The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-02-01

Senators. They belonged with those
Senators, and there he would leave
them.
Mr.. Sherman said he felt hurt that the
Senator from Vermont should have MAJ
ifested such feeling toward the Senator
from Indiana (Morton) and himself; since
that Senator had made an indirect state
ment against them. He (Sherman) de-
manded a separate trial. His friend from
Indiana (Morton) was abndantly able
to take care of himself, he (Sherman)
never thought Of charging his friend from
Vermont with treacherv at the outset OF
his remarks. The day he expressed his
appreciation of the motives of the Com
mission he disclaimed having used any
terms ofreproach. He then renewed his
objections to the pending bill and argued
it is not customary or lawful to impose
other duties on the judges of courts
Mr.. Edmunds said the act of 1928 Sc
lected Judge in Florida to settle certain
claims of Mexico.
Mr.. Sherman-That was judicial act
Mr.. Edmunds-It was not, and the Su.
preme Court had so decided, and had
refused to review the acts of this judge.
Mr.. Sherman, resuming his remarks,
said, he hoped the bill now before the
Senate would result in good, but he had
serious apprehensions that the result of
the great popular election would be
thwarted
Morton Introduces an Amendment.
Mr.. Morton argued that more light had
been thrown upon this subject of count
ing the vote within the lasV thirty or six
ty days than ever before. He had been
charged with inconsistencies, but other
Senators were inconsistent also. He then
read from previous remarks of Edmunds,
ConkTing, Thurman and Bayard to show
they did not heretofore support the prin-
ciples involved in this bill. He then
submitted an amendment providing that
nothing contained in the act shall author
ize the Commission to go behind the
finding and determination of the Can
vassing or Returning Boards Of State
authorized by the laws of the State to find
and determine the result of the election
of electors.
Mr. Ednunds opposed the amendment
and moved to amend it by striking out
the negative words, so as to provide that
the act should authorize the Commission
to 90 behind the finding, &c, He said
he would vote against this amendment,
and then against the amendment of the
Senator from Indiana. He had no idea
there was any necessity for amendments
as the Commission would act under exist,
ing laws.
Mr.. Thurman also announced that he
would vote against the amendments, al
though he had strong opinion that the
decision of the Returning Board might
be inquired into.
Mr.. Sargent argued the bill was shuf-
fling and evasive, and one side or the
other was to be cheated.
Mr.. Morton spoke in favor of his amend.
ment, and he feared the bill as it now
stood required the Commission to go be-
hind the returns from State. The Dem.
ocratic party would not vote for this bill
if it did not allow them to go behind the
returns,
Mr.. Edmunds denied that the bill was
or evasive. 1t only conferred
upon the Commission such power as
Congress had under the law.
The amendment of Mr.. Edmunds to
that of Mr. Morscn's was rejected-Yeas,
l; nayes, 6l-Mr. Cooper being the only |
Senator who voted in the affirmative.
The question then being on the amend
ment of Mr. Morton, it was rejected by a |
vote of IS yeas to AZ nays.
Mr. Sargent submitted an amendment
that the Commission shall sit
with open doors except when upon con-
on questions pending before it,
After short discussion the amend |
ment was rejected Yeas, IA; nays AZ.
The Bill Passed.
The bill was read third time and |
passed-Yeas, AZ; nays, 17-as follows:
Fnp THE pITT