Year: 1877

The Plan for the settlement of the contro.
versy over the succession 10 the Presidency,
submitted to the two houses of Congress by
their joint committee, is the all-absorbing
topic of public interest. 1t is even doubtful
if an affray between two fast young men or
scandalous accusation against an eminent
clergyman could wholly divert the attention
of the people from the proposed electoral bill.
1t will be perceived that they are very much
in earnest. The impression is widespread
that the bill will pass both houses, the Repub-
ican Senate having already adopted it by
large vote. The Democratic House will
probably accept it by smaller majority. So
lar as can be ascertained public sentiment
strongly favors it. Yet it is opposed by men
whose knowledge of constitutional law and
patriotic services entitle their opinions to re-
spectful consideration. The constitutional
objection to the bill does not however seem
to have much weight, for the reason that the
decision of the question is not taken out of
the hands of Congress, that the judgment of
the tripartite tribunal is not final. Congress
can accept or refuse TO abide by the judgment,
as it chooses. If it pass the bill it only asks
the opinion OF certain eminent men who will,
it thinks, give the case careful examination.
Should the reasons they give for their opinion
prove satisfactory, it may adopt that opinion
as the basis of its own action. Should they
prove unsatisfactory it is not bound to accept
them.


There are other objections entertained by
men of both parties which the advocates of
the plan regret to see brought forward, but
the honesty of which they do not dispute.
These men are opposed to the bill because
they believe it to be a sacrifice of principle.
They hold that no compromise should be
thought of for moment. The supporters of
the measure contend, with Senator Oonkling,
that to contest claim is not to compromise
it. but they do not quarrel with those who are
of contrary opinion. They ask the same
courtesy from their opponents. The foes of
the bill in both parties are using violent lam
guage concerning its friends, asserting that
they are actuated by corrupt motives, by sell
fish considerations, by envy and jealousy.
The very absurdity of these charges lead to
their discredit, and the bill has nothing to
fear from wild assertions like these made by
men blinded by passion. There is, however,
one form of expression INDUCED in by Repub-
lican opponents of the measure which is pc
culiarly unfortunate and which is used, we
are convinced, without reflection. The ex-
preston is "Bull-dozing the Senate" The
bill was submitted to that body, and major
ity of its members approved and voted
for it. If fair expression Of opinion and the
passage of measure by legal majority con-
stitute bul-dozng then the Republican claim
to Louisiana is weak one indeed. As un-
fortunate and vastly more Incorporate
expressions are made use of by Democratic
opponents of the bill; but in that case its
Democratic supporters can be safely left to
deal with their own. 1t is not Republican
funeral.


Spite of all opposition, there is little doubt
that the bill will pass, for the business inter-
ests of the country are outspoken in their
demand for it. An attempt is made to break
the force of this support by laying stress up
on the timidity of business, and its readiness
to sacrifice right for the sake of peace, and
by recalling the fact that in 1861 many busi-
ness men were willing to submit to a shame
full compromise, and even to separation. But
the situation is different. Men then had to
decide between peace and disunion on the
one hand and war and the preservation of the


national unity on the other. No such alter
native now presents ITSELF The preservation
of peace entails no dishonor, no sacrifice that
patriotic men ought not to be willing to


make.