182 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES, 



not have a majority, but, if he has a plurality, 

 if he has more votes than any other candidate, 

 he gets the vote of the district, and it counts 

 one. This brings the election home to the 

 people as nearly as possible. So far as these 

 districts are concerned, we leave the power to 

 make the districts just as it is now with regard 

 to members of Congress. The States now dis- 

 trict themselves by their Legislatures, but Con- 

 gress has the power at any time to lay off the 

 districts for electing members of Congress. It 

 has never been exercised, but that power is re- 

 served to Congress. And we make the same 

 provision in regard to these presidential dis- 

 tricts ; that is, leave the States to form them 

 in the first place, but reserve the power in 

 Congress to alter them or to change them at 

 any time. These districts may be gerryman- 

 dered, as they are for Congress. That has 

 been done ; it is an evil ; you cannot correct 

 it altogether. But we require the districts to 

 be composed of contiguous territory as nearly 

 as possible, and as nearly equal in population 

 as possible. Under the system of electing 

 members of Congress by districts instead of 

 by general ticket, as I have already shown, 

 you approach one-third more nearly to the 

 popular vote than by electing by the general 

 ticket. In the States that I have mentioned 

 the votes were cast solidly for one candidate 

 for President, yet the same States elected 

 nearly one-third of all their members of Con- 

 gress on the other side, electing Democrats, 

 showing that by the district system you give 

 to the people of the States comparatively a 

 voice in the election of President according to 

 tbeir views. 



" There is another question involved in 

 electing by districts as compared with general 

 ticket, and that is that, when you elect by gen- 

 eral ticket under the present system, no man 

 can vote unless he has a party in the State 

 large enough to hold a convention and put an 

 electoral ticket in the field. If I want to vote 

 for a particular candidate, and that candidate 

 has no party in my State, though he may have 

 a strong party in other States, I cannot do it ; 

 I must vote for electors who will vote for him. 

 I cannot put an electoral ticket into the field 

 myself, but there must be a party convention 

 to do it. Therefore I am disfranchised in point 

 of fact, unless there is a convention held in that 

 State which will appoint an electoral ticket to 

 vote for the candidate I am in favor of. How 

 did this operate in the South in 1856 and in 

 1860 ? In 1856 there were thousands of Re- 

 publicans in the South who did not vote be- 

 cause there were no electoral tickets in the 

 field for Fremont and Dayton. That peculiar 

 state of public opinion prevailed in those States 

 tli at Republicans could not meet in convention 

 and nominate electoral tickets. Therefore the 

 votes of those men that were in favor of Fre- 

 mont and Dayton were entirely lost ; they 

 could not vote at all. Under the present sys- 

 tem, to enable a man to vote, there must be 



enough men of his. own way of thinking in his 

 State to put an electoral ticket in the field that 

 he may vote for it. Now, this can hardly be 

 called republican. The government is repub- 

 lican which enables every man to vote directly 

 for the man of his choice, although there may 

 not be another man in the whole State that 

 feels as he does. A particular candidate may 

 have a majority in some States, but he may 

 have scarcely any friends in others ; his friends 

 may all be in one district ; they may be con- 

 centrated ; but, unless there is a convention, a 

 caucus, if you please, to nominate candidates 

 for electors, his friends are excluded from 

 voting, because they cannot vote directly, but 

 must vote for intermediate men. 



"Now, Mr. President, I consider another 

 question, and that is the danger of the present 

 system. Mark you, no State in this Union has 

 a law to contest the election of electors, and 

 there is no room for a State law ; there is no 

 time for it, even if the States were disposed to 

 enact laws. Congress has no power, there is 

 no power to judge except the President of the 

 Senate. He is irresponsible ; he is the deposi- 

 tor of all the votes, and as to whether these 

 votes shall be cast depends entirely upon him- 

 self, so far as the Constitution is concerned. 

 Suppose that the election of President had de- 

 pended in 1872 npon the vote of Louisiana, or 

 upon the vote of Arkansas, or upon the vote 

 of Texas, would we not, in all probability, have 

 been involved in revolution ? If the election 

 of Greeley had depended upon counting the 

 votes certified to by McEnery, or the election 

 of Grant had been dependent upon counting 

 the votes certified to by Kellogg, I ask you 

 what would have been our condition? If it 

 had been decided either way, in all probability 

 there would have been resistance and there 

 would have been rebellion. It is full of dan- 

 ger. We have escaped it thus far. It was a 

 matter of congratulation to both Democrats 

 and Republicans that Grant's majority was s6 

 large as to make the vote of Louisiana, of Ar- 

 kansas, and of Texas unimportant ; but if it 

 had been otherwise, if the election was to de- 

 pend upon the vote of any one of those States, 

 what would have been the result? 



" Mr. President, let me consider the result 

 in 1857, when Buchanan and Fremont were 

 candidates. The electoral vote of Wisconsin 

 was not cast on the day fixed by law. The 

 Constitution requires all these votes to be cast 

 upon the same day. There was a snow-storm 

 in Wisconsin that prevented the electors from 

 coming together and voting upon that day. 

 They voted upon the next day. When they 

 came to count the votes in 1857, a motion was 

 made by a Senator to reject the vote of Wis- 

 consin because it was not cast upon the day 

 provided by law. I think the objection itself 

 was good; but what was the decision of the 

 President of the Senate, Mr. Mason ? He de- 

 cided that the motion was out of order. He 

 said nothing was in order but to count the 



