OCR Text |
Show FORTY-FOURfH CONURKSS. 8KCOND SESSION. SENATE. Washington, 12. Tho session began be-gan at 10 o'clock with a slim attendance. attend-ance. President Ferry said, answering answer-ing Davit, that a roceas upon any quo6lioi. Lxcopt one raised in tho joint convention would be out of order. The senate, without transacting any business, awaited lor tlje notincation that the house wai ready to resume the joint session. At 2.20 the clerk of the house appeared ap-peared at the bar of the sonata and announced the decision of tho house that the counting of the voto of Florida shall not proceed in conform ity with tho decision of the electoral commission. Tho clerk also notified tho Benate that the house was now ready to meet the senate in joint meeting. Tlic senate then proceeded to the hall of the house. HOUSE. At 10 McCiary roae to discuss tho electoral decision. Ciymer objocted that no quorum wna present, and the debate was postponed till 10.30, when Field offered the following: Ordered that the counting of tho electoral vote from Florida ohall not proceed in conformity with the decision de-cision of the electoral commisaion, but that the votes of Call, Younge Hilton and Bullock be counted oa the votes from the etate ol Florida for United State. Hale moved the following amendment: amend-ment: Ordered that the counting of the electoral votea from the state of Florida Flor-ida shall proceed in conformity with the decision of the electoral commission. commis-sion. Knott offered aa a substitute an order reciting the languago of the electoral act, that . the commission minhtinquire jnto auch petitions, depositions de-positions and other papers as shall by constitution and now existing law be competent, reciting also the fact that in the Florida case the commiuion had decided and determined that no evidence would be received or con sidered whi:h had not been submitted to the two houses in joint convention by the president of thR senate; that certificate number one, that of the Hayes electors, contained no evidence whatever, while certificates nurubwra two and lures, of the Tildeu electors, idid contain evidence fully and specifically spe-cifically showing that the latter hud been duly elected and appointed as electors, and therefore ordering that the decifliou of the commission and tho grounds thereof be- remanded and recommitted to the commission with the request that the same bo so corrected cor-rected or explained and that tho commission com-mission be further requested to furnish fur-nish in detail the reasons of the decision to the house may be enlightened enlight-ened as to the course it ought to pursue pur-sue in the discharge of its duties, and that in the meantime the votes of the Hayes electors be not counted. Hale made the point of order that under the electoral commission law it waa tho imperative duty of the house at the end of the two hours debate to vote on the main question, winch waa whether the votes ihould be counted in conformity with the decision, de-cision, and that nothing in the shape of delay, in whatever form presented; could now arrest tho wheels ot its decision. Wilton of Iowa added to JJale's point of order, that the house could refer nothing to the commission that would require at least concurrent action. Wood of New York replied that any intimation or desire on the part of the democratic aide of the house to interpose an opposition to any decision deci-sion ot the electoral commission was entirely superfluous and unsupported by anything that had taken place. Hide His anything been said this morning to indicate any charge- of lhat kind? Wood The gentleman hai just wpoken of delay and iutimated that there is an intentional deposition on the part of the house to delay actiou. I can assure the gentleman that there is no such intention. While wo are ready in good faith to carry out in all respecbj the electoral commission law and ihe result that may be reached in pursuauce of it, still wo demand the right of expression of opinion, Knott contested the point of order and thought that there wag nothing , in the law which prevented the house, with the concurrence of the senate, from remanding back to the electoral commission, lor their further fur-ther consideration the decision which it had made in the Florida case, in order that it might have the opportunity oppor-tunity to explain the claring inconsistencies incon-sistencies which existed in tnat decision. deci-sion. Banks said: Under tho provisions of the electoral act the house was compelled to give an affirmative or negative vote upon the decision of tho commission It would hp disrespectful disrespect-ful to the commission to remand tne decision to it. The speaker overruled the point of order made by Hale, but sustained that made by Wilson, holding that there was nothing in the electoral commission act that authorized a ro- I mand of the question back to tho ' commission, and also ruling, that it waa not competent for one house to refer a bill or other matter to an out-aida out-aida commission. The substitute oflered by Knott was, therefore, not in order. The house thereupon proceeded to the discussion of tho objection to the decision of the electoral commission, McCrary addressed tho house in support ot the report of the commission. commis-sion. He held that the ruling of the commission was abundantly supported sup-ported by the moat cogent reasons, and to have ruled otherwise would have been to assert jurisdiction to inquire in-quire into and overturn the action of all tho Btates in the appointmont of their electors, and to institute pro- 1 cecdings in the nature ol tho action of quo warranto to try the title of every one of the persona appointed at auch. Tho bill of 1800, drafted, reported ' and advocated by John Marsha 1, , afterwards chief justice of the United Stales, embodied the views of that great constitutional lawyer upon jurisdiction. Alter providing this grand committee it defined their jurisdiction juris-diction in these words: ''And the persons per-sons just chosen shall form a joint committee, and shall have power to examine into all disputes relative tn tho election of president aud vice ' president of the United Stales, other than such as might relate to the number num-ber of voteis by which tho electors may havo been appointed. There must be authority somewhere and at some lime to decide who were appointed electors, and the only safe and sound or constitutional rulo that cou,d he found was that adopted by tho commission, com-mission, to-wit, that tho decision made by the prnpor state authority prior to the lime lixed by tho constitution consti-tution and law for electing president aud vice president of the United States was final and could not bo subject to bo set aside by congress. The power of congress was to count, not to reject duly certified votes of the Btates. Tucker followed on tho opposite side. He said tho members of the commission had taken an oath to render a judgment according to the constitution and tho law. Tho commission com-mission in passing on the cligibilityof Humphreys had declined to pass on the question of the validity of the vote of an incompetent elector. elec-tor. Did the commission mean to decide that the ineligibility of an elector wna to have no ('fleet on the validity of his vote. If the state appointed ap-pointed an ineligible elector, was ho, notwithstanding, to bo declared by the commiadion, and by the two houses, to be a competent doctor and his vote to be a valid vote? If so, then the act of a canvassing board of a state was valid and constitutional, quod hoc was void. In regard to tho main question, the decision of the commission commis-sion waa to the eflect that the only voice permitted te speak for a stale in the matter of a presidential election elec-tion was the voice of the canvassing board ancToFan executive, and that the voice of the judiciary and legislature legisla-ture must be hushed in silence. He contended that all the oiginisra ol the Btate must speak its voice. Banks and Fryo favored, and Springer and Hurd opposed tho report. (Jarr aaid that he doubted not that under the palpable facts beyond the governor's certificate Florida should have been returned for Ti Id en, but he held that the democratic majority had no moral right to complain that the commission rendered a partisan decision de-cision in reporting the votes for Hayes. Though this decision was contrary to the facts and tho will ef tho people, yet tho wrong is chargeablo further back than the commission, namely, on those who established this partisan tribunal. When the democratic majority ma-jority of the house adopted this law with the full knowledge that the majority ma-jority of the commission would be republicans, governed by republican interests, warned by republican biases and moved by republican motives, they deliberately abandoned every claim which the democratic masses aawted for the control of our national a flairs. The commission have doue no more nor less than what could or should have beeu expected or required of them. You erected a political tribunal, invested it with political attributes and gave them political questions to determine, which they have Eettled from a political standpoint. Being republicans they believed that tho republican candidates can-didates for the presidency were and ought to be elected. In making their declaration they have been true and faithful to their political sentiments, senti-ments, education and associations. No legal wrong can attach to them for this, but when you democrats deliberately de-liberately put such a power over the question in the hands of a tribunal so constructed you committed a bold and daring wrong to your pretended political couvictione, and aasuredly to wmir pqlilical associates, whose political po-litical sentiments anu nguia yuu trayed and abandoned to your political politi-cal adversaries. I arise to remind the democratic majority that in common com-mon decency your voles on this measure have stopped you from indulging in-dulging in even one word ot oriticism against the decision of that tribunal. It ia your own offspring; you brought it into being; you gave it life and power, and you alone are responsible for the result. It is no excuse for you to assert that you did not anticipate antici-pate such a result; that you expected higher and better things from your foundling. You had no more right to expect a tribunal so constituted to ' produce a diflerout result than to ex-j pent a thorn to bring forth fig; nor I will so weak an apology save you 1 from the just condemnation which your betrayed and outraged constituency constitu-ency vrili forever heap upon your treacherous heads. The wrong is a great and burning outrage, and lies at your hands and at your hands alone. Nor will the democratic people peo-ple be slow m ascertaining the true aource of their discomfiture and defeat. de-feat. It may subserve your purpose for a brief time to attempt to shield youraelvea under the cover of hollow dnunciations of your tribunal. The cry of "Btop thief" for a moment may delude the oflicera of the law, but when the mad populace shall have vented unmerited anger upon this tribunal for a brief hour, it will seek the true oDject of its just indignation and the blame will at last lie where it properly belongs. The few only who had moral courage here upon thia floor, and, amid the derision and contumely con-tumely of the democratic majority, dared to warn you of the inevitable results of that day's work, have the moral right to complain of the end of this day's labor ; but, f-irs, while they havo deep regrets us to the action of the commission, they have deep aud bitter denunciations denuncia-tions and condemnation to heap on , the heads of those who, claiming to be the loaders of the great democratic party in thia trying hour ol its existence, exist-ence, have proven themselves incompetent incom-petent from ignorance or unworthy for buse reasons. Here, then, in the name of the democracy of the whole country, I absolve that commission from all charges, save it be that of an honest mistake, aud in the namo of the same great power I denounce the majority of this house as being responsible res-ponsible for the wrong, and recreant, ignorantly or corruptly recreant, to tho confidence which has been reposed re-posed in them, and faithless to the trusts confided in them. (Applause.) The debate closed at l:lo and the house proceeded to vote. Hale's amendment was rejected 97 to 1G7, and Field's resolution was adopted. |