National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-02-03

petent right TO know what the states re-
spectively had done in regard to the choice
OF electors. He thought section should
be added to the bill making II the duty Of
the governor Of each state, under seal of
the state, as soon as practicable after the
final act of the state In the electoral APP
pointment, to communicate TO the United
States government the result Of that pro-
cess. This communication should show
the names Of the persons elected or APP
pointed as electors and what votes had
been cast for such persons respectively.
Mr.. Evarts was satisfied that II this were
done the difficulties surrounding the ques-
ton Of counting the vote would disappear,
for we should have the highest public au-
thority showing the final act Of the state in
the election.
Mr.. Evarts expressed great repugnance
to the idea Of the vote OF q state being re-
iected on mere difference OF opinion be-
tween the two houses. All must feel that
IL was an undesirable situation that, by
mere negotiation-by mere inability Of the
two houses TO agree-the vote OF q state
should fail. He had been disposed to think
that, In case OF a disagreement between
the two houses, Mr.. Sherman's proposition
might be acceptable, TO submit the question
to the vote Of the two houses voting per
capita; because that would result IN de-
termination as to which vote should be re-
CO0blltIhIlO0,
and under the light shed on the subject by
the Senate, Mr.. Evarts could find no
grounds in the constitution to support this
extra assembly of the two houses voting
per capita. Neither could he look with any
complacency on the idea OF submitting the
points in dispute TO the Supreme Court or
any other judicial tribunal. The transac-
ton in question involved the exercise of a
political function. IL was political trans
action, and would have TO be decided by
men who filled political stations.
Mr.. Teller denied the right Of Congress TO
submit the question to the Supreme Court.
The question, "Who are the electors, for
any given state was question for the state
alone, and Mr.. Teller, therefore, favored
leaving to the governor OF each state the
matter OF the certificate.
Mr.. Call proposed an amendment to the
effect that In case OF the Inconvenience
Of the two houses, and In case such non
concurrence land consequent failure TO
count the vote Of q state) resulted in taxi
ing away the majority required by the con-
stitu ton, or when by not counting the vote
OF state an election should be had Of a
person different from the person who
would be elected II the vote were counted,
that In those two requirements IL should be
declared that there was no election, and
that the House Of Representatives should
make an election as required by the consti-
tuition.
Mr.. Wilson, OF Iowa, opposed the bill. It
did not have the sanction of the constltu-
ton, he said. Fifteen amendments had
been made to the constitution, and when
new defects were found in that instrument
there was well-known method Of amend
ing it.
Mr.. Evarts submitted as an amendment
that It should be the duty of the executive
OF each state, as soon as practicable after
the final ascertainment Of the appointment
OF electors in such state, to communicate
under seal OF the state to the Secretary Of
State Of the United States q certificate,
showing the result OF such ascertainment,
setting forth the names Of the electors and
other particulars, and to deliver to the
electors OF such state n similar certificate
in tripllcate, such certificates to be trans
mitted by the electors with the result Of
their own action.
Mr.. Edmunds opposed the motion to re-
commit, but II struck him that Mr.. Evarts's
suggested amendment embodied an ex-
tremely valuable idea. 1t could be discussed,
however, In the Senate as well us in COM
mittee.
After further debate the motion to recon-
NIT was brought to a vote, and resulted
yeas 80, nays 20, the affirmative vote being
about equally divided between Republicans
and Democrats. All proposed amendments
went with the bill.
The Dakota bill wa then placed before
the Senate, and Mr.. Logan obtained the
floor on it, but gave way for a motion by
Mr.. Edmunds TO go into executive session.
The motion having been agreed to, the
Senate, at 4:35 p. m, went into executive
session. At 5:35 the doors were reopened
and the Senate adjourned.
The resolutions Of Mr.. Riddleberger and
Mr.. Pugh, as to the relations between the
President and the Senate, will come up for
consideration In the morning hour to-mor-
row, and Mr.. Logan will have the floor at
9 o'clock ON the Dakota bill.