New-York tribune., 1886-01-23
THE FLECTORAL COUNT.


Senator Sherman's speech on the counting OF
electoral votes was an admirable presentation
of the difficulties encountered in the past and
the grave dangers which the existing state oi
the law may involve. Eut it is pity that 1t
should have ended in such lame ana lhipoleh'
conclusion as the only amendment proposed Dy
him. The proposition to have the Validlty Oh
all electoral votes determined by a convention
of the Senate and House, in which the small
majority in the Senate would in almost every
conceivable case be overpowered by the large
majority in the House, is in effect as Mr.. Evarts
suooested. giving to the House the power to
decide whether it shall nullify an election by
the neople. and proceed to elect President
itself 1t is true, Senator Hoar suggested that
the committee thought the exclusion of the
votes of q State would reduce the number of
electors constitutionally appointed, and hence
the number of votes required for an election
But that would be seriously disputed If the
bill pending should pass with or without SEN
ator Sherman's amendment. One Is at a,loss 10
see why a change of law should be made which
only substitutes a great uncertainty about
which there is no precedent to govern for
another uncertainty on which there are pre-
cedents. As to Mr.. Sherman's amendment, MI
Hoar was not far wrong in saying that 1t seems
tc him like Mr.. Pickwicks advice to shout
always with the largest mob.
That IS the radical objection to both propo-
sitions. Maiorties settle much in this country.
Rut il il not the province of maiOrities to settle
the construction of a law, or to decide what
has been the true result of an election. Surely
Senators Sherman, Evarts and HOar must all
agree upon this that the question is essentially
a judicial one, and it should be decided by
some judicial tribunal. Whether the objection
of Senator Sherman to submission OF every
disputed vote to the Supreme Court be sound
and sufficient or not, il is at all events clear that
a decision by some judicial body would be
proper, while q decision by any political body
would be open to dispute, and that decision Dy
the Supreme Court would be more respected
would command more public confidence, and
would more surely prevent popular resistance
and disorder, than a decision by the House oil
REPRESENTATIVES. The intense partisanshp OF
the House is known to all. The Constitution
never contemplated that either branch OF Con-
| press should decide whether the certificate from
a State was valid or not. If it intrusted such n
power to anybody, which is of course disputed,
the one thing certain is that 1t .ntlusted that
mower TO nobody but the presiding officer OF
! the Senate. The desirableness of some wiser
adjustment is not denied. 1t is easy to under
! stand that Mr.. Sherman or any other true
statesman would shrink from such grave re-
sponsibility. But it would be far better to
| leave the Constitution and the laws to stand
as they are, than TO intrust virtually absolute
mower to the House of Representatives,.
Why must Senators fret themselves so much
to vole away trusts that the Constitution and
the laws have devolved upon themP Are they
conscious of uniitness for the responsibility 7
Was there any real necessity for cnactng in a
| hurry that the President of the Senate should
not temporarily exercise the powers OF the
Executive in case of vacancy Yet in It's
impatience to alter things somehow, the Senate
rushed through bill which everybody now
admits is seriously defective. The bill regard
ing the electoral count is another manifestation
of the same uneasy impatience to change things
somehow to shuttle off responsibility even II
by casting it all on the House. Would it not be
as well for Senators to let this bill sleep "a
while, until they can find some better mode oil
deciding an essentially judicial question than
TO enact that the House of Representatives shall
| decde il