National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-01-23


stitution did not contemplate or provide
for, namely for the exclusion Of the vote Of
q state upon the mandate Of either House.
lie had no doubt of the power of Congress
to do all that was necessary to regulate the
manner Of the count; that was plainly given
in the constitution, but with the proviso
that "the vote shall then be counted.n
Mr.. Sherman was satisfied that the bill as
It now stood was not a proper solution OF
the difficulties involved In the presidential
count; nor would he now vote to confer
the duty OF the count on auy man. He
thought no one human being alone should
be intrusted with that power
There two ways out Of the difficulty.
One that had been suggested was to refer
disputes arising before the two houses on
the vote Of state to some tribunal pro-
viGcd by law; another, and one that had
been often debated, was to have the ques-
ton certified at once TO the Supreme Court
OF the United States for its decision. Mr.
sherman was utterly opposed to the latter
suggestion as tending to bring the court
into disfavOr because Of the suspicious Of
political bias that might be engcndered by
their decision. lie knew no better way
than to bring the two houses Of Congress
into Joint convention, and, there polling
each house separately, decide the result.
In ordinary circumstances he would not
deem that course as In accord with the
nature Of the formation Of the two bodies;
but, when all remedies were considered,
this one seemed to him tho wlsest solution
OF the question. This plan had been
adopted IN 1866 by the Senate,i in prescribing
the mode of electing senators to this body.
Congress had then declared that, If the two
houses Of legislature should disagree on
the election of o senator, they should meet
together In Joint convention and decide the
matter by a majority vote. Before that
time, periods OF two or three years would
occur. when parties In some states were
equally divided, when the state would be
without part OF It's representation In the
Senate, and the scnatorship became the
mere plumber Of political contention and
barter. Why was not the plan OF
1856 good example Tor the count of
the electoral vote? II there must be some
tribunal to decide the contests that might
arise between the two houses Of Congress $,
this plan at least furnished solution. 1t
was scarcely possible that body of 400
ncn-as the Senate aud House taken to-
gcthcr would be--should be equally divided.
As one senator, after full study of the
question, Mr.. Sherman was willing to adopt
the principle OF the act OF 1866 and sur
render the superiority of the Senate in leg
islation and 90 In on even terms with mem
bers Of the House in order to settle ques-
lions in dispute that afforded no other
means Of adjustment. The vote would
then be counted.
Mr. Sherman then offered au amendment,
striking from the bill the clause allowing
either house TO exclude vote, and provld-
ing that IN case Of disagreement between
the two houses, the question III dispute
shall be submitted to joint convention of
both houses, which Joint convention "shall
Immediately, without debate, upon the roll
call of the respective houses, vote upon the
question or questions upon which there has
been such disagreement, and the decision of
the majority Of the members OF the joint
convention present shall be deemed final
and conclusive, and the vote shall be
counted accordingly and be announced by
the president Of the Senate; that, while the
two houses shall be in meeting, rs provided
In this act, the president OF the Senate shall
have the power TO preserve order, and no
debate shall be allowed, and no question
shall be put by the presiding officer except
to either house on q motion to withdraw,
and upon questions upon which the two
houses have disagreed as aforesaid"
When the committees In the House were
called Thursday morning 1t was not de-
veloped that any OF them were ready to call
nous consent the bill increasing the pen
sions of soldiers widows from IS to$l2 per
month was taken up before the expiration
Of the morning hour. The House went into
committee Of kthe whole, and a period of
speech-making and controversy set in and
covered the entire afternoons session,
proving sufficiently interesting throughout
to keep the galleries well crowded.
Mr.. Wolford, whose argument was un-
timely cut off the day before, resumed and
taking the middle aisle, in front of the
speakers chair, made speech In favor Of
the bill that left nothing to be desired on
the score OF earnestness He was followed
by Mr.. Reagan, who thought that pen
sions should be limited to soldiers
who had been disabled In the
war, or to widows who had been wives of
soldiers at the time of death or disability.
lie criticised the passage of special pension
bills by Congress, and intimated that their
passage was due more to political reasons
| than genuine wish to do justice to the
| soldier. This elected an indignant in
| quiry from Mr.. Funston as to Mr.. Reagan's
right to thus impugn the motives of his
| follow members, in response to which the
| Texas statesman said he had occupied n
seat IN the House when the arrears of pen.
sions act passed, and he had seen Democrats
| urging Democrats to vote for 1t, because 1t
would give them the soldier VOTE aud Re-
| publicNns urging Republicans TO vote for IT,,
| In order to get ahead Of the Democrats.
| No one would doubt that, instead of the
supreme and sole motive for this legislation
being to secure justice to those who
served their country, another and
stronger motive was to secure po-
litical supremacy. What was this
to come fromY lie warned members
that the point might be reached when pub
lie opinion might revolt against voting
away the money Of the toiling millions in
this sort Of way. He asserted that there
were numbers Of men-he might say thou
sands-who were receiving pensions who
| n m n "a
"Who are they? Who are theyFn asked
| Mr.. Funston,
"The gentleman can make his speech
when the time cOmes,h replied Mr.. Reagan
"He will not Interrupt me any more.
come here as representative Of portion
OF the American people. | come here to
speak for them, and do not propose that
members on the floor shall challenge my
| right to express my convictions on great
public questions. do not expect to defeat
this proposition, but in the name Of my
constituents, in the name OF the taxpayers
OF this country, propose to make pro
test against the universal aud indiscriminatC
granting of pensions to all men and al
women who ask for them.n
| Mr.. Reagan's rather antagonistic and un
popular attitude, as thus developed
brought him good many sharp thrusti
from members in the course of the debate
about the keenest being Mr.. Matson'l
neatly-veiled allusion to Mr.. Reagan't
course In the war that created the grea
bulk Of the pension list. When quoting
Mr.. Reagan's query, "What is this to come
to-" he said ~ say in all kindness to my
friends, he ought to have thought abou
that long ago. This shot brought arount
of applause from the Republican side tina
was Joined in by good many Democrats
who, like Mr.. Matson, had fought on thu
side Of the Union.
MIR. Dunn, of Arkansas, offered al
amendment that he described as "NeW
Years gift to put into Santa Claus's pen
sion wagon,n granting pensions TO survlv
ors Of the Mexican and Indian wars. Mr.
Matson advocated the passage of the bill
without amendment. lie said that tn