The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1877-01-05
Forty Fourth Congressional Sessi o.
SENATE.

Mr.. ConkliDg presented petition OF the
business men in New York, in favor of an am
icable settlement of the presidential contest.
In presenting the petition he said it might not
be amiss for him to add his avowal of sympa
thy with the appeal of the petitioners for pat
riotlc anj lawful action. The observance OF
the Constitution, obedience to the law and the
maintenance of truth was not party question
or party proceeding. Parties might contend
and should contend over measures and men,
but when the question had been submitted to
the ballot box there was but one lawful duty,
one lawful proceeding remaining, aud that was
to ind the honest, true result and declare 1t
and abide BY it. That was the duty of the
hour. 1t rested on the Senate; it rested on the
House; it rested on the nation; it rested on
every citizen OF the republic, Party interests
as well as patriotism pointed in one direction
and taught one lesson. That lesson is whoever
stands on truth and right shall not fall, who.
ever stands on falsehood and wrong shall be
overthrown.
The petition was referred to special COM
mittee OF seven Senators, appointed to devise
means Tor the proper count OF the electoral
vote.
Mr.. C0nkling also presented fourteen memo
rails OF ship owners and others demonstrating
against the passage of the House bill to amend
the shipping act Referred to the Committee
on Commerce.
Mr.. Cragin presented petition of the cit-
zens of New Hampshire in favor of the pas
sage of the House bill for the distribution of
the uuexpended balance Of the Geneva award.
Referred to the judiciary Committee.
Bill to divide the STATE of Colorado into two
judicial districts was referred to the Committee
on Judiciary
Mr. Wright called up the bill recently intro
duced by HIM to establish a court for the trial
of contested elections IN the Offices of President
and Vice President, for the purpose of having
it referred and spoke at length in favor of his
proposition.
Mr.. Wright in his remarks said that the PEG.
pie have a right to the President of their
choice No man'can afford to take the high
office who is otherwise chosen. No man at all
| fitted to assume trusts so high and duties so
great will or can dare take the place in opposi-
! ton to this will. 1t is more important that
| this will should be executed than that any
man or party should have or lose power, than
| that any man or party should be voted up or
down. No party can dare to do wrong to gain
power The power thus gained must neces-
sarl y be short lived and the party cheated will
be assuredly vindicated by the next overwhelm-
| ing verdict of the people. Power obtained by
| ling down the most sacred rights of the citizen
| and defyiug the grandest safeguards and guar
| antees of the constitution, all such power is
obtained in fraud of the peoples will and must
| and will soon meet its righteous and deserved
| judgment of condemnation. There can Meth
| er in morals or law be any justification OF
| wrong done that power may follow.
look around me and tiod that grave and
| radical differences of opinion obtain as to the
| powers of the two Houses touching the count
| ing of the electoral vote, that these differences
when honestly entertained in the present con-
| diton of the public mind, and remembering
| the strength Of political or party lines or con-
victions, it will be difficult, if not impossible,
| to reconcile. 1t needs no argument to'de-
| monstrate if by possibility it is not thus hon.
| estly entertained the hope OF agreement is even
| more remote or improbable. 1t is sufficient
that these differences obtain; they confront us
| at the close of a most exciting qEadrennlal
struggle, the prize being the Presidency and
the administration for four years. The very
close vote between the two leading candidates
| adds in an unusual manner to public anxiety
| and is intensified by the apparent set purpose
| OF the two great parties. In any view it is adj
| mltted that (referiing to the Constitution alone
| as our guide, as the sole rule for ascertalning
what the electoral colleges in the several states
have done,) we have but few words and those
| words susceptible as is insisted of different
construction as it seems to me. Can it lie
| claimed that Congress Tin any capacity, GER
| tainly not in the absence of legiSlation) has
| judicial powers or any other power to enquire
and declare what the people through their cleo
| tors on the face of the returns have said as to
their choice for President. l repeat that in
the absence of some law there ia no power tC
| investigate aud determine whether the election
in any state was fair or whether the result was
honestly declared. The law as gathered from
| the almost, if not quite unbroken presidents
from the very foundation OF the government
| would clearly seem to teach that our powers
are purely Ministerial and not at all judicial.
Referring to the Oregon case he said he die
not believe Watts was appointed or elected
within the meaning of the Constitution, but
his ineligibility did not elect Cronin,
He again referred to the power of Congress;
and the construction Of the Constitution in re.
gard to the count Of the electoral vote, and
said, II do not much doubt that it is competent
| for Congress to declare by law how this vote
may and shall be counted. By this, of course
| am not to be undeTst God as holding that the
returns can be directed or entrusted to any
other than the President of the Senate, mol
that any other than such President can opeI
the certificates, nor that they Can be opened in
the presence OF any other tribunal as witnesses
than the Senate and House of Representatives
but what mean is that while all these matters
are clearly pointed out and concluded by the
most express language of the Constitution, il
would nevertheless be competent for Congress
in the execution of the lang uage "the votes
| shall then be counted to provide by law thai
the count should be made, for instance, by q
committee OF the two houses by joint action oil
the presiding officers of each, by their action in
connection with the Chief Justice of the Su.
preme Court, or other person or persons, By
the Judge of the Supreme Court as board
(not as ccurD or in any other manner in its
| discretion.
Mr.. Wright continued. arguing that the
| President of the Senate, under the constitution
must preside over the joint session of the
| two houses, and must be at least in the first
Instance an umpire and arbitrator or determin-
| ing power, but that ansappeal may be taken
and that the two houses acting separately may
| by their concurrent action override him.
| Mr.. Bogy presented portion of the evi.
dence taken by the Democratic committee
| which recently witnessed the count of the re-
| turning board in Louisiana, and it wa sordered
| that the usual number of copies be printed oil
| the use of the Senate.
a motion of Mr.. Bogy to have 10000 extra
| copies printed was Ieterred to the Committee
| on Printing
Mr. Herman, in reply to an argument of Mr..
Wright, said he did not expect Congress could
| now by legislation or by the constitution re-
| leve any OF the difficulties which might arise
| from the counting of the electoral VOTE He
differed with the Senator from Iowa and be.
eved the two houses of Congress had the right
and had imposed on them by the constitution
| the duty OF counting the vote. He then quoted
| from the constitution and said the duty devolv-
| ed upon the two houses of Congress, represent
Ing the states and people, to see that no i'm
| proper or fraudulent vote was counted. 1t had
never been held that the President CT the Sem
| ate had the constitutional duty or right to
| count Vote. He argued that it would not be
| wise now for Congress to attempt to give a new
| construction to the constitution. He united
| with all men in the hope and belief that all
| these questions would be settled according to
| the constitution and laws, and that the real
truth would prevail.
Mr.. Sherman inquired if the result of either
houses objection to the counting of the vote of
state would be the exclusion of that vote.
Mr.. Herman said he would like to hear that
matter discussed.
Mr.. Sherman said he did not intend to ex-
press an opinion upon these questions about to
arise, but he would examine them calmly al nd
disoassionately. He had no doubt that when
the two houses concurred that the vote of a
state was fraudulent it should not be counted,
but if the two houses disagreed as to the CO unit
of a vote it would be revolutionary if the OBJ
lection of either house could exclude that
vote.
Mr.. Bogy saiG that rs the 22d joint rule.
Mr.. Sherman said the result of such rule
was worse than that Of any rule in Next
&C. He had hopes not yet clouded in the
slight degree that the two Houses of Congress
through their committees would agree upon
plan by which the vote for President would be
peacefully and lawfully counted. He express
ed his profound hope that Senators. Represen-
tatives and people would show BY their moder-
ate good sense and temper between now and
the time for counting the vote that they could
be Calm and not add to the excitement by
threats. He appealed to the press to be mod
crate and make no threats or menace.
The bill was then referred to a special COM
mittee to devise means the vote and the Sen ate
resumed the consideration of the bill deciar ing
the true intent and meaning of the Union Pa
cific railroad acts. uDon which Mr. Inpalls was