The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1877-01-05
F0RTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
WASHINGTON, January 4.
SENATE.

| introduced by him 10 establish q cour
for the trial of contested elections in tn,
office of President and Vice President o
the United States, for the purpose of hav
ing it referred, and spoke It length in
favor of his proposition.
Messrs. Herman and Sherman spoke
briefly upon the question, and the bill of
Mf. Wrisht's Was referred to q special
committee to devise means of counting
the vote.
Mr.. Wright, IN speech favoring hi'
electoral bill, said: Under no corstrue.
ton, as 1t seems to nae, can it be claimed
that Congress, in any capacity certainly
not in the absence of legislation) has
judicial power or any other power than
to inquire and declare what the people
through their electors on the face OF the
returns have said as to their choice for
President. In saying this, / do not lose
sight of the different theories as to how
this result is to be reached and who is
to declare it. l am sufficiently
understood for my present purpose, l
hope, when repeat that in the absence
of some law there is opower to investi-
gate and determine whether there was
fraud in this State or that; whether the
State law was wise or unwise in provid-
ing for the organization of its Returning
Boards; whether hundred men here or
| a thousand men there would have voted
differently but for intimidation, corrup'
tion, violence or fraud; whether the
returning or canvassing board or
any tribunal in State had
reached the true result from all
the facts before them, or the like for
whatever any one may think as to the
powers of presiding officer, or of the
Two houses acting separately or together,
the laws gathered from an almost if not
quite unbroken precedent from the very
foundation OF the Government would
clearly seem to teach that our power;
were purely ministerial, not at all judi
cisl. In the exercise of these powers
however, allow me to say that do not
suggest by any means that either pre-
siding officer or tribunal, or forum, have
ing the right to decide, would
be concluded by the mere declaration of
result upon the face OF u return If the
same paper return the record, or that
by we'll settled rules and iair log
ic and law Is part of it shows, that the
declaration is itself false or untrue.
Mr.. Wright then referred at some
length to the appointment OF CroniE as
Presidential EIector in Oregon, and
said he acted as if lmpelled by wires
pulled by others. He Wright had no
admiration for the man who conceives a
mean or cunnlngly devised scheme and
is wanting in courage to execute 1t. be
didhot believe Watts was appointed or
elscted within the meal ing Of the Con-
stitution. but his inehgibillty did moi
elect Cronin.
Mr.. Herman, in reply to the argument
of Mr.. Wright, said that he did not ex-
psok Congress could now, by legislation
or by constitutional amendment, relieve
any of the difficulties which might arise
from counting the electoral vote. be
could not agree with some OF the views
expressed by the Senator from Iowa
Wright and he desired to express bis
dissent now. The Senator from Iowa
had argued that it was the right
and duty Of the presiding officer
of the Senate to count the vote;
that the duty was imposed on
hin. He Kernas could not agree to
that construction OF the constitution. He
did not think It was the intention OF
the trainers of the constitution to impose
any such duty on that officer. The two
Houses OF Congress had the right, and
had imposed upon them by the constitu'
ton the duty OF counting the vote. Mr.
Herman then quoted from the constltu'
ton and said that the duty devolved
up N the two Houses OF Congress, repre-
senting the States and the people
to sce that no improper or fraudulent
vote was counted. He did not desire 10
argue this question al ler 9Th to-day, but
submitted that the two houses OF Con
gress were not to sit like statues and see
wrong go on. The practice of counting
the vote had not been in accordance
with any such construction OF the Con
stitution. On every occasion each House
had apposnted tellers to count the votes,
and, az he read, the precedenis OF every
occasion when any question has arisen
IN regard to counting certificate,
the two Houses had separated 10 decide
the matter. 1t had been held that the
| President of the Senate bad the Consti-
tutional duty or rlgh. to count the vote.
He then quoted from numerous prece.
| dents and referred 10 the case OF Missouri
ia 1921. in regard TO which he ssld,
when it was known that there might be
a question raised as TO the vote OF that
State. committee of the houses agreed
upon a resolution thst If any objection
should be made 70 the vote of the State,
or omitting TO count the same, would
not change the result of the election,
such result should be stated both
wsvs; with or..wIthou. vote OF Mis-.
souri,. He argued tha, 1t lwould not be
wise now for Congress to attempt TO give
a new construction - the Constitution,
which would grestly sdd TO what all
deprecated, the heat and excitement
of the hour Every Senstor and every
Representative IN Congress should enter
upon the discharge Of this duty Of count.
ing the NOte "lbubuI pitJAoiNN' hA1
without psrtislity. At this time eTery
man should remember that important
questions before Congress arose above al
party questions. In counting the e.ec.
toral vote If case came up where there
was fraud, and where it was shown be-
yond a doubt that the certificate
was q ialsehooi, the safety Of the gov
ernment and the peace Of the people
demand il should not be counted. BE
united with ell men in the hope and
belief that these questions would be
settled according to the Constitution and
laws, and that the real truth would
prevail.
Mr.. Sherman inquired If the resalt o.
either House objecting TO the counting
of the vote OF State would be the eI
clu:ion Of that vote.
/ Mr.. Herman said be would like 10 heal
| that matter discussed.
NJ Sherman said he did not intend Il