The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1877-01-24
CONGRESSIONAL.
SENATE.


presented from various cities praying
the passage of the compromise bill, the
consideration of which was then re-
sumed, and Sherman opposed it.
sHERMAN's SPEECH.
He said that when the select commit
tee was appointed to consider this sub
ject, he expected as matter of course
to be able to vote for the bill reported
by the committee, because he enter
tanned the highest respect for the men,
bers of the committee. 1t was painful
for him to dissent from the views of
men whom he esteemed so highly; but
given the measure, he thought it was
his duty to oppose it. This bill was to
make court to decide the case already
made up, and there were provisions in
it incompatible with the constitution.
Such a law as this was an evil example,
and it couldn't be sustained under the
constitution. The question heretofore
discussed has been: First, Shall the
President of the Senate count the vote?
Second, Can either house admit or ex-
clude vote? Third, Can both houses
concurring do so? Fourth, Can the
Vice President decide if the two houses
disagreep
The bill presented other questions
which were of a more grave and serious
character. 1t contained four PROPOSE
tions: First-That the President of
the Senate had nothing to do but to
proceed and open the vote; Second
One house of Congress cannot reject
vote, Third-The two houses, by a
concurring vote, may do so and
Fourth-1t provided for grand COM
mission, the decision of which must be
final unless overruled by the concurring
vote of the two houses. He argued
that the bill was unconstitutional, and
he particularly opposed the clause pro-
viding for the selection of five judges
of the Supreme court as members of the
commission. He also opposed the bill
because it undertook to delegate the
powers conferred upon Congress to
commission. 1t was an axiom of law
that legislative powers couldn't be del
egated. He then read from various
legal authorities, and argued that the
bill was intended to apply to case
passed, ended and concluded, which
was clearly unconstitutional. If pow
ers to make laws couldn't be delegated,
how could Congress delegate the power
which controlled the vote of states to a
packed tribunal? Another feature of
the bill which violates the spirit of the
| constitution was that authorizing the
appointment of committee of five
| members of each house as members of
| the commission, not to take dispositions
and report, as do other committees, but to
be beyond the control of the two houses
| after being organized. The constitu-
tion provides that no member of either
house shall hold an office created while
he held seat in Congress. Commit
teemen are naturally Republicans, and
the only way to get Republicanism out
of them is to shoot it out. Where the
Democrats have control, they seek to
break down leading Republicans by
having them unjustly indicted. South
| ern white men as a class are honorable
and gentlemanly, hut they are Demo-
Gratis, and when they go out about elec-
! tion time they leave their consciences
at home.
Sherman then spoke on the powers
and duties of the commission author
lied by the bill, and asked if it was to
take the returns as certified by state Of
fcers. If SO, everybody knew who
would be President, but if this COM
mission was to be allowed to go back of
the returns, God only knows what the
result would be. 1t would depend en-
tirely upon lot-the chance which Sc
lected the fifth judge of the Supreme
| court, who would be the fifteenth in
cumbent of the commission.
Mr.. Thurman said this bill sent to
the commission five questions of law, as
well as of fact, and how the commits
sion would decide no one could tell.
Sherman-"No, sir that depends
upon chance" Continuing his argu-
ment, he said that this bill substitutes
chance for the vote of the electors,
given according to the constitution. 1t
selected a college of cardinals and a Sc
cret conclave to elect a President. Why
not count the electoral vote just as it
has been counted twenty-five times
during the history of the Government?
Conkling followed Sherman, and
spoke in favor Of the bill.
CoNKLING's CONCLUSIONS.
Conkling said that before reaching
| the details of this measure, or its ad-
vantages or merits, the Senate must
make sure of its power by some mode
to subject the matter to the action of
the two Houses. A study of the mat
ter some years ago had convinced him
of the right and duty of Congress to
ascertain and verify the electoral votes,
and declare the true result of the Pres
idential election, and also, by an asser-
tion of law-making power, to declare
how these acts shall be done. He
argued that the bill did not violate the
constitution, and spoke at some length
favoring its constitutionality. He re-
ferred to the power claimed for the
President of the Senate to count the
votes. Conkling argued that if the
trainers of the constitution had so in
tended, they would have said so. The
men who drafted that instrument were