Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1886-04-02


ton that by refusing to adopt such an amendment we
had intended confer the power to do what is there
uegated move to amend the amendment by striking
out after the word provided the negative words,
that it will read provided that this tribunal shall be
authorized to go behind the returns shall vote
against that amendment to the amendment, as mat
ter OF course for the object OF the committee, be-
lieve successfully and undeniably attained, was to
have this great cause tried upon the law it lie now,
aud not to declare that it should be tried upon
new principle Of law, whichever way we might think
would be glad to have a principle Of law. In
order, therefore, 10 guard against the slant which the
rejection Of this amendment might in some minds
produce in respect Of the opinions Of the pAssers Of
this bill move to amend the amendment so that It
will read comforting the authority to do the thing that
my friend does not wish to have them do, and Whioh
do not irish 20 haze them do. shall vote against my
own amendment, and shall ask everybody else to do
it and then shall vote against the amendment it.
self and that being rejected, willleaye without any
Implication"
Nothing could be clearer or more explicit
than this language Of Mr. Edmunds. 1t de-
fines with exactness his idea of the scope of
the electoral commission bill. In his view
the purpose of the bill WAS not to make
new law, but simply to create a tribunal
to decide what was the existing law, and
then act according to it. His purpose in
offering his amendment, aud then opposing
both it and Mr.. Morton's, was to have the
position of the Senate defined absolutely and
unmistsksbly, so that it should not be sup.
posed even by implication, " that it was the
purpose of those who favored the bill to con-
fer any power either to go behind the returns
or not to 60 behind them. 1t was a quick
far-seeipg statesmanlike move, which showed
how complete was Mr.. EdmundsS grasp Of
the whole subject.
But clear as was the Senator's language
already quoted he stated bis views even more
explicitly, if that were possible, in further re-
marks which he made while the order for the
yeas and nays on the amendments was pend
ing. 10 reply to remarks from Mr.. Sargent
he said that if anything was to be put into
the bill about going behind the returns either
way then the bill might as well submit the
dispute by saying beforehand just how the
dispute WAS to be decided but the purpose
of the committee which framed the bill had
been mot to cheat justice out of her fair and
| impartial dues by undertaking by a change
in the existing law to decide dispute before
hand Immediately afterwsrd, in reply to
/ Mr.. Morton, Mr.. Edmunds said
81 am not going to take time In debate; but, inas-
much as have seem in some decisions Of the supreme
court references to debates to nd out what the law
meant, l cannot let what the senator from Indiana
has just said go pdre the opinion Of the senate.
wish to say that disagree with him entirely with
respect to the construction he puts this bill 1t
does not confer power to go behind to stay
returns, but 1t imposes the duty OF taking the law
it is and applying it to the question that they to
Determined and II Of the questions that body
is to determine is not what is the electoral vote Of the
states and who the electors Of the state then do
not know what is the Ito an Irish phrase) OF
having these double returns at ALL give us so much
trouble. But, say, do not rise to debate at all
but only to remark that disagree entirely with the
construction the senator from Indiana has put it
That saves my distance II the debate should ever b,
referred to as to what this law means"
Still further on, as the debate proceeded
Mr.. Edmunds said, and it was his last ex
preston of opinion as to the scope Of the
bill
"when these people 1.-THE members Of the Electoral
Commission have found the true return by cousttu
tional processes their mission is ended. The ques
ton is by what means and upon what evidence an d
upon what principles Of law is that the return
Is to be found
If a ''clincher" was needed here il is in thes
munds that the members of the proposed
commission should not get wrong impress.
sion from this debate as to the purpose aud
intent of the bill that he said, once more
and then said again, that the bill did not lay
down any new law-it simply provided tri
bunal to determine the existing law and theI
act according to it.
Mr.. Edmunds voted against his own amend
ment, as he said he should. In point of fac
there was only one vote in favor of it, and i
WAS defeated, to 81. Mr.. Morton's amend
ment was lost, Is to AZ, and the electora
commission bill was passed by the Senate al
it came from the joint committee, at sever
o'clock in the morning, after a session NOR,
than 20 hours long.
1t may be added, a. materially strengthen
ing the position of Mr.. Edmunds, that imme
diately following his last remark quoted
! above, Mr.. Thurman, "the best and ables
, Democrat of them all, said
81 only want to add that shall vote against bot
these amendments because either one Of them XIII
the bill and that without any reference to their in
trinsic merits at ALL
1t is still further true that among the prom
inent men Of both parties who voted will
3 Mr.. Edmunds against both amendments, an,
: then voted with him on the final passage o
[ the BILL were Senators Conkling, Thurman
Sherman, Morrill,, Bayard, and others of onl
4 less prominence.
But there is still further evidence of MI
= Edmundss consistency in this entire electors
D commission matter. In the speech wit
T. which he opened the debate on the electors
commission bill on January 20, four days b,
l. fore this, Mr.. Edmunds stated his positio
D with regard to the province and powers
4 the proposed commission with great defnit,
n ness. He then said
Gan that We 1.-THE joint committed designed this
to do aud all that it does do is to provide merely II
method, by regular steps Of lawful procedure Of
i eerta lining what the law and the fact was on that fir
Wednesday in December 1876 when the electoral &C
lege met and cast the electoral yotesl 1t has be,
said by some that this commission, II this law passe
having the powers Of the two Houses conferred upC
. them, may go behind the returne, as the CONNIE
phrase is Well, II the two Houses now possess Il
a constitutional power to do that thing, they also pc
sessed It on the hrst Wednesday in December, and
i have only changed the method in the FIRST instance
taking that step. II the two Houses by the constt
ton Of the United States, on the FIRST Wednesday
!, December and now, have no constitutional right
l.
ton, under the constitution Of its electors then II
commission has no right to do 1t. What eou
}, do7 We could do that just, that simple thing,
n thought that we have done, and that is to say tn
this presidential election must be settled and sett
only upon the constitution aud the principles OF Ia
: they existed when II took place Who 10 TO deci
Is what they were when it took place? Exactly 4
A tribunal that must decide everything 10 the end
. whatever tribunal the constitution aud the law co
stitutes for the purpose Of such decision. This Ii
constitutes tribunal to decide that very thing
3 others. In other words 1t Is commanded to deci
what lie the constitutional vote Of a state; and in
ing that it may take into view any evidence Of a
. kind that the constitution aud the law 1t is ne
makes appropriate to that subject and any Other
g To this position Mr.. Edmunds held to Il
y end, as the extracts which we have give
d show. In the sessions of the joint comm