The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1877-04-18

MISSOURI has & Senator MI. OOckTeiI)
courageous enough to deliver a speech
to his constituents, iuztiiying the
Electoral Bill. 1t Is taken. up wholly
with that subject, and in describing what
he imagines to be its merits, he says its
adoption has settled three disputed ques
tions as follows:
Frst-That the President of the Senate
cannot open and count the electoral vote.
! SeeOnd-That neither the Senate nor the
/ House without the concurrence of the other
! car r. jrct the electoral vote of aItv State
1 Ihtrd-That both houses of Congress act
ing together have the right to decide what
votes shall be counted.
As Mr.. Cockrell was a member of the
Senate, he ought to have known that
that body decided, by vote of three to
one, that the President of the Senate
could not count the electoral votes, be
fore the bill went to the House; that a
majority of the Republican, and all the
Democratic Senators, had concurred in
| this declaration, and that therefore the
question was settled before the Represen-
tatives took any action at all. And this
involved the whole issue, as the other
propositions depended upon it. Accord
ibg to his own logic, pernicious measure.
was enacted into law to decide a ques-
ton which had already been definitely
settled. But in truth the question had
been decided again and again and again
before the present measure was presented
to either house. Mr.. Elmunds, the
Republican Senator from Vermont, who
reported the bill, is presumed to be good
authority, and here is what he says:
Second--WheB the first doubt or dispute
arose in 1917, in respect to the vote OF In
diana. the two houses, as of right. determine
ed what should be done, without a hint
| even from any one that the President of the
! Senate had any deciding power.
Ihird--When the next doubt or dispute
arosr, in 1921, as to the voEe of Missouri, the
| two houses did the same thing, without any
suggestion of power in the President of the
| Senate.
| F1iuth-when the next matter OF dispute
| arose in 1897, as to the vote of Michigan,
| the same course was pursued.
| Fijth--When the question arose in 1887 as
to the vote of the Ineligible electors the
com mittees on the subject reported that the
substantial question was whether the electo-
raj colleges in the several States should de
eide, or whether Congress should and that
this should be provided for by a permanent
provision, there was not the suggest ion
from any burce that the President Of the
Senate 0uld de ermine anything.
Sixh--When, in 1877, question arose rs
to the vote of Wisconsin, the same thing
happened. There was sc trce Y an eXcep-
ton TO the opinion that the two houses must
decide.
Seuei.th--In 1865 the two houses passed a
joint resolution determining in advance the
questions touching the electoral votes of
some of the States, and President Lincoln
in message on the subject declared that he
had 10 power over il, even as part OF the
two honseS had the sole power.
T. gltLh--Oh the same occasion in 1865 the
two houses of Congress, being almost en-
tirelv Republican, adopted the twenty see
ond joint rulc, providing that votes objected
to should not be counted without the con
sent f borh houses.
Ntndt--In 1869, under the same joint rule.
the two houses decided all disputes.
Tenth--In 1873, under the same joint rule,
the two houses again decided every question
raised.
Elcpeath SO far there meyer was question
OF dispute or doubt that the PRECEDENT of the
Senate decided or claim ed the ri ght to de- |
eide, and in every case the count proceeded |
upon the idea that no vote could be counted |
without the consent of both houses.
Now, with all these precedents which
were as accessible to other members as to
Mr., Edmunds, precedents to which the Re-
publican party was committed by its 0Wn |
solemn act, we cannot understand why |
still another declaration on the subject |
was needed to show that the President
of the Senate has no deciding power and |
that both houses have equal authority in |.
rejecting or counting vote. TO have /
an already adJudlcated question setLled, |
Congress was unwise enough, according
to the Cockrell explanation, to adopt q
measure, the fruits of which are the seat
ing of an uuiawfql President, the viola
ton Of the popular will and the nulli'ca-
ton of the institution.
When Mr. Cockrrll talks about prece-
dents, he overlooks the fact that not the |
least of the many unanswerable objec
lions 10 tie very scheme he applauds is
that it is itself q dangerous precedent |
and opens the way fer the triumph of
fraud, successful usurpation and the vio-
lation Of the Constitution in future cleo
tiGny. And especially is this apprehen-
ton to be felt if tka ADVOCATES Of the
measure intend to follow the example of
the Missouri Senator, who, in the face of
the results which the scheme has been
the instrument Of accomplishing, defiant
ly declares that he ':voted for the bill
because he thought it was right, and
acould do II again" If this Is ms pro
gramme; it is to hoped that the Democ-
racy of Missouri, if not for themselves,
or the country, will see that he is not in
a position to execute it when another
Presidential vote is counted. reflections
are not to be turned into farce, and
popular government become mockery,
there must be no more Joint High Com
missions. In his grand speech before the
Tribunal, Judge Black said that the
Radical leaders, as an inducement to the
Democrats to go on with the count, had
promised many things, but they had
mot promised not to cheat them in an
''other election if they could"
DanquO's Ghost a1 Iae Usmrpcr's
Feast
1t is said that when Senator
Blaine declared that the recognition of
the Nichols government (Which Hayes
is compelled by public opinion and his
pledges while the count was going on to
nake) would prove that the Vice -Presi