Year: 1877




It is reported from Washington that the
joint committee are likely to agree, and the
method they will recommend for counting
the electoral vote has been foreshadowed in
the dispatches of several public journals.
The similarity of these accounts gives an
impression of authenticity, and we have
little doubt that the plan of the joint COM
mittee is in its main outlines nearly
as it has been described. It's chief
feature is board of referees to
decide disputed questions, the board
to consist of fifteen members, an odd num-
Der being preferred as securing q majority
in every vote and preventing tie. Five of
the fifteen are to be Senators, five to be men,
bers of the House, and the remaining FIVE
to be taken from the Justices of the Supreme
Court. Three of the five Senators will be
republicans and two democrats. In like
manner the House wiz be represented by
three democrats and two republicans The
six senior Justices are to be taken from the
Supreme Court. a rule which, it is said, will
give three to each party, and then one of the
six is to be excused by lot.


We suspect this elaborate plan will be
coldly received, perhaps vehemently op-
posed, by both political parties. The
Supreme Court Judge who is to be dropped
will be either republican or democrat,
leaving party majority of one in the board
1t will be mere chance which party gains
this advantage, and the plan is certain
to be held up to derision by its
opponents as proposal to choose
the President and Vice President by lot
This derision may not be reasonable, but it
is likely to be effective. The selection of
juries is always made by lot, and yet we
trust our lives, property and reputation to
the decision of juries. But this plan differs
widely from the process Of selecting jurors.
It would hardly be deemed an improvement
in the composition of juries if six were
taken favorable to the plaintiff and six
in the interest of the defendant, then
dropping one by lot and making the ver-
dict depend on the vote of majority. Trial
by jury would not long survive such an ex-
pertinent, since a majority of every jury
would be under bias in favor of one Of
Iuc PoII1cS. OuIlco bIc 0IdWA ny iO0 AOA t14o
purpose Of securing impartiality, and
the right Of challenge is given in
order to purge the jury of all bias
which might come in by chance. In the
plan Of the joint committee the lot is to be
used to create inequality between the two
parties instead Of to exclude it, this singu-
lar method being adopted merely to insure an
odd vote which will possess the deciding
power. Many will think that this one ref
cree who holds the decision of all ques-
tions in his single hand might as well act
alone if he is to be partisan. The sole
effect Of the lot would be to create party
majority but the chances of each party for
getting that majority would be even, so the
plan has flavor of impartiality.


Objectionable as the lot is the plan has
excellent features. It would be improved
by leaving out the senior Justices and SUBJ
stituting the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. The whole country respects his
character and confides in his justice. The
plan thus amended would escape the fatal
ridicule to which resort to lot would ex-
pose it. Either party would prefer magis-
trate of high impartiality, like Chief Justice
Waite, to the chance of gaining partisan
advantage in the board by lot.