then, a commission as we term it now.

As has been said before, many of the Senators and members of the
Congress of 1800 had taken part in the convention that framed the
Constitution, and all were its contemporaries, and one of the chief
actors in the proceedings on the part of the House of Representatives
was John Marshall, of Virginia, who one year afterward became the
chief-justice of the United States, whose judicial interpretations
have since that time clad the skeleton of the Constitution with
muscles of robust power. Is it not safe to abide by such examples?
And I could name many more, and some to whom my respect is due for
other and personal reasons.

In the debate of 1817, in the case of the disputed vote of Indiana;
in 1820, in the case of Missouri; and again in 1857, in the case of
Wisconsin, I find an array of constitutional lawyers who took part
in those debates, among them the most distinguished members of both
political parties, concurring in the opinion that by appropriate
legislation all causes of dispute on this all-important matter of
counting the electoral vote could be and ought to be adjusted
satisfactorily. Why, sir, even the dictum of Chancellor Kent, that
has been read here with so much apparent confidence by the honorable
Senator from Indiana, is itself expressed to be his opinion of the
law "in the absence of legislation on the subject."

Mr. President, there were other objections to this bill; one by the
honorable Senator from Indiana. He denounced it as "a compromise."
I have gone over its features and I have failed to discover, nor has
the fact yet been stated in my hearing, wherein anything is
compromised. What power of the Senate is relinquished? What power
of the House is relinquished? What power that both should possess
is withheld? I do not know where the compromise can be, what
principle is surrendered. This bill intends to compromise nothing
in the way of principle, to compromise no right, but to provide an
honest adjudication for the rights of all. Where is it unjust? Whose
rights are endangered by it? Who can foretell the judgment of this
commission upon any question of law or fact? Sir, there is no
compromise in any sense of the word, but there is a blending of
feeling, a blending of opinions in favor of right and justice.

But, sir, if it were a compromise, what is there in compromise that
is discreditable either to men or to nations? This very charter of
gover