South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1873-02-28
What Might Have Happened.

Under this caption, the Philadelphia
LeIyer, few days ago, published the fol
lowing excellent article which treats Of a
uljcct that should receive earnest atten-
ton and that requires amendment before
che next Presidential election occurs. II
says: "On the day (Wedn esday the 19'h
inst, when the Senate and House assem-
bed TO count the electoral votes for Presi-
dent and Vice President of the United
States, We deemed it an cpporIune occasion
TO lay before the public the present imper-
feet and dangerous condition of the law
or rather the absence Of law-on that i'm
portant subj CT. 1t was mentioned in the
article referred to that the whole control in
the matter of any contested vote for Presi-
dent depended partly on the ruling Of who
ever happens to be President of the Senate,
AID partly on "Joint Rule" OF the two
Houses Of Congress, which ernie" is just
the r.verse Of what it ought to be. Whilst
some of our readers were probably engaged
in reading their Ledger of that day, the
"Rule" referred 10 was called into opera
ton. When :he Electoral vote of Georgia
was opened, and while it was being anuouD-
ced that the votes Of that State had been
cast for Horace Greeley, the reoeI ton and
Counting Of the vote was objected to on the
ground that it could not properly be cast
and counted for ga dead man" ThereupoD
the Senators retired to their own Cham Der
for consultation, and decided that the Gcor.
gia vote for Greeley shouR be counted -
The members Of the House also held con.
sulta'ion, and decided that the Georgia vote
should MT be counted The two u ouscs
thus disagreeing the wore was not counted
This extraordinary result happened under
the peculiar operation Of the "Rule" refer
red to.
"That Rule requires that whenever the
Electoral vote of a State shall be objected
10, or any question about il shall arise, The
Two Houses shall separate; that each Of
them by itself shall decide without debate
she objection or the question, whatever it
may be that no Electoral vote which is
objected TO shall be counted except by the
coRcHrTing decisions Of the two Houses.
OF course IL follows from this that when
ever any member Of either II use who de-
sires to defeat The elected candidate finds
that the throwing out Of The vote # tho
State would eH.ct the result, all be has 70
do IS 10 make 90 col j,etion' 20 the coun'-
iOg OF such vote, and then The coast isclear
for whatovcr msy be within reach Of fac
TOD, intrigue or corruption. The simple
process u TO procure a disagreement be
tween the decisions Of tho two House and
The work Is done-lhe vote is not counted
Thus the people Of State may be disfran-
chised-thus the decision of the people of
the whole country may bo Defeated by in
trigue invited by a Rule ioconsideraiely
adopted, and which is 10 point Of fact the
exact reverse Of what It ought 10 be. The
throwing out Of the electoral vote Of
whole State cast az a Presidential election
IS grave ADD momontous act, and 10 ought
not to be left within the resch Of trick, or
iaetion, Or corrupt iufuences Co drop Il oUt
by indircciion. II ibe suhjcrt is o. be left
to new parliamentary rule, that rule
ought 10 read that tho electoral vote of a
STATE hGH be counted unless The Two lIou-
ses concur in a positive decision that il
shall be thrown out.
"But as Senator MORGAN argued in bic
admirable speech, delivered in view Of this
very condition Of affiirs, so momeBious
thing should not be left TO sny rule. but
should be regulated by the Constitution
and BY statute under the Constitution In