Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-02-05

Friday last, Mr.. Sherman left the chair,
and offered an amendment providing
that in case of disagreement between the
two houses in regard to the vote OF any
State, the question in dispute Shall be
submitted to joint convention OF both
houses, and the decision of the majority of
the members of the joint convention pre-
sent shall be deemed final and conclusive.
The extraordinary proposition which Mr..
Sherman supported in speech was at
once combatted by Senator Edmunds. of
were u mousse" said Mr.. Edmunds, land
had got to be eaten up by the cat at last,
/ should just as soon be swallowed to-day
as to be undergoing discussion in her
claws for three or four days before l was
swallowed. That is exactly this case.
The Senate of the United States might as
well propose to the House of Representa-
tives a bill which declares that in case of
disagreement between the two houses in
respect to identification of vote, that
then and there the judgment of the House
of Representatives should prevail, and be
done with it."
Mr.. Sherman thought that was what
the bill already did.
Mr.. Edmunds begged his pardon. The
bill now said that in case of these equals,
one representing the sovereignty, purity
and independence of the States and the
other representing the mass of the people
of all the States, without regard to State
lines, disagreed, that nothing should be
done in respect to the particular point of
disagreement. That was all it said. The
senator from Ohio had said that the thing
that seduced him into this idea was the
parallel between the case in hand and the
case covered by the act of Congress of
1866 providing for the election of United
nv hp |
separate States. In Mr. Edmundss judg-
ment there was neither constitutional, pO-
litical nor moral parallelism between the
cases The government of State was
unit it was not complex. The govern
ment of the United States was not a unit
it was complex. 1t recognized, in large and
important respects, the wisdom of pre-
serving the Independent sovereignty and
powers of each one of the States. Every
letter and every line in the Constitution of
the United States that referred to this
complex autonomy separated it, from be-
ing Il unit, into three distinct parts, Meth
er of which can act without the consent
of the two others, except III the case of
overriding the presidents veto. That
was the distinction. There was, therefore,
no possible analogy between the provi-
sions of the act of Congress which provi
ded that a legislature of State-its
senators and House of Representatives
should vote in solido, and the case now
before the Senate Do you not
remember, Mr. President eontin-
ned Mr.. Edmunds. docs not every
senator remember how carefully
and explicitly in the constitution of our
fathers, as it now stands, still undisturb-
ed by amendments. unassailed by pubicl
opinion, are preserved the rights of States
i'll every act that leads to and is consum-
mated in the election of president of the
United States ? The constitution declares
hot fhaC tptn hall oh
point-their own electors for president,
and nothing is left in all the other provi-
slons OF the constitution in regard to that
great act, except the mere method of as
pertaining what is the will of each State,
as state in regard to whom its choice
Then when the case shall happen, as our
fathers saw it might, that there
should be a failure of any one candi-
date to receive majority of all the cleo
tors of all the States put together, which
was required to make valid election,
Representatlves-no voting in solido not
voting per capita, not voting with the
members of the Senate, not voting CON
currently with the Senate as body, but
voting, the delegation from each one
State casting one vote, and one only
should select the person who should be
president. And yet in the face of all that,
my honorable friend from Ohio (Mr. Sher-
man would provide that in the case of an
identification of an electoral vote
which was difficult or doubtful, if
the two houses in their constitu-
tional character-named in the con
stitution as tine two houses and not
as the members of the two houSes'-dis-
agree that the representatives of the States
shall be lost and dissolved in the represen
tatlves of the people, and that IL per capita
voice shall determine the result. | cannot
"a * n |
see that there is constitutional right in
that. For whether the State be great or
small, whether it be Ohio or Delaware, the
necessity, to the people of either or each
and both OF those States. is just rs great
that their statehood, Their independence
in this act, as in every other act prescribed
in the constitution, must be preserved in
tact and exclusive in itself.
Mr.. Edmunds further remarked that
the bill before the Senate would leave
nothing undecided on the subject of the
count. Every step IN this constitutional
process of the election of Il president is Il
step of States and of nothing else; 50 that
when you declare that the States shall
disappear in case of Il disagreement he
tween their representatives and the repre-
sentatives of the whole people, and that
the - senators should he consolidated
with the 325 representatives, you might
Just as well, in case of party bias leave
the Senate out altogether. Taking the
Congress as il now stood, with
six or eight Republican majority
IN the Senate-nOt bell Z much of
politician, Mr.. Edmuuis had not
counted up and could not state the fig
ures exactly laughter and the Houst. of
Representatives, with 80 or 30 majority, If
the vote Wer" to operate ON one side of the
capitol in one way and on the other side
in the other way, the two Houses would
then be consolidated and the voice Of the
Senate lost. We could not lrpi~l late that