National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-01-25

counted accordingly aud he announced by
the president OF the scnate.n
We do not undertake to say that this plan
would be declared unconstitutional, but It
is clearly volative Of the whole theory Of
presidential elections as formulated in our
fundamental law. The election of Presi
dent and Vice President which the constitu-
tion contcmplates is the work OF the states;
this would he no such work The count
which the constitution calls for is, in our
opinion, a count by the Senate and House
Of Representatives, not by 7G senators and
1876 representatives assembled in conven-
tion. The states, in the persons of their
senators, are required TO be present when
the count is made. Under the Sherman
amendment there would be no such pres
ence Of states. 1t seems TO us that Mr.. Ed
munds, in opposing Mr.. Sherman's proposi-
tion, puts the case both fairly and forcibly;
The senator from Ohio has stated with clear.
ness his proposition. Afer the votes as they
are called are opened, and n disagreement
arises between the two houses in regard TO
what shall he done in identifying q vote (for
that is all there is to II, because everybody
agrees that whatever is the vote Of state must
be counted so that the action of both houses
or either house. or any other tribunal, is to as
certain whether the paper presented is the
vote Of the statc), that dispute existing, the
proposition ofthe senator from Ohio is that in
case the Senate and the House Of Representa-
tives disagree In their constitutional and auto.
matte capacity ast the government ofthe United
States, there shall be a consolidated count of
heads of the 76 senators and the 32j
4. a
that the majority of all, per capita, shall de-
tetmine the result. The senator appears to
have laid some stress upon the fact that that
is only a last resort, that where ator discus.
sion and consideration in either house they
have failed to come to an agreement, then in
order to get some solution this is the best thing
to do. III were mouse and had got to be
eaten up by the cat at last should just as
soon be swallowed to-day rs to be undergoing
discussion in her claws for three or four days
before was swallowed. That IS exactly this
case. The Senate ofthe United States might
Just as we'll propose TO the House of Represent.
atives abill which declares that in case of
disagreement between the two houses in re.
spect OF the Identification of vote, then and
there the judgment Of theilIouse of Represent.
atives shall prevail and be done with It,
That is all there is to 1t.
Mr.. Evarts took part In the debate from
which we have quoted, doing full justice to
Mr.. Sherman, but not being able to agree
with his conclusions.
Mr.. Hoar dissented very decidedly from
the Ohio senator's views, but in doing so he
was mindful of that kindly, genial spirit
which generally pervades the discussion of
grave questions in the north end of the cap
itol. lie said:
Indeed, Mr.. President, though do not wish
to discuss this question now, with all due re-
spect to the honorable member from Ohio who
has just addressed the Senate, 1t seems to me
that his proposition to solve this grave consti.
tutional difficulty is precisely almost Pickwick's
advice TO his followers how TO behave when
they came into town where there was a mob.
Always shout with the mob" said Mr.. Pick
wick. But" said Mr.. Tupman, Suppose
there are two mobs2" "Then shout with the
| largest"
1t is true that Mr.. Sherman's proposition
provides a plan for reaching definite con-
clusion, while the pending bill does not,
but II were better to call in the aid Of a
| judicial tribunal than to make such sur
render Of the rights Of the states as the Ohio
senator is prepared to do.