New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-02-21
of their former theories to the rights OF the States
and of all principles of equity.

of their former theories as to the ghts Oh 'ne
and of all principles of equity.
The debate in the Senate on the Michigan case
took sudden and unexpected turn after 1t had gone
on for half an hour and left the new Senator ironi
West Virginia Mr.. Hereford, in an awkwarn posi-
ton. Mr. Maxey and Mr.. Bayard led OIL Tor the
Democrats and laid down the doctrine that when
disqualified person chosen an elector the ota,e
forfeited his vote and could not help herself by h-
ing his place IN the Electoral College when nc ao-
sented himself, because it was not case
of vacancy but case of failure to eject
Neither of them connected their theory with the
facts in the pending case. After two OF three he
publican speeches. Mr. Hereford got the hoor TOT MS
maiden effort and proceeded to urge the Throwing
out of one of the Michigan votes. He spoke I'D Tie
loud style necessary in the House, but out OF piaco
in the aniet Senate. The Senators gave one glance
at the young member who was making the room
ring with his fiery defamation, then proceeded to
snub him. as they always do new corners who Try 10
make themselves conspicuous. Some pretended
to be deeply interested in newspapers. Others fell
to writing industriously. Still others appeared 10
be trying to steal nap After the speech was over,
Mr.. Stevenson remarked that while he believed the
provisions of the Constitution to disqualifcatons
Oupht TO he enforced, the evidence OF the Michigan
electors inelgibiliy was not clear, and he should
indulge the doubt that he was qualihed ana
vote to count the return. Then Mr. Bayard
said that his speech was not finished for
want of time. and that he wanted
to add that he did not consider the facts made out
sufficient to justify the throwing out the vote Mr.
Bogy and Mr. Herman took the same position. MT.
Norwood, who with Mr.. Hereford, Mr. Barnum, and
Mr.. Wallace had signed the protest apologized Tor
doing So and explained that he did not know
how weak the evidence was. Poor Hereford was
left In an awkward predicament. He had to beat
a retreat and vote with his associates to recognize
the validity Of the Michigan return.
None of the Democrats in the end supported the
objections They did not, however. like the form IN
which Mr.. Allison put his two resolutions Tor count
ing the vote, because one Of them declared
that the objections were not good in law and not
supported by any lawful evidence. Mr.. Whyte
moved substitute declaring that the pro-
vision of the Constitution as to eligibility
should be rigidly carried into execution, but
that in this case there was no sufficient
evidence. This was rejected by the party vote OF
81 to 80. Mr.. Mcdonald then moved to strike out
the words mot good in law from Mr.. Alson's res
olutiop. His motion failed by Yeas, 26 Nays, 3S.
Mr. Cooper not satisfied with these two Votes, IN
sisted on division of the question, so that the first
of Mr. Alson's resolutions could be voted on sep
arately. It was adopted by Yeas, 40; Nays. II !;
and then the other resolution declaring that the
vote should he counted, the objections to the con-
trary notwithstanding, was carried unanimously.