Year: 1876

amendments of the constitution relating to
the Executive Department cannot be much
longer deferred, and it is to be hoped that
the amendments may be comprehensive and
thorough. That part of the constitution
which relates to the Presidency has not
stood the test of time and experience and it
needs to be reconstructed from foundation
to roof Enlightened public opinion long
| ago condemned it in most of its leading
features. The re-eligibility of the President !;
the clumsy, dilapidated machinery of Presi-
dental electors f; the power of the President to
abuse the federal patronage; the danger OF
civil war which turks in every close Presl-
dental contest, are among the more obvious
and glaring objections to the present system,
and there are others of even greater weight
which have not yet emerged into public
notice AS reconstruction of this part
of the constitution is inevitable if
we are to preserve our free popular
institutions it is the duty of the press to
bring the whole subject under review and
educate the popular mind to full percep-
ton of existing defects and dangers. Ere
| quent amendments are undesirable and
whenever this part of the constitution is re-
modelled the changes should be of such
scope as to dispense with subsequent tinker
ing.


| One of the defects of this part of the con-
stitution-a defect fraught with great dan
ger, though minor one-has been for some
time under consideration in the Senate, and
was the subject of its last debate before tho
adjournment to Monday. When men who
differ so widely on almost every public ques-
tion as Senator Morton and Senator Thur
man unite in pointing out public danger
there is strong presumption that the dan
ger is not chimerical The danger to which
we refer has its original source in the vague
ness of that clause of the constitution which
relates to the counting of the electoral votes
1t merely provides that 'the President
of the Senate shall, in the presence of the
Senate and House of Representatives, open
all the certificates and the votes shall then be
counted" This would be as safe as it is SIM
pie if there were no possibility of ques-
tion being raised as to the regularity of the GER
tificates. There were no such cases previous
to the civil war, and fortunately, the result
of the election would not have been changed
by the cases which have arisen since. The
republican party has been so strong that no
decision rs to the validity of the doubtful
certificates could have affected the result.
But in very close contest such as we may
have this year, the counting or throwing out
of the electoral vote of State might decide
the election, and if the defeated party should
refuse to submit the country might have to
face the horrors of civil war. 1t is to be
hoped that we may escape that danger this
year, and that it may then be entirely re-
moved by an amendment to the constitu-
ton. Such questions are decided as
things now stand, by the twenty-second
joint rule, which would increase the peril if
the rejection or acceptance of disputed GER
tificates would change the result of the cleo
ton. According to this rule ''no vote
objected to shall be counted except by the
concurrent votes of the two houses" If this
rule is permitted to stand it will be in the
power of the republican Senate or of the
democratic House to prevent the counting of
the electoral votes of any State to which OBJ
lection is made, and if the contest should be
very close irregularities will be discovered
or invented and the country be plunged into
worse than Mexican anarchy. Both par
ties concede the necessity of finding sub
sttute for so dangerous n rule; but the
difficulty lies in devising one which would
not be in conflict with the constitution.
Mr.. Christiancy, who has one of the sound
in ha ;v, tho
debate day before yesterday, eff the two
houses disagree there is only ono
remedy namely, to amend the const-
tuition itself" Various plans were pro-
posed by different Senators, but all
encountered objections. Mr.. Cooper offered
an amendment that in case of disagreement
between the two houses the question should
! be referred to the House of Representatives,
voting by States, but Mr.. Thurman pointed
out that this would be temptation to the
House to make objections, for the mere pur-
pose of getting the power of decision. Mr..
Frelinghuysen proposed that difference
between the two houses should be imme-
diately referred to the Chief Justice, the
President Of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House. This might be a fair tribunal,
but the constitution does not warrant it.
Mr.. Morton preferred to trust the two
houses, saying that ''if the vote of any State
is lost it would be like anything else lost in
Congress-" This might be true if the loss of
that State did not change the result; but if
the success of either candidate de-
pended on counting or rejecting those
electoral votes it would certainly lead
to commotion, and possibly to anarchy.
But Mr.. Morton frankly said:--"My
opinion is that there is defect in the con-
stitution think this whole electoral col