CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



305 



by both Houses, the Democratic House con- 

 curring in overruling it, the election will be 

 thrown into the House of Representatives and 

 the Democratic party will then elect the Presi- 

 dent. If I were disposed to hunt for party 

 motives, I might find them in the existence of 

 that fact. I might therefore account for a 

 solid Democratic vote against this bill ; but I 

 have attributed no personal or partisan motives 

 to anybody. I had earnestly hoped that there 

 would be no party feeling about this bill. The 

 Senator from Ohio (Mr. Thurman), who has 

 made an argument in favor of this bill and I 

 believe will vote for it, is certainly governed 

 by no party considerations in the matter." 



Mr. Edmunds : " As I feel obliged to vote 

 against this bill, I wish to say a single word in 

 justification of what I do, and I am not specially 

 afraid of being found voting with the Demo- 

 crats if they vote this way; I do not know 

 that they will. Every man must act upon his 

 own conviction of duty.. 



"To repeal the twenty-second joint rule is 

 one thing which I may be and I think I am in 

 favor of, because it is open to objection. To 

 set up another rule, which is just as bad or 

 worse, which to my mind this bill does, is quite 

 a different thing. If this were simply a propo- 

 sition to repeal the twenty-second joint rule, I 

 think as at present advised I should vote for it. 

 But it is a proposition not only to do that, but 

 to set up another rule in its stead which in my 

 opinion opens a broader ground for collision, 

 as my honorable friend from Indiana calls it, a 

 broader ground for difficulty and doubt than 

 the present rule. It is in effect to say that any 

 spurious or revolutionary vote which may be 

 brought forward from people pretending to be 

 the electors of a State shall be counted, unless 

 both flouses agree that it shall not. It is not 

 brought forward for decision, but it stands be- 

 cause it comes as the authoritative voice of the 

 people until the two Houses concur in saying 

 it is not a vote. The twenty-second joint rule 

 is not open to that objection. That requires 

 consideration. So it appears to me that the 

 rule provided by this bill is more dangerous to 

 the public peace than the twenty-second joint 

 rule. But as I say it is not a choice between 

 these two, because we can omit to pass this 

 bill and still repeal the twenty-second joint 

 rule. 



" When the electors meet on the first Wednes- 

 day in December in each one of the States, the 

 Constitution entitles us to know, entitles every- 

 body to know, that the persons who thus meet 

 are the electors. It entitles the people of the 

 United States to know in some way under a 

 government of law that what those who claim 

 to be electors send to the capital is the vote 

 of the State lawfully and constitutionally given. 

 Now, the Senator's bill says that whatever 

 comes from that State purporting to be this 

 thing shall decide who shall be President, unless 

 the two Houses concur in saying that it is inad- 

 missible. I think that is more dangerous than 



the twenty-second joint rule. I do not want 

 to enlarge upon it, for I have not the time." 



Mr. Morton : " You have under this bill the 

 judgment of both Houses. In other words, 

 under this bill you cannot disfranchise a State 

 except by the concurrent vote of the two 

 Houses. Under the rule as it now stands one 

 House can disfranchise a State. Without any 

 rule every vote must be counted, no matter 

 how false, how fraudulent, how unlawful it 

 may be. That is the simple situation, and 

 without a rule every vote must be counted. 

 With the rule as it now stands one House can 

 disfranchise New York and Indiana. Under 

 this law no State can be disfranchised except 

 by the combined judgment of the two Houses. 

 I say that is in analogy with our form of gov- 

 ernment. It is conformable to reason, and in 

 my opinion it is safe." 



Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island, said: "Mr. 

 President, I shall vote against the measure be- 

 fore the Senate, because it introduces the Pres- 

 ident of the United States into a matter with 

 which he has nothing to do under the Consti- 

 tution, and brings him into a dangerous inno- 

 vation. He is charged with the execution of 

 all laws. This is to be a law. He is charged 

 with its execution. When was it contemplated 

 that a retiring President should have any thing 

 to do with the election of his successor ? There 

 is too much executive interference in elections 

 now. To make it his duty to interfere is in 

 my judgment most pernicious. I am opposed to 

 the bill, therefore, because its tendency is such. 



"And to conclude. I have listened with 

 pain to this discussion. It is apparent that 

 men wisest in the land, or men supposed to be 

 the wisest, think they can carry on the Gov- 

 ernment successfully leaving the great material 

 powers among the people untouched, to drift, 

 to act irregularly. Why, sir, the danger men- 

 tioned in counting the vote in 1857 was not a 

 danger of that moment, but was nearly ripe 

 from the material condition among the people. 

 It is the irregular action of these affairs that 

 will soon tumble your government structure 

 into atoms, and then these discussions of mere 

 laws and rules will appear in their true light ; 

 simply false and weak guides to ruin." 



Mr. Hager, of California, said: "I have no 

 desire to enter extensively upon this debate, 

 but rather to explain the vote that I shall give. 

 It is a question of constitutional power and 

 of constitutional interpretation that addresses 

 itself to us as lawyers and as Senators. The 

 view that I take is that the Constitution of it- 

 self is operative and that you cannot add to the 

 powers conferred or diminish them. Accord- 

 ing to my view neither the twenty-second joint 

 rule nor this bill, if it shall become a law, has 

 any binding force upon the Congress that must 

 act in this matter under the Constitution. In 

 other words, we cannot here establish a rule 

 by which we dictate to another Congress how 

 they shall perform a constitutional duty. The 

 Constitution is plain : 



