Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-04-09
THE ELECTORAL OMMISSION.
Mr.. Edmunds's Course Explained and DE
Tended.
[Brattleboro Phoenix. ]

What Mr.. EdmundS said to his fellow mem
beers of the committee, whether he "distnctly
expressed his opinion as be CLAIMS now, or
whether he said not hing definite at all on the
subject, a. Hewitt testified, i not matter OF
evidence now, tor 1t was in the nature OF
private of hand conversation unrccorded a ID
irresponsible in any official sense. W hat he
is to be held rcSpOn, IDLE Tor Is what ne sau
and did ON the floor f the Senate and this
is what he ard his defenders wish TO avoid by
referring to loose, sjolnted, and probably
aforementioned talk between members OF the
committee. January "a, 1877, while the cleo
oral commission bill was before tn senate
(see senate journal of that Congress, p. l52l,
Mr. Morton proposed the following amend
mcnt:
Resolred, That nothing herein contained
shall authorize the said commission to go be-
hind the finding and determination OF the
canvassing or returning officers OF state,
authorized by the laws of the State, TO find
and determine the result of an election Tor
electors.
Mr.. Edmunds at once arose and offered an
amendment to this amendment, by striking
out the words nothing herein contained
| shall authorize" and afte the word com
mission inserting the words shall have
resolution, as EdmundS wanted 1t, t.
read "Pr"rtded, that the said commits
sion shall have authority to go behind the
| returns" etc. This was defeated, and on the
question of passing the original amendment
Edmunds voted no. His vote meant that ho
did not think the commission should he pre-
vented from fun and fair investigation into
amendment which he offered meant that ho
thought these thing ought to he thoroughly
investigated and yet as IN mber OF the com
mission he voted that he had no right into
these matters, that all evidence regarding
them was dlunde, and that to do just what 1t
proposed by his amendment to dc would be Al
| Unconstitutional interference with the rght'
of the States BrdtttebOrO RefOrmer.
! The above extract is the essential par'
of the reply which the Windham county
RotOrmcr makes to our exposure, two
weeks ago, of the utter lack of foundation
in fact for the attack on the public recort
of Senator Edmunds to which that papel
is now devotng its columns. In our owl
article we stated, and showed from Hon
A. b. Hewitts remarks on the floor of thu
House, that it was not true, rs the nc
former had charged, that Mr., Edmund
was guilty of duplicity in the matter o
the electoral commission, holding ON
thing on the floor of the Senate before
hand and another thing afterward. II
this statement of fact on our part the Re
former replies rs above.
The reply Is either piece of gross ant
deliberate Justification, or it is such an eX
hlbltion of ignorance, and loose Jolnte,
work, as would make reputable journal
list hide himself in shame. We choose on
words with care and they mean exact
what they say for there is not word o
truth in what the extract which stands a
the head of this article says, or in what
munds on the question of going behin'
the returns in the memorable contest o
1877. 1t is absolutely false in every par
cular. To show this we have only T.
quote from the official record of the con
gressional proceedings where the eXac
position of Mr. Edmunds in regard to tn
electoral contest is explicitly stated in hi
own words publicly spoken Vol. 3, Par
2, Congressional Record, fifth Congress
2d session..
The time to which the RetOrmor al
ludes when Mr.. Morton proposed tn
amendment quoted, WAS on Jan. "A, 1877
the last day of the Senate debate on tn
electoral commission bill, and the day OIL
which Mr.. Edmunds led the measur
through to final vote and its adoption
or, to speak more exactly, it was at day
light on the morning of the 18th, for tn
Senate had been in continuous session
except short evening recess, since |
O'Clock of the day before, Numerou
speeches had been made, the leading one
by Bayard of Delaware, Thurman o
Ohio and Conkling of New YorI
in favor of the bill, and by Sargen
of California, Sherman of Ohio an,
= Morton of Indiana in opposition to it