National Republican., 1880-06-14
THE ELECTORAL JOINT RULE.

Ine senate, Dy strictly partisan DIVISION,
agreed to Mr.. MoRGAN's joint rule to regu
late the counting of the presidential vote.
The proceedings so far had upon it in the
house show that it will be passed in that
body by the same majority, or if it is de-
fcated it will be by the action of an equally
partisan minority fiibustcring against it.
Upon the majority in congress rests the
responsibility of discussing this matter in
the house in the last few days of the ses-
sion. We know that the country expects
some measure which will prevent the re-
currence of the excitement and apprehen-
sions Of 1876, but we do not think republi-
cans are called upon TO vote for this joint
rule upon the principls that tits better than
NO action at all.
If nothing else could be said against its
adoption, its form is Objectionable. Being
only concurrent resolution, it is not per-
manent, nor has it the sauctity of law. II
it strives to take away any power from the
viee-president it fails TO do it effectively,
for he is not bound by it. He is not sub
ject to the concurrent rules of n congress of
which he is not a member. Such rules gov
ern senators and representatives, but they
have no legal or moral power over others
than those who make them and their en-
ployes.
Were the democrats anxious to be con-
sistent instead of being intent on being
partisan, they would have supported Mr..
EDMUNDs' bill, for that measure makes
every state the final arbiter rs to the va
lidity of its electoral returns leaving to
congress the settlem ent of such questions
as the state through its highest tribunals
may have refused or neglected to act upon
The states vote under their own laws, in
their own manner, with their own ma
chinery and with their own electoral col
leges. To states rights man this ought to
appear fully in accord with his ideas of con-
stitutional methods. Yet the objection
comes from the democratic side that they
dislilled Mr.. EDMUNDs' bill because it re
mitted the task ofdeciding what was a true
electoral vote to the state courts, thus
taking away from congress power COM
mitted TO it by the constitution. There is
only this difference between Mr.. EDMUNDs'
bill and Mr.. MoRGAN's resolution. tn each
the two houses are the final arbiters OF the
vote, but under Mr.. EDMUNDS bill the
labor of making investigations in regard
to disputed electoral votes is left to the
state courts, while under the joint rule the
two houses can undertake the investigation
with all its temptations to decide only
upon partisan grounds. Thus, suppose Mr..
DAVIS should conclude TO sign some cleo
toral certificates this fall, alleging that he
is governor of Maine by right, although
there is another who is de fdctO governor,
who also sends certificates, the house and
senate, under the MORGAN rule, would be
justified in entering upon an investigation
Of the whole legal question involved, and
if the ingenuity of JERE BLACK could
end technical flaw in the proceedings by
which the DAVIS government was over
thrown and the present government estab-
lished, there would be nothing to pre-
vent the vote of Maine being thrown
out or counted in accordance with
the DAVIS certificate. Or suppose the
New York legislature should be called
together this fall and the law changed so MS
to allow the people Of that state to vote by
districts for the representative electors, and
to vote at large only for the two senatorial
electors. The result of such vote would
doubtless be to give twenty-five at least of
the electoral votes of New York to the re-
publicans The democrats would vote for
their respective district electors but they
would certainly also vote for q full set of
twenty-five electors upon their ticllet-at-
large, and would come TO congress with n
demand to have them counted. In their
partisan rage it is quite within the range OF
possibility that the democratic demand
would be acceded TO and democratic presi-
dent made. Or there might be general on
slaught upon the votes of all republican
states on the ground that the rights of the
people had been unlawfully interiered with
by United States supervisors and marshals
Even q single electOr elected upon general
.icket would thus be rejected if occasion re-
Iuired.
In effect the rule proposed by Mr. Nor
5AN Is q proposition TO enable the legisa-
tive majority to appoint the executive, nor
do the democrats deny this. Mr. THUR.
MAN, indeed contcnded that it should be
80, and that substantially this was in,
tended by "lhe fathers" He asserted that
they first decided that congress, directly
Ihould choose tho opresident. Subsequently
they reconsidered that decision, and pro,
yided for special body Of electors which
should be the counterpart of congress. But
upon this body they conferred no deliber.
ating, judging, or discriminating power
That part Of the appointing process was
left to congress, to which the whole process
was given by the previous decision. "The
remainder of the first proposition, which
"gaye the counting aud deciding to the