The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-12-13

hptSt Dili dppfppflatiEiE 81 .UftJ To de-
ray Expenses OF the special committee that
body appointed to investigate the recent
election in South Carolina, Louisiana and
ttDrda, passed with an amendment appro-
pr.ating 5000 70 defray the expenses Of the
committee ON privileges and election of the
senate in making investigations as TO the
late elections in South Carolina, Louisiana.
Mississippi. Georgia and Alabama
Under the Edmunds resolution Mr. Bogy
pres ntCd the report OF the democratic com
mittee which attended the sessions of the
Louisiana returning board and moved it be
printed. Objected u by several senators on
! the republican side on the ground that as the
! paper was not addressed to the senate and to
/ the president. II would be a violation OF
/ rules. After debate it was decided that
! BOgy, Stevens and Mcdonald should pre-
pare 4 memorial making the paper part
thereof. and il could then be printed.
Mr.. Mitchell, from the committee on priv
ileges and elections, reported favorably on
the resolution authorizing the Investigation
as 10 the eligibility of Watts, the Oregon
elector. and asked its present consideration.
Objection was made by Mr.. Cooper, and it
went over until tomorrow
Mr.. Cameron of Wisconsin, introduced a
bill to provide for the redemption of green
( backs. Ii provides that from and after its
enactment the United States shall receive
legal tender notes at par in payment of inn
port duties, and all other dues and revenues
of every kind. Referred to the committee
on finance.
Mr.. Bayard offered the following:
Resolved, That the attorney general be
and is hereby directed TO communicate to
the senate the total number of deputy mar
shals employed throughout the United
States in connection with the election held
November z. ls76, stating the number 50 en-
ployed in each state and each voting pre-
cinct respectively. and the length of time
they were so engaged. Laid over till to-
morrow.
Mr. Morton submitted resolution pro-
viding that the various subcommittee of
the committee on privileges and elections
authorized to inquire and report as TO the
late election in certain of the southern states
under the resolution OF Mr. Edmunds, shall
be known as committees OF the senate. and
that the chairman have power 10 administer
oaths. Agreed to. Mr.. Boutwell, was eN-
cused from service upon these committees.
Mr.. sherman presented the petition of
Gene-al Joseph T.. Johnston.asking the re-
moyal OF his political disabilities Referred.
/ TIE senate then resumed consideration Of
unfinished business.
The Joint resolution OF Mr.. Ed-aunos pro
posing an amendment 70 the constitution OF
the United States 80 as to have the electoral
vote for president and vice president count
ed by the supreme court, and the amend
ment proposed BY the committee on Judi
ciary, providing that the electors shall vote
ricd goce instead OF Dy ballot was agreed to-
Mr.. Morton opposed the clause providing
that The court shall. in the discharge of its
duty: disregard errors of form end be gov
erned by the substantial rights of the matter.
lie argued that this clause would give 10 the
supreme court boundless Jurisdiction. 1t
would authorize that body TO do almost any
thing-perhaps to 20 and count the votes in
the state of Vermont A state jurisdiction
should not be conferred upon any tribunal,
as it was dangerous.
Mr.. Edmunds said that the object of the
clause was not TO authorize the court to ex-
ercise a boundleSs jurisdiction, or To go any
where to count the votes of citizens, but il
was 10 authorize the court 10 do what cN-
actly all courts do in matters which they
are called upon to decide, and that was 10
disregard forms and decide upon the sub
srantial right of the matter He then
explained at length the provisions of the
joint resolution proposing an amendment
10 the constitution, and said it was
not a device, as some of the newspapers had
intmated, 10 swap horses in crossing a
stream. II was introduced by him in the
senate ON the 22d of March last, almost a
year ago, and reported on favorably by the
judiciary committee, with amendments, on
the 10Th of May following before either of
the presidential candidates was nominated.
He then referred to the proceedings of
the convention which framed the cOnstitu-
tion and said he had been unable to find
anything in the debates of the convention
which threw light on the clause of the con-
stitution in regard TO the count of the cleo
toral vote in the presence of the two houses
of congress. The extent of the power OF the
presiding officer as to the count was not
defined. For many years there
had been among gentlemen Of all
parties wide diversity of opinion as to the
meaning of the clause in the constitution in
regard to counting the electoral vote, and to
settle that doubt the committee on judiciary
had thought it desirable TO report the pro-
posed amendment.
Mr. Edmunds then referred TO acts of con-
gress early in the history of the government,
and debates which then took place in regard
10 the subject and said il 1903 an amend
ment 10 the constitution, now known as ar
ticle II of the amendments. was agreed 10,
but he could draw no light from the
discussion which took place upon
this amendment as 10 the true in
tent and meaning of the constitution.
From 1903 to 1864 there was no provision by
law, or no provision by any joint rule which |
undertook to deal with that provision OF the !
constitution. He next referred to the late
22d rule and reviewed its history briefly. He
spoke of tha complicated questions which
had arised heretofore in the cleo
tion of the president, and said
the country came out OF them clear
as he hoped it would and believed it would
on this occasion. He argued that this pro-
posed amendment was not intended for
this present difficulty, growing on, OF the
late election. Ii was brought forward in the
senate long before either candidate was
nominated. The judiciary committee
thought the safest repository OF this power
of counting the vote would be
in a tribunal which had a single
solid existence and not a dual
existence, as was probably the case with the
senate and house of representatives. The SUI
preme court was usually composed OF an I'M
equal number of persons, and some conclu-
sion must be reached by it. He spoke of the