The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-06-16

Of a State shall be saved from rejection
when the two houses disagree,
It seems now 10 be generally agreed that
Congress transcended its constitutional
powers in the adoption Of the twenty second
Joint rule, q rule which placed the electoral
vote of a State at the mercy OF a partisan
majority in either House. The fact is "a
called that this rule was repealed by the
Senate on january 20, 1915, and when the
difficulties Of 1877 arose the rule could not
be revived, as the two houses were Of
different political complexion. The Senate,
for it's part. would not consent 10 the rein.
statement of the rule. for then the Houn
OF Representatives alone could have re.
jected any disputed return and thus have
made TiIden President. The substitute
fixed upon, the electoral commission law,
was adopted to avoid anarchy, and the
author reminds us that the law was criti-
cised on the floor OF the Senate by Mr.
ingalls, in 1885 as "a device that was favored
by each party in the belief that it would
cheat the other, and it resulted in delrauding
both Senator Dawes Of Massachusetts
described the law as a patriotic device.
sconcurred in at the time by both political
parties to avoid questions that neither
could answer" but he added, If doubts Of
a like character shall ever again make
the result uncertain, their solution cannot
be looked for through any such method,
and these questions. unanswered, may vet
wreck the Government" The act Of 1887 10
an attempt to answer these questions, hut
az our author notes il has yet to be subjected
to a practical test.
III .lz.II rn;annnnpiya tho DlrnnGa ~
this volume il we assumed it to represent
an attempt TO determine where the Con-
stitution intended to place the counting
mower. After a century of discussion ths
advocates of a~ntagonistic views are stlll
convinced Of the correctness OF their own
positions. The point here emphasized is that
the history Of the nation since the forms-
ton Of the Union demonstrates not only
, the breakdown of the electoral system hut
the danger Of permitting it to continue.
The peril has been intensified, not avertei,
! nv the act of 1887. Under the circumstances
our author holds that prudence dictates
a constitutional amendment providing q
| radical cure. He believes that II the risks
| of the electoral system were commonly sp-
preciated that system would be abolished.
The amendment suggested by Mr..
Dougherty-for the text OF which we must
/ refer the reader TO the book itself-is not
at variance with the fundamental prin.
ciples Of the Constitution, save that it
would abolish the useless and dangerous
| electoral system. While. however, the
! electoral representation OF each State ia
TO remain intact, the individual voter in
each State receives under the proposed
amendment his due share OF influence.
Voting is made direct; unnecessary, obsolete
and p~erilous machinery is discarded, and
the final electoral u at Washington a
SO simplifed that it becomes a mere CON-
putation, TO be followed by a declaration
OF an unimpeachable result. Under such
a plan il would be easier to obey the con-
stitutional dictate, the votes shall then bs
counted" The States, moreover, would
gain in dignity. Citizenship would be
exalted, political convictions would find
clear expression. geographical and sectional
differences would vanish, and minority
sentiment would obtain its due share Of
influence. The suggested electoral system
would tend to emancipate the voter from
the thraldom Of party, promote indepen-
dence and open avenues for direct nomina-
tions by the people. Under such a system
il would become possible for the voters
to exercise a vital and not a merely nominal
power in the selection of candidates.