Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1881-03-03

First Hatched into Lille ana Mnde a
Precedent.
TO THE EDITOR or THE ENQUIRER:
There is an old saying that Heaven
has no love for coward. and man, we
know, has none for a public official
who shirks responsibility.
At the late Presidential count in the
two Houses of Congress, in Joint Con.
vehtion assembled, the State Of Georgia,
through misapprehension Of the law,
voted for Presidential Electors on a
day different from that named in the
law. The vote of that State was
named, but not counted. James
A. Garfield was proclaimed to have
received lS5 votes out of the 500
given. Winfield S. Hancock was de-
clared, II the vote of Georgia were
counted, to have received lj5 votes
but If not counted. then he received
but l44 Electoral votes; and then Gen.
Garfield was declared elected Presi-
dent. Such a hypothetical statement
Of the vote was but an artful dodge to
escape the responsibility of meeting
and deciding the question whether the
vote of the State of Georgia be count.
cd or not.
This practice of evasion did not
originate with the present Congress
1t was legacy Of skulking left us by
the Congress that counted the Elector-
al vote for James Monroe as President
in 1921, In the case of the vote of Mis-
souri,, which was finally named, not
counted, with a similar ''if.' The his,
tory of the causes which led to it, as
we'll as of a similar hypothetical count
in the vote of Michigan in 1887, is of
interest and is given. The political
storm which swept over the country,
threatening the very existence of our
Union, consequent upon the passage Of
the Missouri Compromise, had not been
allayed when it again broke out on
counting the vote for President The
previous session Of Congress the citl-
zens of Missouri were authorized by
law to form a State Constitution and
State Government. and IN terms the
law declared that the State ''shall be
admitted into the Union upon an equal
footing with the original States, in all
respects whatever In forming the
Constitution, which was agreed to by
the people, prohibiting free negroes in
the State, and thus giving the oppo
nsnts of admission chance to object to
the vote of the State for President
being received and recorded, Mr. Clay,
who. as a general rule, was bold and
arrogant, and had been one of the
strongest of the Missouri Compromis-
lists, if not, indeed, its father, had the
singular weakness, with all his courage,
of compromise. He feared the slave
question and the integrity Of the I'm
ion and whenever he could would en-
deavor to skulk the question instead
of meeting it boldly and mastering the
bull by taking it at once by the horns.
At the head of the Joint Committee o /
the subject of counting the vote for
President, he made report the second
resolution of which was as follows
Resolvcd, That if any objection ne
made to the votes of Missouri, and the
counting or emitting to count which
shall not essentially change the result
of the election, in that case they shall
be reported back by the President of
the Senate in the following manner ::
"Were the votes of Missouri to be
counted the result would be: For A
B, for President of the United States,-
votes; if not counted, for A Bias Presi-
dent of the United States,-votes; but.
in either event, A B is elected Presi-
dent of the United States; and in the
same manner for Vice. President.
In explanation Of this, the second
resolution, Mr.. Clay said that "the
state of the vote for President and
Vice President was well known, though
unofficially, and, as the vote of Mis-
souri, could not affect the result, to OBJ
viate the unpleasant difficulty which
would otherwise arise in the joint
meeting, the Committee considered it
better to provide for the case in the
manner proposed. This course was
deemed by the Committee the most ex-
pedlent under all the circumstances,
and he hoped the House would accept
it, the more especially as the Senate
had already concurred in it,
Mr.. Randolph John Randolph of
Roanoke) opposed it. He could not con-
sent to this special verdict. as it had
been called, in the case of Missouri.
He could not recognize in this House,
or in the other House, singly or con
jointly, the power to decide on the
votes of any State. Suppose, he said,
you strike out Missouri and insert
South Carolina, which also has d pro-
vision in its Constitution repugnant to
the Constitution of the United States;
or Virginia, or Massachusetts, which
had test, he believed, in it's Constitu-
ton. Was there any less power to de
eide on their votes than those of Mis-
souri, =? He maintained that the Elec.
toral College was as independent Of
Congress as Congress Of them, and we
have no right to judge Of their pro-
ceedings. Mr.. Randolph added, he