Year: 1879

criminal design, could be the reason for
4 the failure of both parties in Congress


to prepare promptly. discuss temper


ately, and agree dispassionately upon


a proper and efficient measure that


would obviate the difficulty in the fu-


ture. It was not a difficult task in the
way of legislation, and it was one that


bore equally upon both parties. Near


ly three years have passed and nothing


has been done, and there is very little


prospect that anything will be done the


coming session; so that in case of an


other dispute we shall be as unprepared


as ever, with passions possibly higher


and the precedent of difficult and extra


judicial proceedings more dangerous.
The past failure and the future proba-


bility of partisan struggle and defeat,
are distinctly to be charged upon the
Democratic party, and what is worse,
| with very definite suspicious of ulterior
purpose. '-l


In the Forty-ffth Congress bill was


reported ard passed by the Senate for
i the regulation of the Electoral count.
1t was not partisan, and was supported
! by Mr.. Edmunds and Mr.. Bayard, two
of the ablest, most candid and judicial


minded Representatives of both parties.
It provided that cases of Electoral dis
pute should be settled within the States


themselves by such tribunals as they


had or should provide, and that such


decisions should be binding upon the


two Houses of Congress-. Such pTin-
ciple should have been acceptable to the
Democratic doctrines of State rights,


and if not agreeable to the Republican


theories, was acknowledged by them as


reasonable and practical arrange
ment, such as was possible in the con-


dition of the Federal compact and the
autonomy of the States. 1t was op-


posed by Senator Thurman and the


bulk of the Democratic members, and


passed by the Republican majority in


the Senate. In the last session of the


Forty-f fifth Congress the bill went to the
House, and was defeated by the substi-
tuition of a bill offered by Mr.. South
ard, of Ohio, a Democratic member,
which provided that the decision by any
State tribunal might be overruled by
vote of both Houses of Congress, and
that, in case of two tribunals giving op-
posite decisions, Congress might decide
which one was competent. The bill
failed to pass, and was revived during
the extra session. 1t is now upon the
calendar, and it is probable that the
partisan majority will endeavor to force
its passage. 1t is opposed, not only by
the strong Republican minority, but
cannot be supported by Democrats like
Mr.. Bayard and his associates, who have
already put themselves on record
against its principles and in favor of the
exactly opposite Senate bill. If it is
Z q L. l., l.
the honorable States rights Democrats
are obliged to surrender their princi-
Piles, it cannot be accepted by Repub-
fican Executive, being so omanifestly for
a party purpose, and the whole matter
falls to the ground, leaving us in doubt,
confusion and perplexity again.


The meaning of this conduct on the
part of the Democratic party is obvious
enough. It proposes to count in its
next candidates for President and Vice
President, if it can. 1t not only pro-
poses to take advantage of Electoral
disputes in States. but to invite them.
Nothing short of an overwhelming pre-
ponderance of the Electoral vote in ia
vor of the Republican candidates will
prevent an effort being made to force a
decision in favor of the Democratic
party. Among the unwritten and in
tangible expressions of partisan deter
mination, which are sometimes not the
less real for not being acknowledged,
it is intimated that majority of twenty
Electoral votes will not be more than
sufficient to seat the Republican candi-
dates without dispute. This bitterness
and recklessness of determination is
not only from Inscriptions partisan
ship, but in some sincere and mistaken
Democrats assumes the attitude of JUS
tifable reprisal for what they consider
the unjust defeat of Tilden and Hen
bricks at the last election. 't''


Such an attempt on the part of the
Democratic majority in Congress to
override the will of the people would
not be confined to the reckless and
fiagi.ious element altogether, which
might be defeated within its own limits
but will include the strength of the
party, governed in measure by a
sense of justiliable retaliation. If the
decision is close one-and the condi-
tion of the solid South renders that
probability-we may reckon on the
united action of the party majority to
force decision in their favor, and a
wide margin may not obviate trouble
and difficulty. We are not borrowing
trOuOle, Dut dutiCAPdeiusS au oiioSe III
evitable danger. Neither do we give
up the ship, or fear that the people will
not be able to exercise coercive
power to carry out their will.- but at
best any dispute must be an injury.
and even a repetition of the former
method of settling the question cannot
be regarded with favor. 1t is but
make SHIFT when settled regulation is
needed, and it leaves legacy of bitter
ness and a precedent for uncertainty
of the worst influence in the present
condition of things, and in the inevita-
BILE failure of Congress, it will be nec-
essary for the people to take the mat
ter into their own hands and make
such an emphatic decision that there
can be no question of doubt or dispute.