Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1877-02-10
UNITED STATES CONGRESS-.
senate.
The COMPROMISE ELEcroRAL pnI.


the only member Of the Conference committee
that did not sign the report and he did not
make minority report. He spoke in opIosi-
ton TO the bill. He knew that there was great
uneasiness in the country and approximations
are felt of violence. The bill, he declared, was
presented for the reason that members OF the
two houses believed that danger threatened the
country. He did not believe in the reality Of
the danger. The real danger to be appre-
hended was in not standing up and doing our
whole duty. For one he was not afraid that il
this vote should be counted as il was for the
first seventy-tWo years in the history Of our
government there will be any revolution. He
believed that any one who attempts it will be
utterly destroyed. He regarded the bill ~
compromise, and that it should take its place
alongside the notable compromises in the his
tory of the Countrywide compromise Of 1920
and the compromise of 1850. He believed that
Rutherford b. Hayes was fairly elected
President, and if counted in he would be
inaugurated without violence and there
would be no revolution. He closed abruptly
after holding the floor only fifty minutes. Mr..
Morton maintained that in the absence Of legis-
lation the president of the Senate must count
the votes to prevent deadlock. He did not
hold that this power should be exercised in op
position to the will Of the two houses, but its
exercise he held to be no more of a usurpation
than had been committed in every count down
to the adoption of the tweDty-second Joint rule
His chief objection to the bill was that it gives
the commission power to go behind the re-
turns and ascertain what electors were duly ap-
pointed, which he held to be unconstitutional,
and regarded besides as a change of the exist
ing status in favor of the Democrats. Mr.. FREE
linghuysen (Rep.), of New jersey followed Mr..
Morton in written speech in favor of the bill.
He denied that it gave the commission power to
go back of the papers submitted to It to see
how raturninO hnnr mort a1 chair 1Y,ti
Here were two diverse Republican opinions at
the outset as to the most important feature of
the measure. Mr.. Cameron (Rep.) of Penn
sylvania, made five minutes speech against
the bill, denouncing it as a Democratic affair,
framed by three or four Republicans to crafty
their political opponents. 1t created, he said,
political court, to cheat one party or the other,
by trick or lot. Mr.. Edmunds (Rep.). of Yer
mont, declared that prompt action was neces-
sary, and that he should push matters to a
vote.
Mr.. Sherman (Rep.), of Ohio, held the floor
for an hour, during which he delivered speech
against the Electoral bill. He travelled over
the same ground traversed by Senator Morton,
and dwelt chiefly on the points assailed by
the Indiana senator. He maintained that the
Constitution clothed thepresident of the Senate
with the power to count the electoral votes,
and asserted that the legislation proposed by
the conference committee of the two houses
was not only unconstitutional but antagonistic
to the spirit of our government. What the
president of the Senate did was in the presence
and under the scrutinizing gaze of the repre-
sentatives of the States and the people, in open
day and with the eyes of the nation upon him,
while the homogeneous tribunal created under
the provisions of the proposed bill would sit in
secret and, unseen by mortal eye, pass judg-
ment that concerned the veal or woe of forty
millions OF people; and this Judgment after all,
would be but the opinion of one man, the fifth
judge, who would doubtless have to be selected
by lot by his four colleagues of the supreme
bench designated by the bill
Mr.: Conkling (Rep.), of New York, spoke at
length in favor of the bill. He attacked the
assumption that the Vice-President had.or was
intended by the trainers of the Constitution to
have any power whatever in regard to the
electoral vote, except to open the certificates.
and abiding to the language of the Constitu-
ton which says that "the president of the
Senate shall open the electoral certificates and
they shall then be counted" he turned aside,
and, with one hand outstretched to the sena-
tors, the other stretched toward the presidents
chair. exclaimed "By him !" in tone which
set the galleries fiutterng. eff it had been
intended that the votes should be counted by
him, those two little words" said he,
"as two senator's have said before me,
wonld have expressed that intention
" Is President then, to he chosen, asked Mr..
Conkllng, "by counting forged votes votes for
man condemned to lasting disgrace and in
ability by the Senate on impeachment votes
for dead man? Was it intended by those who
framed the Constitution that votes for dead man
should fill with an aching void the Presidential
office To count my fingers" he said, "that is
purely ministerial Office to count pile of
paper is the same; to count bank notes, among
which may be counterfeits, and to sort the true
from the false, that requires the exercise of
judgment If New York should send here forty
five electoral votes they would not be counted !;
they would have to be sorted" Government"
said he, "rests on the consent of the governed
Is a majority of Congress less to be trusted
than one man? A bare majority of this House
might select presiding officer for the express
purpose of counting in candidate. Is such a
creature of an hour of more force or more
trustworthy than the wisdom of the two
houses? ?"
Mr.. Conkling said, in conclusion, he believed
the Republican nominee had been chosen the
chief magistrate of this country, and he asked
him to take title to his great office that no one
could question. If this bill was compromise
of truth, of law or of right, he was against
it but he denied that it was any compromise,
and, above all, it did not compromise right
principle or the Constitution. To contest a
claim was not to compromise it. To insist
upon an honest, fair counting of the elector-
al votes was not compromise. A Presiden-
tial election had occurred, and unless there
was a tie somebody had been chosen. To
establish that fact was no compromise. The
bill surrendered the rights of none, but assert
ed and maintained the rights of all. 1t sub
mitted to lawful authority the solution of the
pending question. The bill might be denounced
| by partisans on one side or the other. 1t might
/ be derlded by the adventurers and the thought
less. 1t might not for the present receive the
nl,n4f. FL
but he would vote for it because he believed il
advantageous and within the Constitution. II
would be beneficial to the people of all the
States, including that great State whose interest
and whose honor was so dear to him. The bill
might be divided now, but time at whose great
altar all passions and prejudices must bow
would at last vindicate the bill and those who
proposed it.
Mr.. Morton (Rep), of Indiana, presented
and read a number of kilograms from the peo-
pie of Indiana, against the passage of the bill
and said that he had received more than 200 Of
them from his own and other States. He
declared that leading Republican papers wert
against it. In reply to this Mr.. Mcdonald
(Dem.), of Indiana, said that he was at Indian
apolis three days before and heard but ont
opinion relative to the bill and that was il
favor of it.
Mr.. Bayard Dem of Delaware, spoke fol-
two hours on the bill and in its favor.
Mr.. Christiancy Rep.), of Michigan, alst
spoke in favor of the bill, closing with strong
protest against the charge that the judges vii
disregard their oaths and decide according t,
their political predictions. He said that TIN
party which should reject this bill withou
offering one equally fair would necessarily for
felt the support of the people.
Mr.. Dawes (Rep.), of Massachusetts, wanted
the scope of the bill defined SO that the com
mission should not claim the right to invad
the State of Massachusetts and take from tn
governor and council the power of determining
who the State has appointed as her electors.
Mr.. Thurman Dem.) of Ohio, spoke in favo
of the measure, and argued that the ques
ton was of such Importance that the perpetuit
of the nation depended upon its solution
There never was greater reason than now t