National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-02-02
IN SENATE And House.
MR.. HOAR on THE ELECTORAL COUNT
AND MR.. HANBACK, ON TELEPHONES.
Interesting Proceedings in Both Houses
Gen. Logan's Dakota Speech Dee
iayed-The Pam Electric Scandal to be
Investi gated--A Lively Debate.


galleries were crowded, the public being
impressed with the idea that Mr.. Logan,
having the floor on the Dakota bill, would
make notable speech. AS II turned out
the electoral count bill took precedence Of
the Dakota bill, so that visitors were dlsap-
pointed In regard TO their expectation Of
hearing the Illinois statesman, but never
theless found the afternoons proceedings
entertaining enough TO induce nearly all to
remain until n late hour. The main points
Of interest were Mr.. Conger's witty and
caustic criticism Of art examples provided
by Congress for the ndornment Of the capt
tol, speeches by Messrs. Hoar aud Ingalls,
on the electoral count bill, aud running
debate on the same subject, in which Messrs.
Hoar, Sherman, Ingalls,, Maxey, and George
participated. Mr. Morgan also began
long speech on his Utah resolutions, but
was cut of by the expiration of the morn
ing hour. Mr.. Evarts obtained the floor on
the electoral count bill just before going IN
TO executive session, and will no doubt de-
liver great speech TO-DAY.
After a lot Of memorials, executive COM
munieations, and resolutions had been els
posed Of, Mr.. Morrill, submltteda substitute
for his resolution providing for the removal
OF the "Peacen monument and the erection
OF statues Of Columbus and Lafayette. The
difficulty pointed out by the Secretary of
War In the way Of prior appropriation by
law of the space at the foot Of Maryland
avenue for Garfield monument was gotten
over In the substitute by making the Secre-
tary OF War, president pro ten. Of the
Senate, and chairman of the Garfield monu-
mental committee Of the Army Of the Cum
berland commission to select n new site
for the Garfield statue. Senator Conger
made the resolution his text, and in a half
humorous, half serious way delivered a
criticism on the artistic quality of the works
purchased and authorized by Congress
that kept the senators and gallery occu-
pants laughing. IIe made the. broad asser-
ton that none of the works OF art In Wash
ington, executed under government author
ity, htly or creditably represented the
nation. He thought Columbus as pre-
sented on the east side ofthe capitol was try
ing pitch base ball to Greenough's Wash
ington, while the female clinging to Column
bus was afraid Washington was going to
make "muff" After a little rel oinder by
Mr.. Morrill,, In which he rocited the anus
ing criticism made by Henry A. Wise on
the same statue, the resolution went over,
and the Senate took up and passed the bill
to divide the Sioux reservation in Dakota
and extinguish the Indian title to part
thereof.
At Q o'clock the electoral count bill was
taken up, Mr.. Hoar moving the amend
ments heretofore published us intended to
be proposed by him.
This bill, Mr.. Hoar said, was the result
Of more than twelve years discussion In
the Senate. 1t had passed that body three
times. The arguments against the bill pro-
oeedod on the idea that IL attempted to
amend the constitution. Itdid not do that.
There were two things that Mr.. Uoar sup
posed were fixed for the present generation
first that the president of the Senate was
not intrusted with the exclusive power to
count the presidential vote, and, second,
that that power was not vested exclusively
in the House Of Representatives. II would
not be denied thhat wnen I'LL oincial function,
privilege, or duty was lodged in public
body, that body was never the Judge Of the
contingency in which II was TO exercise that
function. II the president Of the Senate
had no power in the beginning to exercise
the function Of counting the vote, he did
not have 1t now. Mr.. Hoar did not pro-
pose TO go over the argument for the hun
dredth time But he would say that the
constitution had intrusted this great power
to two bodies corporate--the House and
Senate. The failure Of the constitution-the
casus omissus-was the failure to provide
an arbiter In case the two houses disagreed,
and all the power that was left to Congress
was to provide snch an urbter. OF all the
schemes ever suggested for dealing with
the subject, Mr.. Hoar said, the scheme pro-
posed by the senator from Ohio (Mr. Sher-
mani was the worst. Mr.. Hoar was dis
posed personally TO favor the selection of
the senior judge OF the United States Su-
preme Court as the arbiter In case Of dis
agreement Of the two houses, but he sup
posed the consent Of this generation would
not be given to mingling the functions of
the judicial office with the functions re-
ferred to. The arbiter which would be
selected by Mr.. Sherman's amendment,
hoNvpvar Vnn1d hn nOmpOen1 of nhnut 400
eager political partisans-men whose future
and whose success In life might be init
mately involved In their decision. The
present bill, Mr.. Hoar continued, did not
intend TO provide an arbiter, but reduced
the number Of cases in which difference
could arise between the two houses. 1t
remanded everything to the state. There
was no case that bad arisen since the begin
ming Of the government that would not be
covered by the bill before the Senate, with
his (Mr. Hoar's) amendment added. 1t
would require the count Of the vote Of
every state except where there were two
sets OF returns. Two sets of returns i'm
piled domestic violence In a state, and in
such case, Mr.. Hoar thought, we might well
hesitate before counting the vote Of such a
state, and we might most safely decline to
count II.
Mr. Sherman said that whatever we did
involved more or less danger. The amend
ment submitted by Mr.. Hoar involved its
special danger. 1t would make the gov
ernor Of state the Judge Of which set Of
returns were the lawful set In case there
were two sets. The governor would nat
urally belong to. one or the other of the OPP
posing parties In the state controversy.
This was jumping out Of The frying pan
into the flre.n
Mr. Maxey suggested that tho question,
'who Is the governor ?' was sometimes the
point involved.
Mr.. Aoar replied that tho bill covered
cases where such doubt existed.
Mr.. sherman could see that Mr.. Hoar's
amendment would help the bill Some
method should be devised to remedy the
difficulty without leaving II to the governor
of state. That course was even more
dangerous than leaving the question to the
presiding officer Of the Senate. Mr.. Sher-
man would prefer TO recommlt the bill to
the committee on privileges and elections
than have II forced on now. liewould pre-
fer TO place the arbitrament In the hands of
the United States Supreme Court --oblec-
tionable as that course might be---than TO
leave the question where II would be left
by the bill.
Mr. Hoar commended that the selection of
the governor of state to certify to the
state returns of election was the proper
selection.
Mr., George inquired of Mr.. Hoar whether
there was anything in his amendment or In
the bill which would authorize the governor
OF the state TO appoint the presidential cleo
tors, "Not the slightest" replied Mr..
IIoar.
Mr.. Sherman said that Mr.. Hoar's amend
ment was an admission that the bill, even
after twelve years discussion, was not salts
factory.
Mr.. Hoar denied this. lie said that what
he admitted to be unsatisfactory was the
condition of our constitutional law. The
bill, with his amendment, which was one
of detail, was as satisfactory Us the constl-
tutional limitations imposed on Congress
could make II.
Mr. Ingalls, obtained the floor, but Mr..
lloar and Mr.. Sherman continued their dis
IL l..