National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-01-15
FELLOWS VIEWS,
The Independent Georgia Democratic
Member on fE,c Joint Rule.

known Independent Democratic member from
Georgia, held views somewhat at variance with
the position his more orthodox party associates
have assumed on the Morgan resolution regulating
the counting of the electoral VOTE one of our eff
Gent emissaries called upon the member at his
hotel last night and communed with him con-
corning his attitude on the question.
Il hear" said our minion, that you will OPP
pose the Morgan joint rule?'
yes" replied Mr. FELTON,, I" / cannot vote for the
pending joint rule prescribing the manner OF
counting the electoral Vote"
"Why?"
81 am opposed 10 its passage because it proposes
to regulate and define one of the most important
constitutional duties imposed upon Congress by
the mere provisions of joint rule. These rules
are temporary. They look TO the present only.
They gotten up tomeet emergencies, just as the
famous twenty-second rule was gotten up. They
are liable TO be repealed any day. They arethe ex
preston of the whims passions, and prejudices OF
| the two Houses of Congress"
"You think, then, there is no necessity for that
| at the present time"
There is no necessity for this temporary az
| rangement No emergency has arisen, or is likely
TO arise this session of Congress, demanding this
improvised legislation. There is not doubt rest
ing upon the mind of any American citizen touch
ing the recent presidential election. 1t is the
questioned verdict of the American people, and
that verdict should not be subjected to arrange
ment seemingly designed to eritcise and invali-
date it."
This temporary arrangement is an obstacle to
what Congress possibly should do some day in the
near future, namely, enact lac defining the con-
stitutional provisions for counting the electoral
vote. If such action is necessary, it should be
complished by biz, so that the two Houses of
Congress and the Executive, the law-making
of liun fIratrr
spective share of responsibility in the matter In
a question of so much Importance 1 think it is
wrong to exclude the President from his constitu-
| tOnal right of approving or disappearing of our
action.
al cannot support any measure which gives, as
this proposed joint rule does to one House of Con-
greSs the right and authority to disfranchise a
State of this Union. 1t once the accepted doc
trine Of all parties in this country that Congress
has right to go behind the returns of State in
a presidential election in order to prosecute in
quiries, to modify or change the results of such
returns But here in this joint rule
power is deliberately given to one House
of Congress to prevent the counting of the
electoral vote oft State-one House. with all of its
mad partisanship-intent only on party success.
You may talk of despotisnI, of centralized powers
| but my observation leads me to the belief
| that the people of this country have no despo-
| tism to fear which eXcels in its power
| of mischief the acts of an unbridled
partisan Congress. 1t is true partisanship might
not exist; ii is true perfect justice might and prob
| ably would control the action of both Houses of
Congress in determining the result Of presiden-
ta election; but the bare possibility that partisan
prejudice might dethrone the sober judgment of
| Legislators and obstruct impartial action for
bids the intrusting of so important and such ire
mendous responsibility to one House of Congress
| again, am sustained in my objection TO this
joint rule bythe highest contemporary authority
| find that the late Senator Morton, in February
1873, introduced into the Senate bill to provide
for and regulate the counting for President
and Vice-Presdent and the decision of questions
arising thereon. That bill and this joint rule
in all essential particulars are alike. The
bill of 1915 was discussed at great length
in the Senate, and it was condemned almost
unanimously by Democratic Senators. Only four
Of them voted for the bill, and one of the four
moved its reconsideration. This bill was at that
time condemned by Democratic Senators because
of its unconstitutionality.
SENATOR EATON
at that time condemned the bill, and said: 'sIt is
not in the power of this Congress to pass this law
1t is q void law If passed. :; = = For seventy
five years the people of this country acted under
| the Constitution OF the United States. They can
now. The court is here. 1 defy any Senator on
this floor to show any state of facts where under
the Constitution, without any bill for public act
without any rule of the two Houses, we cannot go
on to perform all the duties that are devolved upon
us in this behalf
siR. MERRIMoN, DEMOCRAT, FROM NORTH CAROLINA
said in that debate When question is raised as
it may be raised under the twenty-second joint
rule, and it may be raised under this bill if it be-
comes law, where is the constitutional authority
for the two bodies separating the Senate going to
its chamber here and deciding a question here in
this body? 1 respectfully ask Senators who are
supporting this bill to show me any constitutional
authority for tn at. Show any rule of constitu-
tional construction or of legal conStruc-
ton which warrants the Joint body in
separating and going to their respective chambers
and deciding question. Why, sir, in that case
the matter is decided by the Senate as Senate in
its own chamber, separate and apart from the
other branch of Congress. The House decides it
separate and apart from the Senate.
This bill, if it shall pass, in far it provides
that when a question is raised there touching the
counting of the vote the Senate shall come back
into its chamber and decide that question, in my
Judgment is absolutely null and void; it is noper
alive, for no such power is conferred by the Con-
stitution"
Mr.. HAMILTON,
Democrat, from Maryland: "We all know, and
fully appreciate the fact that there is danger
great danger, lurking i'll the existing joint rule,
and no one can doubt that there is equal danger
in the proposition now under consideration"
Mr. SALISBURY,
Democrat from Delaware said: 1.-THE bill under
consideration proposes to provide for and regulate
the mode of counting votes for President and
Vice-President, and the decision of questions arts
ing thereon In my opinion, the Constitution of
the United States provides the only mode
for counting those votes, and 1 have very grave
doubts as to whether any law enacted on
that subject can have any force especially if it
conflict at all with what has been the practice un-
der the constitutional provision. Thetvo
Houses are to meet in joint convention, and the
President of the Senate in the presence of the two
Houses is to open according to the constitutional
requirement. the votes of the several States, which
are then to be counted. 1 concur in the view ex-
pressed by the Senator from Maryland Mr.. Ham
ltonl that it must be done at that time and that
the result then arrived at and then announced !
determines this whole question"
Senator Stockton, Democrat, from New Jersey, |
reiterated and emphasized these views
Pretty good precedents for you," said THE Re- !
PUBLICAN when the statesman concluded his state
ment of Democratic authorities against the Morgan
proposition.
Yes" said Mr. FELTON,, in conclusion "and |
backed as l am by this high Democratic authority /
feel greatly strengthened in my determination to
oppose this joint rule for counting the electoral
vote"
Safety Heaters.
Postmaster-General Maynard has issued an order
via