National Republican., 1884-06-13

the house should take action on this question
deliberate, immediate. careful Hctiog action
action that would stand in the light Of the oivll-
cation Of tho world-so that It could he seen that
congress was equal to the great emergency, for it
might be an emergency There were three mode,
proposed for counting the electoral yotes-firt the
mode presented by the senate bill; second, tho
mode presented by the house committee. and one
other mode whicn he considered the right one.
In subscribing his name to the committee bill, he
had cast TO one side his own conviction Of constl-
tutionRl law. As he believed in the Almighty, he
believed that under the constitution the house OF
representatives to-day had the solo power 10 count
the electoral votes.
ii, in the coming future, bill was not agreed
upon by the two houses, aud there should be any
such action as there was in 1877, he would call
upon the house to exercise It's constitutional right
and determine all questions relating to the presi
dental election. he then prOce eded TO deliver
short constitutional argument against the pro;
by Mr.. Browne, of Indiana, who raised similar OBJ
jectons against the house bill, and contended
that the states themselves should have the power
TO settle all questions touching the appointments
of the electors.
Mr. Eaton snid that he was not welded to the
house bill. llo saw one way out of the difficulty,
and that was by n per capita vote. Gentlemen
might say that that was not right, because one
party would always be In the majority In con :,
gross. He believed, however, in the integrity OF
mankind and thought that there were honest
men In congress in both parties whom he could
trust.
Mr. Browne said that he did not believe that in
settling such great question as n presidential
controversy members of either party could rise
above political prejudces. He had come to this
conclusion by noting action in contested election
cases. The most dangerous tribunal in which to
ssttlo great controversy Of presidential cleo
tion was the congress Of the United States. So
| help him God, he would rather try " before Il
| justice of the peace and country jury.
Mr., Springer inquired whether the gentleman
was finding fruit with the democratic party for
| giving the republicans president.
Mr.. Browne fetofted that the gentleman from
| Illinois had expected to have packed jury, but
II certain supreme court Justice had gone into the
| senate, and another justice had been put upon
| the electoral commission. Ever since that timo
/ the gentleman had been damning the third judge.
| fittings had turned out differently 1t would hayo
been the republicans who would have damned
| the third Judge.
Mr.. Eaton said that he did not propose to bring
| the question before justice OF the peace who
could be bought for $50, or before judge who
| could be bought for 100000. He proposed that
| the question should be tried by the body which
| had the constitutional power to do so.
Mr.. Pryor delivered a carefully prepared speech
| in favor of the house bill, addressing himself to
the historical, legal, and constitutional points in-
| VOWED, and before he had concluded the house
| lat 5:l0) adjourned.