Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-12-14
The Silver Bill Passes the House by a
Majority Of One Hundred and Four.
tcen-Silver Limited Legal
Tender.
Senator Edmunds's Joint Resolution Pro
posing an Amendment TO the COnsti-
tuition OF the United States
Defeated In the Senate.
SENATE.

1
bia and the Territories Of the United States
| Referred.
/ Senator Anthony, from the committee OF
| printing, reported Joint resolution to prin
| ten thousand extra copies Of the message O.
| the President md accompanying document!
IN regard 10 the late election in Louisiana.
Senator Thurman objected to the present
consideration and statement till Tomorrow.
The resolution of Serr7tct Mitchell, pro-
| vldlng for an Inqdlry into the appointment o.
| the Oregon electors, was taken up.
Senator Bayard spoke at some length in ia
vor Of amending the preamble of the resolution
\ so that violations of law should not be
charged upon Governor Grover before an IN
veshgation was made.
Pending the discussion, Senator Edn1unds
demanded the regular erder, and the senate
resumed consideration of the joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the constitution
so as to have the count of the electoral vote
made by the supreme court of the United
States. Senator Logy being entitled to the
floor, spoke at length upon the subject,
Senator Bogy argued that the electoral
votes had always been counted by tellers ap-
pointed by the two houses of congress, and
not by the president of the senate. He next
referred to the twenty-second joint rule, and
sald whether it be in force or not, it was moth
ing more nor less than the the fifteenth
amendment to the constitution of the United
States. The practice of the two houses of
congress In counting the electoral vote for the
last six years had been upon the same prin-
cIple as the twenty-second Joint rule. He
argued that that rule was prepared by a Joint
commission of the two houses, and was passed
unanimously by both houses. He spoke of
receiving and counting the electoral vote, and
said the first question presented was one of
the reception of votes, and not OF rejecting
them, and it required the concurrence of the
two houses Of congress to receive the votes of
State.
Senator Edmunds said that, according to
the argument of Senator Bogy, if one house
Of congress could reject the vote of a State.
the vote of every State except Delaware or
one of the smaller Steses might be rejected
by one or the other house; the vote of such
small State would then elect President; that
would be an absolute breaking up of the gov
eminent by the exercise Of the constitutional
powers OF congress.
Senator 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 gov
eminent would become a farce, and
it had better be turned into despotism. 1t
must always be presumed that men in Office
are honest. Should the day ever come when
congress could be influenced by any other than
high and patriotic motives, no law, no joint
rule would ever protect that body. He ar
gued that party feeling could not be kept out
Of congress, but there was point where party
must sink and man must rise patriot if he
be honest. He had faith in the congress of
the United States. No matter how weak and
ignorant some few individuals might be,
where could the power of counting the cleo
tOral vote be placed better or more wisely
than with congress? Why take this power
from congress and give it to the supreme
court? Were not the judges of the supreme
court men, like senators and representatives
Had they not party attachments, and were
they not liable to the frailties of human ma
ture?
Senator Burnside asked if the senator from
Missouri Bogyl held that the members of
congress In counting the vote could be actu-
ated by any higher motives than the mem
bers of the two committees that witnessed the
count in Louisiana.
Senator Bogy said that all the committees
ever sent to louisiana whether Democrats or
Republicans, had agreed and represented that
the government Of that State was founded on
fraud.
Senator Burnside asked if the main body
of the people of the United States would not
abide by any decision of the supreme court,
and was there any tribunal where the ques-
ton Of counting the electoral vote could be
vested with more satisfaction.
Senator Bogy sand that the count now stood
beyond and above party, and he could trust
it with the count of the electoral vote and
would bring it into the arena of politics, and
any decision made by the court after count
ing the vote would give less satisfaction than
If made by congress. Take the present con-
test: if the court should decide in favor of
Iilden IT would be denounced, and if it should
decide IN favor of Hayes it would likewise be
denounced; the counting of the vote was not
a junction which belonged to the judicial de-
partment of the government, it
was function which properlv
belonged to the Legislative department, and
he knew of nobody so well adapted to decide
the matter as congress, because the senate
the States, and the members of
the other house represented the people. He
hoped no duty of political nature would be
thrown on the supreme court. On one occa-
sion, when party politics pressed the court
hard, IT gave way, and he had no doubt it
would do so again, because the judges of the
supreme court were but men. The day was
not far ahead when members of congress
must rise above party and feel that they are
with the sacred cause Of liberty. He
felt that they would 50 discharge their duties
that the yawning gulf fnow at their feet would
be brdged over and the country would again
enter career of peace and prosperity, such
as had made it great for one hundred years.
Senator Randolph also opposed the trans
fer Of the count to the supreme court, and
quoted from the journals of congress to show
that it had always been held that the power
TO canvass the vote was vested in congress,
and not with the presiding officer of the SEN
ate alone.
The question being ON the passage of the
Joint resolution proposing the amendment to
the constitution, it was reiected-yeas, IA;
nays. 3l-two-thrds not voting in the affrna-
1--we. The vote was as follows:
Heds-Senators Allison, Anthony, Blaine,
Conkling, Edmunds, Ferry, Ere
llnghuysOn, Hamlin, Hitchcock, Key, Nor
nil, West and Wnght-l4
Ndys-Senators Alcon, Bayard, Bogy,
Booth, Bruce, Cameron Pal, Chafee, Clay
ton, Conoyer, Dawes, Dennis, Eaton, Gold
thwaite, Hamilton, Harvey. Ingalls,, Jones
Fla. !, Herman, Logan, M'Creery, Morey,
Morton, Norwood, Patterson, Price. Ran
iOlph, Sargent, Thurman, Wallace, Whyte
and Withers-3l.
Senators Window and Christiancy, who
would have voted in the affirmative, were
paired with Senators Davis and Ransom, VINO
would have voted in the negative.
Senator Edmunds gave notice that to-mor-
row he would move 10 take up the bill topro-
vide for and regulate the counting the votes
Tor President and Vice-President, and the
questions arising therefrom, which passed the
senate last session, but which was now before
hat bOdys
On motion 10 reconsider, Senator Sher-
nan asked if the Oregon resolution had been
aud aside.
Senator Edmunds said that II had been laid
over until tomorrow, but that the case was
practically covered By the resolution sub
nItted by him early in the session, and which
was adopted by the senate, which authorized