having separated, the Senate passed a resolution that the votes of Arkansas should not be counted; the House of Representa tives agreed to admit them. The vote in the Senate was a consequence of the bad rule that no debate should be allowed. In fact the only seal in use in the State was that of the secretary of state; and the rejection of the vote was a hasty act upon the most frivolous of pretexts. Both Houses voted not to count any votes from Louisiana. The result of this action, under the twenty-second joint rule, was that the votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were excluded. The joint session of Congress was then resumed, and the result of the election was declared.

XXV

THE DISPUTED ELECTION

WHEN slavery had been overthrown by the convulsion of war, and when the fruits of victory had been secured, so far as legislation could secure them, the original mission of the Republican party was accomplished. The more or less successful solution of the great moral and political problems which caused the party to come into being was followed by several changes that must be noticed briefly, since they explain the political reverses that began during General Grant's second

term.

It was not yet time for the revival of old issues, the tariff, for example, to send back into the Democratic party men who had seceded from it when slavery became the predominant question before the people. That change was to come later. Many war Democrats" who had acted with the Republicans now felt that the reconstruction measures were too radical, and many of them returned to their old party allegiance. But in the main the personnel of the Republican party remained unchanged. There was, nevertheless, an internal modification that was to work mischief in the future. The long possession of power increased the appetite for power, and led some of the politicians to employ objectionable means for retaining it, means that were possibly justified when the life of the nation and its future well-being seemed to depend upon the continuance of the Republican policy, but which were reprehensible when no such necessity existed. All this implied an alteration which is perhaps too harshly described as moral degeneration. The demoralization did not affect the body of the party, save that the change was regarded with too much toleration; but the leaders became overbearing and reckless. The party suffered greatly, also, by reason of the character of its membership in the South. The great body of the party in that section consisted of the newly enfranchised blacks, — not too well qualified to exercise the right of suffrage, who were

·

permitted by the white men to vote when and where only their votes would not change the result of an election. The white contingent of the party, a handful only, was made up of "carpet-baggers" and "scallawags." Carpet-baggers were Northern men who had removed with hand-luggage only, it was sarcastically asserted by the Democrats to the South in order to get elected to office by negro votes. Scallawags were Southern-born men who had braved the social ostracism that followed their non-conformity to the formula that "this is a white man's government," for the same purpose of obtaining office.

The overturn which resulted in the election of a Democratic House of Representatives in 1874 was by no means caused wholly by the changes just noted. A much more direct cause was the great financial panic of 1873. There had been no serious effort to reform the disordered currency, the excessive volume of which produced an era of speculation and extension of credit. When the crash came, there was widespread disaster and insolvency. A season of hard times set in; and, as is usually the case, the party in power was held responsible for the evil. It was then that a party sprang up in many parts of the country, particularly in the West, which held that the cause of the disaster was not too much but too little paper money; and it urged not merely the retention of the greenbacks as the permanent money of the country, but a large-even an unlimited- increase of the amount.

As if the Republican party had even then not enough to bear, the startling revelation of the condition of the public service which was popularly supposed to be given by the discovery of the complicity of high officers in the "whiskey ring" frauds upon the revenue, and the acts of General Belknap, the Secretary of War, more sinned against than sinning, as the true history of the affair shows, were scandals of a most serious character. The people began, too, to be somewhat weary of the Southern question, of "waving the bloody shirt," as it was called, and no longer responded eagerly to demands upon their loyalty to support further legislation, in order that the blood spilled in the war might not be wasted. Inasmuch as the Southern States themselves had become almost "solid" already in the support of the Democratic party, it required but a slight change in the North to give a majority to the opposition.

Before entering upon a chronicle of the events of 1876, it is advisable to record the efforts made in Congress to modify the electoral system and to regulate the count of votes.

At the beginning of the session of 1874-5, Senator Oliver P. Morton called up, and endeavored to secure action upon, several propositions which had for their object to remedy the constitutional defects which ninety years of experience had developed. The first of these was a proposition to amend the Constitution, the origin of which was this: Under a resolution offered by Mr. Morton in March, 1873, the committee on privileges and elections, of which he was chairman, was directed to examine and report at the next session upon the best and most practicable mode of electing the President and Vice-President, and providing a tribunal to adjust and decide all contested questions connected therewith. The committee reported, May 28, 1874, a proposition to amend the Constitution by the adoption of the following new article:

1. The President and Vice-President shall be elected by the direct vote of the people in the manner following: Each State shall be divided into districts, equal in number to the number of Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress, to be composed of contiguous territory, and to be as nearly equal in population as may be; and the person having the highest number of votes in each district for President shall receive the vote of that district, which shall count one presidential vote.

2. The person having the highest number of votes for President in a State shall receive two presidential votes from the State at large.

3. The person having the highest number of presidential votes in the United States shall be President.

4. If two persons have the same number of votes in any State, it being the highest number, they shall receive each one presidential vote from the State at large; and if more than two persons shall have each the same number of votes in any State, it being the highest number, no presidential vote shall be counted from the State at large. If more persons than one shall have the same number of votes, it being the highest number in any district, no presidential vote shall be counted from that district.

5. The foregoing provisions shall apply to the election of VicePresident.

6. The Congress shall have the power to provide for holding and conducting the elections of President and Vice-President, and to establish tribunals for the decision of such elections as may be contested.

7. The State shall be divided into districts by the legislatures thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter the same.

The report which accompanied this proposition was one of great ability and thoroughness. It was the work of Senator Morton himself, who probably devoted more time and though to this part of the Constitution than have been given to it by any other statesman of any period in our history. The reso• lution of amendment was called up in the Senate on the 20th of January, 1875, and Mr. Morton made a long speech in favor of it, pointing out once more in forcible language what he regarded as the evils and dangers of the existing system. He maintained that the twenty-second joint rule was grossly unconstitutional. Senators Thurman, Conkling, and Anthony followed. They all agreed that some change was absolutely necessary, but the general judgment was that the greatest danger lay in the matter of the electoral count. Mr. Anthony went so far as to say that "all the machinery of the existing system is absurd." But notwithstanding the concurrence of the leaders of the Senate in the opinion that some measure should be passed, the resolution was laid aside and debate upon it was never resumed.

A few days later, however, the Senate began a discussion of a resolution, also submitted by Mr. Morton, that the twentysecond joint rule be repealed. Subsequently he modified this resolution. He proposed to amend, not to repeal the rule, and to make an affirmative vote of both Houses necessary for the rejection of an electoral vote. A long debate took place upon this proposition; and the resolution was finally referred to the committee on privileges and elections. The committee reported speedily a bill, which, if enacted, would take the place of the joint rule. For the most part it followed the language of that rule, but with these exceptions: no vote could be rejected except by the concurrent vote of the two Houses; if more than one return should be presented from a State, that one was to be accepted which the two Houses acting separately should determine to be the true return; and when the Houses separated to decide upon any objection, debate was to be allowed, each member being permitted to speak for ten minutes, once only. When the debate had lasted two hours the House was to have the right, by a majority vote, to order the main question to be put. This bill was fully debated. Numerous amendments