204 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



from the persons having the highest numbers not 

 exceeding three on the list of those voted for as 

 President, the House of Representatives shall choose 

 immediately 



" That means the next day 



by ballot, the President. But in choosing the Presi- 

 dent, the votes shall be taken by States, the repre- 

 sentation from each State having one vote. 



" That is all I care to read. 



" Mr. President, I said that I did not propose 

 to go into a lengthy discussion of this question ; 

 but I say in advance one thing, not for the 

 purpose of casting any reflection upon any hon- 

 orable member of the Senate far be that from 

 me that I look upon any bill for a public act 

 of this character, that is brought forward in 

 this Chamber without anybody to say any- 

 thing in its favor, as suspicious, to say the 

 least. There has been no discussion, not a 

 word, not a breath in favor of the principles 

 contained in this bill. And has it come to this 

 at last, that a bill is to be passed in these the last 

 hours of the session, probably unconstitutional, 

 by the mere force of numbers, without one 

 word of argument in its favor? I say, Mr. 

 President, it is suspicious. For seventy-five 

 years the people of this country acted under 

 the Constitution of the United States. They 

 can now. The court is here. I defy any Sen- 

 ator on this floor to show any state of facts 

 where under the Constitution, without any bill 

 for a public act, without any rule of the two 

 Houses, we cannot go on and perform all the 

 duties that are devolved upon us in this behalf. 

 Some Senators say that it is impossible that it 

 can be done. Let us hear why ; give a reason 

 for it, and do not simply rely on a large vote 

 to pass a measure of this character. 



" Again, it was alleged with great power by 

 my distinguished friend from Delaware (Mr. 

 Bayard) that if there was any necessity for a 

 bill of this character it should be passed at the 

 next session of Congress ; it should not be a 

 party measure. I appeal to every Senator on 

 the other side of the Chamber on that point. 

 They, with me the mantle of charity covers us 

 alldesire proper action, not improper. Can 

 it be had at any better time than when this 

 Senate is under the control of the Republicans 

 if terms expressing party names are to be 

 used here? I have not been in the habit of 

 using them in legislative assemblies; it has 

 been forbidden by the rules of such assemblies 

 where I have served, and it ought to be here 

 where and when the dominant party on this 

 floor will be in the majority for the coming 

 two years ; while on the other floor, at the 

 other end of the Capitol, the other party, the 

 party to which I am attached, will be in the 

 majority ? If there be any necessity for a rule, 

 which I deny, is there not patriotism enough 

 in both parties to get such a rule as is proper 

 and just ? There is no President to be elected 

 next January. Two years must elapse. Why, 

 then, in hot haste, without proper considera- 

 tion, pass this measure of doubtful constitution- 



ality at the best ? Will some gentleman tell 

 us why ? Give us the necessity for it. Let us 

 know why you do it. Why, your appropria- 

 tion bills, your tax bills, your other bills of im- 

 portance lie upon the floor or on or under your 

 table, and you harp away upon a measure 

 which cannot be of use for two years. It is 

 suspicious at least. 



u I move the indefinite postponement of the 

 bill now under consideration." 



The Presiding Officer : " The Senator from 

 Connecticut moves that the bill be indefinitely 

 postponed." 



The result was announced, as follows : 



YEAS Messrs. Bayard, Carpenter, Conkling, 

 Cooper, Davis, Dennisj Eaton, Goldthwaite, Hager, 

 Kelly, McCreery, Mernmon, Eansom, and Stockton 

 14. 



NATS Messrs. Boreman, Bout well, Chandler, 

 Clayton, Conover, Cragin, Dorsey, Edmunds, Ferry 

 of Michigan. Flanagan, Frelinglmysen, Ilamlin, 

 Harvey, Hitchcock, Ingalls, Jones, Logan, Mitchell, 

 Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Oglesby, Patterson, 

 Pease. Sargent, Scott, Spencer, Sprague, Stewart, 

 Washburn, West, and Windoni 81. 



So the motion was not agreed to. 



The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a 

 third reading, and read the third time. 



Mr. Morton : " The Senator from Connecti- 

 cut (Mr. Eaton) complained somewhat that 

 there had been nothing said in favor of this 

 bill. I have abstained from argument because 

 I wanted a vote. The questions -involved in 

 this bill have been discussed on this floor for 

 several years past, and I supposed the Senate 

 was agreed on the question that the twenty- 

 second joint rule ought to be repealed and that 

 there ought to be some provision made by law 

 to prevent the imminent danger of a collision 

 at the counting of the presidential vote. This 

 rule was adopted in 1865, under which as it 

 now stands a single objection, however trifling 

 in its character, will cause the two Houses to 

 separate and to vote separately upon that ob- 

 jection, and unless both Houses agree in over- 

 ruling the objection the vote is lost. 



" There is nothing partisan in this bill. It 

 is as fair for one party as it is for another, and 

 I regret that our Democratic friends have been 

 found voting unanimously for the indefinite 

 postponement of this bill, and I presume they 

 will unanimously vote against the bill on its 

 final passage. There is nothing partisan in it ; 

 and, if I were disposed to seek for motives of a 

 party character, I might turn around and say 

 in reply to my friend from Connecticut that as 

 the next House of Representatives will be 

 Democratic, and as it is in the power under 

 the present rule of either House to throw the 

 election into the House of Representatives by 

 sustaining objections, therefore there was a 

 strong Democratic interest in preserving this 

 rule as it is ; for if this rule shall stand as it is, 

 when we come to count the presidential vote 

 in February, 1877, and objection is made to 

 the vote of any State, however trifling in its 

 character, unless that objection is overruled 



