The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-02-15


what shall be the consequence? Their
is not one particle of legislation involved
Q in any such thing, and the clause of tn,
Constitution to which my colleague re
fers on this subject has no more to dC
with it than chapter in the Koran.
Mr.. Sherman-If it does not disturb
} my colleague, would ask what cases cal
he give where concurring vote of the
two Houses is required except in the ex
ercise of legislative authority
Mr., Conkling-Amending the Consti
tuition, for example.
| Mr.. Sherman That is legislative.
Mr.Thurman-The twenty second join
rule, for example.
Mr.. Sherman-That is admitted to be
void.
Mr.. Thurman-0, admitted, is it2
! Mr.. Sherman-It is void now; it was
not proper legislation; and my col.
league concurred in voting it out of exis.
tence.
Mr.. Thurman-If my colleague will
give me room to say it, never had a
chance to vote it out of existence, that
ever heard of ofmyself.
Mr.. Sherman--I again repeat my ques-
ton, for wish it answered
Mr.. Thurman--It is answered.
Mr., Sherman-Congress is the law
making power of this country, and ask
my colleague to tell me what cases re-
quire the concurrence of the two Houses
that are not of legislative character
Making constitution is legislative and
the question about an amendment to the
Constitution. Tell me the cases and then
perhaps shall have my doubt removed.
l use this argument simply to show that
the two Houses were not invested with
the power by concurring votes, of reject
ing vote because, according to the plain
language of the Constitution, every con-
curing vote of the two Houses must be
submitted 70 the President, and it could
not be possible that the trainers of the
Constitution contemplated that vote in
the count of presidential electors should
be submitted to the President.
Mr.. Thurman-If my colleague is right
then it follows that five proceed to count
the votes without any rule at all, and an
objection is made to count, and the two
Houses separate, and we concur in either
admitting the vote or rejecting tive must
send message up here to the White
White House to ask Mr.. Grant whether |
he agrees to the proceedings
Mr.. Edmunds-And wait ten days for |
an answer.
Mr.. Thurman-And wait ten DAYS,
until we get a veto message or an ap-
proval.
Mr.. Sherman-On the contrary deni-
ed that the trainers of the Constitution
would do 80 silly thing. They have
provided that every concurring vote of
the two Houses shall be submitted to the
President, and therefore say it is not
possible that they contemplated that the
two Houses should by concurring vote,
count President in or count President
out.
Mr.. Thurman should like to know
from my colleague, although he interrupts
the thread of my argument, who is to
count in his estimation.
Mr.. Sherman.-I have already stated
it.
Mr. Thurman-WhoP
Mr. Sherman-I will repeat it. be-
lieve that the count provided for by the
Constitution, according to the established
forms, is the mere reading of certain acls
of tie State governments in accordance
with their laws, noted down by the pre-.
siding officer of the Senate in the pres
ence of the two Houses, they no doubt
having more or less to do in counting
those votes precisely what has never
been ascertained either by law or other
wise. If l have the leave of my colleague
would be glad to say that what assert
Is this: that they simply tabulate the re-
3nlts of the acts of States they have no
tight to make electors for the States. All
hey do is to read over and tabulate the
votes cast by the electors and announce
he result.
Mr.. Thurman.-Very well, now we will '
begin to count. Ifthis bill passes we will c
70 at it alphabetically. We come to Col t
,rada, and here is an objection that Co.. t
'rado is not State, just as there was in t
aspect to Missouri in 1921, just as there @
vas in respect to Indiana in 1917. Then t
Who is to decide il. He says that the
Houses are to have more or less to do {
With that question. lido not care wheth-
r they are to have more or whether =,
hey ale to have less the two Houses n
ave something to do with it, and that -
IMPLIES that they are to vote upon it; and o
hen, according to his logic, they send L
be vote to the other end of the Avenue, ., "
nd wait ten days to know what the Pres -
lent thinks Of it.
No, Mr.. President, that will not do at ~ :,
II. certainly mean to treat my col Il
sague with the highest respect, but in =, -,
ne haste of speaking he has laid down a =
roposition that will not bear investiga- ~
on, and so I dispose of it. -,
1t has been further said that this bill v,
lfringes the prerogative of the President h.
the Senate. After the argument of the oi
enator from Vermont, and of the Sena- Al
" from New York Ishall certainly not HI
,eak upon that point. Ihave one single Al
'mark, however, to make to those who al
re- talking about adhering to precedents al
lat we want no law, that all we have to NJ
} is to 60 on as we have done for eighty Al
EAR or more. l want to say to them az
lat l defy any man to show me one M
ngle instance in which the President of Fl
le Senate ever decided disputed ques-
on in respect to an electoral vote. You =,
.nnot find in all our history one single M
stance. The only time that ever there 70
as expression by a President of the Sem hi hi
9 upon that subject was the positive hf
sclaimer by Mr.. Mason that he had any of
ch authority. So much for that. NJ NJ
Now come to the amendment of the or
nator from Massachusetts,, [ Mr.. Dawes].
eally | should have liked very much tn
tier If the Senator from Massachusetts, fel
ID come ont boldly against this bill, for oit
s amendment is a dagger-thrust at the ne
art Of the bill and nothing less. He an
ys this bill is framed because of con- m,
citing views. He is entirely right about sel
at. If there had been no conflicting siC
ews in respect to the Interpretation Of tri
9 Constitution among the members of CO.
Q House of Representatives, and be. it
cen the two Houses, there would be no nu
cessitv WhateOavAr for the hill Tfhoth -.