and I do not think it will be, it is of supreme importance that some method be discovered to withdraw the Presidential question from the theater of party strife in Congress and to refer it to some tribunal above partisan spirit and interest. I expect McCreary's resolution to be adopted and the joint Committee of the Senate and House for which it provides, may possibly agree upon some arbitrament which both parties will accept as binding. The Democrats will certainly have nothing to lose in doing so, and if they agree to it public opinion would scarcely leave the Republicans any choice. Mr. Lemoyne offered a resolution in the House which foreshadows something of that kind. In that way we should at least get an Administration whose existence would have a fair show of legitimacy.
What I fear most is not a civil war,—for I think neither party is prepared for that,—but a condition of things completely upsetting our political morals. The moral sense even of good honest people is apt to become confused and blunted when there is such a complication of right and wrong on each side, that the path of duty is not clear.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.
I have just received your letter of the 18th. At first sight your plan, as to the general idea involved in it, strikes me favorably. But will it be possible to carry it out? I write at once without taking time for mature consideration, in order to get at the details of the scheme, and for this purpose I state the difficulties and doubts which occurred to me in reading your letter.
1. Can Congress, Constitutionally, “declare” that there “has been no election”? Vide 12th amendment.--
