Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1877-01-26
The Compromise Bill.

The following is synopsis of n
portion of the remarks of Mr.. Ed
munds, OF Vermont, in the opening
OF the debate upon the plan propos
ell by the Compromise Committee
to count the electora. votes:
Mr. Elmunds spoke of the close
election, and argue, that any result
reached through the calm orderly
administration Of law would be a
most desirable and benefcent act,
worthy the republic. A failure to
accomplish such satisfactory adj
iustment would cause our posterity
to feel that Congress had failed in
the performance OF Il great duty.
The committee had laid aside parti-
san feeling, and solemnly united in
reporting the bill as Il just one. lie
explained at great length the pro-
visions Of the bill. He argued that
the bill was CONSTITUTIONAL, and
that the constitution did not give
the President OF the Senate the right
to count the electoral vote.
Mr.. Edmunds had read the 18th
article of the. constitution, under
which he said eight or ten millions
of citizens had endeavored to elect 4
President, but the contest had been
SO close that Congress had been COM
PEELED to decided what means was
left for deciding this dispute. A
large part of the people would be-
lieve themselves wronged should
their candidate be excluded. He ar
gued that no matter what the result
might be, all men would be satisfied
that legal, honest steps had been tax
ell to reach it. Concerning the first
action, he personally believed that
where one return only was received
and was objected to it should be re-
ferred to the tribunal organized
by the bill, instead Of requiring an
affirmative vote to reject it. This
tribunal must decide between the
two returns which was constitutions
al. The tribunal was made So large
in order to represent every possible
opinion, and yet it was small enough
to act promptly. Concerning the Sc
lection of the judges, he thought the
most satisfactory plan he'd been
adopted, and the only difficulty was
that of constitutional objections
which newspaper men wrote SO much
about, and which he supposed they
understood fully. He believed no
body ever criticized the absolute
fairness of the judiciary bill made by
Judge Clifford, President OF the tr
bunal. After the oath was taken,
untairness and craftsmanship would
vanish. and absolute impartially
would prevail. They were simply to
decide on what had occurred. 1t
there was any value in our civil in
situations, this was our final hope.
Edmunds devoted some time to a
eulogy on the high character of such
Il court and the certainty of q just
decision. 1t would be strange
country, if, according to law, one
candidate had been elected, and Con
gress should make another law, which
would elect another candidate of Il
different party. There was no
change made or,o be madein the law
since the electoral vote was cast.
There was SIMPLY 4 provision made
for ascertaining what was the law.
If both houses had power to go be-
hind the returns, then this tribunal
would have such power, otherwise
not. He represented the tutility of
leaving the question to Congress,
which would be borne along on the
current of warm debate.
Concerning the section which de-
clares any candidate may retain the
right to contest his case i'll the courts
he said it was the idea of the com
mittees to curtail nobody's constitu-
tional right in this respect. If, as
some gentlemen contended, the con-
stitution committed to one or two
persons or bodies the right of decid-
ing who should be President, that
was fatal to this bill.
If such power was reposed in the
President of the Senate, he could say
nobody would desire better judge
than the present occupant OF the
chair. If no such power was delega-
ted, its exercise would be an inva-
sion of the right of the Constitution
to give that officer such power. 1t
WAS most unfortunate they did not
say so; it staggered human credulity
to believe they wished to make him
Judge on the most critical case that
could betall the Republic, and they
should not say SO. If his power to
open certificates implied the power
to decide which was correct. then he
could make n President. Edmunds
denied the implied power that the
Constitution allowed Congress to
pass any law making its provisions
effective. He read from the SUI
preme Court decisions to show that
the bill was constitutional. Neither
the President of the Senate nor
either House had right to decide
OH the returns until L law was passed
exl ressly providing for it. He de-
MED that the President of the Senate
had always opened md counted the
votes. The bill did not take away
from the House or the President Of
the Senate any powers, and was
therefore constitutional. He appeal
ed to the Senators to inquire whether
it WAS better, by stimulating doubt
III their own minds, to send the re-
public like mountains tumbling into
Il shorcless sea, or to settle matter
fairly and equitably.
Miles Late Interview " It'll Sitting Bull.