Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1876-12-13
CONGRESSIONAL.
Second SessiOn-44th Conxres

CONGRESSIONAL.
Second session Conxres,
SENATE.
WASHINGTON, Dec. Z.
The Chair presented Carl Schurz
communication praying that q consti
tutlonal amendment be presented
which shall give the counting of vote
to the Supreme Court. Laid on tn,
table.
Mr.. Anthony, from the Printin,
Committee, reported favoring print
ing dispositions 8, accompanying Sena
tor Shcrman's report on elections.
Mr.. Salisbury dissented from tn,
majority report, declaring that the e.
partc testimony should not be dissem
mated.
Mr.. Mcdonald favored the printins
of all the testimony on both sides con.
corning the South Carolina, Louisian,
and Florida elections.
Mr.. Sherman, answering Mr.. Ier
rimon, said there were three classe
OF testimony presented with the com
munication.
lst. Oral taken before the board
and proceedings of the Board.
I'd. The Supervisors sworn state.
ments.
Sd. Testimony taken legally OF
interrogatories and cross-interroga.
tories.
Mr.. Eaton opposed printing othe1
Testimony than what was taken by thu
Irregular Congressional Committee il
the regular way. :.
Mr. Thurman didn't wish to SUP.
press any facts, but disliked to fore.
stall public opinion. He would mo-
object to the. publication of this to.
gether with the forthcoming testi
mony concerning the Louisiana Re
turning Board. This was the third
time they had thwarted the will Of
the people of that State, and now, In
q manner, it concerned the whole Re.
public. He wanted to scrutinize thu
testimony upon which this extraordi.
nary result had been reached. Mr.
Sherman had not mentioned the Sc.
cret sessions Of the Board and resolu-
tions which converted 1000 Demo.
cratic majority into 5000 Republican
majority. That was done in the
worst kind of secrecy. The very de.
Termination of the Board not to fil
the vacancy from the 50, GOO Democrat
who voted in the State showed thai
there was wrong purpose. A Dem.
ocIat on the Board would have wit
messed the secret work of the Board
All the whitewashing could not erase
or hide this guilt. He protested
against a majority of the Senate civ.
ing this one-sided evidence to the
country until all could be given.
Mr.. Morton said the singular spec,
tacle was presented of Democrats de.
nouncing the Returning Board as q
fraud, and yet objccting to the pub.
lication of the evidence which deter.
mined their action. The Democratic
Visiting Committee at New Orleanl
had refused the invitation of the Re.
publicans to publish jointly the evi.
dence laid before tho Board. They
confessed that they were dissat.
isfied with their own case. If thu
Returning Board acted unfairly, bring
forward the proof.
Mr.. Thurman upheld the Demo.
cratic Committee in refusing to fur.
nish their testimony to the Republi.
cans. They were not invited to joir
the Republicans in making up yer.
dict to return to the President, bu
merely to let the Republicans do it
He hoped Congress would act cir,
cumspectly, now that the form Of thu
Governments Constitution was being
tested.
Mr.. Morton said that this Dem
ocratic dilemma could not be straight
ened by all the ingenuity of the othel
side. When the Republicans invited
the Democrats to lay the whole CASE
before the country the latter refused
and when the Republicans offered tt
publish it, the Democrats asked then
not to do so.
Mr.. Sherman defended his commit
tee, which presented all obtainabl'
evidence on this testimony. The Re
turning Board made its decision.
Mr.. Sherman reaffirmed that thi
was not report of the official body
and this was not the authorized re
port. Where was the statute author
izing it?
Mr.. Edmunds said that the secont
article of the Federal constitution
ordered the President to transmit
from time to time information as t(
the state cf the Union. It was hi
boundcn duty, and he obeyed it b,
inviting certain citizens to 60 to New
Orleans and get such information ant
report. He then presented the resul
to Congress. 1t was unprecedented
to refuse to print information sent il
by the President.
Mr.. Bayard argued asainstprintin,
| such documents, though it was usua
to print official documents comm,
from the President. The Office O
President didn't connect him wit
the electors. 1t was unwarrantabl,
to send the committee to New Or
leans. He would not object if th,
testimony of the other side could b.
| printed with this, but objected to thi!
alone. The Senate must stand on thu
law. There must be no shutting.
Mr.. Mitchell thinks there will be NJ
trouble about the matter. The Gov
ernor has exercised judicial function
whereas the law of Oregon confine
him to the strictly ministerial duty o
giving certificates to persons who re
ceive the highest number of votes.
Mr.. Morton said there was no pre-
cedent for electing the minority can
didate because of the lneligibility O
a person receiving majority of tn,
votes cast. In fact the case had bcel
decided exactly the reverse in tn
Senate and House. He cited the case
of John Young, Brown and Abbot
VS.. Vance. He quoted at length from
English and American authorities.
| Mr.. Thurman argued the revers
| side of the question. There was Ger
tainly disqualifying clause, bu
whether the minority candidat
should be elected he could not 50,
/ now.
Mr.. Edmunds didn't wonder tina
Mr.. Thurman held up q little befor
going into this case, if, as he under
stood, Governor Grover had under
taken to thwart the will of The peopl
OF Oregon, and he quoted variOu
legal authorities, showing that til
practice both here and in Englan
was opposed to the doctrine of Go,
crnor Grover.
The Committees report to prin
the documents and accompanying dc
positions was agreed to by 46 to l,
Wallace and Herman voting with th
republicans.
4 Mr.. Mitchell submitted the follow
ing:
WHEREAS, At the late PRESIDENT
election in the State of Oregon Il
, people by majority of over LII
chose electors who were pledged
!, vote for r. B. Hayes for Preside
and VIM. A. Wheeler for Vice Pres
dent; and,
WHEREAS, The Governor Of til
State upon the pretext that j.