New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-02-04

Il
Thanks of the public are due to Mr.. Evarts
and the other Senators who have sent the OBJ
iectionable bill regarding the electoral count
back to the committee for reconsideration. Mr
Evarts may well be named with prominence IN
the matter, not only because he spoke strongly
and apparently with effect against the passage
of an imperfect measure and suggested an I'M
portant amendment, but because he had the
courage, not common enough III legislative
bodies frankly to state that his first nIpres-
sions had been erroneous. 1t is to be hoped
that the same spirit will govern the committee
in reconsidering the measure, and that mem
bers will not be so afflicted with fear of admit
ting an error, or ST. DugnaciOus IN sticking 10
opinions previously expressed, that they cannot
frame n measure which shall be free from the
grave objections raised to the one just recon-
mitted.
The public will share with Senator Evarts his
"great repugnance to the idea that the vote
of a State should be rejected upon mere
difference between two Houses of Congress.
Nor can the proposition of Senator sherman DC
interpreted otherwise than as surrender oil
its power by the Senate-a virtual abdication
to the House, which has power under the Con-
make a vacancy when it pleases, by rejecting
the votes Of States OF all the plans proposed
this really seems the most dangerous. The
proposition of the committee was not much
better. Under that plan the House would have
had almost the same power III fact. 1t would
be a fragrant departure from the Constitution
to give that body any power ut all to create a
failure to elect. To the House the Constitution
gives power Ia elect if there is Il failure, ana Tor
that obvious reason does not give that body
any power whatever to determine any of the
questions upon which failure may depend. If
Senators will consider this matter without PRIDE
of opinion, surely they must see that no cleo
ton can pass undisputed which may turn upon
the exercise by the House of a power 50 plainly
anconstit Itional. The object of any bill is to
remove occasions of dispute, and the one sub
mtted by the committee would not only fail IN
that object. but would bring TO bear upon the
House the strongest motive to stretch its power
and thus to create occasions for dispute.
The amendment offered by Senator Evafts
was approved by Senator Edmnnds as en-
bodying an extremely valuable idea" 1t looks
toward a final decision of all questions about
the choice of electors from each State by the
authorities of that State, aud the official neli-
cation of the final decision, to be made by the
Governor, would under that view be con-
elusive Before the committee reports again,
however, it is to be hoped that it will devise
some means of determining whether a State is
entitled to vote at all. IT, for example, an
armed usurpation should take possession of
State-a superstition which, in view of events
not twenty years past, is not mpoSsible-shOGld
oyorturn It's riOhtful government. and set nm
pretended authorities, and hold pretended cleo
tions, should there be no power anywhere in
the United States to right that wrongY 1t is
not entirely clear that Il new law on the subject
of the electoral cOunt ia imperatively needed at
this time. But if one should be passed at all, it
ought to be a law which shall provide some
mode of settling the questions that may here
after arise