New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-01-21

Mr.. Garfield, of Ohio, argued against the
resolution, and quoted authorities against
the power therein asserted, referring among
other things to the fact that in 1900 our
fathers were discussing the question Of
an election contest, they distinctly excluded
from the bill which passed one house IN
QUE form, and another house in another
form, the idea that the petition touching
the question of how a vote went inside of q
State, should be presented or heard. He
denied that any prince or p0tentate, or
Legislature or Congresses or committee of
Congress, could wsg its tongue against the
act OF State in that regard. He referred
to the famous Plsquemines fraud, in 1874
by which the vote of Louisiana was given
to Polk, and stated that no one then claimed
the right to go behind the vote Of State
70 undo that outrageous and open fraud.
de argued that the provisions of the cOnsti-
tuition IN regard to a presidential election
were imperative, and left no time or au-
thOrity for contest, and he challenged
the naming Of any statesman who had ever
claimed that Congress had the power, with
in the five limitations mentioned by him, to
go inside of State to look at its vote. If
the vote of one State was examined the
votes of all the States might be, and thus
an election of President might be at any
time rendered impossible. He appealed to
the Democratic side of the House to pause
destruction on whatever there was of sOve-
reignty in the thirty eight States OF the
Union.
Mr. Davis, of North Carolina, asked Mr..
Garfield why it was that partisan commit
tees had been sent to three Southern States
by President Grant, Excitement and ap-
plause in the galleries, and general dis
order.
Mr.. Garfeld-If the galleries will stop
their clatter, will answer. The gentlemen
who went to Louisiana at the request of
the President, went there only as invited
witnesses, and, on our arrival, we were
asked by a Democratic committee to join
them in helping to secure q count of all
the votes actually cast. We answered that
we were not there to secure anything, but
least OF all we're VIC there to direct anybody
in Louisiana to violate the laws of that
State; that was their business, not OURS.
Mr.. Davis-By what authority did the
President invite them there
Mr.. Garfeld--H the gentleman needs to
know by what authority an American citi-
zen travels anywhere in the United States,
| he will learn the authority by which for
one went to Louisiana.
Mr.. Davis-Why was it that four years
ago your party threw out the electoral
votes of several States. [Calls to order
and increased confusion.
Mr.. Hoar, of Massachusetts, called atten-
| tion to the disorder, and stated that it was
only within the last two months that the
| practice of interrupting the proceedings by
| applause on the floor or in the galleries had
arisen. He called upon the Speaker before
| exciting matters would be presented, to en-
| force rigidly the rule, and to have it under
stood that any member who INDUCES in ap-
| plause is guilty of disorder, and that if it
is attempted in the galleries, they shall be
cleared.
The Speaker stated that the suggestion
| was q very proper one, but that it was a
mistake to say that the practice had grown
up within the last two months. The prac-
! tice, however, was On evil which the pres.
ent occupant of the chair had always
checked and would continue to check.
Mr. Hoar-I withdraw absolutely the re-
mark that the practice has grown up re.
Gently, but we all concur in the desirability
OF its being stopped.
The Speaker remarked, in justice to the
galleries, that sometimes disorder occurred
because the example was set on the floor
He would, however, rigidly prevent ap
plause.
The debate then proceeded, and Fer
nando Wood, of New York, said that he re
gretted that the gentleman from Ohio
(Garheldl had seen fit to close an otherwise
admirable argument by mere partisan al
lusion, which was entirely unnecessary to
the proper discussion of the present mat
ter. He wanted no partisan influence OF
reflection to enter into the discussion, and
wanted the question determined on prin.
. ciples higher than party principles. He
held that the States had not the sole power
to appoint electors. They had the power tO
appoint them under certain restrictions
and it necessarily followed that it devolved
on Congress to ascertain whether that
power had been executed in accordance
with the law. The constitution placed
certain limitations on the States and not or
Congress, as the gentleman from Ohio (GAr
feldl maintained.
Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, proceeded Il
argue against the resolution, and in tbs
course of the discussion he was met will
suggestions about interference with Stat
authorities in the Oregon case.
In response to these suggestions, Mr.. Gar
field expressed the hope that if there was M
right to inquire into that fraud, withou
violating the constitution of Oregon, Mr.
/ | Tilden would be counted in.
The previous question was then seconded
| and the resolution went over.