Year: 1876

Cr0ss-ifght ON tho SITUATION.


An eager and protracted parliamentary de-


bate arose at the beginning of the present Gen.


tury with regard to the relations of Congress


and of the Electoral Colleges on the election


cussion was continued during the sessions OF


the Sixth and Seventh Congresses, until, in


the end, the whole country was called to
| participate in it while the twelfth amend


ment Of the constitution, with its new pro-
visions under this head, was pending before


the Legislatures of the several States. That


amendment was adopted in 1904, and hence
| the period of time extending from $500 TO
| 1904 may be Justly called the classical era OF
| political and constitutional discussion on
this topic.


| We give, in another part of our paper to-
day, an outline of so much Of this debate as
| Immediately preceded and attended the
election of President Jefferson, when the
| functions of Congress with regard to dis
puted elections of President and Vice Presi-
dent were taken into formal aud deliberate
consideration by the statesmen Of that
epoch, and when bill, though not the same


in its terms, was passed by both houses for


the purpose of expressing and defining the
jurisdiction of Congress in the premises
If the reader shall not be able to find in our


review of that discussion any easy solution
for the pending complications OF our present
political situation he MT least cnn find good
deal in it which should serve to discourage
fbac oh Of al hot ,arti
whether republican or democratic, who pur-


pose to stretch the constitution in pursuit
of their political aims. The republican
zealot who now proclaims, without hesita-
ton, that the Vice President is clothed with
plenary power to count the votes as well as
to open the certificates OF the electors, and
that Congress plays the part of dummy in
the high transaction, will find in this
review as little solace as he can find in the
record which his own party has made on
this subject during the last twelve years.


The republican Senate of to-day, which
denies the right Of democratic House to
reject an electoral vote deemed by it to be
tainted with fraud, will find from this re-
view that in the year 1900 the Senate of that
date refused to accept any plan for the set
tlement of such disputed questions unless
it proceeded on the assumption that either
house OF Congress could interpose its check
to the counting of any electoral vote or
votes. The democratic House of Represen-
tatives, which to-day contends for the right
asserted by the Senate of the year 1900,


will find that the House of that date refused
its assent to such proposition, and
claimed that the concurrence of both the
houses should be required only for the re-
lection, not for the acceptance, of an cleo
toral ballot. That is, under the stress of
the circumstances which alter cases, there
has been an entire inversion of ideas and q
complete tergiversation of parties upon this
question.


The only conclusion, then, to which the
fair-minded and honest reader can come
from this historical retrospectis is that it points
a moral against the extreme pretensions
of both tho republican and the democratic
leaders. The extreme pretensions of each,
if arbitrarily carried out in the counting of
the electoral votes, without regard to the
assumed rights and undoubted convictions
of the other party, would involve, as We
see, not only wrench and strain on the
constitution of the United States, by requir-
ing something to be read between its lines
at the points where it's text is obscure, but
would also open hideous chasm in the civil
history of our country. The party which
shows the most reverence for the constitu-
ton and the most scrupulous respect for its
limitations is the party of the future. The
constitution of the United States is still the
corner stone of our political fabric. The
party which falls upon this stone may be
broken for day, but the party on which


this stone shall fall will be ground by it to
powder.