Morning journal and courier., 1880-06-16
Wednesday Morning, June Is, 1880.
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN TICKET.
JAMES A. GARFIELD, of Ohio.
 FOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHESTER A. ARTHUR, of N. York.
THE ELECTORAL COUNT
FOR PRESIDENT

Congress is about to adjourn, leaving the most important matter before 1.-the settle ment of some method for counting the cleo toral yote-stil undecided There is noth- 1 ing to regret in this, for the decision which l would have been made but for the efforts of the Republicans to prevent 1t would not have been the right one. The joint resolution to regulate the counting of the electoral vote ] introduced by Senator Morgan and passed in the Senate is very objectionable. The plan of the Democrats was to establish the ma- jority party in Congress as final judge of eve rything connected with the electoral count the qualifications of electors, the regularity of elections, the correctness of certificates, and any objection, direct or indirect, which
 might be brought to their notice touching any vote or votes of any State. In addition
 to this, it was their purpose, by explicit di-
 rection, to define the duties and powers of
 the President of the Senate, and to compel
 that officer to submit to the arbitrary action
 of the two houses all papers purporting to be lists of electors from the several States The form of the proposed measure is also not what it should be. Being only a concurrent resolution, 1t is not permanent, nor has it the sanctity of law. If it strives to take away any power from the Vice President it
 fails to do it effectively, for he is not bound
 by it. He is not subject to the concurrent
 rules of Congress of which he is not mem
 Der. v In view of these things, therefore, the Republicans did their duty in flibustering
 until the Democrats gave up the fight for the present.
 But while it is a good thing that Senator
 Morgan's resolution was not passed, the re- fusal of Congress to provide fair method for counting the electoral vote is great mis- take, and one that may have very serious con sequences Such method was proposed in Senator Edmunds' bill, which received the approval of the best men in both parties. That measure made every State the final ar bitter as to the validity of it's electoral returns, leaving to Congress the settlement of such questions as the State through it's highest tribunal might refuse or neglect to act upon. To a State rights man this ought to appear fully in accord with his ideas of constitutional methods Yet the objection comes from the Democratic side that they disGked MT. Ed munds' bill because it remitted the task of deciding what was true electoral vote to the State courts, thus taking away from Congress power committed to it by the Constitution. There is this important difference between MT. Edmunds' bill and Mir. Morgans resolu tion: In each the two houses are the final ar biters of the vote, but under MT. Ednunds' bill the labor of making investigations in re- gard to disputed electoral votes is left to the State courts, while under the joint rule the two houses can undertake the investigation with all it's temptations to decide only upon partisan grounds Were the Democrats anx- ious to be just and consistent instead of parti- san, they would have found no difficulty in accepting the proposition of Senator Ed munds If there is serious trouble over the counting of the vote next winter the respon- sibility will rest upon them.