munds, Frelinghuysen, Bayard, and Thurman were the conspicuous speakers in favor of the bill. The many conflicting opinions held by the two parties were mentioned. A decision must be reached. To the Commission was to be given the power of interpreting the law as it existed on the day of election. The Commission were to exercise their own judgment, subject, however, to the Constitution. and the laws.

The following were the argument of the opponents of the bill: If the power to count the votes is lodged in the two Houses, it cannot be delegated. If the power is a general one, lodged in no particular department, then, in absence of legislation, the former presidents did not possess clear titles to their seats. It was denied that the Constitution authorized Congress "to find what were the constitutional votes of a State." Senator Morton delivered the leading speech in opposition. He compared the bill to the compromises of 1820 and 1850. He crit icised the delegation of power, the uncertain character of the members of the proposed Commission. The bill, he thought, gave the Commission power to inquire whether the electors were eligible or incligible as to their qualifications. In his opinion, "there is no time, there is no place to try the eligibility of electors," and it would, he said, be a gross violation of the spirit and letter of the Consti tution, revolution, and the end of presidential elections under our system, not to accept as conclusive the final decision of the returning board of a State. He even went so far as to say that Congress must count votes cast for an alien !

The House received the bill on Jan. 25. The chances of its passage were facilitated by the fact that it received the support of almost all the Democrats in the Senate.

The attitude of the Southern members proved of great service in this time of national peril. The speeches of these men are full of appeals to avert a civil war. They said the South had enough of bloodshed in this generátion. Whoever desires a clear insight into the feelings of the conservative and law-abiding members of the Democratic party will do well to read the speech of Abram S. Hewitt of New York.

An alternative was presented to the party. The House must either allow the President of the Senate to count the doubtful votes for Hayes, or must "insist upon their constitutional right to participate in the counting of the votes, and the ascertainment and the declaration of the result." No fear of consequences could deter them from the performance of their duty. Would the man whom the House declared elected "have contented himself by asserting his rights upon paper, and be satisfied with the empty honors of a pronunciamiento"? Hewitt continued: "Such a course is scarcely to be expected from a race, which carried on the wars of the Parliament, which executed Charles I., deposed James II., threw off its allegiance to George III., and preserved the Union against attempted secession, at a countless cost of blood and treasure." As the nation was forced to choose, in the absence of a law, between successful usurpation or civil war, the committee had recommended a plan concerning which he says: "No man can predict who will become President by virtue of its operation, but all men can predict that it will be the man who is lawfully entitled to be President. If the law should violate the equity of the case, it is ground for the amendment of the law, but not of rebellion against its decrees."

The House by an overwhelming majority (191 to 86)

agreed to the bill, which was signed by President Grant, on January 29th, and became the law of the land.

The President, in view of the magnitude of the crisis, delivered a message stating his reasons for signing the bill. In his opinion, "the act affords a wise and constitutional means of escape." The President of the Senate has in no instance of doubt or dispute exercised the power of deciding. The bill secures a definite disposition of all questions in dispute in whatever aspect they may arise. He therefore signs the bill, because the nation "wants to be assured that the result of the election will be accepted without resistance from the supporters of the disappointed candidate."

CHAPTER XXI.

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION.-SCENES IN CONGRESS.

A SOLUTION of the difficulty had been found. It would serve no useful purpose to enter into a discussion of the motives or opinions of those who voted to create the Commission. A great body of the American people, however, confidently thought that no narrow or technical rules would stand in the way of a free and full investigation, and that in that crisis an exception should be made if necessary. Yet it cannot be denied that the bill would not have passed if the Commission was known to favor any particular view. The issue was, therefore, left to chance.

On January 30th, the four justices, Clifford, Miller, Field, and Strong, selected Joseph P. Bradley to be the fifth member from the Supreme Court. On the same day, Senators Edmunds, Morton, Frelinghuysen, Thurman, and Bayard were chosen by the Senate; and Representatives Payne, Hunton, Abbott, Hoar, and Garfield were, in like manner, chosen by the House.

The Electoral Commission began its sittings on Wednesday, January 31, 1877, in the room of the Supreme Court. A number of rules was adopted, among which, Rule V.,' when read in connection with the decisions of the Commission, seems inappropriate and unnecessary.

"Electoral Count of 1877," p 7.

'Applications for process to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of written or documentary testimony, may be made by counsel on either side." "Depositions hereafter taken for use before the Commission shall be sufficiently authenticated if taken," etc., etc.

On February 1st the two Houses met in joint-meeting. During the reading of the certificates from the first six States nothing happened to mar the solemnity of the proceedings. When the State of Florida was reached, the three sets of certificates received by the presiding officer were handed to the tellers. Objections were called for and quickly received. The Tilden objectors recited in detail the processes by which the Tilden electors acquired a legal title to their offices. They submitted in evidence, the report of the House committee on the Florida election; the Florida law which ordered a new canvass; the result of that new canvass; the certificate of the new governor, containing the names of the electors returned by the new canvass, and the record of the quo warranto proceedings in Florida. An additional objection was offered to the reception of the vote of Humphreys, a Hayes elec tor, on the ground of incligibility. On the other hand, the Hayes electors contented themselves with the statement that the Tilden certificate was not accompanied by the certificate of the executive authority of the State, or by any valid authentication entitling the votes of the Tilden electors to be counted. All acts done after the day of voting were declared "null and void of effect." All the certificates, papers, and objections were immedi ately sent to the Commission to be judged and decided. Excepting the case of an alleged ineligible elector, the chief and only question before the Commission was whether the United States government has the power to