The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-02-20

The Louisiana Debate I'm the Senate.
The debate in the Senate on the question
of accepting the judgment OF the Electoral
Commission in the Louisiana case was sharp
and animated, but it disclosed no intention
on the part Of democratic Senators to mutiny
against the decision if it could not be re-
iected in accordance with the Electoral law.
Senator Stevenson, of Kentucky, declared
his sentiments with vigorous frankness
and emphasis as to the necessity of acting
in good faith, and he doubtless represented
the views of most of the Southern members
of both houses. If portion OF the demo-
Gratis should bolt they would inevitably split
the party and destroy all its hopes in the
future. Senator Thurman and Senator
Bayard made energetic protests against the
action of the commission respecting the
vote of Louisiana, but they did not pass the
bounds of legitimate opposition, and
gave no intimation of n purpose to resist
after the Senate had accepted the
decision. We regret that the democrats OF
the House did not act in a similar spirit
1t would have been perfectly proper and
legitimate for them to have made vehe-
ment opposition and have brought the
House to strong vote of non-acceptance,
expressing at the same time determination
to abide by the action of the commission if
it passed the ordeal Of the Senate. While
regretting the diatory policy of the House
democrats we trust that their speeches to-
day may be conceived in the same loyal
and honorable spirit rs that of Senator
Stevenson.
In the Senate debate yesterday there were
two noteworthy speeches on the republican
side-one noteworthy for ingenuity of ar
gument, the other for extravaganza Of ram
corous invective. We refer to the speeches
of Senator Morton and Senator Sargent.
Mr. Morton's speech was very able without
anything offensive in it's tone. He quoted
the Louisiana law to prove that majority
of the Returning Board was quorum to
transact business, and cited numer-
GUS parallels, among them the law
of Congress which makes the Supreme
Court consist of nine members, although a
smaller number can hear and adjudicate
cases. He maintained that the ineligibility
of particular electors did not destroy the
validity of their votes, and illustrated his
point by reference to what takes place in
both houses of Congress. 1t often happens
that members are seated on the prinsd fdce
evidence of regular certificates, but after
ward rejected after a full examina-
ton of their claims. But SO long as
such members retain their seats their votes
are perfectly valid, and acts of legislation
decided by them are never questioned on
the ground that they had no real title. Mr..
Morton's application Of this principle to the
case of Presidential electors is as ingenious
as it is obvious. He also commended,
with great logical cogency, that in the
case of Presidential electors Congress
has no power to review the prin,d
fdcie title Each house possesses this
power ir the case of its own members be-
cause it is expressly conferred by the con-
stitution. Mr. Morton contends with great
force and plausibility that if it had been the
intention of the trainers of the constitution
to confer upon Congress a similar power
respecting Presidential electors they would
have given it in explicit language. There
was more argument and less defamation in
Mr.. Morton's speech than in any other made
in the Senate yesterday.
Not only the ablest argument, but the
most discreditable harangue was made on
the republican side. The intemperate
speech of Senator Sargent was utterly mex
cusable His atrocious insult to the demo-
cratic party in charging it with an attempt
to assassinate Packard, an intention
to assassinate Hayes, and the guilt o
disseminating President Lincoln, and
saying that it was dripping all ovel
with murder, was in such spirit O.
brutal ferocity and SO out of place in the
Senate especially on so important an occa
sion, that we are astonished that any Sen
ator could so demean himself rs to indulge
in that kind of infuriate and senseless vitu
peration. Mr. Morton's argument viii
make favorable impression, at least on thu
republican party, but Mr.. Sargent's abusive
rant can only excite disgust.