The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1877-02-01


Among the greatest OF the speeches
made in the House Of Representatives
last week against the compromise swim
die. was that Of General Garfield Of this
State.
The following synopsis is taken from
the Associated Press dispatches:
Mr. Garfield (Rep.) Of o., was the next
speaker. He desired in the outset to say
some good things of the bill 1t had
some great merits, which he most sim
cerely recognized. 1t was intended to
abate strife in a great and trying crisis Of
the Nation. 1t was intended to aid in
tiding over a great present difficulty, pos
sibly great public danger. 1t would
doubtless bring a result, and would leave
the person declared to be the Elect Of
the Nation with a more undisputed title
than perhaps under any other method as
yet suggested. If he had to speak Of the
bill only as a partisan, he should say that
he was not afraid of its operation. The
eminent gentlemen who would compose
the Commission, eminent for their char
acter and ability, were men who, he be-
lieved, would seek to do justice, and
would do it. Believing, as he did, that
Rutherford B. Hayes had been honestly
elected President, he should confidently
expect that an honest and fair Commits
sion, as doubtless this would be. would
find that to be the fact. But it might
find otherwise, and if it did, all good
men everywhere would submit to the re-
suit. He had heard to-day the threat Of
civil war. The Roman Senate had never
deliberated under. the threat or the pres
enee Of war, and il he was convinced that
civil war was threatened he would be fur
nished with the highest and supremest
reason why the American Congress ought
not to do anything under such compul-
sion or threat. With all his soul he de
spised the threat of civil war come from
what quarter or party it might. Brave
men and brave Nations would do nothing
on such compulsion. But if this bill
were to be opposed it should be opposed
for reasons so broad and so weighty as to
overcome all that had been said in its IA
vor, and all the advantage which he adj
mitted would follow its passage. He did
not wish to diminish the stature of his
enemy. He did not wish to underyalue
points of strength in a great bill, before
he questioned its propriety. 1t was not
enough for him that the bill would tide
over the present danger, however great.
They should, for the moment, forget
Hayes and Tilden, forget Republican and
Democrat, forget their own day and their
own generation, and inquire what the
thing which they were about to do would
accomplish AS to the future Of the Repub-
lie, and in what shape this bill, if passed,
would leave the institutions of the coun-
try, and transmit them to posterity2 1t
would be unworthy of them, for the sake
of ave ding the present danger, to incur
the greater danger for those who come
after.
Mr. Garfield then proceeded to argue
in support of the theory that it was the
right of the President of the Senate to
count and declare the lectoral votes. AS
illustrative of his arguments, he cited
the fact that in thirty-one States of the
Union the opening and publishing Of the
votes for Governor is a ministerial act,
and is put in the hands of designated ex-
ecutive officers, while in only seven States
the Legislature was the canvassing and
returning board.
Mr.. Hoar remarked that in ali the old
thirteen States the two Houses Of the
Legislature counted the votes.
Mr.. Garfield replied that in the major
ity of the original thirteen States the
Legislature elected the Governor
Mr.. Hoar-Is il not true that in every
one of the old thirteen States, the two
Houses of the Legislature count the vote
for Governor, including the fact that in
some the Legislature casts the vote as
well as counts them.
Mr. Lawrence-It is not true in New
York. On the contrary, the votes are
canvassed by the officers designated and
the Legislature has no power over the
subject
Mr.. Garfield proceeded with his consti-
tutional argument. He declared that
his first arraignment of the bill was that
what the fathers so carefully kept from
Congress, this bill proposed to give to it.
If this bill passed, the constitutional pro-
vision on the subject was gone forever,
and Congress would become a grand Ma.
tional Returning Board from this day
forward, until the people destroyed it in
it's turn. 1t would make Congress a Re
turning Board, with all the vices and
none of the excuses of the Returning
Boards of the States. And their obitc-
ton to the bill was that the members of
this commission were not to be appoint
ted by the President and confirmed by
the Senate, but were to be appointed by
the two Houses, which was at variance
with the Constitution. Another objec-
tion to it was, that it empowered these
official personages to take whatever juris-
diction they were entitled to have. In
other words they were invited to 60 in
to the field Of the Constitution and the
laws to brouse at will, to construe them
for themselv,s and to take whatever
powers suited them.
Another objection to the bill was that
it would be in the power of the Commits
sion and Of the two Houses to prevent
any result whatever. If one party were
not satisfied with the result reached in
regard to Florida it might resort to OBJ
jections, to debate, to the separation Of
the Houses, until the time was passed
when "the votes shall then be counted,
there would be no then" left.
Mr.. Hoar asked whether there was any
more likelihood of the two Houses refus-
ing to discharge their duty than there
was of the President of the Senate reius-
ing to discharge his?
Mr.. Garfield replied that the difference
was that the President of the Senate
could be removed within an hour, and
there was no way to punish Legislative
body for not performing its duty.
In conclusion, he suggested that the