Year: 1877

ofFlorida, Louisiana and Oregon according to
the law, the constitution and the precedents,
precedents established by the Democrats
themselves. AS the decision cannot be i'm
peached as unsound in law an assault is made


upon the Republican members of the Com


mission, and they are, with gross injustice,


accused OF bad faith. Democratic journals


assert that those Republicans who supported


the bill gave its Democratic advocates dis
tinctly to understand that the Commission


would have and would exercise the power to
go behind the returns and investigate the


elections in the contested states. This asser-


ton is totally false. The Commission GER


tainly has no powers that Congress has not,
and the right of Congress to go behind the
returns was the very question in dispute.


The Republican speakers took particular care
to make no statement that could be construed
into an admission of the right claimed by the
Democrats, and it was the general under
standing that the question would be the first
one considered by the Commission. Had
there been no such question there would
have been need of no Commission. The es-
tablishment of the tribunal was an explicit:
recognition that the two houses could not
come to an agreement respecting the powers
of Congress in regard to the electoral vote
and so referred the mooted point to select
body which should fully consider and pass
upon it. The accusation of bad faith brought
against the Republicans has no reason. In
the debate on the bill Senator Edmunds said:


SIT has been said the tribunal might 60 be-
hind the returns of state. II the two
houses of Congress had the power TO do that,
then this tribunal has the power: otherwise
not" That is clear enough. Senator Conk


ling was equally explicit. In the course of
his speech he said: 81 have heard it sug
gested that something in this bill implies
that going behind the faculties OF the
states, going behind the lawful exercise
of that power which the constitution re-
poses In the States and wherewith the Con-
stitution crowns them, this Commission may
enquire at large, by canvassing the votes cast
in parishes or even precincts. by going into
the question whether those who voted were
SsAA s-"o ohOuiN ioFO NOpSu, WhSOASA th'
voted as they wished to vote-in short, that
the Commission may become national re-
turning board The law has this ancient
maxim-'that is certain which can be rem
dered certain We say in this bill, take the
Constitution as it stands; that is your guide;
there you will find the boundaries of your
powers; you shall not over pass them; exc
cute the Constitution and STOP" Further
on in his speech Mr.. Conkling said: 81 had
supposed that the Constitution had raised
not only hedge and fence, but wall of
limit to the powers it confers." And again:
'.Inasmuch as the Constitution, the law, and
the acts of Congress of which think there
are but two, prescribe the power, inasmuch
as we make the existing law the guide-board,
inasmuch as we command and copjure the
commission to go according to the Constitu-
ton and to keep within its limits. I supposed
it could not be rowing commission to trav-
erse at large the realms of fact, superstition
and fiction" Surely that is distinct enough.
Still again, Senator Conkling said: "The
Commission is to say on the oaths of its
members and subject to our review what by
the Constitution is committed to it.''


These statements certainly are too explicit
to admit of any misconstruction. And there


was none. The Democrats did not then
claim that the bill committed the Commission
to the doctrine that it had right to go
tinctly stated to the Senate, when debating
the bill establishing the commission, there
were two partes-one believing that sit is
competent to go behind the decision of a Can
vassing or Returning Board, and in opposi-
tion, that it is not competent to do so. Are


you going to decide that question in bill !?


Why, sir, upon that question, and upon
other questions, we are obliged to submit in
the first instance to the tribunal to decide.'


When Mr.. Dawes objected to the bill because
it did not prohibit the commission from


turning itself into a returning board and TAX
ing upon itself the function with which the


state of Massachusetts had clothed its COVER
nor and council, of determining who had


been chosen electors by that state, Mr.. Thur


man said that if the committee had attempted


W OCSiuC tnO 4uCobIOu III buC Ulil III WOulu


have been "the most idle work that ever sane


men attempted" The bill, he continued,


could not have been framed to give the least


advantage TO either party, by settling in one
way or the other any of the conflicting theo-
ries, without being rejected by the other
party.


Mr.. Lamar, in the House, said: Gas l
understand the measure it rests on these
propositions-First, That the president of
the Senate has not the right to decide what
votes t6count and what to reject; second,
that both the Senate and the House have the
right to decide and direct what is an honest
count of legal votes; third, that as neither
can surrender the right to the other, and
that (as) there are differences of opinion as
to the extent of this power, whether it is
limited to the ascertainment Of the authentic
ity Of the certified returns, or extends to the
right of going behind them, it provides for a
tribunal to decide these questions in cases OF
conflicting returns, and to determine which
return is the true and which of the contro-
verted votes are the proper ones to be count
ed"


From these authoritative statements of the
trainers and supporters Of the bill it will be
seen that the charge Of bad faith is absurd
To have admitted the right of the commits.
sion to go behind the returns would have
been surrender of the very question in dis
pute, and no friend of the bill considered it a
surrender by either party. The accusation
which the Democrats now bring in their
rage is one of which they will be heartily
ashamed when they have recovered from