executive officer of the nation. That there are difficulties in the present situation, I freely admit; that there may be doubt, honest doubt, in the minds of honest men as to who is elected President, I admit. But I think the bill introduced by my colleague from Ohio, which provides for submitting to the Supreme Court those questions of constitutional law about which we differ, would be far better. To the adjudication of that great and honored tribunal, all would bow with ready obedience; but this novel, dangerous, and cumbrous device is, in my judgment, unwarranted by the Constitution. If we adopt it, we shirk a present difficulty; but in doing so, we create far greater ones for those who come after us. What to us is a difficulty will be to them a peril.

Mr. Speaker, I have trespassed too long upon the indulgence of the House; but I cannot withhold from the gentleman from Massachusetts 2 the tribute of my admiration for the earnestness and eloquence with which he closed his defence of this measure. I even shared his enthusiasm, when, looking forward to the future of this nation, he pictured to our imagination the gratitude of those who may occupy these halls a hundred years hence for the wisdom which planned and the virtue which adopted this act, which my friend believes to be the great act of the century, an act that solves a great national difficulty, that calms party passion, that averts the dangers of civil war. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that they will not be compelled to add, that, though this act enabled the men of 1877 to escape from temporary troubles, yet it entailed upon their children evils far more serious and perils far more formidable; that it transmitted to them shattered institutions, and set the good ship of the Union adrift upon an unknown and harborless sea. I hope they may not say that we built no safeguard against dangers except the slight ones that threatened us. It would be a far higher tribute if they could say of us:

"The men of 1876, who closed the cycle of the first century of the republic, were men who, when they encountered danger, met it with clear-eyed wisdom and calm courage. As the men of 1776 met the perils of their time without flinching, and through years of sacrifice, suffering, and blood conquered their independence and created a nation, so the men of 1876, after having defended the great inheritance from still greater perils,

1 Mr. Foster.

2 Mr. Hoar.

bravely faced and conquered all the difficulties of their own epoch, and did not entail them upon their children. No threats of civil war, however formidable, could compel them to throw away any safeguard of liberty; the preservation of their institutions was to them an object of greater concern than present ease or temporary prosperity; instead of framing new devices which might endanger the old Constitution, they rejected all doubtful expedients, and, planting their feet upon the solid rock of the Constitution, stood at their posts of duty. until the tempest was overpassed, and peace walked hand in hand with liberty, ruled by law."

During the many calm years of the century, our pilots have grown careless of the course. The master of a vessel sailing down Lake Ontario has the whole breadth of that beautiful inland sea for his pathway. But when his ship arrives at the rapids of La Chine, there is but one path of safety. With a steady hand, a clear eye, and a brave heart, he points his prow to the wellfixed landmarks on the shore, and, with death on either hand, makes the plunge and shoots the rapids in safety. We too are approaching the narrows; and we hear the roar of angry waters below, and the muttering of sullen thunder overhead. Unterrified by breakers or tempest, let us steer our course by the Constitution of our fathers, and we shall neither sink in the rapids, nor compel our children to shoot Niagara and perish in the whirlpool.

THE question, If the President of the Senate abuses his trust, declaring the wrong man elected, how can he be punished, and what redress have the people, and the man wrongfully deprived of the office? did not come within the range of his discussion. It may be pertinent, therefore, to add, that Mr. Garfield once assented to this series of propositions, as covering all the ground from the first step to the last one: ~ 1. Each State is to choose its Electors in its own way. If this is by a popular election, the State determines the voting precincts, names the judges of election, and canvasses the vote. No power in the world is competent to go behind the returns to inquire what has been done. The nation is bound irrevocably by the action and findings of the State.

2. Congress is in no sense a returning board. Neither Congress nor the houses have anything to do with the substance of opening the certificates and counting the votes. This was with him a great objection to the Electoral Bill. "It makes Congress a vast, irresponsible returning board,

with all the vices of the returning boards of the States, and none of their excuses." The houses are present simply as witnesses of what is done. They might make rules as to the manner of proceeding, - such as the employment of tellers, the order in which certificates should be drawn, - but nothing more.

3. The opening of the certificates and the counting of the votes are made the duty of the President of the Senate. As respects the substance of the proceeding, everything is in his breast. If there be two sets of papers, he is to decide between them. Of the regularity of the papers he is the sole judge.

4. If the President of the Senate abuse his trust, he may be impeached or otherwise proceeded against according to law. As respects him, there is no other than punitive redress.

5. But suppose he declares the wrong man elected? This question may be answered by another one: Suppose, on the theory that Congress counts the votes, that the wrong man is declared elected? The courts are open. Whatever can be legally done to correct what is wrong in the one case can be legally done in the other.

6. If any one recoil from this theory of the Constitution because it reposes too much power in one man, - the President of the Senate, it can be replied, that it is far safer to repose the power and the responsibility in one man, who can be reached by legal process, than to repose them in the two houses of Congress, consisting of several hundred members, who are swayed by all the storms of politics, who cannot be reached by any legal process, and who are responsible only to public opinion.

THE

FLORIDA RETURNS

IN THE ELECTION OF 1876.

ARGUMENT MADE IN THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION,

FEBRUARY 9, 1877.

WHEN the law creating the Electoral Commission was enacted, the Republican party had a majority in the Senate, the Democratic party in the House of Representatives. To save the appearance of partisanship, since such an arrangement would make no difference with the political complexion of the Commission, it was agreed among the party leaders that the Senate should appoint three Republican and two Democratic, the House three Democratic and two Republican Commissioners. Mr. Garfield was unanimously selected by his fellow Republican members, and the House ratified the selection, January 30, 1877.

The Electoral Commission was organized, January 31. The act made it the duty of the Commission to consider the certificates, votes, or papers from a State that should be referred to it," with the same powers, if any, now possessed for that purpose by the two houses acting separately or together, and by a majority of votes decide whether any and what votes from such State are the votes provided for by the Constitution of the United States, and how many and what persons were duly appointed Electors in such State, and may therein take into view such petitions, depositions, and other papers, if any, as shall by the Constitution and now existing law be competent and pertinent in such consideration." Hence almost the first and by far the most difficult duty that the Commission had to perform was to determine the nature and extent of its own powers. What powers, if any, had the two houses, acting separately or together? and what petitions, depositions, and other papers were competent and pertinent in such consideration under the Constitution and the existing law? These questions came to the front in the Florida case, which was the first of the disputed States brought before the Commission. The Florida board of State canvassers canvassed the returns of the election of 1876 as directed by law, and declared the Republican candi

dates duly elected, and the Governor of the State gave them the certifiIcate of election. So the regular return from Florida gave the four Electoral votes from the State to Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wheeler. This is Return No. 1. Returns No. 2 and No. 3 from Florida, which differed only in minor points, were to the effect that the Democratic candidates had been elected, and that they had cast the four votes for Mr. Tilden and Mr. Hendricks. The Democratic objectors to the first certificate held that Messrs. Pearce, Humphries, Holden, and Long, the Electors who cast the votes therein returned, had not been appointed Electors of the State of Florida "in such manner as its Legislature had directed, or in any manner whatever"; but that the pretended certificate of election signed by M. L. Stearns as Governor of said State was in all respects untrue, and was corruptly procured and made in pursuance of a conspiracy "between the Governor, the pretended Electors, and other persons to the objectors unknown, with intent to deprive the people of Florida of the right to appoint Electors, and to deprive the Democratic candidates, Messrs. Carr, Yonge, Hilton, and Bullock, of the right to said office." The Democratic objectors asked permission to introduce evidence to sustain these and other propositions. Still further, they asked leave to introduce testimony to prove that the canvassers had acted under erroneous views of the law. This was a proposition to go behind the returns from the State, and by implication to canvass the votes cast for Electors in Florida. To this the Republican managers and the Hayes counsel before the Commission objected, holding that the action in the case by the State authorities was final and conclusive upon Congress, and therefore upon the Commission. The argument involved, first, the powers in such cases of the two houses separately or together, if any; and secondly, the construction of the electoral law itself. It was upon this question of admitting evidence to prove fraud, thereby going behind the returns from the State, that Mr. Garfield made this argument. By a vote of eight to seven the Commission refused to admit such evidence, and decided that the Republican Electors were duly appointed by the State of Florida. The ground of the decision as to the Electors was thus stated in the report made, February 9, 1877, to the President of the Senate:

"That it is not competent under the Constitution and the law, as it existed at the date of the passage of said act, to go into evidence aliunde on the papers opened by the President of the Senate in the presence of the two houses, to prove that other persons than those regularly certified to by the Governor of the State of Florida, in and according to the determination and declaration of their appointment by the board of State canvassers of said State prior to the time required for the performance of their duties, had been appointed Electors, or by counter proof to show that they had not, and that all proceedings of the courts or acts of the Legislature or of the Executive of Florida, subsequent to the casting of