The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-22
Mr.. Sherman Points Out Defects in the Bill,
and Suggests that Disputed Returns Be
Settled by Joint Vote of Both Houses.
Mr.. Edmunds Objects to the Senate
Yielding Its Legislative Superiority.
The House Continues the Debate on the Bill
Proposing an Increase in the Amount of
Pensions Paid to Soldiers Widows.
THE SENATE.
Mr.. Sherman Points Out Defects in the Presi-
Dental Count Bill.


Mr.. Sherman Points Out Defects in the Presi-
Dental Count Bill
WASHINGTON, JAN 12--The Chair laid before
the Senate letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury transmitting suggestions for an i'm
proved plan regulating protests and appeals in
customs cases. The letter was appropriately
referred.
Among the bills introduced was one by Mr..
Butler, to enable the people of Dakota Territory
to form constitutional State government He
said it was intended a substitute for the bill
already pending. The new bill is an enabling
act. and applies to the whole Territory, instead
of merely to the southern portion. It was re-
ferred to the committee on Territories.
A bill was introduced by Mr.. Van Wyck ito
prevent the demonstration of American coin by
certain persons in the United States" In intro
ducing this bill. Mr.. Van Wyck said the senator
from Vermont mr. Morrill, yesterday remarked
that no parties in the Senate or out of it wero
seeking to demonetize silver "But even now,N
Mr.. Van Wyck continued, 'even now, and for
some time, there has been a determination or
conspiracy on the part Of capital to demonetize
silver and violate the laws and Constitution.
Some years ago some national banks in New
York made an attempt to demopetize
by ostracizing silver, but as they
were the immediate creatures of the
law they had shrewdly calculated the hazard Of
the venture Now the wedge was to be entered
in different shape. Capital was arraying itself
against the laws and the almost universal senti-
ment and prosperity of the people. 1t was
bold and deliberate strike. done with malice
aforethought against the interests of the masses.
and of labor. Severe penalties had been pro-
vided against those who debase our COIN Why
should not adequate punishment be provided for
those who were seeking, not merely its debase-
ment, but its complete overthrow Capital by
its extravagant and illegal demands. was arous-
ing the storm that it professed to dread; and
when it succeeded, as it surely would, IN forcing
a stern and active protest it would then appeal
for protection to the government whose laws 1t
had set at defiance.
The bin. at Mr. Van Wycks request was laid
on the table for the present.
The Senate proceeded to consideration OF bills
on the calendar. The first bill in order was one
to divide part of the Sioux reservation in Dakota
into separate reservation, and to secure the RS
linquishment of the Indian title to the remain
der In the course of debate on this bill, Mr..
Teller made complaint of the difficulty of hear
ing the proceedings by reason OF the converse
tion carried on by the senators.
The bill finally. went over, and
the bill to provide for the counting
Of the electoral vote was taken up, and
NJ. Sherman took the floor. He said that wheK
the Senate was clearly on one side of party
politics" and the House of Representatives was
clearly on the other side, now, if ever, the mat
ter should be settled on some basis of principle.
He laid great stress upon the point that the only
mandatory provision on this subject in the Cou-
stitution was that "the returns shall be opened
by the presiding officer of the Senate, and the
votes shall then be counted" There was no
mode pointed outin the Constitution by which the
vote should or might be counted; no provision
was made as to the settlement of any dispute re-
ating to the legality of the votes of the electors
whether the electors had conformed to the law
or the Observation-Disclosures one set or another
set of electors had been elected; no provision
pointing out any authority, any person or any
body to decide which OF two sets OF returns
should be counted-whether the votes of some
of the electors ION account of the nelgibility OF
such electors) should or should not be counted
or whether tho state was in a condition to have
it's vote counted There was. however, nss
declaration that the President OF
the Senate who opened the returns
should count the electoral votes,
or that the House or the Senate should pass on
the question. All that it said was that the Pres
ident of the Senate, in the presence of the Sem
ate and of the House OF Representatives, should
open the certificates "and the vote shall then
be counted" He referred to many cases of dis
pute to the electoral votes, notably the one in
1877. which threatened civil war, which was hes
said, happily averted by the contrivance of the
Electoral Commission, and continued as follows:
1.-THE objection have to this bill under con-
sideration is that it does not settle single ong
of the questions that have arisen in the past or
are likely TO arise in the future. This bill makes
a distinction between the returns of the votes of
electors from States where there is one return
and the votes from States where there are two
returns, or papers purporting to be returns
This is distinction without difference, be-
cause in any case of dispute that might arise
the manufacturing or creating of two returns ID
the easiest possible process by which to present
the question involved. If there is but one
turn. then this bill provides that the return shall
not be excluded, except by the concurrent vote
admit the single return, it is held to
be conclusive. If the two houses agree
as to the proper count, then the vote is
counted upon that single return. But suppose
that single return presents the question. Sup
pose it appears from evidence on file that some
Of the electors claiming to be elected from dis
puted States were ineligible for the electoral
Office, how would that question be determined
where the matter in dispute did not 90 to the
whole electoral ticket. but only to part of itl
Many cases could be mentioned where it would
not be right to count the vote Of State, but
even if right to count it, how should it be
ted, and by whom should it be counted,
when the two houses disagreedl Where the
two houses agreed they might be regarded the
best judges, but il they disagreed, why give to
the opinion of one house more weight than to
the opinion of the otheri Why say that in q
case OF disagreement the vote shall be countedf
The bill provides that in case there was
division of opinion between the two houses the
vote should be counted. But what votei The
whole vote, or part of it? Mr. Sherman did
not believe that. under the Constitution.
Congress had the power to give to
either House the right to exclude
the vote of State. Congress had right to
go behind the vote Of a State. The vote must
be counted either for or against This bill pro-
vided for something which the Constitution did
not contemplate or provide for, namely. for the
exclusion of the vote of State upon the mandate
of either house. Congress had been given power
to carry into execution the express grants os
the Constitutions but Congress could IN no case
provide that the vote should not be counted, for
the Constitution says II shall he. Mr.. Sherman