Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-04-09

When the turn of Mr.. Morton came at
half past ~, midnight, he put in an earn
est plea for adjournment, which Mr.. Ed
munds opposed because of the pressing
necessity of having the measure disposed
of one way or the other. "The bill" he
said, 'is not my bill the case is not my
case ; but the country is my country If
this bill is to get through this body, let us
pass it ; if it is not, let II die" On the cad
Of the yeas and nays the motion TO adj
journ was lost % to II, and Mr.. Morton
went on with his speech. Short speeches
by other senators followed, Mr. Edmunds
holding the Senate steadily to its work,
and, as we have said, it was after daylight
on Thursday morning, the 25th, when Mr..
Morton proposed the amendment which
the RCtOrnCr quotes.
The second section of the electoral com
mission bill was as follows:
Sec. 2. That if more than one return, or pa
| per purpOrtlng to he reur IRON state,
| shall have been received by the president OF
the Sc ate, purportng ito he the certificates
| OF electoral votes given at the last preceding
election for president and vice president IN
| such State (uncss they shall he duplicates OF
! the ~ulnc rcturnl all such returns ana papers
shall he opened by him in the presence OF the
two Houses when met as aforesaid, and read
by the tellers; and all such returns and pa
pcrs shall thercupOn be submitted to the
| Judgment and dcci.iOn, as to which is the
true and lawful electoral vote of such state,
of Il commission constituted as follows, name
~. Here follow the provisions for the cho &c
Of the members of the commission.1
What Mr.. Morton wanted to have added
was his:
| Prorifi,d. That nothing herein contained
shall authorize the SAID onlniss!on to 20 be-
hind the tiudiug and determination of the
cnnvasslng or returning officers Ola Stltc, au d,
thuIiZcd 10y the Laws OF the state to ma ana
determine the result of an cl elton for elect
OrS
As soon as Mr.. Morton offered his
amendment Mr. Edmunds arose and said ;
AS the possible effect of that amendment,
If rejected. u | hope il Will hc, might toe to
raise in the mind of some doubtful senator or
judge an imp alton that 10y refusing to
such an amendment we had intended To con-
, fer the power to do what is there ncgutcd, !
move tOamUud the amendment by striking out
after the word provided the negative words,
so hat 1t will read provided, that his tribunal
shall be authorized to go behind the returns.
| shall vote against that ann ndmcnt to the
81 amendments is II matter OF course; Tor the
object of the committee, believe suCCcssiul-
lN and undeniaby attained, was TO nave
this gre cause tried upon the law rs 1t
, is now, ana not to declare that it should be
tried upon some new principle of law
: whichever way we might think we would he
glad to have new principle of law. In order
, therefore, to guard against the slant which the
> rel, ctlOn OF this amendment might in some
minds produce in respect of the opinions OF
the passcrs of this bill, move to amend the
amendment 50 that it will read comforting the
authority to do the thing that my friend does
not wish to have them do, and which | dc
, not wish to have them do shall vote against
my own amendment, and shall ask every.
I body else to do il (: and then | shall vot,
against the amendment itself, and that being
: rejected, will leave 1t without any impllca
tiOn.N
Nothing could be clearer or more eX
: plicit than this language of Mr.. Edmunds
Y 1t defines with eXaCtnesS his idea of the
scope of the electoral commission bill. IL
his view the purpose of the bill was no
! to make new law, but simply to create !
: tribunal to decide what was the existing
- law, and then act according to it. Hi
purpose in offering his amendment, anC
. then opposing both it and Mr. Morton s
was to have the position of the Senate de
!, :. fined absolutely and Enthusiastically, 50 tina
: it should not be supposed. even by lin
~. plication, that 1t was the purpose of thos
j. who favored the bill to confer any powe
y either to 20 behind the returns or not t
:. go behind them 1t was a quick, far-see
;, | ing, StateSmanllke move, which SHOWED
:, how complete was Mr.. Edmunds's gras
\. of the whole subject.
!, But clear as was the senator languag
~ already quoted he stated his views eve
- more explicitly, if that were possible, i
further remarks which he made while tn
order for the yeas and nays on the ament
ments was pending. In reply to remark
from Mr.. Sargent he sand that if anythin
g. was to be put into the bill about going b,
hind the returns either way then the hi
might as well Submit the dispute b
saying beforehand just how the disput
l. was to be decided but the purpose of tn
" committee which framed the bill had bee
" "not to cheat Justice out of her fair an
Re impartial dues by undertaking by a chang
u in the existing law to decide Il dispute be
- iorehand. Immediately afterward, in I,
,e ply to Mr.. Morton, Mr. Edmunds SAID;
id 81 am not going to take time in debate; bu
is inasmuch S have seen, in some decisions
~ the supreme Court. references to debates
ly find out what the law meant, cannot !,
he what the senator from Indiana has just sa
c. go er pdTte as the opinion of the Senate.
e wish to say that disagree with him entire
p, with respect to the construction he puts {
d. this bill. Ii does not confer power to go b
hind or stay before returns. but it impos
al the duty of taking the law AS it is and appl.
e. ing it to the question that they are to dete
he mine and if one of the questions that som
e, body is to determine is not what is the ele
I'd toral vote of the States and who are the ele
or tors of the State, then do not know what
the use & o use an Irish phrase of having the
IN double returns ut all. tug give SO much troubl
~ But, as say. do not rise TO debate at II
ed but only to remark that | disagree entire
n with the construction the senator from
We diana has put on IT,. That saves my dlsan
he if the debate should ever he referred TO as
to what this law means"
Is Still further on, as the debate proceede
he Mr., Edmunds said, and it was his last t
M preston of opinion as to the scope of II
he bill
e. when these people 1.-The members of t
,is
us return, 10y constitutional processes, their IN
ne sion is ended. The question is by what mea
ny and upon what evidence and upon " hat pri
~ ciples of law it is that the true return is to
~ found"
he If Il "clncher" was needed here it is
an these last two quotations. so careful W
ITS Mr.. Edmunds that the members of t
proposed commission should not get
Irt wrong impression from this deba
ty as to the purpose and intent of the b
40 that he said, once more, and then sa
ON again, that the bill did not lay down a
I'd new law-lt simply provided IA tribunal
'er determine the existing law and then q
vn according to it.
N. Mr.. Edmunds voted against his o,
he amendment, as he said he should
Re- point of fact there was only one vote
IDS favor of 1t, and it was defeated, to
of Mr.. Morton's amendment was lost Is
me A., and the electoral commission bill W
re- passed by the Senate as it came from t
To joint committee, at O'Clock in the MOI
Re ing, after session more than 20 hou
long