Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-01-22

IeBaIu kJO party amuaJlOn, ana try II we
can to decide this most difficult question
of American politics.
INADEQUACY OF THE PRESENT BILL.
"rhe objection l have to the bill under
consideration is that it does not solve any
OF these questions. 1t does not settle
single one Of the questions that have
arisen in the past or that are likely to
arise in the future. This bill makes
a distinction between the returns OF the
vote OF the electors from States where
there is one return and votes from States
where there are two returns, or papers
purporting to be returns. This is a dis
tnctiOn without a difference, because in
any case of dispute that might arise the
manufacturing or creating of two returns
is the easiest possible process to present
the question involved. II there is but
one return, then this bill provides that
the return shall not be excluded. except
by concurrent vote of the two houses.
If the two houses admit that single re-
turn, it is held TO be conclusive. II the
two houses agree as to the proper count,
then the vote is counted upon that single
return.
NO PROVISION FOR DISPUTES.
"But suppose that a single return pre-
sents this question? suppose it appears
from the evidence on fife that some of the
electors claiming to be elected from the
disputed State were ineligible, as they
were members of Congress, or Judges of
courts. or officers of the United States,
and therefore ineligible for the electoral
office, how would that question be de-
termined where the matter in dispute did
not 90 to the whole electoral ticket, but
only to part of itY' Mr.. Sherman cited
again the case of Wisconsin, and inquired
what would be done with the vote Of a
State under the circumstances already
stated, and how the question should be
determined as to whether the vote should
or should not be counted. He presumed
that under the strict language of the bill
the vote of Wisconsin would be counted,
because the two houses had not agreed.
RIGHTS OF EACH HOUSE.
He supposed that in that case, where
trouble arose from an act of Providence,
that the result might be right but many
cases could be mentioned where it would
not be right. Buteven if right to count
it, how should it be counted, and by whom
should it be counted, where the two
houses disagreed? Where the two houses
agreed, they might be regarded as the
beet judges, but if they disagreed, why
give to the opinion of one house more
weight than to the opinion of the other?
Why say that IN case of disagreement
the vote shall be counted?
Mr.. Hoar-Fhe theory of the bill is that
when a State presents itself, and by but
one utterance declares, 'sHhis is my &C
tion," 1t shall be counted as the cOnstitu-
tiOnal action of the State unless both
houses of Congress agree to reject 1t.
When there are two voices each purpOrt-
ing to be, OF course not each actually, but
each purpOrting to be the declaration OF
the state as to what its action has been,
d.
houses to reject one and accept the other.
Mr.. Hoar said he would not at this time
argue at length the provisions of the bill,
but had interpOsed merely to state its
theory.
A DANGEROUS POWER.
Mr.. Sherman SAID the explanation did
not meet the case he had put as TO the
effect when the question in dispute WAS
not one affecting the whole vote of State,
but the vote OF one inelIg, Jle electoT. The
bill provided that in case there was a
division of opinion between the two
houses the vote should be counted, but
what voter The whole vote or part OF the
vote? He could see that if both houses
agreed to reject the vote, that was as good
evidence as we could have that it ought
to be rejected; but even that was very
dangerous power that allowed Congress,
which mad not been armed with any cOnsti-
tutiOnal power whatever over the electoral
system, to reject the vote Of every electOr
from every State without proper cause,
provided the two houses were in accord
on it.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER.
hr. Sherman did not believe that under
the constitution Congress had power to
give 10 either house the right to exclude
the vote Of a State. Congress had no
right to go behind the vote of State.
The vote must be counted either for or
against. This bill provided for something
which the constitution did not cOntem-
plate or provide for, namely, for the eX-
clusion Of the vote OF State upon the
mandate Of either house. He had no
doubt OF the power Of Congress to do all
that was necessary 10 regulate the man
ner Of the count. That was plainly given
in the constitution, but with the proviso
"that the vote shall then be counted"
The history of our electoral proceedings
had shown that in every case in which
these difficulties mad arisen they had been
put aside as too difficult 10 be dealt with.
NOW THE TINE.
Now was the time to deal with them.
When this question had been before us in
1876 there was no law on the SUBJECT; the
joint rules had been abandoned and the
two houses could not agree on the mode
plan had then been gotten up. He had not
believed IN the cOnstitutionality OF that
plan, but it was a wise solution Of a great
difficulty and had operated well, but he
would like TO see pointed out to him "A
provision Of the constitution which au-
thOriZed Congress 10 provide such COM
mission. AS one Senator after full study
of the question, Mr.. sherman was willing
TO adopt the principle of the act OF 1866
and surrender the superiority OF Senator
in legislation and 80 in on even terms
with the members OF the House in order
10 settle the questions in dispute that af-
iOrded no other means Of adjustment.
The vote would then be counted.
AN AMENDMENT OFFERED.
Mr. Sherman then offered an amend
ment striking from the bill the clause
allowing either house TO exclude the vote
and providing that in case OF "A disagree
ment between the two houses the question
IN dispute shall be submitted 20 a 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 ques-
tOns upon witch there has been such
disagreement, and the decision of
the majority of the members Of the
Joint convention present shall be
deemed final ana conclusive, and the vote