Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1877-02-03

which had not vet ratified the Consti
! there as we know historically; sqppos'
for somebody" from Rhode lslan'
undertaken 70 say. "Cerst.aFlp1gdop ha' i
the vote of Rhode Island, she is il Ia
Union" do you suppose there was
single Senator present who, as the say
ing is, would have submitted to it fo
moment? The Constitution sale
that the votes should be counted. The
The Constitutional Convention asked
the Senate, at it did, to appoint him
for the purpose Of counting the votes
1t did not appoint him for the purpose
ofJudging the votes. lift had it would
have said so. That was the first in
stance. But if you are to give the
language its broadest possible inter.
probation, fill it with all the hopes and
wishes Of the 10000 OF people who
wish as | do, and what would you find?
You would find that on that last day
each house of Congress by resolution
OF its own provided for the manner in
which he should pronounce that result.
and commanded him in what form he
should make it known to the persons
nation to that they had been elected.
and he obeyed the command. If he
had this independent power that is
talked about vested in him BY the
Constitution, as being the supreme
judge only In the presence Of indiffer-
ent witnesses, who have no more right
to interfere than witness in court has
with the proceeding Of the Judge
would they have done that? | do not
think that the idea ever entered their
heads. And as you sweep along down
through the course of time OF cases
when there was no contest or dispute,
but the merely formal reading and
counting of papers, it is of very little
consequence to inquire whether the
President of the Senate read and
counted them, or whether the tellers
read and counted them, or whether
nobody read and counted them, so that
you get at what everybody knew be-
forehaud was the result But when
ever and on the first occasion that any
question arose as to what was the Con-
stitutional vote of a State, either aTis-
ing from ineligibility or other questions
about its electors or from the condi-
ton ofthe State itself, which is exactly
the same thing, foi there the question
is, Is it the vote of State and that
involves not only the eligibility of the
elector the day of the meeting or the
existence of the State, or the pursuit
Of the State law; it involves one as
much as the other. You fnd that the
President of the Senate never limited
on the face Of the earth that he had
such a power, and that each house, in
the absence of legislation, assumed
q think there is great doubt about
the correctness of their assumptioR);
but they did assume, either by the ex-
preston of their Judgment or by the
dictates of their command, to deter
mine what should be done. So, then,
Mr.. President, it cannot be maintained
that this bill is unconstitutional upon
the ground that it takes away from the
President Of the Senate or the House
of Representative a power which the
Constitution has vested in them, free
from limit, and free from guide, aud
FREQ from regulation; to be exercised
according to their own opinion of what
may be the public propriety of the oc-
casion.
Having said so much, Mr.. President.
for the present, | dismiss the subject
in the hope that the Senate will care
fully consider whether it is wise, by
doubts in their own minds
or by allowing their wishes to over
turn their judgment, to send this Re-
public on the first Thursday in Feb
ruary, or the second Wednesday in
that month, like the mountains which
the poet has spoken of, that were
Evermore
Tumbling into seas without a shore,
or whether it is better that in the fair
course of equal law a dispute shall be
Justly settled.