of the message
of the President and accompanying doc
uments in regard to the late election IN
Louisiana.
Mr.. Thurman objected to its present
consideration, and It went over until TO.
morrow.
The resolution of Mr. Mitchell pro-
viding for inquiry into the appointment
of the Oregon electors, was taken up.
Mr.. Bsysrd spoke at some length IN
favor of amending the preamble OF the
resolution solthat the violations OF the
law should not be charged upon GOV.
Grover before the investigation was
made.
Pending the discussion, Mr.. Edmunds
demanded the regular order, and the
Senate resumed the consideration ot the
Joint resolution proposing All amendment
TO the constitution so as 10 have the count
OF the electoral vote made by the Su.
preme Court of the United States.
Mr.. Bogy, being entitled to the floor,
spoke at length upon the subject.
Mr.. Bogy argued that the electoral
votes had always been counted by tellcrs
appointed by the two bouseS of Congress
and not by the President Of the Senate.
He next referred to the 22d joint rule,
and said whether it be in force or not it
was nothing more nor less than the 18th
amendment TO the Constitution OF
the United States. The practice
of the two Houses in counting the elect
oral vote for the last six years had been
upon the same principle. As to the 22d
JOINT rule, he argued that the rule WAS
prepared BY a joint committee ot the two
Houses and passed unanimously by both
Houses. He spoke of receiving and
counting the electoral vote, and said the
first question presented was the one OF
the reception OF the votes, not OF re-
jecting them, aud it required the concur
renee of the two Houses OF Congress 10
receive the vote of a State.
Mr. Edmunds SAID that according to
she argument of the Senator Mr. Bogy)
if the objection of one House of Congress
could reject the vote of State, the vote
of every State. except Delaware or one
of the smaller States, might be rejected
by one or the other Houses, and the vote
OF such small State would then elect n
President That would b. m absolute
breaking up of the government by the
exercise of the constitutional powers Of
Congress.
Mr.. Bogy said the great fundamental
principle underlying the very foundation
of our government was the presumption
that the Senators and Representatives
IN Congress would discharge their duty
with fidelity. When dishonesty entered
our legislative halls and accomplished
such result as suggested by the Senator
from Vermont our government would
become farce and it had better ba turn
ed INTO despotism. 1t must be presumed
that men in Office are honest enl should
the day ever come when the Congress
of tn- United States could be in
ducurrd by any other than high and
patr.u.jC motives no law or joint rale,
would ever protect the body He argued
that party feeling could not be kept out
OF Congress, but there was point where
the party must sink, and the man must
rise as patriot, if he be honest. lie had
faith in the Congress OF the United
States, no matter how weak and ignorant
some few individuals might be How
could the power o: counting the electoral
vote be placed better or more wisely than
with Congress? Why take this power
from Congress and give it to the Su-
preme Court2 Were not the Judges
Of the Supreme Court men like
the Senators and Representatives,
and had they not party at
tschments and were they not liable TO
the fra lties of human nature?
Mr.. Burnside inquired if the Senator
from Missouri Mr.. Bogyl held that
members of Congress in counting the
vote could be actusted by any higher
motives than the members of the two
committees that witnessed the count IN
Louisiana.
Mr.. Bogy said ali committees ever sent
to Louisiana, whether Democratic Or Re-
publican. had agreed, and represented
that the government of that stat" was
founded n fraud.
Mr.. Burnside said if the main boIy Of
the people of the United States wou.i
not abide BY any decision Of the Suggrm"
Court, was there any tribunal where The
question OF counting the c,"ctpra v"ir
could be rested with more satrsla't'"n;
MT. bogE sAlu IH' '"uI. h'N 1871
beyon and above party, and to vest 1t
with the counting OF the e,"ctora. vote
would bring it into the Arena Of politics.
Any decision by the court after counting
he vote would give less satisfaction than
il made BY Congress. Take the present
contest: If the court should decide in
favor Of Tilden II would be de-
nounced. and if it should deci de in
favor of HAYES it would likewise be de-
nounced. The counting Of the vote was
no. a function which belonged TO the
judicial department of the government.
1t wss function which pro-
yerly belonged to the legislative
department, and he knew OF no body
so well adsI ted to decide the mstter as
Congress, because the Senate and House
represented the people. He hoped no
duty of a political nature would be
thrown upon the Supreme Court. On
one occasion when party politics pressed
the court hard, it gave way, and he had
no doubt would do so again, because the
Judges OF that court were but men. Inc
dsy was not far distant when member:
of Con grass must rise above party and